Know thou therefore and take notice: That from the going forth of the word to build up Jerusalem again unto Christ the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. And the street shall be built again, and the walls in straitness of times. And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain, and the people that shall deny Him shall not be His. And a people with their leader that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be waste, and after the end of the war the appointed desolation. And He shall confirm the covenant with many in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in the Temple the abomination of desolation, and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation and the end (c. ix.).

E. After this we may perhaps also contemplate our Saviour bringing back to their minds, with great affection and very solemnly, words from His own Gospel. Surely it would be the moment to call back some of the wonderful words He had spoken at Capharnaum a year ago. I am the Bread of Life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert and are dead. This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven, that if any man eat of It he may not die. I am the Living Bread which came down from Heaven. If any man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever; and the Bread that I will give is My Flesh for the life of the world.-Amen, amen, I say to you, Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood you shall not have life in you. He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the Last Day. For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood abideth in Me and I in him. As the Living Father hath sent Me and I live by the Father, so he that eateth Me the same also shall live by Me. This is the Bread that came down from Heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this Bread shall live for ever (St. John vi.).

F. And then, as not many days ago, after saying to Martha, I am the Resurrection and the Life, He put the question: "Credis hoc?"-Dost thou believe this? so now in this solemn moment He may wish His Apostles to prepare for the Sacred Mysteries by making their devout profession of faith. My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. Credis hoc?--Do you believe? He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the Last Day. Credis hoc?-Do you believe? When heretofore He addressed words akin to these to the father of the possessed child we read that immediately the afflicted father of the boy, crying with tears, said: I do believe, Lord, help my unbelief. May we then assume that in this hour of grace, this acceptable time, when the Sacred Heart of our Lord is pouring out its tenderness in exceptional profusion, and the Blessed Mother is with her all-powerful intercession pleading for her little flock, may we assume that they too, as the High Priest puts the solemn question, Credis hoc? with very devout tears give their answer: Yes, Lord, I do believe; I do believe?

G. Then as we observe that Holy Church in the Introit, the Gradual, the Offertory, and Post-Communion of the Mass, introduces short sentences from the Holy Books, which throw light on the Sacred Mysteries and increase devotion to the festivals in the souls of the faithful; so, too, our High Priest, holy, innocent, and undefiled, may wish to put His little flock in mind of some of the many prophetic sentences of the Old Testament, which are about to have now their fulfilment. Such would be, for instance, Sacrifice and oblation Thou wouldst not, but a Body Thou hast fitted to Me. Holocaust for sin did not please Thee. Then said I: Behold I come in the head of the Book it is written of Me that I should do Thy will, O God (Heb. x.).

Or again: The sparrow hath found herself a house, and the turtle a nest for herself where she may lay her young ones Thy altars, O Lord of hosts, my King and My God. Blessed are they that dwell in Thy house, O Lord (Psalm lxxxiii.).

Or else: Thou hast fed Thy people with the food of angels, having in it all that is delicious and the sweetness of every taste (Wisdom xvi.).

H. So far in our contemplation we are helping ourselves as well as we may with pious and probable conjectures. Now we come to what is certain, that is, to the things revealed to us in the narrative of three Evangelists, in St. Paul's account of the special revelation vouchsafed to him; and also, we may add, in the Liturgy of the Holy Roman Church. For, as Father Coleridge has well observed, between the words of Consecration as they stand in the Roman Missal, and the words recorded in the Gospel, there is in all probability only this difference, that those in the Liturgy are the version preserved and recorded by St. Peter, and those of the New Testament are the form as preserved and recorded by the Evangelists and by St. Paul. The version which we find in the Missal is, we may observe, fuller than the others given in the New Testament. This is only what we might expect. For as the Gospel of St. Mark contains many sentences added by St. Peter, so too the Liturgy of the Roman Church, drawn up under his guidance, might well contain words omitted by others, but which his special gift of faith preserved and thought well to record. Thus it is, as has been said, that the word Mysterium fidei-" "the mystery of faith," found nowhere else but in the Roman Missal, was, we are told, added as a sacred tradition preserved by St. Peter.

Let us then fix our attention now on the holy and inspired record of the Consecration service bequeathed to us.

STATION III.

THE OBLATION AND CONSECRATION.

