cite may have that very signification which you desire. I saw the dead bodies of those beheaded, and they lived and reigned.'

"Once more, if Scott's principle were true, that this resurrection is the rising of persons of like spirit with the martyrs, it will be evident that it could not be said with truth, This is the first resurrection.' It might with as much truth have been said, this is the fifth, or tenth resurrection. Have not men of spirits like the martyrs of St John's day arisen in intermediate ages? Were there none among the Waldenses? None in the days of the Reformation? The principle, therefore, cannot be just, for it leads to absurdity." Pp. 395–398.

But we must positively affirm that if this chapter is looked at in connection with the rest of the book, 'the souls of those beheaded' will be found to be an acknowledged symbol. Undoubtedly they are the same as were seen under the altar, slain for the word of God and for the testimony that they held,' along with their brethren also, who, during the reign of Antichrist, were slain as they were, (ch. vi. 9,11.) Whatever interpretation is put upon the passage now quoted, must, in consisteney, be extended also to the 20th chapter. They were then waiting for their reward; they now receive it. To go on with our exposition. In the 5th verse it is positively asserted that this is the first resurrection. This is one of those explanatory notes which throughout the whole book are from time to time inserted to assist us to understand the prophecy. Then follows a prediction of the events consequent on the loosing of Satan. This appears also to be literal, for the apostle drops the symbolic term, 'the dragon,' and speaks of Satan' and the devil. The chapter closes with the general judgment, the description of which appears to be symbolical. The great white throne and Him that sat on it; the fleeing away of earth and heaven;-the opening of the books;-the personification of the sea, and death, and hades, are all parts of an emblematic description which conveys to us, more powerfully perhaps than any literal account could have done, the solemnities of that awful day. On this subject, however, we cannot farther dilate. Our object has been to show that a symbolic interpretation of nearly the whole Apocalypse, is the most reasonable, and that it does not give any countenance to that figurative rendering by which some would explain away all that Scripture tells us of those times of refreshing of which all the holy prophets have spoken since the world began.

There is in the work before us a vast deal of interesting matter not very systematically arranged: many striking observations mingled with many unsubstantial theories, and much loose assertion. We cannot recommend it as a guide to those who have never formed any opinion of their own. The fundamental principle of the work is, as we think we have shown, erroneous. Yet we have read it with pleasure, and confess that we have derived from it some useful suggestions, and a good deal of valuable information.

ART. III.-The Communion Office for the Use of the Church of Scotland, as far as concerneth the Ministration of that Sacrament. Aberdeen: Chalmers & Co. 1835.

The Scottish Communion Office Examined, and Proved to be Repugnant to Scripture, &c. By the Rev. D. T. K. DRUMMOND. Edinburgh: Lindsay & Co. London: Seeley & Burnside. 1842.

On the Important Discrepancy between the Church of England and the Scottish Episcopal Community, &c., on the Scottish Communion Office of 1765. By the Rev. EDWARD CRAIG, A.M. Oxon. Edinburgh, 1842. And Supplement to do., by do. Edinburgh, 1843.

The Episcopal Church in Scotland.

Extracted from the 'Churchman's Monthly Review,' for January 1843. (This paper is understood to be from the pen of the Rev. EDWARD BICKERSTETH.)

A Letter to some of the Members of the Vestry of St John's Chapel, in reference to the Scottish Communion Office. By the Rev. DANIEL BAGOT, Minister of that Chapel. Edinburgh: Johnstone. 1842.

