Mr. Drummond thus explains and accounts for his own previous ignorance of this service:—

"Before bringing these remarks to a close, I think it right to repeat what I have formerly stated, that it was not until I was engaged in preparing for the press my Reply to the Episcopal Clergy of Edinburgh' that I became acquainted with the character of the Scottish Communion Office, and, of course, it was after I had resigned my charge in Trinity Chapel. My attention was called to it by an English clergyman. I am quite willing to confess that I ought to have made myself more thoroughly acquainted with the canon law of the Scottish Episcopal Church, especially as modified in 1838. I do not wish to shrink from any blame which may be attached to me for neglecting to do this. I had no conception of the existence in the Scottish Communion Office of the vital corruptions it contains; for, although in common use in the North, it has never yet made its appearance here. Should, however, the next General Synod meet in Edinburgh, it must then be used in this city. But this will be a lesson to me for the future, teaching me to look more narrowly, and carefully, and anxiously, than I have ever done before, into every standard and regulation of man's framing. I have heard that it has been asked, Was not Mr. Drummond at Bishop Terrot's consecration, when this Office must have been used? To this I simply answer, I was not. The consecration occurred at Aberdeen, and I was perfectly ignorant of the fact, that any save the English Office had been employed there.

"I wish likewise expressly to state, that this was not the cause of my leaving the Scottish Episcopal Church. That I have distinctly made known in myReasons for withdrawing,' &c. But having once withdrawn, the acquaintance which I have made with the Scottish Office satisfied me of two things:

"1. That I had not given more importance than was necessary to the cause of my withdrawal from a Church, which could with one hand enact a law against prayer-meetings, and with the other draw forth, from comparative concealment, a genuine relic of superstition.

"2. That I was thereby confirmed in my resolution, under the encouraging circumstances in which I found myself placed, to remain in Edinburgh, and 'suspending my communion' with the Scottish Episcopal Church, never to return to it until the Christian privileges of my congregation and my own are secured to us, and the vital corruptions, existing in her Communion Office, are expunged."-(pp. 42, 43.)

Mr. Craig's pamphlet, though somewhat sharp, is both weighty and seasonable, and shews, in a very striking light, the origin and Romish tendency of the present Scottish service, which, it appears, was only just introduced in 1765. Its explicit Romanism is thus described:-

"In every point but one (the use of the words hostiam puram, &c.) the Office is that of the Mass-Book. A change by the Holy Spirit, into the body and blood of Christ, is asked and acknowledged. It is offered to God in the same way. It is elevated before the people in the same way. There is a studied adoption of the Office of the Mass. There is one omission, certainly, but it does not look towards the Protestant doctrine: rather, as a deliberate and intentional omission, it is fatal to the service. The Romish prayer is, Ut fiat nobis corpus Filii tui:'-that it may become to us the body of thy Son. The two Bishops' left out this unspeakably important distinction, and inserted absolutely and without qualification, That it may become the body of Christ.' And there is a very important historical fact, of which, after so much and long controversy, they must have been aware, which makes the omission completely condemnatory of their purpose. When Archbishop Laud was charged, at his trial, with introducing Transubstantiation into the Scottish

Service-Book, on the ground of the words of the prayer, that they may be unto us,' he defended himself, by affirming that ut fiant nobis implies, clearly, that they are to us, but are not transubstantiated in themselves into the body and blood of Christ. This addition,' he says, 'is an allay in the proper signification of the body and blood of Christ. They become the body and blood to us that communicate as we ought.'

6

"Now, it appears, that after the Archbishop had rested his defence on the qualifying words, ut fiant nobis,' and had shown, that in his opinion, without that qualifying clause, the sentence must fairly be understood as affirming Transubstantiation, these two very incautious, or very artful men, leaped the boundary of Romish moderation and Laudean prudence, struck out the term of allay,' on which Laud rested his defence, and in which even Rome had enveloped her error; and, contrary to the practice of all Christendom, asked broadly, boldly, and nakedly, that the bread and wine might become the body and blood of Christ!"-(pp. 26, 27.)

