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 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.

The Mass In The Infant Church By Rev Garrett Pierse Part 11.

Section II. MONUMENTAL AND LITURGICAL EVIDENCE.

CHAPTER VIII. Monumental Evidence for the Mass. Part 2

A Cast Of The Inscription of Abercius

Two fragments of the stone bearing this inscription were found by Ramsay, who was a careful investigator of Eastern antiquities. It is attributed to a period anterior to 216 A.D.. Ficker was the first to deny its Christian interpretation. 1

His denial would not be so effective if he did not receive the support of another scholar, Adolf Harnack. 2 Ficker stated that Abercius was a priest of Cybele. But, if this were so, it would be exceedingly difficult to explain the prominent reference to the fish, which was denied as a food to the votaries of Cybele.

Harnack attacks the purely Christian interpretation of the inscription, and attributes to it an origin, partly pagan, partly Christian. He singles out the apparently insignificant facts in connection with it, and on these he bases his arguments. This method of selecting the small facts of the case is common with critics. It is much used in the investigation of internal evidence. Such a method has disadvantages as well as advantages. While it may tend in the direction of close observation, and may give an invaluable help to scholarship, it may also lead to undue emphasis on trifles. The latter I believe to be the hapless result of Harnack's close scrutiny of the inscription of Abercius. Against its purely Christian character it is urged that there is nothing specifically Christian about it, that, for example, there is no reference to such a dogma as the resurrection. But even if this were true, it would not prove much. There are a good many Christian inscriptions which are known to be such only from their surroundings. But can anything be more Christian than a request to pray for the dead Abercius ? It is argued that the form of the monumental stone is not Christian. But the argument does not hold in the face of facts adduced by Wilpert to show that there were several Christian monuments of similar shape. 3 Against its Christianity it is argued that there is in the inscription a reference to some king, reigning in Rome, but a more likely reading is "queenly Rome," a hint of the eminence of the Roman Church. It is, also, argued that the shepherd of Abercius is not the Christian shepherd. To this one may reply that there are two symbolical shepherds. The one has the pastoral staff for the purpose of driving back to the fold the erring sheep. This symbolises the conversion of a sinner. The other shepherd in Christian symbolism feeds, and tends assiduously his beloved flock. Sometimes he is represented as gladdening them with the strains of his pastoral lute. Such is, most likely, the meaning of the Orpheus depicted in the Catacombs; he is symbolical of Christ,. Who is, according to Clement of Alexandria, the Divine enchanter of souls. 4 In reference to this it has been said that the Christian pastor should be more ready with his lute than with his staff. Now the shepherd who feeds and tends his flock is the shepherd of the Abercius inscription.

If the epigraph were a pagan one, how can it be explained that the Christian Alexander saw nothing incongruous in adopting it for himself in a monument discovered by Ramsay? 5 Instead of saying with Harnack that the pastor is King Atis and the King and Queen Jupiter and Juno, I am forced to give it a Christian explanation. In this brief inscription there is reference to several features of Christianity, to Baptism, the Incarnation, the Virginity of Mary, the Eucharist, the Discipline of the Secret. The Pastor is the Good Shepherd. The Food, consisting of Bread and choice Wine, is the Holy Eucharist. The Fish, identified with this Food, is Christ, our Lord. The Fish was borne by the chaste Virgin Mary. In the mixed wine there is an allusion to the ritual of the mingled Eucharistic cup, which in this respect resembles the Passover Liturgy. There is a hint of an august mystery symbolically disclosed, when Abercius asks the spectator who understands to pray for him. Origen, dealing with the Eucharist, uses similar guarded expressions. He says that the initiated will understand the mystical expressions. 6 It is suggested, 7 with some likelihood, that this Abercius is the Avircius who is mentioned by Eusebius, 8 and who was the author of a treatise against the Montanists.

