THE EARLY CHURCH

New Zealand Tablet, 17 June 1920, Page 9

THE EARLY CHURCH

(A. Series of Lectures by Rev. P. J. Sheehy, Manly College.) THE DOCTRINE OF THE BLESSED EUCHARIST IN THE EARLY CHURCH. The early Fathers of the Church, in their extant writings, speak of the Blessed Eucharist in the same words as do the Sacred Scriptures. At a later period, from the fourth century on to the time of the Scholastics there was much speculation concerning the inmost nature of this Sacrament. We confine our lecture to the patristics of the first three centuries. And though the Christian literature of the period is comparatively small, still it is not possible to cite a tenth part of the Eucharistic texts as we find them in the text-books of Cardinals Bellarmine and Franzelin. We must make a selection.

I have already in my lectures cited the testimony of Ignatius, Bishop of-Antioch, in the opening years of the second century. Warning the Smyrnians against the Gnostoc teaching that Christ had no real, but only an apparent body, he writes thus : "They (the Gnostics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Saviour, which (flesh) suffered for our sins, and which the Father raised up in his goodness." (Smyrn, 7. 1). The argument is clear. The point is stressed that the flesh of the Lord is real, human flesh ; a denial of this logically involves a denial and a refusal of the Eucharist. Hence in the martyr's mind the Eucharist is really the flesh of Christ. If the Eucharist were, as some Protestants say, merely a symbol or bare figure of the Body of the Lord, it could not be adduced as a proof of the reality of Christ's Body. There are other Eucharistic passages in his letters, but they are not so cogent and realistic as this one given. He writes thus to the Romans (7. 3):

"I desire the bread of God which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and I desire to drink His Blood which is incorruptible love." The next witness we will cite is St. Justin the Martyr. A native of Palestine, a philosopher and public debater, he became a Christian. He travelled and everywhere disputed with the Jews and pagans concerning the Faith. In his first apology for Christianity addressed to the Roman Emperor (130-161 A.D.) he gives, the earliest extant description of the Liturgy of Holy Mass. I cannot give the whole passage, interesting" though it is. Suffice it to say that

his description of the ceremony of Holy Mass would describer High Mass at St. Mary’s Cathedral any .Sunday of the year. I give that part that concerns the Real Presence. “ And this food is called by us the Eucharist, of which no one else may have a share except he who believes that our teaching is true, and has been cleansed by the washing for the forgiveness of sin's and regeneration, and so lives as Christ taught. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by a word of God, had flesh and blood for our salvation, so we have learned that the food, made a Eucharist by a word of prayer that comes from Him, ... by change is the Flesh and Blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the Apostles in the commentaries made by them, which are called Gospels, have handed down that it was taught to them so.” (c. 66). “And after the presiding priest has made the Eucharist, and all the people have cried out (amen), those who are called by us deacons give to each one present a share of the Eucharist bread and wine and water, and carry them to those not present.” (c. 65). These passages, though long and a bit involved, clearly presuppose an identity, miraculously produced by Christ, between the consecrated elements and Christ’s own flesh and blood. A no less important witness to the Real Presence is St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in the latter part of the second century. Like St. Justin, he too has many allusions to the liturgy of Holy Mass. He refers to the Scripture lessons read, to the offertory of bread and wine, to the consecration by the words of institution, to the Eucharist being sent to some of those who are absent, to hymns, and to the bishop’s sermon. He argues that the Gnostics from the generallyadmitted doctrine of the Eucharist. If, as the heretics said, Jesus is not the Son of the Creator of the world, and so has no power over the elements of created nature, “ how can they believe -that this bread, over which the Eucharistic prayer has been said, is the Body of their Lord, and that the chalice contains His Blood?” (Adv. Hereses L iv : c. 18: p. 4). Again, since the Gnostics denied the resurrection of the body Irenaeus affirms that in receiving the Eucharist? we receive that which will give everlasting life even' to our bodies ;

"How can they assert that our flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His Blood, becomes corrupted, and does not partake of life"? (ibid.). In another passage of the same work (v. 2, 2-3), Irenaeus says that Christ declared the chalice to be His own blood, and the bread His own body, and that our flesh is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord. If the Gnostics are right, then, says Irenaeus: "The Eucharistic chalice is not His blood; nor the bread which we break, the communion of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God, was actually made." (v. 2.2.) From Tertullian, the great African apologist of the same period, we have testimony to the Real Presence equally unequivocal. He makes bold to write that—- " The flesh [of man] feeds on the body and blood of Christ." (de Resurre, Oarnis 8.) In another passage he writes of some Christians who, though engaged in the unlawful trade of manufacturing idols, yet presume to approach the Holy Communion.

"It is a deplorable outrage for a Christian to come away from idols into the Church. ... to apply to the Lord's Body those same hands which construct bodies for the demons. . . . O wickedness! The Jews laid hands on Christ once; these mangle His body daily. Such hands as these should be cut off." (De Idolol. 7.)

