Nay further, we cannot altogether acquit the reverend prelates, who have thus incautiously slurred over the doctrinal difference between the two communions, of a certain measure of virtual contrariety to their own subscription; a matter which, considering the solemnity of their responsibilities, and the unspeakable importance of maintaining a clear and definite view of revealed truth, calls, on their own part, for serious investigation. The trumpet must not give an uncertain sound; nor must an English prelate lightly appear to sanction, across the Tweed, a doctrine, which his mitred brethren there know, and have ever maintained, to be at variance with the testimony of his own subscribed formulary. We submit these questions respectfully to their consideration.

Two of the Scottish bishops have lately earned a not very enviable distinction in this controversy, by an endeavour to draw the excellent Bishop of Cashel into it nolens volens. In the first place, Bishop Lowe addressed Dr. Daly in August, as the commencement of this tentative process, to ask him whether there was any truth in the report that he sympathised with those members of the Church of England who separated themselves from the communion of the Scotch Episcopal Church? Had this been one instance only of a general application to Protestant dignitaries, founded on justifiable surmise, we presume Dr. Lowe would have had rather a heavy correspondence, and that replies even from the bench itself would not have been very gratifying: but if it was, as we fear, only the singling out of one distinguished dignitary of the united Church, on the ground of rumour, it was surely an unwarrantable intrusion upon private right and feeling. It is competent to any man to entertain a private opinion, without being exposed to the epistolary catechising of Bishop Lowe. Dr. Daly, however, in the transparent simplicity which marks his character, "thought it right to give his opinion, when sought, freely and plainly," by letter in reply. On which, his letter was immediately fastened upon by Dr. Terrot, who enters upon the subject with a good deal of sophistry, and labours hard to involve the question at issue in a cloud of misstatement not easily dispelled, because every incorrect statement would require a page or two to set it right. The object, however, of Bishop Terrot, who, as deriving his orders from the English Church, stands in a different position from his five brethren, is to produce an impression that the Scotch Episcopal communion is not unsound, but only Tractarian; that they go about as far as the Tractarian flock could before they leaped the bridge; but that they are not quite ready to adopt those additional notions which would make the leap in their own case inevitable.

We are not disposed to enter at length into the controversial question mooted in the correspondence referred to. We cannot but notice, however, that Dr. Terrot rather assumes a position in his reply to the Bishop of Cashel, which would not satisfy his brethren, and that he stands in the awkward position of vindicating a theology with which, after all, he is not quite satisfied. In that letter, Bishop Terrot has committed himself strangely, in connection with LITURGIES, a subject with which, it is evident, that he is but slenderly acquainted: this was shown clearly in the Record newspaper of the 8th of last December, and we have pleasure in quoting the observations to which we refer :

"Our readers are aware, that Bishop Terrot has asserted, in his letter to the Right Rev. Dr. Daly, Bishop of Cashel, that the Scotch Office [of communion] has been drawn up in imitation of the first Liturgy of Edward VI., and the early Greek Liturgies; NOT IN ANY RESPECT OF THE ROMAN LITURGY OR MASS.'

"To any one wholly unacquainted with the subject, this may sound very well; but it is, in reality, a mere flourish of words, which are, as we shall presently show, directly contrary to plain matters of fact. Many persons would suppose, that this statement was only intended by Bishop T. for the eyes of the uninitiated; as they might find it difficult, apart from such a supposition, to account for so strange and rash a way of speaking. We are led rather to believe, that the subject of LITURGIES, is one, with which, in its first elements, Dr. Terrot is not familiar: and we should really be obliged to Bishop T., if he would inform us, what those particulars in the Scotch Communion Office really are, which, while they differ from the communion service of the Church of England, (for Bishop T. does not profess to follow its guidance,) could be said to agree with the EARLY GREEK LITURGIES,' but to differ from the Roman mass, which Bishop T. states, that the Scotch Office does 'not' imitate in any respect.'

"We are slow to weary our readers with such a discussion; but the peculiar character of the times, makes it desirable, that such matters should not rest in obscurity: and, least of all, in the kind of mystified confusion, in which men of the Tractarian school (to which Bishop T. clearly belongs), would involve the subject.

"The early Greek liturgies,' then, or rather, as we now say, communion offices, all of which may be seen translated into English, in Brett's 'Collection,' 1720, while they contain, in common with the Roman, various prayers deserving of commendation in various degrees, some of which, that have come down from early times, are highly devotional,-also present, in common with the Roman office, many commemorations or addresses, which are SUPERSTITIOUS, and some which are IDOLATROUS. Further, in the Roman office, which, as we have in a former article, observed, is, (like the Greek liturgies,) far more ancient than the Roman dogma, comparatively modern, of transubstantiation, are to be found, (as well as in the Greek communion offices,) ALL those objectionable peculiarities to which a large party among the non-jurors in the last century, the modern Tractarians, and the bishops and clergy of the Scotch Episcopal Church, have so fondly clung.

