reformers "after most godly and learned conferences, through the aid of the Holy Ghost, with one uniform agreement." And the very Act of Parliament which ratified the second Book, declares that the former one is 66 a very godly order of 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."

When we said that the allegations of Popish doctrine against the Scottish Communion Office were as old as the times of the English Schism in Scotland, we might have gone a great deal farther. That Office was a revision of the Eucharistical Service in the Scottish Liturgy of 1637, which again was framed on the model of the First Book of King Edward, just referred to, and of the primitive Liturgies; and the allegations in question are the mere echoes of the cavils of the Scottish Covenanters, who rejected alike the order of Common Prayer and the Church herself in the persons of her Bishops.2 The Scottish Office, however, is not alone in having been subjected to such imputations. The English Prayer Book has in like manner been objected to on the same ground. The Brownists refused to join in the Communion of the Church of England, because, among other things, the Members of that Church, as they said, were "tied in their prayers," and because the Communion Office involved "the error of transubstantiation, or some other the like idolatrous conceit."3 Like Mr. Drummond and his friends, they dared not exactly to affirm that "the doctrine of transubstantiation" was there-but they were quite sure there was "some other the like idolatrous conceit;" or, to use the unique language of the modern Schismatics, "a doctrine of transubstantiation." Of course, we do not refer to these things, as being in themselves any proof of the truth or falsehood of the position of the modern separatists. But surely if any one is inclined to be moved by the objections made against our Scottish Communion Office, has he not much greater reason to be startled by the same objections made, almost in the same terms, against

1 Foxe's Acts and Monuments, p. 641. (Seymour's ed.)

2 See the animadversions of the Scottish Covenanters, very fully set forth in Gordon's History of Scots Affairs, vol. i., pp. 71, 73-78. (Spalding Club ed.) There is a wonderful coincidence, both in language and in sentiment, between the old objectors and their modern copyists.

3 Bishop Hall's Common Apologie of the Church of England against the unjust challenges of the over-just sect commonly called Brownists. Lond. 1617. Works, pp. 625, 626.

Doctrine of Scottish Office binding, whether used or not. 29

the English Office, which in certain respects much more closely resembles the canon of the Mass ?

We apprehend that, in the preceding observations, we shall be thought by Churchmen to have dwelt too long on an unworthy cavil, so obviously got up with the design of exciting causeless prejudice; and, indeed, to have had the appearance of assuming an apologetic tone. Nothing is farther from our meaning than the indulgence of such a tone, either of thought or of expression.. We should be but unworthy sons of the Church, and lamentably ignorant of our own individual privileges and responsibilities as Scottish Churchmen, if we could for a moment dream of apologising for that which is our noblest inheritance, and which ought to be prized by us as our peculiar privilege. It were besides a false and short-sighted policy in any way to assume such an atti. tude. All history and experience teach that cavils and objections like those alluded to, have never been silenced or satisfied by the doubtful tone of compromise, even in matters, to a certain degree, indifferent ;-on the contrary, that, in proportion to the concessions made, the more has been demanded. The bold and straightforward course, besides being the more honest and manly one, has ever in the long run proved the safer. But in a matter where truth is at stake, how can there be any alternative? It must, however, be confessed, that there has been among us too great a wish to obviate objections by representing our National Liturgy as something so little in use that it is now hardly to be thought of and by proclaiming that the English Communion Office has almost universally obtained possession. Even were the fact correct to the extent apparently implied in such modes of expression, it is no answer to objections; while the suggestion of such a consideration in the way intended, must, we fear, be held to imply on our part a very unworthy estimate of our privileges and responsibilities. Whatever may be the extent to which the use of the English Office has grown, still it is impossible to reverse the fact that the Scottish Office is the proper and peculiar Liturgy of the Church, and that the use of the other was, and is, merely permissive. It is equally wide of the purpose to say that certain individuals may not be called upon to participate in the use of the Scottish Rite. That does not affect the general question at all. For not only clergymen, but laymen, are bound by the Scottish Office, whether individually they use it or not. If it is heretical, or insufficient for the con

30 Scottish Office the Authorised Service of the Church.

secration of the Holy Sacrament, every member of the Church must leave her communion; but, if it is neither heretical nor insufficient, then to do so, from dissatisfaction with it, is apostacy.

We have of late been too much accustomed to overlook the relative position of the two offices-that the one is the authorised and proper National Office of the Church, while the other has been merely tolerated. The Canons declare that the Church of this country, availing herself of the rights inherent not only in the Church in general, but in every particular or national Church, to regulate its own ceremonies and rites, "hath long adopted and very generally used a form for the celebration of the Holy Communion known by the name of the Scotch Communion Office, which form hath been justly considered, and is hereby considered, as the authorised service of the Episcopal Church in the administration of that sacrament." The Church, therefore, in the first place, asserts her right as an independent national Church, to decree her own ceremonies and rites in the same manner, for instance, as the English Church has done ;2 and, secondly, in virtue of this her undoubted prerogative, she sanctions and appoints that Office which prescriptive usage had already authorised. Nothing can be more conclusive than the argument in favour of the traditional authority of our National Office derived from its history, and were this point a little more attended to, it would obviate a great deal of vagueness and misrepresentation both in speaking and in writing. Upon this argument, however, we do not intend to enter. It has already been treated in a manner which leaves nothing to be desired, in addition to the full and unanswerable statement which the work alluded to contains.3

1 Canon XXI.

2 "The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies."—Article xx. "It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word. Whosoever through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly (that others may fear to do the like), as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren. Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.”— Article XXXIV.

