ficationem, sacerdotes tantummodo dent eis panem benedictum, et corpus Domini nullo modo eis proponatur, nisi expresse petant, et prius confessæ fuerint.”5 And once more, from a charter of confirmation granted to Flixton hospital, in Yorkshire, in the reign of Henry the sixth, which ordered a certain priest to say mass there, etc. "ac post missam illam panem et aquam sanctificare, et inter populum missam illam audientem dividere et spergere hucusque usitati fuissent."6

It will be seen that the prayer in the office had respect to the miracle of the blessing of the five loaves in the desert by our Blessed Lord, and hence some late ritualists of the Roman church have argued that this rite may be founded upon the actual institution of it by our Saviour Himself. Abdias, as cited by Catalani, declares, that S. Peter also thus blessed bread, and sent it to the sick who were thereby healed; but he does not add that this story is rejected by Bellarmin and other writers. In short, though as I have already said, the evidence is undeniable of the very high antiquity of the hallowed bread, yet it is impossible to rest it upon apostolical, and much less upon divine authority.

When the eulogia were first instituted it must not be forgotten that communion also was strictly insisted upon: but as time went on, the receiving of the hallowed bread began to be looked upon too much as a substitute for the Eucharist, and people rested contented with it, more especially as it did not require of them so strict a preparation. Hence an abuse would not unnaturally creep in, and a custom never contem

5 Wilkins. Concilia. Tom. 1. p. 579.

6

Dugdale. Monasticon An. glic. Vol. 6. p. 614.

plated in purer and more earnest ages grow up, of partaking of the culogia instead and in the place of the eucharist. Such a view, though recommended by high authority in the Roman church, must be erroneous: but that it is so recommended is clear from Catalani, who says: "secunda utilitas est in salutem animæ, quia ex intentione ecclesiæ panis distribuitur fidelibus, non modo, ut symbolum fraternæ communicationis, verum tanquam memoriale quoddam eucharistiæ, quo iidem fideles excitantur ad desiderium recipiendi ipsum eucharistiæ sacramentum; et hac ratione, ipso voto, seu desiderio sumitur spiritualiter idem sacramentum, et percipitur suo modo effectus illius, qui est unio cum Christo per fidem, et charitatem; et ideo hic modus sumendi eucharistiam in voto seu desiderio, appellatur communio spiritualis." The "prima utilitas" of Catalani, in support of the continued observance of this rite of benediction, consists in the benefit which the eulogiæ are supposed to convey to sick persons, and miraculous healing of diseases. The proof of this rests upon certain instances said to have occurred in the lives of some saints: and is an argument which I can scarcely suppose requires examination. But not further to delay upon the subject, the abolition of this rite of blessing bread cannot be regretted, nor was it decided

7 Rit. Rom. Comm. Tom. 2. p. 60. And to the same effect is the following from another writer of great authority. "Eulogiæ erant portio illa panis, quæ cum superesset consecrationi attento communicandorum numero, haudquaquam consecrabatur, sed solemni tamen ritu benedicta, et in par

ticulas dissecta, in fine missæ distribuebatur iis, qui ob aliquod impedimentum non poterant, aut nolebant sacramenti Eucharistiæ participes fieri, licet legatur etiam aliquando distributa iisdem ipsis, qui Eucharistico cibo jam refecti fuerant." Cavalieri. Opera. Tom. 4. p. 47.

upon except upon reasonable grounds, in the church of England, in the 16th century; having so far departed from its original object and meaning, and become the cause of unworthy views of the benefits and blessings which are attached solely to the actual participation of the Holy Eucharist.

