to believers under the sacred symbols of the Supper, understanding that they are received not by the imagination or intellect merely, but are enjoyed in reality as the food of eternal life.'

With these views the confessions of the principal' Reformed' Churches the Swiss, Dutch, Scotch Presbyterian, and the Church of England-will be found to be in substantial accord

ance.

For example, the Confession of Faith of the Established Church of Scotland thus sets forth the doctrine of the presence :

'Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally and carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.'

It is well that the student in theology should thus learn how utterly inaccurate are statements continually put forth for popular circulation, attributing Zwinglianism to Calvin and the Calvinistic Churches.

In illustration of the doctrine of the Church of England on the nature of the presence in the Lord's Supper, we shall again allege the words of Hooker :

'Christ is termed our life because through Him we obtain life; so the parts of this sacrament are his body and blood, for that they are so to us, who receiving them, receive that by them which they are termed. The bread and cup are his body and blood because they are causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of his body and blood ensueth. For that which produceth any certain effect is not vainly nor improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth. Every cause is in the effect which groweth from it.' 2

'The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not to be sought in the sacrament, but in the worthy

1

Chap. xxix. 7.

S

2Ecc. Pol.' v. 67.

receiver of the sacrament..... I see not which way it should be gathered by the words of Christ when and where the bread is his body or the cup his blood; but only in the very heart and soul of him who receiveth them. As for the sacraments, they really exhibit, but for aught we can gather out of that which is written of them, they are not really, nor do really contain in themselves, that grace which, with them or by them, it pleaseth God to bestow.' 1

The answer in the Church Catechism, The Body and Blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper,' must be interpreted in conformity with these views of the presence. 'The faithful' must mean those who have faith (not all persons baptized and calling themselves Christians). For the mean whereby Christ is received is faith.' Therefore without faith He is not received. 'The Body and Blood are verily and indeed taken,’ but only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. The natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven and not here.' Nor is there any corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood.'2

เ

The phrase 'Real Presence' has been, and is, used by many of our divines to express the genuine doctrine in opposition to Zwinglianism. It should, however, be observed that our Church has avoided it in her Liturgy and Articles; and it may be a needful caution to all who will exercise the office of public teachers, that they should be most wary (to say the least) about permitting this expression in their popular teaching. It is generally and popularly identified with the corporal presence. In spite of explanations to the contrary, the majority of hearers usually attribute to a word or phrase what they are accustomed to understand by it. It is the part of wisdom, therefore, to avoid as far as possible ambiguous expressions which tend to nurture distrust or misunderstanding.

This caution is added with the more confidence because it is adopted by Waterland.3

It is beyond the scope of this work to multiply quotations

Ecc. Pol.' v. 67. 2 Note appended to the Communion Service. • 'Doctrine of the Eucharist,' chap. ii.

and authorities. But the work just referred to deserves special notice on this ground. In the first half of the last century some of the non-jurors propounded doctrines on the Lord's Supper akin to Romanising views lately advocated so prominently in our own days. Dr. Waterland, then Archdeacon of Middlesex, met these opinions in his 'Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist,' and in four Charges to the clergy of Middlesex. These have been recently republished by the present Bishop of London, 'at the request of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.' Under these circumstances this work deserves special attention. In reference to the present Article, the seventh chapter will be found to deal most perspicuously with the mode of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper. It is illustrated from analogy, from the Old Testament, from the Fathers, and from recognised divines of the Foreign Reformed Churches, and of the English Church. The following passage, cited with approval from Dr. Aldrich, will serve to illustrate Waterland's doctrine :

It is evident that since the body broken and blood shed neither do nor can now really exist, they neither can be really present, nor literally eaten or drunk; nor can we really receive them, but only the benefits purchased by them. But the body which now exists, whereof we partake, and to which we are united, is the glorified body; which is, therefore, verily and indeed received. . . . . and by consequence said to be really present, notwithstanding its local absence; because a real participation and union must needs imply a real presence, though they do not necessarily imply a local one. For it is easy to conceive how a thing that is locally absent may yet be really received. as when we commonly say a man receives an estate or inheritance, when he receives the deeds or conveyances of it. . . . . The reception is confessedly real, though the thing itself is not locally or circumscriptively present, or literally grasped in the arms of the receiver. The Protestants all agree that we spiritually eat Christ's body and drink his blood; that we neither eat nor drink nor receive the dead body nor the blood shed, but only the benefits purchased by them; that those benefits are derived

to us by virtue of our union and communion with the glorified body, and that our partaking of it and union with it is effected by the mysterious and ineffable operation of the Holy Spirit.'

The last clause of this Article, referring to certain wellknown Medieval and Roman uses of the consecrated elements will, perhaps, need no illustration. These practices stand or fall together with the doctrines to which they essentially belong. One of these, however, stands partially on another footing. In early times portions of the elements were sometimes reserved in order to be sent to the absent, the sick, and the prisoners for Christ's sake. Messengers who conveyed the portion so reserved might be laymen. Our Church has wisely declined to revive a practice which has given occasion to manifold superstitions; she has ordered all that remains of the consecrated elements after communion to be 'reverently' eaten and drunk immediately after the blessing. This was also one of the early usages.3

ARTICLE XXIX.

Of the wicked which do not eat the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper.

The wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ: yet in nowise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

De manducatione corporis Christi, et impios illud non manducare.

Impii, et fide viva destituti, licet carnaliter et visibiliter (ut Augustinus loquitur) corporis et sanguinis Christi Sacramentum dentibus premant, nullo tamen modo Christi participes efficiuntur. Sed potius tantæ rei Sacramentum, seu symbolum, ad judicium sibi manducant et bibunt.

NOTES ON THE TEXT OF ARTICLE XXIX.

The Latin text appears to require no special comparison with the English.

This Article was introduced by Archbishop Parker in 1565, but was not finally adopted until 1571.1

The following is the passage of Augustine to which reference is made. Qui non manet in Christo, et in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sanguinem, licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi; sed magis tantæ rei sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat et bibit.'

The Article obviously has been closely founded on this

Hardwick, p. 396.

2 Super Joann. Tract. 26.