eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing.’ In quoting this Article I am not ignorant of the attempt that has been made to represent it as teaching that, although the wicked do eat the body of Christ they do not receive His life-giving blessings. But the Article does not say one word of blessings. It is headed with the words, ‘Of the wicked which eat not the body of Christ.’ It describes the bread as being a sign of the body, and it affirms as clearly as language can affirm that a wicked person may press the sign with his teeth, but still be in no wise either materially, spiritually, with the body or with the soul, a partaker of Christ. According to this Article a person may eat the bread without eating the body of Christ, and receive the wine, but never drink the blood of Christ. If the bread and wine had by consecration become the body and blood, this clearly would be impossible, for the one being changed into the other, the two would be inseparable, or rather, they would cease to be two, they would be one. It is clear, therefore, that no such change is taught here; and this conclusion is remarkably confirmed by the Rubric at the close of the Service for the Communion of the Sick, for there the same great principle is maintained with equal clearness, only from a different point of view, when it says, ‘If a man . . . by just impediment do not receive the Sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, the curate shall instruct him that if he do truly repent himself of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the Cross for him, and shed His blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving Him hearty thanks therefore, he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, profitably to his soul’s health, although he doth not receive the Sacrament with his mouth.’ I venture to say that nothing can be clearer than the combined testimony of these two most important documents. The Article says, ‘That a bad man may receive with his mouth the Sacrament of the body of Christ, but not be partaker of Christ.’ The Rubric says that a believer may under certain circumstances eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth. And if this is not a sufficient proof that according to the teaching of the Church of England, the sign or Sacrament is not changed into the thing signified, I can imagine no proof that can be given. If they are made one by the act of consecration, neither one nor the other can be received alone.