popish dogmas, from the history of their adoption of the Thirtynine Articles, as the professed formulary of faith of their sect.

6

From this historical sketch, imperfect though it must necessarily be, from the limited space to which we are restricted, our readers will be prepared to enter upon a review of what is called the Scotch communion office. There is just one other preliminary remark we beg leave to offer; and that is, that our readers must not expect that all the errors which this office contains are so clearly emblazoned on its surface, as to strike a superficial reader. The conduct of the Laurencekirk conclave ought to prepare us to expect, that throughout this office, more is meant than meets the eye' of a careless reader. This is certainly the case; but, at the same time, we shall discuss only such tenets as it contains on its very surface. We mean to confine our remarks to the following points. We shall prove that the Scottish Prelatic communion office teaches, 1st, A species of transubstantiation; 2d, A sacrifice efficacious for the living and the dead; and, 3d, Prayers for the dead in Christ.' These are not the only errors it contains. But as we are limited in our space, we shall confine our remarks almost exclusively to these points. And,

1. The Scottish Prelatic communion office teaches a species of transubstantiation. We do not say that it teaches the identical form of transubstantiation which is professed in the Church of Rome. But if words have any meaning, then it must follow from the passages we are about to quote, that the Scottish communion office does contain a species of transubstantiation.

In the canon of the mass,' as it is termed, that is, the communion office of the Church of Rome, the priest, spreading his hands over the oblation,' i. e. the elements, thus prays, which oblation do thou, O God, vouchsafe in all respects to bless, approve, ratify, and accept, that it may be for us (or, as it might be rendered, that it might become, or be to us, or for us) the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord."*

*The above is the translation of the Roman Missal for the use of the Laity,' printed in 1832, by Richard Coyne, Dublin, printer and publisher to the Royal College of St Patrick, Maynooth, and publisher to the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland, p. 31. The following is the original:-' Quam oblationem, tu Deus, in omnibus, quæsumus, benedictam, ascriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris; ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi.' See also Baillie's Parallel, or Brief Comparison of the Liturgy (of Laud) with the Mass Book, Breviary, Ceremonial, and other Romish rituals, 1641, p. 47. See also a tabular view of the variations in the Communion and Baptismal Offices of the Church of England, from the year 1549 to 1662, to which are added those in the Scotch Prayer-Book of 1637, with an appendix illustrative of the variations. By Frederick Bulley, B.D., Oxford, 1842, Ap. p. 186–7; a book which we recommend to all who desire to study the subject, as it is rich in extracts from authoritative documents.

Roman Catholics themselves, even those of the very highest authority, are not agreed as to the precise meaning of this prayer. Thomas Acquinas, for example, says, It does not appear that the priest here prays that the consecration may be fully accomplished, but that it (the oblation') may become beneficial to us. On this account, he (the priest) says, in the following express terms, 'That it may be,' or become (fiat) to us,' the body and blood (of Christ), and this interpretation is confirmed by the words which precede that clause. For there the priest prays, This oblation vouchsafe to bless,' that is, render blessed unto us, i. e. by thy grace; ' approve' (or register, i. e. in thy favour), that is, by which we may be registered in thy kingdom; ratify,' that is, by which we may be enrolled as the members of Christ. This is the interpretation to which, as we shall find, Laud resorted on his trial.

This, however, is an interpretation which was held but by a few schoolmen in past ages, and has been rejected, we believe, by all writers of authority in the Church of Rome since the Council of Trent. So long ago, indeed, as the time of Innocent III., the most nocent father, as Baillie calls him, of this monster' of transubstantiation, this prayer was understood to contain that dogma. Thus, Innocent expounds it:- We pray that God would bless this oblation, and consecrate it a reasonable host (or victim), and an acceptable sacrifice, that so the bread may become to us, that is, for our salvation the body, and the wine the blood of God's dearest Son.' It is manifest, however, that even Innocent felt a difficulty in explaining away the clause to us,' or 'for us,' so as to establish the dogma, that the change in, or on the consecrated elements is inherently in themselves, and not relatively for us. Bellarmine, however, that prince of Jesuits, pretends to see no difficulty whatever in the matter. He explains the prayer thus :- We do not here pray for the consecrated eucharist, but for the bread and the wine, which are being consecrated; neither do we beseech that God would bless and sanctify the body and blood of Christ, but that he may bless and sanctify the bread and wine, that by that benediction and sanctification they may become the body and blood of the Lord.' Here the prayer is understood expressly to produce a transubstantiating change upon the elements. And we may be allowed to add our testimony to that of Baillie, who, after adducing the above passages, and others of a similar import, states, I know no Popish writer who this day takes this passage (in the prayer) in any other sense,' than as producing transubstantiation.

In 1549, when the first prayer-book of Edward VI. was framed,

Apud Baillie's Parallel, p. 49, where the original of this and the following passages which we have translated will be found.

the following prayer, in effect but a translation of that in the Roman missal, was inserted in the corresponding part of the communion office: Hear us, O merciful Father, and with thy Holy Spirit and word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ." This is in effect, as we have said, but a translation of the corresponding prayer in the mass-book. As might, therefore, be expected, the Papists were quite satisfied with it, Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, the leading Papist in England, in his controversy with Cranmer, acknowledged this holy Mystery in the Book of Common-Prayer, is well termed not distant from the Catholic faith in my judgment. But if the Papists were quite satisfied, the Protestants, as might be anticipated, were equally dissatisfied with it. Calvin, Alasco, Bucer, and all the continental Reformers united with the English Protestant divines in their efforts to remove the Popish dregs,' which remained in this liturgy. Bucer expressly, and in strong terms, objected to the above prayer, as confirming the horrible impieties of the anti-christs,' i. e. the Papists. The prayer, accordingly, was altered in Edward's second prayer-book published in 1552, and it was so worded as to render it impossible to extract any support of transubstantiation from its terms. Our readers, however, will bear in mind that Jolly, and the rest of our Scottish Prelatists at Laurencekirk, referred to the first prayer-book of Edward, as that to which they gave the preference.

