a kind of revolution in our Communion Service, which, quiet as it was, has probably been as deep in its operation, on the feelings of the devout, as it will be found decisive in its import to the intelligent mind.

I have stated these particulars, as tending to illustrate the ground on which I ascribe the doctrine of Ridley to the existing Church of England; but to evince this fact more fully, it will be necessary to adduce the instances already alluded to, in which the original view of the Reformed Church of England had remained unaltered.

The 25th Article of the Church treats expressly" of the Sacraments;" and it declares them, to "be not only badges or tokens " of Christian men's profession, but rather cer"tain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and of God's good will towards us, by "the which he doth work invisibly in us, and "doth not only quicken, but strengthen and confirm our faith in him.”

66

I conceive Ridley's doctrine of the Eucha

rist could scarcely be expressed with greater simplicity or strength than in these words. The Sacraments are said to be effectual signs of grace, for this reason, because by them God works invisibly in us; that is, the visible signs are the means or instruments by which God performs his invisible work on our minds and hearts. There is an import in the expression, works invisibly, which deserves attention. It implies, that the divine operation through the visible signs is not the less real or direct, because imperceptible to our bodily senses. An explanation of this mysterious transaction is, of course, not attempted; but the instrumentality of the visible signs is, evidently, made the very essence of a Sacrament.

In the 28th Article, which treats specially of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, are the following words: "The body "of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the

66

Supper, only after an heavenly and spiri"tual manner." This position was no doubt made in contradiction to the gross doctrine of a literal transubstantiation; but it rejects that error, not by a mere negation, but by also laying down the strict truth of the case.

"The body of Christ" is not said, in a general way to be received, but to be given, taken, and eaten, as if there was a solicitude in correcting the abuses of the Sacrament, explicitly to maintain the union between the heavenly and spiritual blessing, and the outward and visible sign. This is given by the minister, and taken by the communicant. To use these precise expressions therefore, respecting "the body of Christ," is by clearest implication to combine that "heavenly and spiritual" blessing with the given and taken symbol.

66

The same notion will be found, equally recognized in the 29th Article, "Of the wicked, which eat not the body of Christ "in the use of the Lord's Supper."

66

"The wicked," says the Article, " and "such as be void of a lively faith, although

66

they do carnally and visibly press with "their teeth, (as St. Augustine saith,) the "Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ,

66

yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ; "but rather to their condemnation, do eat and "drink the sign and sacrament of so great a thing."

66

It need not be shewn how superfluous and inapposite the terms of this negation would be, if no conjunction of the spiritual blessing with the visible signs had been contemplated. It is the idea of such a conjunction only, which could make it necessary to assert, that although the wicked pressed the Sacrament visibly with their teeth, they nevertheless did not partake of the invisible blessing. But in truth, to apply the term Sacrament to the visible sign-to give that denomination to the consecrated symbols, rather than to the act of commemorating or communicating, would intimate, if even nothing more were said, that those visible symbols were regarded as the divinely constituted means or vehicles of the invisible blessing.

When such definite expressions of doctrine as have now been adduced, had been, through divine Providence, preserved unaltered, it is not extraordinary that the views of Ridley should have still remained prevalent, notwithstanding the omission of them in the Communion Service. It seems, in fact, that they gained strength through time; as in the reign of James I. it was thought

expedient to introduce them into the catechetical instruction of children.

In the addition then made to the Catechism, a Sacrament is defined, as an "out"ward and visible sign of an inward and

66

spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by "Christ himself, as a means whereby we re❝ceive the same, and a pledge to assure us "thereof." The outward and visible sign in the Lord's Supper is stated to be "bread and "wine which the Lord has commanded to "be received;" and the inward part, or thing signified, is "the body and blood of Christ, "which are verily and indeed taken and "received by the faithful" in that Sacra

ment.

Here, it is in the first place distinctly taught, that the outward and visible sign in a Sacrament, is the means whereby we receive the inward and spiritual grace; and we are to observe, that the term inward does not, in this instance, mark a quality of that grace as operating in us, (however, in that sense also, justly applicable,) but as existing in some mysterious manner, in the Sacrament itself; for it is of this, that the spiritual grace