The Mass In The Infant Church By Rev Garrett Pierse Part 20.

Some Circumstances of the Sacrificial Celebration. Part 3.

When the Church gradually spread, when it was no longer a select community that could conveniently assemble in an upper room, but a great organization requiring the celebration of its principal function in divers centres, the presidency at the Eucharistic celebration would, naturally, have devolved on priests of the second order. " If, in the absence of the bishop, a presbyter is present, let all turn to him ; and let them honour him as the bishop is honoured." 1

When Justin Martyr, whose writings belong to the middle of the second century and to the beginning of our period, speaks of the Eucharist as celebrated by " the president " of the congregation, he means, in all probability, the bishop. 2 On the other hand, when Tertullian says, at a much later date, that the Eucharist was received from the hands of no others except the presidents, 3 the expression may include even priests of the second order, if there was question of the absence of the bishop.

Communion.

The inscription of Pectorius of Autun shows that in this early period the communicants received the sacred Elements into their hands—" holding the Fish in your hands.'' This ancient rite of communicating rendered necessary much caution in guarding the Sacred Elements from falling. The rite of receiving Communion into the hand continued in the much later days of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who speaks of the custom of placing the left hand, as a throne, under the right, which directly received the Holy Communion. 4

The Eucharistic Elements, taken in the hand, were much larger than the present-day particles if, as is likely, they are represented by the baskets of large loaves, so often seen in the Catacombs.

The chalice, also, was handed around in those early days. " How do we teach or encourage men to shed their blood in the confession of His name, if, as they are about to start on their warfare, we deny to them the blood of Christ ? Or how do we fit them to drink the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit them, with the right of communicants, to drink the cup of the Lord in the Church ?" 5 It is unnecessary to point out to anyone believing that Christ's body is whole and entire in any part of the Eucharist, that reception under both species is not necessary for the substantial fruit of the Sacrament.

Reservation of the  Communion.

The Eucharist was utilised not merely during the celebration of the Sacrifice, but, like other food of a much inferior nature, it was stored up. Origen regarded  as a symbol of the Eucharistic mysteries the command in Leviticus to eat the remnant of the sacrificial food the day after the sacrifice, and to reserve nothing until the third day. 6 This passage, while strongly insinuating the sacrificial nature also of the Eucharistic food, indicates that in Alexandria the Sacrament was reserved only for one day. The primary object of this reservation seems to have been its reception at a later date. Dissuading a Christian woman from marriage with a heathen husband, Tertullian writes : " Your husband will not know what you are taking secretly before all other food.'' 7 The mind of Tertullian seems to have been that the husband had opportunities of seeing, if not of fully realising what the wife was secretly taking. The secrecy implies that there was question of a home reception of the reserved Eucharist. It will be also observed how it was said by Tertullian to be received before all other food. The Canons of Hippolytus, also, are witnesses of the fasting reception of the Eucharist. " Let not any of the Faithful taste anything before he has partaken of the mysteries, especially, on the day of the holy fast." 8 St. Cyprian rebuked Christians, who attended objectionable heathen games, because carrying the Eucharist according to custom after having just left the Church, they exposed it to profane surroundings. 9 The Eucharist was reserved in a small casket. " When a certain woman tried to open her box, in which was contained the holy thing of the Lord, she was deterred from touching it, fire rising therefrom." 10

This miraculous story associated with the box containing the Eucharist, whatever be its truth, shows the reverence with which the Sacrament was regarded. The worship, paid to the reserved Eucharist according to those testimonies, may be taken to be the germ of the more fully evolved worship of later days, manifesting itself in Benediction, or in regular visits to the Blessed Sacrament.

It was seen in Justin's writings that another purpose of reserving some Eucharistic elements during the Sacrifice was to take them to the absent brethren. 11

A curious purpose of reservation was to send it to strangers, or to foreign churches as a token of unity or of common faith. Thus, Irenaeus wrote to Pope Victor that his predecessors in the Roman See saw their way to send the Eucharist to foreign bishops, even though the latter had a different way of celebrating Easter, and that Pope Anicetus yielded " the Eucharist" to Polycarp in spite of a difference on the Paschal question, showing thereby that communion between the Churches could be preserved in the face of a difference in customs. 12

Vestments.