It is not our intention to notice the various alterations made upon Edward's second prayer-book by Elizabeth in 1562, or by Charles II. in 1662, although we may be allowed to remark, that they successively bring it nearer to the missal than it was left in 1552 by Edward. We come at once to what we have termed Laud's liturgy, that is, the service-book, which, in 1637, led to the overturn of Prelacy in this country.

The consecration prayer in Laud's communion office, is very much the same as in the first of Edward's liturgies. But as it is fuller, and, if possible, more express in favour of transubstantiation, we may give it here. It is as follows: Hear us, merciful Father, we most heartily beseech thee, and of thy Almighty goodness vouchsafe so to bless and sanctify with thy word and Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son; so that we, receiving them according to thy Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ's

* Cardwell's two Prayer-Books of Edward Compared, 297; or Bulley, 54. † Apud, Cardwell, ut supra, who refers to the authorities here and subsequently, Preface, p. xxvi.

Apud Cardwell, xxvii. xxviii. Bulley, 178.

holy institution in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of the same, his most precious body and blood.'

We think it would be difficult even to attempt to defend this prayer from teaching transubstantiation. Laud, as we shall show, did make the attempt, but failed most signally, because it is not within the bounds of human ingenuity to extract any other doctrine from these words. We will not at present advert to his defence, as we reserve it for another occasion, but proceed to quote the consecration prayer from the Non-jurors' office of 1718. It is in the following terms: "We beseech thee to look favourably on these thy gifts which we here set before thee, O thou self-sufficient God, and do thou accept them to the honour of thy Christ,' [thus far it is the prayer of ' oblation,' and now commences, strictly speaking, the prayer of consecration, or, as they term it, of invocation,] and send down thy Holy Spirit, the witness of the passion of our Lord Jesus on this sacrifice, that he may make this bread the body of thy Christ, and this cup the blood of thy Christ, that they who are partakers thereof, may obtain remission of their sins,' &c.*

It is unnecessary to remark, that this prayer teaches transubstantiation in the most express and absolute terms which could be employed. The clause to us,' or 'for us,' (nobis,) which we found in all the other offices, even the missal, and the substantive verb 'may be,' (fiat,) which might possibly admit of an orthodox interpretation, are all omitted, and in their room we have an active verb, which admits of no ambiguity or mistake. The priest, laying his hands on the bread and the wine, prays that He (the Holy Spirit) may make this bread the body, and this cup the blood of thy Christ. This is incomparably more express than the corresponding prayer in the mass-book, and leaves not a loop-hole by which one can possibly escape from the impious absurdities of transubstantiation.

We come now to the present Scotch Prelatic office, that namely which was compiled in 1765, and is at present the authorised office of Scottish Prelatists. In this office, the clause in the consecration prayer corresponding to those already given from the other liturgies, is in the following words: 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 Spirit these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may become the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son.'+

A collection of the principal Liturgies used in the Christian Church in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, &c. with a Dissertation upon them, by Thomas Brett, LL.D. London, 1838. P. 114.

+ The Communion Office for the Use of the Church of Scotland, as far as coneerneth the Ministration of that Holy Sacrament. Aberdeen, 1835, p. 12.

The remarks we have just made upon the Non-juror office, will all of them apply with almost equal propriety to this prayer. The personal pronoun to us,' or 'for us,' which occurs in the canon of the mass, and in the other offices we have quoted, with the single exception of that of the Non-jurors, and which might be possibly understood to mean, that the change produced upon the elements was not inherently in themselves, but relatively to the faithful receiver; this clause is here excluded, (not of course without a sufficient reason.) Besides, instead of the Popish word to indicate the change in the elements, 'fiat,' (may be,) there is employed another term, (may become,') which of very necessity indicates that the elements have become another object than they previously were,that is, have become the body and blood of Christ; or in other words, have become transubstantiated. The verb become,' as all who understand the meaning of words will acknowledge, necessarily indicates that the object to which it is applied has ceased to be what it was, and has begun to be that which it is said to have become. Thus, Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt,' surely means that she ceased to be what at first she was, and became altogether another thing, viz. a pillar of salt. And on the same principle, the bread and wine, after the prayer of consecration, must be understood by Scottish Prelatists to have ceased to be any longer bread and wine, and to have become the body and blood of Christ.' We defy any man, upon any received principles of interpretation, to escape from this conclusion.

6

But we shall establish this conclusion by the testimony of a witness whom no Scottish Prelatist at least can object to, we mean their great patron saint, Laud. One of the charges brought against Laud on his trial was, that he had introduced the doctrine of the corporeal presence of Christ's body' into the Scottish service-book. From this charge he attempted to defend himself in the following manner. He quotes the words of the service-book, . . . . ' so to bless and sanctify with thy word and Holy Spirit these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son,' and proceeds thus: These words, they say, intend the corporeal presence, because the words in the mass are ut fiant nobis, (that they may be unto us.) Now, for the good of Christendom, I would with all my heart that these words," that these elements might be unto us, worthy receivers, the blessed body and blood of our Lord," were the worst error in the mass. For if it be only ut fiant nobis, that they may be to us the body and blood of Christ, it clearly implies that they are (so) to us, but are not transubstantiated in themselves