doctrine of the sermon was condemned, and sentence might have immediately followed, and in the usual order of proceeding would have followed."-Mr. Cheyne's Speech, p. 8.

We had the privilege of being present at this most interesting trial on the one side was Mr. Cheyne, a venerable Presbyter, with the snows of more than sixty winters on his head, charged with teaching heretical opinions on one of the most important doctrines of the Catholic Faith. On the other, was Mr. Rorison, of only half his years, moreover one who had been deeply indebted to Mr. Cheyne for many acts of personal kindness, his accuser. Unread in divinity, without depth of thought, ignorant of theological terminology, yet withal clever, shrewd, and not over scrupulous; the contrast was striking. The one firm, strong, immovable in the truth; the other, irreverent, apparently anxious only for notoriety and victory, careless of everything else but obtaining them as a learned friend next to us remarked, he was a good country attorney spoilt by being made a clergyman.' Mr. Cheyne's defence on the merits of the case was a thoughtful, learned, most valuable theological document: the other a sharp, clever, telling attempt to pick holes in it, and hit a blot; just the sort of speech that would impress a jury in a civil action: a little distortion of words, an insinuation of meaning, an almost imperceptible suggestio falsi pervaded the whole. In his quotation from the Articles, and from the six sermons, clauses, sentences, were artfully omitted, qualifying clauses conveniently dropped. Our readers will remember that in speaking of the Bishop of Glasgow's Pastoral, we pointed out how he perverted Article XXXI. by a misquotation, in order to make that Article condemn the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Altar, (see Ecclesiastic, p. 410,) we find Mr. Rorison following the Right Rev. Prelate's example, and trying on the same-we must use the word-dodge. Again, Mr. Cheyne used the phrase 'our unhappy isolation from the rest of Christendom;' the accuser made no scruple of misquoting the words 'our unhappy separation from Rome'! for which disingenuousness he was very properly made to apologize and retract, by the Bishop of Brechin. The whole of Mr. Rorison's argument was an attempt to prove that Mr. Cheyne taught Roman doctrine: it was in fact a laboured attempt to make the public suppose that the Calvinistic teaching on the Holy Eucharist is that which the Churches of England and Scotland hold. With a large body of the Scottish public no doubt he succeeded, indeed we saw in a Presbyterian paper an article in which the writer said that the Bishop of Aberdeen deserved the thanks of all true Protestants for condemning Mr. Cheyne. Such claptraps would tell upon an audience in favour of the accuser, but surely, they must tell against him, when the Bishops view and calmly consider the written statements.

We shall not be expected to go through the accusation and defence, it would occupy too much of our space; we understand that there will be an authorized copy of the whole proceedings published, we strongly recommend our readers to provide themselves with it when it appears; Mr. Cheyne's defence is a most valuable theological document for all those who wish for a summary of the teaching on this most important doctrine. Mr. Cheyne argued, and he supported his argument by numerous quotations from Anglican and Scotch divines, that there was a catena of teaching on the Holy Eucharist precisely similar to that which he advocated. No doubt a catena apparently opposed to this might be found; but, he argued, that if he proved that such teaching had been allowed in the most eminent divines of these two communions, he could not be condemned for teaching as they had taught. To gather catena of different teaching only proved that the Church had not strictly defined the mystery, but had allowed a latitude-precisely the line of argument ruled in the Gorham case on the teaching of the other Sacrament.

On this subject, viz., the discrepancy of Anglican divines on the teaching of the Real Presence, Mr. Cheyne has cleared up a difficulty that all of us must have felt: not only is it an answer to all opposite catena, but it explains and reconciles the apparent contradiction of some writers in their own works; viz., when they at one time seem to hold the Real Presence as we hold it, at another, the Calvinistic "power and efficacy" theory of our opponents. In no writer has this discrepancy appeared more strongly than in Jeremy Taylor, yet he is the man that affords the true key to explain it. We quote the whole paragraph from Mr. Cheyne's defence, p. 46.