As to the vestments used in the Eucharistic celebration, there is but meagre evidence in this period. The Canons of Hippolytus are almost the only source of early information. "As soon as the bishop wishes to celebrate the mysteries, let the deacons and presbyters come together to him, clad in white vestments, more beautiful than those of all the people, and as splendid as possible. But good work excels all vestments. Let the lectors also have festive garments.'' 13 Later, therefore, than the end of the second century, the clergy, officiating at the Eucharist, wore a distinctive dress. Polycrates tells us that St. John wore a golden ornament or mitre. 14 As to the authority of Polycrates, and as to whether this dress may have been exceptional, we cannot have certainty. Without much evidence, some have theorized that the Christian vestments were borrowed from Judaism ; others, that they were derived from Paganism itself. On philological grounds, it seems more likely that they were at first merely the ordinary dress of the time, which became definitely stereotyped. The alb (alba) was the early tunic or shirt. It had to be fastened with a cincture (cingulum). The cope (capa) was the outer garment of a Roman citizen. The chasuble (casula, or little hut) was the name for a cloak. Probably, these simple and ordinary articles of attire comprised the dress worn by the celebrants in the second century down to the time of which the Canons of Hippolytus speak. The idea is suggested by the picture of the "President" in the Fractio Panis in the Greek Chapel of the Catacombs. His dress differs not from that of the ordinary citizen of those days. It was believed that the cloak, covering the figure near the tripod table in the Chambers of the Sacraments, was also a Christian vestment. But the fact that it leaves the right shoulder and right side entirely nude, if coupled with the theory that the figure is a representation of Christ, renders the supposition most unlikely.

1 C. H. xxxiv.

2 Apol i., 65.

3 De Corona Milit. 3

4 Catech. xxiii,, c. 22.

5 Cyprian, Ep, 54.

6 In Levit. Hom, v., c. 3.

7 Ad Uxorem, ii„ 5, P.S.I., 1296.

8 xxviii.

9 De Spectaculus, 38.

10 De Lapsis, c. 26.

11 Apol. 1, 67.

12 Eusebius H E. v. 24, 16.

13 xxxvii.

14 Letter to Pope Victor, Euseb, H,E. v. c. 24

The Mass In The Infant Church By Rev Garrett Pierse Part 9.

CHAPTER VII. The Epiclesis.

The early writers distinguish the principal parts of the Mass, such as the Offertory and the Communion, but the moment and cause of the Consecration they do not determine with equal clearness. Is the Consecration of the Eucharistic Elements effected by Christ's Words of Institution, or by a verbal formula invoking the Holy Spirit, or by both these agencies ? The question played an important part at the Council of Florence in 1439 A.D. It is still an important ground of disagreement between the Latin and the Greek separated Church. The position of the former has been for a long time definite and decided ; Roman Catholic theologians, almost universally, 1 hold that the Consecration is effected by the Words of Institution alone. The opinion of the Greek separated Church is divided. Although, in the past, some theologians of the Greek Church attributed the sacred efficacy to the Epiclesis or formula of invocation alone, most Greek theologians of the present day attribute it to both the Words of Institution and the Epiclesis. This controversy has given the question added importance, but as it is, comparatively speaking, a minor issue it would not be surprising if we found in the writings of some early Fathers indefiniteness concerning its solution.

Justin.

" As," writes the first of our authorities, Justin, " by the word of God, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour was made flesh and blood for our salvation; so also the food which was consecrated by the prayer of the Word proceeding from Him, 2 and from which our flesh and blood, by assimilation, receive nourishment, is, we are taught, both the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the Apostles, in the memoirs which they composed and which are called Gospels, have declared that Jesus commanded them to (say) as follows: He took bread and gave thanks over it and said: This do in remembrance of me, this is my body ; and in like manner He took the cup and gave thanks over it and said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. The same thing in the mysteries of Mithra, also, the evil demons imitated, for bread and a cup of water are placed in the mystic rites for one who is to be initiated, with the addition of certain words, as you know or may learn." 3

