meaning of scripture. The Romanist, on the other hand, has to defend a doctrine of a totally contrary description. He has to prove, not a mystery, but a miracle; a miracle which contradicts reason, and sense, and antiquity. We shall see whether he too is not obliged to resort to a similar process of explanation.

I confess it has long appeared to me that Romish writers have been allowed, in the question of transubstantiation, to hold a position which they had not the smallest right to assume. I do not mean to insinuate that no one has disputed the position; but certainly, those who have engaged in the controversy of late years have, almost without exception, acquiesced in the right of the Romanist to take up an offensive position, and, instead of meeting him as I conceive he ought to be met, have undertaken to defend themselves under a charge which they above all men are bound to retort upon their opponents.

For, if I were asked, what is the great achievement of the Reformation, I should say, it is the assertion of the principle that the grammatical sense of holy scripture is the only sense in which it is to be expounded. This is the sword of the Spirit; this is the weapon with which our reformers inflicted such deadly wounds on the powers of darkness. It is with the greatest suspicion, therefore, one should entertain an argument in which error of any sort is vindicated by an appeal to the literal sense of scripture. For, surely, if a doctrine be proved by direct authority of scripture, in its obvious and grammatical sense, on our own principles we are bound to admit the doctrine to be true; to be part and parcel of revelation, and necessary to be believed. Nothing can be imagined more inconsistent with our fundamental principle than to meet such an appeal by an attempt to explain and fritter away the meaning of the text. To speak plainly, bad and mischievous as the errors of Romanism are, I should much rather leave any one of them uncontroverted, than endeavour to overthrow it by adopting the system of spiritual and figurative interpretation and double senses. And that for this simple reason, that if this system of explanation be once admitted, the door is opened to every one of them in detail; ay, and to worse errors than any one of them, or than all of them put together, even to the heresies of Arius and Socinus, and ultimately (for to this it must come sooner or later) to the total rejection of the bible as a divine revelation, as the infallible and supreme tribunal, from whose sentence there can be no appeal.

When a Romanist undertakes to defend transubstantiation, he invariably commences with an argument to prove that we ought to take the words of Christ in their proper sense. How is he met ? In nine instances out of ten, by a discourse about the necessity of figurative interpretation. In other words, by a direct abandonment of the principle of the Reformation; and therefore, as might naturally be anticipated, by an argument which, too frequently, proves nothing so clearly as this, that the protestant champion has adopted a theory which bears a very considerable resemblance to the doctrine of Socinus.

It is an unspeakable mercy that those who adopt another method

are protected from all just suspicion of affecting originality and novelty by the example and authority of our reformers. The proper position has been taken up by our own church in the thirty-nine articles "Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of scripture." Evidently, therefore, the line of argument to be taken by any one who believes the assertion in the article is this to meet the counter-assertion of the Romanist, not by sheltering himself under the mystifications of figurative interpretation, but by retorting the argument; in a word, by inquiring whether the Romanist does or can take the words of Christ in their

literal and proper sense. This is the design of the present paper.

Before I proceed further, however, let me address one word to my Roman-catholic reader, if I should happen to have any. It is not my design to say a single word which can give him needless pain. I am not disposed to use sarcasm, or ridicule, or exaggeration, in such a controversy. If he will believe me, my first objection to the doctrine of his church is, not that it transcends my reason, or even that it contradicts it—but that it contradicts the literal meaning of the words of Him at whose word I trust all his true servants will ever be ready to captivate and prostrate their reason. And if he will believe me, my second reason is, not that it contradicts my senses, (although I conceive that to be a more serious ground for hesitation than he may imagine,) but that, above all other notions ever yet put forward, amongst those who have any pretensions to the name of Christian, it lowers the character and diminishes the effects of that holy and most venerable sacrament, which ever has been, and ever must be, regarded by all true and devout Christians as the most inestimable gift which Jesus Christ has given and the Holy Spirit has perpetuated to the church.

If any Roman-catholic should take the trouble to read these pages, let me intreat him to remember that what our church, in the article I have cited, sets forth as the first and chief ground of its opposition to the doctrine of transubstantiation, does in fact amount to this, that the church of Rome does not act on its own avowed principle of interpretation in this matter. The Council of Trent+ states, that our Saviour has delivered this doctrine in distinct and plain words; (disertis ac perspicuis verbis,) and that, as his words carry on their face that proper and plainest signification, (propriam illam et apertissimam significationem,) it is a great crime to wrest them to fictitious and imaginary tropes, (indignissimum sane flagitium est, ea a quibusdam con

Art. 28.

