A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

Alger Deacon of Liege and Monk of Cluny.

ALger did not write till long after Lanfrank, for he flourish'd in the twelfth Century. He was of Liege, where he studied with great success, and there spent part of his Life, first of all in the quality of a Deacon of the Church of S. Bartholomew. From thence he was translated to the Church of S. Mary and S. Lambert, where he liv'd Twenty years, till the Death of Frederick Bishop of Liege, after which he retir'd, and took upon him the Ha∣bit of a Monk in the Abby of Cluny. We make mention of this Author here, tho' he be∣longs to the next Century, because the principal Treatise which he wrote, was that where∣by he refutes the Errors which Lanfrank and Guitmond have oppos'd. This Treatise is en∣titled, A Discourse concerning the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST, and divided into three Books. In the Preface he takes notice of the four Errors about the Eucharist, men∣tion'd by Guitmond, and Subjoyns two more to them. The One is, That the Bread and Wine are chang'd into Flesh and Blood, but not into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST: The Other, That the Eucharist is turn'd into Excrements. He afterwards proposes to refute these Errors, not by the force of humane Reason, but by the Testimonies of JESUS CHRIST and the Saints. But before he does this, he advertises the Faith∣ful, that tho' this Mystery be incomprehensible, yet it does not from thence follow that 'tis incredible, because God has a Power sufficient to do things which we are not capable of Comprehending. After this he divides his Work into two Parts: In the former he says, He will treat of the reality of the Body of JESUS CHRIST in the Eucharist; and in the latter, concerning several Questions relating to that Sacrament.

In the former he proves, That the Son of God after he had taken upon him a Nature like to Ours by the Incarnation, was likewise pleas'd visibly to communicate thereof to us, by giving us his Body and his Blood, not only in a figure, but likewise in reality under the Sa∣crament of Bread and Wine. That there are two Things to be distinguish'd in the Eucharist; the Sacrament, and the Matter of the Sacrament. That the Sacrament is the Form, the Fi∣gure, and the other Qualities of the Bread and Wine; and that the Matter of the Sacra∣ment is the invisible Substance of the Body of JESUS CHRIST, which is contain'd in that Sacrament, and into which the Substance of the Bread and Wine has been chang'd. That it cannot be said, That JESUS CHRIST is united to the Bread, as the Son of God is personally united to Man, because the Substance of the Bread and Wine is no longer there, but chang'd into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST. That tho' the Bo∣dy of JESUS CHRIST in the Eucharist, is spiritual and invisible, yet 'tis really there; and that God has sometimes permitted that it should plainly and manifestly appear to be as really in the Eucharist, as it is in Heaven, at the Right hand of the Father. That 'tis the same whole and entire Body, which is distributed to all the Faithful under several consecrated Wafers. That it is not Sacrific'd nor offer'd up after the same manner, as it was upon the Cross, but that this mystical Sacrifice or Immolation is the Figure and Re∣presentat on of that which was offer'd upon the Cross, tho' it be the same CHRIST, both upon the Cross and the Altar. That the invisible Body may in one sense be said to be the Figure of the visible Body, but that for all this, 'tis no less the real Body. That the Cor∣poreal Communion is the Figure of the Spiritual Communion; but that by this Corporeal Communion, the Wicked as well as the Good, receive the Body of JESUS CHRIST Corporeally, tho not Spiritually. These are the principal Points which Alger establishes upon the Testimonies of the Fathers in this first Book.

In the second Par•• he treats of other Questions relating to the Sacrament, and particularly whether the Eucharist be capable of any alteration, or subject to the same condition with other Aliments, part of which turns to Execrements? Upon this Head he sets upon the Gre∣cians, who maintain'd, That by receiving the Communion, Men broke their Fasts. He owns that Men might live of Consecrated Bread and Wine, and that there are Instances of it: But he denies that any part of the Eucharist is Corrupted, or turn'd into Execrements; or if any are voided, they are produc'd by the flesh of the Man himself, or supply'd some other way. He further maintains, That tho' the Bread and Wine seem to be subject to al∣teration, as for Instance, to be devour'd by Animals, or consum'd by Fire; yet this is not in reality, but only in appearance, to punish the Incredulity of the Wicked, or the Carelessness of Ministers. After he had thus resolv'd that Question, he passes on to others that are less Considerable: Namely, (1.) Why God, who is invisible, would have us to offer him a vi∣sible Sacrifice? To this he answers, That 'tis to put Men in mind of what they owe him; and because Man being a Compound Creature made up of a Soul and Body, 'tis reasonable he should offer to God both Corporeal and Spiritual Sacrifices. (2.) The second Question is, Why the Sacrifice of the Church is made up of a Sacrament and the Body of JESUS CHRIST, and why 'tis not either a simple Sacrament, or the visible Body of JESUS CHRIST? This he resolves by saying, That if the Eucharist were a simple Sacrament, it would not be different from the Sacraments of the old Law; and that if the Body of JESUS CHRIST should appear therein openly, it would be subject to great Incon∣veniences. For (says he) it would appear either alive or dead; but it cannot appear as dead, since he is living; and if it appear'd alive, it would either be in the same State wherein it was before his Passion, or in the same State wherein it was after his Resurrection: In the first Case, it would be impossible to swallow it; and in the second, Men would not be able to endure the brightness of its Glory. That besides, it was necessary that the Body of JESUS CHRIST should be conceal'd under shadows and representations, to exercise the Faith of the One, and to prevent others from uttering Blasphemies, and from charging the Christians with eating and drinking humane Flesh and Blood. The third Question is, (3.) Why God requires so much Faith in this Sacrament? He answers, That Man being in a laps'd State, because Adam by giving too much Credit to the Words of the Devil, had eaten of the forbidden Fruit; 'tis necessary we should be sav'd by believing the Word of God, who injoyns us to eat his Body, and drink his Blood in this Sacrament. (4.) The fourth Question is, Why we make use of Bread and Wine, rather than any other Creature? For this he assigns several Reasons, Because Bread and Wine are the ordinary Nourish∣ment of Man, which supports the corporeal Life, as the Eucharist is the Nourishment of the Soul, which supports the spiritual Life: Because as the Bread and Wine are chang'd into Flesh and Blood, so they are here chang'd into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRST: Because the Bread being made up of several Grains of Corn, and the Wine out of several Bunches of Grapes, is a figure of the Unity of the Church which is made up of several Persons. (5.) The fifth Question is, Why we do not immediately enjoy Life eternal, after having receiv'd the Body of JESUS CHRIST? He replies, That 'tis because we may have time to exercise our selves in Virtue. (6.) The sixth Question is, Why God bestows an eternal Recompence on temporal Merits? 'Tis, says he, Because he

