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.

ERNULPHUS or ARNULPHUS Bishop of Rochester.

ERNULPHUS or ARNULPHUS, a Monk of St. Lucian at Beauvais, left his Mona∣stery * 1.1 by reason of the Disorders that happen'd therein, and made Application to Lanfrank Arch-bishop of Canterbury, under whom he had study'd in the Abbey of Bec. He continu'd for a long time in the Quality of a simple Monk in his Monastery at Canterbury, was made Prior of it by St. Anselm, and afterwards Abbot of Burck. At last he was ordain'd Bishop of Rochester in 1115. and govern'd that Church during nine Years and some Days. He died, A. D. 1124. in the 84th Year of his Age.

Father Dachery publish'd two Letters written by this Prelate in the second Tome of his Spicilegium, which are two small Tracts The first is directed to Waquelin Bishop of Windsor, as an Answer to a Question, which that Bishop propos'd to him in a Conference they had to∣gether at Canterbury; viz. Whether a Woman, who has committed Adultery with her Hus∣band's Son, whom he had by another Wife, ought to be divorced from her Husband? He maintain'd the Affirmative, and the Bishop to whom he wrote, asserted the Negative. In this Treatise Ernulphus answers the Objections of that Prelate; shewing, that all the Passages of Holy Scripture, in which 'tis forbidden to part Man and Wife, ought only to be understood of a voluntary Separation, between Persons who are not guilty of Adultery, and afterwards confirms his Opinion, by making it appear, that the Bishops, to prevent Disorders, have of∣ten condemn'd Adulterers, to abstain for ever from the use of Marriage; that it is the usual Custom of the Church; that this Punishment is ordain'd in the Penitential Books; and that a Divorce is justly allow'd upon account of Spiritual Alliance, although it be not express'd in the Scripture as Adultery. He adds, that 'tis not unjust, that a Husband should be divorced from his Wife, although he be innocent of the Crime committed by her, and that there are many other Causes, for which a Husband is obliged to put away his Wife.

The second Letter of the same Author, is directed to a certain Person nam'd Lambert, who had propos'd five Questions, although he was unknown to him. The first is to know why the Eucharist is administer'd at present after a different and almost contrary manner, to that which was observ'd by Jesus Christ; because it was customary at that time, to distribute an Host sleept in Wine to the Communicants; whereas Jesus Christ gave his Body and Blood separately? Ernulphus replys to that Question, That our Saviour, being come into the World, for the Salvation of Men, prescrib'd to them what was necessary to be done in order to obtain it, without expressing the manner in particular: That therefore, he did not tell them, Baptize in this or that manner; let the Baptized Person be plunged three several times in the Water; do not permit the Catechumens to be consecrated at first with Holy Chrism, &c. but only said simply, Baptize them: That by this means, the Things which are absolutely necessary may be easily known, and those that may be sometimes omitted or alter'd: That up∣on that very account, some Customs, which were in use in the Primitive Church, were not long observ'd: That it is certain, for Example, That the Apostles receiv'd the Commu∣nion after Supper, although it be now receiv'd Fasting: That they celebrated it on a wooden Table, although at present it is offer'd on a Stone-Altar; that the Bread they made

use of was ordinary Bread, and that that which is now us'd is finer and more loose: That therefore 'tis not to be admir'd, if this Bread be given steept; although there was no such Custom heretofore, that the Priest should mingle some part of the Species of Bread with the Wine: That this manner of Administration is observ'd, lest any ill Accidents should happen in the distribution of the Wine alone, and lest it should stick on the Hairs of the Beard or Whiskers, or should be spilt by the Minister.

The second Question is, Why a fourth part of the Host is put into the Chalice? He an∣swers, That it is not customary to divide the Host into four Parts, but only into three; yet that third part, which is put into the Chalice, is as large as the fourth part of the Host; al∣though care be taken in some Churches, to make it exactly of the bigness of the third part. He affirms that this Custom was introduc'd, because the Priest or Bishop who Officiates, ought to communicate with that part which is put into the Chalice, and to distribute the two others to the Deacon and Sub-deacon, who are Assistants. He produces another mystical Rea∣son of the same Custom, viz. That the Body of Jesus Christ which is offer'd upon the Altar, is the Sacrament or the Figure of his Mystical Body, which is the Church, compos'd of three Orders; that is to say, Superiours, Virgins and married Persons; or else that it is done to be a Figure of the Mystery of the Trinity, or to denote the three States of Jesus Christ, viz. the Mortal, the Dead and the Raised.

The Third Question is, Why the Blood of Jesus Christ is receiv'd separately from his Bo∣dy, and why it is receiv'd in his Body? He returns for Answer, That they who receive the two Species separately, do it in imitation of Jesus Christ; and although his Body be receiv'd entire, under each Species, nevertheless each Species is receiv'd separately, because our Sa∣viour has distinguish'd those two Things; designing to express to us by his Body, his Flesh and Members, such as they appear'd, solid and entire, and by his Blood, that which was shed by him on the Cross.

The Fourth, is to know, Whether the Body of Jesus Christ be received with, or without a Soul? He answers at first, That these sorts of Questions are usually started by Persons who affect to seem learned, and who endeavour to lay Snares for the Faith of weak Chri∣stians, who humbly believe what the Holy Ghost teaches them: That 'tis most expedient not to enter upon the debate of such Questions: That although one cannot comprehend how the Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; nevertheless it cannot be doubted, since our Saviour said, This is my Body, this is my Blood: That it argues Foolishness to endeavour to penetrate into the incomprehensible Secrets of the Mysteries of Christianity, and into that in particular, which is a Mystery of Faith: That it is certain, that the Sub∣stance of the Bread and Wine is chang'd into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; although it still appear to the Senses to be Bread and Wine, and that it retains all the Qualities of them: Lastly, that as the Qualities of the Bread and Wine are to be found, although the Substance does not appear; so it may be said after the same manner, That the Qualities of the Body, are not to be found therein, although its Substance remains: And that therefore 'tis impertinent, to ask whether the Body of Jesus Christ, in the Eucharist, be dead or im∣mortal, or whether it be endu'd with a Soul or not.

The last Question is about the Sense of these Words of the Prophet Joel, Chap. 2. vers. 14. Who knoweth if God will turn and repent, and leave a Blessing behind them? He says that the turning of God consists in the remission of Sins, which he grants to those who are con∣verted; and that when it is said, That he leaves a Blessing behind him, the meaning is, to those who follow him.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Ernul∣phus or Arnul∣phus Bi∣shop of Rochester.