says expressly in her Catechism, that "there are two parts in a Sacrament.”* And after saying this, she immediately applies it to shew what the two parts are, in Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Yet-will it be believed?the Archdeacon appeals to the Catechism to prove, that our Church holds that there are three parts in the second of these two Sacraments. How does he support this monstrous assertion, by which he makes the Church stultify herself? Merely, because the Catechism has three questions concerning the Lord's Supper, corresponding to two concerning Baptism. This is easily explained, without having recourse to a suspicion of dishonesty. In the case of Baptism, the answer to the question respecting" the inward and spiritual grace," is," a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness," &c. ; which required no further elucidation, carrying the spiritual meaning upon its face. But in the case of the Lord's Supper, which is the memorial of an event— the death of Christ, the answer to the ques

* There is a slight confusion in our Catechism. To the question, what is meant by the word Sacrament? the answer is taken from Augustin, the outward sign of an inward grace. But in the next question, how many parts has it? the word is used in the larger and more popular sense, to include the inward grace.

tion respecting "the inward part or thing signified," is," the Body and Blood of Christ,' &c.; the spiritual meaning of which is not apparent to children, and therefore another question and answer are subjoined. To distinguish between "the thing signified" and "the inward and spiritual grace," is to contradict her definition of the Sacrament, that it contains only "two parts, the outward and visible sign, and the inward and spiritual grace." The use of the word thing" has no connexion with the Res of the Archdeacon.

66

So much for an attempt to cast upon our Church an imputation of insincerity. If Bishop Overall had any covert purpose, let him be condemned, but let not the Church be implicated.

But our Church bears more than a negative testimony against the Archdeacon's peculiar view. In her Rubric to the Communion for the Sick, she identifies the Real presence with the Virtual. When the sick person desires the Sacrament, but cannot obtain it, he is to be "instructed, that if he do truly repent him of "his sins, and stedfastly believe that Jesus "Christ hath suffered death upon the Cross "for him, and shed His blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he

"hath thereby, and giving Him thanks there"fore, he doth eat and drink the Body and "Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his "soul's health, although he do not receive "the Sacrament with his mouth." In other words, he has the Res without any consecration!

§ 42. DISTINCTION BETWEEN BAPTISM AND THE

EUCHARIST.

The Archdeacon does not neglect to introduce again his distinction, hitherto unknown in our Church, between Baptism and the Eucharist, namely, that Baptism has no such Consecration as the Eucharist has. He does not adduce the testimony of the Ancient Church to this distinction. The Fathers call the water in Baptism "consecrated." They speak, in their way, of the process and effect of consecration-that the Holy Spirit is quasi maritus, and the water marita or fecundata, and therefore called unda genitalis-whence the baptized is new-born. Our Church surely speaks of consecration, when she says in her services: "Sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin." Our divines in general are ignorant of the Archdeacon's contrast. Waterland, who studied the question of the

Eucharist most deeply, continually speaks of the "consecrated water." If the presence of a Res, then, depends on consecration, or devoting to a holy purpose, it exists in Baptism, as well as in the Eucharist. Accordingly our Reformers and Divines, as we have before said, argue from there being no real change in the Baptismal element, to there being none in the Eucharistic elements.

The only authority, that we know, for the Archdeacon's distinction, is the Church of Rome, which spoke thus at the Council of Trent:

"The most Holy Eucharist has that in common with "all other Sacraments, of being a symbol of a holy thing, and a form or visible sign of an invisible grace; "but that which is singular to it, and excellent in it, is, "that the others have not the force or virtue of sanctify"ing, till they are received; whilst in the Eucharist, the "author of Holiness is Himself there, before receiving of it." (Conc. Trid.)

§ 43. OUR DIVINES IGNORED.

What a strange and melancholy spectacle it is, that a Dignitary in our Reformed Church should seek his faith elsewhere, on the subject of the Eucharist! It might be a matter of interesting inquiry, what were the ancient

opinions, through what gradation of errors the present views of the Church of Rome grew to their maturity, and how the beginnings of the same evil might be avoided or repressed among ourselves; but it is a very different thing, when the inquiry is made for the purpose of being guided by it to the conclusions we are to embrace. What subject is there, which was ever more deeply studied or more ably discussed, than was the subject of the Eucharist by our Reformers? Why should we not abide by their conclusions? To say nothing of the duty enforced on us by our subscription to the Articles, what better and safer guides, next to the inspired Writers, can we follow, than men who were so situated as the Compilers of those Articles were, and who proved themselves to be endowed with the highest powers of intellect and the sincerest piety? They were called to study this subject under circumstances which are a guarantee, that they studied it as profoundly as it was possible for human beings to do. They knew that if they came to conclusions differing from the established ones of the Church of Rome, they would have to answer for it with their lives. And so they had. They suffered for embracing and declaring the views, which they put forth in their works.

Q