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 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 17.

CHAPTER X. The Sacrificial Idea in the Liturgy.

It may be useful to consider how much light the Liturgy throws on the antiquity of the Mass. The Canons of Hippolytus, in their references to ritual, are especially useful for my present purpose, because such a work does not reflect the views of an individual but crystallizes the belief of a community. The Eucharist is designated therein the oblation par excellence. " Let the deacon bring the elements of the Mysteries, and then let the bishop begin the oblation." 1 In the form for ordaining a bishop, which is in substance that prescribed for a priest, God is besought to accept his offerings. " O Lord, accept his prayer and oblations which he shall offer by day and by night, and let them be unto Thee a sweet-smelling odour." 2 " Let him who has been appointed bishop place his hands upon the oblations, together with the presbyters." 3 It is evident from these texts that the Eucharist is an oblation in an objective sense, as distinct from the subjective sense of prayer. It is so concrete, so objective, that the hands of the bishop may be imposed thereon. There is not an explicit statement that the body and blood of Christ constitute the term of the sacrifice, though the Canons are witnesses of Realism. 4

The Didascalia, also, which is considered by Harnack 5 to belong to the first part of the third century, though by others it is referred to the second half, contains some references to ritual, which indicate an offering in an objective sense. " Assemble at graves, and read the Holy Scripture, and offer to God prayers, and offer the Royal Eucharist, which is a figure of the kingly body of Christ . . . presenting a Bread which is sanctified by the invocation." 6 Here an objective reality, namely, the Eucharistic Bread, is offered to God just as the prayers are offered. That the Eucharist is said to be a figure of the kingly body of Christ, is perfectly consistent with Realism, and need present no difficulty to a sincere investigator. The Eucharist, being a Sacrament, must be a symbol; the appearance of bread is a sign of the invisible body of Christ really present.

So much for the rituals which have a bearing on the period under consideration. I refer, next, to the family of formal Liturgies to show that the present period, extending from 150 to 250 A.D., contains most of their explicit concepts about the Eucharistic sacrifice. From an appeal to facts it will be shown that at least this period is the mother and source of their main sacrificial developments. I say, "at least," for an earlier period than that under discussion, may or may not have some of those developments,—I am not concerned with this at present.

It is contended that the universality of the sacrificial doctrine in the great families of Liturgies is a proof that in ante-Nicene times the Mass was regarded as a strict sacrifice. But I do not wish to use this as an independent proof, since these Liturgies were composed, or at least retouched long after my period. I admit, however, the perfect reasonableness of this a priori supposition. All the Liturgies, Eastern and Western, orthodox and unorthodox, speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Is the word, " sacrifice," to be taken metaphorically or strictly ? If a metaphor, is it not strange that all the Liturgies should have conspired to use this metaphor ? A word like this, a universal liturgical appellation, ought to be taken literally, unless other considerations prove a metaphorical usage. But such is not proved; nay, the context in those Liturgies, as will be seen, implies to any honest inquirer a sacrifice which cannot be taken otherwise than in an objective sense. Besides, the Monophysites and Nestorians could not well have conspired to teach this doctrine of an objective sacrifice unless such was the old doctrine, the doctrine held long before they separated from the Mother Church. It may be said that the doctrine of a strict sacrifice is an interpolation in the Liturgy. But it is something more than an interpolation. The doctrine of sacrifice is writ so boldly across the pages of the Liturgies that, were it false, the whole compilation must be pronounced to be a tissue of corrupt developments.

Some will not be affected by this a priori reasoning ; they will be prepared to admit that the Liturgies, in the course of time, might contain corrupt doctrines far removed from the purity of evangelical truth. For such as these an appeal to the facts is useful; an inquiry whether the present period actually contains the main sacrificial ideas of the different Liturgies. My purpose is to compare the Liturgies with the early writers.

I shall briefly refer to the principal Liturgies of the Western family. This is the testimony of the Roman Mass, which in the opinion of Duchesne existed in its present form in the time of Pope Damasus. 8 " We offer to Thine Excellent Majesty out of Thine own gifts and donations, a pure Victim, a holy Victim,a stainless Victim, the Holy Bread of eternal life and the Chalice of eternal salvation." Spoken at the Anamnesis and after the Consecration, this evidently implies an objective sacrifice. The Frankish Mass contains the following :— "Since the foreshadowings of carnal Victims have been removed, we suppliantly offer to Thee, O Father, the spiritual Victim that by a wondrous and unutterable mystery is always immolated, and, remaining the same, is always offered." 9 It is clear that these words, too, imply a strict, objective sacrifice.

The Mozarabic Mass, on the Feast of the Lord's Nativity, makes this declaration. " We offer to Thee, O God, the stainless Victim that the maternal womb brought forth without injury to virginity . . . And the Immolated Victim doth live, and living, is constantly immolated j a Victim that alone can please God because it is the Lord."

If the word " immolated M is taken strictly, it implies not alone that the Victim of the Cross is present but that in the Mass itself there is a destruction of some kind.