Somewhat similar to the inscription of Abercius is that of Pectorius of Autun. It was discovered in Autun, in 1839, and its meaning was explained by Pitra. 9 It belongs to the commencement of the third century. 10 In it there is a recommendation to the Christian to " take the sweet Food of the saints, holding the Fish in his hands." Its importance in connection with the doctrine of the Real Presence will be at once noted, while it also testifies to a liturgical circumstance of the early Church, the custom of taking the Eucharistic symbols in the hand. The Eucharist, it will be seen, was taken in the right hand, under which the left was placed as a kind of throne. 11

The Mass in the Catacombs

After viewing in their different parts the pictures of the Catacombs, bearing on the Mass, it may be well to inquire whether that function, which they represented, was held in the place itself. The celebration of the Eucharist in cemeteries would have a feeble parallel in Paganism itself. The resemblance threw a cloak of legality around the Christian practice, and proved of invaluable service in days of persecution. The Pagans had their funeral clubs. 12 They met in sepulchral chambers. Funerary Agapes were held in aid of their departed friends. It was believed that the spirits of the dead gained some advantage from the supply of food which was placed near their tombs. 13 In the beginning of the Christian era, this custom of celebrating funeral Agapes was common among the Gentiles, and had forced an entrance even among the conservative Jews. To the Roman rulers, therefore, the meetings of the Christians in the cemeteries of their dead did not, in the beginning, cause much alarm. The resemblance between these and the funeral Agapes of the Pagans was apparent. Was not the Lord's Supper, in its repetition, of a funerary character ? It was intended to commemorate the death of the Lord. Did Christ, giving it this funerary character, intend to utilise the good qualities of a Pagan and Jewish usage, in order to prolong indefinitely the anniversary celebration of His own death ? We know not. All that may be said is that the Eucharist resembled the funerary Agapes. For a long time, also,—until, at least, the end of the first century—the Eucharist included an Agape. It was but natural that the Romans should look on the Christian meetings as harmless, extend to them the same toleration as to funeral clubs, and only take measures against them in times of great anti-Christian fury. The Christians, too, saw their advantage, and used, in describing their meetings, language which resembles that of the non-Christian clubs. 14 Thus, the funeral clubs called themselves worshippers of Jupiter, of Venus, of Apollo and Diana; the Christians named themselves worshippers of God, or of the Word. De Rossi, therefore, appears to be right when he holds that the Christians, aided by the sanctity of cemeteries, and sheltered under the cloak of Heathenism itself, found a way to freely assemble for purpose of worship. 15

Those assemblies had a close connection with a renewal of the memory of the dead. Already, Tertullian could narrate as an established usage, that the Christians made anniversary offerings in behalf of the dead. 16 Two classes of the dead were commemorated, the martyrs and those who died a natural death. We see an example of honour for the martyred dead in the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, a work which belongs to the middle of the second century. In this document we find the following interesting statement:—" We take his bones, more costly than precious jewels, and more valuable than gold, and we place them in a worthy place. Here we assemble according to our opportunity to celebrate his martyrdom in joyousness." 17 A recent writer, Dr. Wieland, has said that the worship of martyrs was only a late extension of the Eucharistic worship. 18 But could anyone at the present day express in stronger language than this the reverential feeling, not merely for the martyr's person, the martyr's body, but even for his relics ? The document is also useful, as giving us a glimpse of the great joyousness of those early liturgical gatherings. Just as the Eucharist, though a commemoration of the last, sad supper, has always about it the joyful ring of the Resurrection, so too those services in honour of the martyrs were of the most festive, gladsome character. These services, very probably, would not be regarded by Tertullian, at least, as giving any solace to the martyr's soul. He seems to state that the martyr's spirit entered at once into Heavenly repose. 19

In case of the ordinary dead, however, the liturgical service was intended to give solace and refreshment. The Council of Elvira supposes that the spirits of the dead tarried near the cemeteries, and prohibits, under severe penalty, the lighting of candles, lest these spirits should be thereby disturbed. 20 It may seem, at present, a crude idea for a local Council. Are we, however, decided as to the precise place where souls, in need of some purgation, are punished ? Even at present, is it not said that they may be punished by spending some time near the scene of their earthly crimes ? At any rate, the prohibition of the Council of Elvira showed the belief that the souls of some deceased persons had not yet entered blessedness, and needed the refreshment afforded by the Eucharistic offering. The apocryphal Acts of John may be cited in illustration of the practice of holding Eucharistic services at the graves of the dead. This document, indeed, is not a faithful witness of the times of St. John the Apostle, but, as no writer can forsake the ideas of his own time, the author may be presumed to betray the custom in the days of its composition, about the end of the second century. The work refers to a meeting at the grave of Drusiana, the third day after her death, for the purpose of breaking Bread. 21

Besides memorial services for the dead, were there in the Catacombs regular Sunday gatherings of the whole congregation ? Some would be inclined to hold that at least in times of persecution there were such meetings in the cemeteries of Rome and other places. Wieland 22 has denied this view, and confines the services to those of a purely memorial kind. These are the facts which, at least, will make it clear that gatherings did actually take place for liturgical purposes in the Catacombs.