3 The Authority and Use of the Scottish Communion Office Vindicated. By the Rev. P. Cheyne, Incumbent of St. John's Chapel, Aberdeen. 1843.

And to be used in all New Congregations.

31

The Scottish Communion Office, then, is, by the public law of the Church, its authorised Service. Let us now observe the position of the English Office, which the same Canon as clearly and unequivocally points out. It goes on:-" And as, in order to promote an union among all those who profess to be of the Episcopal persuasion in Scotland, permission was formerly granted by the Bishops to retain the use of the English Office in all congregations where the said Office had been formerly in use, the same permission is now ratified and confirmed. And it is also enacted, that in the use of either the Scotch or English Office no amalgamation, alteration, or interpolation whatever shall take place, nor shall any substitution of the one for the other be admitted, unless it be approved by the Bishop." And the Canon proceeds, by way of contrast to this limited permission:-" From respect, however, for the authority which originally sanctioned the Scotch Liturgy, and for other sufficient reasons, it is hereby enacted, that the Scotch Communion Office continue to be held of primary authority in this Church, and that it shall be used not only in all consecrations of Bishops, but also at the opening of all General Synods." The law of the Church, therefore, on this subject, is most express. The English Office is allowed in certain specified cases, and no Bishop, nor all the Bishops together, can permit its use to a greater extent than the Canons allow, that is, its continued use in those congregations which had been accustomed to it previously to their joining the Church; or in those in which it has been substituted for the National Office, under the approbation of the Bishop, as provided by the Canon. In all other cases the Scottish Office must be used, and whenever a newly constituted congregation is admitted into the Church, it is the evident meaning of the Canons that the authorised Office comes at once into use. There is, in this instance, no room for the individual predilections of either clergyman or congregation, and, therefore, any application to the Ordinary to sanction what, if neglected, he ought to enforce, is at once irregular and superfluous. In truth, it was justly regarded as a great concession, on the part of the Church, in favour of the congregations under English clergymen officiating in Scotland, apart from her communion, to yield to them, on their reconciliation, the continued use of the English Office. Certainly the Church had no intention, in so doing, to derogate from the authority and claims of her own ritual; and the clergymen of English orders who then joined the Church, came under an obligation, as clearly implied, to do nothing to its prejudice. This obligation continues binding in duty

32

Address of the Clergy of Aberdeen to their Bishop.

on all clergymen of English ordination, or ministering in congregations allowed the use of the English rite. Let all such seriously consider the history of the admission of the so-called English congregations into the Church, and then put it to their consciences, whether they can lawfully use the powers with which their true Mother, in her loving confidence, entrusted them,-in opposing her wishes: -whether they, at least, whatever others may do, are not called upon to decline any active measures for depriving her of her holiest service, and taking away from their brethren their dear-earned birthright and most cherished blessing.

But on every hand, the question is asked, why, notwithstanding all this, maintain two Offices, when it is admitted that the English Office is sufficient, while that of Scotland has been made the pretext for contention and division? Would it not be for peace and quiet, and put to silence all clamour, if in this respect we at once followed the English use? If we were about, for the first time, to settle the question, this argument might be urged plausibly enough, although even then, as we think, without any real force; but the question now is, shall we maintain the testimony of our fathers, or shall we recede from their position? As it now rests, the question is one of doctrine not of expediency-and we cannot yield without giving up at the same time those primitive, catholic, and scriptural truths for which they contended, and which they have handed on to our keeping. We cannot place this in a better light than has been done by the Clergy of Aberdeen in an Address presented by them to their Bishop, the Primus of the Church, in January, 1844. They say that although more than one of them had availed themselves "from various circumstances of the permission granted by Canon XXI., and administer according to the usage of England, yet they cordially unite with their brethren who use the National Office, in expressing their decided conviction of the superiority of that Office, inasmuch as therein the great Eucharistic doctrines of the real presence and a commemorative sacrifice are more fully developed, and by which its identity with the Divine model appointed by our Lord in Holy Scripture, is clearly evinced. These characteristics of the Scottish Office have commanded for it the approbation of all ritualists of orthodox and patristic principles; and therefore we prize it, not only as a mark of the integral as well as independent character of the Scottish branch of the Church Catholic, but also as a rich inheritance handed down to us by our fathers in the faith, and therefore to be by us faithfully transmitted to our children and those who come after us.