✦ Ita enim majores nostri omnes quotquot in vera Christi ecclesia fuerunt, qui de sanctissimo hoc sacramento disseruerunt, apertissime professi sunt; hoc tam admirabile sacramentum in ultima cœna redemptorem nostrum instituisse, cum post panis vinique benedictionem se suum ipsius corpus illis præbere, ac suum sanguinem, disertis ac perspicuis verbis testatus est. Quæ verba a sanctis evangelistis commemorata, a divo Paulo postea repetita, cum propriam illam et apertissimam significationem præferant, secundum quam a patribus intellecta sunt, indignissimum sane flagitium est, ea a quibusdam contentiosis et pravis hominibus ad fictitios et imaginarios tropos, quibus veritas carnis et sanguinis Christi negatur, contra universum ecclesiæ sensum, detorqueri, etc.-(Conc. Trid. Sess. xiii. cap. 1.)

tentiosis et pravis hominibus ad fictitios et imaginarios tropos, .. detorqueri.) The church of England, on the contrary, maintains that the doctrine "cannot be proved by holy writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of scripture," (ex sacris literis probari non potest sed apertis scripturæ verbis adversatur.) Here then is the question; the two churches are at issue, not on a point of doctrine, but on a matter of fact. My inquiry is, whether the point is not in reality conceded by the church of Rome; whether, after all she says about the necessity of taking the words of Christ in their strictest and most literal sense, she is not obliged, in proof of transubstantiation, to resort to the expedient of "fictitious and imaginary tropes," and to leave the plain and grammatical sense to be advocated by the church of England?

§ 1. My inquiry commences with the form of the sacrament. According to the doctrine of the Roman church, the form of consecrating the bread is the four words, "Hoc EST CORPUS MEUM:" "THIS IS MY BODY." This is thus taught by the catechism of the Council of Trent "We are taught therefore, by the holy evangelists, Matthew ́and Luke, and also by the apostle, that this is the form, THIS IS MY BODY; for it is written, while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said, Take, and eat: this is my body." "Itaque a sanctis evangelistis, Matthæo et Luca, itemque ab apostolo docemur, illam esse formam, Hoc EST CORPUS MEUM: scriptum est enim cœnantibus illis, accepit Jesus panem, et benedixit, ac fregit, deditque discipulis suis, et dixit, Accipite, et manducate; hoc est corpus meum."* According to this doctrine, then, the form (that is to say, the words by which the bread was consecrated and transubstantiated by Christ) was the words, "THIS IS MY BODY." Now if this be true, it necessarily follows that until the words "THIS IS MY BODY" were pronounced, neither consecration nor transubstantiation had taken place; and this in effect is acknowledged by Bellarmine, when he says that it was with these words Christ consecrated,† and that they alone pertain to the form of the sacrament. Consequently, according to the theory of transubstantiation, Christ must have pronounced the words twice; once, when he was effecting the consecration and transubstantiation of the element; and a second time, when he was pronouncing the words of distribution. But what is this but to depart from the literal and obvious meaning of the words of scripture? Taking the narrative as it stands, in its plain and grammatical sense, it appears that Christ blessed the bread (or gave thanks) before he brake it; that he brake

Catech. Conc. Trid. Pars ii. De Euchar. Sacram. c. xx.

† Quod attinet ad Christi exemplum sententia communis non solum Theologorum recentiorum, sed etiam veterum Patrum est, Christum consecrasse illis verbis: Hoc est corpus meum: Hic est sanguis meus.-(Bellarm. De Sacram. Euch. lib. iv. cap. xiii. § 5.)

Est igitur quæstio hoc loco tractanda, utrum illa sola verba: Hoc est enim corpus meum: et Hic est enim calix sanguinis, etc. ad formam sacramenti hujus pertineant. Et quidem ecclesia catholica magno consensu docet, illa sola verba ad formam pertinere.-(ld. can. xii. § 2.)

