The Mass In The Infant Church By Rev Garrett Pierse Part 21.

CHAPTER XII.

Conclusions.

We have heard the different testimonies of different witnesses concerning the existence of the Mass in the early Church. We have considered the words of advocates of opposing theories regarding that evidence. We know the law that is to guide us in determining the authentic doctrines of the Mass ; the Council of Trent says that it is a strict sacrifice, an offering of the body and blood of Christ, a propitiatory oblation. We have to decide the question of fact : Is that, which the early Fathers announce, substantially the same as the Mass, understood by Trent. We have been investigating particular instances all through this inquiry; we have now to consider the evidence in general, and draw our conclusions. These are the very words of the authorities.

Under the head of a strict sacrifice, the Council of Trent anathematizes one who says that in the Mass there is not offered a true and strict sacrifice. 1 Justin speaks concerning those sacrifices which are offered to God in every place by us Gentiles, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and similarly the cup of the Eucharist 2 ; Irenaeus testifies that the class of oblations in general has not been set aside, for " there are oblations there, among the Jews, and oblations here, among the Christians" ; Clement of Alexandria says that Moses speaks of Melchisedech, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who gave bread and wine, consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist ; Origen testifies 3 that the Christians eat the Bread which is offered with prayers and thanksgivings 4 ; Tertullian says that Mithra also (like the Church) celebrates the oblation of bread 5 ; Hippolytus of Rome says that, on the appearance of the anti-Christ, the food and drink offering will be removed which already is offered by the Gentiles to God in all parts 6 ; Cyprian, in fine, asks who is more a priest than Jesus Christ who offered a sacrifice to God, the Father, and offered that very same thing which Melchisedech had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, His own body and blood, and Cyprian further states that priests do the same thing which Jesus did in the Last Supper. 7

In regard to the object offered. Trent excommunicates one who says that Christ did not ordain that the Apostles and other priests should offer His body and blood. 8 Justin contains the premises, that the Sacrifice is the bread and the chalice of the Eucharist 9 and that the Consecrated Food is the flesh and blood of Jesus ; Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen, as we have already elaborated, and it would be too tedious to do so again, give similar implicit testimonies ; Tertullian says ironically that for the benefit of the apostate, Christ will be slain again in the Eucharist; 10 Hippolytus states that God's immaculate body and blood are sacrificed in memory of the Last Supper; 11 Cyprian expressly speaks of the offering of the blood of Christ. 12 As to the propitiatory effect, Trent anathematizes one who says that the sacrifice of the Mass is not propitiatory, or that it should not be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, penalties, satisfactions, and other needs. 13 Passing over Justin, Irenaeus, and Clement, who do not speak formally on the subject, Origen says that the Eucharist is the only commemoration which makes God propitious to men; 14 Cyprian speaks of celebrating the sacrifice for the repose of the dead, and of mentioning their names at God's altar in the prayers of the priests. 15

After a consideration of all these testimonies, which we have here briefly condensed, and which cannot but lose some force in a short summary, I have no hesitation in concluding that what these Fathers announce presents a striking identity with the Mass as understood by the Council of Trent. Sometimes, it is implicitly announced; sometimes, as in Cyprian, it is marvellously expressed even in the same explicit manner as it was defined after several centuries of close investigation. The testimonies are in agreement concerning the essential aspects of the Mass. What matters it, then, if there be some accidental inexactness in the doctrines of individual Fathers ? The declaration of this only serves to emphasise their agreement about essentials. Justin may use inexact terms, saying that Christians generally offer prayers alone in their Eucharistic commemoration, but mean, as we know from other passages, that the president's offering is not mere prayer. Clement may have even inexact doctrine concerning a mixture of the Logos and drink in the Eucharist. 16 Origen may say that the material element of the Eucharist partakes of the ultimate fate of ordinary digested food. 17 In a minor aspect of the doctrine, Clement of Alexandria, Justin, Irenaeus, and Firmilian may not define precisely the formula causing the Consecration, but say that it is effected through the word of God and the invocation. But these writers were seen to give testimony concerning the essential doctrines of the Mass.

Any reasonable critic, one who is able to admit ideas contrary to his preconceived opinions, can now decide whether the evidence of these writers may be interpreted as signifying the existence of a strict sacrifice in the Eucharist. Would Irenaeus, who believed in an offering of first-fruits, and in a new oblation, taught by the Apostles and identified with the undefiled oblation announced by Malachy, feel at home with the declarations of Trent ? Would Tertullian, who spoke of anniversary offerings in connection with the dead ? Would St. Cyprian, who, according to his own words, saw in the Eucharist a true and full sacrifice, taught and founded by Jesus Christ, who saw therein an immolated, a Lordly Victim, who believed it to be a commemoration of the Lord's  Passion, in some J sense His Passion itself, who believed that the Eucharist contains an offering of the blood of Christ, and that the sacrifice is offered for the repose of the dead whose names are mentioned at the altar,—would he feel less at home with the sacrificial doctrine of the Catholic Church than with that of her rivals ?
We have seen the progress from comparative indefiniteness to clearness in what these early writers express concerning the doctrine. From the saying of Irenaeus about the "offering of the first-fruits" or of Tertullian about the offering of bread, to Cyprian's expression about the offering of the blood of Christ, there is a notable advance in definiteness. But, what Cyprian expresses, is really the same as the statement of Irenaeus that there is an offering of the Eucharistic Bread which is elsewhere identified by the latter with the body and blood of Christ; even the explicitness of Cyprian about the sacrificial character of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist is not new, but is found expressed already by Origen when he writes: " Do not hold on any longer to the blood of sacrificed animals, but recognise the blood of the Word, and hear Him saying : ' This is My blood which is shed for you unto the remission of sins.'" 18 Hence,Cyprian'swords do not shape his own conclusion; he found his expressions already formulated. Early writers, indeed, fall short of some theories of recent theologians. But the continuity is not broken. Thus a view of Tertullian was seen to be not unlike the modern theory of mystic destruction. I must, therefore, disagree with the results of the investigators whose opinions were mentioned at the beginning. It was not my intention to make a direct and bitter onslaught upon them personally, but what I have written, while primarily intended to positively set forth the truth, was meant to contain incidentally an answer to their theories. I reject totally the views of Renz, that the Eucharist is not a real and immediate offering of the body and blood of Christ but a representation of the former offering, that Justin Martyr did not explicitly speak of an objective sacrificial gift in the Eucharist, and that certain early writers meant to give the essence of the sacrifice and, in the last analysis, placed it in prayer. I totally reject the view of Wieland, that Justin and his contemporaries of the sub-Apostolic age, as well as Apologists like Clement, are contradicted by the later sacrificial teaching of I renaeus and his successors, the former writers placing the essence of the sacrifice in pure prayer, the latter introducing the idea of an objective sacrifice. I reject the theory of Harnack that all until Cyprian's time had the idea of a subjective sacrifice of pure prayer, and that the latter was the first to give expression to the germ of the present-day Catholic doctrine of the Mass. I regret, moreover, Harnack's expressing an unworthy and unfounded idea of the Church of Cyprian's time —that its application of a sacrificial character to the Consecrated Elements was due to an effort to give a magical character to the specifically sacerdotal action and to the desire of a secularised Christianity for an invisible bloody sacrifice. 19

If the Mass, then, is with the early Fathers, who have more reliability, these or their critics ? Irenaeus, the second writer of our period, writes about a half century after the death of the last Apostle; Cyprian, the last witness, writes a century and a half after the same point of time. Both are strictly conservative writers ; Cyprian becomes solemn and impressive tracing the Eucharistic doctrine from the remotest source. They do not teach their own thoughts, but the early, even the Divine tradition. Irenaeus says that the Church received the oblation from the Apostles ; Cyprian testifies that the Lord is its Teacher. Concerning the purity of the tradition these are strong words. Are we not to prefer the Fathers of the second and third centuries, as guides concerning the earliest and purest doctrine, to critics of the far-off twentieth.
1

1 Sess. 22, can. l.

2 Dial. 41.


3 Str. iv., 25.

4 In Levit, hom. xiii.

5 Be Praescrip, xv.

6 Fragm. Dan,, I, 22.  Migne Gr., 10.

7 Ep. 63.

8 Sess. 22, can. 2.

9 Dial. 41.

10 De Pud., c. 9.

11 Prov. ix., 1. 

12 Ep. 63.

13Sess. 22, can, 3. 

14 In Levit, Hom. xiii. 3. 

15 Ep. 1, 2.

16 Paed ii. 2.

17 In. Mat. M. P. G., col. 940, note 37.

18 In Levit., Hom,, ix., n, 10.

19 Dogmengesch, I,, 390.

The Mass In The Infant Church By Rev Garrett Pierse Part 19.

Some Circumstances of the Sacrificial Celebration. Part 2.

The Time of Celebration.

Probably each of those churches had a priest attached. For it is a suggestive fact that in an epistle of Pope Cornelius there are also enumerated forty-six Roman priests, 1 corresponding to the number of basilicas named by Optatus of Mileve.