In order to shew the value which the common people, down to the middle of the xvith century, put upon the hallowed bread and water, the removal of this weekly benediction made an especial article of the complaint of the Devonshire rebels in 1549. "We will have," they say, "holy bread and water made every Sunday; palms and ashes at the times accustomed; images to be set up again in every church; and all other ancient old ceremonies used heretofore by our mother holy Church." Archbishop Cranmer drew up an answer to these articles, and in this particular point as well as in others, he used language not becoming either his character or position in the Church, and less moderate than I care to quote: I may also mention that speaking in another place of the same events, he calls these eulogiæ and the holy water, "conjured bread and water."9

8

The Office of the Benediction of a Bell, which is the last, usually, in the Sarum manuals, does not require of me many observations. The best and most accurate treatise upon the whole subject that I know, is by Angelo Rocca, in his works, Tom. 1. "De Campanis commentarius." It is probable that originally this

8 See this Answer in Mr. Jenkyns' "Remains of Cranmer," Vol. 2. p. 224.

9 Todd. Life of Cranmer. Vol. 2. p. 167. Burnet. Records. ij.. B. 1. No. 47.

10

rite was adopted from some similar custom of paganism, but of its antiquity there can be no question whatever. Alcuin, who wrote in the eighth century, thus speaks of it. 66 Neque novum videri debet campanas benedicere et ungere, eisque nomen imponere.' And the Form occurs in the very ancient Ordo Romanus, the exact date of which cannot be ascertained, which is printed in the Bibliotheca Patrum." The object intended by the use of this benediction, is explained in the prayers of the Office: "Deus qui per beatum," and "Omnipotens sempiterne Deus." A canon of a

council of Cologne, A. D. 1526, plainly recognizes and adopts these ends, as those which the Church is supposed to have in view. The reader will, I think, conclude that some are not such as can altogether be defended.

The Order of Consecrating Bells appears to me to have reached to the utmost limits of what any reasonable person could have allowed; it trifles, if I may so say, with solemn parts of the holy office of Baptism : and neither its allowed antiquity, nor the proper desire to consecrate every portion of the House of God and its furniture to His service, by especial benediction, can excuse entirely such objectionable ceremonies. Still it is a vulgar and stupid error to speak, as some writers have, of the baptism of bells. This at least, in no sense, was ever intended; names indeed were given, and the bell was washed, and anointed; it was blessed, and solemnly dedicated and set apart to God, but not baptized. The Sarum Use merely directs a name to

10 Cit. Angelo Rocca. Tom. 2. p. 162.

11 Auctarium. Tom. 1.

be given the modern Roman pontifical supplies the form now used, viz. "Sanctificetur, et consecretur, Domine, signum istud. In nomine Patris. etc. In honorem sancti. N. Pax tibi."12

It is not to be denied that some very great writers have used the term baptizing bells, but only as the vulgar mode of expression; and they join it by way of explanation with the proper term, benediction. Thus Martene has a chapter "De benedictione seu baptismo signorum;" and Durant says, "Baptizantur autem campanæ, seu benedicuntur." In the capitulare of Charlemagne, is a famous order "ut cloccæ non baptizentur;" cited by almost every writer upon this subject. It is said that this order had reference only to the superstitions which had crept in with regard to this rite, or to the application of the term baptism to

12 Even if my space allowed, yet the object before me is not controversial, and I have done little more than barely allude to the very serious questions involved in this whole Office of the benediction of bells. Many writers of the Roman communion have entered into and examined the objections which must readily occur to every reader; and by the way in which they meet them, prove the reality of the difficulties. Some have spoken sarcastically in reply, though this is not a sensible way of arguing as Bellarmine, who wonders why it has not also been pretended that the church of Rome

:

first goes through the ceremony of catechizing the bell. But if the student wishes further to investigate the subject, he will do well to examine the treatise above spoken of by Rocca, the Notes of Catalani on the Pontifical, Tom. 2. p. 334: and Saussajus, Panopl. Sacerd. Pars. 2. Lib. 2. Art. xxij. The Paris ritual, edit. 1646, has a rubric directed to this point, so important was it considered. This orders the parishpriest carefully to disabuse the minds of his people upon the matter: and, I presume if it were possible, to explain the difficulties.