that the Consecration Prayers are much longer than the English, and that they come before the prayer for the I whole state of Christ's Church,' so that a long interval occurs between Consecration and Communion. But when he looks more deeply into the Consecration Prayer he observes in it an abrupt and startling formula, for which no precedent can be found in any Liturgy, ancient or modern. After the recitation of the words and acts of the Institution occurs an oblation, and then an invocation after the manner of the Eastern Liturgies in the following terms: 'Vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with Thy word and Holy Spirit, these Thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may become the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son. And we earnestly desire Thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, &c.' Now, as we have seen, there is much to recommend to us this general form of invocation. But when we learn that the abrupt expression of its design (may become . . . Son), without any qualification following, or any specification of the persons for whose use, or the purposes for which, this great mysterious change is intended, was only introduced in this form by Bishop Wm. Falconar, of Moray, and Bishop Robert Forbes, of Ross, in 1764, and that it differs in this abruptness not only from the first book of Edward VI. (1549), and from the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637, but from the Western and Oriental Liturgies of every age and country, we cannot be surprised at the adverse criticism to which it has been subjected. The point does not lie in the word become, but in the fact that it is unscriptural and contrary to all precedent to omit

1

1 Our Lord's words clearly define the purpose of the Sacrament, and it is by them that we must justify the insistence of our Church upon the due use of the Sacrament, and her refusal (at least in England) to sanction reservation because of its misuse in local restriction of Christ's presence to the Tabernacle or Monstrance. There can be no mistake about the emphasis, 'This is my

reference to the covenant relation which the Lord from the first stamped upon His ordinance. This relation was well brought out in the Prayer Book of 1549:

Hear us (O merciful Father) we beseech Thee: 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. Who in the same night, &c.

and in the first Scottish Liturgy of 1637 :

Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech Thee, and of Thy Almighty goodness, vouchsafe 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; so that we receiving them according to Thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of His death and passion may be partakers of the same His most precious Body and Blood: who in the night, &c.

6

The Bishop of St. Andrews did not at first observe this latter point. In his Three Short Sermons,' p. 23, he treats the form of Consecration as substantially the same in both the English and the Scottish Offices. On the other hand, in his Plain Tract on the Scotch Communion Office,' which was delivered as an address to the Congre

6

Body which is given for you' (Luke xxii. 19, R. V.); This is my blood of the covenant which is shed for many unto remission of sins' (Matt. xxvi. 28, R. V.); or, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you' (Luke xxii. 20, R. V., cp. 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25, which is for you, and the new covenant in my blood, R. V.). On the alteration of 1764, see Bishop John Dowden, of Edinburgh, The Annotated Scottish Communion Office, Appendix L, p. 339, Edinb. 1884. The revisers supposed themselves to be following the Clementine Liturgy; but (1) that Liturgy was not, as far as we know, in use anywhere, and (2) after the clause praying that the Holy Spirit may make or show (алоoń) the bread the Body of Christ, and the cup His Blood, it immediately proceeds,' so that those who partake of it may be confirmed in godliness, may obtain remission of sins,' &c., which is orthodox enough.

gation at Muthill, March 20, 1859, and had the effect of confirming the congregation there in their old attachment to the Office, he touches directly upon the disputed point. He explains become' as equivalent to come to be,' and defends the whole expression as no more open to the charge of teaching transubstantiation than our Lord's own words, This is my body,' while the Church in Article xxviii. explicitly rejects that doctrine. But three years later, in September 1862, on further consideration, and probably after arriving at a more detailed knowledge of the historical facts, he was clearly of opinion that this particular expression was open to reasonable objection and required alteration. He observes in his Charge addressed to the Synod of that year that one of their body [Rev. G. H. Forbes, brother of the Bishop of Brechin] proposed to meet the difficulty by adding the following words drawn from the Liturgy of St. James: for the forgiveness of our sins, for our growth in grace, for the bringing forth of good works, and for obtaining life everlasting'; and notes that a similar modification had since been suggested both by Mr. Freeman and Mr. Keble.

