MarginaliaAn. 950.In the yeare of our Lord. 950. lyued Odo Archbishop of Caūterbury, in whose tyme, it appeareth by the Catholickes own confession, that many Priestes then affirmed, that the bread and wyne after consecration, did remaine in their former substance, and that the sayd mysteries were onely a figure of the body & bloud of Christ, MarginaliaThe witnes of Osberne.as we finde it wytnessed by Osberne him selfe, who did write the lyues of Odo, Dunstane, and Elphege, at the byddyng of Lancfrācke Archbyshop of Canterbury, as reporteth Edmerus, Anselmus Chapleine 

. The wordes of Osberne be these  : Hoc ferè tēpore, quidam clerici maligno errore seducti, asseuerare conabantur panem & vinum, quæ in altari ponuntur, post consecrationē, in priori substantia manere, & figuram tantummodo esse corporis & sanguinis Christi. &c. MarginaliaOsbernus in vita Odonis. That is: About this time (sayth Osberne, writyng in the dayes of Lancfranck) certeine of the Clergie, beyng seduced by wicked errour, did holde and mainteine, that bread and wyne, whiche are set vpon the altar, after the consecration doe remaine in their former substance, and are but onely a figure of the body and bloud of Christ. &c. And no doubt but at that time, the cōmon opinion of most of the Clergie was so, that the Sacrament was the body & bloud of Christ, and that the substance of bread and wyne notwithstandyng were not transubstantiate, as the Romishe Catholickes do now teach. But this is the guyse of these men, that in theyr writynges & storyes, still they diminish the better number, wherby their factiō may seme euer to be þ^e bygger, and therfore to extenuate the common opinion then receaued in the Churche, he inferreth mention of certeine of the Clergie. &c.

[Back to Top]

And as he faileth in the number of these Clergymē, whiche then held agaynst transubstantiation, so he vpholdeth the same with as lying a miracle: MarginaliaA lying miracle to proue Transubstantiation.Which miracle hee fayneth to bee wrought the same tyme, for the conuersion of the sayd Clergymen, by the bloud droppyng out of the host at Masse, as Odo was breakyng the host ouer the chalice. At the sight wherof, first Odo hym selfe (sayth he) wept for ioye, seyng his petition accomplished, whiche hee so earnestly prayed for. Secondarely, all those Clergymen (sayth hee) whiche before beleued not this transubstantiation, by and by were conuerted, and blessed the Archbyshop, that euer hee was borne, desiryng him to pray agayne, that the bloud might returne to his former shape, and streight is was done. And this was the miracle: which seemeth as true, as that which W. Malmesbery wryteth of the sayd Odo, MarginaliaEx Malmesb.how by hys prayers, hee caused a sworde to come flying from heauen, into Kyng Æthelstanes scabbaard, when he had lost his owne, as he should fight agaynst Analanus: or ells as that miracle where the said Odo is sayd to couer and defend the Church of Canterbury, that no droppe of rayne coulde touch it, so long as the roofe therof was in makyng 

. MarginaliaRead afore pag. 199.Ex W. Malmesb. Vid. supra. pag. 199.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaReasons & proufes alleaged agaynst this miracle.In whiche so miraculous a miracle, many thynges are to be merueled. First I meruel, þ^t at this great miracle of the Archbyshop in his Cathedrall Churche, amongest so many singyng men, we read of no Te deū there to be song, after the doyng therof.

Secondly I meruell, that those Priestes & Clerkes, whiche then denyed transubstantiation, were suffered to be so nere the Archbishop at his Masse, and that they were not committed rather to warde lyke heretickes and traytours, if this Article of transubstantiation had ben then such a Catholicke doctrine, & so publickely receaued in the Churche, as they say it was.

[Back to Top]

Thirdly I meruell, seyng the tyme of miracles is expired, we hauyng the Scriptures to guyde vs, why the Archbishop would seke to miracles and apparitiōs to conuerte men, rather then to the lawe & Prophetes, accordyng as we are commaunded, especially hauyng no such example of all the old Doctours, which in confutation of so many erroneous opinions, yet neuer sought to such miracles, or blynd meanes.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaThe authors of this fabulous miracle, do not agree within them selues.Fourthly, I meruell much at þ^e discrepāce in tellyng this tale, betwene Osberne and other whiche since haue written Legendes of Odo. For where Osberne speakyng of certein Priestes, nameth no place, but leaueth þ^e matter at large, & speaketh absolutely: quidā clerici: all other which haue since writtē the Legendes of Odo, doe tell this tale agaynst certein Priestes of Cāterbury, addyng to the wordes of Osberne: quidam clerici Cantuarienses. 