We have very early evidence for the fact that Sunday was the day of the regular Eucharistic celebration. This is , suggested in the Acts of the Apostles, where the Christians are said to have a special gathering on the first day of the week. 2 The Didache speaks of the " day of the Lord " as that on which the assembly and sacrifice were to take place. 3 There can be little doubt that this referred to the day of the Lord's resurrection, or Sunday. Justin also speaks of Sunday in immediate connection with the Eucharistic feast. 4

As to the time of day when the Mass was celebrated Justin is silent. When the Agape was joined to the Eucharist, in Apostolic times, it is most likely that the Eucharistic sacrifice was celebrated in the evening in exact imitation of the Last Supper. But very soon afterwards there is indication of a change. Pliny, in his famous letter to Trajan, refers most likely to the Eucharist, as celebrated in the small hours of the morning. 5 For, according to him, at such a time there was convoked a meeting, at which the Christians bound themselves by an oath (sacramentum). The use of the word " oath," shows that there was a misunderstanding in Pliny's mind, for it is incredible that the early Christians—so observant of Christ's counsels —should have made an oath a regular feature of their assemblies. The sacramentum, of which he heard and which he misinterpreted as an oath, was most likely the Mysteries (sacramenta) or the Eucharist.

Tertullian expressly says that the Eucharist was celebrated before dawn. " We receive (the Eucharist) in our assemblies before dawn (antelucanis coetibus), and from the hands of no others except our presidents." 6 Cyprian explains the reason why the Eucharist was celebrated in the morning, unlike Christ's celebration which took place in the evening. " It behoved Christ to offer about evening, that the very hour of sacrifice might betoken the evening and setting of the world, as it is written in the Book of Exodus, ' and the whole assembly of the congregation shall celebrate in the evening.' And again in the Psalms: ' Let the elevation of my hands be an evening sacrifice.' But we celebrate the resurrection of the Lord in the morning." 7 Besides this motive, it is probable that very natural ones were present to effect the change from evening to morning. We must remember that in Apostolic times the celebration likely took place in the evening after a supper which was no other than the Agape. In the Acts, we find St. Paul celebrating at midnight. 8 Since preaching formed a necessary instrument for the instruction of those assembled, it is easy to see how the " breaking of Bread " which occurred last of all, came to be postponed until after midnight. In the course of time it would have been celebrated in the small hours of the morning. It would seem that in some places, even in Cyprian's time, opinion favoured an evening celebration. For the Bishop of Carthage, in the passage quoted, is arguing against such an opinion, which may have been carried into practice. Though a morning celebration was the rule towards the end of the second century, there was at least one exception. Tertullian, in speaking of the difficulties which confront a Christian wife with an infidel husband, implies that not the least was the fact that she could not attend the midnight celebration of the Easter Eucharist without incurring grave suspicion. 9

As to the frequency of the Eucharistic celebration, a fair amount of evidence is at hand. Justin, indeed, mentions only the Sunday gathering for the Eucharistic worship. Tertullian testifies that it was the practice to have the Eucharistic sacrifice celebrated on those Wednesdays and Fridays which were days of fasting, 10 and on the anniversaries of martyrs. 11 He states that Paschal time, or the days from Easter to Pentecost, comprised one long feast,—a statement which likely implies that on each day the Eucharist was celebrated. 12 This supposition is confirmed by the fact that he gives a Eucharistic interpretation to the petition in the Lord's prayer—" Give us this day our daily bread." 13 At least, it was the custom in Tertullian's time to receive daily Communion, and the presumption is that for this object the sacrifice was celebrated every morning. The evidence for a daily reception of the Eucharist is increased by another statement of Tertullian regarding a certain class of unworthy clergy. M The Jews once laid their hands on Christ; they (i.e., the unworthy clergy) daily harass His body. . . What hands should be cut or? more than those in which the body of the Lord receives offence." 14

The Minister of the Rite.

About the beginning of the second century the regular minister of the Eucharistic sacrifice was the bishop. At this early time, there is no reference to any minister inferior to the bishop, as competent for this important office in the Church. This is not to be wondered at, since, before the time of Ignatius Martyr, there was no nice distinction formed between the order of bishop and of presbyter. Accordingly the Didache implies that the bishop was the minister of the Eucharist. Having spoken previously of the Eucharistic sacrifice, it gives in logical sequence the command—" Appoint therefore bishops and deacons." 15 Plainly, the bishops had the principal part in the function, the deacons acting as inferior ministers. Clement of Rome, 16 too, speaks only of bishops and deacons in connection with the offering of gifts. Even in the time of Ignatius Martyr, who has the threefold distinction of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, it would seem that the bishop alone was the principal personage at every Eucharistic celebration.

" It is not lawful," writes Ignatius, "apart from the bishop, to baptize or hold an Agape." 17 The important place assigned to this Agape, the fact that it is mentioned in the same context with Baptism, and that it is reserved to the bishop alone, implies that it included, at this time, the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

The Canons of Hippolytus, which were drawn up, presumably, about the end of the second century, 18 show that the practice still continued of having the bishop as regular minister, though time had wrought the change of permitting the presbyter to take his place in exceptional cases. " Let the deacons bring the elements of the Mysteries, and then let the bishop begin the oblation." 19 According to these Canons, laymen were regarded as absolutely powerless in regard to liturgical functions. " It is not fitting for laymen to make the sign of the cross over the bread (of the Agape)." 20 It would be over-ingenious to attempt to reconcile this powerlessness of laymen to make even the sign of the cross in a liturgical function, with a common theory that the power of the priesthood was resident in the whole body of Christians. It is true that early writers, like Justin 21 and Irenaeus, 22 speak of all Christians as priests, but the rest of the evidence in those times indicates that this is an ordinary metaphor. The Canons of Hippolytus, as far as words go, make the single exception that " those who suffered for the faith deserve the rank of presbyter in the sight of God, not in the way of episcopal ordination, confession standing for ordination." 23

1 In Euseb. H.E, vi.. 43, M.P.G.,  xx, 621.

2 xx.

3 Did. xiv.

4 Apol, i. 67.

5 Epp, 1. x. No, 97 (Ed, Frankfort 1611) p, 364.

6 De Corona Mil,, c. 3.

7 Ep. 63.

8 Acts xx., 7.

9 Ad Ux I. ii., c. 5. P. L. i., 1302.

10 De Orat., c. 19., P,L, i., 181.

11 De Cor Milit,. chap, 3. P, L. ii. 79,

12 Eodem loco.

13 De Orat„ vi. P.L.i, 1160.

14 De Idololat., c. vii. P. L, I.. 669.

15 Ch: xv.

16 Ad. Corinth, i. c xl-xlii,

17 Ad. Smyrn, c. viii.

18 Cf. Keating, The Agape p. 110.

19 xix.

20 C. H. iii. 17.

21 Dial., 116.

22 Adv, Haer. iv. 18-4 and iv. 17-5.

23 C. H. vi.

The Mass In The Infant Church By Rev Garrett Pierse Part 18.

CHAPTER XI.

Some Circumstances of the Sacrificial Celebration. Part 1.

The Place.

In deciding the question where the Eucharist was celebrated it is useful to refer briefly to an earlier period than that with which I am directly concerned. It will make us realise changes that had taken place. Christ Himself worshipped in the Temple. The example of the Master was followed by the disciples. 1 Furthermore, they used the Synagogue as a place for preaching. 2 But an important exception was made in their association with Jewish modes of worship. While the Temple and the Synagogue were sometimes used as places for prayer and preaching respectively, there is not a particle of real evidence that either was used for the distinctive Christian rite—the breaking of Bread, as the Eucharist was then called. On the contrary, we are told that they broke Bread from " house to house." 3 This is a proof that private houses were used for the Eucharistic celebration. When the Temple had ceased to exist and when attendance in the Synagogue was not possible for the odious Christian he had recourse to the house of one of the brethren, as a Jew would have done in a place where there was no Synagogue. There he celebrated the Eucharist, with an introduction consisting of a ritual borrowed from the Synagogue according to Bickell's certain contention.

The Christians celebrated the Eucharist in Jerusalem in the house of Mary, mother of John Mark 4 ; in Corinth, in the house of Titus; 5 at Ephesus, in the schola tyranni 6 ; in Troas, in the third coenaculum of a private house 7 ; in Rome, in the house of Prisca and Aquila 8 ; at Colossi, in the house of Nympha, 9 and in the house of Philemon. 10 Some private houses were permanently given over to worship. Such were in Rome, the houses of SS. Pudentiana, Prisca, Caecilia, and Clement, which were the originals of the Title churches. Besides private houses, freely given for worship, places were hired as the schola tyranni in Ephesus. The assembly room, in Apostolic times,was sometimes called a " synagogue," 11 a name which does not imply that a Jewish meeting house had been utilised, but merely indicates that the Christians had to use the ordinary terms of the time.

If we now pass to the second century, for a considerable length of time we meet no reference to a specific chapel for Christian worship. The apocryphal writings which are useful as containing the ideas of the time in which they were written, seem to contain no hint of a specific chapel. The account of Paul and Thecla, the Martyrdom of Paul, the story of St. Peter and Simon Magus, all of which belong to a period anterior to the end of the second century, do not give any information on the subject. 12

St. Justin Martyr, 13 in his defence before the Roman Prefect, Rusticus, repudiates the idea that all the Christians of Rome, in his time, met at one place of worship. "Thinkest thou we all assemble for worship in one place ?" he queries. He gives as his reason for the denial implied in the last question that the God whom the Christians worship is not confined to one place. He asserts that the Christians in Rome assemble at the places which suit their wishes and convenience. When pressed further by the Prefect, he replies that the place of worship which he knows is a private dwelling over the Timotine bath. 14

One cannot, however, regard this statement of Justin as decidedly clear. He was not willing to make definite statements to his persecutors. But the drift of Justin's conversation with Rusticus favours the contention that even in Justin's time the Eucharist was celebrated in private houses in Rome.

