Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

assertions and re-affirmations," and demurred to the title. The "New York Churchman" proposed, in some way now forgotten, to obtain signatures.

In the meantime this counter-blast was sent to the Chairman of the Committee on the Memorial, (the Bishop of Tennessee,) with the acknowledgment of authorship, and with the statement that it would not be offered for signature. My reasons for withholding it from "preparation" were, 1. That it was not written in the expectation of preparing it; 2. That it was not in suitable form; 3. That it was not complete; and 4. That there was not time to obtain names.

The Committee, then, could not receive this Counter Memorial, except as the expression of opinion by a person without shadow of influence. What amount of preparation it received from others I never knew, and I have no means of knowing whether my "wants were shared by any at the time.

[ocr errors]

In evidence of any supposed Catholic feeling the Counter Memorial is absolutely worthless; and I am sorry that the writer of “Recent Recollections has given it more importance than it deserves.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Allow me to add, however, in regard to the action of the House of Bishops in the Memorial, that they have only expressed an opinion," which is not law, that they cannot without the Lower House pass any Canon, and that in the opinion of good judges of the 30os of the Lower House no such Canon could ever pass.

I am respectfully yours,

Snow Hill, April 30th, 1862.

C. M. PARKMAN, B.D., Rector of Allhallows, Worcester, Diocese of Maryland.

In our article, on "The Present Position of the Church of Scotland," in the last number of the Ecclesiastic, we stated that we believed the Ambrosian Liturgy was used once a year at Milan, whilst for ordinary purposes it is superseded by the Roman. This we find to be an incorrect statement, as the Ambrosian Rite is always used at Milan. Our argument is not however weakened, since the constant use of the Ambrosian Rite at Milan, whilst the Roman is used all around, makes the two Liturgies stand more completely side by side, without any interference with the unity of the Church. Other cases in point also exist. The Mozarabic Liturgy was said constantly from 1095 down to 1721, and later in some parish churches, in Toledo, whilst the Roman Rite prevailed elsewhere throughout Spain. It was also said on certain days at Salamanca. All this is now in apparent desuetude, but was never repealed formally. But in Greece, the Greek office of S. James is still said in many churches on October 23, which is the Greek Feast of S. James, and S. Basil's Liturgy on the Feast of S. Basil, and on Sundays in Lent and other occasions; whilst the Constantinopolitan Rite of S. Chrysostom has superseded those on all other days in the year.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE TIME AT WHICH THE HOLY COMMUNION WAS CELEBRATED IN THE EARLY CHURCH AND UNTIL THE PERIOD OF THE REFORMATION.

THE following paper is a slight contribution towards settling this most important ritualistic question-a question which becomes of so great importance from the doctrine which is bound up with the Church's rule upon this subject. If the consecrated elements be merely common food over which a blessing has been said, and the Sacrament itself a bare type or symbol, it can be a matter of no vital moment whether it be received in the morning or at night. On the other hand, if it be not common food, but if the bread be, as S. Ignatius tells us that it is, the "heavenly bread”—the “bread of life," which is the flesh of JESUS CHRIST, the Son of GOD; and the cup, "His Blood," (Ad Rom. vii.) then indeed, the time and the manner of our participation of these holy mysteries concerns us most nearly. It can be no unimportant point what ought to be the condition of those bodies by which we have to receive so great a thing. S. Thomas Aquinas, in an article of the "Summa Theologiæ," to which reference is made in this paper, has handled this matter with admirable clearness of detail; so very plainly that we can only regret that we have not the space to reprint it here entire. The advocates for late celebrations of the Blessed Eucharist are putting forth all their powers, plying Holy Scripture, relying upon the silence of many of the Fathers of the Church to torture them into a positive assent to this novel practice; setting forth almost innumerable arguments of convenience and expediency, with the like intent. To combat these views is the object of the present communication. The interpretations of Holy Scripture are, for the most part, open to much cavil and much criticism, and altogether the paper is but a fragmentary notice of so great a subject, so that the writer begs his readers not finally to pronounce against the decision of the Church for fifteen hundred years, because he may have grouped with an unskilful hand, the authorities in support of so ancient and wide-spread a tradition.