According to Justin's obscure words the bread is u made Eucharist" by the prayer of the Word. Different interpretations have been given to these words, and I am forced to depart from them all, and add still another. Some interpret the passage to mean that Justin taught that the Consecration was caused by " the word" proceeding from Jesus,namely, the Words of Institution. According to this interpretation it would be called "the prayer of the word," because these words imply an invocation of God that He would change the Elements. To this it is objected by other interpreters that the Words of Institution only through an over-subtle exegesis could be called a prayer and that the meaning is, rather, the prayer containing the Words of Institution. While I believe that the advocates of this second interpretation are reasonable in accusing the others of over-subtlety, I believe that their own exegesis does not escape an identical reproach. What can be the meaning of the " prayer of the word," if Word be not written with a capital letter ? Would it not be a confused expression, making no sense even under violence? On the other hand, if it means the prayer of the Logos, the interpretation is easy. The parallelism of the sentence, too, supports this view. Just as by the word of God Jesus Christ becomes the incarnate God, so by the prayer of the Word (also God) the bread becomes the body and blood of God. The act of Consecration is called by Justin and others by a verb derived from the root " Eucharist " which means thanksgiving. This suggests that it is the whole prayer of thanksgiving which was, somewhat inexactly, regarded by this early Father as the instrument of Consecration.

We know from Justin that this prayer of thanksgiving was in his time connected with an account of the procedure of the Last Supper, and of the Words of Institution. Justin even represents this account of the procedure as commanded. It must not be supposed that only the Words of Institution are represented as the cause of the Consecration because these are quoted. For the account of the circumstances of the Last Supper is also quoted, and it seems clear that Justin selects from the Canon of the Mass just as much as will prove his thesis about the reality of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist.

Irenaeus. 

The verbal formula, namely, the prayer of thanksgiving, was regarded by Justin as strangely efficacious. For in the parallel rite of Mithra some magic power is attributed, also, to the recital of certain words. " The mixed cup," writes the next of the Fathers, Irenaeus, " and the broken bread receive the word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ." 4 " We invoke," he writes again, ( 'the Holy Spirit that He may exhibit 5 this sacrifice, the Bread as the body of Christ and the Cup as the blood of Christ." Again, "Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine and protracting to a great length the word of invocation, he (the Gnostic Marcus) contrives to give them a purple and reddish colour so that Charis, who is one of those that are superior to all things, should be thought to drop her own blood into that cup through means of his invocation, and that, thus, those who are present should be led to rejoice to taste of that cup, in order that, by so doing, the Charis who is represented by this magician may also flow into them." 6

By Irenaeus the instrument of Consecration is variously denominated the word of God, a spoken invocation which can be protracted so as to give time for tricks of jugglery, and an invocation of the Holy Ghost; elsewhere he calls it, less precisely, an " invocation of  God." 7 There has been seen an interesting account of the Gnostic jugglery, which was evidently a travesty of the Catholic Canon of the Mass. It supplies a clear proof of the ancient belief in the real presence of Christ's blood in the Cup. This Gnostic imitation is said to be effected through means of the invocation. Irenaeus, therefore, implies the rather general conclusion that the Consecration is effected by the prayer, including the word of God—that is, probably, the Words of Institution,—and an oral invocation of the Holy Spirit.

Clement of  Alexandria. 

" He consecrated," writes Clement of Alexandria, " the wine, saying : ' Take, drink, this  is My blood.'" 8 He does not supply much material for a solution of this question. At first sight this passage would seem to imply that Clement believed that at least the Lord consecrated by using the words, " This is My blood." But that Clement is not precise in his teaching is shown from his connecting words of command with the indicative formula. The word he uses for consecrating means to bless, 9 or to pronounce some form of prayer.

Origen. 

"The nourishment," writes his pupil, Origen, "consecrated by the word of God and of invocation . . . becomes profitable by reason of the prayer descending upon it." 10 Again, " We have received these breads which by the prayer become a holy body." 11 Origen, therefore, attributes the mysterious effect to prayer, or, more definitely, to the word of God and of invocation. Elsewhere he speaks of the u breads of eulogy," and of the " word" descending upon the elements, evidently the formula including the Divine words and an invocation. 12

Tertullian.

"Having taken bread,'' writes Tertullian," and having distributed it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, this is My body." 13 So far as Christ is concerned, He consecrated according to Tertullian by pronouncing the Words of Institution. This is the first time that we find the formula of Consecration reduced to its most precise limits, and the credit is due to the exact mind of the great Carthaginian lawyer. He speaks only about Christ. Would he say that the disciples consecrated by a formula as precise and brief as that of the Master ? It might be said that both cases were different, that the disciples might have needed an invocation of God when Christ had no such necessity,—an objection which has not much force, since Christ, too, had a human nature and could invoke God, if necessary. At any rate, in Tertullian's words, there is no explicit evidence about the formula with which the disciples of Christ consecrated. But his words seem to contain the germ of the tradition which the Latins used in shaping their brief formula of Consecration.

