but real and true presence of His own humanity, to be for evermore the fullness of joy to all believing and loving souls. There and then, and for ever since then, in every Eucharist, His presence has been the fullness of joy.

During the past three hundred years, in the weary controversies that have centered around the Altar of God, the attempts to explain away our Lord's words, or to rob them of their full power, may be divided into two classes.

When our Lord said, "This is My Body; this is My Blood," it is said by some that He meant merely, by a significant symbol, to remind us of His body broken, of His blood shed for us. This is Zwinglianism.

When our Lord said, "This is My Body; this is My Blood," He meant, say others—"This is My Body in power, virtue, efficacy; this conveys my body, as a title-deed conveys an estate, as a bank represents a real value!" This is Calvinism. There are those indeed who hold this latter view, who have renounced all the other doctrines of Calvin save this alone. They love oftentimes to dwell, with tender care, upon the greatness of the gift conveyed. They speak so earnestly upon the indwelling of Christ's humanity in the faithful heart, that one would fain believe them to be better than their creed, and that they acknowledge a real though spiritual presence of our Lord's humanity, prior to and apart from reception.

Against Zwinglianism and Calvinism the Church has ever protested, by declaring that the Body and Blood of Christ are, verily and indeed, yet none the less spiritually, not simply received, but given, taken, and received in the Lord's Supper. She says with St. Paul that "the bread which we break is the communion of the Body of

142

Christ; the cup which we bless is the communion of the Blood of Christ;" and with the same Apostle, that "whosoever eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

On the other hand, the Church has equally protested against all explanations of the mode of presence which seemed in any sense to declare that the natural properties of the bread and wine were destroyed. She asserted, on the one hand, that after consecration they had not ceased to be earthly elements, though endowed with new powers; while, on the other hand, she declared that they were after a supernatural manner the Body and Blood of Christ. How this could be, she did not define; why it was, she did not explain. It was the mystery of the Eucharist. Christ had said it, and she believed it. Bread and wine, yet body and blood; the one naturally, the other supernaturally; the one for the senses, the other to the eye of faith, joined by that ineffable, sacramental union, which by the power of God unites, after consecration, the outward sign to the inward part or thing signified.

Marvelously does the Church Catechism bring forth this truth, in those remarkable distinctions which it makes between holy Baptism and the Holy Communion. In Baptism there is the outward part of form, which is water; which, to use St. Augustine's careful distinction, which the Catechism follows, is the Sacramentum. There is again the inward and spiritual grace, which is the death "nto sin, the new birth unto righteousness, which is the Virtus Sacramenti. In the Holy Communion there is stated, first, the object of the institution, "for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ."

part or sign which is the Sacramentum, and is said to be the bread and wine which the Lord hath commanded to be received; secondly, of the inward part or thing signified, which is the Res Sacramenti, and is said to be the Body and Blood of Christ, spiritually taken and received by the faithful. Then follows a declaration of the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby-the Virtus Sacramenti, which is said to be the strengthening and refreshing of our souls.

Thus, in holy Baptism, there are merely the Sacramentum and the Virtus Sacramenti, the outward sign and the benefits received; whereas, in the Holy Communion, there are the Sacramentum, the Res Sacramenti, and the Virtus Sacramenti-the outward sign, the inward part, and the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby. In holy Baptism there is no Res Sacramenti; in the Holy Communion there is. In the former, the grace is received; in the latter, the inward part is both taken and received, or, as the Article says, "given, taken, and received." In Baptism, the consecration of the outward element forms no integral part of the Service. In the Holy Eucharist it is essential to the Sacrament. In holy Baptism, Christ may be said to be present because He then and there imparts His human nature to the baptized; in the Holy Eucharist, Christ is there because His body and blood are there. Hence it is that all Calvinistic views of the Eucharist confound together the Virtus Sacramenti and the Res Sacramenti, and thus deny the forHence also, if the views of Calvin be correct, Baptism and the Eucharist are precisely the same Sacrament. Again, there is another striking difference between

mer.

the two views. According to the neo-Calvinist view, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist depends upon the faith of the recipient; while the true churchman, preserving ever St. Augustine's careful distinction between the Res Sacramenti and the Virtus Sacramenti, believes the presence to depend upon consecration, but the benefits of the presence upon faith. If the presence depends simply upon the faith of the recipient, then consecration is useless, the work of the priesthood unnecessary, the sacrifice of the Eucharist is merely symbolical, Christian worship loses its chief glory, and sacramental doctrine fades away.

"In Thy presence is the fullness of joy." Never, my brethren, will the Church be able to do her full work until with clear, ringing voice she proclaims, with no bated breath she utters, the truth and the power of the presence of her Incarnate Lord. When holy Baptism is known and believed to be union with His life-giving humanity, when Christian training is the rearing of a child as the temple of God, when thronging crowds, trembling yet believing, know that their Lord is present in His own Eucharist, then will benediction descend, then will sorrow be changed into joy, then will souls be filled with peace that passeth understanding. For the glimpses of God's presence in the world, in nature, in providence, in history, in the life of man, in the house of God, in the preached word, in the ministrations of the priesthood, in the imparted life of the Sacrament of Baptism, in the veiled majesty of the Eucharistic glory-what are these but a preparation for the eternal showing forth of the glory that shall never end?

See that ye use them wisely; see that ye accept them as God willed it; see that ye behold Him by faith, that yours may be the pleasures at His right hand, for evermore !

XIV.

UNCONSCIOUS INFLUENCE.

(Preached, ex tempore, at Racine College, 1873.)

"Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin."—II. KINGS xiv., part of verse 24.

THE words which I have taken as my text occur over and over again in the history of the kings of Israel and Judah.

Jeroboam was a mighty monarch. He overthrew the kingdom of David and Solomon, and rent away ten tribes from the nation God had established. He founded a dynasty; he married a daughter of the king of Egypt. He built cities, and fortified them; he waged wars, and won victories. He seemed to the ten tribes like a great deliverer. He rescued them from what they regarded, and in some sense truly, as an intolerable tyranny. He was a mighty man, vigorous, active, successful. He reigned twoand-twenty years, and at the end of that time died in peace, and slept with his fathers, and was buried in his ancestral sepulchre, and his son reigned in his stead. But-and here is the striking lesson of all that he did, and all that he was of all his glory and all his power this was the