States, they would be acknowledged as legitimate churches by the Episcopate of England? And yet this, and stronger still than this, is the case of Scotland.

But we turn to the second objection: that the schism is to be Justified on the ground of the existence and use of the Scottish Communion Office. Not, we trust, simply because in a single rite, the Episcopal Communion of Scotland, which still, be it remembered, represents the Church of a nation, and of a nation distinguished for the tenacity of its local and national attachments, speaks her own language as well as ours; we say as well as ours, for in her liberal consideration of the close union of the two countries, and of the English habits and associations of some among her communicants, the Scots Episcopal Church permits the free use of either office according to the circumstances of each congregation, imposes the same restraints in either case upon the substitution of the one for the other, and only claims for her own the very innocent distinctions, that it shall be employed at the consecrations of bishops, and at the opening of general synods. The American Church gives no such terms, nor have we a right to ask them. Now in Roman Catholic France, Count Montalembert informs us there are forty various forms of the Liturgy. In Italy the Office of Saint Ambrose is still celebrated at Milan; in Rome itself the Rite of the United Greeks is allowed to be performed, and may be witnessed in the Chapel of the Propagandâ. Certainly Englishmen have acquired in many quarters an evil repute for the narrow insularity of their notions and their intolerance of the usages of other countries. But we are not, surely, so far gone in this carcer, as to insist that an independent Church shall surrender the one last badge of its independence in order that it may enjoy the honour of a bow and smile from us--and we therefore beg the reader to dismiss from his mind any such false and childish impression as that the Churches are not in the very fullest communion because their rite is not in every single particular the same.

Yet if it be true that the doctrine of the Scottish Office is substantially different from our own, the case assumes a very different aspect. To this question accordingly we now turn, and we only regret the difficulty which we must experience in treating a subject of such extreme solemnity, not only within the narrowest limits, but likewise in pages which must be read for the most part in a temper less collected and devout than such a theme imperatively demands.

We have already extracted from a work of the parent of the

* There are, we believe, some other variations of rite, but so small or of such limited use that they do not substantially qualify this statement.

schism the two doctrinal accusations which he has advanced.* He has enhanced them by the charge that the present Scottish office has approximated more nearly to Rome' than either the Service Book of 1637 or the first Prayer Book of Edward VI.

Divinity, in the hands of passionate men, has ever been the fertile mother of logomachies; to a greater degree probably than any lower science, in proportion to its hold upon the universal affections of mankind, and therewith its liability to be clouded by their passions. We are no adepts in the conduct of such disputes; we know not what heinous enormity may have been or may yet be present to the imagination of Mr. Drummond; but he perhaps may have read those words of St. Paul used in reference to the Holy Eucharist, Ye do show forth the Lord's death until he come:' and we are totally at a loss to conceive how the commemoration of a sacrifice, not by an arbitrary token, but by acts intrinsically resembling it, can be less than a commemorative sacrifice; how its commemoration through the specific means of material elements is other than a commemorative material sacrifice. Indeed, it is not the word sacrifice which has sounded the alarm; as it could hardly be with any who remember that the service of the English Church prays for the acceptance of a 'sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving' in the Eucharist, distinct from that reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice' of 'ourselves, our souls and bodies,' which pertains to the idea of universal priesthood in the Christian Church. And for the comfort of the seceders let us remind them of the following circumstance. Courayer wrote very learnedly to show, that the Church of England held a representative (something more than a commemorative) sacrifice, and that this satisfied essentially the definitions of the Church of Rome; and for this latter argument he was not only censured in France, but also condemned by the Pope.

But the Scottish Communion Office also teaches a doctrine of transubstantiation. Never before did we hear that there subsisted more than one. Of various explanations of that one we have heard, but Mr. Drummond gives us no clue to his meaning, and, as we are persuaded, for a good reason: because he had none to give. Strange to say,† a main support of his charge he finds in the circumstance that the meaning of the word be' is doubtful, but the meaning of the word become' is precise, definite, and unambiguous. For our parts we should have thought that the ancient symbolI AM' might have suggested to this writer a different idea: nor can we conceive how, if the idea of entity be obscure, that of genesis can be perspicuous, inasmuch as what

*Scottish Communion Office Examined, p. 9,

† Ib., p. 23.

T

ever a created thing can possibly be, that it must necessarily have come to be, which we hope he will grant is pretty nearly the same thing as to have become. But leaving the argument and looking to the charge it is brought to support, we must allege that the Scottish Communion Office is actually farther from the Roman, though nearer the primitive sense and structure, in its central point, than any one of the Liturgies with which it has been compared, namely those of 1549, 1552, 1637, and 1662; and, strange to add, that of all these the existing English Liturgy is the nearest to that of Rome. For the recital or narrative, retained in our prayer of consecration, is held by the Church of Rome to be the exclusive means whereby the elements assume their mystical character; and a writer in this controversy quotes a pithy passage to this effect from Cardinal Bona de reb. Liturg. II. 13. 4, where he mentions, recentioris Geneva pessimum ac detestandum errorem, consecrationem scilicet non fieri verbis in personâ Christi a sacerdote prolatis, sed precatione ejusdem Sacerdotis, postea orantis et dicentis, fac hunc panem pretiosum Corpus Christi tui.' But in the Scottish Office the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and the prayer for the spiritual conversion of the sacred elements, follow after this recital, and thereby directly contradict the Roman doctrine, as they involve the position that something more than the recital, instead of being profane, is either necessary or at least desirable. Consequently, as Bishop Russell of Glasgow has observed with much acuteness, while a person holding the Roman Catholic tenet in all its rigour ' might receive the sacrament according to the English form, he could not possibly receive it according to the Scottish.'* And we are also reminded that Bishop Jolly, one of the most eminent in sanctity and learning among Scottish bishops, has upon this very ground claimed for the Scottish Office the praise, that it erects an insuperable bar against a misconstruction of our Saviour's words by the Church of Rome. No doubt it is true that the arrangement and the language of the Scottish Office are more conformable to the primitive Liturgies in this particular than those of our own; but we really thought that the restoration of primitive, as distinguished from Roman doctrine, had been the very watchword of the English Reformation. Is this an honest and sincere profession, or is it (we are almost ashamed to ask) a convenient plea for our defence from the assaults of the Church of Rome, to be treated with all honour in our conflicts against her, but in our dealings with one another to be discarded and disgraced?

