presence in the Eucharist is precisely that of His presence in Baptism, or in any other means of grace; for as Cranmer says in the preface to his answer to Gardiner, "no more is Christ really present in the due ministration of the Lord's Supper, than He is in the due ministration of Baptism-that is to say, in both Spiritually by grace." But the channel of grace is widened, as the activity and power of faith are augmented; and the superiority of the Lord's Supper among the ordinances of religion, grows out of its nature to stimulate faith, which constitutes our receptivity for grace. This Sacrament presents a cluster of striking features, having a direct tendency to powerfully rouse and intensify the principle of faith, and rendering it the first in dignity and importance among Christian actions.

First, it is a sign of the unity and love which ought to obtain among Christians. Christians bear a certain relation to each other, growing out of a common relation to Christ, just as patriots bear a certain relation to one another, growing out of a common relation to their country-whereof the mathematical representation is a triangle. The character of this relation is beautifully signified in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. One loaf, divided and distributed among many communicants, is indicative of this unity in Christ, and of this obligation to love one another, growing out of that unity. Again, the circumstances surrounding the Eucharist are peculiarly solemn and affecting. Instituted in the darkest and saddest hour of His life, when the shadow of the cross lay athwart His soul, it is the legacy of a dying Saviour, and stands associated with the most profound and touching sentiments of the Christian heart. And, again, it was instituted for the very purpose of representing and being a memorial of the central and most significant event in our Lord's history, His Death, and of conveying to us the benefits of the same. Therefore, there is no act of worship so calculated to raise up in the soul sentiments of love and gratitude and affiance and trust towards God, no one which draws around it a Christian atmosphere so invigorating, no one which conveys to the devout worshipper so large an amount of grace, so much of strength and refreshment. If there be ever a moment when faith is powerfully aroused, when there is on our part a receptivity for grace, and when grace is conveyed in a stream rich and full, it is when the believer kneels before Christ's minister to receive the Sacramental elements. A vivid picture of Christ's

Death is before him. The words authoritatively pronounced over him-This is my Body which is given for you, This is my Blood which is shed for you-vibrate through all his soul. He is alive with a trembling adoration-faith is powerfully quickened-the soul opens wide towards God-and the grace of Christ, passing into him, carries strength and refreshment to the Spiritual life.

Of Christian actions, therefore, the Eucharist is the first in dignity and importance, the most solemn and the most sanctifying. But as it is in circumstance and ceremonial before all other acts of religion only in kind, so its benefits are greater only in kind also. Its superiority is that of degree, not of nature. Neither does Scripture, nor do our offices, support the position-endorsed though it be, by some great and venerated names-that, whereas there is a presence of Christ in all other Christian actions, there is in the Eucharist alone an awful and incomprehensible union with Him, through that Body and Blood which the elements are the medium of conveying to us. We will not trouble our readers with a discussion about names. We may say of the Spiritual life, or of the use of the means by which that life is invigorated, that it involves either a presence of Christ or a union with Christ whichever we please. What we object against as unwarrantable and mischievous teaching, is the ascribing an effect to one Sacrament different in its nature from the effect of the other. For this there is no authority. The words of Cranmer-and the language of this great Reformer is so often invoked because of the leading influence exerted by him in moulding our Liturgy-are true, and need to be heeded in these days, "that wheresoever in the Scriptures it is said, that Christ, God, or the Holy Ghost is in any man the same is understood spiritually by grace," and again (to make a repetition), "no more is Christ really present in the due ministration of the Lord's Supper, than He is in the due ministration of Baptism, that is to say, in both spiritually by grace." These are the plain words of Cranmer, and they are the sum of his teachings on the subject. Indeed, they are expressly affirmed by himself to be the test by which all his teaching in regard to the nature of the Eucharist, is to be tried. His affirmation is, then, that the efficacy or benefit of the two Sacraments do not differ in their nature. Cranmer held the truth of Scripture; and the spirit of his teachings stand embodied in the offices of our Book of Common Prayer.

