The second of these heads respects the revision of the Liturgy; and we will transcribe what is said of Patrick's share in the re-modelling of the Collects.

"But to return to the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; they opened their commission at the Jerusalem Chamber on the 10th of October, 1689; but some named in it did not appear, or soon deserted their brethren.

"The rest of the Commissioners applied themselves closely to the work assigned them for several weeks. They had before them all the exceptions, which either the Puritans before the war, or the Non-comformists since the Restoration, had made

to any part of the Church service. They had likewise many propositions and advices, which had been offered at several times by many of our Bishops and divines, upon those heads, of which Bishop Stillingfleet had made a great collection. Matters were well considered, and freely and calmly debated; and all was digested into an entire correction of everything that seemed liable to any just objection. They began with reviewing the Liturgy; and first they examined the Calendar, in which, in the room of Apocryphal Lessons, they ordered certain chapters of Canonical Scripture to be read, that were more for the people's edification. The Athanasian Creed being disliked by many persons, on account of the damnatory clause, it was left to the minister's choice to use, or change it for the Apostles' Creed. New Collects were drawn up more agreeable to the Epistles and Gospels for the whole course of the year, and with a force and beauty of expression capable of affecting and raising the mind in the strongest manner. The first draught of them was composed by Dr. Patrick, who was esteemed to have a peculiar talent for composing prayers. Dr. Burnet added to them yet farther force and spirit. Dr. Stillingfleet then examined every word in them with the exactest judgment; and Dr. Tillotson gave them the last hand, by the free and masterly touches of his natural and flowing eloquence. Dr. Kidder, who was well versed in the oriental languages, made a new version of the Psalms more conformable to the original. Dr. Tenison, having collected the words and expressions throughout the Liturgy, which had been excepted against, proposed others in their room, which were more clear and plain, and less liable to objection. Other things were likewise proposed, which were left to be determined by the Convocation: as particularly that the cross in baptism might be either used or omitted at the choice of the parents; and that a Non-conformist minister going over to the Church should not be ordained according to the common form, but rather conditionally, in the same manner as infants are baptised, when there is no evidence of their being baptised before, with the addition of the episcopal benediction, as was customary in the ancient Church, when clergymen were admitted who had been ordained by heretics; of which matter of ordination Dr. Bramhall, Archbishop of Armagh, had given a precedent when he received some Scots Presbyters into the Church."

In 1689, Patrick was made Bishop of Chichester, and was next year translated to Ely, where he discharged the duties of his solemn function with great zeal, ability, and piety. He died at Ely in 1707, aged eighty years.

We have thus refreshed the recollections of our readers sufficiently to enable them to adjust to their right places the passages which we propose to transcribe from the Bishop's auto-biographical detail.

CANDLES ON COMMUNION TABLES.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

THE advocates for displaying candles on Communion-tables, as significative emblems, have not forgiven the Bishop of London's direction that if placed there they shall not be lighted. There is no more harm abstractedly in having candles on the Communion-table, than in the reading-desk; but Rome has made candle-lighting a special portion of false worship, and often an idolatrous rite. "Seemeth he to be in his right mind," say our Reformers in the Homily "On the Peril of Idolatry,"

CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 71.

4.0

quoting Lactantius, "who offereth up to the Giver of all light the light of a wax-candle for a gift? He requireth another light of us, which is not smoky, but bright and clear, even the light of the mind and understanding. Their (the heathen) gods, because they be earthly, have need of light, lest they remain in darkness; whose worshippers, because they understand no heavenly thing, do draw religion, which they use, down to the earth." The Homily adds: "Thus far Lactantius, and much more, too long here to write, of candle-lighting in temples before images and idols for religion; whereby appeareth both the foolishness thereof, and also that in opinion and act we do agree altogether in our candle-religion with the Gentiles Idolaters." The Homily goes on to show that this candle worship is closely connected with superstition and idolatry.

Bishop Jeremy Taylor says of the Papists, "This is plain by their public and authorised treatment of their images; they consecrate them; they hope in them; they expect gifts and graces from them; they clothe them and crown them; they erect altars and temples to them; they kiss them; they bow their head and knee before them; they light up tapers and lamps to them, which is a direct consumptive sacrifice; they do to their images as the heathen do to theirs ;-these are the words of Irenæus, by which he reproves the folly of some that had got the pictures of Christ and Pythagoras, and other eminent persons."

