Purgatory, By The Rev. M. Canty, P.P., Part 42.

THE NATURE OF THE PAINS OF PURGATORY PART 1.

THE next question we have to turn attention to is, of what kind are the pains of Purgatory? At the outset we may say that there are some things certain, and some things uncertain, regarding them. Let us separate the certain from the uncertain.

In the first place it is certain, as we have before now seen, that neither despair, nor the fear of damnation, constitutes any of the pains of Purgatory. The souls in that place are troubled by no sentiment, of despair, and no dread of hell.

In the second place it is certain that these souls suffer the pain of loss, which consists in the deprivation of the Divine vision. The soul is deprived of the vision of God. It is a great pain to it, that on account of  its sins it is deprived of the enjoyment of. Him, to whom it ardently longs to be united.

In the third place, it is certain that, in addition to the pain of loss, the soul also suffers another pain, which theologians call the pain of sense. This pain proceeds, not from the bereavement of the beatific vision, but from another cause. Because the soul while in this life, in committing sin, turns away from God, and turns to a creature, or the object or motive for which it sins, it is but just that it should be afterwards afflicted, not alone by the bereavement of God, but even by some created object.

In the fourth place it is certain, from the words of St. Paul (I. Corinth, iii. 15.) : " He shall be saved, yet so as by fire; " and of Jesus Christ Himself in the Gospel (Matt. xxv. 41.) : "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire; " that in Purgatory, as well as in hell, there is the pain of fire, whether we are to take that fire literally or metaphorically, and whether we connect it with the pain of sense or with the pain of loss. Not alone in the Scripture, but even in the works of the Fathers, the pain of Purgatory is called a fire. So far we have seen what is certain. Let us now turn attention to things that are not absolutely certain, or that have formed matter of dispute.

I. It is most probable, or at least more probable, that the fire of Purgatory is corporeal. That is, it is a fire in the true and proper sense of the word, and of the same species as our fire.

This has been never defined by the Church, and consequently is not a matter of Catholic faith. The Greeks openly professed in the Council of Florence that they did not believe there was fire in Purgatory. Still the Council defined, in the last session, that there was a Purgatory, without making any mention of the fire. This notwithstanding, we should hold that there is fire in Purgatory. Dens says : (Tract, de quatuor Novissimis. ) "It is the opinion, constant and to be retained, of the Latins, that in Purgatory there is a material fire, similar to the infernal fire: hence the Church asks for the souls of the faithful not only a place of light and peace, but also of refreshment, verily against the great heat of the fire." Mangeart, (Tome 2, page 241.) while denying it to be of faith that there is a corporeal or material fire in Purgatory, defends it to be proximate to faith. Bellarmine uses milder language, and only says that it is " most probable." Lessius says (II. 18, page 827.) that the reason why Bellarmine does not use stronger language is, " because the Greeks in the Council of Florence, the last session, although confessing that they had always believed in Purgatory and prayer for the dead, nevertheless say they doubt whether they may be tormented with corporeal fire, or darkness only, or any other way, which opinion of theirs the Council tolerates."

I. The first proof of the existence of fire in Purgatory is found in the consent of theologians and scholastics. These, ancient as well as modern, have more commonly held that there is punishment by fire in Purgatory. Their opinion, as Bellarmine says, " cannot but rashly be contemned." It is extremely rash to run counter to it. This would be like opposing or contemning the general opinion of lawyers on a point of law.

Dupin, a writer of the beginning of the last century, well known for his inroads on Catholic doctrine, entirely misinterpreted the sense of St. Augustine, when he asserted that this holy doctor (Lib. de Octo Dulcitii Quaestionibus, q. i, n, 12 ; and Lib 21, de Liv. Dei, cap. 9, n. 2.) left it an open question to every one to believe that the souls in Purgatory, as well as those in hell, suffer from fire. After having discussed at great length the fire by which souls are tormented in the other life, St. Augustine sums up (Lib. 21, do Liv. Dei, cap. 9, n. 2. ) thus: "Let each one choose whichever of the two that pleases him, whether he may consider also that the worm of conscience extends to the body properly, or to the mind, the term being transferred from corporeal to incorporeal things . . provided, however, we in no way believe that those bodies are about to be such that they may be affected by no pains from fire" From this we easily infer that St. Augustine, no matter what sense Dupin may attribute to him, taught that there is a punishment by fire in the other world.

