impossibility of procuring a reprint. He argues, therefore, that necessity led to the use of the English Form: but that, though introduced, yet the Clergy were not pledged to its adoption in all particulars, being at liberty to adopt any authorized form, or any one sanctioned by the Bishops.[1] For some time the matter was allowed to sleep: but, after the death of the older Bishops, the question was revived. In the year 1712, the Earl of Winton reprinted the Scottish Liturgy of 1637: yet it was used only in his own chapel at Tranent, and even then against the remonstrances of the Bishop of Edinburgh.[2] As long as Bishop Rose survived, the use of the English Service alone was encouraged. He died in 1720: and then the disputes were revived. In 1723 a sort of defence of the Scottish Communion Office was published. This service was nearly similar, in the points respecting the Usages, to the First Communion Office of King Edward. The author enters into some particulars respecting its history: from which it appears, that, after the reprint by the Earl of Win ton, the Bishop, at length, consented to its use in his Lordship's Chapel. The various points of difference between it and the English Office are pointed out: and the writer claims for it a nearer affinity to the Ancient Liturgies and the primitive practice.[3]
- ↑ Skinner's Ecclesiastical History, ii. 627.
- ↑ A Defence of the Communion Office of the Church of England, proving that there is neither reason nor authority for laying it aside. In a Letter, to a Friend. Preface xix. This letter was written by George Smith, one of the Nonjuring Bishops in England who agreed with Spinkes: but it was published in Edinburgh in 1744, with a Preface by another hand. The Preface contains an account of the Scottish and English Liturgies.
- ↑ An Enquiry in the Decent and Beautiful Order of the Administration of the Lord's Supper, for the Use of the Church of Scot-
