great a thing."-The consequent of which words is plainly this, that there is no eating of Christ's flesh or drinking his blood, but by a moral instrument, faith and subordination to Christ; the sacramental external eating alone being no eating of Christ's flesh, but the symbols and sacrament of it. 22. Lastly: Suppose these words of Christ, "The bread which I shall give, is my flesh," were spoken literally of the sacrament; what he promised he would give, he performed, and what was here expressed in the future tense, was, in his time, true in the present tense; and, therefore, is always presently true after consecration; it follows, that in the sacrament this is true;" Panis est corpus Christi," "The bread is the body of Christ."-Now I demand whether this proposition will be owned. It follows inevitably from this doctrine, if these words be spoken of the sacrament. But it is disavowed by the princes of the party against us. “Hoc tamen est impossibile, quòd panis sit corpus Christi;” “ It is impossible that the bread should be Christ's body," saith the gloss of Gratian"; and Bellarmine says it cannot be a true proposition, " in quâ subjectum supponit pro pane, prædicatum autem pro corpore Christi; panis enim et corpus Domini res diversissimæ sunt "."-The thing that these men dread, is, lest it be called bread' and 'Christ's body' too, as we affirm it unanimously to be; and as this argument, upon their own grounds, evinces it. Now then, how they can serve both ends, I cannot understand. If they will have the bread or the meat which Christ promised to give, to be his flesh, then so it came to pass; and then it is bread and flesh too. If it did not so come to pass, and that it is impossible that bread should be Christ's flesh; then, when Christ said the bread which he would give, should be his flesh, he was not to be understood properly of the sacrament; but either figuratively in the sacrament, or in the sacrament not at all; either of which will serve the end of truth in this question. But of this hereafter. By this time I hope I may conclude, that transubstantiation is not taught by our blessed Lord in the sixth chap Prosper Sent. 339. sed verba sunt St. Augustini. " De Consecrat. dist. 2. c. 55. Gloss. Panis est in altari. ter of St. John. "Johannes de tertiâ et eucharisticâ cœnâ nihil quidem scribit, eò quod cæteri tres evangelistæ ante illum eam plenè descripsissent."-They are the words of Stapleton P, and are good evidence against them. SECTION IV. Of the Words of Institution. 1. "MULTA male oportet interpretari eos, qui unum non rectè intelligere volunt," said Irenæus"; "They must needs speak many false things, who will not rightly understand one."-The words of consecration are "præcipuum fundamentum totius controversiæ atque adeò totius hujus altissimi mysterii," said Bellarmine'; "the greatest ground of the whole question;" and by adhering to the letter the mystery is lost, and the whole party wanders in eternal intricacies, and inextricable riddles; which because themselves cannot untie, they torment their sense and their reason, and many places of Scripture, while they pertinaciously stick to the impossible letter, and refuse the spirit of these words : The words of institution are these: St. Matt. xxvi. 26.-" Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all, of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." St. Mark, xiv. 22.-" Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat, this is my body: and he took the cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it; and he said to them, This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many." St. Luke, xxii. 19.-"And he took bread, and gave thanks, P Pompt. Cathol. ser. 3. Heb. Sanct. q Contr. Hæres. lib. 5. r Lib. 1. c. 8. Euchar. sect. sequitur argumentum. and brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you." 1 Cor. xi. 23.-" The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And when he had given thanks he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood: This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." 2. These words contain the institution, and are wholly called the words of consecration,' in the Latin church. Concerning which the consideration is material. Out of these words the Latin church separates, Hoc est corpus meum,' This is my body,'-and say, that these words, pronounced by the priest with due intention, do effect this change of the bread into Christ's body, which change they call transubstantiation.' But if these words do not effect any such change, then it may be Christ's body before the words; and these may only declare what is already done by the prayers of the holy man; or else it may become Christ's body only in the use and manducation: and as it will be uncertain when the change is, so also it cannot be known, what it is. If it be Christ's body before those words, then the literal sense of these words will prove nothing, it is so as it will be before these words, and made so by other words, which refer wholly to use; and then the præcipuum fundamentum,' the pillar and ground' of transubstantiation is supplanted. And if it be only after the words, and not effected by the words, it will be Christ's body only in the reception. Now, concerning this, I have these things to say: 3. First: By what argument can it be proved, that these words, "Take, and eat," are not as effective of the change, as "Hoc est corpus meum," " This is my body?”