ePub 版

the new rubric is silent on the subject;—that, if it does not direct, so neither does it prohibit, the admixture of water. This is truly amusing. Can he be ignorant that the object of the correction was to abolish the ancient practice ? and that the act of uniformity forbade “the use of any rite, ceremony, order or form . : .... of celebrating the Lord's supper openly or privately than is mentioned or set forth in the said book”?* The fact is, that the rubric has operated as it was meant to operate, and that this ancient practice is in consequence totally abolished in the modern Church of England.

III. In former liturgies there occur, after the thanksgiving, a petition for the whole state of the Church, a commemoration of the blessed in heaven, and a prayer for the dead: not that all these uniformly occupy the same place with respect to the prayer of consecration, but that they always precede it, or follow it. In the first book of Common Prayer, this practice was carefully observed. Immediately after the tersanctus, the blessing of God was invoked on all ranks of men ; praise was given to Him for the wonders of his grace in all his saints, “and chiefly in the glorious and most blessed virgin Mary, mother of his son Jesus Christ, our Lord and God;" and to his mercy were commended all other his servants which were departed hence, that they might obtain from Him mercy and everlasting peace. But by the divines forming the committee of revision, who considered such petitions in that particular part of the service as founded on the doctrine of sacrifice, and who contended that the liturgy was only a rite for the administration of the sacrament,—all these were swept away; and in their place was introduced a prayer preparatory to communion. The loss of the petitions Mr. Palmer laments. He can find no precedent for their absence in the ancient Church; but the prayer substituted in their place he seeks to justify, by comparing it with one occupying the same situation in the liturgy of St. Basil. We are surprised that he did not observe the striking contrast between them. The Anglican prayer is for those who presume to approach to the Lord's table,--the Basilian for those who have been called to minister at the altar of sacrifice.f The two prayers, instead of being alike, have different objects, regard different persons, and spring from very different creeds.

* Stat. of Realm, iv, 13.

† Orig. Litur. ii. 131.

IV. We now proceed to another omission of still greater import. There exists nowhere else (we may say, that before the composition of the Anglican service there never did exist),-a Christian liturgy without an invocation or prayer that God would bless, sanctify and make, or send the Holy Ghost to bless, sanctify and make, the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ.* How comes it that there is no such invocation in the present book of Common Prayer? It was there once, in these words: “With thy holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to blesk ss and sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved son Jesus Christ.”+ Why was this invocation blotted out ? Mr. Palmer knows that it would be in vain to appeal to any ancient document, in favour of the suppression. Hence he tells us, that the invocation is unnecessary ;-to pray for the end, is to pray for the means; and therefore the prayer that we may be made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, virtually includes a prayer that the elements may be made that body and blood. I But the merit of such ingenious reasoning belongs to him alone : the Reformers have no claim to it. They expunged the invocation, because, in their opinion, it involved a falsehood,-namely, that the bread and wine were, after consecration, not, as they taught, mere figures, but the very body and blood of Christ.

V. Speaking of the consecration, St. Chrysostom observes, that it is not man who causes the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Christ, but Christ himself, who was crucified for us. The priest that pronounces the words is but the minister: the power and the grace are God's. The priest says, “ This is my body," and the words give a new being to the things lying before him. On this account, every ancient liturgy contains a solemn recital of the manner in which our blessed Lord consecrated at his last supper, and puts the words which he used into the mouth of the officiating minister, always the same in substance, though occasionally with some slight variation in point of expression. The framers of the Anglican ritual condescended to imitate, in this particular, those who had gone before them; but they were careful at the same time to show their contempt for authority, by setting aside every existing form, both in the Scripture and in the liturgies, and by compiling out of them a new form for their own use. Mr. Palmer is of opinion that “this resembles the form of the ancient Spanish, and probably of the Gallican Churches, in that part which relates to the bread; and the liturgies of Cæsarea, Constantinople, and Alexandria, in what relates to the cup."* If so, the resemblance must be fortuitous. Its authors appear to us to have taken the text of St. Paul for the groundwork, and to have occasionally improved it by substituting the text of St. Luke at the consecration of the bread, and by composing an entirely new form out of the united texts of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. Paul, for the consecration of the wine. What might be their object, it is now idle to inquire.

* Ποίησον τον μέν άρτον τούτον τίμιον σώμα του χριστού σου, το δε εν ποτηρίω τούτω τίμιον αίμα του χριστού σου, μεταβαλών τω πνεύματι σου το αγίω.-Lit. Chrys. Goar. 77. αυτό το τίμιον σωμα. το δε ποτηριον τούτο à VTÒ To tiplov äija — Lit. Bas. Goar. 169. “ Ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi.”-Missale Rom.

+ The reader will notice the use of the sign of the cross in this prayer. That is now omitted. Can Mr. Palmer trace that omission to any ancient liturgy?

Orig. Litur. ii. 138, 9. & S. Chrys. v. 463. De Prod. Judæ.