Words of Bishop Firmilian in Cyprian's  Letters.

" That woman," writes another Latin writer, Firmilian, " who, previously, by Jugglery and deceits of the devil, had many contrivances for the hoodwinking of the faithful, amongst other things, by which she had deceived many, frequently dared to do even this, to pretend she consecrated bread and celebrated the Eucharist by an invocation not to be despised, and to offer the sacrifice of the Lord not without the mystery of the accustomed recital 14 Here, again, we have a reference to a verbal formula of invocation. It was a verbal one, otherwise it could not be a matter for description. This invocation was believed by Firmilian to have influenced the Consecration. The " invocation " seems to have been the name for what we should call the Canon of the Mass. The accustomed recital, which may be taken to mean the account of the institution of the Sacrament, is here described as an accompaniment of the sacrifice, and as in some way mysterious.

We have been considering the testimony of a few early writers concerning the instrument of consecration. Even those few are not unanimous in their answers to the question: Did the early writers believe in the consecratory efficiency of a verbal Epiclesis. Tertullian, indeed, seems to testify to a tradition favouring the power of the Words of Institution alone. But what is the belief, generally speaking, of the few writers of our period ? What theory will square with all the data found in their assertions ? They call the instrument of Consecration a word of God, a formula of thanksgiving, a prayer, an invocation of the Holy Ghost. According to Irenaeus and Bishop Firmilian this invocation is verbal. If it were a merely mental invocation implied in the Words of Institution, their teaching would not be difficult to understand, as such an implied invocation could be held by one who believed that Christ's words wrought the effect of Consecration. The theory, then, suggested by a Catholic, Dr. Rauschen, 15 is that those writers held that the Consecration was effected by the long prayer corresponding to the present Canon, and including thanksgiving, the Words of Institution, and an invocation of the Holy Ghost. This squares with all the facts. It may be said that, when these Fathers attributed the change in the Elements to this whole prayer, they might have spoken as we should* if we were to say the change is wrought by the Canon of the Mass. But there is a difference. It seems to be over-ingenious to say that these early writers, while speaking in this rather general way, had in their minds, as we have, the belief that the Consecration was wrought precisely by the Words of Institution. This is too much to expect from Origen, for example, when he states that the Consecration is effected by the word of God and of invocation. It is difficult, then, for one who assumes from other sources, as I do, that the Consecration is effected by the Words of Institution alone, to acquit a few early Fathers of indefiniteness and some inexactness in treating the present question.

1  Except Toutee, Lebrun, and Schell.

2

3 Apol. i. 66.

4 Adv. Haer., v. 2, 3.

5

6 Adv, Haer., I., 13, 2.

7 Adv, Haer., iv, 18, 4.

8 Paed,, ii., 2.

9

10 In Mat,, xi., 14.

11 In Levit. Hom., xiii.

12 In Mat., xi., 14.

13 Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, " hoc est corpus meum," dicendo. Adv. Marcion, iv., 40.

14 Sacramento solitae praedicationis. Cypr., Ep. 75, 17.

15 Eucharistie und Bussakr. S. 99.

The Mass In The Infant Church By Rev Garrett Pierse Part 4.

CHAPTER III. Pt.2

After an examination of the testimonies of Irenaeus bearing on the effect of this offering, the sketch of his doctrine will be finished.

Effect of the Sacrifice.

" God is not appeased by sacrifice. For if anyone shall offer a sacrifice merely to outward appearance . . . while in his heart he does not assign to his neighbour that fellowship with him, which is right and proper ... he does not deceive God by that sacrifice . . . Sacrifices, therefore, do not sanctify a man . . . but it is the conscience of the offerer that hallows the sacrifice when it is pure, and this moves God to accept the offering as from a friend. But ' the sinner' said He, ' who sacrifices a calf to me, is as if he had killed a dog.' " 1

"This was the reason why, when Mary was urging (Him) to (perform) the miracle of the wine, and was desirous before the time to partake of the cup of recapitulation, 2 the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said,' Woman, what have I to do with thee ?'" 3