—If they be, then the taking and eating do consecrate and it is not Christ's body till it be taken and eaten; and then, when that is done, it is so no more; and besides, that reservation, circumgestation, adoration, elevation of it, must of themselves fall to the ground; it will also follow, that it is Christ's body only in a mystical, spiritual, and sacramental manner. 4. Secondly: By what argument will it so much as probably be concluded, that these words, "This is my body," should be the words effective of conversion and consecration? That Christ used these words is true, and so he used all the other; but did not tell, which were the consecrating words, nor appoint them to use those words; but to do the thing, and so to remember and represent his death. And therefore, the form and rites of consecration and ministries are in the power of the church, where Christ's command does not intervene; as appears in all the external ministries of religion; in baptism, confirmation, penance, ordination, &c. And for the form of consecration of the eucharist, St. Basil afirms that it is not delivered to us : Τὰ τῆς ἐπικλήσεως ῥήματα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναδείξει τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς εὐχαριστίας καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου τῆς εὐλογίας τίς τῶν ἁγίων ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν, &c. The words of invocation in the manifestation or opening the eucharistical bread and cup of blessing, which of all the saints hath left us? for we are not content with these, which the apostles and the evangelists mention, but before and after, we say other things, which have great efficacy to this mystery".' -But it is more material, which St. Gregory affirms concerning the apostles: "Mos apostolorum fuit, ut ad ipsam solummodò orationem Dominicam oblationis hostiam consecrarent:" "The apostles consecrated the eucharist only by saying the Lord's prayert." To which I add this consideration, that it is certain, Christ interposed no command in this case, nor the apostles; neither did they, for aught appears, intend the recitation of those words to be the sacramental consecration, and operative of the change;-because themselves recited several forms of institution in St. Matthew and St. Mark for one, and St. Luke and St. Paul for the other, in the matter of the chalice especially; and by this difference declared, there is no necessity of one, and therefore no efficacy in any as to this purpose. 5. Thirdly: If they make use of words to signify properly and not figuratively, then it is a declaration of something already in being, and not effective of any thing after it. For else est does not signify is but it shall be; because the conversion is future to the pronunciation: and by the confession of the Roman doctors" the bread is not transubstantiated till the um in meum be quite out, till the last syllable be spoken; but yet I suppose, they cannot shew an example, or reason, or precedent, or grammar, or any thing for it, that est should be an active word. And they may remember, how confidently they use to argue against them, that affirm men to be justified by a 'fiducia' and' persuasion,' that their sins are pardoned: saying, that faith must suppose the thing done, or their belief is false: and if it be done before, then to believe it does not do it at all, because it is done already.'— The case is here the same: they affirm that it is made Christ's body, by saying, 'It is Christ's body;' but their saying so must suppose the thing done, or else their saying so is false; and if it be done before, then to say it, does not do it at all, because it is done already. 6 6. Fourthly: When our blessed Lord " took bread, he gave thanks," said St. Luke and St. Paul; he "blessed it," said St. Matthew and St. Mark; εuxapioτhoas, making it eucharistical;' vλoynoas, that was consecrating' or making it holy; it was common bread, unholy when he blessed it,and made it eucharistical; for exapiornσas was the same with εὐλογήσας. Εὐχαριστηθεῖσα τροφὴ is the word in Justin, and εὐχαριστηθέντα ἄρτον καὶ οἶνον, bread and wine, food made eucharistical,' or on which Christ had given thanks; “Eucharistia sanguinis et corporis Christi," so Irenæus and others; and St. Paul * does promiscuously use evλoyɛïv, and εὐχαριστεῖν, and προσεύχεσθαι ; and in the same place the Vulgar Latin renders txapioríav by 'benedictionem,' and therefore St. Paul calls it" the cup of blessing;" and, in this very place of St. Matthew, St. Basil reads &vxapornoaç instead of Evλoynoas, either, in this, following the old Greek copies who so read this place, or else by interpretation so rendering it, as being the same; and on the other side St. Cyprian renders Exaρiornoas (the word used in the blessing the chalice) by "benedixit"." Against this Smiglecius, the Jesuit, with some little scorn, says, ' It is absurd to say very that Christ u Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 11. sect. Respondeo cum. * 1 Cor. xiv. 15—17. y 1 Cor. x. a Epist. ad Cæcilium. 2 In Regulis Moralibus. b Respons. ad Nod. Gordium, |