We have then five different accounts of the Institution of the Blessed Eucharist.

a. St. Matthew and St. Mark give a very brief account, and their narratives are almost identical.

b. St. Luke and St. Paul differ a little from St. Matthew and St. Mark, and agree together, though not in all details.

c. Then we have the Liturgy used in the Roman Church, which was drawn up under the guidance of St. Peter, and, as Father Coleridge observes, on account of the Church's sanction, may be considered to be well nigh as authentic as the Gospel narratives.

1. St. Matthew writes: "CENANTIBUS ILLIS"-Whilst they were at supper Jesus took bread, etc. And taking the chalice He gave thanks, etc.

2. St. Mark writes: "MANDUCANTIBUS ILLIS "-Whilst they were eating Jesus took bread, etc. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks He gave it to them. And they all drank. And He said to them: This is My Blood, etc.

3. St. Luke writes: And taking bread He gave thanks and brake, etc. Do ye this for a commemoration of Me.

In like manner the chalice also, after He had SUPPED, saying, etc. 4. St. Paul's account of the private revelation made to him is this: The Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, etc. This do for a commemoration of Me.

In like manner also the chalice, After He had SUPPED, saying, etc. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of Me.

For as often as you shall eat this bread, aud drink this chalice, you shall show the Death of the Lord until He come.

In the Roman Missal we find St. Peter's narrative:

Who (He) the day before He suffered, took bread into His holy and venerable hands: and raising His eyes to heaven, to Thee His Father Almighty, giving thanks to Thee, blessed, broke, and gave to His disciples, saying: Take and eat ye all of this. For this is My Body.

In like manner AFTER THEY HAD SUPPED (after the Supper) taking also this glorious (excellent) chalice into His holy and venerable hands, and also giving thanks to Thee, He blessed and gave to His disciples, saying: Take and drink ye all of this. For this is the chalice of My Blood, of the new and everlasting Testament, the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.

In these narratives we notice, as has already been observed, an apparent discrepancy.

For St. Matthew and St. Mark write: during the Supper, while they were eating.

But St. Luke, St. Paul, and the Roman Liturgy have the word, after they had supped-after He had supped.

How these statements, which appear to be contradictory, can be reconciled, has been explained in the beginning of the chapter.

Here then we must first notice what are the different ceremonies specified :

1. He took bread into His holy hands.

2. He raised His eyes to heaven.

3. He gave thanks.

4. He blessed.

5. He broke.

6. He gave to His disciples.

7. He said the sacred words.

In like manner:

1. He took the chalice into His holy hands,
2. And gave thanks.

3. He blessed.

4. He gave to His disciples.

5. He said the holy words.

A question at once presents itself.

Are we bound to understand that these ceremonies took place in the order in which they seem to be enumerated in the Liturgy?

For instance, must we believe that our Lord first broke the bread and afterwards pronounced the words of consecration?

Again, are we obliged to believe that our Saviour first distributed the morsels of bread to His Apostles and afterwards consecrated them? Theologians do not seem to recognise any obligation of adhering so rigidly to the letter.

All are no doubt agreed that the transubstantiation did not take place until our Lord had pronounced the words of consecration: This is My Body.

But whether these words were pronounced after the bread was broken, or before, is a question disputed. One of the contemplatives sometimes cited by Father Coleridge, the Abbess d'Agreda, states that in one of her visions she saw our Saviour first break the bread into portions and then consecrate it. Some theologians, on the contrary, think it more probable that He first consecrated the unleavened cake and afterwards divided the Sacramental Species.

St. Thomas of Aquin seems to take it for granted that He pronounced the sacred words slowly while blessing and breaking and distributing.

Our present notions incline us to think that if the bread were broken before consecration, and crumbs and particles cleared away, there would be less danger of consecrated particles being afterwards exposed to desecration.

Some few theologians have imagined that when our Saviour made the sign of the Cross, and blessed (benedixit), He in that moment effected the Consecration; but, as has just been said, there can be no doubt that transubstantiation was not effected till our Lord pronounced the sacramental form: This is My Body.

This then is clear, that we cannot insist rigidly on the words as they stand, and maintain that our Blessed Lord went through the sacred rite in the order which seems at first to be suggested by the words.

This is made very manifest by what we read in St. Mark's version of the consecration of the sacred chalice. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And He said to them: This is My Blood of the New Testa

ment.

According to the strict letter of this text the Apostles all drank of the chalice before our Lord pronounced the words of Consecration. This is utterly inadmissible.