Let the Holy Eucharist receive all honor. But it is not to honor it, but to dishonor it, to attempt by a mystical argument to take it out of its place and connections, and affirm that in regard to it, of which neither Scripture is the teacher, nor the Church the witness. A morbid sentimentalism has seized upon such teaching, developed it to the verge of transubstantiation, and made use of Ritualism to symbolize and represent it. It is such erroneous teachings which vitalize this excrescence upon the Church, an excrescence that has been allowed to mend its hold by what we are pained to declare a laxity in the administration of discipline on the part of some of our chief pastors, and the timidity displayed by the late General Convention. It is earnestly to be hoped that this timidity will not characterize the approaching meeting of that body. The man who makes but half a leap falls into the ditch. Let the next General Convention, in the consciousness of strength, by a bold and righteous spring clear the abyss. However stoutly its adherents may deny the charge, it cannot be disguised, that the effect of Ritualism is to create a certain drift towards an erroneous and hostile system, and establish certain affinities with that system, which require to be promptly checked. Against the errors of that system we appear on record as uttering a formal and solemn protest; and if there were solid reasons for this protest when the XXXIX Articles were drawn up, there are more solid reasons for reaffirming and continuing it now, since Rome has abated none of its arrogance, while it has multiplied its errors. With this monstrous system which exhibits the abnormal spectacle of decrepitude at its centre, and activity at its extremities-Ritualism has undoubtedly certain affinities-not to the extent in which they are believed to exist in the popular apprehension, yet still in a certain sense truly existing. The roots of Ritualism are nourished by unhealthy teachings in regard to the Eucharist. Fair discussion may do much to correct such teachings. But something more would appear to be needed. Let the next Convention take hold of the general subject, and answer the expectations of the true friends of the Church. And if there be issues whereon a General Convention may be incompetent to act, let there be a call for a Pan Anglican Synod, to settle them, to the end that the Church may have peace, that distrust in regard to her may be dispelled, and the way for her enlargement free.

ART. IV. THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM.

PERHAPS no event connected with the polity of the early Church deserves more attention than the Council of Jerusalem. As much may be learned of the system of government, the office and functions of rulers and members, and the general characteristics of that polity, from a careful examination of this assembly and its acts, as from any single occurrence in the New Testament. It involves also collateral points of deep interest, which may be appropriately investigated. It will confirm the primitive character of the Protestant Episcopal Church in our own country and of the Church of England, rejecting her Erastianism in material matters. The discussion will have more important results, connected with Gospel truths, than its mere historical interest. Yet that would be sufficient of itself, to commend it to every student of the New Testament.

The history of the Council is given in the fifteenth chapter of Acts.

It was held about the year A. D., 51, and was primarily a judicial tribunal. It was convened to settle a point which had been the subject of disagreement at Antioch, viz., whether the Gentile Proselytes were to be circumcised. The same question was raised by certain Pharisees at Jerusalem.

That the Apostle Paul alone, or, with his associate in the ministry, Barnabas,* could have decided this matter, so far at least as to control the practice at Antioch, cannot be questioned. But it was a point of great importance for all the converts from the Gentile world. It was referred therefore to the Council, at Jerusalem, to decide it primarily and ultimately.

This comprehensive jurisdiction involved the right of revision had the point been first determined at Antioch.

The decision of the question is found in the words, "We will not trouble them" (upon this matter) "which among the Gentiles are turned to God;" and further in the declaration, "We have heard that some have troubled you with words saying,

*See Post, Barnabas.

'you must be circumcised, and keep the law;' to whom we gave no such commandment."

Then followed an act of legislative power. "We will lay no greater burthen upon them than these necessary things, that they sbould abstain from meats, etc." These were rules for the government of the Proselytes in the future. Thus the Council, in uniting and exercising judicial and legislative power, furnished the model for all such bodies thereafter.

Members. A material inquiry is, who were the members of the council, with a voice in its decisions?

The Apostles.

We find from the narrative, that Peter and James were there. Now of the original twelve, there was then living James, the son of Alpheus. James, the son of Zebedee, and brother of John, had been before slain by Herod, (Acts xii. 2.) There were then only ten left, Peter, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alpheus, Lebbeus also called Judas, and Simon. It may be assumed that all or the greater part of these were present. At the dispersion consequent upon the death of Stephen, the Apostles continued at Jerusalem, (Acts viii. 1.) This appears to have been for some time, the central point from which they sent forth missionaries to confirm or enlarge the Church elsewhere.

We assume also that Matthias was present, with an equal voice in the Council. He had been substituted in the place of Judas, "who had been numbered with us," and he was "ordained to be a witness with us and to take part of this ministry and Apostleship, from which Judas fell." He was to accomplish the prediction "his Bishopric let another take."

In the selection we find that the Apostles named and appointed. two, each of whom they deemed fit to be their associate, and then prayed God to declare which of them He had chosen.

Yet the extravagant opinion has been advocated that in this transaction, the Apostles audaciously usurped authority. That is to say, they began their career after the Ascension, by an act of treason, and made it more odious by an act of impiety.

Great stress is laid upon the fact, that the person to be chosen should be one who was to be a witness with them of the Resurrection. This has led to the supposition that Matthias was one of the Seventy. Their commission was given soon after that