Church actually altered the Gloria in Excelsis, so as to make its first paragraph bear witness against the evil then most dangerously threatening the country. She now retains what she then instituted; and it runs, as all the world knows, thus:

'We give thanks to Thee for Thy great glory, O LORD GOD, Heavenly King, GOD, the FATHER Almighty, and to Thee, O GOD, the Only-Begotten SON, JESUS CHRIST, and to Thee, O GOD, the HOLY GHOST.'

This form is found in the edition of 1764, but the first alteration of any kind is in that of 1755: O LORD GOD, heavenly King, LORD, the FATHER Almighty, and HOLY GHOST.'1

Independently, therefore, of our strong objection to any alteration, we object to this particular one as bad in itself, and intended to allow one man to take the petition in the Catholic sense, while opening the door to another to receive it with a Zwinglian twist. The plain, outspoken present formula cannot be improved.

The next change, though it comes with no less authority than Mr. Keble's, is open to the same objection: though we are quite certain that it was one which, when he proposed it, had not occurred to the author of the Christian Year,' and that he simply wished to use the primitive word rather than a late form:

'I speak with great diffidence, feeling that possibly I am not in possession of the whole case; but might there not be yet another alternative-to retain the present Office in the equitable way approved, I understand, in some of the dioceses, with a change, however, that will render it not less but more like the old Eastern Liturgies; as thus: instead of reading, "That they may become His Body and Blood," to read, "That He (the Holy Ghost) may hallow and make this bread the holy Body of Thy Christ, and this cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ, that they may be to those who partake of them," &c. (as in S. James's Liturgy.)'

And worst of all is that which seems to find favour in the eyes of the Bishop of S. Andrew's; 'that they may become to us the Body and Blood of Thy SON.' If this were really adopted, the Office would be no longer worth fighting for.

With respect to Mr. Forbes's other alterations a word or two may be said. Undoubtedly, in itself, the constant reference to the deacon in those parts which ought to be said by one, if he be present, is an improvement; as it is also, at the conclusion of the Invocation, to find this rubric: Then shall the Deacon say, Again let us pray for the whole state of CHRIST's Church.' In the Comfortable Words there is a somewhat singular addition; which, however, seems quite destitute of any kind of

1 We may remark by the way that the original typographical error, by which the English Church thrice repeats, 'Thou that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us,' (which, however, perhaps from association, is to us not without its beauty,) is corrected.

authority. After Should not perish, but have everlasting life,' the Office proceeds: From Advent to the Eve of Ascension he shall add, Hear also what S. Paul saith, &c. From Ascension Day to Advent, he shall add, Hear also what S. John saith, &c.' This is, of course, intended to bring out the contrast of our LORD's two Offices as the One Victim once offered, and the Eternal High Priest; and we have no doubt that Mr. Forbes thought it a highly ingenious Edition. But we very much doubt whether in any Liturgical books, such a division of the Church's year could be pointed out. In the rubric that follows the Collect of Humble Access (and by the way we wonder that a first-rate Liturgical scholar like Mr. Forbes should so misapply the word Collect), he has fallen into the grave errorwhich does not occur in the present Office-of speaking of our LORD's Body as the Bread. Add to which, that the direction itself would, for a large congregation, be impossible, and for any, most irreverent. Then shall he that celebrates, break the bread into as many pieces as shall be required.' It proceeds to direct the officiating Priest in receiving, to say, 'The Body of CHRIST. Amen.' And 'The Blood of CHRIST. Amen.' If anything is to be then said aloud, nothing can be so appropriate as this: but why deviate from the once universal rule of receiving in silence? The rubric seems, as does that of the present Office, to direct the Priest to kneel.

But it strikes us as very singular that this amended Edition of Mr. Forbes's, begins, as all the wee bookies' do, with the Exhortation. Surely, when the national Synod comes to authorize, or rather to re-authorize the national Office, it will put forth an authoritative commencement and table of Epistles and Gospels. We know one instance, at least, where the Priest, a most determined opponent of the Anglican rite, always commenced at the Exhortation, and asserted that the Scotch Church gave him no power to do otherwise. And we do trust that the Commandments will not be prefixed to the proposed Liturgy. There can be, we suppose, no doubt that the original insertion of them was only occasioned by the desire of protecting against 'idolatry.' The Non-juror Office does not even leave the use of the Commandments optional: Bishop Torry's does. The former, in the Preface to that Office, speaks thus:

