Page images
PDF
EPUB

is almost a contradiction in terms; for the Prelates of the Church of England can exercise no authority in Scotland. These circumstances have, for a considerable period, given pain to many serious and reflecting persons; and, indeed, no faithful member of the Church of England can look upon them as things indifferent. Every well-informed Churchman knows how indispensable it is to our comfort and edification, as an Episcopalian Society, that the differences should be supplied and these irregularities corrected.

66

2. The submission of the English Clergy to the spiritual superintendence of the Scottish Bishops, is the easy and obvious remedy for the anomalies of our situation. This remedy is now placed within our reach; and that we shall act wisely and piously by embracing it, will be evident to every one who considers,

"3. That the Episcopal Church of Scotland is a 'true' Church, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments are administered according to God's ordinance. The doctrines of this Church are the same with those of the United Church of England and Ireland; the Bishops and Clergy of the Episcopal Church of Scotland subscribing the same articles of Religion. The Scottish Bishops are true Bishops of the Church of Christ, and their Apostolical succession is the same with that of the Bishops of the Church of England; for the present governors of the Scottish Episcopal Church derive their authority, in a direct succession from those Scottish Bishops who were consecrated by the Prelates of the Church of England, at Westminster, 15th December, 1661.

"4. That the political perplexities which, in former times, occasioned the introduction of the English Clergy into this country, and the separating of our Chapels from the Communion of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, have long been at an end, and the objections to our union, which might have been urged on that score, entirely taken

away.

5. That the continuance of our separation is therefore wholly causeless, considered in every point of view. But causeless separation from a pure Church is the sin of schism; an offence of which it is impossible that any pious and enlightened Christian can think lightly. It is contrary to Christian unity to separate ourselves from a Church which follows the doctrines and ordinances of Christ and his Apostles, and answers every good purpose of Christian worship and Christian fellowship*.

"6. That while our establishments, by a union with the Episcopal Church of this country, acquire the consistency and regularity of which they have long so manifestly stood in need, we retain the same Liturgy of the Church of England which we have been accustomed to use, and the temporal regulations of our Chapels remain as they were. By this junction of our communion with the venerable Church, which was once the established Church of the land, every thing will be amended 'in our

See A Short Catechism' by the Right Rev. Thomas Burgess, Lord Bishop of St David's.

situation which was irregular, and nothing altered but what was wrong.

"7. Lastly, Let it be considered, that by the submission of our Clergy to the Scottish Bishops, we strengthen, instead of weaken our connection with the Church of England; for the Church of England, as a pure branch of the Episcopal Church of Christ, is in communion with the Universal Church of Scotland, also a pure branch of the Universal Church; and every English Clergyman who would be faithful to the principles which he professed at his ordination, must therefore necessarily acknowledge the authority of the Scottish Bishops while he resides within the jurisdiction of this communion.

"I have studied this important subject for a considerable length of time with the utmost attention. I shall be happy to converse with any of the congregation who may wish to know, in greater detail, the reasons upon which I have formed my judgement on a question no less interesting to them than to myself. But it is my serious and settled conviction, that it is only by my submission to the Primus of the Episcopal College that I can satisfy my own conscience; that I can act agreeable to the awful responsibility which I bear as a Minister of the Gospel of our Blessed Lord and Saviour; or discharge my duty towards those for whose spiritual welfare I am bound, by the strongest obligations, to be solicitous."

This union, so desirable to both classes of Episcopalians, made great progress in all parts of Scotland, although opposed by the prejudices of some, and by the professional ignorance of others. For example, an attempt was made by a Dr. Grant, an English-ordained Clergyman, resident at Dundee, to justify upon the ground of principle the state of separation in which he and a few others chose to exercise their ministerial duties. But the positions assumed by him and the assertions which he hazarded were so extremely absurd, and betrayed so much ignorance of Church history and ritual usages, that his labour only redounded to his own confusion, and contributed more, perhaps, than the direct arguments of his opponents to expose the utter weakness of his cause. Supplying by zeal what he wanted in knowledge, he sent copies of his tract, entitled as " Apology for continuing in the Communion of the Church of England," to all the Prelates of our Establishment, and among the rest, to the celebrated Bishop Horsley, who gave his opinion of it, in a letter addressed to the author, expressed in the following terms:

St. Asaph, Nov. 11, 1805.