Before proceeding to the several topics the writer wishes to state that if he at all retraces ground which has been already traversed by the Bishop of Oxford, it is unconsciously, as he has not seen the charge in which this subject is handled. The subject is divided into six portions. I. The testimony of Holy Scriptures. II. Profane testimony of a very early date. III. A statement of Eusebius examined. IV. The patristic testimony upon the subject. V. Later testimony. VI. The testimony of the Councils of the Church. To save space, only one Father of an age VOL. XXIV.-JULY, 1862.

2 R

has been cited, and only two canons of Councils far removed from
each other in point of time; because a chain of evidence is what it is
so needful to establish. If, therefore, individual witnesses bring
down the subject to the fourth century, and a council confirms this
body of evidence, and continues it to the seventh, and a writer of
the thirteenth century cites with approval both Fathers and Coun-
cils in defence of the practice of the Church of his time: we con-
ceive the point at which we are aiming to be proved. We will now
take up the subject in the order which has been indicated above.
I. The testimony of Holy Scripture.

It is a very interesting question, When did the Christian Church make its first celebration?

4

the

THAIT

On this point both the New Testament and the Early Fathers are silent. Many liturgicists think, that after the third day was past, and He was risen from the grave, they commemorated His death and made it a very Eucharist too—a thanksgiving upon His Resurrection (Raynaudus, De Prima Missa, lib. i. c. 2.) The more general and true opinion is, that the disciples and Apostles did not use the power of consecrating until after the descent of the HOLY GHOST, at the day of Pentecost, when so many representatives of different nations were brought together; then was the holy sacrifice of the new law first offered-it was the first fruits of the ingathering of the Gentiles into the fold of the flock of CHRIST, as Paschasius says, (De Corp. San. Dom. c. 20.) When the Holy Apostles were renewed by the descent of the HOLY SPIRIT from on high, and were inebriated with the new wine of charity, then, truly we believe, that this chalice was consecrated in the church, since the HOLY SPIRIT then, was to lead them into all truth, and to confirm them in the fulness of doctrine. In that Tepov at Jerusalem, in which they had received the HOLY GHOST, was the first celebration made-made in the morning-for, from the mention of the 3000 converts, the same day, that were added to the Church, it is obvious that these events must have happened at an early hour. That this first celebration was contemporaneous with the gift of the HOLY GHOST, Seems probable also from a comparison of the Christian worship before the day of Pentecost, with their worship after it. The command is given, that the disciples are to "tarry in the city of Jerusalem until they be endued with power from on high.” There, therefore, they wait, returning with great joy to Jerusalem, "and were continually in the temple praising and blessing GOD." (S. Luke xxiv. 53,) αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες τὸν Θεόν. After the day of Pentecost, came in the technical expression xλáois agrov, for the celebration of the Blessed Eucharist. The converts continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ ταῖς προσευχαῖς—and breaking bread at home, κλαντές τε κατ ̓ οἶκον ἄρτον.

The xλáois Tou prou began at Pentecost, and from that time

Stan

was continued in the Church. Can we gain any hints from the mention of this rite at what time of the day this ceremony took place in the Apostolic age? Although no time is specified in the two passages just quoted from the Acts of the Apostles; it may reasonably be supposed, that if the first celebration was, as we have shown, in the morning, the others would follow it at the same hour upon subsequent days. The next communion that we read about is S. Paul's breaking bread at Troas. It was the first day of the week, when the disciples came together. Without dwelling upon the implied ceremonial in the expression λaurádes inaval, we notice that it must have been after midnight when Eutychus was healed, and then was the bread broken; it was an early communion, and when it was ended S. Paul remained talking till daybreak. Whether or not with design it is difficult to determine, but when S. Paul breaks bread during the shipwreck, he does so "while the day was coming on." Prayer is ever to be made, says Tertullian, (De Orat. 24,) as in the case of S. Paul, who, in the ship (Acts xxvii. 31,) celebrated the Eucharist. There is something

formal about the act as recorded in Acts xxvii. 35, "xaì λaßŵv ἄρτον εὐχαρίστησε τῷ Θεῷ ἐνώπιον πάντων καὶ κλάσας ἤρξατο ἐσθίειν.” obie." The celebrated passage in 1 Cor. x. 16, confirms this notion where the xovavia is used. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of CHRIST? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of CHRIST ?" The TоThρIOV Tйs euλoyías implying, says the late Professor Blunt, a prayer of consecration; that even then the Blessed Eucharist had a formal act in its participation: that it was both canonical and patristical-that it was an act accompanied by a solemn ceremonial. (Christian Church, p. 33.)