1 Sitzungsberichten der Kgl, Preuss.Akademie der Wissensch,, 1 Feb., 1894. S. 87 ff.

2 Texte und Untersuchungen, Leipzig, 1895, txii, fasc. 4.

3 Fractio Panis, 105 sq.

4 Exhortation to the Heathen, c, 1.

5 Cf Marucchi. Elements d Archeol. Chret. i art. Eucharistie.

6 Novit qui mysteriis imbutus est. InLevit. ix., 10 Quae norunt qui initiati sunt. In Exod. viii., 4.

7 De Rossi. Inscrip, Christ., t ii, p. i, p. xviii., sq,

8 H. E. v., 16.

9 Cf: Pitrn, Spicil, Solesm. iii., p. 554-564.

10 Marucchi, Elements d'Archeol. Chret. i. p. 293.

11 Cf. Cyril of Jer ; Catech. xxiii., c. 22.

12 Cf. Wieland, Mensa und Confessio i, s. 76, sq.

13 Cf. Catholic Encyclopaedia, art, Agape by Leclerque.

14 Cf. Wieland Mensa und Confessio i, p. 76, sq.

15 Cf. De Rossi Bull. 1864, p. 28.

16 De Corona Militis c. 3 ; Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis annua die facimus.

17 Martyrium S. Polycarpi c. 18.

18 Mensa und Confessio i, p. 48.

19 Sed et interim sub altari martyrum animae placidum quiescunt; Scorpiace. 12.

20 Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgica, t, 1., sect. 1, p. 218. par. 369,

21 Acta Joannis, H.E., V., I., 61.

22 Mensa und Confessio, I., S, 82 sq.

The Mass In The Infant Church By Rev. Garrett Pierse Part 1

Impression Of The Eucharistic Sacrifice found in The Catacombs

Preface
The aim of this treatise on " The Mass in the Infant Church " is not a one-sided defence of any thesis, nor an equally one-sided attack on any other. The writer has tried not to bring a decided judgment to his task ; he has endeavoured not to read into early writers his own concepts, but, hearkening to all the witnesses, listening to investigators on both sides, leaving aside opinions heard " outside the court," to draw his conclusion after a full examination of the evidence. Whether he has discharged the duty of a faithful narrator, whether he has given all the facts as he claims to have done, whether he has suppressed anything that might tell against his own interests, of this the reader is the judge.

To some it may seem a bold programme, or even a rash undertaking, to search for the Mass in the infant Church. But the inquiry is worth the effort. For the Protestant it is a momentous question whether the Mass existed in the early Church. For the Catholic it is not less important.

One of the motives that induced the writer to select this aspect of Eucharistic doctrine is that it presents a new field for research. He could find in print no English work directly bearing on this precise subject, nor any French works, but in this matter, as in many others, Germans have been pioneers of Theological investigation. With their results, which will be briefly summarised at the outset, he must, however, disagree almost entirely, but he is grateful for the suggestiveness and stimulus of works whose conclusions he generally rejects.

But the principal motive in treating the present question is the vast importance which Catholics claim for the Mass. The Eucharist was the centre of religious worship in the beginning ; it is so to-day. Then, as now, the Eucharistic celebration was the soul of the religious life. The Mass is the most distinctive of Catholic doctrines. Catholics advance for it a sublime claim : It is an offering of God, by God, to God. To sketch the lineaments of this great dogma in its infancy is surely of some importance. If the investigation gives the reader a keener appreciation of the essential Catholic claims for the Mass, it will have served a purpose. Incidentally it may stimulate thought as to whether there are any variations in the teachings of early writers, and whether there was a progress from obscurity to clearness in certain aspects of their doctrine.

The drawings in this treatise are reproduced with the kind permission of Monsignor Wilpert, author of Fractio Pants and Die Katakombengemalde, and of Mr. Herder, Publisher. Freiburg im Breisgau.

G. PIERSE.

Dunboyne House, Maynooth College,

March 31st, 1909.

Section I. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

CHAPTER I. Introductory.