• Reverend Sir, It has long been my opinion, and very well known, I believe, to be my opinion, that the Laity in Scotland of the Episcopal persuasion, if they understand the genuine principles of Episcopacy

[ocr errors]

By calling the Church of Christ universal, we mean,' says the learned Bishop of St. David's, in the Catechism above cited, that the Church is not limited to any particular nation or people, but comprehends all Christian congregations in which the word of God is preached, and the Sacraments are duly administered by persons rightly ordained; and that these congregations, however distant or numerous, are one by community of faith and ordinances.

which they profess, ought in the present state of things, to resort to the ministry of their indigenous pastors. And the Clergymen of English or Irish ordination, exercising their functions in Scotland, without uniting with the Scottish Bishops, are, in my judgement, doing nothing better than keeping alive a schism. I find nothing in your tract to alter my mind upon these points. You are in a very great mistake, in supposing that the dissenters in England are required to subscribe any one of our Articles, previous to their Chapels being licensed. I send a copy of this letter to Bishop Skinner at Aberdeen. I am, &c. S. Asaphen.'

The mention of this tract by Dr. Grant, reminds us of a circumstance which we have omitted to state, in giving the history of the repeal of the penal laws, as affecting the Scottish Episcopalians. It was required on the part of the Legislature, that the Clergy should not only subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles of our Church, but also promise to use in Divine worship our book of Common Prayer. These conditions were readily complied with, particularly the latter, because, from the time of Queen Anne, the English Liturgy had been used by every Episcopal congregation in the North, with the exception, we believe, of the Communion-office, as many of the Clergy preferred that which had been compiled in the reign of Charles the First, and inserted in the Liturgy of the Church of Scotland. The framers of the bill, in 1792, accordingly reserved to our Scottish brethren, the option of using either office in the administration of the Communion, which they should find most agreeable to the habits and wishes of their congrega→ tions: and we have been informed, that even at the present day, the Scottish Communion-office is used in many country parts, in the remoter districts of Scotland, and held in much higher esteem by both Priests and people, than the one which enjoys the sanction of Parliament.

This Communion-office was taken from the first reformed Liturgy, promulgated in the reign of Edward the Sixth; and is thought by. some to be better arranged and more agreeable to the forms of the Primitive Church, than that which was finally adopted in this country under the Government of Elizabeth. It has very unjustly been objected to as savouring of the principles that characterize the Church of Rome; and on this very ground, Dr. Grant accuses the Episcopalians in Scotland of "practices which we cannot approve, and of insinuating doctrines which we do not believe." The things to which I allude, says he, are 1, Prayers for the dead: 2, Mixing water with the wine in administering the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; and 3, In the preface or exhortation to the prayer for the Church, in the Communion office, the words militant here in earth, are omitted; as are also the commemorative clauses in the words of distribution, Take and eat this in remembrance, &c. and, Drink this in remembrance, &c. These last words, I apprehend, are omitted in conformity with a previous prayer, that God may vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, (with his word and Holy Spirit), these his gifts and creatures of bread and wine, THAT THEY MAY BECOME THE BODY AND BLOOD OF HIS MOST DEARLY BELOVED SON."

In answer to these charges, we can confidently aver that, though we

have examined the Communion office of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, both as it stands in the original Liturgy, authorized by King Charles the first, and as it has been differently arranged since that period by the Scottish Bishops, we have found in it neither authority nor insinuation for the practice of praying for the dead. This author appeals indeed to a "Letter to Norman Sieveright, M.A. ;" but unless that letter, of which we know nothing, was the deed of the Church, hẻ must be aware that it is of no authority. There have been many divines, and eminent divines, of our own Church, who have contended for the propriety of commemorating the dead in our prayers, without dreaming of such a place as the Roman purgatory; but Dr. Grant would surely think the Church of England calumniated by any one who should appeal to the private opinions of those men, as a proof that she authorizes the practice of praying for the dead, or insinuates the doctrine of purgatory.

