This then, is the great doctrine of the Eucharist--this, the highest act of religion that we can celebrate; and to assist, be present at, take part in this great act of religious duty, is the bounden obligation of every member of the Church. I do not now attempt to prove these things--they have been, thank God, repeatedly asserted and enforced by ancient and modern divines of the greatest piety and learning in the Church of England; nor have any of the Church Rulers ventured to deny the doctrines, or repress, or punish those who teach them. But what is needed, is to have these things set forth in plain language, “understanded of the people,” in earnest, vigorous, popular (in the sense of common) methods. If these great doctrines of the Church were taught in their fulness without reserves and refinements, the plain honest people would come to understand what the Church meant; that there was a distinction between the Church and dissent, beyond personal prejudices and feelings. If the boundaries were well defined--if the separation was by a wall (even a low one), instead of a ragged hedge, Churchmen and dissenters would have fewer occasions of quarrel; for bad boundaries make bad neighbours: there would be more charity, they might converse amicably, and shake hands over it, each clearly knowing and keeping within his limit. And if the doctrine of the Real Presence were taught, believed, and felt, there would be less of that grevious, crying sin of irreverence, which is so lamentably and universally prevalent in the Church; people, even clergy, now enter a Church without even any attempt to manifest reverence; they stare about, talk loud, on the most ordinary and trifling matters; the only attitude you never see them assume is that of reverence and prayer. In the Churches of the Roman obedience--enter them when you will--you see people on their knees, absorbed in their devotions. Even putting aside the principle of duty, is it wise to persevere in this system of disingenuous ambiguity? does it commend itself by its success? The majority of the upper classes (ten thousand they have been termed) are probably supporters of the Church--Churchmen. Are the tradesmen and middle classes so? are they not the chief strength and support of dissent. And the poor people--the masses in modern phrase--the real life and strength of the nation, as they are proclaimed to be when their support is needed; are they Churchmen? I think they are; their humble quiet spirit warms to her teaching, and only looks for more emphatic and clear enunciation of it. If the Church rose to the discharge of her duty, plainly taught her great doctrines, and gave warrant for her sincerity by a speaking and glorious ritual, then would the people rally to her support.