Obrazy na stronie
[ocr errors]

fallen frames, which are thus raised to their true dignity in becoming Christ's Mystical Body.-The comparison already drawn (at pp. 341-55), between the Presence of the Natural Sun and the Presence of the Sun of Righteousness, may, perhaps, suggest modes of illustrating the relative honour to be paid to Christ's Body under these Its several manifestations. Mr. F. does, indeed, advert to a distinction of Presence (and, so far, impliedly allows a difference of worship); for he speaks of "the Body of Christ in its Eucharistic condition," when reverting just afterwards "to fearful doctrinal positions," already noticed, as a reason for concluding that what he considers a "plausible but " a mistaken inference" respecting It should ex animo be abandoned:" yet the inference would seem to be his own, and to be deduced from the imaginary "position" in which he (of course unintentionally) places others by writing as though they claimed the same kind of worship for the Body of Christ however as well as "wherever" present. So, too, when Mr. F. adds that "The only escape there is, when this parallel is pressed upon the upholders of the worship of the Elements, or of the Body of Christ, in the Eucharist, is to represent that the Church is only figuratively, not really, the Body of Christ"-he must not be surprised if in this instance also one thinks he has (unconsciously) misrepresented those to whom he refers; especially as the only clue he gives, in saying "this position, . . . . . has been avowed by the most eminent and most universally esteemed of the divines in question," affords no means of comparing his own language with that of which he complains. It is indeed strange, and difficult to reconcile with controversial fairness, that he should persist in fixing upon others results which he draws from their belief; yet so he does again in a passage immediately following; for (p. 482) assuming it to be held that "the unreceived Elements demand Divine Worship," he asks "must not this, à fortiori, be extended to the communicant, who receives these Elements, and who is further declared to be-which the Elements are not-'one with

Christ, and Christ with him?'" This question has been partly answered, I think, in what has been already said; I can now only again remark in addition, and that by way of counter inquiry-First, Who is it that demands Divine worship for the Elements? Next, is not our Sacramental Union and Communion with Christ the very argument for that reverence, i.e. worship, which is so continually insisted upon as due from us to both our own bodies and to the bodies of our brethren in Christ?

Exactly the same misrepresentation (I do not mean wilful) pervades the remaining portion of his Note (p. 482) where he says "It is now avowed as one principal purpose of the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, to be present simply to offer divine worship to Christ as present under the Elements: that is, as has been shewn to the Elements themselves." To this last sentence I cannot but reply that it seems to me Mr. Freeman has entirely failed to shew any such identity as he here alleges. With regard, however, to the former part of the passage-though incautious or exaggerated language on the part of some may furnish ground for warning lest communion should be neglected or superseded by the advocacy of worship—if Mr. F. intends to deny the lawfulness of noncommunicating worship, then I must venture respectfully to differ entirely from him: that he appears to do so, seems to follow from his asking "What single prayer or invocation has the English Church, at any rate, provided for this purpose?" But the mere absence of any such provision would not prove the illegality of such worship; to establish this it would be necessary to shew that the Service itself, either in terms or by clear implication, forbids it; otherwise, that it is contrary to some Law of the Church elsewhere recorded: with some confidence I express my belief that not only no such prohibition can be gathered from either source, but that the Evidence proves the contrary: this is not the place to investigate the subject, yet it may be desirable to point to

But I may be permitted here again, as at p. 326, to refer to a Publication where it is discussed.

[ocr errors]

the following Rubrics as shewing that non-communicating attendance of "the faithful" was designed to be allowed:"At the time of the celebration of the Communion, the Communicants being conveniently placed " &c., "Then shall the Priest say to them that come to receive" &c., "Then shall this general Confession be made, in the name of all those that are minded to receive" &c., "Then shall the Priest, . say in the name of all them that shall receive" &c., "Then shall the Priest say the Lord's Prayer, the people [not merely the Communicants] repeating after him every petition." To these may be added the Rubric directing the consumption of the remains of the Sacrament by "the Priest and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him "—an order which would be wholly superfluous if none but Communicants might be present during that portion of the Service from which, by a comparatively modern custom, non-communicants usually withdraw.

I presume, however, that Mr. Freeman objects, to noncommunicating attendance for worship, on another ground than that of the non-provision of "prayer or invocation;" for, at p. 278 he writes thus :

"Another remark is, that among the results of this investigation we cannot reckon the faintest trace or intimation of any worship to be paid to a sacrifice. This is indisputable. The worship is throughout presented by means of the sacrifice, not directed to it. There is no countenance then, from this quarter at least, for the mediæval opinion, lately re-introduced by some earnest minds among us, that the supreme purpose, or, however, a very principal one, of the Eucharist, is to provide in the ordained media of the rite,—the consecrated Elements, an object of Divine Worship. However ingeniously it has been endeavoured to invoke the countenance of Fathers and liturgies to such a view, it would seem absolutely fatal to it, that the ancient sacrificial system, Divinely accredited to us as an exact type or copy of the Gospel scheme, gives not the remotest hint of such a feature as destined to have place in it."

