Summing up, then, the teaching of the Articles, we shall arrive at five important conclusions: (1.) A Sacrament is a sign, and a sign would cease to be a sign if it were changed into the thing signified. (2.) In the Sacrament of baptism there is no change in the water. (3.) The doctrine of transubstantiation is condemned as clearly as words can condemn it. (4.) The body of Christ is said to be received only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. (5.) The wicked are declared to be in no wise partakers of the sacred body and blood of our blessed Lord, though with the mouth they eat the sign. And yet, notwithstanding all this, there are those who boldly affirm that the doctrine of the real presence of our blessed Lord and Saviour in the elements is the undoubted teaching of the Church of England. * * * * * _Catechism_.—But is not the doctrine taught in the Catechism? And if we look carefully, shall we not find it there? One writer is so confident that we shall, that he boldly affirms that the Catechism is the final and authoritative decision of the Church on the subject, and must supersede all previous documents; as if five short questions and answers, drawn up for the use of children, were to override the full, dogmatic, and controversial decisions of the Articles. I am not surprised at his wish to draw attention from the Articles, but I am persuaded he will gain nothing by directing it to the Catechism. I have no doubt that the portion of the Catechism relating to the Sacraments is simply an abbreviation, or adaptation, of the Articles. The same arrangement is adopted, and the same definitions occur, in both documents. The first three questions refer to Article xxv., the next to Article xxvii., the next to Article xxviii. The two Sacraments are first included in one common definition. The Sacrament of baptism is then discussed separately, and I presume that no one would venture to affirm that either in the general definition of a Sacrament, or in the particular definition of baptism, the outward sign is ever said to be changed into, or confounded with, the thing signified. In these two definitions they are kept distinct, and if the Catechism teaches any such change in the Lord’s Supper, it must make a marked and most important distinction between the two Sacraments, and so neutralize its own general definition, which is carefully drawn to include them both. It would, indeed, be strange if there were such an inconsistency in so short a passage. But, thanks be to God, there is nothing of the kind, and the whole is in perfect harmony both with itself and with the Articles. It is difficult to imagine a clearer and more marked distinction than that expressed in the second and third questions, ‘What is the outward part, or sign, of the Lord’s Supper?’ and ‘What is the inward part or thing signified?’ The distinctness between the two parts is here more clearly marked than even