So that, even on the most essential points of doctrine, there is absolutely no true unanimity.  This is so undeniable that Anglican Bishops themselves are found lamenting and wringing their hands over their “unhappy divisions”.  Still, we wish to be perfectly just, so, in illustration of our contention, we will select, not one of those innumerable minor points which it would be easy to bring forward, but some really crucial point of doctrine, the importance of which no man in his senses will have the hardihood to deny.  Let us say, for instance, the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.  Can we conceive anything that a devout Christian would be more anxious to ascertain than whether Our Divine Lord and Saviour be really and personally and substantially present under the appearance of bread, or no!  Picture to yourselves, then, a fervent worshipper entering an Anglican church, where they are said “to reserve,” and kneeling before the Tabernacle.  Just watch the poor unfortunate man utterly and hopelessly unable to decide whether he is prostrating and pouring out his soul before a mere memorial, a simple piece of common bread, or before the Infinite Creator of the Universe, the dread King of kings, and Lord of lords, in Whose presence the very angels veil their faces, and the strong pillars of heaven tremble!  Imagine a Church where such a state of things is possible!  Yet, we have it on the authority of an Anglican Bishop—­and I know not where we shall find a higher authority—­that this is indeed the case; as may be gathered from the following words, taken from a “charge” by the late Bishop Ryle, which are surely clear enough:  “One section of our (i.e., Anglican) clergy,” says the Bishop, “maintains that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, and another maintains with equal firmness that it is not....  One section maintains that there is a real objective presence of Christ’s Body and Blood under the forms of the consecrated bread and wine.  The other maintains that there is no real presence whatsoever, except in the hearts of the believing communicant."[5] Was such a state of pitiable helplessness ever seen or heard or dreamed of anywhere!  And yet this church, please to observe, is supposed to be a body sent by God to teach.  Heaven preserve us from such a teacher.  As a further illustration of the utter incompetency of the Establishment to perform this primary duty, we may call to mind the strikingly instructive correspondence that was published some years ago between his Grace Archbishop Sumner and Mr. Maskell, who very naturally and very rightly sought direction from his Ordinary concerning certain points of doctrine, of which he was in doubt.

“You ask me,” writes the Archbishop to Mr. Maskell, “whether you are to conclude that you ought not to teach, and have not the authority of the [Anglican] Church to teach any of the doctrines spoken of in your five former questions, in the dogmatical terms there stated.”