to the natural eye, and the other is discerned by the spiritual alone ?" (British Critic, vol. xxvii., pp. 259 -260.)

In his notable sermon on the "Holy Eucharist, a Comfort to the Penitent," Dr. Pusey thus writes: "To him (ie., the receiver of the sacrament) its special joy is, that it is his Redeemer's very broken body; it is his blood which was shed for the remission of his sins. In the words of the ancient church, he drinks his ransom, he eateth that, the very body and blood of the Lord..... His flesh and blood in the sacrament shall give life, not only because they are the flesh and blood of the Incarnate Word, who is life, but also because they are the very flesh and blood which were given and shed for the life of the world. . . . . This is said yet more distinctly in the simple words, whereby He consecrated for ever elements of this world to be his body and blood."

In the "Little Prayer-book," intended for beginners in devotion, revised and corrected by three priests, the young are instructed, at the moment of consecration, "to bow down heart and body in the deepest adoration, to worship the Saviour verily and indeed present on this altar." At the communion of the priest and people, they are to say, "Blood of Christ, inebriate me." The same book speaks of "this offering, which is now only bread and wine, but will soon, by a miracle, become the true body and blood."

The superstitious importance attached to the elements by the Ritualistic priest may be inferred

from the following extract from the "Directorium Anglicanum," a work which has been composed for the guidance of those who embrace this new movement towards Rome:

"If by negligence any of the blood be spilled upon a table fixed to the floor, the priest must take up the drop with his tongue, and the place of the table must be scraped, and the shavings burnt with fire, and the ashes reserved with the relics beside the altar; and he to whom this has befallen must do penance for forty days.

"But if the chalice have dropped upon the altar, the drops must be sucked up, and the priest must do penance for three days.

"But if the drops have penetrated through the linen cloth to the second linen cloth, he must do penance four days. If to the third, nine days. If the drop of blood have penetrated to the fourth cloth, he must do penance for twenty days; and the priest or the deacon must wash the linen coverings which the drop has touched, three times over a chalice, and the ablution is to be reserved with the relics." (pp. 114, 115.)

These excerpts will be amply sufficient for the purpose of supplying an adequate picture of Ritualism in its sacramental phase, and especially in its relation to the Eucharist. We may fairly gather that Ritualism is not Protestantism, and that it hates Protestantism; and also that the ordinance of the Lord's Supper is converted from a commemoration into a sacrifice, the table acquiring both the function and

the name of an altar, and the elements of bread and wine passing, after the prayer of consecration, into the real body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Whether this change is, or is not, transubstantiation, it is of little moment to inquire. With a sagacity and caution which have a strong resemblance to worldly policy, the Ritualists forbear to use the word transubstantiation, having a salutary remembrance of the 28th Article, which expressly condemns it. They are wondrously bold within the compass of safety, but fence with extraordinary circumspection and mystery of speech when an explicit article stares them in the face, and warns them that they can only avow their faith in transubstantiation at the cost of their livings. Hence they eschew the obnoxious word, while they retain both the doctrine it denotes and their stipends too. We say they retain the doctrine it denotes-if they do not, we defy even the acutest among them to expound, in a clear and tangible manner, the distinction between the dogma they accept and the dogma they reject.

We are now in a position to try the doctrine and the practices we have just considered by the authority of Scripture. The ordinance of the Lord's Supper, according to Ritualistic celebration, with its lights, incense, costumes, genuflexions, mutterings of inaudible words, and elevations of the host, is like a river which flows at our feet two thousand miles away from its source, thickly charged with impurities, and filling the air with the noxious effluvia which they exhale. It were vain to attempt from this

turbid stream, polluted by hundreds of towns and villages which dot its banks, to conceive what is the quality of its water, as it leaps in laughter from the virgin rock far up in the distant mountains. As vain were it to endeavour to form a just conception of the original feast of the Lord's Supper from the elaborate and gorgeous ceremonial which has taken its place. Let us wend our way at once to the sweet crystal spring.

The day for the eating of the Passover had come, and our Saviour desired to eat it with them before He died. It was accordingly made ready in the house of a certain person in Jerusalem, whose name does not transpire. In process of supper, "Jesus. took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave 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." Such is the account given by Matthew.

That of Mark is substantially the same: "And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank of it; and He said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many."

The account of Luke is as follows: "And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for

you: this do in remembrance of Me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you."

The account given by St. Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, accords with that of Luke : "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks He brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me."

Now looking at these several accounts, we discern minute variations which incidentally but strongly confirm and corroborate their truthfulness. The general features are in all the same. The whole scene is most touching, tender, simple, and intelligible. There is first a feast which has historic relation to

the past. There was once a great deliverance or redemption from Egyptian bondage, to be commemorated by divine command year by year. A lamb was to be slain, roasted, and eaten with unleavened bread. Christ and his disciples were observing that national festival. And towards the close of it a new feast was instituted, which, like the Passover, was to be commemorative. The disciples had eaten and drunk in memory of the redemption of their nation from Egyptian bondage. They were now to eat and