It is only towards the end of the second century that we have positive evidence for the existence of a specific chapel. Tertullian refers to such a one as existing in a public place. 15 Giving it a new signification, he applies St. Paul's phrase, " the house of God," to such a building. Clement of Alexandria speaks of peasants flocking to a particular chapel in the town. 16 By the middle of the third century, Optatus of Mileve, could speak of over forty basilicas as existing in Rome. 17


1 Act. ii,, 46.  v. 42.

2 Acts, xvii, 1,2. 

3 Act., ii,. 46.

4 Acts 6⁹,

5 Ibid, 18⁷.

6 Ibid. 19⁹.

7 Ibid. 20⁸

8 Rom. 15⁵; 1 Cor. 16¹⁹ .

9 Coloss. 4¹⁵.

10 Philemon 2.

11 St, James ii., 2.

12 Wieland, Mensa und Confessio, i. p. 68.

13 Cap. II, M,P,G, t, vi., 1586.

14 loco cit.

15 Adv Valent,, c, 3.

16 Str., i. 1.

17 De Sch. Donat, ii. Ed, Zuisa, p. 39.

The Mass In The Infant Church By Rev Garrett Pierse Part 16.

CHAPTER IX. The Liturgy. Part 4.

I shall, next, compare the Liturgy as it was in the time of Justin with the Passover ritual:

The foregoing comparison establishes a kinship between the Christian Liturgy and the Passover. That this relationship implied the derivation of one from the other, was the contention of Bickell. He compared, especially, the Clementine Liturgy with the Passover. He argued, mainly, from the following facts : First, the expression, " Blessed be He who cometh in the name of the Lord," is found both in the Canon and in the Hallel Psalms. Secondly, the contents of the Preface of the Clementine Liturgy are exactly like those of the Hallel Psalm 135 (Vulgate). Both contain thanks for creation and a reference to the deliverance from Egyptian bondage. Finally, a blessing, as we have seen, is found in the Passover ritual, which is entirely similar to that found in the Didache Canon. 1

But kinship does not necessarily imply descent, and so there was room for criticism of Bickell's position. It came from a recent Protestant writer, Dr. Drews. 2 The latter maintained that the Canon was derived from the ritual of the meal on the Jewish Sabbath eve. This took place on Friday evening, after the opening of the Jewish Sabbath day, which was reckoned from darkness to darkness. It must be noted, too, that a similar ritual was observed in connection with the meals on all other Jewish feast days.

Before all those festive meals, including that on the Sabbath day, the head of the family blessed the bread, and the wine, in case the latter was taken. It was a subject of controversy whether the blessing of the bread or the blessing of the wine should have precedence. The schools of Shammai and Hillel were divided. Shammai was in favour of blessing the wine first. The following formula, which we have already seen in the case of the Passover, was used before all festive meals. For the wine: a Praised be Thou, Lord, our God, who hast created the fruit of the vine." For the bread: " Praised be Thou, Lord, our God, who didst produce bread from the earth.'' The head of the family tasted some bread and wine before handing them to the guests. Some bread was reserved for the end, also a cup, which was called the cup of Elias, from the prayer associated with it, that God might send this prophet to prepare for the coming of the Messianic Kingdom.

Finally, there took place what was known as the great blessing of the table. Strangers, women, and minors were not allowed to be present for this ceremony,—an exclusion which may have suggested the dismissal of the Catechumens from participation in the early Canon. In the great blessing, as we have learned from the account in the Didache, God was thanked for food and drink and for the land of Palestine. He was besought to have mercy upon Jerusalem. Finally, a prayer was offered that He might send the Prophet Elias, and the days of the Messiah. Hereupon the reserved bread and the reserved cup of " Elias " were given to all the guests.

The kinship of the early Canon in the Didache with the ritual of those festive meals is apparent. Wine, according to Shammai, had to be blessed first; so was it with the wine in the Didache Canon. At the Sabbath meals the wine was blessed with a certain formula: the wine, according to the Didache, was blessed with one exactly similar. The finish of the great table-blessing associated with those meals assumed an eschatological character, referring to the advent of the Messianic Kingdom; so, according to the Didache, did the Eucharistic thanksgiving following the meal.

Since, according to the Didache, wine was to be blessed first, I prefer to hold, with Zahn, 3 against the common opinion, that the first thanksgiving in this document was prescribed for the feast of the Agape. It would be, then, intelligible why the wine should be blessed first,—it would be merely a continuance of the rule of Shammai. Why the wine should be blessed before the bread, is hardly intelligible on the hypothesis that there is question of the Eucharist in the first part of the Didache liturgy (see end of ch. ix.). Is not the New Testament account of the Eucharistic institution in favour of placing the blessing of the bread first in order ? After this thanksgiving was pronounced over the elements for the Agape, they were freely consumed, for the words of the Didache, 4 " After being satisfied," are not so well understood of the Eucharist. After the Agape, there was a Eucharistic thanksgiving which corresponded to the great table blessing in connection with the reserved bread and the reserved cup of Elias. The Words of Institution are omitted, for in the beginning of this account the author of the Didache states that his purpose was to give formulas of thanksgiving. 5 After this second thanksgiving, in the period of the composition of the Didache, the Eucharistic Bread and Cup may be presumed to be administered just as the " reserved bread and cup " were, last of all, handed round in the Jewish festive meals.

Having seen that there is some kinship between the early Canon and the Passover and other festive Jewish meals, it may be enquired whether there was a derivation of the Canon from either of those sources. At any rate, the striking similarity shows that there is a Jewish origin for some portion of the early Canon. This is the important matter. It is a question of less significance whether the Canon was derived precisely from the Passover, or from the Sabbath ritual, or from that of other feast days. For the Passover, being a feast, had a ritual which was essentially the same as that for the other festivals. The only difference was, that in the Passover you had the singing of the Hallel and the drinking of four cups of wine.

The antecedent probability that the Christian Liturgy would borrow something from the Passover Ritual of the Last Supper is not entirely shaken by Drews' adverse criticism. Besides, early Liturgies, in giving thanks for the general works of creation, seem to resemble the contents of the Hallel of the Passover ritual. The Liturgy does seem to have been borrowed in part directly from the Passover. At the same time, it must be admitted that the early Christians seem to have before their minds, to a greater extent, the exemplar of the ritual of the ordinary Sabbath meal. The Passover was an annual feast. The Eucharist was a frequent observance; it was celebrated in a simple manner in private houses. The Jews, who to a great extent swelled the ranks of the early Christians, would not think it congruous, in their frequent Eucharistic celebration, to entirely copy the model of a yearly observance. In those simple gatherings, the Jews had more directly before their minds the Sabbath meal. It is likely, therefore, that the Eucharistic liturgy was modelled, to some extent, on the Passover ritual, but, to a greater extent, on the ritual of the Sabbath meal. Since, however, these two were substantially the same in forms of thanksgiving, any reflex of the one would contain some similarity to the other. To imitate the one was, indirectly, to imitate the other. Hence, the criticism directed by Drews against Bickell's position is not of very great importance. It is only a question of deciding which ritual was, directly, before the minds of the early Christians in shaping their liturgy, and I have leaned to the opinion, that the ritual of the Sabbath meal was so to a greater extent than that of the annual Passover.

It must also be remembered that, whether the Christian Liturgy was borrowed from the Passover or from other sources, it was modelled on them only to a minor extent. It is only in what is at present known as the Preface, that a resemblance to the Passover is pointed out. This is but a small portion of the present developed Liturgy. True it is that the early Preface was very lengthy, as is asserted by Justin and may be known from later Liturgies, as the Clementine. But the main part of the Eucharistic celebration concerned a new event, which could not be adequately described by any existing formulas. Consequently, the Christians had to invent formulas which evolved from a small germ into the copious Liturgy of to-day, containing but few traces of borrowing, and as original as it is sublime.

1 Bickell, Messe und Pascha.

2 Realenzyk. fur Prot. Theologie. Art, Eucharistie, 3 Aufl. v. 563.

3 Forschunyen zur Gesch. des neutest. Kanons in., 293 ff.

4 See Ch. ix., x.

5 "Concerning the thanksgiving," Ch. ix.

The Mass In The Infant Church By Rev Garrett Pierse Part 15.

CHAPTER IX. The Liturgy. Part 3.

The following scheme will give the outlines of the liturgy of our period, as far as it has been here reconstructed through the writings of Justin and other sources.

Next will follow a scheme which will show the kinship of the^present Roman Canon with the literature of our period. I have avoided reference to resemblances which are fanciful, as well as to similarities which are based on commonly diffused ideas and indicate no special relationship. The diagram will have the advantage of showing that the present Roman Canon has struck its roots in very early thought. Likely, the Roman liturgy was not derived, in most instances, from this early literature ; both seem to have been borrowed from the same ancient fund of ideas.

