troversy be tween Paschasius Radbertus and Ratram nus. mian apparently the au "transub of our LORD's Sacramental Presence in the Holy This began Eucharist began with the controversy between Pascha- with the consius Radbertus (ob. 865) and Ratramnus of Corbey (ob. circa 868). The term "transubstantiation" seems to be found first in an Exposition of the Canon of the Mass, by S. Peter Damian (ob. 1072); and the dis- S. Peter Dacussion received a new impetus from the writings of Berengarius, Archdeacon of Angers (ob. 1088). From thoroftheterm this time on, the mode of our LORD's Presence so monopolized the disputations of the schoolmen that the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice can scarcely be said to have received any serious consideration. On this account, as we have said, we must not expect In the first to find in the first fifteen centuries of the Church's his- period we shall tory any definite theory in regard to the precise character of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. What we shall find to be abundantly evident is, stantiation." find: 1. That the Eucharist was regarded as a Sacrifice by 1. The H. E. all Christian writers. regarded by all as a S. 2. No trace of 2. That no one in any way refers to it as dependent, for its sacrificial character, on our LORD's present work the Modern in heaven; but view. Greek Fathers even deny that our LORD is now offering through His 3. That some of the Greek Fathers, among whom are 3. Certain Theodoret, S. Chrysostom, and Euthymius, explicitly deny that our LORD is now exercising His Priesthood in heaven or otherwise than through His Church on earth in the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and in the administration of the Sacraments. 4. That a very large number of the Fathers, both East and West, speak of the Eucharist as related only to the Sacrifice of the Cross. With these facts clearly before us, let us now review in order the three periods into which the history of the sacrificial conception of the Eucharist is divided. S., except Church. 4. The Fathers generally re late the H. E. to the S. of the Cross. I. The Early begin with S. Clement of Rome. Writers trace analogies between O. T. sacrifices and the H. E. I. THE EARLY AGES. We shall naturally examine with special interest the age in which the great Fathers of the Church lived, in which the General Councils of the Church were held, and in which the doctrines of the primitive Church may best be studied. This period, as we have said, begins with S. Clement of Rome, and ends just before the accession of Gregory the Great to the papal throne. Throughout it we find the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice clearly and distinctly taught, though without any attempt at definition. The Eucharist is regarded. as a whole, and considered as the continual memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross, without, however, any effort being made to show how or why it is a Sacrifice, or to determine whether the sacrificial act is to be sought in the liturgical forms or in the act of Consecration. The writers of this period occupy themselves with tracing analogies between the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the sacrifices of the Old Testament which prefigured it, and in establishing its relation to the whole body of Christian dogma and morals. The characteristic view of this era represents the Eucharist as the uniting her to Church's Sacrifice and as the bond by which she was united to her Head, JESUS CHRIST. H. E. as the and as the bond her Head. S. Clement sets and sacrificial character, In the first Epistle of S. Clement of Rome to the forth its public Corinthians, written about A.D. 94, we find the public and sacrificial character of the Eucharist clearly set forth. S. Clement compares the celebration of the its celebration Eucharist with the sacrifices of the Jews, and restricts to to bishops and priests. bishops and priests the power of offering the Eucharist. and restricts S. Ignatius speaks of the altar and calls the H. E. the S. Ignatius (ob. circa 115), who wrote some years later, calls the Holy Table an altar; the Eucharist, the Flesh of JESUS CHRIST, Which suffered for us and CHRIST. fruits to those in union with for our sins, and Which the FATHER raised again from Flesh of the dead. He teaches that the fruits of the Eucharist are preservation from death, and life in JESUS CHRIST; but he adds that these fruits of the Kingdom of GOD He confines its cannot be found amongst those who are in heresy or schism. As there is only one Flesh of JESUS CHRIST the Church. and one chalice of His Blood, so there is but one altar upon which the Bread of GOD is found, and this is the altar of the lawful Bishop. Schismatics find in this Sacrament death rather than life.