regards not the temporal Action, but rewards or punishes the Eternal Propensity and Inclina∣tion of doing Good or Evil. (7.) The seventh Question is, Why Bread is consecrated into the Body, and Wine into the Blood of JESUS CHRIST? He replies, That 'tis not because the Body of JESUS CHRIST is without the Blood, or the Blood with∣out the Body, since JESUS CHRIST is whole and entire under each Kind; but that we offer and communicate under these two Kinds, because of the different Mysteries which they figure out to us. (8.) The eighth Question is, Why we make use of White Bread ra∣ther than Brown, though at the same time we consecrate Wine of all sorts of Colours? He answers, That in case of Necessity, one may make use of any sort of Bread; but that 'tis proper to use the Whitest, because it is to be chang'd into the glorious Body of the spot∣less Lamb. (9.) The ninth and last Question is, Why we make use of Unleaven'd rather than Leaven'd Bread, although we indifferently make use of Wine that has Lees as well as of that which has none? He says, That this is a grand Dispute between the Latins and the Greeks, who treat one another as Hereticks, and call each other Azymites and Fermentarians, though one may safely use the One as well as the Other; that notwithstanding this, JESUS CHRIST made use of Unleaven'd Bread as a Figure of Purity. He likewise relates the Reasons of the Greeks; and after he had answer'd them, he concludes, That it was better to make use of Unleaven'd Bread, which he believ'd to have been the Custom of the Latin Church from its beginning.

In the last Book he discourses of several other Points which relate to the Ministers of the Eucharist: And in the first place he demands, Whether Hereticks and Schismaticks, which are without the Pale of the Church, do consecrate the Body of JESUS CHRIST; and at first he produces the Testimonies of the Fathers, which seem to prove, That they do not consecrate according to due Form. But afterwards having laid it down as a Principle, That the Validity of the Sacraments doth not depend on the Faith or Piety of the Minister; he concludes, That as Hereticks and Schismaticks may baptize, so likewise can they consecrate; and that the Ordination of Priesthood is as much among them as Baptism. This he proves from several Principles and Passages of S. Augustin, and replies to those Passages which he at first started against the Sacraments of Hereticks and Schismaticks, which (he says) ought not to be understood of the Sacraments themselves, but of the Abuse which they make of them, since they are so far from being beneficial to them, that they render them the more Criminal. He afterwards asks, Whether the Sacraments are valid, if any Addition or Alteration be made of the Words of the Office, either by the Wickedness or Carelesness of him who offi∣ciates? He explains this Question as it relates to Baptism; and, after he had cited several Passages out of S. Augustin and the Popes, and among others out of Pope Zachary, he con∣cludes, That provided the Essential Words be recited, tho' by carelessness it happens that needless Words be added thereto, or some Ceremony be left out, yet this does not hinder the Efficacy of the Sacrament. He does not apply this Principle to the Eucharist, but only says in general, That in the Celebration of these Holy Mysteries we ought not to introduce any Heresies or Novelties; but faithfully to observe the Institution of JESUS CHRIST, that so as those Mysteries are truly effected by his Power, and founded upon his Authority, they may be likewise profitable to us by his Grace.

The same Author has compos'd a Treatise of Mercy and Justice, without affixing his Name thereto: It is divided into three Parts. In the first he shews in what Instances we ought to extend Mercy to Criminals, and to bear with them. In the second part he shews, at what times, with what discretion, and in what manner we ought to exercise Justice upon them. In the third, he discourses of the different Errors of the Hereticks about the Sacraments, and shews wherein they differ from the Catholicks, and in what Points they disagree among themselves. This is what we gather from the Preface of that Treatise; which Preface Fa∣ther Mabillon has publish'd in the first Tome of his Analects, with the Panegyrick of a Canon of Liege, who was Cotemporary with Alger. This Preface is taken out of his two Manu∣scripts, where the Work is compleat, but has never yet been publish'd. We have wholly lost several Letters, and the History of the Church of Liege, which he wrote whilst he re∣sided in that City, of which the Author of his Elogy makes mention. Peter, sirnam'd the Venerable, prefers Alger's Piece upon the Eucharist, to those of Lanfrank and Guitmond. It must be confess'd, That 'tis a great deal larger, and that he cites more Passages out of the Fathers; but his way of Reasoning is not so exact, nor is his Writing so compleat as Lan∣frank's. He has observ'd Guitmond's Method, and done little else besides amplifying and confirming his Principles and Arguments. This Treatise was printed at Cologne in the Year, 1535. At Louvain, together with Lanfrank's Treatise, in the Year, 1561. and is to be met with in the Bibliotheca Patrum.

Notes

• Alger Deacon of Liege and Monk of Cluny.