The Gothico-Gallican Mass states that the Eucharist is the sacrifice which Christ on the night of the Last Supper instituted, and in which He Himself is the Paschal Lamb that is slain. 10

Among the Eastern Liturgies, that of St. James 11 states : " We offer Thee, O Lord, this terrible and unbloody offering." These are words which could not be applied to a subjective sacrifice consisting of prayer or a good life but only to a strict objective sacrifice. The Liturgy of St. Mark 12 has: "Giving thanks we offer this spiritual and unbloody worship which all peoples offer Thee from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof. . . . Great is Thy name among all peoples and in all places there are offered to Thy name an offering of incense and a pure sacrifice." This testimony alone, does not prove with demonstrative rigour, that the Mass is a strict sacrifice, though it indicates that the Eucharist is the fulfilment of Malachy's prophecy.

It speaks of the Eucharist only under the aspect of a spiritual and unbloody worship. It is suggested from this that the purity and spirituality of the sacrifice was sometimes interpreted, not of the victim, but of the prayer. The reference in this testimony to the subjective aspect of the Eucharist, to the worship offered to God, does not exclude the idea that it is also an objective sacrifice. The Roman Canon, though treating of an objective sacrifice, speaks also of the Mass as a sacrifice of praise. 13 Since the present testimony refers to the Mass as the fulfilment of the prophecy of Malachy, it indicates very likely a strict sacrifice in the Eucharist.

I shall, also, refer to the unorthodox Liturgies of Oriental sects. The Liturgy of Basil speaks of a " spiritual and unbloody host", which does not of necessity imply more than a subjective sacrifice. 14 But, at the Anamnesis, the same Liturgy evidently implies that the Mass is an objective sacrifice—" We offer Thee Thine own out of Thine own gifts." 15

The Liturgy of St. Gregory is similar. On the one hand, it speaks of the spiritual and unbloody offering, and on the other, it speaks of objective gifts offered to God. 16

The Nestorian Liturgy has : " We offer Thee this living holy acceptable great reasonable excellent, and bloodless sacrifice." 17 That this Liturgy implies an objective offering is clear from the following words also in its Canon : " May the grace of the Holy Ghost come upon us and upon this oblation."

How far are those sacrificial ideas common to the writers of the early period with which I am dealing ? So far as they speak of sacrifice in a subjective sense, they do but crystallize the metaphorical expressions common at the beginning of the period. The Roman Mass speaks of the Eucharist as "this sacrifice of praise," and in the prayer, Quam oblationem, it beseeches God to make the offering a reasonable one. The former expression recalls the Epistle to the Hebrews 18 , which speaks of a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips confessing to His name; the latter vividly recalls the first Epistle of Peter, where the Apostle begs the Christians to present themselves to God as ''reasonable offerings." 19 In so far as the Mass is a prayer, it may well be called a sacrifice in a subjective and loose sense. This idea of a subjective sacrifice, it has been shown, was common to Justin, Clement, Origen, and Tertullian.

This examination of Liturgies, speaking of sacrifice in a subjective sense, is particularly useful. It throws light on the interpretation which must be given to similar sayings in the early period with which I am dealing. If the Roman Liturgy can speak of the Mass viewed under a limited aspect, as a sacrifice in a loose sense, and yet undoubtedly teach its objective and strictly sacrificial nature, considered from another standpoint, why should similar expressions in certain of the early Fathers who have been cited—expressions about a sacrifice of prayer—be construed as meaning that these Fathers looked upon the Mass as exclusively a subjective sacrifice ? And yet this is the construction that is absolutely put by some investigators on such writers as Athenagoras, Clement, and Origen.

Some of the Liturgies speak of the sacrifice as a spiritual and unbloody one. Sometimes they seem to take this " spirituality " in a subjective sense, meaning prayer. Thus the Liturgy of St. Mark, which has been quoted, speaks of the spiritual and unbloody worship. This concept may have been inspired by the idea of the true and spiritual adoration, mentioned by the Lord as the distinguishing characteristic of the new dispensation. The Frankish Mass, however, it has been seen, understands this spirituality, of the Victim perpetually immolated.

Again, those Liturgies speak of the sacrifice as an oblation to God of gifts which have been taken out of His own creation. This second sacrificial idea of the Liturgies does but crystallize the view-point of Irenaeus in our period. In Irenaeus we find : " The Church alone offers this pure oblation, offering to Him with thanksgiving out of His own creation." 20 In the Liturgy of Basil it is stated in the Anamnesis : " We offer Thee Thine own out of Thine own gifts." 21

A third and very important sacrificial idea in those Liturgies is that Christ is offered in the Mass. This is a test of Catholic doctrine on the Mass. This it is which differentiates the Catholic position from the position of, at least, the older Anglicans. The latter may go a part of the way and admit a sacrificial aspect in the Eucharist; they may concede that it is a sacrifice of prayer and that there is in it a representation of the sacrifice of the Cross. But the great sacrificial doctrine of Catholicity, found in those Liturgies and in our early period, is that Christ is offered to God as a Victim in the sacrifice of the Mass. The Mozarabic Mass, as we have seen, contains the following declaration : " We offer to Thee, O God, the stainless Victim that the maternal womb brought forth without injury to virginity." Now this very idea of the offering of Christ in the Eucharist is found explicitly in the latter part of our period at least, that is, in the days of St. Cyprian in the middle of the third century. Here I am appealing to plain facts. Are the testimonies of St. Cyprian such that this fundamental, sacrificial idea of the Liturgies may be said to belong to this very early date ? The testimonies of Cyprian are so unequivocal that such an exacting critic as the Protestant Harnack admits that the object sacrificed is Christ's body and blood according to the martyred bishop of Carthage. 22 We are not now concerned with Harnack's additional comment that Cyprian may have found this explicit concept of the Eucharistic sacrifice already evolved—we are now concerned merely with the facts. " Hence it appears!' writes Cyprian, " that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup!' 23 This testimony will suffice here, as I have already discussed in full the value of Cyprian's words.

