DIEGO , U IM- THE SCOTTISH COMMUNION OFFICE OF 1764 Oxford University Press London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen New York Toronto Melbourne Cafe Town Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai Humphrey Milford Publisher to the UNIVERSITY THE SCOTTISH COMMUNION OFFICE 1764 With Introduction, History of the Office Notes and Appendices BY JOHN \DOWDEN v_x D.D., LL.D., Sometime Bishop of Edinburgh NEW EDITION Seen through the Press by H. A. WILSON OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1922 PREFACE IN the following pages the reader is presented with an historical account of the growth of the Scottish Communion Office, and of the events which resulted in the adoption of its most characteristic features by the Church in the United States of America. The history of the Scottish Office during the eighteenth century demands careful labour in an obscure field of research ; and there will be found here a more complete and satisfactory account of the various stages of its progress than has yet appeared. To the late Dean Nicolson of Brechin the reader is indebted for my being able to bring some new facts to light, and to clear up some interesting points that were hitherto doubtful or indistinct ; the manu- script copies, made by the late Rev. P. Cheyne, of Aberdeen, from original letters and other documents, which the Dean placed in my hands, are of much interest, and my obligations are acknowledged at various points in the course of the history. 1 The textus receptus of our Office, and in its purest form, is given in an exact reprint of the 8vo edition of 1764, published by Drummond, Edinburgh. 2 1 [The editor regrets that he has been unable to ascertain the present ownership of this collection, to which reference is several times made in the author's foot-notes.] 2 Peter Hall's reprints, in Fragmenta Liturgica, vol. v, cannot be trusted for accuracy. The revised and enlarged edition of Blunt's vi PREFACE This will be a gain to liturgical students in England and America as well as here. So much of the text of the Scottish Liturgy of 1637 is common to the contemporary English Book of Common Prayer that it has not been thought necessary to print it in full : but every variant (except those of [spelling], capitals, and punctuation) is exhibited. In a similar manner the texts of the Nonjurors' Office and of the Order for the Administra- tion of the Lord' s Supper or Holy Communion in the American Book of Common Prayer (1892) are fully indicated to the student, the standard of comparison being the English Book of Common Prayer. Much space is hereby saved ; and the differences between each text and that of the English Book are much more readily apparent [than in the original edition of this work]. Much material, in the form of manuscripts of the eighteenth century illustrating the history of the Scottish Church, has come into my hands since the publication of the first edition of this book in October 1884. What is of most interest in respect to the growth of the Scottish Communion Office has been incorporated in the present edition, and some correc- tions and modifications of statement have been made. To the acknowledgements made in the first Annotated Book of Common Prayer (1884) professes to contain the Scottish Office of 1764 in extenso; but it is not in extenso, and the part printed is very inaccurate. PREFACE vii edition to friends in America and in this country who aided me in one way or another, I have now to add the names of the Rev. George Sutherland, formerly Rector of Portsoy, the Very Rev. Provost Ball, and Canon G. T. S. Farquhar. 1 Consideration for the needs of younger students will account for my occasional references in the Notes to sources of information that will be obvious and familiar to the better informed. 1 [Now Dean of St. Andrews.] NOTE BY THE EDITOR THE first edition of this "work, published in 1884, has for a good many years been ' out of print, and scarce '. The author had been for some time making preparation for a new edition, and his work had been practically completed, when in 1908 the desire which he has expressed (see p. 98) for a renewed attempt at a revision of the Scottish Liturgy was fulfilled. It was natural that he should then have delayed any further steps towards publication till the question of revision should be settled ; and its conclusion was not reached till nearly two years after his death. The need for a new edition of the book may be said to have become more apparent in the course of the discussions con- cerning the proposed revision : and arrangements were made for the publication of the late Bishop's work by the Delegates of the Clarendon Press. The book was, as its author had left it, almost in readiness for printing : but some delay was necessary for the revision of Appendix C ; and before the work of printing could be taken in hand, the war of 1914 had begun : it was still delayed by the war and its results when the editor to whose care the material had been committed was removed by death. Thus the book appears after repeated delays, and under less competent care than it would have had if it had been issued either in 1908 or in 1914. The Preface, which has been framed from that of the first edition, as altered by the author in an interleaved copy, indicates the main points of difference between the new edition and the old. But some explanation is necessary with regard to certain matters relating to the new edition. The amount of editorial work which, when the task came to NOTE BY THE EDITOR ix my hands, still remained to be done was very small. Such changes as I have thought it needful to make have been limited to the correction of obvious slips (which, as any one who knows the quality of Bishop Dowden's work will believe, were extremely few), and to such verbal alterations as I have felt quite sure he would himself have made if they had been suggested to him. I have thought it right, in spite of the fact that a revised text of the Liturgy has now obtained primary authority, not only to leave the text of 1764 as the keystone of the work any other course would have involved either the making of a new book, or the spoiling, by a process of patching, of the work which had been entrusted to me but to leave unaltered the title and headlines which speak of the Office of 1764 