"The Priest, pronouncing the Ten Commandments, with the people's answer to each, are omitted for the reasons following: First, the putting the Ten Commandments in the Communion Office was not done by our first English Reformers, and is altogether modern and unprecedented. Secondly, our duty to GOD and our neighbours, comprised in the Ten Commandments, is comprehensively explained in the Church Catechism. The people, therefore, need only apply to this instruction: and thus they will have a fuller notion for practice than can be obtained by the bare repetition of the Decalogue. Thirdly, the keeping the Sabbath-day holy is a

part of the Mosaic institution, points upon Saturday, and is peculiar to the Jewish dispensation. Since, therefore, the Fourth Commandment looks somewhat foreign to the Christian religion, since it could not well have been singly omitted, it is thought fit to waive repeating the rest.'

But this must be remembered, that by the National Synod of Aberdeen in 1788, it was distinctly ordered, that in the Scotch Communion Office, the reigning monarch should be prayed for only once; unless therefore, that Canon is repealed (and there can be no possible reason why it should be), the Collect for the Queen, which immediately follows the repetition of the Decalogue, must of necessity be omitted; since she is prayed for by name in the Prayer for the Whole State of CHRIST's Church.

We have already said how much we trust that no alteration whatever will be made in the Office except, what can hardly be called one, the affixing its commencement. But, surely, if changes are determined on, one side has as good a right to speak as the other. How much better in that case to put the Gloria in Excelsis in its proper place (it is inconceivable to us what could have induced the compilers of the Prayer-Book to have removed it to the end), and to authorize the rubrics of Edward VI.'s first book, which are, perhaps, on the whole, as good as could be chosen. Then nothing would be more easy than to add a Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, for some of those occasions in which we are now so sadly at a loss for them: as for a Harvest Festival, the Dedication of a Church, the Anniversary of its Dedication, the Feast of a Patron Saint, besides what every earnest Priest must so much wish for, Collects, at least, if nothing further, for those who are travelling, or sick, or dying, or in any necessity.' And why should there not, in that case, be a proper Preface for Epiphany, during Lent, for Apostles, and the like? It is remarkable that in one edition of the Scotch Office a proper Preface was authorized for every Sunday, based on that for Easter-Day. This, however, was a mistake; because, if any such was allowed, it ought to be the Trinity Preface, as in the Roman Church. Before concluding this passage or subject, it would be as well to recapitulate what we said a year ago as to that comparative employment of the English and Scotch Liturgies, tabulating it according to the different Dioceses:

And it is to be observed that wherever the English prevails most, there the weekly celebration is most rare.

We have dwelt so lately on Scotch affairs, that we will limit our present remarks to what has already been said, only adding that Professor Bobroffnitsky's book is the more valuable, because Kieff has always been the chief battle-ground of the two Churches. We give two quotations: one, on the Invocation; the other, the concluding remarks:

'Bergier supposes that the opinion of the Host being consecrated by the words of Jesus Christ arose in the 14th century, and was finally received in the 15th. In fact, until then there were no disputes or discussions on this subject between the Eastern and Western writers. The arguments on which this opinion rested were, partly, some passages of Tertullian and Ambrose; partly the dogmatical consideration of its being more proper to believe the consecration of the Host to take place by Divine words than by the prayer of the priest. But the above-mentioned passages of Tertullian and Ambrose do not in the least favour the doctrine of the Western Church; and, besides, those very same fathers, in other parts of their works, show plainly enough that the consecration of the Host takes place through the thanksgiving and prayers in which the Holy Ghost is invoked. With regard to the different dogmatical considerations, we must notice that Jesus Christ Himself gave His apostles and their successors the right and power to celebrate the most holy sacrament of His body and blood, in His commandment--"Do this in my remembrance."

'Such is the origin of the differences essentially dividing our liturgy from that of the Church of Rome! Such are the arguments used by the Western Church in justification of her innovation! The late appearance of these differences-the triviality, we may say, of the causes which led to their appearance and retention in the Western Church-show plainly enough how utterly void they are of any foundation. How is it, then, that the Church of Rome retains these innovations! Is she ignorant that she is acting most unjustly in this case? ... We do not take upon ourselves to answer these questions; suffice it for us to say that, in celebrating the holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, she has, in many respects, deviated from the purity and orthodoxy of the Holy, Ecumenical and Apostolic Church, intermixing human invention in the work of God. We render thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ, who has deigned to make us participators of His holy sacrament in the bosom of the holy, orthodox Church of the East-deigned to let us hear the holy liturgy handed down to us by the unstained hands of S. Basil and S. Chrysostom-in our native tongue! May He pour down His light upon those of our brethren who, from ignorance or stubbornness of heart, or the counsel of the enemy, alienate themselves from the communion with the orthodox Church, so that they henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men!' (Eph. iv. 14.)

