That Christian polemics have not been entirely free from such ideas may be shown satisfactorily to any one having the leisure to examine the various phases of the discussion upon the doctrine of the Eucharist.
The word “stercoranistes,” or “stercorarians,” is not to be found in the last edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica; but in the edition of 1841 the definition of the word is as follows: “Stercorarians, or Stercoranistes, formed from stercus, ‘dung,’ a name which those of the Romish church originally gave to such as held that the host was liable to digestion and all its consequences, like other food.” This definition was copied verbatim in Rees’s Cyclopædia of Arts, Sciences, and Literature, Philadelphia.
The dispute upon “Stercoranisme” began in 831, upon the appearance of a theological treatise by a monk named Paschasius Radbert.—(See the “Institutes of Ecclesiastical History,” John Lawrence von Mosheim, translated by John Murdock, D.D., New Haven, 1832, vol. ii. p. 104 et seq.)
The grossly sensual conception of the presence of the Lord’s body in the sacrament, according to which that body is eaten, digested, and evacuated like ordinary food, is of ancient standing, though not found in Origen, nor perhaps in Rhabanus Maurus. It certainly originated with a class of false teachers contemporary with or earlier than Rhabanus Maurus, whom Paschasius Radbert condemns,—“Frivolum est ergo in hoc mysterio cogitare in stercore ne commisceatur in digestione alterius cibi” (De Corp. et Sanguin. Domin. cap. 20). He does not, however, apply the term “Stercoranistes” to his opponents. Cardinal Humbert is the first to so employ the word. This use was in a polemic against Nicetas Pectoratus, written in support of Azymitism, etc. From this source the word was adopted into common usage.—(Schrockli Kirchengesch. XXIII.? 429, 499; Herzog, Real Encyclop., s. v.; McClintock and Strong, Cyclop. of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, New York, 1880; see also Schaff-Herzog, “Cyclopædia of Religious Knowledge,” New York, 1881, article “Stercoranistes.”)
(Stercoranistes.) (Hist. Eccles.) “Nom que quelques écrivains ont donné a ceux qui pensoient que les symboles eucharistiques êtoient sujets à la digestion et à toutes ses suites de même que les autres nourritures corporelles.... Ce mot est dérivé du Latin, ‘stercus,’ excrement. On ne convient pas généralement de l’existence de cette erreur. Le président Manguin l’attribue à Amalaire, auteur du neuvième siècle.... Et le cardinal Humbert dans sa réponse a Nicetas Pectoratus, l’appelle nettement stercoraniste, parceque celui-ci prétendoit que la perception de l’hostie rompoit le jeûne. Enfin, Alger attribue la même erreur aux Grecs. Mais ces accusations ne paroissent pas fondées, car; ... Amalaire propose à la vérité la question si les espèces eucharistiques se consument comme les aliments ordinaires; mais, il ne la décide pas. Nicetas prétend aussi que l’Eucharistique rompt le jeûne, soit qu’il reste dans les espèces quelque vertu nutritive, soit parce qu’après avoir récu l’Eucharistique, ou peut prendre autres aliments; mais, il ne paroit pas avoir admis la consequence que lui impute le Cardinal Humbert. Il ne paroit pas non plus que les autres Grecs soient tombés dans cette erreur. S. Jean Damascene les en disculpe. Mais, soit que le Stercoranisme ait existé ou non, les protestans n’en peuvent tirer aucun avantage contre la présence réele, que cette erreur suppose plutôt qu’elle ne l’ébranle.”—(Voyez M. Wuitass, traité de l’Eucharistie, première partie, quest. 2, art. 1; p. 416 et suiv. Encyclop. ou Diction. Raisson. des Sciences, des Arts, et des Metiers, tome quinzième, Neufchatel, 1765, art. “Stercoranistes.”)
“Si qui fuerunt, fuere nonnulli nono sæculo, qui Corpus Christi quod in Eucharistia continetur secessui, ac defectioni obnoxium esse putabat ita ut corruptis speciebus et ipsum Corpus Christi corrumperatur.”—(“Dict. of Sects and Heresies,” etc., T. H. Blunt, Oxford, 1874, where a number of references are given.)
