Mr. Chambers. The anticipatory character of the Western rite 'presents as much difficulty to ignorant persons, as the reitera'tive or retrospective character of the Eastern.' Let us at once conceive that if, in the Scotch Liturgy, the Great Change took place, as it does in the Roman and Anglican, immediately after the words of Institution, the sooner the Invocation were dropped, the better. No possible theory of repetition can reconcile any earnest man to the prayer that they may become the Body and Blood of Thy dearly beloved SoN,' if he believes the most Holy Mysteries to be That Body and That Blood already. And it is a most ignorant objection, which raises a difficulty that, in one form, the mysterious change occurs in one part of the prayer, in the other in another. Take the case of the other Great Sacrament. In that we know that single affusion and trine affusion are equally valid. In single affusion, as soon as ever the water has been poured over the child's head once, that child is regenerate. But imagine, what is imaginable, that after the first affusion, when trine affusion was intended, the Priest fell down dead; the child would certainly not be regeneIn that Sacrament then, the regeneration of the child comes in a different part of the service, as one or another form is employed; and just so, mutatis mutandis, with the Holy Eucharist.

It is this very change which some people now wish to make, and which Mr. Freeman appears to consider the original form of all Liturgies, which has been made by Rome in her revised editions of Eastern Liturgies. In the Synod of Diamper, Archbishop Menezes transposed the order of Institution and the Invocation; so, in the present Uniat Armenian Liturgy. But, then, the best Roman ritualists, and notably, Rénaudot, and also one who, perhaps, has hardly ever received his just reputation, Sala, have always indignantly protested against the transposition.

But it is now time to turn our attention to the alterations which have been proposed, and which will probably be laid before the General Synod of Scotland.

Now, at the outset, let us observe that there is a strong à priori argument against any alteration at all. The Office, as it now stands, is the heritage of the Church of Scotland-comes down as a memorial of the times of persecution; has been repeated by men, like Rattray, Falconar, Petrie and Jollymen of whom the world was not worthy. It has also been acquiesced in by the Anglicising congregations, whose apprehension of Eucharistic doctrine is, generally speaking, so lamentably low. But the latter would find the being called on to authorize a new formula a very different thing from the

tolerating an ancient one. By such a toleration they only allow others to use an office, which they themselves do not like; if they take a share in putting forth a new form, they make themselves actively responsible for it. So that, on its lowest ground-that of not giving offence-the status quo, we think, is best. Mr. Comper says, very well:

'It is probable that all those who are contending for the retention of the Office to such congregations as desire to use it would have no difficulty in agreeing to the two alterations which that eminent ritualist suggests; but it is far more than probable, in the state of belief and feeling on the Eucharistic Mystery which at present prevails, that if once the fingers of Revision were laid on the Office, alterations of a very different character would be the result. The strong feeling against revision which pervades the upholders of the Office is grounded on the same basis as that which, I believe, underlies the feeling of very many English Churchmen against a revision of the Prayer-book; which is, not that the book is unimprovable, but that any alterations made at this time would be certainly for the worse. And besides, the very raising of the question is to be deprecated as one which complicates our difficulties and increases the occasions of dissension.

'The Bishop of St. Andrews, who is the most eminent of the few who among ourselves advocate the revision of the Office, has plainly indicated the direction in which he would revise it. Mr. Keble, in the current number of the Guardian, refers in very forcible words to this direction. Such a change would have no other effect than to lower the teaching of the Office. The present text imperatively demands the belief of an objective Presence; the proposed change, or any of a similar nature, would, to say the least, be equally patient of a subjective sense. In truth, the adoption by the Scottish Church, at this crisis, of any such change would be regarded as no other than an authorized recognition of that Eucharistic opinion with which during our late controversy we have become so familiar, under the name of "Virtualism," against which no one has written more vigorously than Mr. Freeman himself in his Introduction to the Second Volume of "Principles of Divine Service."

'I am sure, therefore, that I am only echoing the universal feeling of the maintainers of our Liturgical Office, when I express a strong hope that our friends in England, who equally with ourselves desire its preservation, will forbear pressing, at the present time, the question of revision.'