I am not here considering the obvious effects, according to Irenaeus, of the Eucharistic sacrifice, such as adoration, thanksgiving, impetration. I am concerned merely with the less intelligible effect of propitiation. In the passages cited, Irenaeus inaccurately attributes the whole effect of propitiation to the conscience of the offerer. Just as he attributed the purity of the oblation entirely to the conscience of the Church, so too he here gives subjective dispositions more than their due share of efficiency. They do not appear to be regarded by him as mere conditions for the efficacy of the objective sacrifice. In the very context where he has just been speaking even of the New Testament sacrifice, he says that it is the conscience which hallows the oblation as if the latter, at least in the New Law, had not an independent and objective sanctity through including the body and blood of Christ. Of course, no exception can in fairness be taken to the statement that sacrifices, even the Eucharistic sacrifice, when offered up by a sinner, do not sanctify him. So much does Irenaeus insist on the subjective aspect of sacrifices that he places the difference between the old and new oblation in the fact that the new one is offered by free-men, the old one by slaves; the new is offered by people whose subjective disposition is such that they offer all things to God, the old by those who gave Him merely a tithe of their possessions. 4 True the newness of the Eucharistic sacrifice consists also in the objective fact that it contains the body and blood of our Divine Lord, but Irenaeus does not mention this as the ground of its novelty.

Although Irenaeus does not speak of propitiation., or satisfaction, wrought by the objective sacrifice as such, he has the materials from which the conclusion might be evolved. In the passage last quoted in this connection, he speaks, according to a probable rendering, of a commemoration of the Passion in the Eucharist, as did Justin before him, and as many writers were to do after his time. He speaks of the " Cup of recapitulation." This can hardly mean anything but the Cup reminding one of the Passion. Besides, there is, it was seen, a real presence of Christ's blood in the Cup, according to the teaching of Irenaeus. Considering the redemptory character of Christ's blood, and seeing that the Eucharist is an objective representation of Christ's blood shed on the Cross, a representation containing the reality, the conclusion is not far to seek—whether Irenaeus fully conceived it or not, a point about which we have no positive evidence— that the Eucharist in itself propitiates God, and satisfies for the temporary punishment due to the sins of departed souls. Since Irenaeus teaches a strict sacrifice in the Eucharist, since he may be presumed to conceive the offering of a heavenly reality therein, namely, the flesh and blood of Christ, since, very probably, he describes the Eucharistic Cup as a reminder of the Passion, he contains the substance of the present-day Catholic doctrine of the Mass, for whose essence Vasquez, who satisfies the demands of definitive teaching, requires only the presence of the body and blood of Christ and a representation of the sacrifice of the Cross. It would be over-subtle to trace in the general exposition of sacrifice given by Irenaeus any metaphysical solutions regarding the precise essence of the sacrificial action, whether, for example, it should be placed in the representation of the sacrifice of the Cross, in the Consecration, in the Communion, or in the act of offering.

Clement of Alexandria : Criticism of the Source.

There is a striking unity about the teachings of Irenaeus and of Clement of Alexandria  (flourished A.D. 192) in regard to the  spiritual aspect of sacrifice. Both  give higher value to mental worship, to a good conscience, and in this they are but repeating the teaching of Scripture, of St. Paul, for example, who prefers the internal circumcision to the external. If they are shown to have these thoughts, visible worship, also, and a visible sacrifice would not of necessity be excluded.

The teaching of Clement of Alexandria concerning the sacrifice was influenced by certain principles which must be considered if a proper estimate of his testimony is to be formed. One influence was his habit of taking allegorically the sayings of Scripture, even those regarding the Eucharist, as will be seen. To Clement's mind there was an obvious, common interpretation of Scripture, or the carnal sense; there was also an uncommon meaning which could be divined only by a keen intellect. The latter was the spiritual sense. It was the duty of the true Gnostic, or perfect man, to pierce the carnal veil of Scripture, and discover, in as many cases as possible, the more valuable allegorical lesson. The Scripture was full of dark types, but the penetrating mind of the Gnostic could, by minute study, reach the antitype corresponding to each, and so attain to advanced and uncommon science. This dualism of Scriptural knowledge, advocated by Clement, is not to be understood in the sense that the advanced form, derived from the spiritual interpretation, superseded the elementary kind obtained through the carnal sense. Clement 5 declares that the elementary knowledge acquired by Baptism alone is not to be despised, since, through the illuminating effect of this Sacrament, the recipient knows God Himself.