He then further proposed (p. 22):

1. That the Consecration Prayer in the Scotch Office be reconsidered, more especially with a view of altering the phrase 'may become' &c. &c.

2. That the Prayer, when altered, be accepted by the Church. as a duplicate formula, together with the Consecration Prayer in the English Office; as we already have duplicate forms of collects for the Easter weeks, for the Sovereign (after the commandments), &c. &c.

3. That the use of this duplicate formula be subject to canonical regulation, upon these or similar terms: 'It shall be lawful for the priest to introduce it, at his discretion, provided its use shall be desired by not less than two-thirds of the male adult Communicants. This rule to apply to all congregations.'

This proposal was made in consequence of the discussion at the General Synod held in July 1862, and continued by successive adjournments to 13 February, 1863, which ended, however, in an unfortunate conclusion. The text of the Office remained unaltered, but it was removed from its position of 'primary authority.' The English Book of Common Prayer was adopted as the service book of the Church, and the use of its Communion office enjoined at all Consecrations, Ordinations, and Synods. Difficult conditions were laid down as to the introduction of the Scottish Office into new congregations, while (arguing ex silentio) it could not be introduced into old ones where it was not already in use. Its continuance where it was in use was tolerated, but it might be removed by a concurrence of the clergyman and a majority of the Communicants.

This somewhat harsh treatment of an old and much loved formula was partly due to a wish to conciliate English prejudice, as negotiations were then going on for a removal of the disabilities of Scottish clergy in England,' partly to the growth in power of the Southern Dioceses, which were, generally speaking, against the Office, in opposition to the old pre-eminence of the North. It was vehemently resisted by G. H. Forbes of Burntisland, who protested against the competence of the General Synod to legislate on such a matter, and carried his protest after a time by appeal into the House of Lords-but naturally in vain.

Bishop Wordsworth recurred to the subject by re

1 These were carried to a successful issue by the Duke of Buccleuch, and others, in 1864, 27 & 28 Vict. c. 94. As to the views of the Anglicising party, the reader may consult a printed letter of Bishop Ewing, of Glasgow, to Primus Terrot, dated Bishopston, 1 May, 1858 (Grant, Edinburgh), in which he urges 'uniformity and, if possible, incorporation with the Church of England' (p. 17, proposed resolution at a General Synod). He was an uncompromising opponent of the Scottish Office, ascribing the misfortunes of the Eucharistic Controversy mainly to it.

printing his Charge of 1862, with other matter, as a contribution to the Seabury Commemoration in 1884-under the title English, Scotch, and American Communion Offices.' His last printed utterance upon it was in his Charge of 1889, in connection with the last General Synod, when he suggested the substitution of the form used by the Old Catholics in Germany and Switzerland-proposed, if I recollect rightly, in that community by my friend Bishop Edward Herzog, of Berne-' may be the Communion of the Body and Blood.' But the matter was shelved.

When revision takes place, if a forecast may be hazarded, it will probably follow the precedents of 1549 and 1637 in reading may be unto us.' The formula 'may become unto us' would have one peculiar feature, which might seem of value, and might be held to avoid certain difficulties, viz. that of literal agreement with the words of the Roman Canon Missae. But then the difference of the Scottish Office from the Roman, in that it places the Invocation. after the words of Institution, is so marked, that this literal agreement in phrase, so dislocated, would have really the opposite effect. It would emphasise the thought that consecration was not effected by the words of Institution, but by the Invocation of the Holy Spirit, which to some might be welcome and to others much the reverse. Altogether, the matter is much less simple than it might appear, and I am not surprised that the General Synod thought it wisest to leave it alone. But some day I should venture to hope that the Scottish Church will return, as regards the consecration prayer, to the first Prayer Book of Edward VI., which is in this order: first Invocation, then Institution, then Oblation, the prayer of the Invocation being in the form may be unto us.' This would bring the Office into closer union both with the East and the West, and with 'This, I imagine, was intended to be a version of 'ut fiat nobis.'