* Charge, p. 35.

Recent Schisms, p. 26; Jolly's Christian Sacrifice in the Eucharist, Preface, p. vi.
Why

Why should any man hesitate to grant to the Scottish Communion Office its due meed of praise for its closer adherence in some particulars to the venerable models of the early Church, even though he feels, as it is ours to feel, the power of the familiar and endearing associations connected with the English one, though he is resolute and convinced upon the essential identity of the two, and though he regards them pari pietatis affectu, or at least with a sentiment if differing in degree, yet the same in kind, as compounded of approval, reverence, and love?

But now, having reversed the charge of a Romish character, we will proceed to show, in the words of the moderate and learned Bishop of Glasgow, what testimonials of commendation this Eucharistic Office of Scotland, or the first Book of Edward VI., which nearly corresponds with it as to the particulars now in question, has received from divines of the English Church, upon whom the breath of accusation never has been breathed.

'I have already suggested that the Eucharistic forms adopted by the Scottish Episcopalians have received the approbation of many learned divines in England. Though Bishop Horsley's opinion has been so frequently quoted that it is familiar to every one, I cannot deny myself the satisfaction of repeating it in your hearing:-"I think the Scotch Office more conformable to the primitive models, and, in my private judgment, more edifying, than that which we now use; insomuch that were I at liberty to follow my private judgment, I would myself use the Scottish Office in preference. The alterations which were made in the Communion Office, as it stood in the first Book of Edward VI., to humour the Calvinists, were in my opinion much for the worse; nevertheless, I think our present Office is very good: our form of consecration of the elements is sufficient; I mean that the elements are consecrated by it, and made the body and blood of Christ, in the sense in which our Lord himself said, the bread and wine were His body and blood."

'Sensible of the apparent defect in the present English Office, the pious Bishop Wilson, whose praise is in every Church, in his "Short Introduction to the Lord's Supper," directed his readers, immediately after the prayer of consecration, to "say secretly--Send down Thy spirit and blessing upon this means of grace and salvation, which Thou thyself, O Jesus, hast ordained. Most merciful God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, look graciously upon the gifts now lying before Thee, and send down Thy Holy Spirit on this sacrifice, that He may make this bread and wine the Body and Blood of Thy Christ, that all who partake of them may be confirmed in godliness, may receive remission of their sins, and obtain everlasting life."

'Archdeacon Daubeny admitted that the Episcopal Church of Scotland, "by forming her Communion Service upon the model of that first set forth for the use of the Church of England, keeps closer to

the

the original pattern of the primitive Church than the Church of England herself now does."

'Bishop Fleetwood, in his "Reasonable Communicant," observes that "the Church of Christ did heretofore pray that the Holy Spirit of God coming down on the creatures of bread and wine might make them the Body and Blood of Christ."

'In reference to the same subject, Dr. Waterland remarks that, "in the Liturgy of 1549 [the first of Edward] there was a solemn address to God for His propitious favour (a very ancient, eminent, and solemn part of the Communion Service) in these words: We, Thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here, before Thy Divine Majesty, with these Thy holy gifts, the memorial which Thy Son hath willed us to make: having in remembrance His blessed Passion and precious Death, His mighty Resurrection, and glorious Ascension.' Why this part," he adds, was struck out in the Review, I know not; unless it was owing to some scruple (which, however, was needless) about making the memorial before God, which at that time night appear to give some umbrage to the Popish sacrifice among such as knew not how to distinguish. However that were, we have still the sum and substance of the primitive memorial remaining in our present office; not all in one place, but interspersed here and there in the exhortations and prayers."

66

'One of the latest historians of the English Church, the present Bishop of Man, when adverting to the alterations introduced into the Communion Office of the second Liturgy of Edward, remarks, "It is difficult to understand why the Invocation of the Second and Third Persons in the Trinity was left out: it has been wisely restored in the American Prayer-Book.""

To these we must add the following testimonial from Archbishop Sharp of York, and especially because of the distinguished part which he took before the Revolution of 1688, in resisting the Romish party, of his known moderation, and of the fact that he was preferred under William III., probably on account of those

services.

Though he admired the Communion Office as it now stands, yet in his own private judgment he preferred that in King Edward's first Service Book before it, as a more proper office for the celebration of those mysteries.' †

Again Wheatley, our most popular ritualist, is of the same mind. And these judgments, it is to be observed, are not extracted from among others of a different bearing, but they are the spontaneous and uncontradicted testimonies of English divines, in favour either of the Scottish Office, eo nomine, and as it stands,

*Charge of the Bishop of Glasgow, delivered in May, 1845, p. 33.

+ Life, i. 355.

P. 25, 289, et seq. Ed, Oxf. 1839.

or