"For example, the Roman service of the mass, contains (1) the offering of the elements as an eucharistic sacrifice to God, (2) the mingling of the water with the wine, (3) the prayer, that the elements themselves may become to us the body and blood of Christ, and (4) the commemoration of departed believers, in the oblation of the elements. All these matters are to be found, not merely in the early Greek offices, but also in what Bishop Terrot calls the

Roman liturgy or mass.' Our readers can refer to any Roman Catholic missal, to verify those points. The respects, therefore, in which the office that Bishop Terrot uses, differs from our English service are, each and all, matters of agreement with Rome. Even apart, then, from the question, whether these usages are, in themselves, right or wrong, the inconsiderate assertion of Dr. Terrot, that they are not Roman, is left without any base upon which

to rest.

"On the other hand, in one particular, as we observed in a former article, the Scotch office fairly surpasses the Roman, because it does not merely pray with the Roman ritual, that the elements may be to us the body and blood of the Redeemer; which, though most gravely objectionable, might, possibly, but scarcely, (taken apart from the peculiar views of the Church of Rome, given in the later decrees of her Councils,) be explained as referring to a spiritual presence in the heart of the receiver: but the Scotch office, in language which can hardly be termed ambiguous, supplicates that the creatures of bread and wine may вECOME THE BODY AND BLOOD of thy most dearly beloved Son.'

"The Roman mass is also followed by the Scotch office, in the arrangement of the prayers in the communion service. This is a matter upon which the Tractarians, in this instance, build much; as involving, in particular (1.) the oblation of the consecrated elements themselves as a sacrifice to God; and (2.) the commemoration of the dead, by the use of the prayer for the whole state of Christ's church, while the elements are upon the ALTAR, consecrated, but not consumed. In this point, in the order (we mean) of the prayers (which is generally viewed by ritualists, as of prime moment, in establishing either the identity or common origin of particular Liturgies), the Scotch communion office, in common with that in the first book of Edward VI., closely follows the Roman Liturgy or mass.'

"It is, moreover, clear as a matter of history, that the observances and notions for which Bishop Terrot contends, have come to him in the most direct line of ritual succession, from Rome. The first book of Edward VI. did not adopt these matters from the Greek liturgies (as Bishop Terrot would seem to insinuate), but simply retained them, from the various Uses of the Roman Missal (York, Hereford, Salisbury, &c.) which had been in England, during the dark ages, before the Reformation. And both the Scotch Prayer Book of Archbishop Laud, 1637, and the present Scotch communion office (for which last, we have Bishop Terrot's own testimony), took these unsound matters from the first book of Edward, which, as we have just observed, received them from the Roman Mass-book.

"Dr. Terrot, therefore, cannot descend to the ground (inferior though it would be), of saying, that, while he cannot but now admit, that these points are actually given as well in the Roman missal, as in the Scotch office, they were, in fact, taken by his Church, from the Greek liturgies; because they were, in historical truth, merely retained from the Roman Catholic service of the mass.

The Scotch peculiarities are, we grant, of a more early date than the other more gross and fatal errors of Rome; but to hold to these, is to retain what Rome has ever given to her votaries and to retain them is, with regard to history as well as to doctrine, to return to Rome.

"Bishop Terrot might, indeed, reply, that it is to his mind (although it most certainly is not so to ours) a corroboration of these points, that they are also to be found in the Greek liturgies. But what then becomes of his unfortunate assertion, that the Scotch office was not drawn up in imitation, in any respect, of the Roman? The mass-book was, in reality, the model and source from which the peculiar usages in the Scotch service came. To deny this, and assert the contrary, is, on the part of Bishop Terrot, neither grateful in feeling, nor true in fact: and he has made an assertion upon this head, which he undoubtedly cannot prove.

"That which Dr. Terrot, therefore, presumed to attribute to the Bishop of Cashel; namely, such rashness as must be imputed to every man who writes and publishes upon a subject of which he is ignorant,' is (as we have shown) an accusation applicable, not to Bishop Daly, but, in the most ample measure, to Bishop Terrot himself.

6

"We now return for a moment, to another point. Dr. Terrot has referred to the first communion office of Edward VI., which was no doubt,' he says, advisedly given up, that is, upon the advice of Bucer and Calvin. Thus, while Dr. T. admits that the first communion office was given up advisedly by Cranmer and Ridley, his explanation of the term advisedly, is, by the advice of Bucer and Calvin. Bishop Terrot, therefore, seeks to convey to his readers, the notion, that the omission in the second book of Edward, of the few superstitious matters which had still been retained in the first, was not the independent act of Cranmer and Ridley, but was, on their part, an unwilling compliance with the weak scruples of certain foreign Reformers.

66

To say this, is not only to affirm what there is no positive ground for believing, but what is directly contrary to all that is known of the characters of the great leaders of the English Reformation. We repeat our denial of the truth or accuracy of the view of Dr. Terrot: we affirm, that it is unfounded and cannot be proved.