Another sacrificial idea of importance, which has been found in the Liturgies, is that there is an immolation of Christ in the Mass. Thus the Frankish and the Mozarabic Masses, already quoted, speak of a perpetual immolation of Christ. If this word is taken in a strict sense, it means that there is some destruction of the Victim in the Mass itself. In a loose sense, " immolating " might mean merely that the Victim of the Cross in some way perseveres, and is offered in the Mass. It is not defined, though a Catholic opinion, that some kind of destruction of the Victim is required in the Mass itself. Hence the opinion of Vasquez who held that only on the Cross was such a destruction required, is not to be considered heretical. At any rate, the two Liturgies quoted, if taken in their obvious meaning, would indicate that there is a mysterious destruction in the Mass itself.

In our period this concept of immolation, it was seen, is suggested by Tertullian who says ironically that, in imitation of the fatted calf in the parable of the prodigal, Christ will be slain again in the Eucharist even for an apostate, forgiven by the Church. 24 The principal sacrificial ideas of the Liturgies are found in our period. Were they embodied in the Liturgies in this period or afterwards ? It is a question concerning which we cannot have certain knowledge. Sometimes, the development of Liturgical ideas may follow the evolution of theological science. Likely this has happened often—the Lex Orandi followed the Lex Credendi. Sometimes, the development of the Liturgy may have preceded, and given an inspiration to the evolution of doctrine, Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. At other times, both developments may have proceeded simultaneously.

1 C.H. xix.

2 Ibid. iii. 

4 Eodem loco. 

5 Ibid. xix.

5 Geschich. der altchrist. Lit, xi,, t. ii., c. 3.

6 vi., 27, Ed. Funk p . 376.

8 Origines, p. 168.

9 Migne, 72, 338.

10 Migne, 72, 314,

11 Renaudot, Liturg. Orient, Coll. ii„ p, 32; 30; 40.

12 Ibid., vol. I., p. 145.

13 Hoc sacrificium laudis after Te igtur.

14 Renaudot, Liturg. Orient, Collect:., Vol. I., p, 61,

15 Renaudot Liturg. Orient. Collectio, Vol, I,, p. 67.

16 Renaudot, Ibid,, p. 98,

17 Renaudot, Ibid, Vol, II., p, 610.

18 C. 13.

19 Chap, II.

20 Adv, Haer,, iv., 18 41

21 Renaudot, Litur, Orient, Collectio, Vol, I, p; 67.

22 Dogmengcschichte, t.11, c. 3.

23 Ep., 63.

24 De Pud., c. 9.

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 14.

CHAPTER IX. The Liturgy. Part 2.

The Roman liturgy of the present day is, also, singular in the fact of its containing nowhere a formal Epiclesis or invocation of the Holy Ghost. It is suggested that the Supplices te rogamus may be a vestige of such. It is, also, suggested with more likelihood that the Quam oblationem, before the words of Consecration, may be a relic of the invocation. It is, indeed, an implicit invocation of the Holy Ghost, seeing that it is a request that God may convert the Elements into the body and blood of Christ. Against this latter suggestion about the place of the Epiclesis in the old Roman liturgy it may be urged that it would be unique to have the Epiclesis before the Words of Institution, as this theory would seem to imply. But this difficulty loses some force, if it be remembered that in a general transposition the Epiclesis may be placed before, instead of after, the words of Consecration.

It is likely, therefore, that the liturgy described by St. Justin was the Roman one, and contained an Epiclesis after the Consecration. In the general Church of the period there was, we have seen, frequent reference to an invocation. The presence of an Epiclesis after the Words of Institution, since it seems to imply that the change in the Elements was not already wrought, is embarrassing to one whose theology is already settled in the belief that the Consecration is wrought solely by the words of Institution. Some forms of the Epiclesis, indeed, as that of the Clementine liturgy 1 and that found in the fragments of the writings of Irenaeus might mean that God was requested not to convert the Elements, but to show 2 that they were the body and blood of Christ. Such an Epiclesis might have been in the Roman Church.

It is likely that there was in the early liturgy a prayer corresponding to the Nobis quoque peccatoribus. The Martyrdom of Polycarp 3 (155 a.d.) gives the prayer of Bishop Polycarp, which, it is likely, he was in the habit of reciting in the Canon of the Mass. He prays, just as the prayer Nobis quoque peccatoribus does, for a share in the society of the martyrs. Origen, more expressly, says that in the liturgy there was a prayer for admission to the companionship of prophets and apostles. 4

This prayer for fellowship with the martyrs seems to have been in close connection, as logical sequence would require, with the Memento for the living. This suggestion fits in with the theory, that in the early liturgy both Mementoes were after the Consecration. The faithful venerated the memory of the saints and martyrs, and in return expected their suffrages and requested God to give themselves a fellowship with His martyred host. In this way the communion of saints, living and dead, was perfectly illustrated in the early liturgy.