Kinship of the Roman Canon with the Literature of the Period Reviewed. 1

The Derivation of the Liturgy

The origin of the Christian liturgy has given rise to considerable discussion. Many theories have been proposed, and the end of theorising is not yet. Some of these speculations have gained at least a partial success ; and a considerable amount of certainty has been attained in regard to the derivation of at least a portion of the Liturgy. A view which represented, in its raw state, the theorising in regard to the Christian liturgy was that of the Dutch writer, Vitringa. 2 He held that the discipline and ritual of the Christian Church were borrowed directly from the Jewish Synagogue, not from the Temple. Dr. G. Bickell, a Catholic author, entered into a compromise with Vitringa 3 According to Bickell the pre-Anaphoral Liturgy or the Mass of the Catechumens was borrowed from the Jewish Sabbath morning Service, while the Anaphoral portion, or the Mass of the Faithful, was derived from the Passover Ritual.

Just as Hatch maintained a pagan origin for the threefold hierarchy of the early Church, so he asserted that the Christian liturgy was borrowed from the Eleusinian rites. 4 The last theory has least intrinsic support, although a pagan origin of essential portions of Christianity gets a good deal of extrinsic support from the a priori speculations, not of the sinning scholastics, but of the present-day German rationalists. The undoubted resemblance between the Christian ritual and the Pagan rites is not a new discovery. Justin Martyr noticed it in his far-off days and explained it by saying that it was Paganism that borrowed from Christianity. "The same thing (i.e., the Eucharist") he writes, " the evil demons imitated in the mysteries of Mithra." 5 Tertullian noticed the same phenomenon, and gives a similar explanation. 1 Mithra," he writes, " celebrates, also, an oblation of bread." 6

Of course, these are but assertions of Justin and Tertullian, unsupported by proof, but they deserve as much attention as the statement of Dr. Hatch, which is equally devoid of decisive evidence. One may also say that a common human nature may inspire common ideas of ritual, so that there may be no necessity of deriving the Pagan ritual from the Christian.

The question of derivation from the Jewish ritual is a more serious one. We shall see if Dr. Bickeli is justified in conceding to Vitringa, that, at least, the pre-Anaphoral part of the Mass, or the Mass of the Catechumens, is borrowed from the Jewish Sabbath morning Service.

We know the Jewish ritual through the collection of Jewish literature known as the Talmud. The portion of this known as the Mischna is very ancient, dating back to the second century, and containing, presumably, many records of a much earlier period. The Mischna, then, will give a good idea of the Jewish Sabbath morning Service at the introduction of Christianity. The chief parts were :—(1) The Shema, beginning with " Blessed " ; (2) Prayer; (3) Reading of the Thora, or "the Law"; (4) Reading of the Prophets ; (5) The blessing, followed by a translation of the lessons from the Hebrew into Aremaic, and by a discourse on the subjects read.

The prayer, known as the Kadish, was also part of the morning Service of the ancient Synagogue. It contains the following:—" Exalted and hallowed be His great name Let His Kingdom come in your lifetime and in the lifetime of the whole House of Israel very speedily." One will notice at once the striking resemblance of this prayer to two petitions in the " Our Father."

Unlike the worship in the Temple, Psalms did not form a prominent feature of the old Synagogue Service. Its object was instruction, rather than adoration. In the following table will be seen a comparison between the Synagogue Service and the early liturgy corresponding to the Mass of the Catechumens. The part of the Christian liturgy corresponding to the Synagogue Service—a Service mainly catechetical— was fittingly attended by Catechumens —

The similarity between the pre-Anaphoral part of the Mass and the Sabbath Service is so striking as to suggest forcibly that the resemblance does not arise from mere coincidence, or from community of liturgical aspirations in the human race. The very early Christians were, mainly, Jews, and could not at once create a liturgy. Besides, Christianity preserved and perfected the many noble elements in Judaism ; the Christian had as much regard for the Old Testament as the Jew himself; Christian and Jew were indebted to the Psalms for their sublimest prayers. One of the most striking facts in confirming this theory of derivation, one that gives it still greater certainty, is the similarity between the course of Scripture prescribed for the Synagogue, and the course of homilies in Origen's writings. The Paraschioth is the course of Jewish readings. Origen's homilies entirely correspond, even in order, with the Paraschioth, as the painstaking compilers of the Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgica 7 illustrate. These homilies plainly presuppose that, before their delivery, all the Old Testament Scriptures were read in turn in the Masses throughout the year. This practice was curtailed by the introduction of the New Testament writings, and the abridgement of the Eucharistic Service.

We come next to the Anaphoral part of the Mass ? or the portion dealing with the offering of the Eucharistic Elements. Bickell, unlike Vitringa, held that it was derived from the Passover feast. There was some antecedent likelihood for this view. Christ in instituting the Eucharist celebrated the Passover. He commanded His disciples to do this thing which He had done. For some time the disciples celebrated a supper in conjunction with the Eucharist. Hence it seemed likely that not only should the Eucharist be modelled on Christ's action, but that, in so doing, one could not entirely break away from the Passover ritual, to which the Last Supper was intimately bound.

This may be the proper place to recall the main features of the Passover. All the guests reclined. A cup of red wine, mingled with water, was drunk after a blessing by the head of the family. This was followed by a washing of hands. Then, along with the Paschal lamb and unleavened bread, there was the mixed dish, composed of various ingredients such as dates and raisins, and exhibiting the consistency of lime, to remind the guests of the Egyptian lime, with which their fathers drudgingly worked. After this the story of the deliverance from Egyptian bondage was told by the youngest son.

The Hallel, or Hallelujah, was now begun to be sung. It consisted of Psalms 112-117 (Vulgate), which were called the Egyptian Hallel, and of Psalm 135 (Vulgate), which was called the great Hallel. At this precise point of the meal, only Psalms 112 and 113 were sung. They were introduced by a formula resembling the Preface of the Mass : " Therefore it is our bounden duty to thank, praise, exalt, glorify, extol and celebrate Him, who has done all these things for our fathers and for us."

A second cup was now drunk, and it was, likewise, followed by a washing of hands. A third cup was taken, and grace after meals was recited. The fourth cup was next prepared, and before it was taken the remainder of the Hallel (Psalms 114-117, Vulgate), was chanted. Psalm 135 (Vulgate) was sung at the conclusion of the feast It is assumed as likely that Christ made the fourth cup the Eucharistic one, the "cup of benediction."

As we learn from St. Luke, Christ in taking the bread and cup for the purpose of the Eucharist " gave thanks." It is likely that the " giving of thanks," here laconically described, included a long formula of blessing, directed to the bread and the cup. It is likely that it included portion of the Hallel Psalms, as the "hymn" recited before departure from the supper room seems to have been the concluding portion of the Hallel (Ps. 135 Vulgate). "The prayer of the Word proceeding from Him," which we met in Justin, may mean much more than the Words of Institution ; it may mean the words of thanksgiving, which were used to bless the Elements, and which were likely copied by the disciples. It is significant, too, that Psalm 115 (Vulgate) of the Hallel should be partially retained in the Roman rite at the reception of the chalice— " What return shall I make to the Lord for all He has given to me ? "

We shall now see if this antecedent probability, that the Christian liturgy is borrowed from the Passover, is justified by the facts. Let us consider the outlines of the Liturgy, as we find them in this early period. They, surely, had something in common with the Canon which is found in the early document known as the Didache, and which, from its reference to the early order of "prophets," and from other considerations, is concluded to belong to the end of the first century. The Didache Canon has the advantage of presenting the Christian liturgy in its initial stage, and so gives a better opportunity of determining its origin. A comparison between the Didache Canon and the Passover, in parallel columns, will enable the reader to determine their mutual relationship, which, however, does not necessarily imply any derivation of one from the other, since both might have been borrowed from a common source.

1 Cf. also scheme in scholarly work, Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgica. LXXXIV. Cabrol et Leclerque.

2 De Synagoga Vet.

3 Messe und Pascha.

4 Hibb. Lectures for 1888.

5 Apol, I., 66.

6 De Praescript, xv.

7 p.xxiii.

The Mass In The Infant Church By Rev Garrett Pierse Part 6.

Chapter IV

The East and a Strict Sacrifice— (Continued).

Origen

Strange as it may seem, the great Alexandrian theologian, Origen, does but apply and extend the main principles of his teacher, Clement, just as the latter professes to be indebted for his intellectual system to some predecessors. The philosophical method, the allegorising principle of exegesis, the Discipline of the Secret, all so familiar in Clement's writings, meet us, like old acquaintances, in the pages of Origen. Because of the undefined character of certain doctrines since made clear, Origen was betrayed into some errors. Some baseless speculations of his singularly free mind were not the result of rashness, as is abundantly testified by his consciousness of his, absolutely speaking, limited theological researches, 1 his implicit belief in the clear points of the Creed, 2 his reverence for Tradition manifested in his secrecy about the Eucharistic mysteries.

Applying to Scriptural exegesis the philosophical principle of Plato concerning the three elements in man—body, soul, and spirit,—he distinguished a material, an animal, and a spiritual sense. In practice a two-fold distinction alone was used by Origen—the material or literal, and the spiritual or allegorical sense. According to him all things in Scripture bore a hidden, allegorical sense, but some matters, even in the Gospels, could not bear a literal sense, for, from a close examination even of separate words, he thought he was justified in concluding that certain things, taken in the literal sense, were impossible or irrational. 3 Fortunately he did not apply the latter principle to the texts bearing on the Eucharist. But he included in the Eucharistic texts an allegorical sense which he conceived to be higher, and apparently, more valuable. He asserts that "this Bread and Wine maybe understood by the simple people according to the received interpretation in the subject of the Eucharist, but those who have learned to listen more closely will understand according to the more Divine promise of the Word which nourishes us with the truth." 4 Origen, accordingly, compares the Scriptures to a field containing a hidden treasure; as the surface of the field contains all manners of common grasses, while beneath one might find the more valuable deposit of gold or jewels, so too was it the business of more profound minds to penetrate beneath the superficial sense to the deeper meaning. It was their duty to see in the material type the spiritual antitype. 5 But, it will be seen, this higher knowledge did not of necessity exclude the more simple.

