was in accordance with their previous belief. The adoration of the Host, and the processions invented to honour it, were subsequently appointed. The former was introduced by Honorius III., who does not found it on any ancient practice, and confines it to an inclination of the head. Gregory IX., his successor, however, ordered a bell to be rung at the consecration and elevation, so that those who heard it might thereby have notice of the time at which they should kneel and worship the Host. Thus was introduced the doctrine of the corporal presence, and its consequent superstitions.

With respect to the manuer of the presence, no decision had as yet been made. The first controversy on this point arose incidentally on the disputes about images. The council of Constantinople decreed, that "the sacrament was "the image of Christ, in which the substance "of the bread and wine remained." The council of Nice decreed in opposition to them, that the sacrament was never called the image of Christ after consecration; an assertion which

a

Bishop Burnet in the original states, that this change was made by Honorius IV. But this is a mistake. Honorius IV. was not made Pope till the year 1285, nearly 60 years after the election of Gregory IX. Besides he commanded a degree of adoration to the host, much greater than his predecessor.--See Bower's Lives of the Popes, v. 6. p. 330, and Jewel's Reply, Art. 8.

See Decret. 1. 3. Tit. 42. c. 10.

is directly contradicted by fact. But it is a remarkable circumstance, that, notwithstanding the violence of the latter council against the former on this point, they never blame them for having declared that the substance of the bread and wine remained. The reason of this silence is, that the Church at that time generally held an assumption of the bread and wine into an union with the body and blood of Christ.

About thirty years after this council, Paschase Radbert, abbot of Corby in France, plainly asserted a corporal presence in the sacrament, and is acknowledged by Bellarmine and Sirmondus to have been the first that treated of this doctrine. His opinion was supported only by one writer, whose name was Herigerus, abbot of Cob, and he himself admits that he was charged by several persons with having given a sense to Christ's words that was not consonant to truth.b All the eminent men of the age were opposed to this doctrine; Rabanus Maurus, archbishop of Mentz; Bertram or Ratramn; John Scot Erigena; Amalarius, archbishop of Triers; Heribald, bishop of Auxerre, Walafradus Strabus, Florus, and Christian Druthman. The three authors first mentioned wrote directly against Paschase. Rabanus Maurus, in an epistle to the

a See Bell. de Euch. 1. iii. c. 8.

See Ep. ad Frudegardum. in oper. p. 1620. Ed. Parîs, 1618.

abbot Egilon, denied that the body which was born of the Virgin, and was crucified, and raised up again, was daily offered in the Eucharist.a This book is lost, but it is alluded to by himself in his penitential, and by the anonymous defender of Paschase. Ratramne wrote by order of the Emperor Charles the Bald, "not," as he states, "in reliance on his own sense, but following the steps of the ancient fathers." He plainly asserts our doctrine, and proves it by many of the arguments which we now use. John Scott, was a man of great genius, and held in high repute with Alfred, king of England, and considered as a saint and martyr, also wrote in refutation of Paschase's doctrine, by direction of the emperor. And that his opinion on this subject, which fully coincides with ours, was not opposed to the sense of the Church at that time, is evident from this circumstance; that he published a work against St. Austin's doctrine of predestination, which was severely censured by the Church of Lyons, but no reflection whatever was cast on his opinions concerning the Eucharist. The original work is lost, but there is

a It should be observed that he states "he wrote this epistle to Egilon, against those who have lately introduced this doctrine."-See Stillingfleet's Works, v. 6. p. 20.

"The Book of the Church of Lyons against the erroneous definitions of John Scotus Erigena," is published in Biblioth. Patr. v. xv. p. 611. Ed. 1677.

B B

homily extant which was read in England on Easter day, and in which the corporal presence is denied, that is most probably extracted from it. From these observations it is evident that Paschase's opinion was an innovation in the ninth century, and was not supported by any of the learned men of that age.

During the tenth century, and the early part of the eleventh, no clear account is given of the doctrine of the Church, owing to the wretched state of ignorance and corruption into which it had fallen; but the few remote hints that occur are favourable to Ratramne's opinions. About the middle of the eleventh century, however, when this controversy had ceased for nearly two centuries, it was revived. Bruno, Bishop of Angers and Berengarius, his Archdeacon maintained the doctrine of Ratramne; the latter of whom is said to have been a man of great piety, and of such learning, that when he was brought before Pope Nicolas, his arguments were irresistible.a His doctrine is said to have overspread all France; while the books that were written against him by Lanfranc and others, are replete with corruptions of antiquity. He was forced, however, by the severe proceedings taken against

a Nicolas II. held a council at Rome, A. D. 1059, composed of one hundred and thirteen Bishops, at which Berengarius renounced his opinions. See Dupin's Eccl. Hist. v. 9. p. 9.

a

him, to renounce his opinion, which he again asserted and again renounced, and finally, it is said, retracted this last renunciation. Thus then Ratramne's doctrine, which had been generally received in the ninth century, was become so odious in the eleventh, that the only person who had the courage to own it, had not resolution to adhere to his declaration. In the southern parts of France, however, vast numbers began to separate from the Roman communion, and one of their chief differences was their denial of the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Still this doctrine rapidly gained ground, owing on the one hand to the exertions of the Priests, whose interests were concerned in 'promoting it, and on the other, to the introduction of the practice of burning heretics, which prevented the opposition of the people.

a This he did at the councils of Rome, in the years 1078, and 1079. It appears plainly from the conduct of Gregory VII. throughout this controversy, that the Church of Rome had as yet made no decision as to its doctrine on this point; for he declares his ignorance of the opinion which he should hold with respect to the manner of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. See Mosheim's Hist. v. ii. cent. xi. par. ii. c. iii. sec. xii. and note.

b Bishop Burnet here alludes to the Waldenses, a sect who separated from the Church of Rome in the eleventh century, and held almost the same doctrines as those of the Reformed Churches. They derived their name, either from Peter Waldus, a native of Lyons, who was their leader, or more probably from the valleys in Piedmont, called Vaux, which they inhabited. See Mosheim's Hist. v. ii. cent. xi. par. ii. c. v. sec. xi. and note.