mere memorials alone, but a lively representation of Christ's body; not only a figure, but, by means of a sacramental mutation, through the omnipotency of Christ's word, they were made effectually to represent His body.*

The change which was intimated in the new service book (for it was hardly more than intimated, it was nowhere explicitly stated, much less insisted upon), is seen as clearly in the change of words made use of in the delivery of the elements as in any alteration. The prayer-book of 1549, on the delivery, appointed these words to be used:-"The body (blood) of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given (shed) for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life." This was altered, in the form of 1552, into "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving." "Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for thee, and be thankful." It is here apparent that the change was intended to ignore the efficiency of the elements, and to make the sacramental service a purely commemorative rite. On the accession of Elizabeth these words were retained, but the earlier form was prefixed to them. Thus the Church of England returned to the language as well as belief of the primitive Church, and teaches us, to this day, that the elements are effectual signs of grace, as well as commemorative of that which was the sole meritorious cause of blessing to the Church,-viz., the death of Christ upon the cross on Calvary.

But it is not alone in the communion service that the efficiency

"A still later writer, of at least equal weight and celebrity (Bishop Horsley) may, however, be adduced, as strictly agreeing with Ridley. In one of his charges to the clergy of Rochester we find the following passage:-But the frequency of the celebration will be of little use, unless your people are well instructed in the nature and use of this most holy and mysterious ordinance. If they are suffered to consider it as nothing more than a rite of simple commemoration of Christ's death, a mere external form of thanksgiving on the part of the receiver, they will never come to it with due reverence. You will instruct them, therefore, in the true notion of a sacrament; that the sacraments are not only signs of grace, but means of the grace signified, the matter of the sacrament being by Christ's appointment, and the operation of the Holy Spirit, the vehicle of grace to the believer's soul.'"-Knox's Doct. Sac. pp. 109, 10.

of the symbols is taught, but as before remarked, in the Articles, most strongly. When, as in the twenty-fifth Article, the sacraments are said to be "effectual signs of grace, by the which God doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but strengthen and confirm our faith in Him," it is impossible to mistake the meaning of such language. Again, in the twentyeighth Article, it is said that "the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper only, after a heavenly and spiritual manner," where it is manifest that something more, and far more specifically, is inculcated than that the receiver feeds upon Christ by faith; for thus, there would be no meaning in the words given, taken, and eaten. And if the body of Christ be given, and taken, and eaten, it must be with the symbols.

But the presence and the mode of presence is altogether different in the opinion of the Church of England and that of Rome; and not otherwise conveyed to, and partaken of by, the communicant, than as it pleases God, by His divine grace, to convey blessings to the soul of the spiritual worshipper, as is entirely manifest by the utter reprobation by the Church of any idea of a necessary, corporeal, or physical giving, taking, and eating, as is expressed in the twenty-eighth Article. There it is emphatically denied that the wicked do take, eat, or participate of the body of Christ, but do merely "eat the sign or sacrament of so great a thing," and that, too, "to their own condemnation."

The same idea, as remarked above, runs strongly through the catechism as well as the other parts of the prayer-book. Thus, that elementary form teaches us that a sacrament is “ an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ Himself as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof;" and it is just as explicitly stated that the inward part is thereby "received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." Thus, while guarding, on the one hand, against Romish heresies by a careful and oft-reiterated declaration that it is the faithful only who partake of "the gift," yet our Church seems just as careful to preserve and teach the

scriptural, primitive, Catholic doctrine, that this solemn and divine rite is not an unmeaning ceremony, nor only a ceremony of some representative significance; but that it is an effectual mode of communication of God's own appointment between Himself and the pious soul: a channel whereby the Holy Spirit imparts His gifts and graces to the faithful worshipper: an ordinance conveying, in virtue of its divine appointment, every needful blessing from our heavenly Father, to the heart possessed of a lively faith; but, in its abuse, heaping up wrath against the day of wrath to those who will presume to rush to it unworthily. This sound doctrine is as scriptural as it is antagonistic to Trent; as Catholic as it is un-Romish; as encouraging and effectual for good to the worthy, as it is awful and productive of evil to the godless and reprobate.

CHAPTER II.

A REVIEW OF THE PASSAGES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT HAVING SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE EUCHARIST.

HAVING settled the true view which ought to be taken of the use and value of the sacramental symbols, we will next proceed to consider the texts in which a special reference is made to the Eucharist in the New Testament. It is not to be expected that those who have in their hands the Word of God should be satisfied with the word of man. And, as we are able to read what was said and done at the institution of the Lord's Supper by the Divine Head of the Church, and what was thought and taught with respect to it by an inspired apostle, we are enabled to exercise our own judgments upon the original transaction and the authoritative comments upon it, with the same advantages for the most part, as have been enjoyed by Christians in every age of the Church since that of the apostles. We will, therefore, now turn our attention to the basis of our faith and practice in this, as in in all other matters; trusting that the "Spirit of Truth" which indicted, will also be pleased graciously to "guide us into all truth" in this matter. As no prophecy of the Scriptures is of any private interpretation, -but holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, so, as that Spirit is still the instructor of the Church (though now in explaining and unfolding, what once He suggested), looking to Him with prayerful dependence, we may also look with the full assurance of faith that He will not fail the sincere inquirer.

The first passage to consider is evidently that in which the

evangelists and St. Paul record the institution. St. Matthew's account of the transaction is-" And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."* The account given by Mark and Luke are very similar, save that the latter, as also St. Paul when reviewing the transaction, gives the command for its perpetuation-"Do this in remembrance of me."

Now, one would imagine that, whatever virtue might be supposed to be imparted to the bread and the wine by the blessing which had been pronounced over them, yet they would be considered to remain in all other respects what they were before; and that when it was said "This is my body," "This is my blood," it was simply a figurative expression, equivalent to the same kind of comparison when made in other instances, as when Jesus said, "I am the door," "I am the vine," &c., or, as St. Paul says, "That rock was Christ." Such, however, has not always been considered the import of the phrase, but the words are considered by some to express rigidly the idea conveyed in their most literal interpretation. It is, therefore, argued, both from the words themselves, and from the construction of the sentence in the Greek, that the expression, "This is my body," is a proposition of identity.

Now, it would appear to be amply sufficient, to secure this passage from a rigid literal interpretation, to remember the flowery and figurative modes in which the oriental nations were wont to express themselves. If, in addition to this, that be correct which is so frequently urged,—that the Syro-Chaldaic language had no verb for, "to represent," then was necessitated, to a considerable

Matt. xxvi., 26-29.