The Discipline of the Secret sometimes made Origen obscure when speaking in the presence even of Church congregations, and as his spoken homilies were afterwards printed, they exhibit some vagueness, containing merely a hint or fragment of his whole doctrine. He says that the more secret things are passed over in silence when the hearers appear to be unsophisticated and to have need of doctrinal milk. 6 Even in those written hints of the Eucharist, we can with perfect safety read between the lines the doctrine of a strict sacrifice of the Eucharist.

Strict Sacrifice.

" Again, Celsus," Origen writes, " wishes us to be thankful to these demons, imagining that we owe them thanks-offerings.  . . . And we have a symbol of gratitude to God in the Bread which we call the Eucharist." 7

Again, " For you who are joined to the Lord, to Jesus Christ, the true High Priest, who by His blood has recovered for you the grace of God, and has reconciled you to the Father, do not hold on any longer to the blood of sacrificed animals, but recognise the blood of the Word, and hear Him saying : ' This is My blood which is shed for you unto the remission of sins '; however, he that is initiated knows already the body and blood of the Word. We do not long dwell on what is known sufficiently by those who know and cannot be explained to those who do not know." 8

Also, " As for us who return thanks to the Creator of all things, we eat the breads which are offered with prayers and thanksgivings, because we have received these breads which by prayer become a holy body which sanctifies those who receive it with a pure heart." 9

The only difficulty here is to show that Origen speaks of a sacrifice of the Eucharist in the strict and material sense. Now, in the first passage, in the very context where his opponent, Celsus, is speaking of the necessity of offering literal sacrifices, Origen speaks of the Eucharist as also a symbol of thanksgiving to God, Who is superior to angels. If we couple this statement with that in the last-quoted passage, it will be evident that the Bread forms an offering of thanksgiving—a thanks-offering. But, perhaps, to Origen's allegorising mind it is only a purely spiritual offering of prayer or the like. That it cannot be a purely spiritual offering, however, is evident from the fact that the Eucharist is called a symbol. What else can a symbol be but a visible, material sign ? The Eucharist, therefore, is not a purely spiritual but a material and visible offering.

Besides, that Origen regarded the Eucharist as a sacrifice in a literal and material sense is clear from the last-quoted passage alone. He speaks of breads offered, which became a holy body. Surely, breads offered constitute a visible, palpable offering. Nor could a merely spiritual offering, a subjective sacrifice, a creation of the mind, be said with any propriety to become a " holy body." "Holy body" is a cryptic expression of Origen when influenced by the Discipline of the Secret, and means the holy body of the Lord.

In the remaining passage, or the second passage above cited, Origen speaks of the repudiation of the blood of sacrificed animals, and, at once, directs the Christian to the blood of the Word, shed unto the remission of sins. Surely, therefore, that blood is sacrificial. But where ? In the Cross alone, or in the Eucharist also ? In the Eucharist, for Origen says that the initiated know already the body and blood of the Lord, while the uninitiated are to be kept in ignorance. Why should the Discipline of the Secret show its influence here, unless Origen is speaking of the sacrificial nature of the real blood of Christ in the august Sacrament of the Eucharist itself. He has written numerous discourses on purely spiritual interpretations, and here he is unusually secret. The only reasonable explanation is the one given.

Hence, the elements of the Eucharist are sacrificial even as early as Origen's epoch. The unconsecrated bread is explicitly said to be part of the offering or. sacrifice; the Consecrated Wine or blood of Christ appears, from what has been said, to be expressly believed by Origen to be sacrificial and to be the term of the offering. Lest it may be said that Origen did not believe in the real presence of Christ's blood, lest he may be thought to believe in pure symbolism in the doctrine of the Eucharist, I shall consider what, in other passages, is at least implied as the thing offered.

The Object Offered.

"I wish," Origen writes, " to admonish you with examples drawn from your religion: you who are wont to be present at the Divine mysteries know how, when you have received the body of the Lord, you guard it with all care and reverence lest any small part should fall therefrom, lest some part of the consecrated gift should fall down. For you believe yourself guilty, and rightly so, if any part should fall therefrom through your; negligence." 10

Again, " we are said to drink the blood of Christ, not alone in the rite of the mysteries, 11 but also when we receive His discourses in which consists life, just as He himself says : ' The words I have spoken are spirit and life."' 12

But he writes : " That bread with which the Divine Word declared His body to be identical is the word nourishing souls, the word proceeding from the Divine Word, and the bread proceeding from the Heavenly Bread. . . And the drink with which the Divine Word declared His blood to be identical, is the word which saturates and wonderfully inebriates the hearts of the drinkers. . . . For the Divine Word did not declare His body to be that visible bread which he held in His hands, but (He declared it to be rather) the word in whose mystery that bread was to be broken. Nor did He declare His blood to be that visible drink, but (rather) the word in whose mystery that drink was to be poured out. For what else can the body or blood of the Divine Word be but the word that nourishes and the word that gladdens the heart." 13

It will be made clear from a close examination of these passages of Origen that his exegesis of the Eucharistic texts included a literal as well as an allegorical interpretation, that he was in the matter of the Eucharist a realist as well as a symbolist. It will be also remembered how, in a passage quoted much earlier, he declared the offered breads to be a " holy body." How can this "holy body'' be taken in a merely spiritual signification ? In the present texts Origen appeals to the practice of the faithful, how they prevent with all scrupulousness and reverence any part of the consecrated gift from falling to the ground. Origen does not merely mention their faith ; he endorses it, saying that they rightly believe in their positive guiltiness, if a particle falls through negligence. If there is no Real Presence, if the Eucharist is to be taken in a purely symbolic sense, why such scrupulousness concerning this pure symbol ? Why a sense of guilt in the case of irreverence towards a particle ?

It has been already remarked how Origen pauses, and becomes silent concerning certain aspects of the Eucharist, though he is diffuse in speaking of its symbolic interpretation, for example, in the sense of doctrine. Why should there be this observance of the Discipline of the Secret, unless there was a literal acceptation of the Eucharist, which might be exposed to profanation ?

Accordingly, Origen, in the second passage quoted, shows expressly that he includes the literal acceptation; he says that the blood of Christ is drunk not merely in the sacramental rite, but also when His doctrine is received. There is a drinking of the blood of Christ, not merely mental but corporal.

To this it may be objected, from the third passage quoted, that he speaks exclusively of the symbolical sense of the Eucharist, that he declares that Christ did not equate His body with the visible bread which He held in His hands : Nan enim pattern ilium visibilem quern tenebat in manibus corpus suum dicebat Deus Verbum. Before we can intelligently solve this apparent contradiction in Origen—his inclusion of the literal sense in one place and his apparent exclusion of it in another—we must state that Origen was so far inaccurate as to believe in the remaining of the bread after the Consecration. He says that " even the food consecrated by the word of God and prayer, according to its material element, goes into the belly and is cast into the privy." 14 Here Origen cannot reasonably be interpreted as meaning the species or material appearances of the Sacrament. For how could appearances be cast into the privy ? You may say that it is a new substance supervening which is cast forth. But Origen does not give so neat a distinction, but speaks of the material element of the consecrated food as completely following the ordinary process of digestion.

Now, in the difficult passage quoted, Origen is commenting on the very texts dealing with the institution of the Eucharist. He conceived, according to what has been said, the bread as remaining after the Consecration. If this is remembered, there is no difficulty. Origen, then, says that Christ did not declare His body to be visible, substantial bread, which He held in His hands. What then ? He declared it to be the word proceeding from the Divine Word, or doctrine. He declared His body to be this metaphorical bread. He declared His blood to be, not the visible substantial wine, but the doctrine which gladdens the heart. Origen is but repeating the teaching of his master, Clement, who has been quoted as declaring, even in a passage devoted to the Eucharist, that the word is metaphorically wine or the holy stream of gladness. 15

We are justified in construing the body and blood of Christ as subjects and not the predicates of the clause. For the Latin sentence last quoted will show plainly that these are meant to be the subjects of the discourse. It is only if bread were the subject and the body of Christ the predicate, it is only if it were meant that Christ did not declare the visible bread to be His body —it is only then there would be a serious difficulty against the Real Presence ; only then, with any show of reason, could it be said that Origen here speaks of the Eucharist in an exclusively symbolical sense. But such a mode of translating the text of Origen, as it has come down to us in Latin, is seen to be inadmissible.

It is fortunate that Origen is singularly explicit about one effect of this oblation containing the real body and blood of Christ—its propitiatory effect. His development of this aspect of the Eucharist is an added proof of his belief in its sacrificial character. Other writers, before his time, may express themselves merely on the propitiatory effect wrought by subjective dispositions, for example, by prayer and a good life. Irenaeus, for instance, may only say that the mind of the giver hallows the gift. But it is a special development in Origen's teaching—his giving a propitiatory value to the objective Eucharistic commemoration.

