Postscript

As it has been strongly asserted that the British churches believed the doctrine of Transubstantiation till the time of the Reformation, and that the Reformation was in that case a most manifest innovation on the ancient doctrine; I shall beg leave to add here a few extracts from a Saxon homily, and jiEliric’s epistles, written in Saxon about A.D. 936, to Wulfsine, Bishop of Sherburne. Through-. out the whole of this homily, the bread and wine are stated to be understood jajtlice, ghasOy, spirUuoilly as the body and blood of Christ. Quoting 1 Cor. X. 3, 4: “They did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink,” the writer says,” Neither was that stone then from which the water ran, bodely Christ, ache jeracnobe Cpij-t, hat it signified Christ, because that heavenly meat that fed them forty years, and that water which from the stone did flow, hsepbejetacnunje Cpijtef lichaman D hif blobef, had signification of Christes bodye and his hloude, that nowe be offered daylye in Godes churche: it was the same vflnch we now offer na lichamlice ac 7wt boddy hut ghostly. Moyses and Aaron saw that the heavenly meat was visible and corraptible; ac hi unbepftobon jajtlice be t$am jefepenlicum tJmje D hic jaftlice tJibon, and they tmderstood ii spintually and received it spintually. The Saviour saith, He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my blood hath everlasting lyfe -* and he bad them eat, not that body which, he was going about with, nor that blood to drink which he shed for us; ac hi msenbe mib lam popbe halite hufel, but he meant by that word the holy Eucharist, te if hif lichama D hif blob, which spirituallt is, his body and his blood,

“In the old law, faithful men offered to Crod divers sacrifices that had for signification (copeapbe je tacnunje, (towards betokening) of Christes body; certainly this huf el, Eucharist, which we do now hallow at God’s altar, if jemynb piftef lidiaman, is a remembrance of Chrises body, which he offered for us :* D hif blobef tse he pop uf aeat, and of his blood which lie shed for us J*

That our Saxon ancestors, being before the time of the Norman Conquest, communicated in both kinds, is evident from the direction given in this paschal sermon, to “mingle water with the wine which shall be for the holy Eucharist; because the water signifieth the people, and the wine, Christ’s blood: D poptJi ne f ceal najjop but on oJ?pum bcongeopFpobe sbc tSsepe haljan msBjran; and therefore shall neither the one without the other he offered at the holy masSj that Christ may be with us, and we with Christ,”

Writing to Wulfstane, Archbishop of York, JFMnc says:” The Lord which hallowed the Eucharist before his sufferings, saith that the bread was his own body, and that the wine was truly his blood, and yet that lively bread is not bodily so notwithstanding; not the selfsame body that Christ suffered in: nor that holy wine is the Saviour’s blood which was shed for us on lichamlican tJmje ac on ^idicum anjyce, in bodily thing, or meaning, but in sp-iritml understandirog. The apostle hath said, that they all did eat the same spiritual meat, and they all drank the same spiritual drink. Ne cpsej he na lichamlice, ac ^ajtdice, he saith not bodily, but spiritmlly. And Christ was not yet born, nor his blood shed, when the people of Israel ate that meat and drank of that stone: and the stone was not bodily Christ, though he so said. It was the same mystery in the old law, and they did spiritually signify that spiritual Eucharist of our Saviour’s body, which we consecrate now.*

The preceding extracts are taken from a very rare work, entitled, “A Testimonie of Antiquitie showing the auncient fayth in the Church of England, touching the Sacrament of the body and blonde of the Lordc here ^blikely preached, and also receaved in the Saxons tyme, above 600 yeares agoe. Imprinted at London’by lohn Day,” 18mo. without date; but from other circumstances, we know that it was printed in 1567. At the conclusion of the Sermon is the following attestation, signed by Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury; Thomas, Archbishop of York; and thirteen other bishops.

“As the writjmges of the fathers euen of the first age of the Churche bee not thought on all parties so perfect, that whatsoeuer thyng hath beene of the spoken ought to be receaued without all exceptio (which honour truelye them seines both knewe & also haue confessed to bo onely due to the most holy & tryed word of God:) So in this Sermon here published some thynges be spoken not consonant to sounde doctrine; but rather to such corruption of greate ignoraunce and superstition, as hath taken roote in the church of log time, being ouermuch cumbered with monckery. But all these things that be thus of some roprohensio be as it wer but by the way touched: th€ full and whole discourse of all the former part of the Senu5, & almost of the whole Sermon is about the ynderstanding of the Sacramentall bread and wine howe it is the bodye and blouye of Christ our Sauiour by which is reuealed & made knowen, what hath beene the common tai%ht dpctrine of the church of England on this behalfe nny hundreth yeares agoe, contraye vnto the vnaduised writyng of some nowe a dayes. Nowe that thys foresayd Saxon Homely with the other testimonies before alleadged, doe fullye agree to the olde auncient bookes (whereof some bee written in the olde Saxon, and some in the Lattyne) from whence they are taken; these here vnder written vpon diligent perusing, & comparing the same haue found by conference, that they are truelye put forth in print without any adding, or withdrawing any thyng for the more faithful reporting of the same; and therefore for the better credite hereof haue subscribed their names.

Matthewe Archbyshop of Canterburye.
Thomas Archbyshop of Yorke.
Edmunde Byshop of London,
lames Byshop of Durham.

Robert Bysfcop of Winchester.

William Bishop of Chichester.

lohn Byshop of Hereford.

Richard Byshop of Elye.

Edwine Byshop of Worceter.

Nicholas Byshop of Lincolne.

Richard Byshop of S. idauys.

Thomas Bishop of Couentry and Lichfield.

lohn Bishop of Norwiche.

lohn Bishop of Carlyll.

Nicholas Bishop of Bangor.

With diners other personages of honour and credite suhscribyng their names, the recorde whereof remaines in the hands of the moste reuerend father Matthewe Archbishop of Canterbury.”

The above Testimony is of considerable consequence in the controversy about the Eucharist, as far as the Protestant church in these kingdoms is concerned. The pure evangelical doctrine of the Church of England relative to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, far from being only Protestant, is hereby shown to have been the doctrine that was held by thtj British churches nearly 900 years ago; 600 years before the Reformation took place, which, in fact, only restored the ancient doctrine that had been corrupted by popery.

When, therefore, the papists 4^isultmgly asked our ancestors, “Where was your doctrine before Luther f’ they might not only have answered, “In the Bible, where yours never was;” but might aiso have added, “In our ancient church and service-books, still extant in our original mother tongue; and which continue to exist as a monument of your new-fangled doctrine, and corruption of the truth of God.”