Worship in Scotland during the second half of the seventeenth century and following the Restoration of 1660 was essentially Presbyterian, with the Scottish bishops making no attempt to reintroduce the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637 (see Case Study 1.34).  Thomas Rattray (see Case Study 2.16) indicates that the English Prayer Book of 1662 was used privately by some people and then publicly by the beginning of the eighteenth century (Dowden, 1922: 41-42).  Rattray describes this state of affairs as “deplorable” (Dowden, 1922: 41) but there were reasons why no independent liturgical development occurred in Scotland.  John Dowden lists these as: practical financial difficulties in financing such a project, difficulties relating to the State Prayers and lack of enthusiasm for the eucharistic doctrine of the 1637 Communion Service among many of the clergy and people (Dowden, 1922: 48).  Despite this, there seems to have been some variation in services used in Scotland, with the 1637 Scottish Eucharist being used on some occasions, the inclusion of a prayer of invocation in the English Prayer of Consecration and the transposing of the Prayer of Oblation from its English position as the first prayer after Communion to a position at the end of the Prayer of Consecration, thus allowing an oblation (Dowden, 1922: 43).  In 1722 the Eucharist from the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637 was printed under the title of The Communion Office of the Church of Scotland, as far as concerneth the ministration of that Holy Sacrament, Authorized by K. Charles I. Anno 1636.  Further editions were published in 1724, 1735, 1743, 1752, 1759 and 1764 (Grisbrooke, 1958: 153-154) suggesting that by this stage the liturgy was widely used.  Dowden states that it “was rapidly adopted throughout Scotland” (Dowden, 1922: 69).  In 1744 Thomas Rattray’s book The Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem was published with the liturgy entitled An Office for the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist attached (see Case Study 2.16).  There was therefore, it would seem, some movement towards the use and reform of the liturgy in Scotland, in a form other than Presbyterian and English forms.  Various bishops of the Scottish Church (e.g. Falconer and Forbes – see Case Study 2.9) undertook the task of producing an authorised eucharistic liturgy and this work resulted in the Scottish Communion Office of 1764.  This liturgy owed much to the work of the Nonjurors (the liturgies of 1718 and 1734 – see Nonjuror Liturgies in Case Study 2.27) and the scholarship of Thomas Rattray (Case Study 2.16) and others such as John Johnson (Case Study 2.11), especially in regard to the form of the Prayer of Consecration (Grisbrooke, 1958: 156).  The 1764 liturgy also took some material from the 1637 Scottish Book of Common Prayer, including the offertory sentences, the idea of ‘offering up the bread and wine’ at the time of placing the bread and wine on the altar and the wording of the invocation or epiclesis.  Not only did the form of the 1764 Scottish Communion Office owe much to the Nonjurors, but so did its doctrine of the Eucharist (Grisbrooke, 1958: 157).  The order and structure of the eucharistic prayer, the importance of the oblation and the idea that the oblation occurred at the institution of the Eucharist and not at the cross, were all important aspects of the Nonjurors’ theology of the Eucharist.

The 1764 Scottish Communion Office (edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 332-348) will now be considered in terms of the eucharistic doctrine it teaches.  No rubrics appear to have been placed at the beginning of the 1764 Eucharist, and so directions about the placement of the altar, the priest and the people are unclear.  Local custom may well have been the rule.  The service begins much like the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, with Lord’s Prayer, Collect for Purity and Ten Commandments (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 335-337) but departs from English practice by the use of our Lord’s Summary of the Law as an alternative to the Ten Commandments (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 337).  The Collect for the Day and prayers for the King are printed together with an alternative prayer for good government in which the name of the King is not mentioned (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 337-338).  This is followed by the Bible readings, Creed, Sermon and Exhortation (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 338-339).  The Offertory comes next, with the collection of alms separated from the offertory of bread and wine.  The Sentences to be read during the collection of alms refer both to the giving of money and the offering of sacrifice (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 339-341).  The rubric at the Offertory directs:

“And the Presbyter shall then offer up, and place the bread and wine prepared the sacrament upon the Lord’s table.” (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 341).