Propitiatory Effect of the  Sacrifice.

" But if these things (the twelve loaves of proposition) " he writes, " are referred to their great mystic signification, you  will find that that commemoration, (mystically understood) has the effect of a mighty propitiation. If you return to that Bread which comes down from heaven and gives life to this world: that Bread of Proposition, which God set forth as a propitiation in His blood through faith ; and if you look to that commemoration, about which the Lord says : ' Do this in commemoration of Me,' you will find that that is the only commemoration which makes God propitious to men. If therefore you recall more intently the Church mysteries you will see in what is written by the Law an image formed beforehand of the future truth. But about these things we must not discourse further, since the matter can be understood by a mere mention thereof." 16

Origen, in the context, proposes to give the antitype of the twelve showbreads, or loaves of proposition, mentioned in Leviticus. 17 These breads, which were ordered to be set forth on a most clean table, which were called a commemoration of the " oblation of the Lord," which were to be renewed every Sabbath, which were received from the children of Israel according to an "everlasting covenant," which were eaten only in the Holy Place, and by Aaron and his sons alone, which were called the most holy of the sacrifices—these, it can be seen, had many aspects which rightly recalled to Origen's mind the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

He represented their literal meaning as comparatively insignificant. But taken in the mystic sense, they, or rather their antitype, must be held to have the effect of an " immense propitiation." The antitype, however, is a rather multiple object : it is the Bread which comes down from heaven and gives the life of grace to the world (note the present tense suggesting the continued descent in the Eucharist); it is the Bread which God set forth as a propitiation in His blood, evidently on the Cross; it is the commemorative act which was ordered by the words : " Do this in remembrance of Me."

In the description of the antitype, the mention of the commemoration contained in the Eucharist, immediately after the reference to the sacrifice of the Cross, suggests at once to any careful observer that Origen regarded the Eucharist as a commemoration of the offering on Calvary, as, to use St. Paul's word, "a showing forth of the death of the Lord." 18

Speaking of the Eucharist, he says that this mystery, the objective thing, namely, is the only commemoration which makes God propitious to humanity. But, surely, he must not be forgetting the sacrifice of the Cross, to which he had just referred. Was not that, too, an extraordinary work of propitiation ? Yes, but it was not a commemoration, and its atoning efficacy, therefore, is not excluded.

Origen is not new in the development of the idea that the Eucharist is a commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross. But he was new in explicitly mentioning the sacrificial character of the Consecrated Elements, of the Saviour's body and blood really present, as I endeavoured to show already. His singular service in, at least, the expression of the doctrine is his teaching that the objective Eucharistic commemoration was propitiatory, was, indeed, the propitiatory instrument par excellence. These teachings that there is an offering of the Divine Victim really present, that the Eucharist is a representation of the death of Christ, that it has a propitiatory effect, that it is a strict sacrifice, contain the essence of the present-day Catholic definitions on the Mass.

1 See: " On the Inspiration of Scripture.''

2 Be Principiis, Preface.

3 See " On the Inspiration of Scripture."

4 In Joann. Comment xxxii. 24.

5 See : " On the Inspiration of Scripture."

6 Contra Celsum, iii. 52.

7 Ibid., vii., 57.

8 Hom. In Levit, ix., n. 1C.

9 In Levit, Hom. 13, p. 176.

10 In Exod. Horn. xiii. 3, 

11 Non solum sacramentorum ritu.

12 In Num, Horn, xt, N. 9. See also Horn, xvi,

13 Panis iste quern Deus Verbum corpus suum esse fatetur, verburu est nutritorium animarum, verbum de Deo Verbo procedens, et panis de pane coelesti. Et potus quern Deus Verbum sanguinem suum fatetur, verbum est potans et inebrians praeclare cordabibentiurr..

Non enim panem ilium visibilem quern tenebat in manibus, corpus suum dicebat Deus Verbum, sed verbum in cujus mysterio fuerat panis ille fraugendus. Nee potum ilium visibilem sanguimem suum dicebat, sed verbum in cujus mysterio potus ille fuerat effun dendus. Nam corpus Dei Verbiaut sanguis, quid aliud esse potest nisi verbum quod nutrit et verbum quod laetificat cor. (In Mat. Comment Series 85).

14 Libri in Matt. M, P. G. t xiii,, col. 949, note 37.

15 Paed ii. 2.

16 In Levit. Hom. xiii. 3. 

17 Ch, xxiv.

18 1. Cor. xi.

The Mass In The Infant Church By Rev Garrett Pierse Part 5.

CHAPTER III. Pt.3

Character of Sacrifices

" For the sacrifice of the Church is the word breathing as incense from holy souls, the sacrifice and the whole mind being, at the same time unveiled to God. Now the very ancient altar in Delos they celebrated as holy; which alone, being undefiled by slaughter and death, they say Pythagoras approached. And will they not believe us when we say that the righteous soul is alone the truly sacred altan and that incense arising from it is holy prayer ? But I believe sacrifices were invented by men to be a pretext for eating flesh." 1

"We do not therefore, and with reason, sacrifice to Him, who is not overcome by pleasure, since the fumes of smoke stop far beneath and do not reach even the thickest clouds." 2

" And those destitute of prudence, that is, those involved in heresies ' I enjoin,' remarks Wisdom, 'touch sweetly stolen bread and the sweet waters of theft,' the Scriptures manifestly applying the terms bread and water to nothing else but to those heresies which employ bread and water in the oblation, not according to the rule of the Church." 3

"For Salem is, when interpreted, peace ; of which our Saviour is enrolled King, as Moses speaks of Melchisedech, King of Salem, priest of the most high God, who gave bread and wine, consecrated food, for a type of the Eucharist." 4

In the first of those passages, we find an emphasis placed on spiritual sacrifices, a feature which was prominent too in the testimonies of Justin and Irenaeus. Seeing that Clement through his system of exegesis looks for the spiritual sense as the highest, it is natural that he should regard prayer and righteousness even as the " best and holiest sacrifice." 5 He is arguing in this context against the gross doctrine according to which the Deity was supposed to stand in need of sacrifice. Consequently, he emphasizes its more refined spiritual character. But from the fact that he declares prayer and righteousness to be the best sacrifice, is it fair to suppose that sensible sacrifices are entirely excluded? The conclusion is not warranted. The material creation, in Clement's idea, is a type of the spiritual, and is inferior thereto. Are material things, therefore, of no account ? The very fact that they body forth the spiritual shows their undoubted utility. From the fact that Clement declares the spiritual sacrifice of prayer to be better than the material sacrifices of Paganism and Judaism, or—as he may reasonably be interpreted—to be the best absolutely, better than a visible sacrifice of the Eucharist without devotion, it cannot be concluded that he could not admit at the same time the latter sacrifice in its proper place of subordination. From the point of view of personal sanctification—and Clement speaks in the context of the " holiest" sacrifice—prayer and a righteous mind seemed to this Father, perhaps, to be superior even to an external sacrifice of the Eucharist, which might be offered by a sinner, and which exists for the sake of subjective righteousness.

In another passage just quoted, Clement makes the statement that the Christians do not sacrifice. The words, already discussed, of Athenagoras—" as to our not sacrificing"—are strikingly similar to those of Clement. But from the context it seems that Clement had either Jew is/i or pagan sacrifices before his mind. For he speaks of the inutility of sacrifices, since the fumes of smoke, arising from the burnt-sacrifices, fail to reach even the clouds. His words, therefore, safely warrant only the conclusion that the Christians did not sacrifice in such wise. But may it be that the verb or concept " sacrificing" was excluded by Clement from the Eucharist ? No ; for this would flagrantly contradict what he teaches elsewhere. We have, in the remaining passages cited, positive indications of his admission of a sacrifice in a material sense. He admits sacrifices in a strict as well as in a loose sense. He speaks of heretics using bread and water in the oblation, and, showing his reverence for the ruling of the Church, speculative as was his mind, he protests that this was against her canon. Evidently he teaches an oblation of bread and wine, which was of such importance as to be a matter for the canons of the Church. Coming from a teacher who, owing to his professed love of the Discipline of the Secret, gives only obscure suggestions of dogmatic matters, this is a strong indication, generating moral certainty, that he believed in a visible and strict sacrifice in the Eucharist. Surely, an oblation of bread and wine does not mean a purely spiritual sacrifice; it is a rite sufficiently external. Nor can it be said that this oblation may consist merely of the offerings of the faithful, and may not be an offering to God. Why, unless it be a religious offering to God, is it of such paramount importance as to be a matter for the ruling of the Church, a matter in which heretics are seen to openly break with the Church ? The "bread and wine" must be regarded as objective, sacrificial gifts.

The very fact that the Eucharist is called an "oblation" shows that it is not merely the eating of a victim, offered and sacrificed on the Cross, but that there is a continued offering of the Christian sacrifice.

That the Eucharist, to Clement's mind, was a sacrifice with a visible and external rite is implied by the passage where he introduces Melchisedech. Melchisedech, high priest, King of Salem, is set down as a type of Christ, King of Peace or Salem ; and the giving of bread and wine on the part of the former is a type of the Eucharist introduced by the Lord. Does not this imply that the Eucharist was to Clement's mind a sacrificial offering just as was that of Melchisedech, especially since it is known from another passage that Clement regarded the Eucharistic bread and wine as an oblation ? Always it must be borne in mind that, owing to his observance of the Discipline of the Secret, Clement may be suspected to mean more than appears on the surface. Another question is what is the object offered, what is meant by the " bread and wine" which enter into the constitution of the offering ?