as 4 the recognized Scottish Office ', and also references to it as the ' present ' Office in text and notes. On the first of these two points I may perhaps justify my course by the fact that the Office of 1764 still possesses canonical recognition, though it has ceased, for good or for ill, to be the standard text. On the second, I may say that it seemed, of two possible courses, the less likely to lead to confusion. But it may be well to warn incautious readers to remember that the author's work was finished in 1910. The additions which have been made to that work are limited to one or two necessary foot-notes, and insertions, marked by square brackets, and to three new sections of the Appendix. These contain : (i) the Draft Liturgy of 1889, which it was clear that the author intended to add, and which is now reprinted by the permission of the Scottish Bishops ; (2) the Liturgy, as authorized by the Provincial Synod in 1911 ; for permission to print this text my thanks are due to the Scottish Bishops and also to the Syndics of the Cam- bridge University Press : and (3) a summary statement of the provisions contained in the Canons of 1911 concerning the use of the Scottish and English Offices. x NOTE BY THE EDITOR In conclusion, I have to record my thanks to the family of the late Bishop for their willingness to commit to me the care of his work, and for help on certain doubtful points ; and their thanks, as well as my own, to the Delegates of the Clarendon Press for their acceptance of the book, and to the officials and staff of the Press for that care and skill on which I have long had reason to rely. H. A. W. CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION r HISTORY OF THE SCOTTISH COMMUNION OFFICE I. The Liturgy for Scotland, 1637 2 3 II. Liturgical Worship in Scotland, 1661-1712 . 35 III. The Nonjurors ; English and Scottish . . 49 IV. The present recognized Scottish Office . . 77 V. Liturgical Revision since 1863 ... 88 VI. The American Communion Office : i. Early History ..... 99 ii. Recent Revision ..... 105 VII. Text of the Office: Preliminary Remarks . in THE SCOTTISH COMMUNION OFFICE . 117 THE AMERICAN COMMUNION OFFICE . 135 NOTES, TEXTUAL AND LITURGICAL . 143 APPENDICES : A. The Communion Office of 1637 . . . 177 B. Forms of the Invocation .... 186 C. Bibliography of the Scottish Communion Office 195 D. Canons on the use of the Office, 1838, 1863 . 204 E. Form of Consecration suggested by Archbishop Sancroft ....... 207 F. Collation of Scottish Office of 1764 with Bishop Seabury's Office, 1786 .... 209 G. The Nonjurors' Office, 1718 . . . .210 H. Bishop Abernethy-Drummond's edition of the Scottish Office 222 xii CONTENTS APPENDICES (continued) PAGE I. Conspectus of the structural arrangement of certain Liturgies ..... 224 J. Some traditional practices connected with the Scottish Office . . . . . 225 K. Eucharistic doctrine of the Nonjuring school . 227 L. On the use of the word ' become ' in the Invo- cation ....... 233 M. The draft Revision of 1889 .... 235 N. The Revised Liturgy of 1911 .... 249 O The canonical status of the Office . . . 267 INDEX . ... 269 INTRODUCTION 1. THE Scottish Communion Office, as the Eucharistic Service-book peculiar to the Scottish Church is designated, claims attention for many reasons. Its history is intimately associated with some of the most interesting chapters in the Church's annals. Its true reflection of the spirit of primitive devotion and the unquestionable merits which it possesses as a formulary of worship have won the admiration of theologians and liturgiologists of high eminence. As it stands, it is a worthy monument of the learning and piety of the Scottish Church. This Communion Office was not the work of one man or of one age. It was not produced hastily, but by a gradual develop- ment attained its present form. It is ultimately traceable to perhaps a greater variety of sources than any known liturgy. The Churches of Eastern and Western Christendom, early, mediaeval, and modern times have all contributed towards determining its structure or supplying its contents. Yet it is not disfigured by the signs of patchwork, but possesses the unity and beauty of a living thing. It is an outcome of the patient and reverent study of Christian antiquity ; but it is conceived in no mere antiquarian spirit, and is no product of a dilettante affectation of the antique. Like everything that lives, it came into being from a living impulse ; but also, like everything that lives, it was sensitive to its actual environment and exhibited the living power of adapting itself to that en- vironment without permanent detriment to its life. It is framed upon primitive models, and breathes the spirit of primitive devotion, while experience continually demonstrates its suitability to the needs of the living Church. 2. If the Scottish Communion Office had appealed merely to the judgement of scholars and theologians, and to the pre- dilections of those versed in Christian antiquities, it would have long since ceased to exist. It has a higher claim upon our feelings of reverence. It has given expression to the adoration, the thanksgiving, the supplications, the pious aspirations, of 1327 B 2 ANNOTATED SCOTTISH COMMUNION OFFICE thousands of Christian men and women. To thousands it is endeared by the tenderest associations and most sacred memories. For them it needs no laboured apologies. The most precious gifts of God have come to them through that channel ; and they know it. 3. The influence of the Scottish Communion Office is not confined to the limits of Scotland and the Scottish Church. Indeed at the present time its influence upon the Christian world is perhaps chiefly exercised indirectly through the Prayer- Book of the Church of the United States of America. That which little more than a century ago was the exclusive posses- sion of an obscure and scattered handful of Christians in the northern parts of our island has now, in the providence of God. crossed the ocean, and become in its modified form the sacred liturgy of hundreds of thousands in a great and prosperous Church. The American Church has derived from Scotland her episcopate ; and from Scotland too she has derived the more essential features of her Eucharistic Service. The Daughter- Church may differ in many respects from the Mother : she certainly surpasses her in material possessions, in the wide extent of her authority, and in the numbers that owe her allegiance ; but in the form of her liturgy the common stock betrays itself, and the resemblance of parent and child is un- mistakable. There are, no doubt, differences of feature, but the family likeness testifies to the high strain of ancient lineage that has passed to the younger from the elder Church. 