Primus Skinner,* after stating, as we have seen Jolly also does, (for there is a wonderful harmony between them) that by pronouncing the very words of Christ over' the elements, they are thereby set apart and constituted the representatives and symbols of the body and blood of Christ,' and are then offered as the appointed memorial of his sacrifice,' asks the following questions,' and returns the following answers.' And what follows this oblation of the bread and the cup? (in the communion service.) A most humble invocation or prayer that our merciful Father would bless and sanctify them with his word and Holy Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of his most dear Son. When they are thus consecrated according to his appointment, do they really and truly become the body and blood of Christ for the purpose he intended?' (Pray, reader, do mark.) That they really and truly do so,' (become the body and blood of Christ, says Skinner,) no good Christian will venture to deny, since our Lord himself so expressly says of the bread which he had blessed, "this is my body," and of the "this is my cup, blood." Now, we will say, that not only no good Christian,' but we will go farther, and maintain, that no honest man will venture to deny that in the quotation we have given from Primus Skinner, the dogma of transubstantiation is taught in terms as strong, plain, palpable, and unambiguous, as ever were or could be employed by any Papist on earth.

6

It is all very true, that Skinner, apparently startled, as well he might, by perceiving that he had so openly divulged the esoteric dogma of his sect, attempts to mystify the matter, by making a distinction between a natural and a mystical body.' The attempt reminds us strongly, and we mean no offence by the comparison, -of an artifice often resorted to by disreputable demagogues, who, anxious to goad on a mob to deeds of violence, urge them forward in good round set terms,' but equally anxious to escape themselves from the fangs of the law,' try to back out under cover of some quibble. That Skinner had no other object in employing a distinction, which in his sense of the terms, is a distinction without a difference, than merely to mystify the whole matter, and thus heighten the mystery, and deepen the conviction of an actual transubstantiation having taken place, is evident from the fact, that he had no sooner stated that it was not Christ's natural, but his mystical body he was speaking of, but as if still desirous to leave the previous idea, that the elements were Christ's natural body safely lodged in the mind, he returns to his first statement, and concludes the point, by ascribing to the consecrated elements such properties

* Catechism, 63, 64.

as can exist only in the very body and blood of our Lord. Thus, in the very answer' in which he makes the distinction we have alluded to, he says, that in power and efficacy, and to all intents and purposes,' the elements are the body and blood of Christ,' and so capable of communicating all the blessings and benefits of the sacrifice and death of Christ,' (64.) But how the elements can by consecration become in power and efficacy, and to all intents and purposes the body and blood of Christ, and capable of communicating all the blessings and benefits of Christ's sacrifice and death,' and yet not be transubstantiated, we profess ourselves totally incapable of comprehending, and so we humbly conceive must be the far greater part of the Prelatical community throughout Scotland.

Although it must be a work of very supererogation to adduce farther evidence in support of the conclusion, that this office teaches transubstantiation, yet, as we have said that throughout the subsequent parts of it, whenever the elements are spoken of after having been transubstantiated, they are never once called bread and wine, but always body and blood, we may give an instance or two, not in proof,—that is not now necessary,—but in illustration of what we mean. Towards the conclusion of the prayer of invocation,' there is a petition, that whosoever shall be partakers of this holy communion, may worthily receive the most precious body and blood of thy Son Jesus Christ.' In what is technically called the prayer,' or collect of humble access,' there occurs the following petition: Grant us, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his most sacred body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood.' And to make the prayer all the more impressive, the priest is directed by a rubric to offer it, turning him to the altar and kneeling down, with his face, of course, to the precious body and blood,' and his back turned to the people.

Everything is now ready for the distribution of the elements, for it must be borne in mind that that part of the ceremony has yet to be performed. Let us in one word describe the scene. The priest is directed to communicate first himself. He accordingly kneels, and taking the bread, he addresses himself in the following terms: The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life; and the same when he takes the cup, changing only the word 'body' into blood.' The subject is too sacred, however perverted in this ceremonial, to permit our making any remarks upon it. After the priest has communicated, he invites the people to approach the altar, where they kneel down on the outside of the rails, the priest

and his attendant, if he have one, being on the other side of them. The communicant then disposes his hands in the form of a cross. But we must allow Mr Skinner to explain this ceremony, of high mystical import: The practice most generally adopted in the Episcopal Church in Scotland,' he says, is that which Cyril directs in his fifth Mystagogic Catechesis, viz. that the communicant shall receive the bread in the hollow part of his right hand, supported by the left; which others have called receiving the elements in the hands previously disposed in the form of a cross!!* The priest then hands to him the bread and the wine, addressing him in the words which he had previously addressed to himself, and at each time the communicant responds amen.' Such is what Prelatists term a decent and solemn method of receiving the communion!"

6

As if studiously to maintain and keep up to the very last, the idea that the body of Christ is really and truly present, after all have communicated, the priest is directed to go to the altar, and 'cover with a fair linen cloth' whatever may remain of the transubstantiated elements, and then to address the people thus:- Having now received the precious body and blood of Christ, let us give thanks,' &c.; and thanks are accordingly given to God that they have received these holy mysteries,' and been fed with the most precious body and blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ.'