VI. From the prayer of consecration, the Anglican liturgy proceeds immediately to the distribution of the sacrament. Of this we have no right to complain. Where no sacrifice is intended, no sacrificial rite is to be expected. But how then can Mr. Palmer derive the Anglican liturgy from the liturgies of antiquity? 1. Is there one of them which does not contain, in the canon or anaphora, an oblation of the elements, of τα προκείμενα ? Is there one without an offering of the sacrifice on the altar, “the reasonable sacrifice," the “dread and unbloody sacrifice,” “the most awful and most mysterious sacrifice," " the pure, holy, and unspotted victim, the bread of eternal life, and cup of everlasting salvation”? Mr. Palmer may pretend that these expressions are to be understood of "the whole service or worship then performed.”+ We shall not insult the judgment of our readers by refuting such a pretence; but taking it for granted that

that every ancient liturgy includes an offering of sacrifice, while in the modern Anglican liturgy there is not a vestige left of such sacrifice, may we not ask those who profess to believe, in accordance with these ancient authorities, that Christ at his last supper instituted a sacrifice, and commanded it to be offered in his Church, how they can still persuade themselves that they worship as Christians of old worshipped, and do as Christ commanded to be done, when they use a liturgy which contains no sacrificial oblation at all, and from which every rite and phrase that could bear the remotest allusion to such sacrifice has been most carefully expunged? This is a mystery beyond our comprehension.

† Palmer, ii. 83, 84.

* Orig. Lit. ii. 141. VOL. XI.—NO. XXI.

2. In every ancient Church we find that the priest is ordered to break the bread after consecration, in allusion to the words of the Redeemer: “ This is my body, which is broken for you.”* Now whether it was because the Reformers felt some undefined objection to that phrase—for, in copying from St. Paul, for broken they have substituted given, from St. Luket-we do not pretend to say: but in their liturgy they have removed the breaking of the bread from the place which it occupies in other liturgies, and have directed it to take place just before the recital of the words of the institution. We do not mean to attach great importance to this rite; but its proper place is fixed in the old rituals, and Mr. Palmer will find it difficult to trace its removal to ancient authority.

3. All Churches, probably without an exception, concluded the sacrificial portion of the canon with the Lord's prayer. What place does that prayer occupy in the Anglican liturgy? It is removed, in defiance of all precedent, to the post-communion.

We know of no other reason for the removal, but that in the older liturgies it was believed to be connected with the sacrifice.

4. We find moreover, in all the ancient forms, a series of prayers immediately preceding the communion, intended as a preparation for the reception of the sacrament. Of this there is not a vestige in the Anglican ritual, which passes at once from the consecration to the distribution of the consecrated elements. Now it cannot be pretended that the omissions under these four heads are of matters of small consequence, or of matters ever before omitted by any Christian Church. How then can Mr. Palmer pretend to trace an office marked by such omissions to the liturgies of such Churches ?

* 1 Cor. xi. 24.

7 Luke xxii. 19. I “Sic docuit Christus apostolos suos ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui, Pater noster, qui,” &c. (S. Hierom. Adv. Pel. 1. i. c. 15.) We may observe that this use of the Lord's Prayer in every other liturgy, warrants a suspicion that its absence from the Clementine is owing to the negligence of the copyist, who thought it unnecessary to transcribe a forın so g nerally known. Mr. Palmer seeks, but in vain, to avail himself of the worls of St. Augustine, that “almost the universal Church concludes the sacrificial part with the Lord's Prayer (Aug. Op. Tom. ii. p. 509): for the exception amounts to no inore than an admission, iliat there may perhaps be some Church which does not use it in that particular part of the liturgy.

$ “ Mos apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem dominicam oblationis hostiam consecrarent.” (Greg. Mag. Epist. 1. ix, ep. 12.) Docs this mean that they consecrated with the Lord's Prayer, as Mr. Palmer supposes, or at the Loril's Prayer, as the words import? that is, they never consecrated without adding the prayer to the form of consecration.

VII. We come at last to the communion itself, which, in conformity with the ancient rituals, was ordered to be administered under both kinds, but still with this novelty in the words employed by the minister, a novelty irreconcileable with the practice and doctrine of the ancients, that in place of “ the body and blood of Christ,” or, “ the body, the blood of Christ preserve thy soul unto everlasting life," he should say, “ take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith and thanksgiving. But this alteration gave great offence to many, and so powerful was the opposition, that, in the first year of Elizabeth, a compromise took place, by which both forms were united, and both parties professed themselves satisfied. The advocates of the real presence understood from the ancient form, that the consecrated bread and wine were admitted to be in some sense or other the body and blood of Christ, while their adversaries took the Calvinistic form as an explanation of the other, and still contended that the whole ceremony was nothing more than a bare commemoration of that body and blood. On this subject Mr. Palmer makes no comment.

VIII. The post-communion thanksgiving follows, for which two prayers are assigned: the first of which, however orthodox and pious it may be, is acknowledged by Mr. Palmer to have no prototype in the ancient offices: but of the second he contends that it is analogous to a prayer in the liturgy of Cæsarea. We have compared them, and find them similar in nothing but their object, which is to return thanks. In the English the communicant thanks God, “who has fed him with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of his Son:" in that of Casarea, he thanks God, that he has been made partaker of the holy, immaculate, everlasting, and super-celestial mysteries, for the benefit, sanctification, and healing of his soul and body.” Who can believe that the first was derived from the second ?

Here we shall take our leave of Mr. Palmer. The task which he had undertaken naturally divided itself into three branches. He was bound to show, in the first place, that those portions of the Catholic service which were introduced into the book of Common Prayer, had been in use among Christians for many centuries : secondly, that the portions

« 上一頁繼續 »