4. It is intended in the following pages to sketch the history of the Scottish Communion Office, and to exhibit its relations to the corresponding service in the American Prayer-Book. It is also my design to offer some illustrations of the special characteristics, doctrinal and liturgical, of the two Offices. In pursuing the latter part of my task I have endeavoured to avoid, as far as might be, a controversial treatment of the questions involved. To do so altogether is probably not within the range of possibility. But by following for the most part the historical method, and allowing writers of repute that were attached to, or sympathized with, the theological school INTRODUCTION 3 responsible for the Office to explain in their own words what they supposed to be the purport of its several parts, we can not only best understand what was intended, but also in many instances avoid the danger of being drawn into the polemics of our own day. Whether the reader will concur or not with the views of truth put forward by the Bishops and Doctors cited, he will, at least, find here what possesses a considerable interest of its own, a contribution to the history of doctrine within the Scottish and English Churches upon the subject of the Eucharist. 5. But much as I feel our obligations to the divines of the Caroline and nonjuring periods I desire to say here, and I desire to say it with emphasis, that I cannot for a moment assent to the notion that the opinions of these scholars and theologians are to be regarded as having finally determined the sense in which the words of the Office must in its actual use be always understood. It was not only possible but to be ex- pected, that the full meaning of the devotional language of the early liturgies, to which in some considerable measure a return was made in the Scottish Communion Office, would not be immediately apprehended by those who had adopted that language as their own. They knew that they were justified in accepting the language of the ancient Church, but they may have been unable all at once to grasp its far-reaching signi- ficance. Certainly there seems to have been, on the part of some of the school from which the Scottish Office in its present form sprang, a disposition to restrict too closely the sense of the words. It is better that the language of devotion should not be so treated. Words when touched by emotion necessarily lose their sharpness of definition. A liturgy can never possess the precision of the dogmatic decrees of a Couiicil. It will be thought probably by most readers of our time that the non- juring school, in the doctrinal conceptions that they read into, or believed they found in, the ancient liturgies and in the forms adopted from them into Offices for their own use, exemplify in the history of theology what has been so frequently observed as true in the history of philosophy they are generally right in what they affirm ; they are not unfrequently wrong, or without B 2 4 ANNOTATED SCOTTISH COMMUNION OFFICE adequate evidence, in regard to what they deny. It is certain that the language of the Scottish Communion Office is, in itself, patient of more interpretations than one ; and I see no just reason why those who consider the nonjuring school in their theological opinions to have fallen short of the full standard of evangelical and catholic truth, should not use the Office in such sense as the words themselves, fairly interpreted, may legitimately bear. This much will probably be generally admitted. It is not more than is now frequently claimed in re- spect to the Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion in the Prayer-Book of the Church of England. Although it is true, for example, that the theological opinions of Cranmer, and of Bucer, and of Peter Martyr are of much value in helping us to understand, from the historical view- point, the purport of some of those alterations in the services which are embodied in the present English Prayer-Book, yet few, if any, in our time (whether they be reckoned, according to the popular designations, as ' high ', ' low ', or ' broad ', in churchmanship), will contend that the sense of the words of the English liturgy must, in the Church's worship, be necessarily restricted to the sense in which those theologians employed them. The words have in themselves a wider scope ; and per- haps they were, in some instances, framed purposely to admit of a wider scope. And so too it has been seen fit by the Divine Will that the language of our Scottish liturgy should possess a similar capability of reflecting the somewhat different aspect of truth which has been attained as the Church has for the time moved to a different standpoint. Great truths in the world of spiritual realities stand before men's eyes like ranges of mountain-heights before the traveller. To understand their forms and mutual relations one must slowly move from point to point, view them on this side and on that, and if possible make, as it were, the circuit of their base. The nonjuring school of theologians maintained a doctrine of the Eucharist that certainly deserves a place among the speculations of devout and scholarly thinkers on the sacred mystery. Just at the present time other aspects of truth have secured more attention ; but I cannot doubt that as long as there continue to INTRODUCTION 5 be thinkers and students of antiquity, the aspect of truth exhibited by the nonjuring theologians will, in whole or in part, from time to time reassert itself. The Offices of the Eucharist constructed, or revised, under the superintendence of divines of this school, naturally give distinct expression to their views, but, most happily in the providence of God, not, for the most part, in such a manner as would exclude other aspects of truth given prominence by other schools that fairly hold a place within the communion of our reformed Church. 