Without, however, meaning to use the expedient of endeavouring to refute an Author's statements by other passages in his writings when he was in the same mental phase ( a resort always of questionable value unless there can be no reasonable doubt of his whole mind having been fairly grasped) I can

not but compare what Mr. Freeman bere says, with a remark with be hus elsewhere made in the same Volume; because it seems to me to fammash ground for modifying the conclusion at whim be bas bere attired: tha at p. 4. after observing of the Holy Eaåris" du: “by the distinct intimation of er Lien Husk, its nature was to be ascertained by reference to a sistem in itself sacrificial," he says:-—

* As to the range which that reference, or paralel, was to take, it may be observed that though our Loet might not unnaturally, at fre sizit, have been understood to punt exclusively, (as doubtless He reserved very especially to the Mosaic system, under which the Apostles were brich in His words oeun, in truth, no such tire. No one dispensation or covenant is specified as having an exclare commissce to interpret the New Ordinance: much less is any particular rite of the Mosaic Insalation so distinguished: such as, for example, the PassorET Doubtless the Church

was to apply to those words of her Lord (ie. the words of Institution, with the utmost versality, what St. Paul has said, in a more restricted sense, of certain words of Jeremiah: In that He saith, A New Covenant. He hath made the first,' even all former sacrificial dispensations, "old." And He referred to them all in their entire extent, as His interpreters. The Eye of the Saviour, in pronouncing those memorable words, glanced, we cannot doubt, over the whole religious experience through which He Himself had conducted mankind.”

Yet this very argument, of the parallel to the Eucharistie Sacrifice having to be sought in the “entire extent” of “all former sacrificial dispensations" and not in the Mosaic alone, supports the further ensideration which can hardly fail to suggest itself—That the parallel cannot be carried throughout, because the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" is an Object of Divine Worship, which the Victim in all other Sacrifices could not be.-Hence, then, the Body and Blood of Christ being (as Mr. F. hoids) really present in the Memorial Eucharistic Sacrifice, i.e. Christ Himself being present as is contended in opposition to Mr. F. and as may, further, be reasonably inferred from the fact thatthough the command under the Oid Covenant was (Deut. xii. 23) "Be sure that thou eat not the Blood; for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh,”—the bidding of CHRIST is (S. Matt. xxvi. 27, 28.) “Drink ye

all of it; for this is My Blood [My Life] of the New Testament:" as Bp. Ridley declared (See p. 54) "I say also with St. Augustine, that we eat life and we drink life;) it would seem to follow that the worship may and must be "directed to" as well as "presented by" Him "our Passover" Who "is sacrificed for us" (not however to "the consecrated Elements" as Mr. F. again repeats): and this though, or rather because, there be not (as Mr. F. says) "the faintest trace or intimation of any worship to be paid to a sacrifice." In fact Mr. Freeman evidently expected some such reply as this and endeavours to anticipate it; for he says (p. 279) :

"But it will perhaps be contended that this is among the number of the things in which the Old system could not justly mirror forth the New; arising as it does out of the Divine Nature of the Gospel Sacrifice and Priest. But to this there is the fatal objection, that St. Paul, when setting forth to the Hebrews the points in which the Gospel sacrificial system transcends that of the Law, makes no mention of this as one. Nor is there, confessedly, a single word in the New Testament, any more than in the Old, of direction or instruction to the effect contended for. It is purely a matter of inference; an inference the unsoundness of which, as well as the fearful conclusions which (by the admission of the upholders of it themselves) follow from it, has been pointed out elsewhere," viz., as his Footnote mentions, in the "Note at the End of the Volume" upon which I am here commenting; and in his "Introd. to Part II., pp. 142-145" already noticed at pp. 248-9.

Yet, on consideration, this alleged silence of St. Paul need not be "the fatal objection" which Mr. Freeman avers; and therefore, as not dealing directly with the subject like the Epistle to the Hebrews, the silence of the rest of Holy Scripture is of less moment. For, besides that the argument of St. Paul seems in its nature limited to shewing how "the Gospel sacrificial system transcends that of the Law" where it corresponds with it, his reticence as to its other higher aspects may, perhaps, be accounted for by the hindrance which he there mentions (vv. 11, 12) before making his comparison:-" Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the

« PoprzedniaDalej »