this seems to make the attitude of His pleading the Sacrifice something more than temporary. It is also to be remembered that there are evidently two altars in heaven, one of sacrifice and one of incense, as in the Tabernacle and Temple. For the symbolism of the souls of those that have been slain in martyrdom crying under the altar, of Apoc. vi. 9, can only refer to the altar of sacrifice and not to that of incense. It is evidently taken from the ritual of the old covenant in which the blood (that is the soul or life, Hebrew nephesh) of sin offerings was poured under the altar (Lev. iv. 7 &c.) or at its base, and it is to be connected with the imagery of the life-giving stream issuing from under the altar as described by Ezekiel (xlvii. 1) and as repeated in the last chapter of the Apocalypse (xxii. 1), where it proceeds from out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. All these things are figures which must not be pressed in detail (as when we read in several places of our Lord's sitting at the right hand of God, and in another of His standing), but the whole body of them taken together means at least this, I imagine, that in the heart of God the attributes of Justice and Love are working side by side, pleading, as it were, one against another, and will so work, united by the bond of the Holy Spirit, at least to the end of time.

I should not shrink, then, from saying that Christ still pleads His Sacrifice as our great High Priest, and that the worship of the Eucharist is a union of the worship of earth with that of heaven. Rather, however, I would urge those who teach this to remember that His position as a Priest is higher than His position as a Victim. It is a broader conception and it is freer from any possible tendency to localise and limit the Presence, and so does not lead to the confusion of the sign and the thing signified, which may become practically a source of Idolatry. It reminds us of the great truth, which makes the

Eucharist always and essentially a sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving, that our Lord is living, and that we come to meet a risen and ascended Saviour. This is a truth very apt to be forgotten if we turn merely to the symbolic expressions of His Passion.

To my own mind Eucharistic adoration, in the limited and special sense in which it is addressed to Christ, is more truly understood by the Greek Church, which adores specially when the elements are brought in to the sanctuary, and again as a prelude to reception of the Communion,' than by the Roman, which attaches adoration to the moment of Consecration-and more by Bishop Andrewes and Bishop Wm. Forbes, who speak of adoration of Christ in the Sacrament' or 'in the Eucharist,' than by those who speak of it as 'in the gifts.' The fuller expression, both verbal and practical, is surely the nobler as well as the safer. There is something open to the charge of materialism in the ringing of a bell to call wandering attention to a particular moment when a certain tribute of religious feeling is due. Bishop A. P. Forbes of course would have shrunk from this, but his teaching leads naturally to it.

2

Again as to the charge of Nestorianism made against those who demur to the teaching as to the Presence 'in the gifts' of Christ's body, soul, and Divinity, while I feel that it is perilous to enlarge upon such a point in one direction or the other, I cannot help remembering that there is a parallel distinction surely to be made between the Presence

1 See my Considerations on Public Worship, &c., p. 21, 1898.

2 There is a passage from Bishop Beveridge, On Frequent Communion, p. 107, quoted by Forbes, Charge, 2nd ed. p. xi., which seems to me to show just the difference between his point of view and that of the older Anglicans: How can I, by faith, behold my Saviour coming to me, and offering to me His own Body and Blood, and not fall down and worship Him?' &c. The Presence is that of Christ as Minister of the Sacrament rather than in the consecrated species, of Christ the giver rather than of Christ in the gifts.

L

of Christ in Paradise and His Divine Presence on the throne of God. The penitent robber was at once with Jesus in Paradise. St. Paul speaks of death as to depart and be with Christ.' Yet the beatific vision is something still in prospect for dwellers in Paradise, and even, as we Anglicans believe, for the greatest Saints. There is a sense, then, in which our Saviour can be present, for certain purposes--which may be described by the words grace and efficacy,' 'virtue and power'-without being present in the fulness of His Godhead. I do not dogmatise as to whether this is so or not in the Eucharist, but I shrink from the hard words used by those who speak of the doctrine of a Real Presence of grace and efficacy' as if it was only a subterfuge for a Real Absence.'' This is not the caution and moderation of a large theology or of a loving charity which makes the best of the opinions of our brother Christians who are trying to speak rightly of an inscrutable mystery.