He thus forcibly shews the inconsistency of an English Clergyman using this service:

66

Having now examined the Office for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in the Church of England, and also the form professing to be the Scottish Communion Office, it remains only to consider the difficulty that must arise to any Clergyman of English Orders, who has been ordained, on his subscription to the English Book of Common Prayer, as to affixing his signature of approval also to another and differing Liturgy.

66

Every Presbyter of the English Church declares his unfeigned assent and consent to the Book of Common Prayer; and is held bound by the Act of Uniformity, 13 and 14 Charles II, to use the Morning and Evening Prayer, celebration and administration of the Sacraments, in such order and form as is mentioned in the said Book!" And by the 36th Canon of the Canons of James I., in 1603—which Canon he subscribes at his ordination— he is required to declare, 'that he himself will use the form in the said book, prescribed, in public prayer, and administration of the sacraments, and No OTHER. There cannot well be a more distinct and specific limitation.

6

"The English Presbyter pledges himself, by his ordination vows, not to use any other Office in the administration of the Lord's Supper. And, certainly, if he is a faithful son of his mother, he will hold this binding on him, wherever he may wander beyond her border, unless he shall see conscientious reason for separating from that Communion in which he received his orders: but to remain in communion with the English Church, and to adopt another Office for the administration of Sacraments, is surely to be guilty of a violation of his deliberate engagements, and a disobedience of the authority by which he ministers."-(pp. 28, 29.)

This pamphlet completely turns the whole controversy, and will, we trust, speedily lead our brethren of the Scottish Episcopal Church to cast out that Romanized Liturgy, which will, while it is retained, make it impossible that there should be any real union between the English and Scotch Episcopal Church.

Anonymous pamphlets in this controversy, being without any authority, we have not noticed: one that we have seen is full of misstatements.

The reader will now be able to form his own conclusion. We pretend not to know or to justify every minor step; yet we cannot but think that Mr. Drummond is substantially right in the course which he has pursued, and the Scottish Episcopal Church in serious

error in recently making, and in retaining, such a canon as the 28th canon, and still more in keeping up such a Communion Service. Without judging brethren who, like Mr. Bagot and other faithful men, remain in that Communion, we think that they are called upon to exert themselves to get such blots removed from their Church. They are blots which must be a stumbling-block in the way of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland; they are opposed to the deliberate and repeatedly expressed judgment of our Church, by our Reformers, and at the various periods of the revising of our Liturgy; and they furnish a strong reason for a Church of England Minister separating himself in Scotland from their communion. Why should there be such a barrier against union between the two Churches? To attempt to introduce such a service in England would be wholly impracticable; the great majority of the ministers of our Church would, we are assured, resist it to the utmost, as a return of the Church to Papal principles.

It is no excuse to say that our own Articles are also received, and that there are in the service itself corrective expressions, which may neutralize the more Papal forms. This is the very character of the Mystery of Iniquity. Romanism itself contains in its corruptions the great truths of the Gospel; but so mingled with its errors as to be styled by the word of God "all deceivableness of unrighteousness."

It would be well if those who seek to cast upon others the charge of schism, were first to enquire how far they themselves are guilty, remembering the instructive direction of our Lord, Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye. The position of the Scotch Episcopal Church is at present, in this very point, most unsatisfactory. It might be well for this Episcopal Church to separate from the National Presbyterian Establishment of Scotland, in order to give a testimony to Episcopacy, and to meet the desires of Christians who feel the importance of this sacred institution. It was needful to separate from Rome, for God has commanded his people to come out of her. But the Scotch Episcopalians profess a real union with the National Episcopal Church of England, and yet they have so lately as 1838 raised a barrier making union impracticable, by a return to Roman principles, from which they also profess to have been separated. Thus they stand alone, and have separated themselves from full union with every Church, and multiplied needless divisions. The real schismatics in that Church, then, are those who insisted on making the Scotch Communion Office of "primary authority."