6. This much, I think, will be generally admitted. But I may strange to say meet with less favour at the present moment when I venture to put in a humble plea on behalf of any who in our day may have the temerity to interpret the Office in the same sense as those who drew it up. It exhibits in a striking way the change of attitude in regard to some of the subjects that were in controversy when John Skinner published his annotated edition of the Scottish Office (1807), to observe that one of his main contentions is that the Scottish Office is not ' Popish ', and that its doctrine is identical with that of the Church of England ; while at the present time the commentator on the Office is conscious that he has to meet a very different objection the objection (though as yet it is more frequently insinuated than expressed) that the Office is not ' Catholic '. Objectors, such as Skinner had in view, cannot now be numerous or formidable. Some, I suppose, still survive who have inherited the notion that the Scottish Office is disfigured by the embodiment of certain doctrines which are not primi- tive, but were formulated during mediaeval times in the Churches of the Roman obedience. As the history of Christian dogma becomes better known, objections of this kind must gradually disappear, or change their form. But still we must recollect that prejudice, even when sore smitten, possesses a snake-like tenacity of life ; and it remains to bestow upon this particular prejudice the coup de grace. I am not indeed so sanguine as to expect that its death-stroke will be given by this hand ; but it will be a gratification to me if I may deliver a blow or two in passing. This, however, it should be remem- 6 ANNOTATED SCOTTISH COMMUNION OFFICE bered, is not one of the main objects which I set before me ; and I shall certainly leave to any who may enjoy it the task of defending the Scottish Communion Office on the lines that it teaches no more than is taught by the Church of England. 7. It was natural and not unreasonable for the apologist of the Scottish Communion Office, both shortly before and shortly after the repeal of the penal laws, and in the days before the union with the English congregations in Scotland (that had been ministered to by ' qualified ' clergy) was complete, to minimize, as far as might be done with fairness, the differences between the Scottish Office and the corresponding service in the English Prayer-Book. At the present day it is in my judgement highly desirable that we should recognize to the full the reality of these differences. It may be admitted that between the distinctive Liturgies of the two Churches there is no essential disagreement, but it is both untrue and unwise to pretend that the differences that exist are not grave and im- portant. Grave and important differences most certainly there are ; and in my judgement, in almost every instance in which these differences exist, the superiority is distinctly on the side of the Scottish Office. English Churchmen are now in a better position to be told this truth than they were in the early years of the century. There is now a much more extensively diffused knowledge of the remains of Christian antiquity. Since the date of the publication of Palmer's Origines Liturgicae in 1832 there has been a great revival of interest in liturgical studies. Men have read more widely and gone deeper than before. The clergy have become better acquainted with the service- books of other churches and other times. If they are still disposed to talk of ' our incomparable liturgy ', they have at least been qualifying themselves for the task of comparing it. But as the study progresses, the natural result cannot be evaded. The English Book of Common Prayer, though ever deeply loved, is no longer regarded as the one absolutely per- fect standard by a reference to which all the devotions of Christendom are to be measured and appraised. English Churchmen are now sensible of deficiencies in their Church's devotional system, and are more ready to enter into the spirit INTRODUCTION 7 of the prayer of Bishop Andrewes that God would grant to the British Church ' the supply of what is wanting in it ; the strengthening of what remains in it '. These deficiencies, so far as they appear in the English liturgy, some persons attempt to supply in an irregular way by the frequent introduction at various points of the service of certain private devotional formulae, meant, as is supposed, to bring the service to a closer conformity with more catholic models ; others endeavour to satisfy themselves that the English liturgy does contain im- plicitly what is certainly to all appearance wanting, and are as desirous on their part to show that the English Office contains all that is contained in the Scottish, as in the beginning of the century some Scottish Churchmen were to show that the Scottish contained no more than is contained in the English. 8. The Scottish Office unquestionably brings out into clearer view than the English that aspect of the Eucharistic celebration in which it is presented as the Church's perpetual memorial of the great Sacrifice of the Cross. As to the nature of the Presence it is as silent as the English. Its language is large and comprehensive. There is no doctrinal belief com- patible with the doctrine of the Church of England which is not consonant with the teaching of the Scottish Communion Office. It would be an evil day should any Church of the Anglican Communion adopt a formula of devotion the language of which was in any sense exclusive of the doctrinal teaching which has the substantial consensus of her greatest doctorsi It certainly is not so with the Scottish Church. Take, for instance, the classic sentence of Hooker ' The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament ' * ; the belief here expressed is in the fullest sense compatible with the language of the Scottish Communion Office. Every Christian believes that the bread and wine after consecration ' is ', or ' has been made ', or ' has become ' the Body and Blood of Christ in the sense which Christ Himself intended when He said, in the same night that He was betrayed, ' This is my Body which is given for you,' and, ' This is my Blood of E.P., v, Ixvii, 6, Keble's ed. 8 ANNOTATED SCOTTISH COMMUNION OFFICE the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.' But the whole question as to what our Blessed Lord intended and meant by this language is a question left as completely open to those who use the Scottish Office as to those who use the English. The question is one of biblical exegesis. 