And when Osbern wrote the lives of Odo, archbishop of Canterbury, Dunstan, and Elphege, by the command of Lanfranck, he says, that in Odo's time, some clergymen affirmed in the sacrament bread and wine to remain in substance, and to be Christ's body only in figure; and tells how the archbishop prayed, and blood dropped out of the host over the chalice, and so his clerks, which then assisted at mass, and were of another opinion, were convinced. This though he writes to please Lanfranck (who first gave authority to this opinion in England), and according to the opinion which then prevailed, yet it is an irrefragable testimony, that it was but a disputed article in Odo's time; no catholic doctrine, no article of faith, nor of a good while after: for however these clerks were fabulously reported to be changed at Odo's miracle, who could not convince them by the law and the prophets, by the gospels and epistles; yet his successor, he that was the fourth after him, I mean Elfrick, abbot of St. Albans ", and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, in his Saxon Homily, written above 600 years since, disputes the question, and determines in the words of Bertram only for a spiritual presence, not natural, or substantial. The book was printed at London by John Day, and with it a letter of Ælfrick to Wulfin, bishop of Schirburn, to the same purpose. His words are these: "That housel (that is, the blessed sacrament) is Christ's body, not bodily, but spiritually, not the body which he suffered in, but the body of which he spake, when he blessed the bread and wine to housel the night before his suffering, and said by the blessed bread, 'This is my body.'" And in a writing to the archbishop of York, he said, "The Lord halloweth daily, by the hand of the priest, bread to his body, and wine to his blood in spiritual mystery, as we read in books. And yet, notwithstanding that lively bread is not bodily: so, nor the self same body that Christ suffered in."— I end this with the words of the gloss upon the canon law; "Cœleste sacramentum, quod verè repræsentat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi, sed impropriè; unde dicitur suo modo, scilicet, non rei veritate, sed significati mysterio;

" Capgrave calls him abbot of St. Albans. Malmesb. saith, he was of Malmesbury, A. D. 996.

• De Consecrat. d. 2. Hoc est. Lugduni. 1518.

ut sit sensus, vocatur Christi corpus, i. e. significatur;" "The heavenly sacrament, which truly represents the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ; but improperly; therefore, it is said (meaning in the canon taken out of St. Austin) after the manner, to wit, not in the truth of the thing, but in the mystery of that which is signified; so that the meaning is, it is called Christ body, that is, Christ's body is signified;" which the church of Rome well expresses in an ancient hymn:

Sub duabus speciebus

Signis tantùm et non rebus
Latent res eximiæ.

"Excellent things lie under the two species of bread and wine, which are only signs, not the things whereof they are signs." But the Lateran council struck all dead; before which, "Transubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei," said Scotus, "it was no article of faith;"-and how can it be afterwards, since Christ is only the author and finisher of our faith, and therefore, all faith was delivered from the beginning, is a matter of highest danger and consideration. But yet this also I shall interpose, if it may do any service in the question, or help to remove a prejudice from our adversaries, who are borne up by the authority of that council; that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not determined by the great Lateran council. The word was first invented by Stephen, bishop of Augustodunum, about the year 1100, or a little after, in his book 'De Sacramento Altaris;' and the word did so please Pope Innocentius III., that he inserted it into one of the 70 canons, which he proposed to the Lateran council, A. D. 1215: which canons they heard read, but determined nothing concerning them, as Matthew Paris, Platina, and Nauclerus, witness. But they got reputation by being inserted by Gregory IX. into his 'Decretals,' which yet he did not in the name of the council, but of Innocentius to the council. But the first that ever published these canons under the name of the Lateran council, was Johannes Cochlæus, A. D. 1538. But the article was determined at Rome, 36 years after that council, by a general council of 54 prelates, and no more. And this was

the first authority or countenance it had; Stephen christened the article, and gave the name, and this congregation confirmed it.

SECTION XIII.

Of Adoration of the Sacrament.