We have frequently seen that Mass was offered for the dead. " We offer for the dead on the anniversary day," 5 so says Tertullian. Cyprian says that a certain kind of sinner is excluded, by a species of excommunication, from the sacrifice offered up for the repose of the dead 6. Mone in his work 7 gives a very early Mass—dating back to the persecutions—where there are to be found two prayers, one ante nomina the other post nomina. Here, presumably, there is a reference to the diptychs in the early Church. There was a written list of names of the dead, which was submitted for remembrance in the Memento for the dead. At the close of the Canon, according to St. Justin, all the Faithful answered Amen in a loud voice. This may be taken to correspond to the Amen which is still answered aloud before the Pater Noster. Much sooner than at the present day, there was, in the early Church, an end of the Liturgy proper, although it is presumable that the Communion was followed by other prayers of thanksgiving, such as those which the Didache prescribes. 8

The Eucharistic Bread was broken for distribution. It is probable that it was in the form of loaves. Their size—much larger than the present-day particles—may be estimated from the fact suggested by the Catacomb pictures, that, instead of ciboriums, there were used to contain them, wickerwork baskets, as happened even at a later time in the case of the bishop mentioned by St. Jerome. 9

Other large vessels are found represented in the Catacombs in connection with the Good Shepherd, and it is suggested that they may be early kinds of ciboriums.

The president alone, according to Tertullian's account, 10 distributed the Communion to those present at the service, and the deacons took the Elements to the absent brethren who were sick, or otherwise incapacitated. 11

After the liturgical service, the president availed himself of the collection, contributed by the faithful, to cater for the wants of the needy. 12 This collection for the poor, which was a regular feature of the Service of the early Church, speaks much for its practical kind of benevolence. As they prayed for all classes without distinction, so their deeds of charity—a more genuine sacrifice—extended to the orphans, widows, the sick, those " in bonds," and pilgrims ; in short, the bishop, who was the treasurer of the funds, acted as a father to all in need. 13

Tertullian also refers to this beneficent feature of Christianity as well as to the liturgy of the early Church. " We meet together, as an assembly and congregation, in order that, approaching God in a body, we may beset Him with prayers and supplications. This violence is pleasing to God.

We pray, also, for the Emperors, for their ministers, and the powers that be, for the condition of the age, for peace in the world, for the delay of the last day. . .

We meet together for recitation of our Divine Scriptures. . .

In the same place, also, exhortations are made. . . .

Our presidents are men of age and character. . . .

We have a kind of treasure chest. . . Everyone places there a small contribution on one day in the month. . . These are for feeding and burying the poor." 14

There can be little doubt, that Tertullian is here speaking of the Eucharistic service. For, afterwards, he adds : " you abuse, also, our humble feasts ; " and, then, there follows an account of the Agape. The omission, in this long passage, of a plain reference to the Eucharistic Elements is a strong suggestion that Tertullian was under the influence of the usage known as the Discipline of the Secret.

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.

1 Apost. Const., Book vii.

2 Fragmenta Pfaff 38 (Migne vii,, 1254) is the word u

3 C. 14, cf. also C. 8.

4 Hom xiv. in Jerem. 14.

5 De Coronr, 3.

6 Ep. 1, 2.

7 Lat. und Greich, Messe., 8. 22.

8 Ch. ix. x.

9 Ep. cxxv. ad Rustic. P. L,, t. xxii., c. 1085.

10 De Corona, 3.

11 Justin, Apol„ i„ 67.

12 Eodem loco.

13 Eodem loco.

14 Apologet, c. 39.

The Mass In The Infant Church By Rev Garrett Pierse Part 13.

CHAPTER IX. The Liturgy. Part 1.

Since the Mass is eminently a sacrifice of adoration and thanksgiving, we find therein, crystallised as it were, a liturgy consisting of sublime forms of prayer. The character of the different kinds of liturgies, which now form a large family, and the question of their ultimate derivation have given rise to much important discussion. At the outset it may be asked whether in the present period there was a fixed liturgy, and if so, whether it was a written one. Owing to the lack of evidence, the difficulty of an adequate solution must not be underestimated.

Fixed and Written Liturgy.

It is rashly concluded from St. Justin's first apology 1 that in the early Christian Service there was no fixed form of prayer, but that everything was left to the inspiration of the celebrant. Justin's phrase, however, does not necessarily mean more than that the presiding official prays " with all his strength." It seems to be straining Justin's expression 2 to conclude that the minister formed all his prayers according to his individual ability. The contrary is suggested by the context where Justin speaks of a Christian custom, namely, the offering up of common prayers in behalf of themselves and in behalf of all men in all places. 3 This is a suggestion that the liturgy even at this early time went along fixed lines. The same idea is suggested by the saying of an earlier writer, Clement of Rome, that offerings must not be made rashly, but in definite seasons at definite hours. 4 Here, indeed, all that is expressed is that the season and the hour of Service were fixed. But the spirit that avoided rashness in regard to the exact time of the Service would also prompt definiteness in regard, at least, to the general character of the prayers. Again, we find fragments of the present liturgy in the writers of our period ; Sursum corda and Dignum et justum est, meet us in the pages of St. Cyprian and in the Canons of Hippolytus. 5 But evidence that will tend to close this controversy was reached in the finding of the Didache. The end of the first century, to which it belongs, would seem to have a definite liturgy, and this would a fortiori hold true of the later period, with which I am directly concerned. The Didache prescribes a definite form of thanksgiving. 6