Having said thus much, let us proceed to specify the proposed alterations. And, first, it would be convenient that our readers should have the present formula before their eyes. Thus, then, it runs :

'And we most humbly beseech Thee, O merciful FATHER, to hear us; and of Thy almighty goodness vouchsafe to bless and sanctify with Thy word and HOLY SPIRIT these Thy gifts and creatures of Bread and Wine, that they may become the Body and Blood of Thy most dearly beloved SoN.'

Now, let us hear Mr. Freeman's objection to this formula: we need not say that this is not the place to protest against the one parenthesis of the quotation:

'In recurring to the East for the formula in which consecration is prayed for, the revisers grievously curtailed that which they professed to

imitate. In every Eastern Liturgy, as well as in the Western, the prayer for that mysterious operation, however variously worded otherwise, is accompanied by a clause or a word, defining and declaring to what purpose -viz. that of spiritual use-the consecrating change is desired. The West has its "fiat nobis ; the East (as e.g. S. James), "that they may be to us (or to those who partake of them) for remission, sanctification," &c. Now, this determining clause, so universal, and therefore above cavil, and so corrective of any gross conceptions (let me add, in all earnest warning, of any idea that we seek herein to have an object provided for our worship), this clause, I say, the Scotch Office leaves out, or places in a totally different position. It is not therefore, quoad hoc, a faithful witness to ancient or Oriental Eucharistic expression. It has, most unhappily, departed from its own earlier language, and from the usage of the whole world. Surely no one who seeks her peace, or, however, her perfection, can have any anxiety that the Scotch Church should retain this undoubtedly most faulty formula, though, of course, it can be used in the sense of antiquity.

'I will add that there is little reason, if any, for doubting that those very faults have been the ruin of the Scotch Office. The abrupt prayer, standing without a single qualifying clause, and unexampled in any liturgy, that the elements "may become the Body and Blood of Christ," has, not without reason, largely repelled the English mind, and to a great degree the Scotch also. The presence of the qualifying clause might have saved her (though I speak from no authority) the heavy blow and discouragement of the Bishop of Oxford's discountenance in Convocation. And as to the position of the Invocation, I know that it is felt to be an uncomfortable element in the rite, even by some of its staunchest defenders as a whole.'

It is, undoubtedly, to a certain extent, true that, in most of the Oriental Liturgies, the object is specified for which it is prayed, that the Bread and Wine may become our LORD'S Body and Blood. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that, in Š. Chrysostom, this object is separated from its Prayer, not only by certain ceremonies, but by the exclamations of the Deacon, and by that most important addition of the Priest, inserted here, for the first time; changing them by Thy HOLY GHOST.' But Mr. Freeman must surely have overlooked S. Basil's Liturgy, which gives a point-blank contradiction to this assertion. This is the formula; we omit the rubrics, as simply ritual.

'Deacon. Sir, bless the holy Bread.

Priest. [And may make] this Bread, the very precious Body of our LORD, and GOD, and SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST.

'Deacon. Amen. Sir, bless the holy Chalice.

'Priest. And this Chalice, the very precious Blood of our LORD, and GOD, and SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST.

'Deacon. Amen. Sir, bless both.

'Priest. Which was poured forth for the life of the world.1

'Deacon. Amen. Amen. Amen. Remember me, holy sir, a sinner.'

1 In some editions of S. Basil, 'changing them by Thy HOLY GHOST' is here inserted. But Spiridion Zerbus, in the edition of 1851, shows that there is no possible authority for this: and the Pedalion may be consulted in the notes to the Eighteenth Canon of the Council of Laodicea.

And now let us observe: there is not the least dependence in that which follows, as Mr. Freeman asserts of all the Eastern Liturgies, on that which precedes. The conversion of the Bread and Wine is prayed for absolutely. And having united us 'all to each other that have received from the One Bread and the 'One Chalice, into the Communion of the HOLY GHOST.' Here we have clearly the transmutation asked for as a thing by itself, and the benefits to be hoped for in the reception of that which is no longer Bread and Wine, but the Body and Blood of our LORD, petitioned for as a separate thing.

If we went into the many Liturgies of the Jacobite Church, we could give more examples of the same thing, only as that Church is now heretical, (albeit her heresy does not, in the slightest degree, affect the present question,) we are unwilling to bring forward its testimony.