“Stercorantistarum, nomen non sectæ, sed convitii fuit.”—(Baronius, “Annales,” Lucca, 1758.)
Stercoranisme. Stercoranistes. Stercus. “Membre d’une secte qui souténait que les espèces de l’Eucharistie étaient digérées et transformées en excrément comme les autres aliments” (Encyclop.).
“On a désigné dans le XIX. siècle sous le nom de Stercoranistes, les théologiens qui niaient que la substance du pain et du vin fut changée dans l’Eucharistie au corps et au sang de Jesus Christ.”
“Tout ce qui entre dans la bouche, descend le ventre et va au rétrait.”
“Prétendirent que si le corps et le sang de Jésus Christ, avaient pris la place de la substance du pain et du vin, ils devraient subir les mêmes accidents qui seraient arrivés à cette substance si elle avait été reçue par le communiant.”—(P. Larousse, “Grand Dictionnaire Universel,” Paris, 1875.)
Brand, in his “Encyclopædia of Science, Literature, and Art,” article “Stercoranism,” says: “A nickname which seems to have been applied in the Western churches in the fifth and sixth centuries to those who held the opinion that a change took place in the consecrated elements, so as to render the divine body subject to the act of digestion.” He refers to Mosheim’s “Ecclesiastical History” for a fuller account.
The same ideas obtained among the illiterate as a matter of course.
The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ seems to have been received by the Gnostics of the second century as canonical, and accepted in the same sense by Eusebius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others of the Fathers and writers of the Church. Sozomen was told by travellers in Egypt that they had heard in that country of the miracles performed by the water in which the infant Jesus had been washed. According to Ahmed ben Idris, this gospel was used in parts of the East in common with the other gospels; while Ocobius de Castro asserts that in many churches of Asia and Africa it was recited exclusively. (See Introduction to the “Apocryphal New Testament,” William Hone, London, 1820.) But, on the other hand, all the apocrypha were condemned by Pope Gelasius in the fifth century; and this interdict was not repealed until the time of Paul IV. in the sixteenth century.—(See Bunsen, “Analecta,” Hamburg, 1703.)
In the following extracts it will be noted that the miracles recorded were wrought either by the swaddling-clothes themselves or by the water in which they had been cleansed; and the inference is that the excreta of Christ were believed, as in many other instances, to have the character of a panacea, as well as generally miraculous properties.
The Madonna gave one of the swaddling clothes of Christ to the Wise Men of the East who visited him; they took it home, “and having, according to the custom of their country, made a fire, they worshipped it.... And casting the swaddling cloth into the fire, the fire took it and kept it” (1 Inf. iii. 6, 7).
We read of the Finnish deity Wainemoinen that “the sweat which dropped from his body was a balm for all diseases.” The very same virtues were possessed by the sweat of the Egyptian god Ra (“Chaldean Magic,” Lenormant, p. 247, quoting the Kalewala, part 2, r. 14).
On arrival in Egypt after the Flight—“When the Lady Saint Mary had washed the swaddling clothes of the Lord Christ and hanged them out to dry upon a post ... a certain boy ... possessed with the devil, took down one of them and put it upon his head. And presently the devils began to come out of his mouth and fly away in the shape of crows and serpents. And from this time the boy was healed by the power of the Lord Christ.”—(1 Inf. iv. 15, 16, 17.)
“On the return journey from Egypt, Christ had healed by a kiss a lady whom cursed Satan ... had leaped upon ... in the form of a serpent. On the morrow, the same woman brought perfumed water to wash the Lord Jesus; when she had washed him, she preserved the water. And there was a girl whose body was white with leprosy, who being sprinkled with this water was instantly cleansed from her leprosy.”—(1 Inf. vi. 16, 17).
There is another example of exactly the same kind in 1 Inf. vi. 34. See, again, 1 Inf. ix. 1, 4, 5, 9; x. 2, 3; xii. 4, 5, 6. “And in Matarea the Lord Jesus caused a well to spring forth, in which Saint Mary washed his coat. And a balsam is produced or grown in that country from the sweat which ran down there from the Lord Jesus.”—(Gospel of the Infancy, viii.: “The Apocryphal New Testament,” William Hone, London, 1820, p. 47.)