Christians, at the end of the first century, were taught a definite liturgical prayer. That the Liturgy was not only fixed, but even consigned to writing, is gleaned from the work of Origen against Celsus. The latter reports that he saw with certain priests of Origen's religion barbarous books containing the names of devils, and magic arts. 7 He states that there was nothing good in the prayers which the Elders had in those volumes. The reference is not to the Sacred Scriptures, for the objection in their regard was already met. Nor is there allusion to the magical prayers of heretics, who would not be said to belong to Origen's religion. It is, rather, a distorted account of Christian liturgical writings which contained, at least, a formula of Exorcism. Presumably, then, the different " forms " of the Sacraments and the prayers of the Mass were also consigned to books, and reliance was not placed on oral tradition alone.

 The Language.

The language of the liturgy in Rome, and, presumably, in the Western Church appears to have been Greek during a considerable space of time. This is suggested by the fact that the inscriptions of the first and second century in the Roman Catacombs are Greek. To such an extent was this the case, that one chamber of the Catacombs is called the Greek Chapel. Early Popes, like Clement, wrote in Greek. Relics of the previous language remain crystallised in the Kyrie Eleison, and the Agios O Theos. Latin appears to have been gaining ground in ecclesiastical Rome about the end of the second century. Towards the middle of the third century it appears to have been fully established. Popes Stephen and Cornelius wrote in Latin.

The Sequence of the Liturgical Prayers. 

The liturgy of the early Church, as far as one can reconstruct its skeleton from the early literature, resembled that of the present day. Almost at the beginning—we are not told, though we may presume, that there preceded prayers —there were read lessons, as long as time permitted, from the Apostles or the Prophets. 8 These were read by the Lector, whose office must not have been merely nominal in those far-off days. The president, or bishop, then preached a sermon, touching on those readings. He exhorted the faithful to the imitation of " those excellent things." This homily was heard by the faithful in a sitting posture.

Then, they rose to their feet to offer the common prayer. 9 The assembled brethren prayed for themselves, and for those who received' the illumination, presumably for the neophytes. They prayed for their rulers, and for those who were enemies to the Christian name. They prayed for themselves that they might be worthy of the Christian dignity, and of the future salvation. They prayed for the delay of the last day, and for good seasons. In a word, they prayed for all men in all places, and for favours, both spiritual and temporal.

This common prayer, which was recited after the sermon and before the oblation of the Elements, corresponds to the prayers in the Clementine Liturgy, which were introduced with an Oremus. 10 The Oremus is still preserved by the Roman liturgy, as an adjunct to the Offertorium, but the long list of prayers, to which it served as an introduction, has been eliminated from nearly all the Feasts. After those prayers was given the kiss of peace. 11 It was given much earlier than the time when it is given in the present Roman liturgy. Probably, even at this early period, the catechumens were dismissed from the Service, 12  and so this token of brotherhood was interchanged before a section of the community departed. The sexes, likely, were separate in the place of worship in accordance with the Eastern usage.

Then, bread and mixed wine were brought to the bishop,—thus the wine seems to have been mixed with water before the Service. 13  The mixing of the wine was a characteristic of the Passover supper, and it is also taken for granted in the inscription of Abercius. According to Irenaeus, 14 it symbolised the hypostatic union in Christ, while according to Cyprian 15 it signified the union of the people with Christ. In offering the Elements, the Bishop sent up prayers of praise and glory to God. 16

Next in order came what corresponds to the Preface. The word " preface " would not then convey any true idea of its meaning, as it seems to have been extremely lengthy. It was a prayer of thanksgiving which enumerated many things for which the Faithful were grateful. Thanksgiving was the dominant note of the Service, giving it the technical name, Eucharist. Thanks were offered for " creation, and for the qualities of things." 17 Thanks were given, not only for the forming of man with natural and supernatural gifts through creation, but for the re-forming of him through the redemption. 18 God " formed marvellously the dignity of human nature but more marvellously reformed it." 19 After this paean of gratitude, there was, it is likely, even in our early period, the Tersanctus or Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts. It is found in the pages of Clement of Rome. 20 It was used even in the old Jewish ritual in the prayer called the Kedusha, The prayer of thanksgiving was preceded, as at present, by the versicles, Sursum corda and Dignum et justum est, for those fragments were seen to be in the writings of St. Cyprian and in the Canons of Hippolytus.

Having referred to the Creation and Redemption, the liturgy would logically pass on to the Passion. 21 The latter event naturally suggested the memory of the Last Supper, and the Words of Institution.