Mr. Chambers says, very well:

:

'Were it true that the formula for consecration was more qualified in S. James's Liturgy than in the Scottish, it might be argued with truth that such qualification, if introduced into the Scottish, would simply add to the subjective tendencies of the Anglican mind, already dangerous enough to the preservation of sacramental doctrine. This spirit of anti-objectivity is only satisfied with the English Office because it does not perceive that it is more objective than the Scottish, owing, as it does, its origin to the Elizabethan desire of conciliating Roman Catholics as much as Calvinists, and in its blind ignorance vents itself in the present crusade against the Scottish Use. Therefore I should maintain that at any rate it would be unduly tampering with the balance as at present held in the Scottish Liturgy to add any such make weight (supposing there were such) as Mr. Freeman would borrow from the Liturgy of S. James. Otherwise there ought at the same time to be transferred from the same source such words as "fearful terrible gifts," "awful and unbloody sacrifice," "the elevation of the gift," the sealing of the bread with the accompanying addresses, to say nothing more. But the fact is that in S. James's Liturgy there is no more qualification of the Consecration clause than in the Scottish Liturgy. In both cases prayers follow the Consecration, but in neither can they be taken for a subjective qualification. And even the Roman "fiat nobis is not adequately represented when it is proposed to us as qualifying the consecration which is not then effected.'

If we proceed to examine the particular alterations which have been proposed, most undoubtedly the first place is due to one who stands at the head, so far as learning is concerned, of the Scotch (we might almost say, of the English,) Church, George Forbes. He has published at that wonderful Pitsligo Press of his-what he calls, The Communion Office, for the use of the Church of Scotland, as far as concerns the ministration of that Holy Sacrament. A New Edition.' The reader will, in the first place, cast his eyes back to the present formula, and will then compare it with this:

.

'And we most humbly beseech Thee, O merciful FATHER, to hear us, and of Thy Almighty goodness vouchsafe to bless and sanctify with Thy HOLY SPIRIT these Thy creatures of Bread and Wine, that they may become the Body and Blood of Thy most dearly beloved SON, for the forgiveness of our sins, for our growth in grace, for the bringing forth of good works, and for obtaining life everlasting?

This is, almost word for word, from the Liturgy of S. James. No one denies its beauty; no one, for a single moment, would question its orthodoxy. Question the orthodoxy of that which is made a little lower-and but a very little lower than the Holy Scriptures themselves! We, at all events, are not likely to err in that way.

Nevertheless, we should be most sorry to see the proposed amendment carried into effect; though undoubtedly by means of it the Scotch Office would be brought, so far as words are concerned, nearer to the Eastern. But we are not to look at words only. In those early ages-as for fifteen hundred years. after such an Invocation was not susceptible of a double meaning. And herein we think that the very boldness of which Mr. Freeman complains reflects the greatest credit on the compilers of the Scotch Office. They were determined that about their meaning there should be no possible mistake. In a sensecertainly not the sense which the writer meant, but still in a sense -the Liturgy of S. James might, so far as the Prayer of Invocation is concerned, be accepted by a Zwinglian. He might pray that the Bread and Wine might become the Body and Blood of our LORD, if he added, for the forgiveness of our sins, for our growth in grace, for the bringing forth of good works, and for obtaining life everlasting;' and he would mean, might virtually and representatively be so received as that all these graces were the result. And we can hardly therefore acquit Mr. Forbes entirely of some little want of ingenuousness in this alteration. It is very easy to say; this formula was in use in the time of the Apostles, and therefore it must be received, and must be better than one drawn up by Gadderar or by Rattray; but new heresies have to be met with new weapons; and just as the Consubstantial and the Theotocos were phrases unknown to the Apostles, because the errors which they deny had not as yet infected the Church, so, as most certainly in Apostolic times, the heresy had not arisen that This is My Body' meant This is not My Body,' a later formula may serve the Church's turn better at the present moment than one of Apostolic origin. And, singularly enough, the Scotch Church has done the same thing in another instance. Every one knows how rampant Arianism was, both in the English Church and in the Scotch Establishment, during the last century. As a protest against that, the Scotch