Such then is the Scottish communion office. And now we ask any man whose mind has retained any perception of the force of

Scotch Communion Office Illustrated, p. 153. Yet Mr Skinner, after gravely penning these words, begins to ridicule the manner in which Papists receive the body,' but which is not one single whit more absurd or ridiculous than his own. We may here give the passage alluded to from Cyril. Approaching, therefore, (to the altar,) come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King. And having hallowed thy palm,' (that is, we presume, by making the sign of the cross upon it, which Cyril tells us elsewhere we ought to do at all times, when we rise, sit, journey, &c., over our food, drink, &c., for it heals diseases, scares away devils trembling, &c. But to return to our quotation.) After having hallowed thy palm, receive the body of Christ, saying after it, Amen. Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes with the touch of the holy body (!) partake thereof, giving heed lest thou lose any of it, for what thou losest is a loss to thee as if it were from one of thine own members. . . . Then after having partaken of the body of Christ, approach also to the cup of his blood, not stretching forth thine bands, but bending, and saying in the way of worship and reverence, Amen... And while the moisture is still upon thy lips, touching it with thine hands, hallow both thine eyes and brow, and the other senses,' with the sign of the cross! Such is the authority whom Scottish Prelatists delight to follow. And such is the profane drivelling which the Oxford Tract party, (from whose translation, p. 279, we have quoted,) think worthy of being made the second volume in their series of the Fathers,-a series which is to supersede the devotional, doctrinal, and practical works of the Baxters, Howes, Owens, Newtons, and Scotts! Had we space, we might have filled pages with many rich illustrations from Cyril.

terms,—whose heart has retained any candour or truth,-yea, we ask any man whatever, is it possible by any method of interpretation, to use this office with a Protestant, or rather a Scriptural significancy? The man who can extract Protestantism from this office, can have no reason to object to the mass-book. The missal, in fact, as we have partly already seen, is far more Protestant than the Scottish Prelatic communion office. From the former, it is possible to extract a Scriptural significaney; from the latter, literally and utterly impracticable.

There is just one other point connected with this subject, to which we must in one word advert, before we pass on to the next head. Our readers are aware, that when the elements have been transubstantiated, a rubric directs the Romish priest to elevate the host,' or wafer, above his head, so that as he fronts the altar, with his back to the people, they may see it over his head, and then they fall down and adore it. Now, is there any thing in any manner approaching to this done by Scottish Prelatic priests? They do precisely the same thing. But is there any rubric requiring it? No; and this is just one of those features in the service which mark it out as a hidden work of darkness. The compilers of the office did not dare to insert such a rubric, lest it might fall into the hands of some Protestant, who would alarm the nation with the discovery. But being all advocates of the supreme authority of tradition, they have committed this usage to its safe keeping, as they have done with others.* Mr Craig informs us, that the Scottish Prelatic priests are accustomed to elevate the consecrated elements at precisely the same place in the service, and in precisely the same manner with the Popish priests. What may be the inward feelings of the people at the sight, is best known to themselves, but their bodily posture is that of adoration, for they are kneeling when the priest elevates the-host may we not call

·

For example, they mix water with the wine, in imitation of ancient superstitions, and yet Mr Skinner confesses they have no rubric for it, (Skinner's Scotch Com. Of. Illust. p. 108.) Who knows what other usages they may observe without authority from their rubrics? And yet these gentlemen, who thus suffer themselves to act without any rubric every time they celebrate the eucharist, are the loudest in their denunciations of the evangelicals' for neglecting the rubrics. There is indeed an important distinction in the conduct of the two parties. The evangelicals are said to omit some of the more Popish rubrics, and are condemned for it by the prelates. The pro-Papists add to the rubrics already enjoined others copied from the missal, but no prelate censures them. Such has ever been the respect of the Laudean faction for the rubrics, such their impartiality towards their clergy.

On the Important Discrepancy between the Church of England and the Scottish Episcopal Community, &c. 25, 26. And yet Skinner, who professes to 'illustrate the Scottish communion office,' with that reticence and want of candour which has been so painful a characteristic of the sect, while minute enough on other matters, never even hints at this usage!

it?* James VI., on a memorable occasion, is said to have charged the communion service of the English Church with being an evil said mass in English,' alleging that it wanted nothing of the mass but the liftings, that is, the elevation of the host. This defect has been supplied by Scottish Prelatists. What then would even James now call the communion office of that party whom he committed so many crimes to raise to power? The matter altogether is so very grave, that we do not wish to trust ourselves to comment upon it. One thing, however, is self-evident, that the principal difference between Scottish Prelatists and Papists is one that consists more in name than in reality; nor can we fancy that this nominal difference will continue long. Rome,' says the homely proverb, was not built in one day;' nor was Romanism perfected in one century. It was by little and little that that stupendous system was completed. It would not deserve its name of the mystery of iniquity,' if it did not, like its author and prototype the serpent, in the primeval church, creep along, noiselessly instilling its venom under the mask of high reverence for God, and deep regard for the well-being of man, until, poisoning the fountain of spiritual life, and enfeebling the moral powers, it finally crushes its victim in its glistening folds. If Scottish Prelatists are not aroused, we shall be compelled to fear that the poison has already begun to operate in their veins. Of the priests we fear there are but faint hopes; but we trust in God the people may yet be aroused to a sense of their danger.

(We have been compelled to postpone the remainder of this Article till our next Number.)

ART. IV.-Sermons by the Rev. Robert Bruce, Minister of Edinburgh, with Collections for his Life. By the REV. ROBERT WODROW, Minister of Eastwood. Now first published from the Manuscript in the Library of the University of Glasgow. Edinburgh, printed for the Wodrow Society, 1843.

GREAT men in the Church of God, are not simply men that accomplish great things. The men whom the Church of God reckons great, are those, who in addition to all they do, are in possession of a holy nobility. They must be men who see the King's face, who have access to his presence, and whose known standing in the heavenly court, gives a solemn authority to all they do. It is not great deeds, but great deeds done by faith, that are commended

On the import of this posture at the communion, see Primus Skinner's Layman's Account of his Faith and Practice, 44, 45, Skinner's Illustration, 152, et seq.