Justin, our principal authority in reconstructing the liturgy of this period, is silent as to what immediately followed the Words of Institution. Other considerations will enable us to fill with some degree of probability the lacuna. The Clementine Liturgy, 22 which is encased in the Apostolic Constitutions and which a tradition of the fifth century 23 sets down as the earliest of the common liturgies—a tradition which is confirmed by internal evidence implying a time of persecution,—places after the Words of Institution the Anamnesis or memory of the Passion, the Epiclesis, and the Memento for the living and for the dead. Numerous liturgies exhibit this order after the Words of Institution. The Roman liturgy of the present day is a noted exception in having the Memento for the living before these words, and in containing at least no formal Epiclesis. But there is reason for thinking that even the early Roman liturgy conformed to the common type represented by the Clementine, and had an Epiclesis, as well as both Mementoes, after the Words of Institution. Justin, who lived for a long time in Rome, and who according to his Acts gave the interrogating Governor an account of a Roman centre for liturgical meetings, may have had before his mind, when speaking, the Roman liturgy. A Protestant, Dr. Drews, recently suggested a theory that there was effected a transposition in the Roman Canon by Pope Gelasius in the fifth century. 24 The theory was accepted by Baumstark 25 with the accidental modification that the change was wrought by Pope Gregory.

The transposition consisted in taking the part, from the Te igitur to the Memento for the dead, from its original place after the words of Consecration, and inserting it before the Quam oblationem. The reconstruction of the early Roman Canon suggested by Drews, has the following order—(1) Quam oblationem. (2) Qui pridie ... (3) Unde et memores. (4) Supplices te rogamus. (5) Te igitur. (6) Commemoratio vivorum. (7) Communicantes. (8) Commemoratio defunctorum. The three last items would form the great intercessory prayer.

In favour of this hypothesis, which is gaining ground, many indications point. One is the somewhat illogical sequence of the present Roman Canon. If closely examined, many of its paragraphs have not a strictly logical connection with what precedes. In the old view, it would be hard to give any but a forced explanation of the igitur in the prayer Te igitur. In the new theory, we should have a better explanation of the etiam in the Memento for the dead—it would imply a previous commemoration of the living. Besides, there is an early document, 26 which supposes that there was in the Roman liturgy a prayer for the Emperor, oblatis sacrificiis. The word " sacrificiis "is better understood of the Consecration than of the Offertory, and implies that, in the old Roman liturgy, the commemoration of the living followed the words of Consecration. One cannot easily accept the amendment to the theory, suggested by Baumstark, that the change was effected by Gregory I. For, in an account of his work for the liturgy, it is merely mentioned that he inserted in the Canon Diesque nostros . . .in pace numerari 27 and, if he effected the radical transposition which is attributed to him by Baumstark, the silence about it* is inexplicable. Though it is hard to determine the author of the change, it is likely that it was wrought some time in the fifth century.

1 Apol. i. c. 67.

2

3 Apol. i. 65.

4 Clement i. Ep. ad Corinth, xl., xli.

5 Cyprian De Orat. Dom. 213, and Canons of Hipp. iii.

6 Ch. ix., x.

7 Contra Celsum vi, 40.

8 See Justin, Apol., 1, 65, 66, 67.

9 Eodem loco.

10 Cf. Apost. Const. Book viii. ff.

11 Eodem loco.

12 Tertullian implies a sharp distinction between the Catechumens and the Faithful in the matter of praying and of hearing sermons. DePraescript. 41.

13 Justin, Apol. i., 65, 66, 67.

14 Cf. Adv. Haer. lv. c. 2, P.G. vii. 1125.

15 Ep. 63.

16 Justin, Apol. 1, 65.

17 Dial. Tryph. 41.

18 Eodem loco.

19 The Roman Ordo Missae.

20 I. Ep. ad Cor. xxxiv., 5-7.

21 Dial. Tryph. 41,

22 Apost. Const. Book viii.

23 Work attributed to Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople, a.d. 434-446, on the Tradition of the Divine Liturgy.

24 Zur Enstehungsgeschichte des Kanons der romischen Messe (1902.)

25 Liturgia Romana e Liturgia dell' Esarcato.

26 Letter of Pope Celestine I. to Emperor Theodosius II. belonging to year 432.

27 Cf. Venerable Bede, H.E., ii., 1.

The Mass In The Infant Church By Rev Garrett Pierse Part 12.

Section II. MONUMENTAL AND LITURGICAL EVIDENCE.

request for prayer for a dead Christian named Agape

CHAPTER VIII. Monumental Evidence for the Mass. Part 3

In the Catacomb of Priscilla there is an inscription which belongs to the second century. 1 The deceased lady, Agape, begs that the brethren, when they assemble at her place of burial, and impetrate the Father and Son in common prayer, may also remember herself. This inscription is useful as throwing light on three facts. A liturgical service was held in the Catacombs. It was the practice of those assembled to remember the dead in their prayers. Finally, Agape's grave must have been in a chamber which was used as a kind of chapel. From the small size of the chamber it may be concluded that there were held in it only anniversary offerings on behalf of the dead. There is no warrant for saying that it was a meeting place for large congregations, assembled for Sunday worship.