St. Bonaventure (Part 7 Breviloquii, cap. 2.) says ; "The purgatorial fire is a corporal fire, by which only the spirits of the just, who in this life did not perform penance and worthy satisfaction, are afflicted."

Cardinal Hugo (Super Matth. cap. 3. ) speaks of the fire of Purgatory, and defines it thus : "The fire of Purgatory is, where shall be purged, what is not here purged."

Richard of St. Victor (Part I. de Judiciaria potestate.) says of it: " The purgatorial fire "is that by which the rust of sin is consumed in those who are to be saved."

St. Vincent Ferrar (Part I. Serm. 2 Dom. Lex.)  depicts it in the following strong language: " Purgatory is a house full of fire which by Divine virtue torments the souls more than if they were in a burning furnace."

2. The doctrine by far the more common among the Fathers, holds that the fire of Purgatory is corporeal. That this doctrine is common among them, the reader will be able to judge after a few quotations from their works.

Origen, speaking of one who has not perfectly satisfied the justice of God for his sins, and thus dies without being fully purged, writes: (Homil. 13 in Jerem.) " He is a sinner who needs the baptism of fire, who is cleansed by burning, that whatever he may have of wood, hay, and stubble, fire may consume" According to Origen, those souls that owe something to the justice of God at death must be purified by fire in the other life.

St. Augustine (In Psalm xxxi. 13.) writes: “Because it is said: He shall be saved, That fire is contemned. . . . How ever, that fire shall be more severe, than whatever man can suffer in this life." In another part of his works (De Civit. Dei.lib. 21, cap. 10.) he expresses himself in the same sense.

St. Gregory the Great (Lib. 4, Dialog., cap. 30.) says : " It must be believed that there is a purgatorial fire before judgment for some light faults." More than this, he expressly says (Cap. 29. ) that the fire, by which souls are punished in the other life, is corporeal. It is true that it is said in another part (Lib. 15, cap. 14 moralium) of his works that the fire of hell is incorporeal. But this is evidently the fault of the copyists, who wrote incorporeal, for corporeal. The fault clearly lies with the copyists, for St. Gregory immediately after says that those in hell burn corporally.

St. Cyprian (Epist. 59, ad Autonianum. ) writes: "It is one thing to be purged long by fire, another thing to have purged all sins."

St. Jerome also writes (In Psalm xxxvi. n. 26.) "Woe to me if my work shall have burned. . . . We shall be saved by faith, thus, however, saved as if by fire ; and if we be not consumed, still we shall be burnt''

The above quoted Fathers teach us that there is fire in Purgatory. They use the word fire in the literal sense as denoting corporeal fire. St. Gregory, in speaking of it, calls it corporeal fire, and even proves it to be such. He says : (Cap. 29 p. 417.) "If the devil and his angels, although they be incorporeal, are to be tormented with corporeal fire, what wonder is it if souls, even before they recover the bodies, can feel corporeal torments ? " Then St. Thomas, according to his custom, reasoned logically when he said : (In 4, dist. 21, q. I, art.) "It is the same fire which torments the damned in hell, and which purges the just in Purgatory." Not only the punishment of hell, but also that of Purgatory is called fire in Scripture and Tradition. The inspired Word and the writings of the Fathers constantly speak of the fire of Purgatory. It is a rule of interpretation laid down by St. Augustine, followed by Biblicists and theologians, and universally adopted, that Scripture and Tradition are to be received in their proper and literal sense, unless something absurd follows therefrom. But there is : nothing absurd to follow, if we understand the fire of Purgatory in its literal and obvious sense.

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 8.

CHAPTER VI.

The West and the Eucharistic Sacrifice— (Continued).

St. Cyprian.

The testimony of previous writers is largely supplemented by the doctrine of St. Cyprian the martyred bishop of Carthage (flourished 248 A.D.). The allegorical statements of Hippolytus may be somewhat mysterious, but there is not the same difficulty in understanding St. Cyprian. Not that he failed to allegorise ; in this respect his doctrine is found in perfect harmony with that of the rest of our period ; he, too, was in constant search for the deeper, symbolical meanings of the Old Testament; he symbolised, to some extent, concerning the Eucharist itself, as Catholics do even at the present day, when they call the Eucharistic accidents by the name of sacramental symbols.

