such a spiritual manner as we cannot define and determine, and yet by faith we know His Body present, the parts of which be in themselves distinct one from another, in their own substance, but not by circumscription of several places to be comprehended of our capacity; which parts we can by no demonstration place, nor by imagination displace, diminish, alter, or confound.' 'The word "corporally" may have an ambiguity and doubleness in respect and relation; one is to the truth of the Body present, and so it may be said, Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament; if the word "corporally" be referred to the manner of the presence, then we should say, Christ's Body were present after a corporal manner, which we say not, but in a spiritual manner; and therefore not locally nor by manner of quantity, but in such manner as God only knoweth, and yet doth us to understand by faith the truth of the very presence, exceeding our capacity to comprehend the manner "how.""2

More than once he refers to the Prayer Book of 1549 as containing 'the most true Catholic doctrine of the substance of the Sacrament.' 3

As an instance of an English Reformer of a more extreme type than Cranmer, Thomas Becon, Cranmer's chaplain, may be mentioned. The violence of Becon's language, and its frequently unseemly and sometimes indecent character, have tended to discredit his writings. Yet he was a man of learning and ability, and his works, painful reading as they are, are well worth study as illustrating lines of thought of his day. In rejecting views of the sacrifice of the Mass, which marred the value of our Lord's death, he appears to have rejected also any idea of a sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist; as to the Eucharistic presence, he seems to have wavered between Virtualism, such as that held by Cranmer, and the Zwinglian opinion that the Sacrament is merely symbolical of Christ.

'The Massmonger is become so impudent and without shame that he feareth nothing most ungodly and wickedly to affirm, teach, and hold that Christ by His death did only put away original sin; and as for all other sins, saith he, they must be purged, cleansed, and put away by the sacrifice of the Mass which is so great a blasphemy against the Son of God, against His one and alone ever2 Ibid. p. 89.

Gardiner, op. cit. p. 62.

Ibid. pp. 55, 63.

lasting sacrifice, against His passion, death, and Blood, whereby alone we are for ever and ever sanctified, made holy, and sealed up unto everlasting life, that none of Satan himself can be devised or imagined greater or more heinous.' 1

'The papists cannot be content with this doctrine that the Supper of the Lord (which they most gladly term "the Mass ") should be a memorial or remembrance of that sacrifice which Christ Himself offered on the Cross; but they will have it the self-same sacrifice, of the same virtue, strength, efficacy, might, and power, to save the souls both of the quick and dead.'"

'To stablish a new sacrifice to take away sin is nothing else than to affirm and grant that the old sacrifice (I mean the death of Christ) is either of no force, or else it is imperfect. For if the death of Christ be of full force, and sufficiently perfect, yea, and to the uttermost able to take away the sins of the whole world (as it is indeed), what need we the Missal sacrifice, lately brought in by the devil and anti-Christ?'s

'There is but one sacrifice which purchaseth remission of sins for all faithful penitent sinners, which is the death of Christ, once for all offered of Christ Himself on the altar of the cross; whose virtue, power, and strength is so great, and in all points perfect, that it needeth no more to be offered, being of itself for ever sufficient to put away the sins of the whole world: . . . the Lord's Supper, although a holy institution or ordinance of Christ, is not a sacrifice to put away sin, but a memorial of that one and alone true sacrifice, which Christ Himself offered on the cross for the abolishing of the world's sin; and . . . the Mass, which is but the invention of man, and containeth in it many absurdities, abuses, and errors, is no propitiatory, expiatory, or satisfactory sacrifice, as the adversaries brag, to put away the sins of the quick and of the dead, or, as some write, necessary ad salutem.' ^

...

'The Lord's Supper . . . after the definition of St. Paul . . . is the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. . . . The Lord's Supper is an holy and heavenly banquet, in the which the faithful Christians, besides the corporal eating of the bread and the outward drinking of the wine, do spiritually through faith both eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood, unto the confirmation of their faith, the comfort of their conscience, and the salvation of their souls. Or

1 Becon, A Comparison between the Lord's Supper and the Pope's Mass, p. 368 (Parker Society's edition).

2 Becon, A New Catechism, p. 246 (Parker Society's edition). 4 Becon, op. cit. pp. 250, 251.

Becon, op. cit. p. 247.