I will only add one point in conclusion. We have noticed several times the tacit transition made by those who assert the identity of the two sacrifices, from the Sacrifice of the Cross to that of the Upper Room. This shows a defective apprehension of the meaning of language. It would surely have been far better if Bishop Forbes could have confessed that he had spoken somewhat hastily on this point. If he had said the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is the repetition of the Sacrifice of the Upper Room as far The phrase Real Absence' is sometimes attributed to Bishop A. P. Forbes. My uncle, however, in a letter to Rev. J. S. Wilson (of Edinburgh), 23 April, 1888, attributes it to his brother George. The story is, that when he appealed to the House of Lords in regard to the Scottish Office, he made a speech some five hours long, and completely mystified the judges. One of them-perhaps Lord Westbury-interposed: 'I am not sure that I quite follow your argument, Mr. Forbes; but as I understand it, you appear to be contending for the doctrine of the Real Presence.' 'O no, my Lord, quite the contrary,' was his reply; my contention is in favour of the doctrine of the Real Absence.'

as human power can be authorised by God to make it, and bears a relation to the Sacrifice of the Cross similar to that which the Sacrifice of the Upper Room possesses,' the wisest of his opponents would have agreed with him. Unfortunately, instead of making concessions of this sort, he added this sentence in a longer passage in the second edition Our Lord said this is my Body; and no words of man can strengthen the tremendous and absolute identity of the two Sacrifices, or rather, as I should prefer to say, of the one Sacrifice in its two aspects' (ed. ii. p. 42). Then in the next paragraph but one he quotes St. Chrysostom, as if he was in agreement with him: 'It is the same which Christ gave to His disciples which is now made by His priests.'

It is difficult for a Bishop to confess that he has been in the wrong; and doubtless Forbes had a hope and desire to show to our fellow-Christians on the continent, with some of whom he was intimate-as with the learned and loveable Gallican Professor Garcin de Tassy, whom I once had the pleasure of visiting in Paris, and who then spoke warmly about him that the Church in this country is in many things nearer to their own than they had imagined. I am far from thinking that the result of the controversy was mere disputation. Many thought more clearly in consequence, and God brought good out of evil; but there was much distraction of energy, and it is difficult to imagine that Presbyterians were not alienated and the day of Home Reunion postponed.

I may add here that in 1859, when Sir G. C. Lewis was Home Secretary, the claims of Bishop Wordsworth were put forward, and it was hoped that he might become Principal of St. Andrews. Professor James D. Forbes of Edinburgh was, however, appointed. I have before me a letter from the latter, dated 16 November, thanking my uncle for his congratulations as specially gratifying under the circumstances.

148

CHAPTER V

FIRST PART OF RESIDENCE AT PERTH

1860-1867

REUNION WORK

'Making his hardest task his best delight.'-W. WORDSWORTH, Eccl. Sonnets,

ii. 16.

Resolution to hold a General Synod carried in 1859-Its constitutionCommittee on Canons-Bishop Eden chosen Primus (1862)-Meetings in 1862-63-Canon on Episcopal elections-Bishop Wordsworth offers his resignation-Work of the Synod.

Continuation of Reunion work-Revival in the EstablishmentDr. R. Lee, Principal Tulloch, Dr. N. Macleod, Dr. Bisset-Removal of clerical disabilities in 1864-Commemoration Addresses by Bishop of St. Andrews, 1860, 1861, and 1862-Charges of 1863, 1864-Dr. Caird and Dr. Pirie-Dr. Rorison's attempt at a Reunion ConferenceSynodal Address in 1866-Chichester sermon (Euodias and Syntyche), 1867.

Parallel attempts to use opportunities of educational changesAdvantages of Scotland as to Elementary Education-Act of 1696-Act of 1861-Attempt at A Common Catechism': not published—' A National Catechism,' 1864-Charges of 1872-Call for united action in this matter.

The Bishop's Greek Grammar adopted by the Head Masters of England (1866)—' Shakespeare's Knowledge and Use of the Bible' (1864), and other Shakesperian publications-Foundation of St. Andrews School Chapel at Perth (1866)—Closer intercourse with England useful, but not wholly favourable to Reunion Movement-Archbishop Longley at Inverness (1866)-Charles Wordsworth at Consecration of Bishop Claughton (1867), at Lambeth Conference (September 1867), at Chichester (November 1867)-Suspension of his efforts for fifteen years.

Domestic events-Death of Kenneth Wordsworth (1862)-Death of Warden Barter (1861)-Bishop Hamilton's generosity (1864).

IN the following chapter I propose to record the chief events of the second period of Bishop Charles Wordsworth's Episcopate, which succeeded the close of the Eucharistic