narily so similar in religious principles, differed, however, considerably upon the question of purgatory. A general expectation, undoubtedly, prevailed in Anglo-Saxon times, of some cleansing fires reserved for a large number of disembodied souls. By the Reformers all such expectations were ranked among " fond things, vainly invented, without any warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God." It should, however, be recollected, that even here the two parties compared in this discourse are not opposed so strongly to each other as first impressions might lead us to imagine. At the Reformation, a belief in purgatory had grown into a solemnly recognised article of faith. Divines controverting Romish doctrines, wholly denied it such an exalted character, and maintained, indeed, that it could advance no solid grounds of any description for claiming the confidence of mankind. The remains of early English theology very rarely offer a decided negative even to this assertion. They merely treat the doctrine of a purgatory, in some shape or other, as credible and reasonable. Hence it is sometimes brought forward, at others unceremoniously neglected. What cautious reasoner, competently informed, would therefore undertake to prove that even upon this

question the Church of ancient England solemnly maintained an article of faith which her modern daughter has repudiated? Was not the purgatorial hypothesis manifestly entertained among our distant ancestry as a mere speculation, which individuals were considered free to hold according to their several views, or to reject altogether?

Upon the most prominent article of the Romish creed, however, the identity of belief between ancient and modern England is complete, strongly marked, and unquestionable. "Transubstantiation," say our Articles," or the change of the substance of bread and wine, in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy writ, but it is repugnant to the plain words of scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner; and the mean whereby the body of Christ is received is faith. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, and worshipped"." And does not Bede evidently teach this doctrine, when he represents the Lord's Supper as the legitimate

m Art. XXVIII.

successor of the Passover; an ordinance of a nature manifestly typical? when he speaks of eucharistic celebrations as mysterious and sacramental? when he plainly says that our Lord delivered to his disciples the figure of his holy body and blood? Do not the divines of our ancient school universally and most remarkably bear testimony against a belief in the corporal presence? Can any reasoning be directed more unequivocally against proofs alleged from scripture in favour of transubstantiation than Ælfric's parallel between the term bread, applied to our Lord's body in one place, and the terms lamb and lion, applied to his person in other places? Each of these appellations, observes that luminary of ancient England, is equally remote from strict propriety of speech. Each of them, therefore, must be alike referred to the common and allowable use of a figurative phraseology. Hence no scriptural proof whatever, in Ælfric's judgment, can be drawn from the words of Jesus at his last Supper. Again: this illustrious instructor of our distant ancestry remarks, that the blessed Jesus, in consecrating the Eucharist, designated it as his body and blood, although his precious body at that time had not been torn, his precious blood not shed. Transubstantiation, then, is pro

nounced by Ælfric, not less obviously than by our Reformers, " repugnant to the plain words of Scripture." Nor does the language of this eminent divine import less clearly that such a doctrine would "overthrow the nature of a sacrament." He teaches, after St. Austin, happily there preserved by Fulgentius”, that a mystery or sacrament offers one thing to the corporeal senses, another to the mental apprehension. Thus the eucharistic elements are temporal and corruptible, the objects represented by them incorruptible and eternal. That the body of Christ is administered only "in a heavenly and spiritual manner” is asserted expressly and repeatedly in Elfric's most important remains. As for reservation of the Eucharist, it was practised among our Anglo-Saxon fathers only for private administration to the sick, and for public administration in the church on Good Friday. Usage enjoined a participation in the holy Supper on that mournful anniversary, but forbade its consecration. Bread accordingly, hallowed on the preceding day, then was made to symbolize the spiritual repast. Of adoration, or circumgestation of the Eucharist, it is notorious that not a single trace is afforded by

n See note 4, Serm. VII.

the more venerable religious antiquities, either of this country or of any other.

How complete, also, is Alcuin's agreement with that clause which was appended to the article against transubstantiation under king Edward!" Because," it is in this inculcated, "as holy Scripture doth teach, Christ was taken up into heaven, and there shall continue until the end of the world, a faithful man ought not either to believe or openly confess the real and bodily presence, as they term it, of Christ's flesh and blood, in the sacrament of the Lord's supper3." Had not Charlemain's illustrious English friend entertained opinions in perfect unison with these very words of our admirable reformers, is it likely that he would have represented the blessed Jesus as absent corporally from earth until the day of judgment? Is not the Saviour, according to modern Romish apprehensions, drawn down sensibly, bodily, among .his worshippers in myriads of places, during many of the earlier hours in every passing day? Wherefore the admonitory bell, the pealing organ, the military salute, the bended knee, unless to greet with becoming adoration the gracious descent of an incarnate Deity? Is it not believed also, that Jesus always continues corporally amidst his people