The Subject

At the beginning of a historical inquiry it is well to determine with all possible accuracy the exact point at issue. The question with which I purpose to deal is whether the doctrine of the Mass can be found in the infant Church. But the thought of the Mass 1 calls forth different ideas. It may excite a fairly definite concept in the mind of every Catholic, while there are some non-Catholics to whom the mention of the Mass conveys none but the vaguest notions, but both the former and the latter have a right to ask in what sense I use the term in the present inquiry. My task is not to determine whether the varying opinions of modern Catholic writers on the Mass are found in distant antiquity. I speak only of definitive and authoritative teaching. The principal doctrines of the Mass, as set forth in the Council of Trent, 2 are that it is a true and strict sacrifice, that in it priests offer the body and blood of Christ, that it is not a sacrifice merely of praise and thanksgiving, that it is not a nude commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross, that it produces a propitiatory effect, that it may be offered for the living and the dead. Stated briefly, and in a manner that may be easily grasped, the Mass is the offering of the real body and blood of Christ under the external appearances of bread and wine. This is the characteristic, distinguishing note of Catholic doctrine. Other systems may admit that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, but they fall short of the test doctrine of Catholicity that it is an offering of the real body and blood of Christ.

If it is found that the early Church teaches an offering of the body and blood of Christ, it would contain expressly the chief doctrine concerning the Mass, and at least from that view-point,—should the hypothesis be true,—the early Christians would feel more at home with the Catholic doctrine than with that of her rivals. On the other hand, teachings about the Mass may be conceived to be implicitly found in early Christianity. If that alone were true, Catholics could reasonably affirm the substantial identity of later and earlier doctrines. The man is the same person as the child, though the limbs of the latter are not so well-developed as those of the former.

Investigating the doctrine of the early Church, I have limited myself to the period, roughly speaking, from 150 to 250 a.d. The study of that period has the advantage of concentrating attention on the interval about which the controversy rages fiercest at the present day. St. Justin Martyr, who was living in the first year of the period, is a centre of controversy. By non-Catholics he is regarded as the representative of the sub-Apostolic period, during which, as in Apostolic times, they contend that no objective sacrifice was taught. By Catholics this position has been stoutly contested. Again, the epoch of St. Cyprian, who was living in the last year of my period, is a pivot about which a great portion of the controversy turns. Non-Catholics, in recent times, state that he introduced a new doctrine concerning an objective sacrifice in the Eucharist, thereby altering the teaching of his predecessors, while Catholics have traditionally maintained that he did but express more explicitly what was really held by his forerunners. It is important to investigate whether the period under discussion gave rise to a reversal of the previous doctrine concerning the Eucharist. Apart from this controversial aspect, it is interesting to enquire whether in this interval there was a development of sacrificial doctrine in the sense of Cardinal Newman, whether there was greater explicitness in certain matters, whether there was any variety or alteration in other aspects, the whole always maintaining a substantial identity.

A writer cannot pretend to know directly what was the doctrine of the Church itself. He can testify only to the opinions of the Fathers, or to monumental evidence. The fact that there are only about a dozen authorities in the period, that these did not write express treatises on the subject, that their remarks, when bearing on the point, are often merely incidental, that the doctrine under discussion was not yet questioned, and therefore required no definite formulation, that it was an age of persecution combined with an ardently Christian life, and not a time of peace and intellectual inquiry, such as produced the more exact doctrine of later days,—these considerations should make one cautious about dogmatising concerning the mind of the Church. But insufficient as may be our guides in some respects, and however cautiously they must be employed, they give us the only presumption we can form concerning the Church of the period, and the marshalling of their early testimonies raises various questions of profound interest. Was, then, the Mass in the sense of an offering of the body and blood of Christ in the infant Church from 150 to 250 A.D. ?

Harnack's Solution.

In regard to the beginning of this period, Professor Adolf Harnack 3 denies that the Church was conscious of a strict, objective sacrifice in the Eucharist. According to him, in the sub-Apostolic age there were various notions of sacrifice. In a general sense, obedience and the consecration of body and soul to God in religious service were regarded as sacrifices ; in a more special sense, prayers and thanksgiving were regarded as such. In a most special sense, prayers and the gifts from which were taken the Eucharistic elements and the materials for the Christian Agape and alms for the poor,—all these, considered collectively, were regarded as forming a sacrifice, but not one in a strict sense. This was a " spiritualised Semitic idea of sacrifice." 4

In Justin's time and for some years afterwards, the Lord's Supper was a sacrifice offered up by the whole community, not by distinct priests. Various influences according to Harnack contributed to the association of this loose idea of sacrifice with the Sacrament of the Eucharist, such as the fact that prayers of all kinds—and the Eucharist was connected with prayer—were called sacrifices, that the prophecy of Malachy demanded a solemn sacrifice, that the command of Christ—" Do this, &c."—in connection with the Last Supper, though in itself meaning only a religious act, naturally suggested to a Greek mind the idea of sacrificing, that, in fine, the materials for the Agape came in the course of time to be regarded as sacrificial gifts.