The idea of ‘offering up’ indicates that the bread and wine were seen as an oblation, or eucharistic sacrifice, given to God in a realist manner.

The eucharistic prayer proceeds as in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, up to the Sanctus (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 341-343).  It should be noted that there is no Benedictus in the Scottish Communion Office of 1764.  The first part of the eucharistic prayer continues much like 1662, with some significant changes.  The word ‘own’ is substituted for the word ‘one’ and the word ‘there’ found in 1662 is omitted in the sentence which reads: “who [‘made there’ in 1662] (by his own [‘one’ in 1662] oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world” (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 343).  The omission of the word ‘there’ accords with the practice of the Nonjurors, whereby the oblation was seen to be offered by Christ at the Last Supper and not at the cross.  The substitution of ‘own’ for ‘one’ emphasises that it was Christ’s oblation and that the oblation is not restricted to one event in time, that is, the cross of Calvary.  The word ‘memory’ in 1662 is changed to ‘memorial’ in 1764 and the word ‘sacrifice’ is added in the sentence which reads: “and did institute, and in his holy gospel command us to continue a perpetual memorial of that his precious death and sacrifice until his coming again” (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 343).  The use of the word ‘memorial’ instead of ‘memory’ suggests a more realist interpretation, in that ‘memorial’ is related to the idea of eucharistic sacrifice as the more dynamic idea of memorial remembrance, whereas ‘memory’ could be suggestive of the more Reformed notion of merely bringing Christ’s death to mind in the context of eating bread and wine, without any realist connection between the sign and the signified.  The addition of the word ‘sacrifice’ in the same sentence as ‘memorial’ lends support to the idea of eucharistic sacrifice as memorial remembrance.

The institution narrative follows in the form of 1662, however, the prayer does not end here as it does in the 1662 form.  The prayer continues with ‘The Oblation’, so named at the side of the prayer.  The words of the oblation are:

“Wherefore O Lord, and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we thy humble servants do celebrate and make before thy divine majesty, with these thy holy gifts, WHICH WE NOW OFFER UNTO THEE, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion, and precious death, his mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.” (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 343).

The printing in block capitals is suggestive of Nonjuror influence and practice (see Nonjurors’ Liturgies in Case Study 2.27) with the intention of conveying in a very definite way the moment and nature of the eucharistic oblation.  The words ‘which we now offer unto thee’ clearly associate the sign with the signified in the matter of the oblation.  The gifts of bread and wine are offered to God as the memorial (more than mere memory or bringing to mind, but as a pleading of Christ’s offering of himself) whereby those who participate in the Eucharist ‘celebrate’ and ‘make’ the memorial.  This is indicative of moderate realism in relation to eucharistic sacrifice.

The words of ‘The Invocation’, so named at the side of the prayer, are:

“And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us, and of thy almighty goodness 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.” (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 343-344).

There is here a realist identification of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine of the Eucharist.  Through the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine are to ‘become’ the body and blood of Christ.  In view of the prevailing doctrine of the Nonjurors in this liturgy, this ‘becoming’ must be considered to be realism to a moderate degree.  Typically the Nonjurors and others (e.g. Rattray – Case Study 2.16) spoke of the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ in power, effect and virtue and not in any fleshy or immoderate manner of presence.