From a saying of St. Cyprian, also, it is clear that a liturgical service was held in the Catacombs. He refers to a seizure of Pope Sixtus II. 2 When Pope Damasus, in one of his characteristic epigrams, alludes to this event, he represents Pope Sixtus as teaching the Heavenly Law, when he was rudely surprised by soldiers. We know little as to the nature of the gathering. But we do know that it was not a Sunday service. The 6th of August, 258 A.D., which is given by Cyprian as the date of the event, fell on Friday. 3 In the Passion of St. Pionius there is found an account of a similar surprise, effected on a party at the grave of Polycarp. 4 The custom of holding liturgical meetings in cemeteries is, also, implied in the prohibition, addressed by Aemilian to Dionysius, Bishop of Carthage, forbidding Christians to attend gatherings or to enter sepulchres. 5 There is a Catacomb inscription bearing on this subject, whose authenticity has been questioned. A certain Alexander is represented as having been seized in the Catacombs and borne to torture. 6 He was just in the act of genuflecting, and was about to sacrifice to the true God. The writer of the epitaph decries a time, when the very caverns could not afford people an opportunity of saving their souls. This inscription is commonly ascribed to the reign of Antoninus Severus. 7 On the other hand, the character of the style is supposed by some to indicate that it belongs to a later period if it does not happen to be a forgery. 8 There is in it the curious description of the worship as an act of sacrificing to the true God. One would not be surprised to meet these explicit terms in the time of St. Cyprian. But they are strange in the early time to which it is attributed. The Eucharist is, indeed, called a sacrifice from the beginning of our period. But the earlier Christian writers do not speak of themselves as sacrificing ; indeed, it has been shown, they sometimes deny that they sacrifice on account of the association of this verb with discarded sacrifices. Because the word " sacrificing" is foreign to the epoch assigned, one cannot regard this inscription as certainly genuine.

That there was a liturgical service in the Catacombs I believe to be clear. It is also certain that this included the Eucharistic celebration, which was the centre of early Christian worship. Was there held only a memorial service ? Or was there, also, held the regular Sunday service ? One cannot know with certainty. That the Catacombs were not intended in ordinary circumstances for regular worship, may be concluded from the small dimensions of their occasional chambers. That the whole Roman congregation did not assemble there on Sundays for the obligatory Service, may be safely presumed. How could all the Roman faithful, whose number Eusebius 9 described as immense, stream out of the city, in days of persecution, without running imminent risk of being detected ? A limited number may have come to the Catacombs, in days of persecution, even for the regular Sunday service. There is no evidence for the suggestion, but it appears to be entirely reasonable.

The Monumental Evidence for the Altar. 

Christians celebrating Mass in the catacombs.

If there was celebrated in the Catacombs a Eucharistic sacrifice, there may b expected some token of an altar, and, indeed, we have already met with such in the tripod table in the Sacramental Chambers of the cemetery of St. Callistus.

But we need not be startled if it is very different from the elaborate and costly altars of the present day. The Eucharistic sacrifice included a religious meal. It was modelled after the pattern of the Last Supper. It was but natural., therefore, that, at first, the ordinary dining tables of the time should have been called into requisition. These were wooden, sometimes square, often round. 10 They rested on frames, or on three legs, or on one. Thus, the table in the Sacramental Chambers of Callistus is resting on three legs, is round, and presumably wooden. A similar one is painted in the Cemetery of SS. Peter and Marcellinus in connection with a banquet scene. Another of the same shape is depicted in a lunette which also represents a fish, two loaves marked with a cross, and seven baskets of bread. 11 It would seem then that a tripod table, of wooden material and circular shape, predominated both in general use and in the Eucharistic service in those early times. Those wooden altars were used for a long time in the service of the Church. Optatus of Mileve complained that the Donatists used altars for fire-wood. 12 Augustine tells how Bishop Maximianus was beaten with wood taken from the altar under which he lay hidden. 13 Legislation requiring the use of stone altars occurred a long time after the period with which I am dealing. Were the martyrs' graves also used as altars in our period ? De Rossi, the great interpreter of the Catacombs, held that there were in these early times two kinds of altars—the portable ones, such as I have described, and the Arcosolia or martyrs' tombs in the Catacombs. The hypothesis is commonly accepted, though without any evidence. De Rossi relied on a supposed decree of Pope Felix I. (269-275), prescribing that Masses should be celebrated on the tombs of the martyrs. 14 It it mentioned in .the Liber Pontificalis. But there are no contemporary authorities which vouch for the authenticity of the decree.

Preoccupied, probably, by the theory of De Rossi, Wilpert supposed that underneath the picture of the Fractio Panis Mass was celebrated on a martyr's grave. 15 There was discovered, indeed, in the place a cavity large enough to contain either a child's grave or the ashes of some martyr. Wilpert tried to prove the practice of celebrating Mass over a martyr's grave from evidence which is, in part, much later than the date of the Fractio Panis. 16 He appeals to the testimony of the treatise De Aleatoribus, 17, which is ascribed by some to Pope Victor, that is, to the end of the second century, and by others to the middle of the third. " While Christ is at hand," the document says, " while angels look on, and while martyrs are present, throw your money on the Lord's table." This rhetorical sentence, as well as contemporary literature of a similar character, would not, of necessity, suggest anything more than a spiritual presence of the martyrs. Thus, Origen seems to speak of martyrs who are present in spirit at the liturgical service. 18 Again, Tertullian describes martyrs' souls as present beneath the altar and crying for vengeance. 19 This is an echo of the famous passage of the Apocalypse, according to which the martyrs testify to their wrongs, under the Heavenly altar. 20 Thus, the literature of the period does not prove the use of the martyrs' graves as altars in the second or third century.

