such an outrage on common sense that it would be utterly ludicrous if it were not inexpressibly melancholy, to see men who, we hope, are devout men, embracing it. We are now deliberately told that the Article was not directed against the doctrine of transubstantiation at all, but against a change for which the name of ‘transaccidentation’ has been recently adopted. Now I know we live in an age of discovery, but it is difficult for any person of plain common sense, to believe in such a discovery as this. No one who knows anything of the history of the Reformation can be ignorant of the intense eagerness with which the doctrine of transubstantiation was discussed. In books, in sermons, in public disputations, it was argued again and again, by all the most learned theologians of the day. The speculations of the schoolmen as well as the writings of the early fathers were largely quoted. The very distinction now revived between substance and accident was carefully discussed. And men felt so deeply the wide difference between the teaching of Rome and the teaching of Scripture that they could not yield even to save their lives. The stake was before them as the certain issue of their confession, and liberty and honour was the promised reward if only they would yield. But they had that deep conviction of the deadly error of the doctrine of transubstantiation that they counted it a privilege rather to die than to deny the truth of God. And I put it to any man of common sense and common honesty: is it possible to believe that, after all, there was no real difference between Rome and the Reformers? That Bonner and Gardiner, and Latimer, Cranmer, and Ridley did, in fact, agree; that there might have been a little confusion in some of their minds as to the difference between substance and accident, so that they used the word transubstantiation without knowing its real meaning, but that in all essential points they were agreed, so that the fires of Smithfield were lighted all by mistake, and men who were burned agreed with them that burned them. Clever men and learned men may put forth such a theory, but common sense revolts against it; and all thinking men must agree that, if this be the only theory on which it can be maintained, the doctrine of the Real Objective Presence is not the doctrine of the Church. Plain honest men will be ready to cry ‘shame’ on those who by theological sophistry are endeavouring to evade the plain and incontestable evidence of the great facts of the Reformation. The Reformers knew well enough what Rome meant by ‘transubstantiation,’ and the twenty-eighth Article is decisive on the point that there is no such change in the Supper of the Lord.