For the historian, the most invaluable characteristic of his Eucharistic doctrine is that it is purely conservative. With Cyprian there is no application of Philosophy to the Eucharist; there is no originality. In regard to the Eucharistic sacrifice he does not teach his own and human thoughts. 1 He objects to the adulteration of the Divine tradition about the Sacrament, with the teachings of men; his words become emphatic and solemn when announcing that, as we are commanded not to infringe the least commandment of God, much more are we forbidden to tamper with His most august doctrine and precept concerning the Eucharistic celebration. 2 His teaching about the Eucharistic sacrifice is therefore the teaching of the Church, and of Tradition.

Unlike previous writers, Justin excepted, he is unbound by any reserve in treating of the Eucharist. In his sixty-third Epistle he writes against those whose practice erred, through " ignorance or simplicity," about the necessity of using wine in the Eucharistic celebration. Only indirectly does he speak of the sacrifice, and yet his teaching is the fullest in the period under discussion, and may be taken as a surer index of the well-defined belief of Cyprian and of his forefathers, from whom he merely handed it down, than the comparatively meagre references of other writers. What, then, is Cyprian's teaching about a strict sacrifice in the Eucharist ?

Strict Sacrifice. 

"Some, either through ignorance or simplicity," he writes, " in consecrating the Cup of the Lord do not that which Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, the Teacher and Founder of this sacrifice, did and taught." 3 "Who more a priest," he asks, "than Jesus Christ who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered the very same thing which Melchisedech had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, His body and blood." 4 Again: "For if Jesus Christ our Lord and God is Himself the Chief Priest of God the Father, and has first offered Himself a sacrifice to the Father, and has commanded this to be done in commemoration of Himself, surely that priest truly discharges the office of Christ who imitates what Christ did ; and he then offers a true and full sacrifice to God the Father in the Church when he proceeds to offer it according to the manner in which he sees Christ himself to have offered." 5

Though Cyprian uses the word " sacrifice " in a loose sense, so as to mean prayer, 6 or alms, 7 he generally applies it to the Eucharist, and, as will be shown, in the strictest sense. This can be proved independently of his explicit reference that the Eucharist is a " true and full sacrifice," an expression which, after all, leaves a loophole of escape to an objector, since even in his late period, Augustine calls a good work a "true sacrifice." 8 With Cyprian, the word " to sacrifice" is applied to the Eucharist as a technical term. 9 Unlike Tertullian, he makes a distinction between the oblation, or offering of wine (oblatio) 10 and the sacrifice proper of the Consecrated Elements (sacrificium) 11 but the distinction is not always clearly cut, the words oblatio and sacrificium being often used promiscuously. 12

It is most important to note that Cyprian, in the first of these citations, calls Jesus Christ the Teacher of the sacrifice. In the context he appeals to the Gospel and Tradition in defence of his teaching. But if we were to consider merely the Gospel testimony concerning the Eucharistic institution, Christ is not reported as having explicitly described the Supper with the word " sacrifice." His teaching as reported is that the Eucharistic Cup is His blood which is shed (according to some readings, which will be shed) unto the remission of sins, and that the bread is His body which is broken. But does oral tradition represent Christ as describing explicitly the meal as a sacrifice ? Did He teach the sacrifice ? Or did He merely give the premises for the conclusion and describe it as a Supper, while subsequent teachers explicitly taught it to be a sacrifice ? In deciding this question the testimony of Cyprian is important. He says that Christ is the Teacher of this sacrifice; this must mean that Christ not merely taught a Eucharistic meal but described the Eucharist as a sacrifice; otherwise Cyprian's words would be inexact, and he should have to be considered incapable of expressing his meaning. So far as Cyprian's testimony is of value—and it is the testimony, concerning the tradition, of a Father who lived a century and a half after the death of the last Apostle—it gives a Divine origin for the sacrificial expressions concerning the Eucharist. What is more, Irenaeus, who lived half a century after the death of the Apostle John, and who was a strictly conservative writer, testifies also that the Church received the oblation from the Apostles. 13 And if the Apostles taught the strict sacrifice about which Irenaeus speaks, it must, in all reasonableness, be supposed to be a part of the Divine commission and not an unjustifiable invention made by the very men who were promised special Divine assistance. It is true indeed—and the facts present difficulty—that in the beginning the ministers of this sacrifice were not commonly called " priests," but presbyters and bishops. As, however, the fact that sacred ministers are not now called by a name derived from absolution does not prove their unconsciousness of their power of forgiving sin, so the absence of the name " priests," as a technical description of the Apostles, does not prove their unconsciousness of the sacerdotal power, and can be explained by the fact that there was a name, " elder," more in harmony with their former Jewish notions, which was translated " overseer," or bishop, by Greek speakers. Nor is it surprising that the extremely short sketch by the Evangelists should have no explicit reference to " an oblation" in the Eucharist; many things done at the memorable Supper are omitted, and it may be taken that if Christ's body and blood were really present under the Eucharistic symbols, as the Fathers of our period confirm, they were offered by the Saviour to the Father in a form of words which the Apostles could hear.