Again he says: ~~ “We reverently . take care lest any particle of our bread or wine should fall to the ground.” (De Cor. Militis 3.) The great Alexandrian writers of the latter second and early third —Clement and Origen, are equally explicit in many passages of their writings. Both writers in innumerable places testify to the ordinary and'universal belief of the Church that the Lord offers us, in the Eucharist, His body to eat and His blood to drink, and that this nourishment ensures immortality. Clement in various places describes the divine Liturgy of the Mass he speaks of the Eucharist as “ a praiseworthy and glorious gift of grace by which those who partake of it with faith are sanctified both in body and soul.” (Paed. ii., 2.) “He [Christ] pours into our wounded souls wine, the blood of David’s vine.” (Quis dives c. 29.) “The Word' of God is all things to the child, both father and mother and pedagogue and nourisher. ‘ Eat My flesh,’ He saith, and ‘ drink My blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these befitting''foods, and gives flesh and pours forth blood; and nothing is wanting for the child’s growth. Oh, incredible mystery ! He orders us to put aside the old carnal corruption, as well as the old food ; but being made partakers of the other new food of Christ, receiving Him, if possible, to place Him within ourselves, and to have the Saviour in our breasts, in order that we may reduce to their proper place the affections of our flesh.” (Paed. 1,6.) Origen, the great Alexandrian scholar of the early third century, is equally emphatic on the doctrine of the Real Presence. In one of his sermons exhorting people to hear God’s Word, he writes : “You who have been accustomed to be present at the divine mysteries know that when you receive the body of the Lord, you take care with all caution and veneration, lest any part thereof, however small, should fall, lest any portion of the consecrated gift be lost. For, if any part of it should fall through your negligence, you think yourself guilty ; and you think rightly. If then you use so much caution, and rightly so, as regards the preserving the body, is it a lesser sin to have neglected the Word of God than the body of God?” Writing against Celsus (n. 33, Book viii.) he writes : Let Celsus, being ignorant of God, offer Eucharistic gifts to demons. But we, giving thanks to the Maher of the universe, do also eat the loaves that have been offered with thanksgiving and prayer made over them. Then these gifts become a certain holy body which makes holy those who us© it well.” There was no need for the apologist to say whose body it was. It is enough that in the Eucharist the bread “becomes” the Body. The Eucharistic doctrine of Cyprian, the Carthaginian Bishop of the middle of the third century, is so abundant and clear as to embarrass one who wishes to cite it. Again and again he affirms that the body and blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist, and that the Eucharist is the Sacrifice of the Lord’s Passion. A few phrases must suffice. To give the Eucharist to unrepentant apostates is, he says, “to profane the holy body of the Lord.” (Epist. ix.) Again, writing to Pope Cornelius, epistle L. iv., he says that the faithful must be prepared and strengthened for the coming trials of martyrdom. They must be fortified with “the protection of the body and blood of Christ.

"And since the Eucharist is ordained for this, to be a safeguard for those who receive it, let us arm those who we wish to be safe against the enemy, with the defence of the fulness of the Lord. How can we teach or urge the people to shed their blood for the Name, if on the eve of ■ combat we refuse them the blood of Christ?" In his. treatise on the Lord's Prayer, he says that we Christians come in contact with the Lord's body, and therefore in perfect truth we may call Him "

‘.‘our. bread” in this prayer. “And therefore do we pray that our bread, namely Christ, be given to us day by day, so that abiding and living in Christ we may not draw back from His sanctification and His body.” (Deorat. Dom.) Rope Cornelius, of the same period, in one of his letters addressed to the Bishop of Antioch, speaks of the effort? of the Anti-Pope Novatian to get disciples: , “When he [Novatian] has offered the Sacrifice, and is distributing a portion to each, instead of the blessing he seizes with both hands the hands of the communicant, and does not leave off till each one pronounces this oath. These are his very words: ‘ Swear to me by the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, never to desert me, or to return to Cornelius.’ ” . In connection with these writers of the second and third centuries it must be remembered that they wrote at a time when "paganism was still very strong and when there , was observed in the Church a certain reticence or economy of speech, called ‘ the discipline *of the secret.’ It consisted either in an absolute silence or a veiled form of speech employed in dealing with the . more recondite and sacred Christian mysteries lest the pagans should find occasion to blaspheme doctrines and ordinances so far transcending mere natural wisdom and experience. When, however, the clouds rolled by and Christianity became the recognised religion of the Roman Empire, this discipline was relaxed and the language of the writers of the Church becomes bolder, clearer, and more open. Let one quotation from the catechetical sermons of St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, in the middle of the fourth cenoury, suffice to make this clear. He says:

“He himself, therefore, having declared and said concerning the bread ‘this is My body,’ who shall dare henceforward to doubt it? And lie Himself having settled the matter, and said ‘ this is My blood,’ who shall ever doubt saying, this is not His blood ? lie once at Cana of Galilee turned water into wine and is He undeserving of belief when He turned wine into blood ? . . . Wherefore with the fullest assurance let us partake of Christ’s body and blood ; for in the type of bread is given to thee the body and in the type of. wine is given to thee the blood, in order that having partaken thereof, thou mightest become one in body and one in blood with Him. For thus do we become Christ-bearers. . . . Wherefore do not contemplate the bread and the wine as bare elements, for they are according to the Lord’s declaration Christ’s body and blood. And even though sense suggest this to thee, yet let the faith stablish thee. Judge not the mg om the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed Uniist s body and blood. F„.wV 10 r. 1 C -° me to a word about the early hanstic liturgies. The essence of the Eucharistic £i ri na C r e t IS ha° °° am l th ° C °— But this essentbi P- ai ? a ever be en set in a liturgy or rite In Pasch and'The 6 cf -T “ th ® Jewi^h ***© of the M the early" CwT t| was* - -ur. t S V& *5& fourth centurythose of A,if A emer S ed 1,1 the All other liturgies are hut .1 A ’ A"’ 6 ’ Alexandria, though they differ accidentally they aieall A '‘ d type. /Every lituro-v L I T 11 tlue to one introductory Vt r S 1 is , f e V resolved Into °an Scriptures and a „ i° of leadings from the of bread and wine ’the pi. I ° Bla!l0 P’ an offering Mass, the Consociation and f ff e A he Can . on of the "f C d=”s taught “• - i sf,sr*

that the Eucharist, is. the Sacrifice of Christ in the New Law, and that it is His Body and Blood the food of immortality for man. A few quotations will bring this out : ‘ From the Liturgy of St. ’ James (Renaudot, tom. ii.) — “Priest: O God the Father who through Thy great and ineffable love for men didst send Thy Son into the world to bring back the wandering sheep, turn not Thy face from us, whilst we celebrate this spiritual and unbloody Sacrifice.”- “Wherefore we offer Thee, O Lord, this tremendous and unbloody Sacrifice . . . send down Thy most Holy Spirit upon us and upon those gifts' set -before Thee . .. that lie may sanctify and make this bread the holy body of thy Christ, and this chalice, the precious blood of thy Christ.” The Alexandrian Liturgy calls the Mass “ His rational and unbloody worship which all nations from the rising to the setting of the sun, from the North to the South, offer Thee.”’ In the Liturgy of Constantinople, the deacon says to the priest celebrating: “Consecrate the holy bread.” Then the priest uses the words of institution, and prays God through the Holy Ghost to “make this bread the precious body of thy Christ . . . and what is in this chalice, the precious blood of Thy Christ, changing them by Thy Holy Spirit.” At the Communion, the priest says to the deacon: “Deacon, draw near.” The deacon replies: “Behold I draw near...to the immortal King, and I believe, Lord, and confess that Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” . . . The priest says : “Thou, deacon, servant of God, receive the precious and holy body and blood of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, lor the remission of sins and life eternal.” Another derived Liturgy, that of the Coptic O Lover of mankind, look down on this bread and on this chalice, which we have placed on this, Thy sacerdotal altar ; bless them, sanctify them, consecrate them, and change them so that this bread may in truth become Thy holy body, and this mixture in this chalice Thy precious blood. And may they be to us all a safeguard, a medicine, the salvation of our souls and bodies.”

The "real. Roman Liturgy, which comes to us unchanged in the slightest point from the sixth century, though in its main lines it may be traced in the pages ol St. Justin of the second century, is known to you through your prayer-books, and I need not quote its witness to the Eucharistic doctrine. Low these ancient liturgies show the consent of all the Christian Churches in the world, no matter how distant from each other, to the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass. They agree in the general type of worship, almost in the same words, and certainly in the same sense. They sum up (lie worship offered by the early Christian peoples of all parts of the world, and they breathe one mighty s P'rit of reverential Sacrifice and adoration in the Holy Mass. _ Another class of evidence for the Eucharist, to which I must refer for a short time, is that provided in tne art treasures and Christian monuments unearthed by. archaeologists. In the Roman Catacombs Eucharistic inscriptions are rare, but ’there is much wealth in paintings and in sculptures. Naturally, painting takes a prominent place in these productions. r According to De Rossi the oldest symbolical painting of the Eucharist is that in the Crypt of Lucina (Rome). It presents to us two symmetrical groups showing a fish on a green ground, bearing on bis back a basket of bread, and through the wickerwork of the basket there appears a flask of red wine in the middle thereof. The allusion is, of course to the multiplication of loaves and fishes, but the introduction of the wine renders necessary a Eucharistic application. From the second century onwards the lish was undoubtedly a symbol qf the Saviour. The celebrated acrostic “Ichthus”— the Greek for ‘fish’— is composed of the initial letters of the Greek words (Concluded on page 33.) .