The Scottish Prelatic Communion Office has of late attracted considerable notice. Nor is this to be wondered at. Indeed, the wonder is that it should have been hitherto so little known. That office, as we purpose to show, contains the very grossest errors of Popery; and yet, until within these few months past, no one seems to have been either aware of its existence, or, at all events, acquainted with its contents, or, at least, inclined to communicate that knowledge to others. For ourselves we may be allowed to say that we have been acquainted with this office for several years. In the course of some investigations we thought it necessary to institute for our own information, we procured a copy of it, and were both surprised and shocked at the tenets it contained. But living at a dis

As we write for those who are not very deeply learned in liturgical lore, it may be as well to state that a communion office means those forms of prayers, rites, &c., which are used in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Scottish Prelatists, with that modesty and charity which have so eminently distinguished the party at all times, state on its title page that their office is for the use of the Church of Scotland,' a piece of information which may be equally new and startling to those members of that Church who are not aware that this Community,' as Mr Craig well terms them, deny the Church of Scotland to be a Church at all; and maintain their own to be the only Church of Christ in this part of the kingdom. See Oxford Tractarianism, the Scottish Episcopal College, and the Scottish Episcopal Church.' By the Rev. Andrew Gray, A. M., Perth, 1842.

tance from what we deemed the immediate scene of action, and fancying withal that what was so new to us must have been familiar to others, we did not deem ourselves particularly called upon to take any special notice of it. Nor, in all probability, should we at present enter upon a discussion of the subject, were it not that a dear friend, to whose judgment we pay great and deserved deference, has urged upon us to take it up. We purpose, therefore, to discuss the Scottish Prelatic Communion Office, not, however, on a theological, but on a historical basis; our object being principally to communicate facts, leaving our readers to form their own conclusions for themselves.

It is not so well known as it ought to be, that during the successive periods at which Prelacy was the established form of religion in our country-that is from the accession of James VI. to the throne of England (except from 1638 to 1661) down to the Revolution of 1688, there was no liturgy used in Scotland.* The emphatic reprobation of prayer-books, thundered forth by the whole nation in 1637, when Laud's Service-book was attempted to be imposed upon them, prevented a repetition of the attempt for more than half a century afterwards. In 1690 the Earl of Linlithgow made a motion in the Scottish Parliament to the effect that Prelatists might be tolerated to read the English liturgy in their chapels; but the motion does not seem to have been even seconded, and was not of course put to the vote.† Attempts, however, seem to have been made, in isolated instances, and in obscure corners, and with some success in 1708, to induce the people to submit to a liturgical form of worship. The liturgy employed in these cases, however, was not the Scottish but the English; and the reason assigned by Prelatical historians for this seeming preference of a foreign liturgy is, that the Scottish prayer-book had got out of print, and that friends in England had furnished gratuitously a supply of English prayer-books.§ It appears, however, that the Scottish liturgy was always preferred; not, let it be noticed, because of its nationality (although that was not without its influence), but because it was more Popish, or, as they termed it, primitive, than its Anglican rival.|| In 1718 a new edition of Laud's liturgy was

* Dr M'Crie's Miscellaneous Works, 276-8, with the Editor's note. Skinner's Eccl. Hist. of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 550. Russel's Appendix to Keith's Catalogue of Scottish Bishops, p. 492. M'Crie's Sketches of Scottish Church History, pp. 547-8, where the reader will find very interesting information on the subject. + Skinner, vol. ii. pp. 550-1.

Ibid. p. 605, 609, 619.

§ Ibid. 626-7; Russel's Ap. to Keith, p. 507; Skinner's Annals of Scottish Episcopacy, p. 483.

For both the assertions in the text sec letters from Primus Skinner of Aberdeen, written in 1806 and 1807; Skinner's Annals, pp. 442-6, 453-461.

published in Edinburgh, and from that time it seems to have come into use, as it was decidedly preferred, especially in the northern

counties.