"No one will pretend that there is, or ever was since the Reformation, a uniform line of doctrine among English divines. In the last century, Waterland gave an account, in one of his charges, of three different views of the Sacrifice which had been put forth before his time, each supported by the names of distinguished theologians, (Works, vol. viii.) nor has the same author been always much more consistent with himself than they have been with each other. The appellant, however, believes that they have themselves given cautions and explanations, which had they been attended to, would in many cases have reconciled the apparent inconsistencies. Jeremy Taylor is said to be inconsistent on the Real Presence, but he has himself supplied a key to his meaning. Thus he says, 'when the Real Presence is denied, the word 'Real' is taken for natural;' and does not signify 'transcendenter,' or in his just and most proper signification.' (Works, ix. p. 427.) Again, he says, 'CHRIST is present spiritually, that is by effect and blessing.' What can be a plainer testimony to the theory of a presence in 'power and effect'? But Taylor uses a few words which will clear up the whole difficulty-The Presence, by effect and blessing,' he says, ' in true speaking is rather the consequence of His Presence, than the

formality-effect and blessing' because He is really present to work the effect and bestow the blessing. The Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of CHRIST in power and effect, because He is present to give them power and effect. It is a form of expression, in short, which ought to be taken with that of the homily-it is the power and effect,. not of a thing absent,' but of a thing present.' "—Ibid. p. 423.

Surely this passage alone dissolves every catena gathered from Anglican divines in favour of the Calvinistic theory being the only one which they held. They held most strongly the power and efficacy doctrine of the Holy Eucharist; not, however, in opposition to that of the Real Presence, but in connection and addition to it; only, it was not necessary at all times to state it: to teach the virtus of the Sacrament is not to deny the res. Again, we must remember that many of the quotations are taken from controversies with Rome, in which it was necessary to dwell upon some particular part of the doctrine, without stating the whole: just as in the ancient discussion on the Person of CHRIST, he who opposed Eutychianism seemed to favour Nestorianism, and vice versa.

A Scottish Presbyter pointed out to us at the same time, that the non-juring divines, who are largely quoted by our opponents as teaching the Calvinistic theory of 'power and efficacy' only, did, in truth, use these words in quite a different sense from that now understood. He supplied us with an extract from Bishop Rattray, which we give our readers :

"Then, as CHRIST offered up His Body and Blood to GOD the FATHER under the symbols of Bread and Wine, as a Sacrifice to be slain on the Cross for our redemption, so then the Priest offereth up this Bread and Cup as the symbols of the Sacrifice of His Body and Blood thus once offered up by Him: and thereby commemorateth it before GOD with thanksgiving. After which he prays that GOD would favourably accept this commemorative Sacrifice by sending down upon it His HOLY SPIRIT, that by this descent upon them, He may make this Bread and this Cup, (already so far consecrated as to be the symbols or antitypes of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, and offered up as such) to be verily and indeed His Body and Blood; the same Divine Spirit by which the Body of CHRIST was formed in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, and which is still united to it in Heaven, descending on, and being united to, these elements, and invigorating them with the virtue, power, and efficacy thereof, AND MAKING THEM one WITH IT. Then the Priest maketh intercession, in virtue of the sacrifice thus offered up, in commemoration of, and union with, the one great Personal Sacrifice of CHRIST, for the whole Catholic Church, and pleadeth the merits of this one Sacrifice in behalf of all estates and conditions of men in it, offering this memorial thereof not for the living only, but for the dead also, in commemoration of the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, and all the Saints who have pleased GOD in their several generations, from the beginning of the world; and for rest, light, peace, and a blessed

resurrection, and a merciful trial in the day of the LORD, to all the faithful departed."-Bp. Rattray's Instruction concerning the Christian Covenant, p. 27.

Let our readers ponder well these two extracts, and they will understand the teaching of Anglican and non-juring divines, their language and their meaning, on this great mystery: they will see swept away from under the feet of those who tell us that these taught the Calvinistic doctrine, the whole ground on which they rest; the whole foundation on which they have built their statement thus crumbles away.