The Tractarians may say that the Homilies and Bishop Taylor represent unfairly the meaning of their lighting candles; and that it is not argument, but profane levity, to call them "a consumptive sacrifice." I do not admire the phrase; but in sober truth what do the Tractarians really intend to imply by placing candles on what they call "the altar," and lighting them on Saints' Days? Will they tell us frankly what is the purport of the observance?

M.

FAMILY READINGS.

For the Christian Observer.

"And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat. And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him weeping, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on. There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? Simon answered and said, I suppose that he to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged. And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss but this woman, since the time I came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace."-Luke vii. 36-50.

It appears to have been our Saviour's object, on this most interesting occasion, to shew the utter delusion, in which the Pharisee and all selfrighteous professors are involved. He conceived himself fully entitled to the Divine favour, while the penitent at Jesus' feet was excluded for ever from that prime blessing. Our Lord, then, shews him, if he had eyes to see, that their relative positions were precisely the reverse ;—that the woman, though once a wanderer, was now a sheep brought home to the fold; justified, pardoned, and reconciled to God;-while he who condemned her, was, at that very moment, a stranger from the covenants of promise, and without God in the world. And this the Pharisee is led to demonstrate, by his own verdict upon a given case. Of two debtors, one in a lesser, the other in a greater sum, but both freely forgiven by their generous creditor, it is asked, "Which of them will love him most?" Simon, judging rightly, answers, "He to whom he forgave most." But are we here to suppose, as some mistakenly have done, that the debtor in five hundred pence means the sinner who has still more deeply sunk in abandonment and vileness than he who owed the fifty;--and that, if pardoned, he would love, with greater ardour and intensity, than the other? God forbid. What can be more withering to all the highest, holiest hopes of youth, than to say, as this doctrine does, "If, like Obadiah, you serve God from your youth, and, like Samuel, grow before the Lord, you will gain nothing thereby but an incapacity to love Him with the entire affections of the heart. Go then, and steep yourselves in foulness, impurity, and vice; that you may thus qualify yourselves for the keeping of the first and great commandment?" No. He who owed the five hundred pence, represents the sinner, who knows the plague of his own heart; who feels his sins to be numberless as the hairs of his own head, without palliation and without excuse. On the other hand, the debtor in fifty pence stands for him who lays a flattering unction to his own soul, and says, "Peace, peace, when there is no peace. This contrast is distinctly recognized, Mark ii. 17. When Jesus heard it, he said unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

But how does our Lord prove to which of these classes the parties now before Him respectively belong? He proves it by their conduct towards Him. He points the attention of Simon to the woman at that very instant bathing his feet with her tears, and exhibiting the most affecting tokens of devoted attachment. He contrasts this with the cold neglect which the Pharisee had, in many instances, evinced. Here then were the proofs before his eyes. This penitent was not an outcast, as he supposed; but one whose sins were pardoned, who was a daughter of the Lord Almighty"-" for she loved much." These fruits could grow on no branch which was not graffed into the true Vine; could proceed from no source but that faith, which justifies before God, and works by love. On the contrary, the Pharisee, if not blinded, might have known that his sins, little in his own view, but so much the greater in the sight of God, were still unpardoned; that he, and not the woman, was, in his conception of the term, sinner;-because he presented to Jesus, the centre of the Divine attractions, a cold and alienated heart.

H. W.

MISAPPLICATION OF TEXTS IN PRAYER.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

IF texts are quoted in sermons, or embodied in prayer, they should without doubt be used in their true meaning, unless when intentionally employed in the way of "accommodation." Among misused passages is that of Psalm exliv. 5, or Isaiah lxiv. 1-they are nearly identical; for we frequently read in written forms of prayer, and I have been told the supplication is frequent in Dissenting pulpits-"Oh that thou wouldst rend (or bow down) the heavens; that thou wouldst come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence;" in the sense of imploring the presence and favour of God, and his sacred influences; whereas in both the passages above referred to, the words are used in a very different sense, as the context shews. The Psalm says, "Cast forth lightning, and scatter them: shoot out thine arrows, and destroy them." In the corresponding passage in Isaiah we read: "As when the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters to boil, to make thy name known to thine adversaries, that the nations may tremble at thy presence." I am sure this is not the sense in which the passage is customarily used in prayer: but why quote sacred words at random?

A TEXTUARY.