P.S.-The Union Chrétienne of December 28 contains a remarkable article on the above subject, which, though not entirely agreeing with it, we here reproduce:-

DE LA LITURGIE ECOSSAISE.

'On s'occupe beaucoup pour le moment, en Angleterre, de la question liturgique. Les évêques de la Grande-Bretagne engagent ceux d'Ecosse à abandonner une liturgie qu'ils possèdent depuis deux siècles, et à adopter le Prayer Book, purement et simplement. Le motif qu'ils mettent en avant est l'unité, ils voudraient que l'Eglise du royaume-uni, fût liée par des liens plus étroits.

'La liturgie écossaise a des défenseurs zélés qui affirment que les diversités liturgiques entre les Eglises ne nuisent point à l'unité; que l'on a tort de confondre, comme on le fait à Rome, l'unité avec l'uniformité; que la liturgie écossaise est préférable à la liturgie anglicane, parce que, dans les points sur lesquels elle diffère avec cette dernière, elle est plus conforme aux anciennes liturgies de l'Orient.

'Nous n'avons point à intervenir dans une discussion de ce genre, et les évêques d'Angleterre et d'Ecosse sont plus à même que nous de la connaître et de la résoudre d'une manière convenable. Qu'il nous soit permis cependant de dire que les diversités liturgiques sont plus conformes à la véritable unité que l'uniformité des rites. On le comprit dès l'origine des Eglises. Aussi voyonsnous les différentes Eglises jouir, dans les premiers siècles, de liturgies diverses. Jérusalem n'avait pas la même qu'Alexandrie, qui différait elle-même avec Rome. Césarée eut aussi la sienne, qui fut modifiée et abrégée par Constantinople. On possède encore une partie de ces vénérables liturgies qui, diverses dans la forme, sont unies dans la Foi, et qui fournissent ainsi un des arguments les plus décisifs en faveur de la catholicité de la croyance. Or, l'unité consiste dans la foie une et universelle. La preuve de cette unité catholique résultant surtout de la diversité des formes liturgiques, c'est pour cela que nous disons que cette diversité est plus utile à l'unité que cette uniformité que l'on confond à tort avec elle.

Autant la primitive Eglise tenait à l'unité de foi dans les choses révélées, autant elle tenait à la diversité dans les institutions humaines et purement disciplinaires. Nous rappellerons à ce sujet l'enseignement de quelques-uns des Pères de l'Eglise.

'Saint Jérôme, répondant à Licinius, qui lui avait demandé s'il fallait jeûner le samedi, et si l'on devait recevoir tous les jours l'Eucharistie suivant la pratique de l'Eglise romaine et des Eglises d'Espagne, se contente de lui dire qu'il faut observer les traditions ecclésiastiques qui ne nuisent point à la foi, comme on les a reçues de ses pères; que la coutume des uns ne détruit pas la coutume contraire des autres; que chaque province doit suivre son usage, et considérer les ordonnances de ses ancêtres comme des lois apostoliques.

Saint Augustin, répondant au prêtre Cassianus, qui l'avait interrogé s'il était permis de jeûner le jour du sabbat, soutient que dans les choses touchant lesquelles les saintes Ecritures n'établissent rien de certain, la coutume du peuple de Dieu et les règlemens de nos ancêtres doivent tenir lieu de loi.

Après avoir établi ce principe, le saint docteur réfute la dissertation du prêtre de Rome touchant le jeûne du sabbat, et le blâme fort de ce qu'en voulant défendre l'usage de l'Eglise romaine, il n'a pas craint de déchirer presque toute l'Eglise par des paroles très-injurieuses. Il répond ensuite aux convenances que ce prêtre avait alléguées pour justifier le jeûne du samedi ; puis il ajoute: "Puisque nous ne trouvons pas clairement, comme je l'ai déjà remarqué, qu'il y ait dans les évangiles, ni dans les actes des apôtres, des jours commandés pour le jeûne, cette chose doit être comme plusieurs autres, dont il serait difficile de faire l'énumération, et être mise du nombre des variétés qui se trouvent dans le vêtement de la fille du roi, c'est à-dire, de l'Eglise je vais à ce sujet vous apprendre ce que le vénérable Ambroise, évêque de Milan,