The testimony of the monuments is equally uncertain in this respect. There is a stone altar in the Papal Crypt in the cemetery of Callistus, but it rests beside, not upon, the principal grave, that of Pope Sixtus. Similarly, Arcosolia, or martyrs' graves, are pointed out in the Ostrian Catacomb as having been used for altars, but there does not seem to be a particle of positive testimony in favour of this belief.

That the Eucharistic sacrifice was celebrated near, if not upon, the martyrs' tombs appears to be perfectly clear. The disciples of Polycarp assembled at his tomb to celebrate his martyrdom. 21 Such a practice led in course of time to the custom of celebrating the Eucharist over the martyr's body itself. This development may have taken place only when there was a relaxation of Roman vigilance, which, by the direction of the twelve tables of laws, would have prevented the introduction of dead bodies into houses. The law of Pope Felix I., which by some is ascribed to the beginning of the fourth century, 22 and which ordered the celebration of Mass over the tombs of the martyrs, may have merely enforced a fairly widespread usage. The practice, too, may have been suggested by the passage of the Apocalypse, regarding the martyrs resting under the altar. 23 It was natural that the memory of the martyred Christ should be intimately associated with that of his suffering followers.

The Chalice.

In connection with the altar represented in the Fractio Panis, there is shown near the presiding official a sketch of what must have been the early chalice. Like the other appurtenances of the Eucharistic service, it was not far removed in construction from the ordinary cups of those days. To us, who are acquainted with the artistic chalices of the present day, it presents a striking appearance. It is a stemless vessel with two handles. Its broad shape—the lower part being almost as wide as the upper—may have been specially intended for use in the Catacombs. Here, light was defective, and the surface of the altar may not always have been very even. But this chalice, it is likely, represents fairly well those in common use even outside the Catacombs.

In the Ostrian Catacomb, in the Via Nomentana there was discovered another vessel, presumably a chalice, and it is now preserved in the Lateran Museum. It is shaped like a goblet and has two handles.

A chalice which was fashioned without any handle was found depicted on a grave slab in the Catacomb of Pontianus. Near it are represented an anchor, a dove, and three loaves marked with crosses. It is said to belong to the third century. 24

At this early period, chalices were commonly made of glass. Glass was frequently used in the vessels employed for the ordinary purpose of drinking. There were found in the Catacombs several gilt glasses, which are now preserved in the Lateran Museum. They are mere fragments, being the bottoms of glasses used for drinking. On them are represented several Biblical scenes like those which are drawn on the walls of the Catacombs—Moses striking the rock, Adam and Eve tempted by the serpent, Jonas cast from the belly of the whale, and many such Scriptural events. The majority of these must have been used for some religious purpose, most probably for the feast of the Agape. Possibly, some of them are fragments of very old chalices. But many of them cannot be such, for mottoes written on them—as " Drink and Live Long"—are irreconcilable with the august liturgy of the Eucharist. At any rate, they show the early practice of using glass vessels, which may well be expected to find a reflection also in the Eucharist, itself a meal and commemorative of the simple Supper of the Master. Irenaeus, too, in his invaluable account of the heretical juggler who imitated the Christian consecration and wished to show blood in the chalice by converting it from a white liquid into a red, gives a hint that the chalice in liturgical use was made of glass. 25 Otherwise, it would be difficult for the magician to show the change in its contents. The Liber Pontificalis may be cited as confirmatory ; it speaks of glass patens in the reign of Pope Zephyrinus.

As in the case of vessels destined for use in the Agape, so on the Eucharistic chalice there were scenes painted on glass, just as, at present, scenes are engraved in the silver or gold. Tertullian speaks of the ".paintings on the chalices." 26 In another place he speaks more definitely of the "Shepherd Who is depicted on the chalice " 27 Thus the picture of the Good Shepherd was fittingly represented on the chalice which was destined to contain His own precious blood.

1


2 Cf. Wieland, ibid, S, 85.

3 Eodem loco.

4 Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, p, 118.

5 Euseb., H.E, vii., 71, M.P.G. t. xx, 665 sq.

6 Monumenta Eccl, Liturgica, t, I., cxxxii. Alexander genua flectens vero Deo sacrificaturus ad supplicia ducitur.

7 Ibid.

8 Cf, Wieland, Mensa und Confessio, I. S. 98, fussnote 4.

9 Eusebius H. E. vi. 43.

10 Cf. Catholic Encyclopaedia Art. Altar, also Dictionnaire d'  Archeologie et Liturgie. Art. Autel.

11 De Rossi Roma Sotteranea t. 11 tav. xv., 2.

12 De Schism, Donatistarum,

13 Ep. 185.

14 Liber Pontificalis. Note on Felix I.

15 Fractio Panis, S. 18.

16 Eodem loco.

17 xi. Migne iv., 835.

18 Hom 3 in Jeremiam,

19 Scorp 12, De Oratione 5.

20 Apoc. v. 6, 9.

21 Martyrium Polycarp. c. 18.

22 Wieland, 1. c, 148.

23 Apoc. 6, 9.

24 Cf. Wilpert, Fractio Panis, p. 80.

25 Adv, Haer, I. c. 13. P.G., vii., 580.

26 De Pud., c. 7.

27 De Pud, c. 10.