The sacrifice in the Eucharist consists merely of prayers, according to Justin's idea and that of his contemporaries. Since this is the essence of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, the sacred elements are only " gifts" obtaining value solely from the prayers. Prayer is the pure sacrifice of Malachy offered to God while the u Christians place before Him what He has bestowed in order to receive it back with thanks and praise." The sacrificial act is one of thanksgiving, whereby the common bread becomes the Eucharistic Bread. The body of Christ is not, therefore, the object of this sacrificial act; there is no trace of this explicit concept in Justin. It is true—Harnack will admit—that this Father calls the Eucharist a sacrifice, and sees in the Eucharistic Bread the actual flesh of Christ, but he does not connect the body of Christ with the act of sacrificing. Justin has the premises on which the later and altered idea of the sacrificial character of the elements will be based under the influence, to some extent, of a Hellenistic environment. Justin connects the Eucharist with the sacrifice of the Cross, a theological reflection which is not found previously.

In Justin there is no special relation between this kind of Eucharistic sacrifice and the forgiveness of sins. The only apparent effect of the elements which are called a spiritual nourishment is to give faith and a guarantee of eternal life.

After Justin's time, however, that is, about the latter part of the second century, there was an alteration in the idea of the priesthood. It was now a distinct, specific priesthood, the priesthood of a clique. This alteration of the doctrine of the priesthood reacted on the idea of sacrifice, but it would be superfluous to inquire which was first altered, as both terms are correlative. Though living in the latter part of the second century, Irenaeus and Tertullian have the old idea of Justin about sacrifice, that prayers are the Christian sacrifice, and that the disposition of the offerer hallows the offering. Tertullian, indeed, presents a slight modification, inasmuch as he gives a propitiatory and a meritorious value to sacrifices in this loose sense. Harnack regrets this development, which, according to him, was first definitely made by Tertullian, because it gave to outward forms, as the discipline of fasting, a value which was afterwards utilized in cloaking a lax religious life. Tertullian's pupil, Cyprian, however, exhibits the altered idea of the Eucharistic sacrifice. According to this Father, there is a specific sacrifice connected with a specific priesthood; the Passion of the Lord, nay, the blood of Christ, the Lord as a victim 5 is the term of the act of sacrificing; the Eucharistic sacrifice causes an incorporation into Christ's mystic body, and a commemoration in this service has a special power of intercession for the living and the dead. Cyprian attributes to the Eucharist an expiatory effect. Harnack describes this teaching of St. Cyprian as a mere assertion, because the Berlin Professor does not understand how forgiveness of sins in the strict sense could be associated with the Eucharist, especially since there were two other instruments for this purpose already in existence—namely, Baptism and Penance. He rebukes the Catholic Church of the present day for the same doctrine, but speaks confusedly, without determining whether Catholicity authoritatively teaches an immediate atonement for sin, as an effect of the sacrifice, or a mediate expiation caused, for example, by means of a subsequent grace of contrition.

Harnack concedes that Cyprian most probably found in existence the alleged new concept of sacrifice, namely, the transference of the sacrificial idea to the consecrated elements. This doctrine is explained ultimately by the desire to associate some mysterious, magical function with the newly-formed distinct priesthood. Besides, Christianity was becoming secularised, and desired to absorb the worldly idea of a bloody sacrifice though in an invisible form. The immediate causes of the idea which was at least publicly expressed by Cyprian are alleged to have been that the Eucharist was a commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross and gradually came to be regarded as the thing itself, and that it was an exact imitation of the Last Supper. Harnack offers no proof for the ultimate motives which he attributes to the Church in evolving her idea of sacrifice ; in support of the theory of the immediate causes of the new idea he asserts that Cyprian's view that the blood of Christ is offered in sacrifice is only a tendency of opinion, not exactly defined, inasmuch as the Carthaginian Father is alleged to regard as identical therewith the expression—to offer the Chalice in commemoration of the Passion. Although this new development is found in Cyprian, and presumably in the West generally, there is said to be no trace of a repeated sacrifice of Christ in Origen, or in the East.