it before he gave it to his disciples; that he gave it to them before he said, "TAKE, EAT;" and that he said, "TAKE, EAT," before he said, "THIS IS MY BODY:" consequently, from anything we can learn from scripture, it appears that he had blessed, or consecrated the bread, some time before he said, "THIS IS MY BODY;" and therefore, to say that the words "THIS IS MY BODY" is the form by which Christ transubstantiated the bread, in other words, to say that Christ pronounced the words twice, is to depart from the letter of the history, and to give up the literal meaning of the scripture as irreconcileable with the theory of transubstantiation. Now, the church of Rome is not only unable to take the evangelical history literally as it stands, but she confesses that she is unable. She confesses that, to make out her theory, she is obliged to give it a figurative interpretation, and to suppose something which is not to be found in the text of the evangelists. In proving "from reason," that the words "THIS IS MY BODY," are the form, the catechism says "For the form is that by which that is signified which is effected in this sacrament; but since these words signify and declare that which is made, that is, the conversion of the bread into the very body of our Lord, it follows that the form must be placed in these very words: in which meaning it is lawful to take what is said by the evangelist, He blessed.' For it seems it should be understood just as if he had said, taking bread, he blessed, saying, This is my body." "Nam forma ea est, quâ illud significatur quod in hoc sacramento efficitur: cum autem hæc verba id quod fit significent, ac declarent, hoc est, panis conversionem in verum Domini nostri corpus, sequitur, formam in illis ipsis verbis constituendam esse; in quam sententiam, quod ab evangelista dictum est, Benedixit, licet accipere. Perinde enim videtur intelligendum, ac si dixisset, accipiens panem benedixit, dicens: Hoc est corpus meum.' And thus the catechism is explained by Bellarinus, in his "Doctrine of the Sacred Council of Trent, and of the Roman Catechism," &c., a work dedicated to the inquisitor-general of Milan. His words are these "Does not that word (benedixit), he blessed, signify consecration? Ans. It signifies thus: taking bread, he blessed it, saying, that is, he blessed in these words: This is my body." “Illud verbum, benedixit, nonne significat consecrationem? Res. Significat ita; Accipiens panem benedixit illum dicens, id est benedixit his verbis: Hoc est corpus meum."+ Now, what is this but a direct and explicit avowal that the doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be made out from the literal and grammatical meaning of the words of scripture ? As far as we can learn from the words of the evangelist, there is not the slightest reason for supposing that Christ pronounced the words, "THIS IS MY BODY," twice. From anything we can gather from the text, there is not a shadow of ground for the notion. On the contrary, the plain meaning of the words would lead any unprejudiced

Ibid. § Sed ratione.

† Doctrina S. Concilii Tridentini et Catechismi Romani, etc. Fideliter collecta distincta, et ubi opus est, explicata per R. D. Joann, Bellarinum, Cler. Reg. Cong. S. Pauli. De Eucharistia. Tract. 1, cap. iii. num. 2, p. 99. Lugd. 1664 Cum approbatione et permissione. 8vo.

person, who knew nothing of the controversy, to conclude that Christ did not pronounce the words (at least it could never occur to him to suppose that he had pronounced them) before he had given, or at least, was in the very act of giving, the bread to his disciples. I may be asked, is such a person as I have here supposed a competent judge of such a question? No doubt he is. Nay, he is precisely the very most competent that can be imagined. If it were a question of exposition or church history, we should need the assistance of learning and critical acumen; but we are told that the doctrine of transubstantiation is proved by the literal meaning of the words. Surely, to decide this, a man of plain unsophisticated common sense, who knows nothing of the controversy, is just the very best person that can be imagined. This is not a question of doctrine or research; it is a question of facts. It is not an appeal to scholarship; but to common sense. And consequently, the less a man knew of the controversy, the more likely he would be to give fair play to his understanding. It requires no learning to discover that the church of Rome is already, in the very outset, compelled to abandon the literal and proper sense of the words as untenable, and to wrest them from their natural sense, to something very like what the Council of Trent calls "a fictitious and imaginary trope." She is obliged to confess that she is compelled to understand the evangelist to mean, not what he has said, but "just as if he had said" (" perinde ac si dixisset") something which he has not said, and something which, without wresting of some sort or other, his words could never have been imagined to signify.

2. But, secondly, this contrivance only increases the difficulty; for the words, "THIS IS MY BODY," if taken apart from their connexion, are, in their plain and literal sense, declaratory and significative. They are, then, simply a statement of the actual condition of a thing; and therefore their literal meaning implies, that the thing, whatever it may be, was in that condition before the statement was made. And this absolutely follows from the doctrine of transubstantiation. For, unless that which Christ commanded his disciples to take and eat was his body before he gave the command, he must have commanded them to eat either what was not his body, or else what was his body only in the eating and use of it; both of which suppositions are flatly contradictory of the whole doctrine of the Roman church. And hence it follows, that, on their own shewing, the words as recorded by the evangelists must be declaratory. This is the express statement of the decree of the Council of Trent :-" This indeed is common to the most holy eucharist with the other sacraments, to be a symbol of a sacred thing, and a visible form of an invisible grace; but that is found in it excellent and singular, that the rest of the sacraments then first have the power of sanctifying, when any one uses them ; but the author of sanctity himself is in the eucharist before the use, for the apostles had not received the eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when, notwithstanding, he himself affirmed that it was truly his body which he was giving them; and this has ever been the faith in the church of God, that immediately after consecration the very body of our Lord, and his very blood, along with his soul and divinity,