WHEN a proposition goes no further than the head and the tongue, it can carry nothing with it but his own appendages, viz. to be right or to be wrong, and the man to be deceived or not deceived in his judgment: but when it hath influence upon practice, it puts on a new investiture, and is tolerable or intolerable, according as it leads to actions good or bad. Now, in all the questions of Christendom, nothing is of greater effect or more material event, than this. For since by the decree of the council of Trent, they are bound to exhibit to the sacrament the same worship, which they give to the true God, either this sacrament is Jesus Christ, or else they are very idolaters; I mean materially such, even while, in their purposes, they decline it. I will not quarrel with the words of the decree commanding to give Divine worship to the sacrament; which by the definition of their own schools, is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace,' and so they worship the sign and the grace with the worship due to God: but that which I insist upon, is this: that if they be deceived in this difficult question, against which there lie such infinite presumptions and evidence of sense, and invincible reason, and grounds of Scripture, and in which they are condemned by the primitive church, and by the common principles of all philosophy, and the nature of things,and the analogy of the sacrament,- for which they had no warrant ever, till they made one of their own,-which themselves so little understand, that they know not how to explicate it, nor agree in their own meaning, nor cannot

a Sess. 13. c. 5.

Tantum ergo sacramentum adoremus cernui. Hymn. in Miss.

tell well what they mean;-if, I say, they be deceived in their own strict article, besides the strict sense of which there are so many ways of verifying the words of Christ, upon which all sides do rely; then it is certain they commit an act of idolatry in giving Divine honour to a mere creature, which is the image, the sacrament, and representment of the body of Christ: and at least, it is not certain that they are right; there are certainly very great probabilities against them, which ought to abate their confidence in the article; and though I am persuaded, that the arguments against them are unanswerable;—for if I did not think so, then I shall be able to answer them, and if I were not able to answer, I would not seek to persuade others by that which does not persuade me; - yet all indifferent persons, that is, all those, who will suffer themselves to be determined by something besides interest and education, must needs say they cannot be certain they are right, against whom there are so many arguments, that they are in the wrong: the commandment to worship God alone is so express; - the distance between God and bread dedicated to the service of God is so vast, the danger of worshipping that which is not God, or of not worshipping that which is God, is so formidable,—that it is infinitely to be presumed, that if it had been intended that we should have worshipped the holy sacrament, the holy Scripture would have called it, God,' or Jesus Christ,'-or have bidden us, in express terms, to have adored it; that either by the first, as by a reason indicative, or by the second, as by a reason imperative, we might have had sufficient warrant direct or consequent, to have paid a Divine worship. Now that there is no implicit warrant in the sacramental words of "This is my body," I have given very many reasons to evince, by proving the words to be sacramental and figurative. Add to this; that supposing Christ present in their senses, yet as they have ordered the business, they have made it superstitious and idololatrical; for they declare that the Divine worship does belong also to the symbols of bread and wine, as being one with Christ;' they are the words of Bellarmine; that even the species also with Christ are to be

Lib. iv. de Euch. c. 29. tom. 2. in 3. Thom. disp. 65. sect. 1.

adored; so Suarez:- which doctrine might, upon the supposal of their grounds, be excused; if, as Claudius de Sainctes dreamed, they and the body of Christ had but one existence; but this themselves admit not of, but he is confuted by Suarez. But then let it be considered, that since those species or accidents are not inherent in the holy body, nor have their existence from it, but wholly subsist by themselves (as they dream), since, between them and the holy body, there is no substantial, no personal union, it is not imaginable how they can pass divine worship to those accidents which are not in the body, nor the same with the body, but by an impossible supposition subsist of themselves, and were proper to bread, and now not communicable to Christ, and yet not commit idolatry: especially since the Nestorians were, by the fathers, called åvogwπonáτgai, or 'worshippers of a man;' because they worshipped the humanity of Christ, which they supposed, not to be personally, but habitually united to the divinity.

2. But secondly: suppose that the article were true in 'thesi,' and, that the bread in consecration was changed, as they suppose; yet it is to be considered, that that which is practicable in this article, is yet made as uncertain and dangerous as before. For, by many defects, secret and insensible, by many, notorious and evident, the change may be hindered, and the symbols still remain as very bread and wine as ever, and rob God of his honour. For, if the priest errs in reciting the words of consecration, by addition, or diminution, or alteration, or longer interruption; if he do but say, 'Hoc est cor pusmeum,' for 'corpus meum, or 'meum corpus' for 'corpus meum;' or, if he do but as the priest that Agrippa tells of, that said, 'Hæc sunt corpora mea,' lest, consecrating many hosts, he should speak false Latin: if either the priest be timorous, surprised, or intemperate, in all these cases, the priest and the people too, worship nothing but bread. And some of these are the more considerable, I mean, those defectibilities in pronunciation because, the priest always speaking the words of consecra

1

d De Vanit. Scien. c. 3.

e

Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. can. 9. Ledesmo ait Sacerdotem isto Canone prohiberi clarâ voce eloqui verba consecrationis.

;