1 9. The characteristic features of the Scottish Communion Office, as distinguished from the corresponding service in the English Prayer-Book, are mainly due to the Office being based in its essential parts, not upon the structural model of the Roman liturgy, but upon that which is found underlying the liturgies of most, if not all, the other ancient Churches of the Christian world. It was more especially the well-defined character of the ancient Greek liturgies that determined in the eighteenth century the structural form of the Prayer of Con- secration ; as no doubt it was the Greek liturgies that in the sixteenth century suggested to Cranmer and his coadjutors the bold insertion of the express Invocation of the Holy Spirit into their Prayer of Consecration. 2 The liturgiologists belonging to the school of theologians from which our Office has proceeded were satisfied of the apostolical origin of the Invocation ; and they would certainly 1 This has been practically acknowledged by a well-known learned and able leader of the Evangelical school in the Church of England, Dr. Moule (afterwards Bishop of Durham), Norrisian Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, commenting on the use of the word ' become ' in the Scottish Communion Office. After expressing his personal pre- ference for the English form as less likely to promote what he holds to be a misconception, he adds, ' But when I think not of use but of fact, then let me say that as surely as our Blessed Lord said " This is my Body which is given for you," so surely must I hold that in this Ordinance the hallowed Bread does " come to be " His Body. But when this is said the whole vast question still remains, in what sense are we to understand the divine word " is " ? 'The Record, June 22, 1900. 1 The prayer subsequently entitled ' A Prayer of Chrysostome ', with which now our Matins, Evensong, and Litany conclude (being what is known as the Prayer of the third Antiphon in the liturgies of St. Basil and of St. Chrysostom), establishes an acquaintance with Greek liturgies as early as 1544, when this prayer appeared in the Litany issued in that year. For some other indications of the possible influence of the early liturgies upon the Book of Common Prayer see my volume, The Workman- ship of the Prayer-Book (2nd ed.), pp. 148, 149 ; but see also pp. 256, 257. INTRODUCTION 9 be entirely justified in claiming for it high antiquity. 1 They knew that it existed in the liturgies of the four patriarchates of Christendom Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constanti- nople ; and the majority of them believed (though it seems to me that the evidence is lacking) that it also had had a place in the original liturgy of the Roman Church that it had been, in fact, universal in the earliest age of Christianity. They looked to the Greek liturgies, though disfigured by many later additions, as retaining the structure and essence of the Euchar- istic worship of Christ's Church in its purest age. There was one feature which they found prevailing in the Greek liturgies, viz. the arrangement of the parts of the great Prayer of Con- secration in the order (i) Recital of the narrative of the Institution, (2) the Oblation of the Elements, (3) the Prayer to God the Father for the descent of the Holy Spirit, that He might make the Elements the Body and Blood of Christ ; and this they regarded as of such high moment that a return to it in their own forms of worship seemed to them a manifest duty. 10. Some consideration will be given to the subject later on, but it is noticed here as pointing to the vantage-ground pos- sessed by the Scottish and the American Churches in any friendly approaches towards the Holy Eastern Church or towards any of the Oriental Churches that retain the orthodox faith. These Churches, like our own, reject the Romish doctrines of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, of his infallibility, and of the immaculate conception of the Blessed S. Mary the Virgin. They have long been regarded by Rome as schismatical, and if they now pertinaciously reject what has recently been declared as defide, they may soon come, like our- selves, to be viewed as heretical. In the meantime the friendly relations of members of the Greek Church and members of the reformed Churches of the United Kingdom and of America are being constantly exhibited. But may we not hope for some- thing more ? May we not look forward to a day when further advances will be taken towards the fulfilment of the prayer of our Master? 2 May we not look forward to acts of mutual 1 See below, p. 57, and Liturgical Notes on the Invocation. 1 John xvii. n, 21-4. io ANNOTATED SCOTTISH COMMUNION OFFICE recognition on the parts of the Holy Eastern and of the Anglican Churches ? And in any approaches towards inter- communion, or an express corporate recognition, the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist would be certain to occupy a foremost place in men's thoughts. It would then be no small matter that the American and Scottish Churches possess liturgies which, however bald and meagre they may appear in com- parison with the copious and ornate rites of the East, would yet be acknowledged by the Bishops of the Russian and Greek Church as manifestly containing the essentials of the Euchar- istic Service, and even their own ancient order and arrange- ment of its most solemn parts. 1 Again, it is worthy of remark that in Presbyterian Scot- land the absence of an Invocation would be regarded as a defect. A very competent authority, Dr. Sprott, goes so far as to say that there ' is ample evidence that our greatest theologians [i. e. of the Scottish Presbyterians] have held both the invocation and the words of institution to be essential '. 2 The Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God enjoined a prayer for the sanctification of the elements. 