That Cyprian teaches a strict sacrifice in the Eucharist is plain from the rhetorical question, above, concerning the perfect priesthood of Jesus. Jesus is the priest par excellence —it is not here said because He offered Himself on the Cross, but because he offered, to outward appearance, the same thing which Melchisedech offered, Bread and Wine. The Last Supper therefore was a sacrifice in as strict a sense as Melchisedech's offering. But in the same passages of Cyprian the Eucharist is declared to be identical with the Last Supper; it is " this '* precisely which He commanded to be renewed to the end of time. Cyprian does not, like modern theologians, treat expressly of the essence of this sacrifice, but he gives some data for the solution.

The Implied Essence of the Sacrifice.

" Because,'' he writes, " we make mention of the Passion in all sacrifices (for the Lord's Passion is the sacrifice which we offer), we ought to do nothing else than what He did. For the Sacred Scriptures say, as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew forth the Lord's death until He come." 14 Also, " Through Solomon also the Holy Spirit shews beforehand a type of the Lord's sacrifice, of the immolated victim, and of the bread and wine, yea, making mention also of the altar and the Apostles." 15 Here Cyprian calls the Eucharistic sacrifice a representation of the Passion, and even the Passion itself. When he calls it the Passion itself, does he mean that the Eucharist is morally one with the sacrifice of the Cross ? Or is this a loose expression which means merely that it is a commemoration, an anamnesis of the Passion ? The fact that the phrase, " our sacrifice is the Lord's Passion," is given as a reason for the statement " we recall the Passion " implies, though not demonstratively, that the second phrase contains something more than the first, that the Eucharist is, morally speaking, identical with the Passion. A further reason  given by Cyprian is Paul's statement 16 that the eating of the Bread and the drinking of the Cup represent the death of the Lord. These words of Scripture do not mean a merely symbolical representation, but a realistic representation containing the Victim of Calvary. Christ's death is, as it were, continued and morally present.

Cyprian also says, in the second passage quoted, that in Solomon's words there was a prototype of the immolated Victim in the Eucharist. Does Cyprian, while not discussing formally the essence of the Sacrifice, imply that the Eucharist is absolutely, and in itself, a mystical destruction, or, on the other hand, a representation of a former destruction ? His words do not decide the question. They do not tell whether this immolated Victim was once destroyed on the Cross, and is now merely offered, or whether He is destroyed anew, though in a mystic manner, in each repetition of the Eucharist. It is interesting to note that Cyprian speaks of the " Lordly Victim" in the Eucharist, Hostia Dominica. 17 This is a suggestion that the Lord, really present, is the immediate object of the Eucharistic sacrifice. But this thought requires further development.

Object Offered.

"Hence, it appears," he writes, " that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the Cup." 18 Again. " So we  call Him also our Bread, for Christ is bread to those of us who touch His body'. 19 "But," he writes, " because Christ bore us all in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water (used in the oblation) is understood the people, but in the wine is shown the blood of Christ." 20

The question, then, is whether there is in the Eucharist a direct offering of the really present body and blood of Christ. Or may it be that, just as Cyprian's saying " our sacrifice is the Passion of Christ" may possibly mean, our sacrifice is a commemoration of the Passion, so, " to offer the blood of Christ" may mean merely to offer a commemoration of the blood of Christ ? I believe that Cyprian's mind was decided in the belief that the immediate object of the Eucharistic offering is the real body and blood of Christ. It may be freely admitted that Cyprian, like his predecessors, Clement, Origen and Tertullian, and like his Catholic successors of to-day, who speak of the sacramental symbols, was a symbolist as well as a realist when speaking of the Eucharist. He institutes an antithesis between the water and wine, the former is a symbol of the people, the latter of the Lord's blood. The former is a mere symbol not containing the reality symbolised, but the character of an antithesis surely need not make us suppose that the latter, or the Consecrated Wine, is an identical kind of symbol, that is, a mere symbol without the reality signified.