ANNUAL OMISSION OF EMBER-WEEK PRAYERS.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

SOME Reverend friends, whose short memories do injustice to their good intentions, having this year omitted, as usual, the Ember-week prayers, where they occurred after the 14th of September, may I take the liberty of reminding them that the next Ember-days are the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday after the 13th of December, from which the Ember-week is reckoned? Holy-Cross Day and St. Lucy are the Romanist dedications; but these were shunned by the Anglican Church.

RECORDOR.

As

ON THE BROKEN CHAIN OF SCOTTISH EPISCOPACY.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

you have invited your correspondents to answer a question which has been addressed to you by a correspondent in your last Number, (p. 611), perhaps you will permit me, who, although hitherto no correspondent, have yet for years been a constant reader of your Journal, to answer the question alluded to. Your correspondent asks for authoritative information relative to a statement which he says ral occasions has been asserted, viz., That the Scotch Bishops at their last restoration were persons who had never been ordained episcopally." Now I think I can supply the "satisfactory information" requested.

"6 on seve

Your own extract from Dr. Bernard, so far as it goes, is decisive. Spotiswoode in his History (p. 514, et seq.), states that when he and his two brethren, Lamb and Hamilton, were presented to the English Bishops to be consecrated, Andrews, then Bishop of Ely, being one of the consecrators, objected that "they ought first to be made priests.

upon the score of their not having been ordained by a Bishop." Bancroft, however, who was present, replied that this was unnecessary, because, "where Bishops could not be had, orders given by Presbyters must be reckoned lawful;" and "that unless this was granted, the calling and character of the ministry in most of the Reformed Churches might be questioned." This argument, it seems, prevailed; and, accordingly, the Scottish Bishops elect were consecrated without receiving Episcopal ordination.

Such is the account of Spotiswoode himself. It is proper, however, to mention that Heylin (Hist. of Presbyterians, pp. 387, 388) gives a different version of the argument of Bancroft. According to Heylin the answer of Bancroft was to this effect, that Episcopal ordination was not essential, because the Episcopate as the greater included the Presbyterate as the less; and besides that in the history of the ancient Church there were various instances of consecration per saltum.

It is not necessary here to canvas the trustworthiness of Heylin's account, because even he acknowledges the only fact with which we are at present concerned, viz., that the Scottish Bishops were not episcopally ordained. It may, however, be stated that Bishop Russel (History of the Church in Scotland, ii. 100,) after giving the substance of Bancroft's answer according the version of Heylin, adds, "The authority of Spotiswoode on this occasion cannot however be set aside, as he was not only present, but deeply interested in the discussion."

When Spotiswoode, Lamb, and Hamilton returned to Scotland, they consecrated ten Bishops to fill up the remaining sees in the Scottish Church; but every one of those ten, like their consecrators, had only Presbyterian orders. If your correspondent desires further information on this subject, I refer him to Bishop Keith's Catalogue of Scottish Bishops, (Bishop Russel's edition,) under the various names: An Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, by the Rev. John Skinner, a Presbyter of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, at Longsight, Aberdeenshire, (father of the late, and grandfather of the present, Bishop Skinner, Aberdeen,) ii. 251, 252; and Collier's Eccl. Hist., (Barham's edition) vii. 362, 363.

Whether the want of Episcopal orders, and the consequent consecration per saltum, involved any flaw in the orders of those Scottish Bishops, I do not mean here to inquire. As however that point is of some importance to the subsequent parts of this paper, I may transcribe the judgment of Dean Field (certainly no mean authority on such matters), Treatise on the Church, Book III., p. 157. "A Bishop," says Field, “ordained per saltum, that never had the ordination of a Presbyter, can neither consecrate and administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Body, nor ordain a Presbyter, himself being none, nor do any act peculiarly pertaining to Presbyters." Whether the principle laid down by Field is correct, this is not the place perhaps to inquire; but it is certain that it was rigorously applied at the period of the English Reformation. "Amongst us here in England," says Archbishop Parker, in his "Manner how the Church of England is Administered and Governed,” printed at the end of Lady Bacon's translation of Jewell's Apology, and in Strype's Parker, (App. to Book II., p. 60). "Amongst us here in England no man is called or preferred to be a Bishop except he have first received the orders of priesthood." Your correspondent can attach to these authorities the importance to which he may deem them entitled, and deduce from them the inferences which he may think they can safely bear.