The above is fairly representative of recent Protestant ideas concerning the early Christian concept of Sacrifice. St. Cyprian is alleged to have been the forerunner of Catholics in their theories of the Mass. He is said to have given a false turn to the previous doctrine. Such was the conclusion, before Adolf Harnack's time, of Hofling, 6 and of Theodore Harnack. 7 That this view, however, must be to some extent corrected is expressly stated by the Protestant, Loofs. 8 The latter admits that there are in Justin the elements of a sacrifice culminating in the consecration. He means apparently that Cyprian's idea is found implicitly in his predecessor. 9

Teaching of Wieland.

A recent Catholic writer, Dr. Wieland, of Dillingen, concedes 10 to the Protestant position,  that the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic Church was unacquainted with an objective sacrifice in the Eucharist. As the work from whatever reason does not contain an Imprimatur, it does not vouch for the opinion of any section of Catholics, but only for those of the author. Wieland maintains that the Church of the Apostolic faith identified the Eucharistic sacrifice with the Eucharistic prayer. At this time Christians were conscious of no objective offering of visible gifts.

In the first half of the second century, also, Apologists, like Aristides and Athenagoras, extol purely spiritual sacrifices to the exclusion of all visible gifts, It was not that they were merely unconscious of any offering of visible gifts, but they positively excluded them, thus placing themselves in opposition to the expounders of the later development of sacrificial doctrine. This is alleged to be the attitude of mind of Clement of Alexandria. According to him, if we must believe Wieland, the body and blood of Christ, the fruit of the once-offered sacrifice of Christ, are eaten, indeed, but not offered. Not His body and blood but the instrument producing them on the altar, namely, prayer, constitutes the Christian sacrifice. Though Minutius Felix has the purely subjective idea of sacrifice, he speaks of it as a good life rather than as prayer. Wieland places Justin's idea of sacrifice in the eating of the Eucharistic meal, which commemorates Christ's death, and in the accompanying prayers. This is interpreted to mean that Justin, too, had the purely subjective view of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Irenaeus, however, is said to begin an extension of that sacrificial idea which prevailed in the Church down to Justin's death. He is alleged to add to the purely subjective concept of sacrifice an objective offering of a visible gift, namely, bread and wine, as a concrete expression of the spiritual idea of praise and thanksgiving. He was conscious that this theory was new, and explained how it could be reconciled with the principle dominating the earlier idea, namely, that God did not need gifts of any kind. After the time of Irenaeus, Tertullian exhibits both the earlier idea and its extension. While the more liberal portion of the East, represented by Origen, was influenced by the altered sacrificial concept—the great Alexandrian scholar speaking of the offered bread,—the conservative circle, represented by the Didascalia, still clung to the older and more spiritual idea. As a further development in the West, St. Cyprian spoke of the consecrated, as well as of the material elements as sacrificial. Differing from Harnack and a large Protestant section, Wieland traces this absolutely new idea of sacrifice not merely to Cyprian but as far back as Irenaeus. He, also, differs even from the reformed Protestant theory of Loofs in that he does not find the elements of the later idea in Justin, so that he does not give this Father the credit of teaching it implicitly, but associates him with the purely subjective idea of sacrifice.

Teaching of Renz.

Closely resembling Wieland's position, and consequently agreeing, in some respects, with the Protestant theory described in the beginning, is the solution offered by Dr. Renz. 11 Both concede to the Protestant view, that, down to the middle of the second century, there was in the Church no formal concept of an objective sacrificial gift connected with the Eucharist. Wieland refers to the book of Renz not a few times in support of his statements. In this matter he merely presented in more extreme form some fundamental views of Renz, which, stated moderately, did not excite hostile criticism, and were published with episcopal approbation. Renz teaches that Justin and his contemporaries had no concept of an objective sacrificial gift in the Eucharist; so does Wieland. Renz teaches that Irenaeus introduces a new explicit concept, namely, this idea of an objective sacrificial gift; in this he is followed by Wieland. Renz holds that the sub-Apostolic age understood the word, " altar," merely in a figurative sense, so as to mean God or the Christian community; so does Wieland. But Renz stops short of Wieland in not asserting that the Apologists excluded the later idea of objective sacrificial gifts; according to the former the doctrine, during all the period with which I deal, was the same, only the explicitness of the development was new.