The Object Sacrificed.

" And," Clement writes, " the mixture of both— of the drink and of the Word— is called Eucharist, renowned and  glorious grace." Again, " For rest assured He Himself also partook of wine for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying: ' Take, drink, this is My blood,' the blood of the Word. He figuratively calls the Word, ' poured out for many unto the remission of sins '— the holy stream of gladness. . . . And that it was wine which was the thing blessed. He showed again, when He said to his disciples: ' I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father." 6 Again, " Meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the Divine power and essence. ' Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,' it is said. For so He imparts Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner." 7

That the oblation of bread and wine, to Clement's mind, included an offering of the Word really present can be reasonably concluded from the passage first quoted. The Eucharist, the very oblation about which we have already learned from the same Father, is a mixture of the Word and the drink. Here Clement cannot be allegorising; it would be absurd to speak, for example, of a mixture of mere doctrine and drink. There must be question, rather, of the presence of the body and blood and Divinity of the Logos.

While the term " mixture " gives unmistakable evidence of Clement's accuracy regarding the Real Presence, it suggests at the same time his inaccuracy regarding the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The mixture of the drink and the Word naturally invites us to think that Clement contemplates in the Eucharist a combination of the Son of God and the elements of wine and water. It may be said that drink, in the passage, meant to Clement's mind the water alone, which had been mixed with the wine, and which he may have supposed to remain after the wine itself was converted into the blood of Christ. But even this over-subtle interpretation will not absolve Clement from some crudity in conceiving the Eucharistic doctrine; even in this explanation there would be conceived by Clement a mixture of the Word and water.

It is not a matter for surprise that Clement, speculative inquirer as he was, and living at a time when controversies about more primary doctrines postponed definite developments concerning certain aspects of the Eucharist, should have exhibited some inaccuracy concerning the mode in which Christ becomes really present in the Sacrament.

It is noteworthy, too, that in some of the last passages cited he takes also in an allegorical sense the body and blood of Christ. Interpreting the text about the institution of the Sacrament, he states that the Word is typically called the holy stream of gladness. This means most probably that the Word is, metaphorically speaking, wine. Moreover, in the last passage quoted he interprets the flesh and blood of Christ as the food of mystical contemplation. Here he probably has before his mind an allegorical interpretation of the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel, for, in another context, 8 he expressly gives a metaphorical sense to the eating of the flesh and blood of the Lord. But that he does not understand the eating of the body and blood of Christ in an exclusively spiritual sense is concluded not merely from the hint that mystical contemplation is the tasting of the Lord in a "more spiritual" manner, but from the evident fact that he has spoken of the Eucharist as a mixing of the Word and drink, which must be taken in a literal sense.

The object offered is not said in express words to be the body and blood of Christ. But this is implied in his writings, not merely in such a manner as that it may be concluded by his successors, but in such a fashion as to make it probable that his statements were understood in his own mind to mean an offering of the Logos, if not alone, at least amongst other things, namely, the bread and wine ; for he speaks of the Eucharist as an oblation, and understands the Eucharist to be a mixing of the Logos and drink.

Clement does not give expression to any thoughts concerning the objective propitiatory value of sacrifices. " And neither by sacrifices nor offerings, nor on the other hand by glory and honour, is the Deity won over, but He appears only to excellent and good men who will never betray justice for fear nor for great gifts." 9 ' Consistently with Clement's spiritual message, with his emphasis on the spiritual sense as the most important, he speaks here of a subjective propitiation The most important matter is a righteous disposition, a stainless conscience, a good life. He even discards the mere paying of honour and glory to God, which, in the case of a sinner, is a kind of flattery that does not win over God. Thus Clement's religion is not a religion of the heart alone but of the heart and hand—he requires a good life. And just as the fact of Clement's saying that God is not won over by glory and honour does not exclude all value from these actions, so too the fact that he says God is not won over by sacrifices does not necessarily exclude all value from the objective sacrifice itself. What is stated is that sacrifices do not of themselves put a person in the state of grace.

1 Str. vii. c. 6.

2 Ibid. vii. 3.

3 Ibid. i. 19.

4 Str. iv. 25.

5 Ibid. vii. c 6.

6 Paed. ii. 2.

7 Str. v. c. 10.

8 Paed., i. 6.

9 Str , vii., 3.

The Mass In The Infant Church By Rev Garrett Pierse Part 3

CHAPTER III. Pt.1

Roman Catacombs

The East and a Strict Sacrifice.

Appreciation  of Irenaeus as a Witness. 

The emphasis on the subjective side of sacrifices, so prominent in the writers just considered, is repeated by Irenaeus,(flourished A.D. 177.) Though he visited Rome, and became, later on, Bishop of Lyons, having been reared in Asia Minor he was a representative of the East rather than of the West. As he testified to having seen Poly carp, the disciple of John the Apostle, he is not far removed from the Apostolic era. Of special value in indicating that his doctrine was that of the Church, his was a strikingly conservative mind which relied on Tradition alone, which regarded the tenets of Gnosticism—then the religious philosophy of the world— as " old wives' tales," and which, unlike the genius of Clement and of Origen, was unwilling to make any compromise with the science of the day owing to his over-exclusive attention to its baseless speculations. Notwithstanding, he is an intelligent witness of doctrine, displaying in his treatise against heresies rare skill in exactly comprehending his opponents' positions, in tracing them back to old forms of error, in recognising novelties of doctrine under the cloak of Catholic terminology, and in showing up inconsistencies. His object in treating of sacrifices is to combat the Gnostic doctrine that there is a different author for the Old and the New Testament, by showing that, in particular, the sacrificial doctrine of both is substantially the same. This purpose of Irenaeus will be seen after an impartial examination of the testimonies that may be cited for and against the doctrine of a strict sacrifice in the Eucharist.

Character of the Sacrifice

"And again," he writes, " that God needed not their sacrifice (but merely demanded it) on account of man himself who offers it, Jehovah taught distinctly." 1 "Again, giving direction to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own created things—not as if He stood in need of them but that they themselves might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful—He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, ' This is My body.' And the cup likewise, which is part of the creation to which we belong, He confesses to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant—which the Church, receiving from the Apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us the means of sustenance—the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachy . . . spoke beforehand." 2

" And the class of oblations in general has not been set aside, for there were both oblations there (among the Jews), and there are oblations here (among the Christians). Sacrifices there were among the people, sacrifices there are too in the Church, but the species alone has been changed, inasmuch as the offering is now made, not by slaves, but by free-men." 3

" Inasmuch then as the Church offers with single-mindedness, her gift is justly reckoned a pure sacrifice with God." 4

In his teaching, Irenaeus, like Justin Martyr, lays a very special stress on the spiritual aspect of sacrifice. Although it is a tendency of the human mind to conclude, because an idea is emphasized, that this alone is considered worth while, his emphasis does not mean that Irenaeus taught a purely spiritual sacrifice. As his teaching so closely resembles that of the other writers of the period, it is fortunate that he gives a full exposition of his doctrine; it is well, too, to examine it closely as it will cast much light on parallel statements of other teachers. One may fully admit the spiritual teaching concerning sacrifice, found in Irenaeus. In the context he is arguing against certain Gnostics, who, from a consideration of the material doctrines of the Old Testament, concluded that its author was the evil creator of matter, and a being different from the Father. It is natural, then, that he should be intent on one aspect of the question, namely, the spirituality of the sacrificial doctrine in both Testaments. This being his scope, it was not his duty to touch on the material side of sacrifice, and, even if he did not do so, his silence could not in all fairness be regarded as equivalent to denial; but a full examination of his testimonies will show that he also refers to the material aspect of sacrifices.

Explaining the spiritual teaching of the Old Testament, he narrates how Samuel declares that obedience is better than the fat of rams, how David says that God did not desire sacrifice but opened his ears to hear the Divine commands, that He does not delight in holocausts but in a broken and contrite spirit, that His are the beasts of the earth and the fowls of heaven, and He has no need to petition man in case of His being hungry, that He counsels man to offer the sacrifice of praise and to pay his vows to the Most High; how Isaiah declares that the multitude of Jewish sacrifices is a superfluity, that instead of these the Jews should wash away the wickedness of their hearts, cease from their evil ways, relieve the oppressed, judge the orphans, and plead for the widow, that what God chooses is to have the bonds of unjust contracts dissolved, to have bread given willingly to the hungry, to have the roofless stranger admitted, to have the naked covered, and that the result will be that the Lord will hear them even before they have finished their request. 5 Irenaeus declares that God repudiated the Jewish sacrifices in order to suggest the true sacrifice, namely, an afflicted heart, a heart magnifying its Creator; he explains how Jeremiah, also, said that incense from Saba and cinnamon from a distant country were useless, but, rather, the people should rectify their conduct, that God did not command sacrifices on their return from Egypt but the hearing of His voice for the purpose of gaining His intimate friendship, that God is pleased by loving-kindness, righteousness and justice, and not by sacrifices, holocausts, and oblations ; how Zachary declared the true will of God to be the execution of true justice, and not the oppression of the widow, the orphan, the proselyte, and the poor, nor the devising of evil against one's brother ; how Hosea said that God desired mercy rather than sacrifice, and knowledge of God rather than burnt-offerings ; how, in fine, in the New Testament, quite similarly, the Lord approved of Hosea's idea of sacrifice, quoting the prophet's words already mentioned. 6 Can Irenaeus entertain all these beautiful ideas of spiritual doctrine, and admit also a sensible sacrifice ? Can he, like Athenagoras, quote the very thought of Hosea about the superiority of the knowledge of God over mere sacrifices, and yet admit a visible sacrifice ? Fortunately, Irenaeus himself gives an express answer. He says in the passage first quoted that, though God does not need sacrifice, He seeks it for man's sake. He shows clearly that the fact that God does not need a thing does not prove its inutility. " God did not," he says, " need Adam," 7 yet Adam existed. God does not need even the love of man, yet that is required. It is sometimes said that, since Irenaeus dwells on the fact that God does not need visible sacrifices, he was conscious of some novelty and inconsistency in the doctrine of a visible sacrifice in the New Testament. As well might we argue that, because he admitted that God did not need Adam, he was conscious of some inconsistency in speaking of the existence of Adam. Irenaeus gives a true reconciliation of the independence of God and the need of sacrifices by saying that the need is based on human nature, that man is bound to be grateful, that fruitfulness is found in man by means of sacrifice since it obtains for him the privilege and glory of God's friendship.