There seems to have been no attempt, however, at uniformity. Not only each prelate, but each presbyter also employed either Laud's or the Anglican liturgy at his own pleasure, with this difference, however, that Laud's was confined to the north-hisroric recollections preventing any attempt at reintroducing it in Edinburgh, or the more Presbyterian and enlightened parts of the kingdom. But, not only was each presbyter at liberty to select the liturgy he preferred, but he was also at liberty to alter, add, omit, and transpose various parts of the service at his merest caprice.‡

Matters appear to have continued very much in this condition till 1765, when it was resolved to revise the communion office in Laud's liturgy, and, as we shall see, the Anglican Non-juring office, and reduce them to the form desired by the semi-popish Nonjuring prelates of the day. This revision was made by two prelates in the north-men, if we may believe Mr Craig, superannuated, and very obscure, and mean in point both of talents and acquirements. From this era the Scottish Prelatic Community,' so fond of uniformity, so determinedly hostile to variety, that, to prevent the possibility of its occurrence, a minister dare not, however singular his own case, or the circumstances of his congregation, present before God one single petition but such as had been drawn up by two or three superannuated gentlemen, sitting very much at their ease in their own closets; yet this very body, from 1765 down to 1810, not only allowed every one of their curates his choice of one of three liturgies, Laud's, which was tolerable, the ScotoPrelatic, which is perfect, and the Anglican, which is positively sinful; but in addition, they permitted them to omit, transpose,

• An historical outline of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, originally published in the Scottish Episcopal Magazine. Aberdeen, 1833. Pp. 64-79.

+ Skinner's Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. pp. 633–646.

Prelate Gleig, in the course of a very angry correspondence with Primus Skinner of Aberdeen, speaks, so late as 1810, of the useless alterations which are made by many of the clergy in the daily service, every man in my diocese, he

and to that

said, varied the form according to his own judgment or caprice, such length was this most unaccountable rage for innovation carried, the very communion office was interpolated with long [of course extempore] prayers.' Skinner's An. p. 491.

§ Skinner's Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. pp. 681, 682. Craig on the Important Discrepancy, &c., pp. 7, 8.

That the Non-jurors, both Scottish and English, regarded the Anglican communion office so sinful, both in its omissions and insertions, that they could not use it, is well known. See Brett's Collection of Ancient Liturgies. London, 1838. Pp. 404-407, &c.

insert,-in short, to alter and vary the particular liturgy they had selected, as Prelate Gleig says, according to their own caprice.'

But liberality so very extraordinary was not of course without a sufficient motive to impel, and an object to be accomplished. The supreme desire of every prelate, at the time, was to unite into one community all the Prelatic congregations in the kingdom, and as this could be accomplished only by permitting all the Anglican Prelatic ministers and other congregations to use their own liturgy, the end was too valuable not to justify any means by which it could be secured. Accordingly, in the articles of union between the two parties, it was distinctly stipulated that each minister and congregation should be at liberty to select the liturgy they should prefer, and these stipulations seem to have been honestly observed till 1811, and particularly 1838. Before that period, however, the Scottish portion of the united body seems to have leavened the other with its own properties; and, besides, the tenets and spirit of the Oxford Tract school had infected the Anglican portion, until they became as much enamoured of what has been termed 'primitive usages' as their Scottish brethren. Matters being thus ripe for a change, at a general synod held in 1838, a canon, rendering more stringent that of 1811, was passed by which the Scottish office of 1765 became the authoritative and distinctive office of the body; the Anglican being merely tolerated under certain restrictions, and tolerated of course only for a few years longer, until the whole body has become sufficiently leavened to bear the entire omission of the Anglican liturgy.

As it will tend to give a clearer idea of the tenets contained in this Scottish office, we may look for a moment at the theological character of those by whom it was framed. It is well known to all who have paid attention to the theological literature of our country, that Scottish Prelatists have been from the first very unsound in their creeds. They were the first that introduced Arminianism into this country-an Arminianism which with some of them degenerated into a species of semi-Pelagianism. Even their best and soundest writers are not implicitly to be followed. Those of them that were really pious sank into a species of quietism, which made the essence of religion to consist in a musing, if not a dosing contemplative life. The tendency of such a system is necessarily to lead the mind away from the work of Christ without, to the work of the Spirit within, and thus to generate a species of refined Arminianism, whose central doctrine, and, indeed, whose systematised form consists in the Life of God in the soul of man.' From this quietetic abstract theology even Leighton with all his excellencies did not escape, nor