In the 1764 Scottish Communion Office, the idea of sacrifice is included in the eucharistic prayer.  Following the Invocation for example, the prayers ask that God will “accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 344).  The ‘this’ in this sentence could just as likely refer to the eucharistic sacrifice as it does to a personal act of sacrifice.  In view of the fact that the personal act of sacrifice is spoken of in the next section of the prayer, however, it seems more likely that the ‘sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’ refers at this point to the offering of the eucharistic sacrifice, since they are used in the presence of the bread and wine which has been consecrated and offered to God.  In the 1662 BCP the words ‘accept our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’ are placed after the Prayer of Consecration and after the reception of Holy Communion, distancing them from any possible notion of eucharistic sacrifice and heightening the idea of a personal sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.  The eucharistic prayer in the 1764 Scottish Communion Office also prays for worthy reception of “the most precious body and blood of thy Son Jesus Christ” and being filled “with thy grace and heavenly benediction” (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 344) while the consecrated elements are still on the altar awaiting reception.  This again heightens the association between the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ in a moderate realist manner.  This conclusion is strengthened by the use of the words “offer unto thee any sacrifice” and “accept this our bounden duty and service” (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 344) which also occur in the eucharistic prayer in the presence of the consecrated bread and wine and before the reception.  The idea of accepting a sacrifice seems to be linked with the offering of the bread and wine in the Eucharist in a moderate realist fashion.  In the 1662 BCP these words are not used in the presence of the consecrated elements, but only after Communion had been received, thus lessening any notion of realism in regard to the bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood. 

The consecrated elements continue to remain on the altar during the Prayer for the Church, the Lord’s Prayer, the Invitation, the Confession and Absolution, the Comfortable Words and the Prayer of Humble Access.  This is also suggestive of a continuing presence of Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine, especially in the recitation of the Prayer of Humble Access.  The realist notions in this prayer (e.g. “so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood” (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 347)) are therefore closely associated with the consecrated elements, still on the altar, and suggestive of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in power, effect and virtue.  All of these prayers were placed before the Prayer of Consecration in the 1662 BCP in order to avoid these realist connotations.

The words of administration suggest realism also, making no mention of receiving by faith (as they did in the 1662 BCP).  The words of administration are: “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy soul and body unto everlasting life” and “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy soul and body unto everlasting life” (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 347).  To these words the communicants answer “Amen”.

The service then concludes in the way of the 1662 BCP (Prayer of Thanksgiving, Gloria and Blessing), with the exception of a prayer to be used after all have communicated.  The prayer begins with the words, “Having now received the precious body and blood of Christ, let us give thanks to our Lord God …”  (The Scottish Communion Office of 1764, edn. Grisbrooke, 1958: 347).  The prayer suggests that what the communicant has just received is the body and blood of Christ, therefore distancing itself from any view that there is no real presence or gift in the Eucharist.

The Scottish Communion Office of 1764 presents a moderate realist view of both eucharistic presence and sacrifice.  The sign is associated with the signified in terms of both the eucharistic offering and the eucharistic presence of Christ.  Moderate realism is affirmed throughout the liturgy.

The influence of The Scottish Communion Office of 1764 has been substantial in Anglican liturgical development.  Ronald Jasper argues that the 1764 liturgy “marked a watershed in Anglican liturgical history” (Jasper, 1989: 36) since it gave approval to liturgical services based on primitive models.  This development has come to be the norm in modern liturgical development.  The 1764 liturgy also marked the beginning of a new family of eucharistic rites based more on the model of the 1549 BCP, rather than the 1662 BCP.  This idea of different families of eucharisitic liturgies based on either the model of 1549 or 1662 has also been affirmed by Massey Shepherd (1955) and Jasper and Cuming (1987) who along with Ronald Jasper argue that some provinces of the Anglican Communion (e.g. the United States of America, the Episcopal Church of Scotland and the Anglican Church of Southern Africa) follow the 1549 model, while others (e.g. the Church of England, the Anglican Church of Australia and the Church of Ireland) have traditionally followed the 1662 model.  In recent times many of these differences have begun to disappear with provinces such as Australia and England adopting liturgies based on more primitive models and reflecting 1549 (e.g. A Prayer Book for Australia, 1995 and Common Worship, 2000).  A process of liturgical convergence has occurred throughout the Anglican Communion, with the 1764 Scottish Communion Office remaining a seminal influence and watershed in this development.  This issue will be raised again in Case Study 4.54 when the liturgies of the Anglican Communion are considered in much greater detail.