Besides his exegetical principle of allegorising, which has a warrant in the practice of St. Paul, a force influencing his teaching was his quite reasonable compromise with the Hellenic philosophy of the day. Following a lead presumably given by his teachers, of whose great discourses he declared his own writing to contain the outline, 6 he was determined to wed the philosophy of the day with faith, to find reasons for his belief, to separate the true from the false in a critical spirit, and to utilise in a right manner the worldly knowledge which the heretical Gnostics abused. He shows an utter disregard for those who were then frightened at the dangers of Hellenic philosophy, "like children at masks," to use his own words. 7 He distinguished faith or catechetical instruction, and science or the assured demonstration of things of faith. 8 The latter exercise contributed something to the advanced knowledge of the true Gnostic. As one of the pioneers in Theology, it is natural that, dealing with a pagan science, and with matters then undefined, as for example questions about the Eucharist, he should in some cases be unreliable, and err against his usually critical spirit by furnishing trifling analogies or allegorisings instead of proofs.

Although it is to some extent fashionable nowadays to discard the " Discipline of the Secret," and to refer to the development of doctrine as an explanation of the imperfections of early Patristic testimonies, yet a correct estimate of the deficiencies of ' Clement's teaching cannot be formed by an appeal to the latter theory alone. If ever there was a Father that gave unmistakable evidence of the principle of doctrinal economy, it was Clement of Alexandria. He speaks approvingly of pagan philosophers, like Plato, who expressed certain parts of their teaching in the form almost of riddles. 9 He says that he interspersed in his writings the dogmas in such a manner that the discovery of the sacred traditions might not be easy to the uninitiated. 10 Owing to his belief in dark enigmas in Scripture, it was a principle with Clement to divine a deeper meaning than the superficial ; so too on account of his imitation of such mystic writing it is perfectly reasonable and scientific to suspect that Clement's veiled hints concerning the dogma of the Eucharist contain more than appear on the surface. Although, in other circumstances, it is unscientific to extract from early writers more than their separate expressions warrant, in Clement's case more speculation and subtlety of interpretation are justifiable. It may be supposed that the Eucharistic doctrine was at the time more developed than might appear from a cursory glance at his works. Clement's respect for the tradition, expressed by this reluctance to commit it to writing, shows that his teaching may be presumed to be reliable in the main. We shall now see how far these influences—a spiritual exegesis, the adoption of a foreign philosophy, and the Discipline of the Secret—affected his teaching concerning the existence, or otherwise, of a strict sacrifice in the Eucharist.

1 Is, 66. 3. Adv. Haer. iv., 18, 3.

2 Participare compendii poculo, i.e., most probably, the cup which recapitulates the sufferings of Christ.

3 Adv. Haer., iii. 16. 7.

4 Adv, Haer., iv, 18. 2, sq,

5 Paed., i, 6.

6 Str. I., c, i. Amongst, his teachers were, probably, Tatian and Pantaenus.

7 Ibid., vi,, 10.

8 Ibid„ vii„ 10, 57.

9 Sir., v. 10.

10 Ibid., vii,. 18.

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

CHAPTER III. Pt.1

Roman Catacombs

The East and a Strict Sacrifice.

Appreciation  of Irenaeus as a Witness. 

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

Character of the Sacrifice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Object Offered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Adv, Haer, iv., 17. 1.

2 Ibid., iv. 17. 5.

3 Adv. Haer., iv. 18, 2.

4 Ibid. iv„ 18. i.

5 Adv. Haer., iv. 17.

6 Adv. Haer., iv. 17.

7 Ibid., iv. 14, 1.

8 Adv. Haer., iv, 17, 3.

9 Adv, Haer., iv, 19. 1.

10 Adv, Haer, iv., 18. 4.

11 Adv. Haer., iv, 18, 4.

12 Ibid., iv, 18. 5.

13 Ibid,, iv. 18, 5.

14 Adv. Haer., iv, 18, 5,

15 Ibid., iv. 18. 4,

16 Ibid,, iv, 17,5.

17 Ibid.. iv. 18, 1.

18 Adv. Haer., iv. 17, 6.