1. "MULTA male oportet interpretari cos, qui unum non rectd intelligere volunt," said Irenæus [Contr. Hæres. lib. 5.]; "They must needs speak many false things, who will not rightly understand one."--The words of consecration are "praecipuum fundamentum totius controversies atque adeo totius hujus altissimi mysterii," said Bellarmine [Lib. 1. c. 8. Euchar. sect. sequitur argumentum.]; "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 any. "

St. Luke, xxii. 19.--"And he took bread, and gave thanks, 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."

I 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 affirms that it is not delivered to us: Ta thV epiklhsewV rhmata epi th anadeixei tou artou thV eucaristiaV kai tou pothriou thV eulogiaV tiV twn agiwn hmin kataleloipen, &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." [De Spir. S. c. 27.]--But it is more material, which St. Gregory affirms concerning the apostles: "Mos apostolorum fuit, ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem Dominicam oblationis hostiam consecrarent:" "The apostles consecrated the eucharist only by saying the Lord's prayer." [Lib. 7. ep. 63.] 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.

4. 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 [Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 11. sect. Respondeo cum.] 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 examples 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. 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; eucaristhsaV 'making it eucharistical;' euloghsaV, that was 'consecrating' or making it holy: it was common bread, unholy when he blessed it, and made it eucharistical; for eucaristhsaV, was the same with eucaristhsaV. Eucaristhqeisa trofh is the word in Justin, and eucaristeqenta arton kai oinon, 'bread and wine, food made eucharistical,' or on which Christ had given thanks; "Eucharistica sanguinis et corporis Christi," so Irenæus and others; and St. Paul does promiscuously use eulogein, and eucaristein, and proseucesqai; and in the same place the Vulgar Latin renders eucaristian by 'benedictionem,' and therefore St. Paul calls it "the cup of blessing;" and in this very place of St. Matthew, St. Basil reads eucaristhsaV instead of euloghsav, either, in this, following the old Greek copies who so read this place, or else by interpretation so rendering it, as being the same [In Regulis Moralibus]; and on the other side St. Cyprian renders eucaristhsaV (the word used in the blessing the chalice by "benedixit." [Epist. ad Cæcilium.] Against this Smiglecius [Respons. ad Nod. Gordium,], the Jesuit, with some little scorn, says, 'It is very absurd to say that Christ gave thanks to the bread,' and so it should be, if eulogein and eucaristein, "blessing and giving of thanks," were all one. But in this he shewed his anger or want of skill; not knowing, or not remembering, that the Hebrews and Hellenist Jews love abbreviature of speech; and, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, St. Paul uses ilaskesqai taV amartiaV, 'to appease or propitiate our sins,' instead of ilaskesqai Qeon peri twn amartiwn, 'to propitiate or appease God concerning our sins;' and so is eucaristein ton artou, that is, Qeon peri tou artou, only that, by this means, God also makes the bread holy, blessed, and eucharistical. Now I demand, what did Christ's blessing effect upon the bread and the chalice? any thing, or nothing? If no change was consequent, it was an ineffective blessing, a blessing that blessed not: if any change was consequent, it was a blessing of the thing in order to what was intended, that is, that it might be eucharistical: and then the following words, "This is my body," "This is the blood of the New Testament,"" or "the New Testament in my blood," were, as Cabasilas affirms, en eidei dihghsews, 'by way of history and narration;' and so the Syriac interpreter puts them together in the place of St. Matthew, eulogiaV and eucaristhsaV, 'blessing and giving of thanks;' when he did bless it, he made it eucharistical.

7. Fifthly: The Greek church universally taught, that the consecration was made by the prayers of the ministering man Justin Martyr [Apol. 2.] calls it "nourishment made eucharistical by prayer;"--and Origen [Lib. 8. contr. Celsum] calls it "bread made a body, a holy thing by prayer;"--so Damascen [Lib. 4. de Fide, cap. 14]; "by the invocation and illumination of the Holy Ghost," "they are changed into the body and blood of Christ."--But for the Greek church the case is evident and confessed. [Vide Ambrosium Catharinum in inteigro, quem scripsit, libro hac de re. Lib. 8. de Trin. c. 4.] For the ancient Latin church, St. Jerome, reproving certain pert deacons for insulting over priests, uses this expression for the honour of priests above the other; "Ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur;" "By their prayers the body and blood of Christ are in the sacrament."--And St. Austin calls the sacrament "prece mysticâ consecratum." But concerning this, I have largely discoursed in another place. [The Divine Institution of the Office Ministerial, sect. 7.] But the effect of the consideration, in order to the present question, is this; that since the change, that is made, is made not naturally, or by a certain number of syllables in the manner of a charm, but solemnly, sacredly, morally, and by prayer, it becomes also the body of our Lord to moral effects, as a consequent of a moral instrument.

