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:

Qui 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

ocalis in cœlum ad
te Deum patrem

suam omnipoten-
tem tibi gratias
agens, benedixit, et
fregit, deditque dis-
cipulis suis,dicens:
Accipite, et man-

ducate ex hoc
oranes.

Hoc est ENIM corpus meum.

benedixit, ac fregit, deditque discipulis suis, et ait: Accipite, et come.

dite:

Hoc est

corpus meum.

Dominus Jesus in qua nocte tradeba. tur accepit panem

et dixit:

corpus meum

et dedit eis, dicens:

Hoc est

corpus meum
quod pro vobis
datur:

Hoc facite in meam
commemora-
tionem.

et gratias agens fregit

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."

et manducate sunt ne de forma?

"Illud verbum Enim estne de forma? Res. Non, sive in consecratione corporis, sive sanguinis.-Potest omitti sine peccato? Res. Non potest.' "Illa verba fregit, deditque discipulis, et dicit, Accipite, 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

menti; aliqua ad usum: et quæ pertinent ad usum non sunt de substantia Eucharistiæ, quæ etiam sine usu perfectum est sacramentum." In a word, the doctrine of the Roman church is, that the sacrament is perfect without its being administered or received; but this is directly contrary to the plain import of the words of the evangelist; and therefore she declares that the word "ENIM," "FOR," is introduced into the words of Christ to guard against the mistake which would inevitably follow from their being understood in their literal acceptation. In their literal sense, as Christ is recorded to have pronounced them, they cannot be the form of consecration, for this would overturn the lawfulness and possibility of the solitary mass, and the validity of a consecration which is not meant to be followed by the distribution of the communion. Neither will their literal sense admit of their being considered as the words of distribution; for this would plainly imply that it is in the act of receiving that the bread is the body of the Lord. Neither as consecratory, nor as distributive, therefore, can the words "TAKE, AND EAT, THIS IS MY BODY," be literally understood by the church of Rome. There is nothing left for it, except to give them some figurative sense; and in order to obviate the possibility of their being literally understood as the evangelist wrote them, a word is introduced into the sacred and mysterious words of our blessed Redeemer-a word which Christ did not pronounce, and which he is not even pretended to have pronounced a word which makes a vital change, and is stated to be introduced in order that it may make a vital change, in the formula, on which the whole system of transubstantiation and the mass professes to rest. The catechism confesses that, without altering the words of Christ's institution, the eucharist ought not to be consecrated, and, for the purposes for which they generally consecrate it, could not be consecrated at all. In other words, the catechism and the words of the canon (in the sense in which their doctrine requires them to be understood) are a distinct and formal acknowledgment that the literal meaning of the evangelist's words is irreconcilable with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

But

§ 4. Every departure from the grammatical sense of scripture inevitably leads to further deviations from truth and certainty. The word "FOR," " ENIM,' 1," is said to be introduced into the words of institution in order to guard the solitary mass and transubstantiation. it is absolutely impossible it can do this, except by giving them a declaratory, and not a consecratory sense. The words "TAKE AND EAT," we are told, pertain not to the sacrament, but to its use-that is, they do not imply the necessity of communion in order to the validity of the sacrament, because they do not limit the presence of Christ's body to the use and reception. To secure this distinction, the word " ENIM," "FOR," as we are told by the catechism, is pronounced in the canon. But this effect can be produced only by supposing that "ENIM" reduces the sentence, "THIS IS MY BODY," to a declaration of a fact previously in existence. So that "Take and eat, FOR this is my

* Page 99.