But to conuicte the falsehode of them all, as well of Osberne, as of the rest, there is a Legende of the life of Odo, and of Oswald together, more auncient then this of Osberne, writtē (as it may seeme) in the tyme of Ælfricus Archb. of Canterbury and Elphege then Byshop of Winchester, wherin mētiou is made in dede of this miracle  , but after an other sorte, then this of Osberne, and to an other purpose, then to dissuade certeine Priestes infected with that errour, frō the opinion before declared: which is onely brought to shew þ^e holines of Odo, as cōmonly þ^e maner of Legendes is to do. So that in this old Legende it is thus reported, that when this miracle was done, Odo disclosed the matter, not to many priestes of England, that were in that errour, as Osberne would: sed vocat protinus fidelem seruum, qui cominus erat, & miraculum secretè demonstrat. &c. that is, but called vnto him a certeine faythful seruaunt, which was nere about hym, & shewed to hym þ^e miracle secretly. Wherupō the Priest (sayth the Legēde) much reioysed at the holynes of Odo, and desired him to make his prayer to almighty God, that the body might returne agayne to the former shape. &c. Out of this olde lying Legende, Osberne, & other lykewise that folowed hym, semeth to haue taken this tale: so that out of the errour of one (as the maner is) springeth the errour of a nūber mo.

[Back to Top]

But this much more I meruell, why this miracle is not storyed in Henry Huntyngton, which professedly writeth of such miracles, nor in Rog. Houeden, and such other: MarginaliaLying legendes.but onely in such blynd Legendes, which commonly haue no substance of veritie, nor certeintie of tyme or writer, to know when, and by whom they were written, and for the msot parte are stuffed with liyng visions, and prodigious fables.

[Back to Top]

Finally, if this miraculous fiction of Osborne were true, that for the conuertyng of the Priestes of England, whiche would not beleue transubstantiation, this bloud did droppe out of the hoste (of the whiche bloud peraduenture came the bloud of Hales) 

and that by the sight therof the Priestes eftsoone were all cōuerted (as Osberne pretēdeth) how then came it to passe, that after the tyme of Odo, in the dayes of Elfricus, whiche was after hym Archb. of Caunterbury, the thyrd from Dunstane, & fourth from Odo, not onely the Priestes of Englād, but also the Archbyshop him selfe, were not yet brought to the beliefe of this transubstantiatiō, but taught the very same doctrine of the Sacrament then, which we do now? as most clearely appeareth both by the Epistles and Homelies of the foresayd Archbyshop Elfricus 

Commentary    Close

Foxe is confusing Aelfric of Eynsham (c. 950-c. 1010), the author of the epistles and sermons that he will quote, with Aelfric, who was archbishop of Canterbury from 995-1005.

, whiche here vnder, for the more euidence (Christ willyng) we will annexe  .

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaÆlfricus Archbishop of Cant.
¶ An. 996. 

This Ælfricus, as saith Capgraue, in the life of Oswalde Byshop of Worceter, MarginaliaCapgraue in vita. Oswaldi Episc. Wigorn.was first Abbot of S. Albons, and after made Archbyshop of Caunterbury, about the yeare of our Lord. 996. in the tyme of kyng Etheldred, and of Wulffinus Byshop of Scyrburne. Ælfricus also (as witnesseth Williā of Malmesbery, in Vita Aldelmi) MarginaliaW. Malmesberiēs. in vita Aldelmi.was Abbot of Malmesbery. Furthermore the sayd William of Malmesbery writing of Ælfricus Archbishop of Canterbury, saith that he was before Byshop of Welles, and afterward Archbyshop of Canterbury. So that Ælfricus was Archbyshop of Caunterbury, it is out of all ambiguitie. But whether Ælfricus, whiche was Abbot (of whom we do here entreat) were the same Archbyshop, or not, by this diuersitie of Capgraue & Malmesbery, it may be doubt-

[Back to Top]