1

such matters we may take example from those who are certainly not less deferential to authority than we desire to be."-Pp. 62, 63.

In conclusion, we very heartily congratulate the promoters and managers of the Oxford Congress, on the large measure of success which they achieved.

REVIEWS AND NOTICES.

Charles and Josiah, (Bell and Daldy,) is the title of an interesting review of the Quaker controversy, in the form of dialogue, the parts of Churchman and Quaker being sustained not by imaginary speakers, but real thoughtful men of the two schools. It will, doubtless, be useful in many quarters, for the Quakers are an intelligent set of people, capable of understanding a calm discussion such as is here presented to us; and although it may not exactly present our own view of Church matters, it sufficiently sets forth the sacramental character of life in the Church to meet the requirements of those who need to be taught the system of grace.

We have been much pleased with Mr. SHIPLEY's last publication, Considerations on the Mysteries of the Faith, from the Spanish of Luis de Granada. (Masters.) The " Considerations on the knowledge of ourselves, the origin and miseries of human life, the four last things, and on the Divine blessings, are conducted in a very practical manner, and given in clear and forcible language. They will be eminently useful as aids to meditation; and the subjects of which they treat are specially adapted to the approaching season of Advent.

The little collection of Accompanying Tunes to the Hymns for Infant Children, by the Rev. J. B. DYKES, (Masters,) is very successful. These hymns are deservedly such favourites with children, that they will gladly welcome the simple little airs, which will enable them to sing them with pleasure to themselves. We had intended specifying several of the tunes, which appeared to us best adapted for their purpose; but we find so many of equal merit, that we must be content with a general commendation. Nearly all possess the chief requisite of a marked and easy melody.

Ancient History for Village Schools, (Mozleys,) professes to be taken from "the Five Empires." The philosophy of that well-known manual is omitted, and the result, we must say, is rather a dull residuum.

Another Hymnal has appeared, under the editorship of the Rev. J. B. TREND. (Rivingtons.) The chief points for which it is an improvement on the "Hymns Ancient and Modern," are in giving a Hymn for Vigils, a translation of Sponsa Christi, as well as several that have been borrowed from Dr. Neale's Easter hymns. Nevertheless it possesses much less variety.

A few Words for Boys at Home, (Mozleys,) is just what boys will read.

541

FREEMAN'S PRINCIPLES OF DIVINE SERVICE.

The Principles of Divine Service; an Enquiry concerning the true Manner of understanding and using the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer, and for the Administration of the Holy Communion in the English Church. By the Rev. PHILIP FREEMAN, M.A., Vicar of Thorverton, Prebendary of Exeter, and Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Exeter. Part II. J. H. and J. Parker: Oxford and London. 1862.

THE reputation which Mr. Freeman possesses as a ritualist and divine would lead us to expect in this work a large amount of learning and information, on what is, confessedly, the most important theological subject of the present day,-and we are not disappointed. For seven years has the writer been engaged in its preparation, and we have now the matured opinion, and wellconsidered judgment of a laborious student. If we cannot agree with some of the writer's opinions, if we think him fundamentally wrong on some points of this mysterious subject, we can at least accept his work as a most important addition to our Liturgical literature. It is not too much to say, that Mr. Freeman has opened out to us new ground in respect of the Holy Eucharist, which has hitherto been almost untrodden; or, if touched upon, treated with but superficial knowledge, we mean the Sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist. Chapter I., containing two hundred and eighty pages, (more than half of the volume,) is wholly taken up with the investigation of this part of the subject. It gives us a rationale of the Levitical sacrifices, not only as types of the death of CHRIST, but in special reference to the Eucharist. It is true that Spencer, Outram, and others have written learnedly on the Levitical offerings, but not as connected with the Christian Sacrifice; while John Johnson in his "Unbloody Sacrifice," and Hickes, in his "Christian Priesthood," have spoken of the latter, but have not connected it closely with the former. We know of no work, before Mr. Freeman's, where this has been done. Chapter II. is on Liturgiology, and carries us farther into that science than previous writers, such as Neale and Palmer, have led us. Liturgical criticism is as yet very imperfect, and we feel that, however valuable Mr. Freeman's labours are in this direction, there is still great room for further investigation. The two following chapters bear more directly on the English Liturgy. The writer displays here his ritualistic learning, and an unbounded loyalty to the Church of his ordination; but we cannot help thinking that this latter quality has a little blinded his eyes and warped his judgment. We shall point out what we consider his chief defects later on. VOL. XXIV.-DECEMBER, 1862.

4 B

Chapter I. commences with the statement, that "the words, This is My Blood of the New Testament (or Dispensation,) which is shed for you,' are incapable of any other interpretation than that of a sacrificial one. This fact is urged strongly, with a large amount of proof; for proof is unfortunately needed, so extensive is the ignorance of the fact. The principal cause of this ignorance is doubtless-we are speaking, of course, of Catholic-minded men, not of those whose judgment is warped by Protestant prejudice from not realising the religious consciousness of those whom our LORD addressed. Instead of putting ourselves in the position of the Apostles, we have, mentally, put the Apostles into ours. We are unfamiliar with a sacrificial system ourselves, and we ignore the fact that they were familiar with one, or rather, that the only religious system that they were acquainted with was a sacrificial one; and, therefore, they could not understand our LORD's words in any other than a sacrificial sense. To speak of bloodshedding in connection with any religious rite would necessarily be connected, in their minds, with the idea of sacrifice; far more, when the words used corresponded with those employed in the Jewish rites. For let us consider for a moment what the Jewish, and, we might add, heathen idea of worship was: it was that man could only approach the Deity by the intervention of a sacrifice. Nay, it seems more than probable, that no living animal was ever used as food without the idea of its being first offered to GOD, and then received back from Him for the eater's use. The very particular directions about shedding the blood, pouring it on the earth like water, and covering it with dust; the prohibition against eating blood-that being the LORD's portion of every slain animal; the permission to eat only clean beasts; these must all have directed the mind of a Jew toward, and filled it with, sacrificial ideas. Take, for instance, the familiar passage, Deut. xii. 20, et seq., where permission is given to eat flesh "within thy gates," it is still said, "If the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put His Name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after."