“In Ireland, weakly children are taken to drink the ablution, that is, the water and wine with which the chalice is rinsed after the priest has taken the communion,—the efficacy arising from the cup having just before contained the body of our Lord.” (See “Folk-Medicine,” Black, London, 1883, p. 88.) The same cure was also in vogue in England, and in each case for the whooping-cough.
This has all the appearance of a commingling of two separate streams of thought; compare with it the notes on the expression from Juvenal, “Priapo ille bibit vitreo,” page 428, as well as those in regard to the canons of Beauvais on page 429.
“An offshoot of the Khlysti, known as the “Shakouni,” or Jumpers, openly professed debauchery and libertinism to excess.... Others of their rites are abject and disgusting; their chief is the living Christ, and their communion consists in embracing his body,—ordinary disciples may kiss his hand or his foot; to those of a more fervent piety, he offers his tongue.”—(“The Russian Church and Russian Dissent,” Albert F. Heard, New York and London, 1887, pp. 261-262.)
The subjoined extract is from “Mélusine” (Gaidoz), Paris, May 5, 1888.
“A l’occasion des reliques journalières du Dalai-Lama dont on fait des pilules pour les dévots, histoire que les imprimeurs de cette Revue n’avaient pas voulu ‘avaler’ (voir plus haut, col. 24) Mr. Wh. Stokes nous a signalé un curieux passage des annales irlandaises. Nous croyons intéressant de le traduire ici. Cet ‘acte de foi’ se passait en l’an 605, et le héros en est le roi Aedh, surnommé Uairidhnach.[14]
“Un jour il passa, n’étant encore que prince royal, par le territoire d’Othain-Muira; il lava ses mains à la rivière qui traversa le territoire de la ville. Othain est le nom de la rivière, et c’est de là que la ville a son nom. Il prit de l’eau pour s’en laver la figure. Un de ses gens l’arrêta. ‘Roi, dit-il, ne mets pas cette eau sur ton visage.’ ‘Quoi donc?’ dit le roi. ‘J’ai honte de le dire,’ dit-il. ‘Quelle honte as-tu à dire la vérité? dit le roi. ‘Voici ce que c’est,’ dit-il; ‘c’est sur cette eau que se trouve le water-closet des clercs.’ ‘Est-ce ici, que vient le clerc lui-même’ (c’est à dire le chef des clercs) ‘pour se soulager?’
“‘C’est ici même,’ dit le page. ‘Non seulement,’ dit le roi, ‘je mettrai cette eau sur ma figure, mais j’en mettrai dans ma bouche, et j’en boirai’ (et il en but trois gorgées); ‘car l’eau où il se soulage vaut pour moi l’eucharistie.’
“Cela fut raconté à Muira (le chef des clercs), et il rendit grâces à Dieu de ce que Aedh avait une semblable foi; et il appela auprès de lui Aedh et il lui dit: ‘Cher fils, en récompense de ce respect que tu as montré à l’Église, je te promets, en présence de Dieu, que tu obtiendras bientôt la royauté d’Irlande, que tu auras victoire et triomphe sur tes ennemis, que tu ne mourras pas de mort subite,[15] que tu recevras le corps de Christ de ma main, et je prierai le Seigneur pour toi, pour que ce soit la vieillesse qui t’enlève de cette vie.’
“Ce fut peu de temps après cela qu’Aedh obtint la royauté d’Irlande et il donna des terres fertiles à Muira d’Othain.[16]
“Comme le lecteur ne manquera pas de le remarquer, c’est par édification que l’annaliste, clerc lui-même, raconte cette histoire. En effet, elle fait honneur à la piété du roi et elle prouve que ‘le respect montré à l’Église ... a obtenu sa récompense.’ Ce qui vient des hommes de Dieu participe en effet au caractère sacré de Dieu qu’ils représentent.