Another Eucharistic hint is contained in 1 Cor. xiv. 16, in which the εὐλογία, the εὐχαριστία, and the ἀμήν are very strikingly brought out. But what can be said of the long account of the disorders in the Corinthian Church which are mentioned in 1 Cor. xi. 20, to the end of the chapter? Here occurs the phrase the LORD's Supper, xuρiaxòv deiπvov, and although in accordance with an earlier usage, devov might stand for any meal such as the ἄριστον or the δόρπον ; even in Attic usage it signified the chief meal as answering to our dinner; and in this place it is placed in contrast with a man's own supper, the τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον. But the κυριακὸν SETTVOV does not stand, at this time at least, for the Holy Eucharist, but for the love feast which preceded it. It was at a far later period that this meaning was given to the expression, and long after the Agapæ had been discontinued. We would remember the words of Suicer upon this section of 1 Cor. xi., who is entitled to a reverential hearing, both on account of his extraordinary learning and also as being a member of a reformed religious body.

"The Agape were celebrated before the sacred Supper;" that

the Eucharist was celebrated after the Agape is sufficiently manifest from 1 Cor. xi., for there the Apostle calls it the xupiaxov devov of those who had come together to celebrate a common banquet in the church; in which he only reproves each one, for taking so soon, before the others, his own supper, so that one is hungry and another is drunken, (Εκαστος γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον προλαμ Baves) From which words it appears that they had previously supped. Afterwards that the Eucharist was received at their banquets. And that at the Eucharist all were partakers in common; but that the LORD's Supper, which preceded it, was not one, nor in common, when each one brought from home what he was himself going to eat. Now the Apostle wished that all should be fed in common, and that especially, out of their abundance, the rich should nourish the poor. Afterwards these abuses were removed according to the Apostolic injunctions, and the 'Ayánaι were so remodelled that both the rich and the poor feasted in common. Sedulius Scotus in his Annotations upon the first of Corinthians, says, "Formerly among the Corinthians, as others assert, a bad custom prevailed, here and there to disgrace Churches by feasts, which they enjoyed before the Dominicam oblationem, which supper they were carrying on at nights, so that the rich came intoxicated to the Eucharist, while the poor were tormented by hunger; this custom, as they relate, came from the Pagan superstitions; whence also in certain places in Egypt and Syria on Sunday, at night after supper the Christians came to church." Justelli, in his Commentary upon Canon XI. of the Council of Gangra, 'says, the love feast of the Christians does not differ much from the sacred banquet of the Romans, which are called "Charistia," in which were adjusted the quarrels of friends and relatives.

II. Profane testimony of a very early date.

This was a local and peculiar custom of some Churches only, firstly to keep with all due festivity an 'Ayáŋ, or LORD's Supper, and then to partake of the Holy Eucharist. Sozomen (lib. vii. 19,) tells of some Christians late in the fourth century, A.D. 390, who still preserved this old rite. There are several cities and villages in Egypt, where, contrary to the usages established elsewhere, (aρà τὸ κοινῇ πᾶσι νενομισμένον) the people meet together upon Sabbath evenings, and although they have previously dined, they partake of the mysteries (ἤδη ἠριστηκότες μυστηρίων μετέχουσιν.) This is a very remarkable statement, worthy of due attention. From other sources we learn that very soon the Eucharist was received first, and the Agapa kept afterwards; finally the Agape were, in church after church, abolished, and the midnight meetings discontinued. curious, that both S. Chrysostom and Theophylact his servile follower in their Commentaries upon 1 Cor. xi., say that the love feast is made after the Communion was received. While Photius and Zonaras call the Agape appendices to the sacred supper, proving its

It is

« AnteriorContinuar »