of the blessed Redeemer. We believe that Mr. Drummond has read this passage of the scripture; and that he has read it in the original Greek; and that he knows that the corresponding word to" show forth" is KaTayyeλλete, which, according to Schleusner, is "notum facio, alteri aliquid annuncio, quæ sunt ignota narro. And that upon no such ground as a mistake of the meaning of an equivocal English word, apart from the consultation of the original, would he venture to ground a departure, in a momentous point of doctrine, from Church of England views, as the reviewer has done. It is said, in Acts iv. 2, "Being grieved that they preached (KaTayyeλe) through Jesus the resurrection of the dead." Mr. Drummond and the reviewer would be, in this instance, equally entitled to believe that the apostles acted a representative resurrection of the Saviour from the dead! Really the reviewer "is no adept in the conduct of such disputes." At all events, the learned editor must take care to whom he commits the weapons of his power, and require at least a reference to the Greek, when the scriptures are quoted controversially.

And what shall we say to the statement, that the commemoration of our Lord's death is " by acts intrinsically resembling it?" We ask for the scriptural assertion of any such idea? We ask for any such notion appearing in any portion of the Church's documents? Nay, further, we doubt very much whether any of our pastors, in the simple act of "breaking that bread," or pouring out "that cup," ever imagined that they were thus histrionically performing the part either of Judas, or the priests, or the cruel soldiery who pierced his hands and his feet; or that of him who pierced his side," and forthwith came there out blood and water!" This is a mere figment of a party, unsupported by any evidence. The orthodox Quarterly has settled down upon the lees of the nonjuring peculiarities. Such is the retributive result of lending its weighty influence, not merely for a side-blow at the Rev. Mr. Drummond, but also, pendente lite, to prejudice the action of the Rev. Sir William Dunbar against his excommunicating bishop. We were sorry to see the article announced in the table of contents; but the execution falls far short of the animus from which it emanated. In fact, bating the support of argumentation, which is really wanting, it resolutely and unequivocally affirms, on behalf of the Scottish episcopal communion, precisely the objectionable doctrine, on the ground of which so many English clergymen have seen it right to secede. It asserts a doctrine in connexion with the Eucharist, which we do not believe that either Dr. Blomfield, or Dr. Philpotts, or the venerable primate would maintain; and which no intelligent and well-read presbyter of the English Church

could ever find to be in accordance with his ordination vows-the doctrine of a material sacrifice.

And here, in fact, is the substance of the controversy. The Scottish Episcopalians regard the eucharist as at least a commemorative material sacrifice of Christ. The Church of England holds no such doctrine; nay, so far from it, the leading ecclesiastical judge of the land has lately delivered an elaborate judgment, that the Church of England has not an altar on which to offer a sacrifice. It has a table-the Lord's board-the holy table-round which the believing family may gather to eat of the children's bread, to partake of spiritual food, in remembrance of their Lord's sacrifice. But the semi-popish notion of " an unbloody sacrifice," continually renewed, which was taught by the small non-juring party in England, and which has long formed the peculiar characteristic of the Scottish episcopal school, has ever been rejected by our Reformed Church. We have in our communion-table nothing analogous to the cross on which our Lord was crucified, or to the altar on which the Mosaic sacrifice was offered. But we have a table analogous to that at which our Lord presided at his supper; and to that to which, under the law, the portion of the sacrifice to be eaten was borne, that the offerer and the priest might partake of it together. This is the true nature of our communion-table. It is a holy festive-board, at which faith, overleaping the intervening period of 1800 years, realizes, through these emblematic elements, the death of the Saviour, as ever recent and new to every age of the Church, and declares it as a grand truth, thus ever and again announced (kaтayyeλλe) for the comfort of the believing soul. And hence the twenty-eighth Article does not say that the body of Christ is nailed, lacerated, pierced, crucified; but simply, as an account of the whole rite, is "given, taken, and eaten in the supper, after a heavenly and spiritual manner." Placed on the board, as a representation of the crucified and offered body and blood of the Lord, it recals the one sacrifice, in the same way as the appointed portion of the slain lamb or bullock evidenced the sacrifice just recently offered; and then all that the priest has to do, is devoutly and reverently to partake himself, and to distribute to others, that they may "take and eat this," and "feed on Christ in their hearts by faith with thanksgiving." The great body of the English divines maintain that view and no other. Many efforts have been made to insinuate gradually another and more Romish view of the rite, and to alter the commemorative feast into a commemorative sacrifice. And this is the real secret of the pertinacious struggle maintained for the application of the term altar to the communion-table, which has been so ably, resolutely, and suc

cessfully resisted; the true Church of England divine, knowing that on a "table," however sacred, he had only a festive memorial; and the man of questionable and misty views, hoping that if only he could secure an "altar," he might hope also to introduce the notion of a sacrifice.

