character, the revival of an old and worn-out imputation. 23 sumed by a gentleman with so scrupulously tender a conscience. Even, at best, it was only an after thought, conceived at a time when his mind was under a strong moral bias, and violently acted on by prejudicing influences. And was there anything really so very new or startling in this boasted discovery which Mr. Drummond thus opportunely got up? Sooth to say, it was after all nothing more than the revival of an old, stale, worn-out, thrice-refuted imputation. Notwithstanding the solemn flourish of discovery and novelty, the charge of "Popery" against the Scottish Communion Office was a mere plagiarism, and had been completely answered before Mr. Drummond was born. It is, in fact, a pretence as old as the English schism in Scotland; and Mr. Drummond, instead of bringing forward anything new, was merely raking up the worn-out statements and imputations, which, for a century, have been made by English clergymen schismatically opposing the Church under circumstances very like his own. Thus, in the year 1805, when the union of those congregations, that under ministers of English ordination had so long been estranged from the Church, was proceeding actively and cordially, a reverend gentleman, styling himself "Alexander Grant, D.D., Minister of the English Episcopal Chapel, at Dundee," came forward to mar, as far as he could, the good work of peace and unity. One of the chief instruments then made use of by him to promote strife and schism was this same allegation of Romish doctrine.' And Grant but caught up the idea at second hand; for, nearly forty years before his time, a Mr. Norman Sievwright," a presbyter of the Communion of the Church of England, as by law established, and minister of the authorised Episcopal con gregation in Brechin," (such is his own description of himself), had made similar charges against the Scottish Eucharistical Office, with the view of aggravating the prejudices then existing against the Church. There was nothing new, therefore, or any way surprising in the matter or the form of Mr. Drummond's attack on the 1 Dr. Grant says, " Her Liturgy plainly insinuates doctrines we do not believe." And, by a judicious use of small capitals, the Doctor himself as plainly insinuates in a passage, which we refrain from quoting, on account of the solemn words of the Eucharistical Office in this way brought forward by him, that one of these doctrines is that of Transubstantiation. 2 Sievwright's production made its appearance in 1767. It was effectually, and with much spirit and vigour, answered by the Rev. John Skinner of Longside, in "A Letter to Norman Sievwright, M.A., in Vindication of the Episcopal Clergy of Scotland, From his Charge of Innovations in Politics and Religion. Aberdeen Printed by F. Douglas. For the Author." 24 The Scottish Office excludes the Roman tenet. Church-nothing which need move her faithful members. He and those who have fraternised with him, have merely united in an attempt to resuscitate the ignorant and already refuted calumnies, which are peculiarly identified with that schism which it has been reserved for them to revive, with guilt infinitely more aggravated than that of its originators. Of course, we have no intention of following such persons into the doctrinal discussion raised by them under such circumstances, supposing we were at liberty to do so, and were qualified for the task. The subject is too serious and awful to be lightly entered upon controversially, even with men of reverent and dutiful dispositions; and if earnest minds shrink from this, how shocking would it seem to make the highest and most solemn mysteries of the faith the theme of wrangling with the open and avowed enemies of the Church, who have cast despite on her holiest services, who have cut themselves off from her communion, and who pretend without the Bishop to celebrate another Eucharist. The Church does not concern herself with the cavils and revilings of schismatics, and, therefore, her individual members may well disregard them. Happily, however, the Church, in her full provision for her children's wants, has actually anticipated the possible occurrence of such objections as those recently propounded, so that, in as far as they are concerned, there is no need of any doctrinal discussion. The principle on which the compilers and revisers of the Scottish Office uniformly acted, was that of bringing it to an exact accordance with Holy Scripture and the usages of the Primitive Church. The consequence of this has been, that this Office in one important point actually excludes the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation more strongly than the English Liturgy. Nothing but the sheerest ignorance, therefore, or the most wilful dishonesty, could ever have got up the objection against our Office for the Eucharist, that it actually contains a dogma, which it thus, in fact, excludes. The fomenters of the cry of " Popery" must, in this instance, certainly have trusted much to the blindness with which many well-meaning persons allow themselves to be carried away by their dread of Roman corruptions; for it is hardly possible to have pitched upon a point where the line is more broadly and distinctly drawn between ourselves and Rome. We, indeed, have no wish to make out a case of disagreement with Rome one degree further than it exists. Rome is not our standard of agree This maintained by Scottish authorities. 25 ment or disagreement any more than England; Rome, England, and Scotland must alike be judged by the rule of Scripture and primitive practice. But, in the matter in question, our Church has solemnly judged that Rome has not kept "what is ancienter and better," that by her dogma of Transubstantiation she has dared to be wise above what is written, and has corrupted the practice and the faith of primitive times. That faith and practice, in the matter of the Eucharist, it was our Church's object to restore, and, in doing so, her Liturgy is a standing protest against the later innovations of Rome. A Confessor of our Church, who was contemporary and familiar with the most recent revisers of the Scottish Office, as we now have it, has well expressed its true import and bearing. The Reverend John Skinner of Longside, writing not long after the last revision, says: "They have put the whole of that solemn Office into such a form, as will be acknowledged by every one who is in the least conversant in antiquity, to be most agreeable to the nature and design of that Divine institution itself, and at the same time best adapted both to fence against the novel doctrine of Transubstantiation, and to silence any idle clamours which ignorance and prejudice had raised, or might raise, about our inclining to Popery." To the same effect has been the testimony of the most revered names in the Church, and of those who have been most devotedly attached to the Scottish Office. It is thus, for instance, that Bishop Jolly speaks in