rules of G.d; md are become such as have need of milk, and act of sCE TEL And Soup is might seem at first that Mr. Freeman's decry is opleid apparently in the Apostle's Eacnamste exterasa 15 "Ey him therefire les as ifte the scrtice of praise to God continually, that is the fit of our los ping thanks to His name;" the theory IČ“worship to be paid sa z morjice" may perhaps be a very legitimate inference in the opening language or the Epistle 16 - When He bringeth in the first-begotten into the word. He sath. And let all the angels of God worship Him;” for of the Incarnate One Sacramentally comes in again by His Own appointed Encharist, it cannot but be that so great a condescension to those who are lower than the Angels demands from then at least as deep an Adoration; He the true Melchizedeck he Breth” vi. Sreediving of whom it is witnessed that there." where He ever inter cedes for them, the "tithes” of His people's deep devotion. In such an inference there surely is not the unsound Dess" which Mr. Freeman may well indeed deprecate; though, happily," the fearful conclusions” he refers to, so far from being an “admission" on the part of those whom he so indistinctly indicates, are really, as I think I have shewn, the erroneous inference which he so unaccountably imputes to them. There is one other statement which Mr. Freeman makes, in connexion with his observations just considered, which needs to be noticed: he says (p. 279: "Neither, again, does the ancient system, rightly understood, and taken in conjunction with Christ's own ordinance, lend any support to another medieval habit, closely allied to the former one, of taking part, as it is called, in the sacrifice, without receiving. In the old system, the kind of offering which, and which alone, was of power to retain the people in the covenanted estate, was the peace or eucharistic offering. This, offered and partaken of thrice a-year at least, was, as has been shewn, the condition and channel of Israelitish life." But the latter portion of this passage appears to me to correct the former and to admit even more than is contended for by those against whom Mr. Freeman urges his objec tions: if, indeed, they advocated habitual non-communicating attendance, there would be a force in his objection and a fitness in his parallel: but, as their contention expresses or implies frequent or at least the prescribed Communions (the case excepted of those who may be preparing for Communion) so, it seems to me, the complaint is irrelevant; though, at the same time, it furnishes an argument wherewith to justify a practice which would be strictly lawful according to the rule of the English Liturgy. For, if a person, acting upon the Rubric, were to "communicate three times in the year, of which Easter to be one;" and were to be present throughout "the Divine Service," without Communicating, during the rest of the year, he could defend his habit on that very requirement of "the old system" which, Mr. Freeman says, was "the condition and channel of Israelitish life." I do not say that such a habit of minimum reception would be an expedient one; nor am I forgetting that more frequent Communions are by distinct implication counselled in this Rubric and should therefore be continually and carefully recommended as the means of attaining those increased spiritual "benefits whereof we are partakers thereby;" yet that the "taking part, as it is called, in the sacrifice, without receiving" has its own blessing, appears to me to be practically admitted in Mr. Freeman's argument, and seems even more plainly implied by his saying elsewhere (p. 243) “. . . . it could not be but that admission to the Presence would, apart from sacramental reception, involve a measure of such communion " as he points out was one "of the needs of man" provided for "under the older dispensation." It is not without much consideration and great diffidence, remembering the learning and ability of Mr. Freeman, that I have hazarded these few remarks upon his Note: they have been made in the hope of removing the erroneous impressions, touching the alleged opinions of others, which it seems too calculated to produce; and also, with the object of shewing that, when accurately represented, they are not contrariant to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church, LLL and, moreover, may apparently be harmonized with that ancient Doctrine of Sacrifice and Communion so elaborately discussed in a Work which one regrets, in common with others, may perchance be deteriorated in value by the peculiar theory of Eucharistic Presence so entirely and exclusively asserted in that Note and throughout Mr. Freeman's Volume. To conclude. The preceding pages have been written under a strong sense of the great importance of not only not widening in the least the breaches caused by recent Eucharistic controversy; but, on the contrary, of doing everything possible to heal dissensions, so far as can be done consistently with what is due to the full and dispassionate consideration of all the reliable Evidence which is producible, however conflicting it may, or may be thought to, be. Moreover the moral, and in the case of Clergy the legal obligation of not contradicting the Decisions of the Catholic Church-represented to us in this Kingdom by the Church of Englandhas been carefully borne in mind; they were meant not to be, and it is hoped and believed they are not, infringed by any opinions expressed or conclusions drawn in this Volume. The sole aim has been to promote Peace and Concord touching a subject which, from its special relation to Him Who is "the Author" of the one and "the Lover" of the other, preeminently demands their culture. If what has now been said shall lead any to a juster appreciation of the English Reformation period than that in which, there is reason to believe, it is too commonly held; and if, in doing this, it shall further tend in the very smallest degree to reconcile differences, to remove doubts, to attest continuity of ancient Doctrine, to promote reverence, to deepen Faith, to encourage Hope, and especially to enlarge and strengthen Charity-the not unpleasing task of investigating a question of some Historical and Theological interest will have found a more than sufficient recompence. Adoration of the Sacrament, Trent Decree and Canon thereon Note PAGE. Cosin's opinion of Elfric's Anglo-Saxon Homily A-Lasco, John, his Letter to Bullinger, 1551, on Bucer's latest opinions Alesius, Alex., errors of Dr. Townsend, Dr. Wordsworth and others Dr. Wordsworth's account of him, in Eccl. Biog. Altar, Sacrament of, Statute on, 1547 reverence due to Andrews, St., Bp. of, his Opinion on Mr. Cheyne's Appeal his question-Whether light is a body or a quality ?—considered Article xxviii. of 1562, compared with Decl, on Kneeling xxix. of 1552 omitted in part in 1571 405 99-102 101 102 6 Note 117 xxix. Title of when signed by Geste, May 11, 1571 Articles of 1552, Knox one of the revisers of Lat. copy. of, in St. Paper Office, signed by Knox and other five Mr. Hardwick's account of their preparation Royal Chaplains 1571, discussion of Bps. upon them. Dr. Lambe on Bodl. MS. of Mr. Hardwick on Parker MS. of of Bp. Hooper, 1551-2, remarks thereon Irish, of 1615 Augustine, St., his opinion of what Judas received on reception by the wicked BANGOR Rubric on Consumption of Sacrament Barlow, his account of irreverent mode of giving the Sct. in 1603 - Note Bennett, Hist. of Articles quoted PAGE. 135 128 Note 322 208, 223-4 20 Bertram, his Doctrine on the Eucharist, Cranmer's opinion of it meaning of "the faithful" in Eccl. Writers Bishops, Ans. of, to Puritans in 1661 as to Decl, on Kneeling 147 294 70 remarks upon the same 411-15 Blunt, Prof., doctrinal significance of Veiling the Sacrament - Brechin, Bp. of, on alleged consequences of Doct. of Real Presence Note his illustration of Real Presence, from the Sun, cited by Gardiner sidered his Letter to Theo. Niger, 1550, on R. Presence his latest opinions on R. Presence, A-Lasco's account of his account of Order in Council Book for Declaration 1552 his account of Bp. Gawden his character of Ld. Chancellor Goodrick his account of review of Art. xxviii. in 1559 his "Own Time," Lord Macaulay's remarks upon the Harleian Hearne's opinion of it his defence of Kneeling at Sacrament Burton, Dr., his account of Picture in Cranmer's Catm. 1548 |