Again, he reconciles the spirituality of the doctrine of the Old Testament with its requirement of visible sacrifices by declaring that the spiritual commands are of primary importance, the command to offer sacrifice of a secondary character. 8 That God did not, as Jeremiah said, command sacrifices on the departure of the Jews from Egypt is explained by Irenaeus to mean that He did not primarily demand these rites.

Finally, that Irenaeus did not exclude the material aspect of sacrifices is clear from his mention of the New Testament oblation in the context where he shows that the same ideas of spirituality existed in both Testaments. After giving the character of the Old Testament sacrifices, he prefaces his remarks, above quoted, about the New Testament oblation by the word " Again." Surely, this citation does not favour the idea that the Eucharistic sacrifice is one of mere prayer. Is not the offering of the Eucharistic Bread something visible ? For the same reason the citation shows that the New Testament offering is not one of mere prayer. That it is a strict sacrifice in the same generic, though not specific, sense as those of the Old Testament is expressly stated by Irenaeus himself. " Sacrifices there were there; sacrifices there are here." If it is objected that the Eucharistic sacrifice, according to Irenaeus, is merely symbolic, it is enough for us to know from himself that it is a sacrifice in the same sense as the Jewish oblations. And even though the Old Testament sacrifices were symbolic, they could still be, in themselves, true objective sacrifices.

Besides, if the New Testament sacrifice is not a visible one, the whole scope of Irenaeus, which is to show that the sacrificial doctrine in both Testaments is identical, fails to be realized. A Gnostic could reply that the Old Testament idea of sacrifice is, at least to some extent, material while the New Testament idea is purely spiritual, and that this fundamental difference is an indication of diversity of authorship. Consistently with his set object, Irenaeus is bound to admit that, as the sacrifice of the Old Law was to some extent material, so is that of the New Law. In this matter, too, our Saviour is seen to perfect, not to reverse the old sacrificial doctrine. The perfection or the extension of the old ideas consisted in the fact that the hints of spirituality, connected with the Old Testament sacrifice, developed into the predominantly spiritual doctrine of the New Testament oblation.

Oblations, holocausts, sacrifices are, with Irenaeus, only types of what is heavenly, and material things round about us are meant to symbolise and body forth the spiritual things, which he declares to be congruous since one God made both classes of objects. 9 According to this principle we may suppose that Irenaeus would hold that even the sacrifice of the Eucharist is subordinate to the spirituality or righteousness of man. Nor is there anything inconsistent in the principle, since sacrifices, like the Sacraments, exist for the sake of men.

Led, perhaps, by a desire to show that the spirituality of the New Testament oblation is identical with that of the Old Testament and knowing that the spirituality of the Old consists in something subjective, he interprets the purity of the New Testament oblation as resulting also from righteousness. In other words, the pure oblation of Malachy is understood to mean an oblation offered by a pure Church. Thus, in the last passage quoted above in the evidence, he traces the purity of the oblation to the single-mindedness of the Church. He is inaccurate—if we accept the interpretation of modern Theology, as we have reason to do—in tracing the purity or " cleanness " of the oblation to the subjective dispositions, and not to the objective value of the offering of the sinless Christ, an offering which is unstained by any unworthiness of the secondary offerer. That he inaccurately gives this exclusively subjective interpretation to the aspect of purity in the oblation is clear from the method of reasoning in the context. Thus, he concludes that Gnostic heretics do not offer the pure oblation simply because of their unrighteous way of thinking. 10 If he believed in the purity of the oblation independently of the human offerer, he could not reason in this wise. But the fact that he puts a purely spiritual interpretation on the aspect of " cleanness " in the sacrifice predicted by Malachy does not, of course, prove that he regarded the whole oblation as merely subjective. The fact that he admits an offering of Eucharistic Bread, successfully combats so broad a conclusion.

The antiquity of this visible sacrifice is expressly mentioned by Irenaeus. It is strikingly significant that Irenaeus, a man of conservative mind, one who had seen Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John, one whose doctrine, therefore, was presumably handed down from Apostolic times, should in the passage quoted above in the evidence assert that Christ taught the New Testament sacrifice, and that the Church received it from the Apostles themselves. Having satisfied ourselves that Irenaeus teaches on the ground of tradition a strict sacrifice in the Eucharist, it is well to inquire if he taught the substance of the present-day doctrine of the Mass, namely, an offering of the body and blood of Christ.

The Object Offered.

"The Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with thanksgiving, (the things taken) from His creation. But the Jews do not offer this, for their hands are full of blood ; for they have not received the Word through whom it is offered to God (or Who is offered to God.)" 11

" For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities earthly and heavenly ; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible,holding the hope of resurrection to eternity." 12

"Then, again, how can they (the Gnostics) say that the flesh which is nourished with the Lord's body and with His blood goes to corruption, and does not participate in life ? " 13

In the first passage quoted here there is question of an offering of the things taken from creation. In another passage, which had been previously quoted, there was reference to an offering of the first-fruits. It is fairly clear that, so far, Irenaeus merely speaks of the Offertory, and by him we find enunciated for the first time the different parts of the function, namely, the Offertory, the Communion, 14 and the Consecration. 15 The first-fruits cannot be taken by Irenaeus as referring to Christ whom in other passages he describes not as the " first-fruit of creation " but as " the first-begotten of the dead." Besides, Irenaeus speaks in the sentence in question 16 of the offering of that " created thing, bread." Irenaeus is the first to associate the ideas of the Old Testament concerning first-fruits with the Eucharist. He says that this rite includes the same offering as Moses prescribed, 17 which shows that Irenaeus is talking as yet merely of the offering of bread, for, surely, Moses did not prescribe an offering of Christ.

But does Irenaeus teach more than an offering of mere bread ? If one reading, given in some MSS. for the first passage quoted here, were genuine—and this is quite possible—then the solution would be easy. For it would be expressly stated that the Word is offered to God. But such a reading is rendered doubtful, not alone because such explicitness is nowhere found amongst the contemporaries of Irenaeus, but because in another passage, whose genuineness is unquestioned, it is said that the Eucharist is offered through the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, 18 and of doubtful readings, that which is less plain is more likely to be genuine, and less likely to have been retouched.

Hence, in no unquestionably genuine passage is it explicitly stated that the body and blood of Christ are the object of the offering. But this is, I think, implied, as the mind of Irenaeus, for, in the second passage quoted above, he speaks of offering His own to God, namely, the bread. But in the next sentence he says, like Justin, that the Bread (after consecration) is not common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of a heavenly and earthly reality. Could Irenaeus, almost in the same breath in which he speaks of the offering of the elements not yet consecrated, explain the Eucharistic Bread as a heavenly reality as well as an earthly, and yet be ignorant that there is an offering in the Eucharist of the heavenly reality ? It seems he could not. Hence, whatever be said as to the exactness of his knowledge of Transubstantiation, a question with which I am not concerned, he may be reasonably presumed to hold in the Eucharist an offering of the "heavenly and earthly realities." What the heavenly reality is may be known from the fact that he admits the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Our flesh is said, in the passage last quoted, to be nourished with the body and blood of Christ. Surely our flesh cannot be nourished with anything ideal, with a virtual presence of Christ, or with a presence by means of the influence of His doctrine ; it cannot, in a word, be said to be nourished with anything less substantial than the Saviour's body and blood really present.

1 Adv, Haer, iv., 17. 1.

2 Ibid., iv. 17. 5.

3 Adv. Haer., iv. 18, 2.

4 Ibid. iv„ 18. i.

5 Adv. Haer., iv. 17.

6 Adv. Haer., iv. 17.

7 Ibid., iv. 14, 1.

8 Adv. Haer., iv, 17, 3.

9 Adv, Haer., iv, 19. 1.

10 Adv, Haer, iv., 18. 4.

11 Adv. Haer., iv, 18, 4.

12 Ibid., iv, 18. 5.

13 Ibid,, iv. 18, 5.

14 Adv. Haer., iv, 18, 5,

15 Ibid., iv. 18. 4,

16 Ibid,, iv, 17,5.

17 Ibid.. iv. 18, 1.

18 Adv. Haer., iv. 17, 6.