According to Renz the Eucharist is considered by Justin to be a sacrifice only inasmuch as it is a representation of the Passion of Christ, and is accompanied by prayers. It was not yet considered as an objective sacrificial gift; this was the thought of Irenaeus. The sacrificial act according to Justin and other writers of our period is alleged to be thanksgiving which is effected through the representation of the Passion, which in turn is effected through the eating and drinking of the Consecrated Elements. The object of the sacrificial act is not the Eucharistic Bread and Chalice, but the representation of the sacrifice of the Cross. 12

The idea of Justin and the sub-Apostolic Fathers is propagated by Irenaeus, but the latter 13 exhibits a new concept. His development is that the thanksgiving, which forms the sacrificial act, is given concrete expression by means of visible gifts. In other words, there is in the Eucharist an objective sacrificial gift. The act of sacrificing is the act of thanking the Father for all His benefits, 14 not the consecration of bread and wine. The object of the sacrificial act is the body and blood of Christ. It must not be understood at once that Renz would say these are directly offered in a strict sense. He understands the offering of the body and blood of Christ, in St. Cyprian's doctrine, to mean merely that there is offered a representation of the sacrifice of the Cross, and he supposes the same theory to be held by his predecessors.

Clement of Alexandria is alleged to teach that the Logos is not offered in the Eucharist. His more famous pupil, Origen, is said to teach that the sacrificial activity of the Eucharist is centered in the praise of God for His goodness, not merely oral and spiritual praise, but praise finding concrete and visible expression in bread and wine in their natural and converted state. The act of offering is the prayer of thanksgiving. The object of the sacrificial act is the Eucharistic Bread. The peculiar thought or explicitness of Origen, as interpreted by Renz, is that the Eucharistic body and blood of Christ objectively reminds the Father of the great propitiation wrought by the bloody sacrifice of the Cross. 15

According to Tertullian, the Eucharist is a sacrifice because of its prayer and thanksgiving, because, further, there is an offering of bread and wine, and a consumption of the Lord's body and blood. Tertullian does not speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice in a proper sense. 16 For the idea of a victim, with Tertullian, implies a suffering Christ 17 and Christ suffers no longer, but is glorified, and His glorified body it is which is eaten. But the eating is not sacrificial in a strict sense. Why, then, is the Eucharist called in Tertullian's phrase "the sacrifice?" Because, like Irenaeus and Origen, he represents the bread and wine, changed to the body and blood of the Lord, as the objective expression of the adoration of God. Tertullian, according to Renz, does not speak expressly of the Eucharist as a commemoration of the sacrifice of the Cross.

According to Tertullian's disciple, St. Cyprian, the sacrifice is a representation of the Passion.18 This explanation, however, does not mean that the sacrifice cannot be described from other view-points. Cyprian's idea of sacrifice is fully interpreted by Renz to be an offering to the Father of thanks and adoration—the very praise and thanks offered by Jesus on the Cross? —which is effected by the representation of the Passion, which, in turn, is effected by the drinking of the Chalice. The Eucharist is a repetition, not of the sacrifice of the Cross, but of the offering in the Last Supper. In a strict sense, Christ can be said to be offered only on the Cross. 19 The Chalice, in representing the Passion, represents the sacrificial act performed on the Cross.

The object of the sacrificial act is the body and blood of Christ according to Cyprian. What does Renz mean by the statement of Cyprian that the blood of Christ is offered ? He does not take it to mean a direct offering of the Saviour's blood, but rather a representation of the blood-shedding on the Cross, made by the flesh and blood of Christ really present under the appearances of bread and wine. 20 This interpretation of Renz is consistent with his other views that the new Testament writers did not speak of any offering of a living being in the Eucharist, and that the Scripture idea is really the same as that prevailing down to the death of Cyprian. 21 Cyprian's teaching would be admitted by Renz to be a new reality, and not a merely novel expression of the doctrine, if he taught —which is denied by his interpreter—the Eucharist to be a repetition of the sacrifice of the Cross.