At an early stage in the trial the question of the authority of the declaration concerning kneeling at the end of the English Office came into question; Mr. Rorison supposed that he would much strengthen his cause if he were allowed to claim this declaration as authorized by the Scottish Church. The point was doubtful, for the Scottish Church only allows the use of the English Office in certain cases, together with the Rubrics prefixed to it: as the Declaration is either not a Rubric at all, or one sui generis, it was reasonably open to question whether it was included with the office: the Bishops deliberating on the point, ruled that the Declaration and all the Rubrics, being a part of the English Office, were to be considered as authorized by the Scottish Church, excepting in such cases as the practice of the Scottish Church differed from the English the two points intended to be excepted by this saving clause, are reservation and single communion in the case of the sick. On this being decided, Mr. Cheyne spoke on the question; his speech we consider to be so valuable that we give it whole to our readers.

"Any use which can be made of this Declaration can affect the arguments of the Appellant very little one way or other. The Accusers found their Presentment on the latter part of the Declaration only; and that must be taken in connection with the terms of their Presentment. It is for them to show that in that passage of his Sermons quoted by them, the Appellant has taught something, not only inconsistent with, or repugnant to, that part of the Declaration, but subversive of it, and asseverative of some doctrine of the Roman Church condemned therein. The sentence of the Appellant's Sermons, quoted under section b, is the following, we do not kneel to the outward visible signs in the Sacrament; we kneel to the LORD Himself invisibly present under the form of bread and wine, though even to these outward things, after consecration, we give religious honour.' Contrast this with the passage quoted from the Declaration under the corresponding letter 6 in part ii. By kneeling, no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either under the Sacramental bread and wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal Presence of CHRIST's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians), and the natural

Body and Blood of our SAVIOUR CHRIST is in heaven, and not here ; it being against the truth of CHRIST's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.' Now, it may fairly be asked in what way the sentence quoted from the Six Sermons, subverts the truth of any part of the Declaration quoted. It cannot be because it mentions as a fact, that we do kneel, a fact certainly which supposes that kneeling is a duty; and it is a duty. It is ordained' that we should do so; that is, we are enjoined; what is ordained, we are enjoined and bound to do. We are enjoined to receive the Blessed Sacrament of our LORD's Body and Blood, in that very manner, and with that very act, which denotes the highest degree of worship-the worship which we pay to the Blessed Trinity, FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST. In the Eastern Church the communicants receive the Sacrament standing, with their bodies lowly bowed. That is the attitude in which they always worship Almighty God, except in penitential seasons, when they kneel, not only as an act of worship, but as a token of humiliation and penitence, -a voluntary acknowledgment that they put themselves in the place of penitents. But our Church recognizes and enjoins no other act of external worship but kneeling, and bowing at the Holy Name. We kneel at our prayers, and in all offices of devotion. Is that intended as an act of adoration to Almighty GoD or not? And if we worship God in this manner in our ordinary devotion-if this be the meaning and intent of the act of kneeling when we pray-can it be other than an act of adoration or worship when used in the highest and holiest part of Divine service? Can it mean less in the Communion than it does at Mattins or Evensong? We are enjoined to kneel at the reading of the Law, at the Confession, and elsewhere in the Liturgy. Is that not an act of worship, then, directed to the LORD Himself invisibly present?' When we come to receive the Body and Blood of our LORD in the Sacrament, we are enjoined to receive it 'meekly kneeling.' Does it cease now to be an act of adoration? or does it mean less now than when used at the Confession, or at the reading of the Decalogue? are we then worshipping our unseen LORD and GOD, and not worshipping Him when we receive His Blessed Body and Blood? It would be hard to conceive that this should be the case. If the Church know but of one act or gesture for expressing the highest degree of adoration which man can pay to GOD, and any other degree of adoration we can suppose to exist, would it not have been naturally expected that she should have recognized the distinctions of worship that we should have heard of Latria and Dulia-the worship of adoration, and the worship of service? But we hear of nothing of the sort. It is the same act of adoration everywhere, or if there be any distinction, it is such only as common reason would point out in relation to the object to whom it is directed. But there is no distinction of object in the Prayer Book. The object of our worship is the Blessed TRINITY, either together or in their distinct Personality. Our adoration may be at one time directed more especially to the FATHER, at another to the SON, or to the HOLY GHOST. It is well known that GOD the FATHER is the special object of our worship

1 The communicants draw near, one after another, bowing with all humility and reverence; and holding their hands crossed on their breasts, receive the Divine Mystery together.-King's Greek Church, p. 178.