thus: The Supper of the Lord is a spiritual food, in the which Christ Jesus the Son of God witnesseth that He is the living bread, wherewith our souls are fed unto everlasting life. Or on this manner: The Supper of the Lord is an Holy Sacrament instituted of the Lord Jesu, to be a commemoration and a perpetual remembrance of His Body-breaking and Blood-shedding, yea, of His passion and death on the altar of the cross, that the faithful communicants, eating and receiving those holy mysteries (I mean the bread and wine sanctified in the Body and Blood of Christ), should earnestly set before their eyes the death of Christ and all the benefits which they have received through the same; that is to say, the grace, favour, and mercy of God, remission of sins, quietness of conscience, freedom from the captivity of Satan, from the curse of the law, from the sting of death, and from everlasting damnation, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and assurance of eternal life; and that by this means they should be provoked and stirred up to magnify and praise our heavenly Father, for this His unoutspeakable kindness and exceeding great love. Or on this wise briefly: The Supper of the Lord is a memorial of Christ's death. . . In that the Lord's Supper is a Sacrament, that is to say, a sign of a holy thing (bread is the sign of Christ's Body, and the wine is the sign of His Blood), it doth sufficiently instruct and teach us, that it was ordained of Christ to be a memorial of His death and passion. For Sacraments are instituted unto this end, to put us in remembrance of other things, which are signified by them.'1

'Christ is truly present at the holy banquet of His most holy Body and Blood; not in His humanity, but in His divinity; not corporally, but spiritually; not in quality and quantity, but in virtue and majesty. . . . Christ in that honourable Supper is none otherwise eaten and received of the godly communicants than after a spiritual and divine manner. . . . The true eating of the Body of Christ, and the drinking of His Blood in the Sacrament is not corporal, but spiritual; not done with the mouth of the body, but with the faith of the soul.' 2

...

'The Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood is not the very self real and natural Body and Blood of Christ, but an holy sign, figure, and token of His blessed Body and precious Blood. For this word "Sacrament" is as much to say as a sign of a holy thing. Now that which is the sign of a thing cannot be the thing itself. And

1 Becon, op. cit. pp. 228, 229.

2 Becon, Certain Articles of Christian Religion, p. 430 (Parker Society's edition).

VOL. LV.-NO. CIX.

H

though Thy Son called the bread His Body, and the wine His Blood, because the disciples should the better remember the breaking of His Body and the shedding of His Blood (as He likewise called Himself a vine, a door, a rock, when notwithstanding He was neither natural vine, material door, or stony rock . . .), yet is neither the bread His natural Body nor the wine His natural Blood, as divers of the ancient doctors do declare and prove, but only a figure of His Body and Blood. The bread is called Christ's Body because it visibly preacheth and bringeth to our remembrance the breaking of Christ's Body. The wine also is called Christ's Blood, because it putteth us in remembrance of the shedding of Christ's Blood.'1

Thus, when Edward VI. died in 1553, those who were prominent and held high office in the Church of England had ceased to believe that the consecrated bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ, and that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood. That faithful communicants receive the virtue and grace of the Body and Blood was probably the most usual opinion among those in positions of power, though a tendency towards extreme Zwinglianism may also have existed. How far the rejection of the doctrine of the presence of Christ in the consecrated elements had extended among the clergy or laity in general it is impossible to say.

(To be continued.)

ART. V.-MISSIONS TO HINDUS.

II. THE PROBLEMS continued.

The Higher Hinduism in relation to Christianity: certain Aspects of Hindu Thought from the Christian Standpoint. By T. E. SLATER, of the London Missionary Society. (London: Elliot Stock. 1902. 6s.)

MR. SLATER'S very valuable book has been drawn upon for many suggestions in the course of the following article. It

1 Becon, The Flower of Godly Prayers, p. 67 (Parker Society's edition).

came into the hands of the writer while his paper in the July issue of this Review was actually passing through the press, too late to be noticed or made use of. Alike in point of learning and of insight, it would constitute an excellent introduction to the study of Hindu thought; while it has the great practical advantage of being the outcome of actual experience. The London Missionary Society is to be congratulated on having upon its staff a missionary so admirably equipped for bringing the truths of Christianity before the minds of educated Hindus, and for arousing an interest in Missions among thoughtful people at home.

Before entering on the section of our subject to be dealt with directly in what follows, we would briefly recall to our readers the general scope of this series, as laid down in its introductory article. Its end is to be strictly practical-an attempt to bring before the Church, and before those who shall represent her in India, some principles indicated for our guidance by the experience of our precursors in the field. A certain type of character, we said, has been evolved through many centuries by the conditions of life under Caste; and on an adequate apprehension of that type, and of the conditions which have gone to produce it, must success inevitably depend when the Gospel is presented to Hindus. To the single practical aim of extending or of deepening this apprehension we are to subordinate the whole of our treatment. Historical, in a sense, it must be: the reader will, we hope, have before him a fairly consecutive idea of what has been effected, or has been missed, in the course of missionary effort, since Xavier set foot in the country in 1542. Yet we offer no chronicle of Missions, completely set forth for its own sake as the substantive object of our treatment, but only historical illustrations to bring out the great problems and principles with which all effort must be concerned. Much, again, of what we have to tell will be embodied, for liveliness and interest, in biographical notes about great missionaries. Yet the substantive interest of personalities must be strictly subordinated throughout to the single leading consideration, how far the lives of these