"Commune hoc

exist under the appearance of bread and wine, &c." quidem est sanctissimæ eucharistiæ cum cæteris sacramentis, symbolum esse rei sacræ, et invisibilis gratiæ formam visibilem: verum illud in ea excellens et singulare reperitur, quod reliqua sacramenta tunc primum sanctificandi vim habent, cum quis illis utitur: ut in eucharistia ipse sanctitatis auctor ante usum est, nondum enim eucharistiam de manu Domini Apostoli susceperant, cum vere tamen ipse affirmaret corpus suum esse quod præbebat: et semper hæc fides in ecclesia Dei fuit, statim post consecrationem verum Domini nostri corpus, verumque ejus sanguinem sub panis et vini specie una cum ipsius anima et divinitate exsistere, etc."*

According to the Council of Trent, therefore, the words of our Saviour, "THIS IS MY BODY," in all the places where they are found in the New Testament, have no force whatever beyond the affirmation of a fact already in existence; because they simply declare to the apostles that what they were commanded to take, but (according to the Council of Trent) had not yet taken, had been already transubstantiated. How then can they be that instrument by which the miracle of transubstantiation had been performed? How can they be the form of the sacrament? How can they be that, on the utterance of which the conversion of the substance took place, and the body of Christ was made? Clearly, they cannot. For, as the form of the sacrament, they do not produce their consecratory and converting effect until the last syllable has been pronounced. This Bellarmine expressly states:-"These consecratory words (like any other sentence whatever) have not a perfect signification unless in the last instant, in which the last word is uttered; for the meaning is in suspense, until we come to the end: but in the same last instant is placed the actual effect of the words, that is, the conversion of the bread into the body "Verba illa consecratoria (ut quamvis aliam sententiam) non habere perfectam significationem, nisi in ultimo instanti, quo profertur ultima vox; pendet enim intellectus, donec ad finem veniatur : in eodem autem ultimo instanti ponitur effectus verborum in esse, id est, conversio panis in corpus Christi." So that the words, in their literal meaning, as they stand in the evangelists, are not the form of the sacrament. They are not effective; they are not consecratory: except indeed in a sense fatal to the doctrine of transubstantiation. They are declaratory; and can be understood no otherwise by any one who believes that doctrine to be true. To meet this difficulty, therefore, it is not sufficient to depart from the letter of the text, by the invention noticed in the preceding section; for as the words, in that which must be their literal significancy, according to the Romish doctrine, are not consecratory, it would do anything but remove the difficulty to suppose that they were twice pronounced by Christ in And this must be true, whichever sense be attributed to them; for, on the one hand, if Christ pronounced them twice in

the same sense.

the declaratory and inoperative sense which the Romanist attaches to them in the words of distribution, as recorded in scripture, then either they were not the form of consecration, or else the bread was consecrated by a form merely declaratory, and consequently was not transubstantiated. While, on the other hand, if Christ had twice pronounced them in an operative and consecratory sense, then there would be a double consecration and transubstantiation of the same sacrament, which is impossible and absurd. So that, in order to escape one difficulty, the church of Rome has created another; and by making one departure from the literal meaning of the text, she has been obliged to make a second; for as the words "THIS IS MY BODY" are, as Bellarmine tells us, "the principal foundation of this whole controversy, and thus of the whole of this most deep mystery," ("præcipuum fundamentum est totius controversiæ, atque adeo totius hujus altissimi mysterii,"*) and as their literal meaning, as they are found in the context of the history, is utterly irreconcileable with the Roman doctrine, it follows that the Romanists are obliged to assume, first, that Christ pronounced the words twice; secondly, that he pronounced them on these several occasions in two totally different senses-namely, at the benediction, in a consecratory and transubstantiative sense; and at the distribution, in a sense purely historical and declarative; and thirdly, the sense in which they are obliged to assume that Christ pronounced the words on the purely imaginary occasion on which they are obliged to assume that he did pronounce them, is not the literal sense, but totally the reverse of it.