From this it is clear that the idea running through this permission was a sacrificial one, i.e., that the animal ought in the first place to be offered to Gon, and then received back again, as it were from Him, and permitted to be eaten by the offerer; but even then one part was invariably forbidden to be eaten, one part was the LORD's portion; the neglect of giving this part to Him was sacrilege, and attended with severe penalties. "Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life, and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh: thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water." The reason of this is

further explained in Levit. xvii. 11, 14: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood;" it being essentially the LORD's portion. Remembering further, that no religious service in the Temple was unaccompanied by sacrifice, either bloody or unbloody; or rather, that such sacrifice or offering constituted the essence of all rites of worship, we must see that the language and action of our LORD could suggest nothing else to the minds of the Apostles, than that it was a Form of Sacrifice. And this consideration is immensely strengthened by the fact, that the supper at which our LORD sat with His disciples was the Paschal Suppernot the Passover, but the thank-offerings, suxapiorías, Pesachim, rendered "passover-offerings," 2 Chron. xxxv. 7, eaten on the Passover-Eve, the day of Preparation, when they "made ready to eat the Passover" on the day following. Mr. Freeman truly says, that we must interpret all the expressions in the New Testament which speak of atonement, with reference to the sacrificial system of the Old; nay, that without this reference the New Testament is unintelligible.

"Thus, the expressions, The Lamb that taketh away sin;' the 'offering of a Body;' the shedding of Blood for remission of sins,' or 'to make an Atonement;' 'an offering and a sacrifice to GOD for a sweet smelling savour;' to bear or take' upon a person the sins of another;' to cleanse or purify by blood;' redemption,' 'priesthood,' and countless others, employed to convey to us ideas of CHRIST's sacrificial work, are derived solely and entirely from the old system. They are simply an inspired application of its nomenclature to the Christian subject. Apart from the knowledge of that system they convey no information whatever. In a word, the New Testament, in the matter of CHRIST's sacrificial and priestly operation, is throughout written in cipher; and the key to that cipher is only to be found in the old sacrificial economy."—P. 9.

In like manner the language of the ancient Liturgies and the Fathers, not excepting the Apostles, with regard to the Eucharist, can only be so understood. It is the one idea running through the whole Gospel economy-for instance, 1 Cor. x. 17, where S. Paul draws a parallel, not only between the Church and Israel, but also between the Eucharist and the Jewish sacrifices: nay, even with the heathen; for the 'Table of the LORD' is contrasted with the Table of Demons.' So also with respect to the priesthood of CHRIST:

"He calls CHRIST the 'High Priest of our profession;' or, as the Early Church manifestly understood it, the High Priest of our offerings; the word rendered 'profession' being one of the old sacrificial terms for certain personal offerings of the Mosaic system. The context, both here and in another place, (Heb. iv. 14, 16,) where the term

occurs, plainly speaks of CHRIST's bringing to GOD, and presenting in our behalf, some offerings or other, entirely analogous to those personal ones of the old law, and lest we should doubt that those Christian offerings had, like their Mosaic counterparts, an outward form, however they might be a means of presenting inward and spiritual sacrifices, and were, like them, partaken of, as well as offered, S. Paul expressly affirms that we eat of them. He says that we have an altar;' and that so far from our falling short of the old system in the matter of 'eating' of that which we present sacrificially to GOD, we go beyond it in that respect. For, whereas, the peculiar class of congregational or personal sacrifices, called 'sin offerings,' were not of old time allowed to be eaten (or only by the priest, and the national sin offerings not even by him) but were burnt without the camp; we do eat of CHRIST, our sin offering, as presented continually in heaven, and offered and partaken of, by way memorial and sacramental mystery, upon earth."-Pp. 12, 13.

of

No other account, says Mr. Freeman, of Heb. xiii. 9-15, can be reasonably rendered. Accordingly he enters into a minute and careful examination of all the sacrificial rites in the Old Testament : first laying down that "the one great and ruling purpose of all sacrifice was to restore to man by degrees, and ultimately to enhance immeasurably, his original capacity for enduring and enjoying the Divine Presence; and to furnish a medium for acceptable presentation in It."1

This is a perfectly correct statement of the design of sacrifice and priesthood: but we think it is a defective one; and that the overlooking of another purpose has led the writer into more than one error in his view of Eucharistic doctrine; we mean pardon for sins. We believe this to be the first and primary object; following upon which, and most closely connected with it, is the renewal of a capacity for receiving the Divine Presence. We should probably be told that the former is included in the latter. Perhaps it is; but at any rate they are separable, and once were separated, viz., before the Fall. Every one will allow that Adam unfallen was capable of greater perfection, of fuller measures of God's Presence. Some theologians have thought that the Incarnation was always intended in the counsels of GOD as the highest grace and crown of Creation, even had man not fallen; and that it was not merely a remedy to supply a defect consequent upon sin, but that the Incarnation was "the eternal purpose, which He proposed in CHRIST JESUS our LORD." Looking solely to the restoring the lost Presence in man, as the purpose of the Eucharist, Mr. Freeman lays it down as a necessary principle, that every worshipper should communicate at the Sacrament. A perfectly legitimate conclusion from the premisses this would be; but had he given due place to the equally important fact, that, for fallen man, pardon for sins is a first and primary requisite for receiving the Divine Pre

1 The italics are the author's.