But, he says, the words militant here in earth, are omitted in the exhortation to the prayer for the Church in the Scottish Communionoffice, that, as he adds in a note, 'the dead, as well as the living may be prayed for.' The words are indeed omitted; but the reason assigned for the omission we suspect to be his own, for we have not found it in any copy of the Communion-office that we have hap pened to see.

By printing in small capitals the petition, that the sacramental elements may become the body and blood of Christ, Dr. Grant seems to think that some opinion or doctrine is insinuated in that petition, which the Episcopal Church of Scotland does not openly avow. We will not suppose him so uncandid as to insinuate on his part, that the concealed doctrine is the doctrine of transubstantiation; for it is well known, that a similar petition made part of the prayers of consecration in the most ancient Liturgies of the Church long before transubstantiation was thought of; and that it was retained in the first reformed Liturgy of our own Church by those very men, who afterwards suffered death because they denied transubstantiation. Nay, it is notorious that it was laid aside only to gratify Bucer, Peter Martyr, and other foreign reformers; and that in the very first Act of Parliament which ratified the second Liturgy of Edward the Sixth, the first Liturgy, which contained this petition, is described as "A very godly order for common prayer, and administration of sacraments, agreeable to the word of God, and the Primitive Church, and very comfortable to all good people desiring to live in Christian conversation." The petition, indeed, no more implies the doctrine of transubstantiation, than the words used by our Saviour at the institution of the Lord's Supper; for by it, the Priest begs only that God will so bless the bread and wine that they may become what Christ intended them to be.

The omission of the commemorative clauses at the distribution of the sacred symbols to the people, cannot surely be deemed a matter of importance by any man who reflects that no form of words is prescribed for this purpose in the New Testament; and who knows that dif

[blocks in formation]

ferent forms have been used in different Churches, and even in the same Church different times. The most ancient form that we have seen directs the Priest, when he gives the consecrated bread, to say Zwpa Xpiorov, the body of Christ; and the Deacon when he follows with the cup, to say, 'Aua Xpistov πоTηpiovwns, the blood of Christ, the cup of life; and the person receiving, to reply Amen. In our first reformed Liturgy, the words directed to be used at the distribution of the elements, were the same which are in the present Scotch Liturgy; in our second Liturgy these words were omitted, and what Dr. Grant calls the commemorative clauses were substituted in their place; but in the review of Elizabeth, the former words were restored and prefixed to the commemorative clauses, where they have stood ever since. But it is farther said, that the "Scotch Episcopal Clergy mix water with the wine in the administration of the Lord's supper. This they may or may not do for any thing that appears in their Communion office, where there is certainly no order issued for such a mixture; but a little water was added to the wine in every Church on earth, before the Reformation; and by our own Church it was injoined for some years after that period. As the wine used by our Saviour was unquestionably mixed with water, the practice is undoubtedly harmless, and may be considered as emblematical.

[ocr errors]

We have abridged these observations from a tract published some years ago, and written, we believe, by a distinguished Prelate of the Northern Church. They are valuable on their own account, and more particularly as they show the nature of the opposition, which was made to the union of the two bodies of Episcopalians in Scotland. It would, perhaps, have been sufficient to remark, that the use of the Communion office at which so much offence was taken by the individual in question, is not imposed upon any Clergyman holding a Cure in that country, but is left entirely to the choice of every Minister, wherever he may have been ordained, and to his views of expediency as suggested by the circumstances of his congregation. The use of it, we are informed, is now almost entirely confined to the districts northward of the river Tay; where the people, less accustomed to change than those in the great towns, and placed more immediately under the direction of the indigenous Clergy, manifest a stronger attachment to the practices of their ancestors. At all events, the use of the Scotch Communion office cannot prove a real bar to the union of the English and Irish Clergy with those of the native Church, because, as we have already said, it is not expected that such Clergy shall deviate in the slightest degree from the forms of the Liturgy to which they have been accustomed, and because the preference from the one form to the other is, in all cases, left to the judgment of the minister, uninfluenced by any consideration besides that of professional duty.

1

We have now a few observations to make on the present state and circumstances of the Episcopal Communion in Scotland. The number of congregations does not exceed a hundred; and as in some of the rural districts, one Clergyman serves two or three, the number of in

« PreviousContinue »