“Si l’on cherchait à étendre cette enquête de scatologie hiératique on trouverait sans doute bien des croyances et des pratiques répugnantes à notre goût de civilisés, mais raisonnables en un sens quand on accepte le point de départ, quand on ne condamne pas la logique, et surtout quand on se rappelle que le dégoût pour les résidus de la digestion n’est devenu instinctif que pour la vie civilisée et les habitudes sociales. Les peuples qui ne se lavent pas doivent certainement sentir autrement que nous, et même ne pas sentir du tout; et nos ancêtres de l’âge des cavernes n’avaient certainement l’odorat plus difficile. On assure que chez les Namas, tribu hottentote, le shaman qui célèbre un mariage asperge les conjoints de son urine. Cela remplace notre eau bénite. Le shaman est en effet ’un homme de Dieu,’ par excellence; car, lorsqu’il se livre à ces danses désordonnées qui sont une partie du culte, on croit que le dieu descend en lui, non en esprit, mais en réalité.
“C’est aussi le cas de rappeler un usage linguistique des habitants de Samoa dans la Polynésie. Lorsqu’une femme est sur le point d’accoucher, on adresse des prières au dieu ou génie de la famille du père et à celui de la famille de la mère. Quand l’enfant est né, la mère demande quel dieu on était en train de prier à ce moment. On en prend soigneusement note et ce dieu sera en quelque sorte le “patron” de l’enfant pendant le reste de sa vie.
“Par respect pour ce dieu, l’enfant est appelé son excrément et pendant son enfance on l’appelle réellement, comme ‘petit-nom,’ ‘m— de Tongo,’ ou de Satia, ou de tout autre dieu, suivant le cas. La formule est grossière, mais l’intention, sous une apparence tout matérielle, part d’un sentiment de respect et de piété à l’égard de la divinité.”
The last two paragraphs of the above are taken from the work of the missionary Turner, who lived for seventeen years in the islands of Polynesia; they appear in his “Samoa,” London, 1884, p. 79. But in the same book, issued under the title “Polynesia,” London, 1861, it has been expunged.
The mother of the King of Uganda invited Speke to visit her and drink pombé, the native plantain wine; when she happened to spill some of this the servants “instantly fought over it, dabbing their noses on the ground, or grabbing it with their hands, that not one atom of the queen’s favor might be lost; for everything must be adored that comes from royalty, whether by design or accident.” (Speke, “Nile,” London, 1863, vol. ii. p. 313.) This is the Grand Lama business over again and nothing else.
The people of Madagascar have an annual feast of the greatest solemnity, during which no cattle are allowed to be slaughtered; “which means that none can be eaten, as meat will not keep twenty-four hours in Madagascar.” This festival is called “The Queen’s Bath,” and is arranged with much parade. “When the water was warm the queen stepped down and entered the curtained space. In a few moments salvos of artillery announced to the people that the queen was taking her bath. In a few minutes more she reappeared, sumptuously clothed with jewels. She carried a horn filled with the bath-water, with which she sprinkled the company.”—(“Evening Star,” Washington, D. C., quoting from “Transcript,” Boston, Massachusetts.)
That the ruler of a tribe or nation is in some manner connected with and representative of the deities adored by the tribe or nation, is a form of man-worship presenting its most perfect manifestation in the reverence accorded the Grand Lama; but no part of the world has been free from it, and among our own forefathers it obstinately held its ground in the opinion so long prevalent all over Europe that the touch of the king’s hand would cure the scrofula. This remedial potency was also ascribed to women in a certain condition.
“Scrofulous sores were believed by some to be cured by the touch of a menstruating woman.”—(Pliny, Bohn’s edition, lib. 28, cap. 24.)
“The Hindu wife is in Paradise compared to the Hindu widow. The condition of the wife is bad enough. As the slave of her husband, she eats after he is through, and she eats what is left. She has no education to speak of, and her only hope of salvation is in him. She stands while he sits in the household; and she cannot, if she lives in the interior, go to the Ganges and bathe herself in the sacred water. I am told that in many cases she considers it a privilege to bathe her husband’s feet after he returns, and thinks that she gets some absolution from sin by drinking the water.”—(Frank G. Carpenter, in “World,” New York, June 30, 1889.)
“Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, possessed the power of curing individuals attacked by enlarged spleen by simply pressing his right foot upon that viscera.”—(“The Physicians of the Middle Ages,” T. C. Minor, M.D., Cincinnati, Ohio, 1889, p. 5. A translation of “Le Moyen Age Médical,” of Dr. Edmond Dupouy.)