presence of the Church, assembled in convocation at Laurencekirk, on the 24th of October, 1804-" Our belief is diametrically opposite to the corrupt sacrifice of the Mass, which, with all other errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome, none more heartily renounce and detest than we in Scotland do, with safety always to those truly Catholic primitive doctrines and practices, whereof these errors and novelties are the corruptions."3 And, again, the same holy Bishop, who constantly refers to the Romish definition as "an astonishing error," speaking more expressly of our National Liturgy, which, as a witness for Catholic truth, he prized so highly, says " Agree 1 The rule of the English Church on this head is clearly expressed in the Homilies: "But before all things, this we must be sure of especially, that this Supper be on such wise done and ministered, as our Lord and Saviour did, and commanded to be done; as His holy Apostles used it; and the good Fathers in the primitive Church frequented it." Homily of the worthy receiving and reverent esteeming of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, part i. 2 Skinner's Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, vol. ii., p. 682. 3 Skinner's Annals of Scottish Episcopacy. Appendix, p. 548. D 26 Anglican Office nearer the Roman than ours is. ably to this (the order of all the ancient Liturgies), in the Office for Scotland, as now used, the Invocation is removed from the beginning to its place in the end of the consecration prayer, where it stands as an insuperable bar against the misconstruction of our Saviour's words by the Church of Rome--a guard against Transubstantiation on the one hand, and the opinion of a bare empty figure on the other." "Thus placed, the prayer tended to preclude the most distant idea of Transubstantiation." This is the way in which those who have the best title, from knowledge and authority, speak of the doctrine of the holy Sacrament, as expressed in our Church's office for its ministration. This is their solemn testimony, uttered in the face of the Church and of the world. And it is needless to direct more particular attention to the ignorance or the dishonesty of the men, who, in the face of such witness, and after having themselves subscribed their assent to the Office in question, as the primary and peculiar Liturgy of the Church, now turn round and would have us to regard it as of a Popish character. We have already we fear, perhaps, too closely touched on the question of doctrine; but before passing on, we may, as a matter of fact, observe, that the Scottish Office is agreeable to almost all the ancient Liturgies, having been framed upon their model, and designed to embody the primitive doctrine and practice;—and it differs from the more modern Offices just in so far as these have deviated from the pure usages of the early Church. Thus, in retaining the oblation of the elements, it differs from the Anglican, which alone, of all extant Liturgies, has it not in any direct form. Thus also the Anglican and Roman Liturgies agree in differing from the ancient Offices, as the former alone want an express prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit.3 Those who condemn the Scottish Office must, in short, along with it condemn the whole primitive Church. And, we put it to reasonable people, whether it be possible to do 1 Bishop Jolly on the Eucharist, p. 271. 2 "No expression can be more just than this, that in our present Office the Prayer of Oblation is both displaced and mangled; and the great truth is hidden, as though we feared to speak it." Maskell's Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England. Preface, p. lxx. "Not only in the Roman Canon, the form used here before the Reformation, but also in the first reformed Liturgy of King Edward VI. there was such an Oblation immediately following the words of institution, as in all the Ancient Liturgies of the Christian Church." Brett's Collection of the Principal Liturgies used in the Christian Church in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist: Dissertation, p. 218. (Ed. 1838.) 3 Brett's Collection of Liturgies: Dissertation, p. 247. Scottish Liturgy almost identical with that of Edward VI. 27 the work of Rome more effectually, than by falsely representing her novel and comparatively recent opinion as to the holy Eucharist, as existing in the Liturgies of the primitive Church. So far as agreement with Rome is concerned, it is a fact that the English Office agrees in more particulars with the Canon of the Mass than the Scottish or any other existing Liturgy. We say not this to excite prejudice against the English Office; we believe that it contains the necessary essentials to a valid consecration of the Holy Eucharist;1 but we are bound, in self-defence, to show how ignorant are the cavils with which restless and self-willed men, pretending to fall back on English authority, have sought to assail our Church. The English Office "makes the consecration consist in those mystic words of Christ, upon the recital of which, according to the teaching of the Roman doctors, the transubstantiation is effected. There is nothing in the mere wording of the English Service which absolutely precludes a belief of the Roman tenet ; a man holding that doctrine might conform to the ritual so far as it goes, but it would be impossible for him to reconcile his belief with the use of the Scottish Office, because it requires him, after the change has taken place in the elements, according to the Roman teaching, to pray for the descent of the Holy Ghost, that they may become,' &c., which no believer in transubstantiation could think of without horror, so that the very form of expression which has been thought essentially Romish is an insuperable barrier to Romanism." 2 It is to be further noticed, that the Scottish Office is almost identical with the Eucharistical service in the first Book of Common Prayer, authorised for the use of the English Church in the reign of Edward VI., and that there is no objection which can be urged against the one which may not at least be as validly made against the other. It is unnecessary to say anything of the history of that Book. Cranmer, Ridley, and the other eminent divines engaged in framing it, have been hitherto supposed the most unlikely persons to favour Romish doctrine. John Foxe, adopting the language of the Statute authorising it, says that it was adopted by the English 1 "That these are disjointed, misplaced, obscured, is matter for serious exertions to be employed upon, that they may be restored to a due order, and a more evident existence ... Whilst we regret what we have lost, let us acknowledge in deep humility the correcting hand which has spared us what none will dare to say, we have deserved." Maskell's Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England. Preface, p. lxxii. 2 The Authority and Use of the Scottish Communion Office Vindicated. By the Rev. P. Cheyne. P. 16. |