Those researches of Renz in the literature of the early Church are supposed to be a part of a proof that Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages support his view of the sacrifice of the Mass. He holds that the Mass is, in essence, a representation of the bloody sacrifice of the Cross. It is a true and proper sacrifice since the body and blood of Christ are really present-Renz vehemently opposes the theory that there is any destruction in the sacrifice of the Mass. 22 The peculiar circumstance about the theory of Renz, as distinct from the kindred and older view of Vasquez, is that the former, just as he admits in the Eucharist only a representation of Christ's destruction, maintains only a representation of the real offering of Christ. The expression of Trent concerning the Eucharist, " Christ offers Himself in an unbloody manner," is declared, in this unusual exegesis, to be equivalent to the phrase, 11 Christ figuratively represents the offering on the Cross." 23

If it be asked in what consists this representation of the bloody sacrifice, the answer given by Renz is uncommon. The representation is effected by the eating and drinking of the Consecrated Species. The idea was advanced by the late Bishop Bellord under the name of the Banquet theory, and, as had been done by Renz, the theory of a destruction in the Mass was strenuously opposed. 24 Sometimes Renz places the essence of the sacrificial act in the drinking of the Chalice, sometimes in the whole meal including its preparation by means of the Consecration, though never in the Consecration alone. In short, he places the essence of the sacrificial act in the Eucharistic banquet. This view is alleged to be supported by the testimonies of our period.

The question raised at the beginning has received these various replies. They call for careful scrutiny. Was there, as Harnack implies, no doctrine of the Mass down to the time of Cyprian ? Was the idea of an objective sacrificial gift excluded by certain Fathers before the time of Irenaeus, as Wieland would have us believe ? Is there truth in the uncommon interpretation of certain Fathers by Renz ? The following pages are the outcome of an effort to furnish an answer. They are not intended, primarily, to refute any of these writers. But a calm examination of the evidence alone may incidentally contain the best refutation of erroneous views.


1 The word, Missa. from which Mass is derived, is not found in any certainly genuine passage of our period. It is used by Ambrose in the 4th century (Ep. xx. 4). The Latin word, Missa, is most probably derived from missio, meaning dismissal. Post sermonem -jit missa Catechumenis (St. Aug.)

2 Sess xxii. Cann. 1, 2, 3.

3 Dogmengeschichte I., 37 and II., 3 Addenda.

4 Ibid.

5 Dominica hostia.

6 Die Lehre der altesten Kirche vom Opfer.

7 Der Christl. Gemeindegottesdienst im apost. und cdtkath, Zeitalter, 1854, s. 411.

8 Realenzyk. fur prot. Theol. I., b. 45.

9 Ibid. I , 44.

10 Mensa und Confessio I. 8. 48 sq. "Die Urkirche kannte keiue materielle Opferdarbringung; ihr sacrificium war das Eucharistiegebet aelbst. . . . Mit Irenaeus aber beginnt eine Erweiterung des Opferbegriffs, indem die sichtbaren Objecte selbst Gegenstand einer formlichen Darbringung werden" : Inhalt. xi.

11 Die Geschichte des Messopfer-Begrifs l., Freising, 1901.

12 Ibid., S. 154.

13 Ibid., S. 179.

14 Ibid,, S, 192.

15 Ibid., S. 209.

16 Ibid., p. 217.

17 Ibid., p. 209

18 Ibid., S. 221,

19 Im eigentlichen Sinne hat aber nur Christus am Kreuze Passion jiehalten, also auch nur da irn eigentlichen Sinne geopfert, S. 222.

20 Neu ist bei Cyprian nur der Ausdruck " offerre corpus et sanguinem," " offerre Christum," aber die Erklarung dieses Ansdruckes durch mentio passionis beweist, dass Cyprian darunter nichts andere verstand als Justin mit seinerdie den Vater verherrlichende mittels des wirklichen Fleisches und Blutes in den Crestalteu des Brotes und Weines sich vollziehende Darstellung der Blutvergiessung Christi am Kreuze, Ibid., S. 235-236.

21 Von einem "offerre, immoiare," Opfern Christi oder seines Leibes und Blutes bei der Feier der Eucharistie weiss die Schrift noch nichta zu sagen, Ibid., I. S. 141.

22 Redet man in der Zeit nach dem Tode Christi von einer Sakri-ficierung Christi, so kaun diese keine wirkliche, sondern nur die Darstellung der wirklichen sein, Ibid,, II., 484,

23 Ibid., II, S. 490,

24 American Ecclesiastical Review, July and September, 1905.