It has been objected that Mr. Drummond withdrew before he knew of the most tangible ground of offence prominent in this

church, the papistical tendencies of the service. But in reality the objection to extempore prayer is the thin end of that wedge by which all vital godliness may be destroyed, and the mere form be established in its place. The line which Bishop Terrot would draw is so perfectly indistinct, as to be utterly unworthy_of being accounted a rule of discrimination and government. The line which Mr. Drummond has marked out is clear and distinct, and in our view unexceptionable in the public services in the Church to adhere to the established formularies; in private rooms, entirely under his own control, to be at liberty to use or not use forms just as he found most profitable to the people of his charge. On this principle we know that many of the most excellent ministers in our Church, and that we apprehend in every diocese in England, are continually acting. The blessings of such a course have been very great; the poor have been brought to love and value more, both the Church and the Church services. We can hardly conceive a more destructive blow that the enemy of souls could give to vital piety, than to succeed in measures which would make this course impracticable to ministers of the Church of England. The significant hint in Bishop Terrot's opening letter, of "suggestions from a quarter which I am bound to respect," may shew the ministers in our own Church that there is some danger of such measures as he has pursued being adopted in our own country, and that we have a deep and real interest in this present more distant controversy.

The great danger of all established Churches is mere formalism, and there is no need of further restrictions to increase this danger. We rather want more encouragement to a spirit of enlarged exertion, to do the full work of an Evangelist, to preach the word and be instant in season and out of season-and to follow the plain direction of God himself in his own word, answering at once all the petty and trifling distinctions that man makes—I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting. How dreadful the guilt of forbidding men thus to pray!

We cannot but anticipate much good from the faithful stand which, under peculiarly trying circumstances, Mr. Drummond has made. The whole controversy has been generally conducted in a kind and courteous spirit on both sides; but Bishop Terrot was unhappily advised in the steps which he has taken, and we cannot but think that Mr. Drummond has shewn much faith and holy decision in contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, and that in a very difficult position. He has honoured the authority of Christ as the only just and safe ultimate appeal, and refused to renounce it for the authority of man; which, however

important in its place, must never supersede the supreme claim of the Lord of all. Having done so, he will not be forsaken of his heavenly Master, nor by the faithful servants of that Master, when they fully understand the whole case, in the trials to which he may be exposed.

The cleansing of the sanctuary (Dan. viii. 14,) seems to be commencing both in the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, and it will doubtless soon pass over to us in this country. Every Church will be sifted to the utmost, and compelled to take its only sure footing on the word of God. If there be anything in any respect contrary to that word, it will not stand the trial. "Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.' It is very painful that any bishop should set himself against extempore social prayer between the minister and his people; and that, when the appointed public worship of the sanctuary in the house of God had been strictly observed, according to the prescribed form. There is such a want of common knowledge of the actual state of men's minds everywhere, and of their real wants; and such a disregard of the many directions of scripture on this subject, and such a total want of spiritual judgment in discerning things that differ, that we must earnestly desire that this precedent may stand alone in these days. But should so bad a precedent be followed by others in authority, the laity are now beginning to be alive to this subject, and to their responsible duties in it, and will not bear such unscriptural restrictions upon their ministers. A more serious conflict may thus be occasioned than even that which shook our country in the days of Archbishop Laud. After that deeply impressive lesson of the results of arbitrary measures, the suicidal madness of treading in his steps would be wholly without excuse. God give all our rulers scriptural wisdom and soundness of judgment in guiding his Church aright, according to his mind and will, in the stormy days which are now before us.

As might be expected, our contemporaries, the British Critic and the Christian Remembrancer, with their Tractarian views, see nothing in Mr. Drummond's conduct but schism and independency. If the Reformation itself be a "grand schism," and the Revolution of 1688 a "rebellion," no wonder they think, that however closely Mr. Drummond adheres in his Church to the order of our Common Prayer Book, while he has in a private room any thing but the exact form of morning and evening prayer, he is a Schismatic. The Reformers did not in practice require the daily use of the Liturgy in the Church. In proof of this we refer to Bishop Ridley's injunctions to his clergy in 1550, and to Queen Elizabeth's injunctions of 1559, and to the 84th Tract for the Times itself. We see nothing in these publications to alter the sentiments which we have just given.