3 The Presbyterian Euchologion prescribes an express Invocation in the following terms (which are plainly modelled on words familiar to us) : ' And we most humbly beseech Thee, O merci- ful Father, to vouchsafe unto us Thy gracious presence as we do now make that memorial of His most blessed sacrifice, which Thy Son hath commanded us to make : and to bless and sanctify with Thy Word and Spirit these Thine own gifts of bread and wine, which we set before Thee ; that we receiving them, &c.' 4 What Scottish episcopalian will not hail, with thankfulness to God, the instinctive catholic yearnings of his fellow-countrymen, and will not hold doubly dear those con- 1 Our Scottish revision took place after the Scottish Church was disestablished and freed from state control, and from the hampering restriction of political considerations ; and it may be that a restoration to a more primitive form of the Eucharistic Service (though not perhaps exactly after our pattern) will be one of the compensating gains to the English Church should she be called on to suffer as we have suffered. 1 The Worship and Offices of the Church of Scotland, p. 121. 3 This is given below at p. 194. See below, p. 194. INTRODUCTION n stituents of his own Liturgy which may, hereafter, with God's blessing, help to bridge the space between them and him ? 11. It will be seen from the subsequent comments that there are parts of our Office in which, as it seems to me, it is desirable some modifications of the forms should be effected when a suitable occasion for doing so may present itself. Minor examples I. need not here refer to ; but I would declare my conviction, arrived at after a long and careful study of the whole question, that a recasting of the words of the Prayer of Invocation so as to bring them to a closer conformity with early models would be a real intrinsic gain to the Office (quite apart from considerations as to how it would affect objectors), and might perhaps help to remove, or at all events modify, the feeling hostile or averse to the Office which we know still exists. Students of liturgies will, I suppose, concur with me in saying that in the whole corpus liturgiarum the cor- responding formula is in no single instance presented with such startling abruptness. It is introduced abruptly ; it is passed from abruptly ; it stands in nakedness and baldness that has no parallel. 12. Bishop Robert Forbes and Bishop Falconar, in the editions of the Office of 1764 (which afterwards became the commonly recognized text), unhappily departed in this par- ticular from the learned guidance of Bishop Rattray, the one Scottish theologian of the last century who has left behind him any proof of high attainments in liturgiology, and to whose influence we are indebted for so much that we prize. Bishop Rattray's Office for the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, pre- pared with much care for actual use, and printed posthumously as an appendix to his work, The Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem, gave the Prayer of Invocation as follows : ' Have mercy upon us, O Lord God, Almighty Father, have mercy upon us, and send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us, and upon these gifts which are here set before Thee, that, by His descent upon them, He may make this bread the Holy BOIDY of Thy Christ, and this cup the precious BLO>IOD of Thy Christ, that they may be to all who partake of them, for the sanctification of soul and body, for bringing forth the fruit of good works, for 12 ANNOTATED SCOTTISH COMMUNION OFFICE remission of sins, and for life everlasting.' This form indeed runs close to the form in the Liturgy of St. James, which, after it had undergone his recension, he had taken as his model. The reasons for the construction of the Prayer of Invocation in its present form are not easy to divine ; but if we may con- jecture that it was due to the supposed superiority of the so- called Liturgy of St. Clement, it is worth while observing that in that liturgy (which, I may remark in passing, we have no sufficient reason to believe was ever actually used by any Church in Christendom, east or west) there is a part of the formula which has been entirely omitted by the Scottish revisers, I mean that which refers to the purpose of the change prayed for, and which in my judgement is identical in intention with the ' ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat ' of the Roman Canon. 1 In truth the formula of Invocation in the Scottish Office, as it now stands, is without precedent or parallel. Expression is given to a great truth, but not to the larger truth as we find it in the corresponding parts of the liturgies of the ancient Church. And for many a year our communion has been suffering from the inevitable Nemesis that sooner or later overtakes every departure made in the Church's formu- laries of devotion from the even balance of the primitive faith. 1 See Appendix B. If the Clementine Liturgy caused the omission of the ' iJ/Mis which stands in the three liturgies now used by the Holy Orthodox Church of the East (viz. those of St. Chrysostom, St. Basil, and St. James), it should also have caused the omission of the Lord's Prayer ; but this was too startling to attempt. I am afraid the truth is that Bishops R. Forbes and Falconar here ventured beyond their depth. It may have been, and no doubt was, with the best intentions (presumably to emphasize the great truth of the objective nature of the Heavenly Gift) that the words (/>' ly/xaj were omitted, but it is well to remember the great danger of taking on ourselves to decide upon what should have a high emphasis in formulas of devotion meant for the Church's permanent use. Nestorianism grew out of an undue emphasis of truth, and so did the counter heresy of Eutyches. I affirm without hesitation that there has been much culpable prejudice exhibited towards our Scottish Office ; yet I should be untrue to my convictions if I did not express my belief that prejudice has in many instances been due mainly to the departure, above indicated, from the Church's ancient formula. The form of the Invocation in Sarapion's Liturgy, though, in my opinion, of unquestion- able antiquity, seems to stand apart from other types, and is rather to be regarded as a liturgical curiosity than as a guide of practical value (see Mr. Brightman, in the Journal of Theological Studies, i. 97). INTRODUCTION 13 The retention of the clause devised in 1764 by the two Scotch Bishops (for, broken from its context, it is an invention with which they must be credited) has, in my