8. Sixthly: And it is considerable, that since the ministries of the church are but imitations of Christ's priesthood, which he officiates in heaven,--since he effects all the purposes of his graces and our redemption by intercession, and representing, in the way of prayer, the sacrifice, which he offered on the cross; it follows, that the ministries of the church must be of the same kind, operating in the way of prayer morally, and therefore, wholly to moral purposes; to which the instrument is made proportionable. And if these words, which are called the words of consecration, be exegetical, and enunciative of the change, that is made by prayers, and other mystical words; it cannot be possibly inferred from these words, that there is any other change made than what refers to the whole mystery and action: and therefore, 'Take,' 'Eat,' and 'This do,' are as necessary to the sacrament as 'Hoc est corpus;' and declare that it is Christ's body only in the use and administration: and therefore not 'natural' but 'spiritual.' And yet this is yet more plain by the words in the Hebrew text of St. Matthew; "Take, eat this which is my body,"' plainly supposing the thing to be done already, not by the exegetical words, but by the precedents, the mystic prayer, and the words of institution and use: and to this I never saw any thing pretended in answer. But the force of the argument, upon supposition of the premises, is acknowledged to be convincing by an archbishop of their own; "Si Christus dando consecravit," &c. [Archiep. Cæsar. Tractat. varii disp. de Neces. Correct. Theol. Schol.] "If Christ giving the eucharist did consecrate (as Scotus affirmed) then the Lutherans will carry the victory, who maintain, that the body of Christ is in the eucharist only, while it is used, while it was taken and eaten. And yet on the other side, if it was consecrated, when Christ said, 'Take eat,' then he commanded them to take bread, and to eat bread, which is to destroy the article of transubstantiation."--So that, in effect whether it was consecrated by those words or not by those words, their new doctrine is destroyed. If it was not consecrated when Christ said, "Take eat," then Christ bid them take bread, and eat bread, and they did so: but if it was consecrated by those words, "Take, eat," then the words of consecration refer wholly to use, and it is Christ's body only in the 'taking and eating,' which is the thing we contend for. And into the concession of this, Bellarmine is thrust by the force of our argument. [De Euch. lib. 1. c. 11.] For, to avoid Christ's giving the apostles, that which 'he took, and brake, and blessed,' that is, 'bread,'--the same case being governed by all these words; he answers, "Dominum accepisse, et benedixisse panem, sed dedisse panem non vulgarem, sed benedictum et benedictione mutatum:" "The Lord took bread, and blessed it; but he gave not common bread, but bread blessed and changed by blessing;"--and yet it is certain, he gave it them before the words, which he calls the words of consecration. To which I add this consideration; that all words, spoken in the person of another, are only declarative and exegetical, not operative and practical; for in particular if these words, 'Hoc est corpus meum,' were otherwise, then the priest should turn it into his own, not into the body of Christ; neither will it be easy to have an answer, not only because the Greeks and Latins are divided in the ground of their argument concerning the mystical instrument of consecration: but the Latins themselves have seven several opinions, as the Archbishop of Cæsarea 'decapite Fontium,' hath enumerated them in his nuncupatory epistle to Pope Sixtus Quintus before his book of 'Divers Treatises;' [Tractat. Varii.] and that the consecration is made by 'This is my body,' though it be now the prevailing opinion, yet that by them Christ did not consecrate the elements, was the express sentence of Pope Innocent III. and Innocent IV. and of many ancient fathers, as the same Archbishop of Cæsarea testifies in the book now quoted; and the scholastics are hugely divided upon this point, viz. Whether these words are to be taken materially or significatively; the expression is barbarous and rude, but they mean, whether they be consecratively or declarative. Aquinas makes them consecratory, and his authority brought that opinion into credit; and yet Scotus and his followers are against it: and they that affirm them to be taken significatively, that is, to be consecratory, are divided into so many opinions, that they are not easy to be reckoned; only Guido Brianson reckons nine, and his own makes the tenth. [In 4 Sentent.] This I take upon the credit of one of their own archbishops.

9. But I proceed to follow them in their own way; whether 'Hoc est corpus meum' do effect or signify the change; yet the change is not natural and proper, but figurative, sacramental, and spiritual; exhibiting what it signifies, being real to all intents and purposes of the Spirit: and this I shall first shew by discussing the words of institution; first those which they suppose to be the consecratory words, and then the other.

10. "Hoc est corpus meum:" concerning which form of words we must know, that as the eucharist itself was, in the external and ritual part, an imitation of a custom, and a sacramental, already in use among the Jews, for the 'major domo' to break bread and distribute wine, at the Passover, after supper to the eldest according to his age, to the youngest according to his youth, as is notorious and known in the practice of the Jews [Scaliger de Emendatione Temper, lib. 6.]:--so also were the very words, which Christ spake in this changed subject, an imitation of the words which were then used; "This is the bread of sorrow which our fathers ate in Egypt; this is the passover:" and this passover was called 'the body of the paschal lamb:' nay, it was called the body of our Saviour, and our Saviour himself; Kai eipen EsdraV tw law, touto pasca o Swthr hmwn, said Justin Martyr 'Dial, cum Tryph.;' "And Esdras said to the Jews, This passover is our Saviour, and This is the body of our Saviour,"--as it is noted by others. So that here the words were made ready for Christ, and made his by appropriation, by 'meum:' he was 'the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world,' he is 'the true Passover;' which he then affirming, called that which was the antitype of the Passover, 'the Lamb of God,' 'his body,' the body of the true passover to wit, in the same sacramental sense, in which the like words were affirmed in the Mosaical passover.

Project Canterbury