§ 3. But there is another reason why the form of the sacrament is confined to the words "THIS IS MY BODY." It is evident that, taking the words of the evangelist as they stand, there is nothing whatever in their literal meaning which could lead any one to imagine that these four words should be dissevered from their connexion, and interpreted as if they were of a different sort and character from those that precede and follow them. The contrary is plainly the impression that must be made on the mind of any one who should consider their natural and grammatical import, without suffering his judgment to be warped by sectarian prejudice. Take the words in St. Matthew's gospel: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body." The literal meaning of this passage never could by possibility excite a suspicion that the words, "TAKE, EAT," were of one sort of character, and the words, "THIS IS MY BODY," of a totally dif ferent one; the natural meaning of the words, considered as words of institution, is plainly this, to command the use of the sacrament, and to promise the presence of Christ's body in the use. But such an inter

pretation is fatal to the doctrine of the Roman church, because it confines the presence of Christ's body to the use of the sacrament; and by consequence, renders it improper to consecrate the sacrament, or rather impossible, except for the purposes of use and communion.

• De Sacr. Euch. lib. i. cap. viii. § 1.

The literal meaning of the words is this, that, in taking and eating the consecrated bread, it is the body of Christ. But the church of Rome cannot take it in this sense; for plainly that would be to concede the unlawfulness of solitary masses, and to abandon the notion of the bread being converted into the body of Christ previous to communion, and irrespective of the necessity of any communion whatever. I repeat, that the meaning which the church of Rome is compelled to assign to these words is utterly at variance with the literal and grammatical sense. In order to harmonise with the doctrine of transubstantiation, it is necessary to paraphrase them somewhat in this manner :— ___"Take, eat, for, by the words of consecration already pronounced, the substance of bread has been converted into the natural body of Christ; but not indeed primarily or necessarily for the purpose of being taken and eaten since, whether it be taken and eaten, or not, it is the body of Christ." Now, to give this meaning, which is the only one that can consist with the Roman theory, two things must be assumed, which never could have been gathered from the literal meaning of the text: first, that the words, "TAKE, EAT," though proper to be repeated by the priest, are unnecessary to the consecration of the sacrament; and secondly, that the words, "THIS IS MY BODY," having first been pronounced as the form of the sacrament, were afterwards repeated to the apostles, as the reason why they should take and eat the sacrament; and, consequently, that the word "FOR," or some such particle, must be expressed or understood in order to give them their proper signification.

Now these departures from the literal sense are not only necessary to the system of the church of Rome, but she herself confesses their necessity. Let us return to the Roman Catechism. I shall be obliged to repeat some of the words I had already cited :-" 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 should be placed in these very words: in which sense it is lawful to take what is said by the evangelist, he blessed;' for it appears it should be understood just as if he had said, taking bread he blessed, saying, This is my body. Note. For although the evangelist has prefixed those words, TAKE, AND EAT, yet it is plain that by them is signified not the consecration of the matter but only the use; wherefore they ought indeed by all means to be pronounced by the priest, but they are not necessary to the making of the sacrament. Note. In like manner also is pronounced the conjunction FOR, [ENIM,] in the consecration of the body and blood; for otherwise the consequence will be, that, if this sacrament is not to be administered to any one, it ought not, or indeed cannot, be made; when, however, it is not lawful. to doubt that the priest, by pronouncing the words of the Lord according to the custom and institution of holy church, truly consecrates the fit matter of bread; although it may afterwards happen, that the holy eucharist should never be administered to any one." "Nam forma ea est, etc. (ut supra.) Nota, Quamvis enim evangelista verba illa, VOL. XVIII.-July, 1840.

C

ACCIPITE, ET COMEDITE, præposuerit: illis tamen non materiæ consecrationem, sed usum tantummodo significari, perspicuum est, quare a sacerdote quidem omnino proferri debent, sed ad sacramentum conficiendum necessaria non sunt. Nota. Quemadmodum etiam profertur conjunctio illa, ENIM, in corporis et sanguinis consecratione; aliter enim fiet, ut si hoc sacramentum nemini administrandum sit, confici non oporteat, aut non possit quidem; cum tamen dubitare non liceat quin sacerdos, prolatis ex more atque instituto sanctæ ecclesiæ verbis Domini, aptam panis materiam vere consecret ; quamvis deinde contingat, ut nulli unquam sacra eucharistia administretur."