It is, indeed, stated by Burnet, that the first book of Edward, was translated into Latin, by Alexander Alesse, in order to obtain the opinions of Bucer and Peter Martyr. Bucer, in particular, who was at that time Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, expressed his views in writing upon many points: and they are to be seen at full length in his Scripta Anglicana, 1577. So far, however, from that judicious and learned theologian having pressed his sentiments upon the governors of the English Church, his opinions were only given at the special request and immediate command of Archbishop Cranmer and this was only one out of many elements for decision which were present to the minds of the leading Anglican Reformers. The same statement in substance, is applicable (mutatis mutandis) to other foreign divines.

"This is the view justly entertained by Dr. Gloucester Ridley, in his valuable life of his ancestor Bishop Ridley, 1763, pp. 333, 4; by Archbishop Laurence in his Bampton Lectures, ed. 1805, p. 247, or 1820, p. 254; and by the accurate Dr. Cardwell, in the preface to his Liturgies of Edward VI. Dr. G. Ridley, in particular, states, In the convocation of this year [1551] there were some doubts relating to some things in the Common Prayer Book, feasts, forms of words at delivering the elements in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the different modes of administering it. A review of it was therefore determined: many things were thought proper to be altered. Bucer and Martyr were desired to give their opinions also; as appears by a letter from Martyr to Bucer, January 10. . . . But they had no further hand in the alterations, than in delivering their censures separately to the Archbishop; for in the same letter, Martyr says, that what the points were, that it had been agreed should be altered, he knew not, nor durst presume to ask. And as for Bucer, he died the latter end of the next month, and could be no further concerned in it. And as the Reviewers were not moved by them, but by some members of the Convocation; so, many alterations were agreed on before those professors were consulted, as appears from the same letter.' This clear statement shows, how unfounded is the opinion which Bishop Terrot has so rashly hazarded.

"The decision on this matter, which the heads of our Church formed spontaneously, and after the most ample inquiry and mature deliberation, in the reign of Edward VI., was again confirmed by the Houses of Convocation at the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth; and that determination was, in particular, ratified and adopted by the Convocation which gave to our Liturgy its last revision, in 1661: a body which, we need scarcely add, could hardly

have been influenced strongly or unduly by the views of the foreign Reformers.

"The wholesome judgment, therefore, of our English Reformers in the reign of Edward VI., in rejecting these usages or opinions, to which, as they reappear in the Scotch Communion Office, we ourselves, in common with the Bishop of Cashel and all sound-minded divines, object, has become the expressed mind of our Reformed and Protestant Church.

Bishop Terrot has acknowledged, that among the indigenous clergy [of the Scotch Episcopal Church], and probably among their flocks, there has always existed a strong love for Catholicity, as distinguished from and opposed to Romanism, and an excessive fondness for the Vincentian rule, Quod semper, ubique, et ab omnibus.' He proceeds, In the devious course which the Tractarians have pursued since 1828 down to 1845, when

Mr. Newman developed his principles into full-blown Popery, they have stumbled upon and over many truths and many errors. At one time, they supported this Catholic theory, and thus accidentally coinciding with the favourite theory of the old Scottish Episcopalians, they were then viewed by them with much favour.' We thank Bishop Terrot for this tolerably open confession, while we mourn over the state of affairs which it signifies: and we do not regard the darkness of the case as at all lightened by Dr. Terrot having deigned to add, 'Now that they [the Tractarians] have utterly discarded that theory, and adopted the different and discrepant theory of developments, I doubt much whether a single clerical member of our church would, in your lordship's language, throw the weight of his countenance into their scale.'

"With regard to the Scotch doctrinal observances, we would only further inquire, Can Bishop Terrot adduce in their behalf, in addition to human precedents, even a single passage (in any but a non-natural sense) of Holy Writ? "We venture to recommend to Bishop Terrot, with sincere good will to himself individually, to reconsider this entire subject, not only with more care than he seems to have hitherto exercised, but with humble prayer, through the mediation of the Son of God, for the teaching of the Holy Spirit; and to seek for inspired truth, not in the first Liturgy of Edward VI., nor in the Roman, nor in the Greek communion offices, but in the unerring oracles of the written Word of the living God.

"We have endeavoured to discharge our duty in defending the scriptural position (with regard to the Scotch observances) in which our church was originally placed by men who sealed with their blood, in the flames of the Church of Rome, their testimony to the pure doctrines they had delivered. And we pray, that it may not be said by the Most High, to the Episcopal Church of Scotland, as it was to Israel of old. Thy silver is become dross: and, both figurative and literally. THY WINE

(Isa. v. 22.)

IS MIXED WITH WATER.

But our more immediate object is the volume of sermons which Bishop Terrot has just published; and they appear to be characterised by an endeavour to steer the same middle and dubious course; so that while they aim, in a measure, to vindicate his mitred brethren and himself, in respect to their dominant theology, they study also, if possible, to make out a case for himself, as of English orders, not so open to the charge of discrepancy from his previous engagements. We can readily conceive that a retrospective glance might suggest this course, because, if our recollections serve us, the earlier days of his ministry were characterised by very liberal politics, and a decidedly evangelical tendency.