opinion, done more to retard the adoption of the Office, and to bring about its disuse, than any other cause. It has been, I believe, the real source of the underlying force that enabled the General Synod of 1862-3 to carry successfully the repressive legislation with respect to the Scottish Office which still stands in our Church's Code of Canons. The Clementine Liturgy comes to us tainted by suspicion. There is no ground for supposing that, in the form in which we possess it, it was ever used. It is an extract from an apocryphal work, compiled by one who is now generally acknowledged to be the interpolator of the genuine Ignatian Epistles and the forger of the six spurious Epistles, the ' pseudo- Ignatius ' of patristic criticism, a writer who is regarded, by many able to judge, as ' of unorthodox theo- logical affinities '- 1 It should be discarded as a model to be followed. Notably in its formula for the Invocation, it departs from every one of the great liturgies of the Orthodox Church, which, without exception, in the same breath pray that the Holy Spirit may be sent on us and on the elements a feature of such antiquity that we find it also in the liturgies of both Monophysites and Nestorians a feature which, in my opinion, should unquestionably appear in any future attempt to revise the form of the Invocation. 13. But has the time arrived when this subject may again be considered with a view to its being practically dealt with by the proper authorities ? The fierce violence of theological party-spirit has thanks be to our God somewhat abated. Men have come to know each other better, and have learned, when they understand what they each really mean, that their differences are much smaller than they had supposed. There is now less of the shouting of party war-cries even among the young and foolish. There is a greater readiness to make allowance for differences that do not touch the essentials of the faith. Nevertheless, it would be unwise to underrate the 1 See Brightman's Eastern Liturgies, pp. xvii, xxvii, xxviii. 14 ANNOTATED SCOTTISH COMMUNION OFFICE forces of ignorance and prejudice which still exist on the part of those who pose as champions of the Scottish Office no less than on the part of their opponents. May the Lord of Truth and Prince of Peace so guide and rule our hearts that in His Love we may be perfectly joined together in unity of doctrine. 14. The American Church, in following the liturgy of the Church from which she derived her episcopate, did so in an independent spirit ; and in respect to the particular case we have been considering solved the difficulty in a manner that has resulted in at least a singular practical success. The American Church, like every considerable religious community, has its various schools of theological thought, and its various shades of theological opinion ; but all men unite without murmur in using an Office that on the whole, and all things considered, successfully reflects both the form and spirit of the early liturgies. I do not regard the formula adopted by the American Church as intrinsically the best attainable : yet when we take into account the rudimentary state of liturgical know- ledge, on both sides of the Atlantic, at the period when the American revision was undertaken, it is more reasonable to congratulate, than in any degree to reflect upon, the Church of the United States for the manner in which objections were reconciled. Not only is God's blessing explicitly asked upon the elements (as in every ancient liturgy of Christendom, the Roman included, and, I fancy, in every modern liturgy the English only excepted), but we also find an explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit, as in the Scottish liturgy, following the liturgical precedent of Eastern Christianity. In both particulars, as most of us will probably think, the American form possesses distinct superiority over the corre- sponding part of the English Prayer-Book. But if a revision of this part of the Scottish Office be attempted I am confident American Churchmen would not look on us with either coldness or suspicion if we turned for guidance rather to the ancient liturgies Western as well as Oriental than to their own Office, excellent as we gladly acknowledge it to be. Indeed I believe that the only possibility of bringing a revision INTRODUCTION 15 successfully to a close lies in our being able to point to the fact that the present formula of Invocation is a seriously imperfect and faulty reproduction, in spirit as well as letter, of the corresponding formulas in the ancient liturgies. 15. When the task of revision of her Communion Office comes to be undertaken by the Scottish Church, there are certain considerations which should be held in view, (i) The great orthodox liturgies, which are here unanimous, should be our guide in praying for the sending of the Holy Spirit ' upon us and upon the holy gifts ' or some words of like effect, such as ' upon us and these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine ', &c. (2) As, if not universally, all but universally, in the Oriental liturgies, whether of orthodox or unorthodox Churches, the clause having reference to the effects of a good reception, and the purpose (in this respect) of the Invocation should be linked immediately with the foregoing prayer by some such phrase as ' so that ', ' in order that ', ' to the end that ', &c. (3) It might also be worth weighing carefully whether objections might not be met and much hostility disarmed by giving expression in the language of the Prayer of Consecration to the thought which Dr. Maclean (now the Bishop of Moray) has recently suggested in the words, ' We ask God to cause the sacrament to be that which our Lord made it at the Last Supper. No one would wish to ask for more than our Lord signified when he instituted the Eucharist ; no one surely would ask for less.' 1 If effect could be given to this latter suggestion, which was pressed by the late Dr, Bright, Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford, when the subject of revision was before the Scottish Bishops in 1889, I should be surprised if any serious objection would be felt to the word ' become '. Nay, we might perhaps revert to the word ' made ', or, if the transitive form be preferred, to the word ' make ', as in some of the most notable of the Eastern liturgies. I myself believe that the objections felt by some to the form of the Invocation put forward by the Scottish Bishops in their draft liturgy of 1889 were not well founded. 