Now it would be strange indeed if after having first given so perfectly clear a general definition of the general nature of a sacrament, and having so clearly defined baptism, in perfect harmony with that general definition, our Church were afterwards to teach a doctrine respecting the Lord’s Supper, altogether at variance with the general definition, and with her own explanation of the other sacrament. The Church of England includes both sacraments in one definition, and in that definition she never alludes to any change in the sign or elements. In the sacrament of baptism, no one, I believe, would for a moment assert the existence of such a change, even if there were no special Article on the subject. Our conclusion therefore must be, that, according to the Church’s teaching, there is no change in the elements in the Lord’s Supper. As the water in baptism remains water still, so the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper remain what they were before, plain, simple bread and wine; dedicated, it is true, to the Lord’s service, but altogether unchanged by such dedication. But we are not left to depend altogether on such conclusions, for there is a special Article on the subject, viz., the twenty-eighth. In the first clause we find the Lord’s Supper described as both sacraments were described in the twenty-fifth, and baptism in the twenty-seventh, as a sign and means of grace. ‘The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love which Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death, inasmuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.’ Having gone thus far in harmony with their general definition, and having quoted the words from 1 Cor. x., our Reformers were clearly brought to the consideration of the very point under discussion, viz., in what way does the soul of the believer partake in the Lord’s Supper of the body and blood of his blessed Lord and Saviour? This question they boldly and clearly answer, declaring in the first place, what is not, and in the second place, what is, the truth respecting it. They first declare that it is not by transubstantiation. ‘Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine), in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament’ (because if the sign is changed into the thing signified, it ceases to be a sign), ‘and hath given occasion to many superstitions.’ It would be fruitless to endeavour to trace the sophistry with which those who desire reconciliation of the Church of England with Rome, have endeavoured to avoid the clear statements of this pungent Article. But their conclusion is one which is