It is scarcely possible to conceive a more formal renunciation of the literal and grammatical sense of words. The words of the evangelist must be taken in a particular sense, and not in the literal acceptation. The sacred writer must be understood to mean, not what he has said, but "just as if he had said" something which he has not said, and something which never could be intended by the literal meaning of what he has said; then, to guard against the consequence which must follow from the plain meaning of his words, a distinction perfectly unwarranted by the text is to be introduced into the words of institution; those of them which may serve to give colour to transubstantiation are declared to be "the form," the words necessary to the consecration and conversion of the bread; those which seem opposed to the Romish notion and practice are declared to be unnecessary to the making of the sacrament. In fine, in order to qualify the words effectually against the anti-Roman interpretation, to which it is confessed they naturally and literally give encouragement, a conjunction, "FOR," " ENIM," is said to be introduced into the text; so that all these cautions and explanations are confessed to be insufficient to bear down the grammatical meaning of the evangelist, until an alteration has been made in the words of our blessed Redeemer himself. To make this last point clear to my reader, I shall lay before him the words of the evangelists and St. Paul, in juxtaposition with the words of consecration in the Roman missal :

Qai pridie quam Conantibus autem et manducantibus et

pateretur accepit eis, accepit panem, illis, accepit Jesus accepto pane

panem in sanctas

ac venerabiles manus: suas et elevatis

oculis in cœlum ad te Deum patrem

suam omnipoten.

panem :

Dominus Jesus in qua nocte tradeba. tur accepit panem

et dedit eis, dicens:

tem tibi gratias

agens, benedixit, et benedixit, ac

et benedicens

fregit, deditque dis- fregit, deditque discipulis suis,dicens: cipulis suis, et ait: Accipite, et man- Accipite, et come. ducate ex hoc dite:

git, et dedit eis,

fre-gratias egit,
et fregit,

et ait:
Sumite

et gratias agens
fregit
et dixit:

Accipite et mandu

cate.

Hoc est

corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur:

Hoc facite in meam commemora tionem.

Now the word "FOR," "ENIM," is either necessary to be added to the form of the sacrament or it is not. If it is not, then a wanton and gratuitous alteration has been made in the words of our blessed Redeemer. If it is necessary, then what is this but a formal and explicit declaration that the literal meaning is contrary to the doctrine of Rome, and that to make them compatible with that doctrine, an alteration must be made in the words of Christ-in the very words which are confessedly the whole and only foundation of the doctrine of transubstantiation? And the necessity of this alteration is avowed by the church of Rome. The catechism, as we have seen, declares the necessity, and the reason of the necessity. "The conjunction (ENIM) FOR' is pronounced in the consecration of the body and blood; for otherwise the consequence will be, that, if this sacrament is not to be administered to any one, it ought not, or even cannot be made." In like manner, Bellarinus. "Is the word for part of the form? Ans. It is not, either in the consecration of the body or the blood.-Can it be omitted without sin? Ans. It cannot.""The words brake, and gave to the disciples, and said, Take, and eat,' are they part of the form? Ans. No; because they pertain not to the sacrament, but to the use of the sacrament; for to eat bread is not of the substance or form of bread, but its use.-Why are not all the words which Christ said in the consecration of the eucharist, of the form, but only some? Ans. Because some pertain to the substance of the sacrament, some to the use; and what pertain to the use are not of the substance of the eucharist, which even without use is a perfect sacrament."

"Illud verbum Enim estne de forma? Res. Non, sive in conse cratione corporis, sive sanguinis.-Potest omitti sine peccato? Res. Non potest." "Illa verba fregit, deditque discipulis, et dicit, Accipite, et manducate sunt ne de forma? Res. Non quia pertinent ad usum sacramenti, non ad sacramentum : manducare enim panem non est de substantia, vel forma panis, sed usus illius.-Quare non omnia verba quæ Christus dixit in consecratione Eucharistiæ, sunt de forma, sed aliqua tantum? Res. Quia aliqua pertinent ad substantiam Sacra