That Cyprian believed in the body of the Lord really present, and a pari in the real presence of His blood, is clear from the strong expression cited, regarding the touching or handling of the body of Christ in the Eucharist. Surely this presence is not merely symbolic ; it is palpable enough. If, then, the body and blood of Christ are really present, they may be taken as offered in that which Cyprian calls "an oblation." Besides, Cyprian says that Christ " has first offered Himself and commanded this to be done in commemoration of Himself.'' 21 One of the effects of this offering is communion with the mystical body of Christ.

Effect of Communion.

" When," he writes, " the water is mingled with wine in the Cup, the people are made one with Christ. . . . For if anyone offer wine alone, the blood of Christ is disassociated from us ; but if the water be alone the people are disassociated from Christ." 22 Just as an ordinary meal is often a sign of the fellowship and union of the guests, so the sacrificial meal causes a union of God and men. There is no longer the gross pagan idea that at this union God receives food from man : He gives food in the Eucharist and He receives thanks. St. Paul had before his mind this union, this communion as a result of sacrifice, when he declared that the eating even of the sacrificial meats offered to idols caused a union with the demons. 23 Hence the Eucharist may well be called "communion," not merely because the recipient shares in the physical body of Christ, but because its reception is a sign that a person is not cut off, or excommunicated, from the mystical body of Christ, from Christ Himself and His Church.

Another Effect,  Propitiation.

" If anyone," Cyprian writes concerning another effect of the sacrifice, " should do this, no offering should be made for him nor should any sacrifice be celebrated for his repose. 24 For he does not deserve to be named at God's altar in the prayers of the priests." 25 Here we have it plainly implied by Cyprian that there was a custom of offering the Eucharistic sacrifice for the repose of the dead, some of whom must therefore be conceived as needing refreshment and as receiving benefit from the Sacrifice. From this effect was excluded one who, by his will, made a priest the executor of his business and thus involved him in secular affairs. To attribute to Cyprian any theories as to how this propitiation worked in the case of the living or dead—whether it produced its effect directly or indirectly—would be to read into his statements modern concepts; for us it is sufficient that he stated the simple fact that the Eucharistic sacrifice propitiated God in behalf of the dead. When we remember, also, how Cyprian teaches that it was offered for the Lapsed, but not before performing penance, 26 we must attribute to Cyprian the teaching of an offering both for the living and the dead. It does not appear, however, whether this offering for the living had a merely impetratory efficiency, or also a satisfactory power in regard to sin.

It will be noted, too, that in the passage cited he makes a reference to the naming of the deceased at God's altar. Presumably, the names were written in the diptychs, or folding charts mentioned in the older Liturgies. When it is remembered how Cyprian's own words express that the Eucharist is a true and full sacrifice, that it contains an immolated Victim, a Lordly Victim, that it was taught and founded by Jesus Christ, that it is a commemoration of the Lord's Passion, and even in some sense the Passion itself, that therein the blood of Christ is offered, that it is a symbol of the communion of the people with Christ, that it is offered for the repose of the dead, that the names of the deceased are mentioned at the altar, that certain of the living and certain of the dead are cut off from this effect, or excommunicated, it may be reasonably conceded that it is hard to recall any essential sacrificial belief among modern Catholics which is not found with the Carthaginian Father.

1 Nostra et humann Ep. 63.

2 Ep. 63.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Ep. 63.

6 Ore Sacrificia . . . offero Ep. 69 n 9.

7 Quae in dominicum sine sacrificio venis, De Op. et Eleem. c. 15.

8 De Civ, Dei, lib. x., cap. 6.

9 Sacrificantibus. De Lapsis, c. 26.

 10 Ep. 63.

11 Testim. iii. 9i and De Unit. Eccl. 17.

12 De Op. et Elleem. c. 15.

13 Adv. Haer., iv. 17, 5.

14 Ep. 63.

15 Ibid.

16 I. Cor., xi.

17 De Unit. Eccl., 17.

18 Ep. 63.

19 Christus eorum qui corpus ejus contingimus panis est. De Dom. Orat. 18.

20 Ep. 63.

21 Ep, 63.

22 I Cor. x.

23 Ibid.

24 Pro dormitione ejus.

25 Ep, i, 2.

26 Ep. 15, 2, and^p, 16 ; 2.3