The sound scriptural view of the Church has been amply vindicated by the decision of our learned judge. The erection of an altar is utterly illegal in the English Church; and we trust that the great body of the "working clergy" will see the matter, as they ought, to be so important, that in any case in which an altar has been insidiously introduced, they will take effectual measures for its removal, and for disabusing the public mind upon the point of this semi-Romish innovation. The fact, of which there is no question, that if a final decision had sanctioned the erection of altars in our churches, it would have ended in an extensive secession from the Church, is a sufficient vindication of the separation which has recently occurred in Scotland on similar grounds. And we can only regret that any of our prelates, judging hastily of the propriety of submission to a Protestant episcopacy by those clergy who travel beyond the border-a fact which, if there were perfect unity of doctrine and practice, we maintain as firmly as any man; -and eagerly wishing to heal the breach of seeming schism, rather than weighing accurately the wide doctrinal difference between the English and Scottish communions, have thrown the weight of that influence on the side of the Scottish bishops, and placed themselves in the very anomalous position of reproving several presbyters, because, in a matter of vital moment, they have been faithful to their vows. These presbyters stand pledged to "use no other sacramental office but that in the Book of Common Prayer." They are called on, however, to express their approval of, and readiness occasionally to use, an office in which Christ is again offered. They find it impossible so to do; and if they are worthy sons of the Church, they must find it utterly impossible to join in such an office. Having no other alternative, they fall back upon their English orders; and minister, as they are absolutely driven to do by the Scottish canons, in separation; yet certainly in honest conformity with their ordinational engagements.

Under these circumstances of conscientious impulsion, it is somewhat hard to be met by the hasty decision of the venerable primate, that such clergy" are not episcopalians." His grace is just as liable to the same condemnation, because he denies and secedes from Rome. A point of conscience separates the Drummonds, and the Dunbars, and the Mileses from a heterodox Episcopacy. They can no more join it, than they can the Romish Episcopacy;

and we venture to express our belief, that even in the case of these prelates themselves, their utmost love of union would not lead them so to peril scriptural and Reformation-truth, as to express their approbation of the Scottish doctrine of the Eucharist, and that very questionable formulary in which it is so objectionably embodied. Truth is an inflexible thing, and so ought to be the holding of it; and however small to the generalizing world, a difference may appear, yet if on the man of conscientious habit of mind a notion is to be pressed, which appears to controvert a vital and essential portion of truth, it should be resisted without compromise; and he who takes such a stand should be valued as an honest believer, just in proportion as in a meek and Christian temper, he moves on without wavering to the sacrifice and the painful notoriety which principle requires. The English seceding clergy in Scotland have no wish whatever to occupy their separate position. They have been driven to it, and they have assumed it most reluctantly. They desire only to commune with the Scottish Episcopacy in the enjoyment of that liberty and that freedom to maintain scriptural doctrines, in the belief of which they were ordained. But they are required as a term of communion to believe, not only that Christ is "given, taken, and eaten in the supper," but that he is offered a sacrifice. Free them from that oppressive burden, and they are separatists no longer;-require of them no more than Anglican requirements, and they merge at once into the Episcopal communion in Scotland. But it is, to say the least of it, not straightforward practice, to maintain, as that communion does, an important doctrinal difference,-the nonjuring peculiarity—which requires, so great is the difference,-an altar and not a table; and then reaching the ear of the English prelates, with exparte statements to prejudice these venerable men against the dissidents, as needless and pestilent sowers of sedition in the land. The same question which has passed through our Ecclesiastical courts, is now awaiting a decision, between the Scottish Episcopal communion and these English dissidents. It has been decided on this side of the border in every instance in their favour. Is it to be wondered at, that they still make a stand against an attempted oppression which forces on them a doctrine, thus judicially repudiated from the English Church? and a doctrine which all experience, both ancient and recent, shews involves in it ultimately all the errors of Rome? Why should English clerks be asked to approve any other doctrine than that of their own church? and if they do so refuse, why should they be held up by their own bishops to reprobation? And if another, and so far foreign Episcopal communion, forces on them a new and objectionable

tenet, why should that communion be so readily embraced as in full accordance with the Anglican Church, and the Ecclesiastical arm a little elongated for the purpose of castigation in its behalf? We do verily believe, that the time must come when these right reverend prelates, whose letters have been thrown by their correspondents with such partizan haste before the public, will regret that they have been induced to take with too little consideration a step, calculated to increase the difficulties of men, who are only acting in faithfulness to their ordination vows, and in sound and honourable attachment to Church of England principles.

There can be no doubt, that this statement will be met by the assertion that Mr. Drummond and his colleagues had voluntarily come under canonical engagements to the Scottish Episcopal Church; and that it was too late for him to start an objection, as to terms of communion. In this matter, we think it but fair to take the discussion of Mr. Drummond's case alone. It stands by itself, most decidedly. Some gentlemen have joined the seceding body since the separation. The case of Sir William Dunbar stands satisfactorily on its own merits, as it is now before the court of session; that of Mr. Miles of Glasgow has its own pecu- « liar features. But as a strong endeavour is made in the Quarterly Review to run down Mr. Drummond; and, as his case is not only capable of entire vindication, but has a very important bearing on the moral and doctrinal position of the Scottish hierarchy, we think it right to give that gentleman the fair advantage of specific

attention.

The Rev. Mr. Drummond gave in his adhesion to the Scottish Episcopal Church more than twelve years ago, at a time when the terms of communion agreed on, with a view to meet the difficulties of Anglican vows, were such as to be entirely satisfactory to English clergymen. They were intentionally, and by covenant, protected from any semblance of approbation of the Scottish communion-office. The consequence of this state of things was, that as the Quarterly Review states, "By degrees the English clergy, who had been brought in to supply the place of the old Episcopacy, attached themselves to its communion;" to which they add-"The absorption four years ago had become all but complete, when new actors and new mischiefs came upon the stage." Now let it be kept prominently in sight, that this eagerly desired "absorption" of the English clergy was entirely brought about by a solemn synodical covenant, that the English clergy were to be held free altogether from any "intromitting" with the Scottish communion-office; and that, had there been a bona fide