1 Recent Discoveries illustrating early Christian Life and Worship, p. 31. 16 ANNOTATED SCOTTISH COMMUNION OFFICE But an objection does not cease to be 'a conscientious objection ' because it is unreasonable. If Scottish Churchmen generally would accept the intro- duction of such a clause as has been suggested, expressed in unambiguous language, there would remain the not incon- siderable difficulty of literary workmanship in inserting it without overloading the whole sentence. But this difficulty might perhaps be overcome. Any attempt to work out the suggestions in detail would be unsuitable in this place. An element of considerable importance in any consideration of the revision of the present Scottish form of Invocation is the unquestionable fact, admitted by all competent liturgiolo- gists of the present day, that we do not possess any liturgy which can properly be called ' primitive ', and which, as ' primitive ', would carry an authority that could not be gainsaid. The curious treatise, The Doctrine of the Apostles, discovered a few years ago, has not yet been given by the general consent of scholars a definite place in early Christian literature, either as regards the date of its production or the orthodoxy of its author. And though it contains a service relating to the Eucharist, its form is so entirely out of keeping not only with the forms which eventually established themselves both in the East and West, but with such early eucharistic references as we find in Ignatius and Justin Martyr, that the form in the Doctrine of the Apostles may well be regarded rather as an outcome of ecclesiastical individualism than as representing a liturgical type. Another recent discovery, the liturgical forms of the bishop Sarapion (generally supposed to be the bishop of that name who presided over the see of Thmuis in Egypt in the time of Athanasius), brings us down to the middle of the fourth century. These forms make the earliest collection we possess on any considerable scale of the services of the Christian Church. 1 But they cannot be regarded as ' primitive '. They exhibit the local ' use ' of the Delta of the Nile. For the 1 The best edition of the text is that by Mr. F. E. Brightman, in the Journal of Theological Studies, i. 88 and 247. INTRODUCTION 17 antiquities of the liturgy in Egypt they are full of interest ; they show also, amid many differences, features common to liturgies of the Syrian type, of which we have some account in the Mystagogical Catechism of Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 347 ?). But they cannot claim to be a guide in details. And, like the liturgy of Rome, they show us that a large liberty was enjoyed in Christian Churches in different parts of Christen- dom to vary to a wide extent the forms of even the most sacred rites. It was the liturgy of the Syrian type that came to prevail in the Churches of the East. The form of the consecration in Sarapion's liturgy is, how- ever, of such interest that I give here a translation. After a very noble and much expanded form of the ' It is meet and just ', followed by ' Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Hosts ', we read as follows : ' The Heaven is full, and the earth, of thy glory. The Heaven is full, and the earth is full of thy excellent glory (rf/? nfyaXoirpfTrovs a-ov So'^rjs). 1 O Lord of the powers, 2 fill also this sacrifice with thy power and thy communion (/^eraAT/^ws-) ; for to thee we have offered the living sacrifice, the unbloody offering. To thee we have offered this bread, the similitude (ouoico/xa) of the body of the Only-begotten. For this bread is the similitude of the holy body, because the Lord Jesus Christ, in the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and brake, and gave to his disciples, saying, Take, and eat, this is my body broken for you for the remission of sins. Wherefore, we too making the similitude of his death have offered the bread ; and we beseech thee through this sacrifice, be thou reconciled to us all and be thou favourable, 3 O God of Truth. And as this bread was scattered upon the mountains, and was gathered together into one, so also do thou gather together thy holy Church from every nation, and from every country, and from every city, and village, and house, and make one, living, catholic Church. 4 1 Compare -z Pet. i. 17. * Compare i Pet. iii. 22. 3 Compare Luke xviii. 13. Perhaps ' be thou propitiated ' may give the sense better. This feature is found also in the Doctrine of the Apostles. 1327 C * i8 ANNOTATED SCOTTISH COMMUNION OFFICE ' And we have also offered unto thee the cup, the similitude of the blood, for the Lord Jesus Christ, having taken the cup after supper, said to his disciples, Take, drink, this is the New Testament, that is, my blood, which was shed for you, for the remission of sins, wherefore we also have offered the cup, presenting (irpoadyovTts} the similitude of blood. ' O God of Truth, may thy holy Word (Ao'yos) come to ( 77-1877- (UTjo-dTo)) this bread, that the bread may become (yemjrcu) the body of the Word, and upon this cup, that the cup may become the blood of Truth (or " the Truth ") : and make all who communicate to receive a medicine of life, for the healing of all sickness, and for the strengthening of all progress and virtue, not, O God of Truth, to condemnation, nor to reproof and shame.' Divergent in form as is the Invocation in the above prayer from the form in the great liturgies, its drift and purport is the same. The thought in Sarapion is a prayer that the Word might come to the elements and make them His Body and Blood. That the Holy Spirit was the agent for the bringing about this result is not expressed by Sarapion. And it may well be that the reference to the Spirit did not appear in the prayer of consecration in the earlier period. Mr. Brightman (Journal of Theological Studies, i. 112) offers as an illustration of the language of Sarapion here the well- known passage of Irenaeus (Haer. v. 2, 3) where he speaks of the cup and the bread receiving the Word of God (rov \6yov TOV 0o), ' where ', as Mr. Brightman remarks, ' TOV Xdyov may be personal.' On the word e7ri8rj^