body," must be equivalent to saying, "This is my body, THEREFORE take and eat." And this is the only sense the words can bear, consistently with the doctrine of the Roman Catechism. For, as we have seen, the catechism interprets the words, in the connexion in which Christ is recorded to have pronounced them, as a reference to the former pronunciation of them when he blessed-that is, transubstantiated, the bread, by saying, "This is my body." Consequently, according to their theory, the effect of the word "EMM" is simply this to tie down the sense of the words of the canon to that declaratory sense which, according to the catechism, they must bear in the context of the evangelists. So that, by endeavouring to guard against the consequences of the literal meaning of the words, an expedient has been resorted to which can have no effect whatever towards that end, unless by reducing the words of the canon to a purely historical and declaratory sense, and thus depriving them altogether of their operative and consecratory force and meaning. In other words, the form of the sacrament must by this means cease to be the form; and by affixing this meaning to the canon, the bread is neither consecrated nor converted at all. Thus by every contrivance to escape the literal and grammatical sense of scripture new difficulties have been created. This becomes further evident by a fiction to which the doctrine of transubstantiation has compelled the Roman church to resort. The words, "THIS IS MY BODY," must be pronounced by the priest, not in his own person, but in the person of Christ. For if the priest pronounced them in his own person, merely as reciting historically the words spoken by Christ, the word "THIS," "HOC," would signify, not the bread which is on the altar, but that bread which Christ took in his hands at the institution of the eucharist; and, consequently, the words, "THIS IS MY BODY," would have no operative or converting efficacy, but be merely narrative and declaratory. But if, on the other hand, he pronounced them in his own person, with the intention of consecrating and converting the bread, then "MEUM," "MY," must relate, not to Christ's body, but to the body of the priest. To avoid this dilemma, Bellarmine says that in some parts of the liturgy the priest acts in his own person, and in others in the person of Christ; that in the other sacraments he acts as Christ's minister, but in the consecration of the eucharist he not only acts as if he were Christ himself, but puts on altogether the person of Christ, and speaks as if he were Christ himself; and thirdly, that when he says "this is my body," he intends that, as Christ, by saying these words, made the bread his body, so Christ may speak by his mouth, and make the bread he holds in his hand become the body of the Lord. "Et cum ait: benedixit, et ipse benedicit; et cum ait: Hoc est corpus meum, intendit, quod sicut Christus de pane illo, quem olim accepit, dixit: Hoc est corpus meum, et dicendo fecit, ut esset: ita etiam de pane isto, qui nunc accipitur, idem Christus per os sacerdotis dicat: Hoc est corpus meum, et dicendo efficiat." But what has become of the words, "TAKE AND EAT," which Bellarmine here passes over in

De Sacr. Euch. lib. iv. c. xiv. §§ 17-20.

silence? In whose person are they pronounced? Surely, if the priest pronounce the words of institution in the person of Christ, and speak as if he were Christ himself, (induit omnino Christi personam, et loquitur, ac si ipse esset Christus,) then he must pronounce them in the sense in which Christ himself pronounced them. And then, according to the catechism, he will pronounce them in a purely declaratory and inoperative sense. So that it follows that if, as Bellarmine will have it, the priest, in the canon, pronounces, in the person of Christ, and in the sense in which Christ pronounced them, the words, "TAKE, AND EAT, THIS IS MY BODY," then, according to the catechism, he pronounces them in a declarative and not a converting sense; he addresses them to the communicants, as Christ did, and not to the bread; and by inevitable consequence, either the bread is consecrated in a sense fatal to the doctrine of transubstantiation, or else it is consecrated not by the words of institution, but by the prayers of the minister, which is the doctrine of the Greek church, and deprives the doctrine of transubstantiation of its only foundation. It is simply impossible for the Romish priest to pronounce the words, "TAKE, AND EAT, THIS IS MY BODY," in the sense in which Christ pronounced them. For, according to the Roman doctrine, the words were pronounced by Christ in a sense declaratory and inoperative, referring to his former pronunciation of them when he blessed the bread. But the priest, in the canon, does not repeat the words twice. Either, therefore, he pronounces the words, "THIS IS MY BODY," after "TAKE AND EAT," in the sense in which Christ pronounced them, or he does not. If he does, what becomes of transubstantiation? If he does not, how can he be said to act in the person of Christ, and to speak as if Christ himself were speaking? But, further, if, in order to the making of the sacrament, it was necessary for Christ to pronounce the words, "THIS IS MY BODY," twice, why is it not equally necessary for the priest to pronounce them twice in the canon? If, in order to the transubstantiation of the bread, it is unnecessary to pronounce them twice in the canon, why was it necessary for Christ to pronounce them twice in the institution? Either the Roman Catechism is wrong, and Christ did not pronounce them twice, or else, when the canon of the mass was written, the church of Rome did not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation and solitary masses. Any one who will compare the transcripts I have made of the canon and the evangelists will see that the compilers of the canon were by no means scrupulous in avoiding any addition to the sacred text. So that, if they had thought the repetition of the words necessary, they would have repeated them. From all which it follows that the form is not pronounced by the priest in the literal sense of the words, or even in the sense in which they were understood by the church when the canon of the mass was drawn up.

§ 5. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and

* See Bellarm. De Sacr. Euch. lib. iv. cap. xiv. Le Brun. Explication de la Messe, diss. x. tom. iii. p. 212. Card. Bona Rer. Liturg. lib. ii. cap. xiii. §§ iv. v tom. iii. p. 293. Edit. Sala. Bingham. Antiquities, b. xv. chap. iii. § xii. Bp. Taylor Divine Institution of the Office Ministerial, sect. vii. §§ 5—10.