§ S. Ignatius thus regards the Eucharist as the centre and instrument of the Church's unity. He regards it as the centre of the Church's unity. the moral standpoint of the sanctity In the Didache of the Twelve Apostles the Eucharist is treated from a somewhat different standpoint, perhaps because the schisms and heresies to which S. Ignatius refers were unknown to its writers. The Didache regards the Sacrifice of the Eucharist rather The "Didfrom a moral point of view, dwelling upon the sanctity ache" regards it rather from which it requires in the offerer. It is interesting to notice that it applies our LORD's command, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs," || to the Eucharist; and some have therefore been led to think that these words of our LORD were an inculcation of that disciplina arcani which we know was practised among the early Christians with respect to the Eucharist. What is, however, more to our purpose, the Didache teaches that the Eucharist is that Sacrifice foretold by Malachi, which was to take the place of the sacrifices of the Old Testament. T * S. Ignat., Ad. Ephes., xx. 2; Ad. Smyrn., vii. 1. † Ad. Ephes., v. 2; Ad. Smyrn., vii.; Ad. Philadelph., iii. 3 and 4. Ad. Ephes., v. 7. IS. Matt. vii. 6. Ad. Smyrn., vii. required in the offerer S. Justin Martyr describes the liturgical service and affirms that the H. E. is a memorial of the Passion. S. Irenæus as sociates the H. E. with our LORD'S Blood shed on the Cross; S. Justin Martyr (ob. circa 165), like S. Ignatius and the writers of the Didache, speaks of the Eucharist as the union of the Church with the Sacrifice of her Head. In his first Apology, written for the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius, he describes a celebration of the Eucharist, carefully choosing terms which would be more intelligible to a gentile than the ordinary liturgical language of the Church. He points out that it is the president" who alone pronounces the Eucharistic Prayer, that is, the Prayer of Consecration, the people only responding with the "Amen;" that this prayer contains the words of our LORD, "This is My Body,' 66 This is My Blood; " and that by these words bread and wine become the Body and Blood of CHRIST.* He affirms that the Eucharistic Sacrifice was instituted by our LORD JESUS CHRIST at the Last Supper in memory of His Passion. It is not, however, a bloody Sacrifice, but a Sacrifice of praise and prayer. Like his predecessors he shows that the Eucharist as a Sacrifice fulfils the prophecy of Malachi. S. Irenæus (ob. circa 202), in his great work Adversus Hareses, refers in many places to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. His principal treatment of the Eucharist is found in the fourth book, chapter xviii., and the fifth book, chapter ii. The first passage we have already quoted in connection with the prayer Supplices Te. In the second passage he associates the Eucharist with our LORD'S Blood shed upon the Cross. For, when treating of those Gnostic heretics who, because they believed matter to be essentially evil, rejected the doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body, and therefore of any salvation of the flesh, he says: "But if this [the * S. Just. Mart., Apol., n. 65, 66. † Apol., n. 66, 67; and Dialog., n. 41. + Page 172. flesh] indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the LORD redeem us with His Blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the Communion of His Blood, nor the bread which we break the Communion of His Body."* oblations the first-fruits of When S. Irenæus speaks of the Eucharistic oblations and calls the as "the first-fruits of creation" it is difficult to be sure about his meaning. Perhaps he is referring to our creation. Blessed LORD as "the first-begotten of every creature;"†or possibly he means that the bread and wine in the Sacrifice, which become the Body and Blood of CHRIST, are thus the first-fruits of that new creation to which our LORD refers when He says, "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in MY FATHER'S kingdom." * S. Iren., 1. v., c. ii., n. 2. Mr. Brightman, after referring to this very passage, and to 1. iv., c. xvii., xviii., says: “In S. Irenæus, so far as I can remember, there is no exclusive relation of the Eucharist to the Passion suggested. Of course his allusions are limited by his particular aim, but his argument for our resurrection, drawn from the Eucharist, suggests a relation between the Eucharist and our LORD'S Resurrection" (p. 7). We would point out that the passages before us suggest no relation between the Eucharist and our LORD'S Resurrection. They are very well summed up by Vacant as follows: "Le sacrifice eucharistique, complété par la communion que tous les chrétiens y reçoivent, sert de trait d'union entre la passion de JÉSUS-CHRIST et la résurrection glorieuse qui en est le fruit et à laquelle on rattachait alors tous les bien éternels" (p. 11). The Eucharist is here essentially related to the Passion, to the Blood by which our LORD redeemed us, and its fruits are said to be life eternal and the resurrection of our bodies (S. John vi. 54); there is no suggestion whatever of its relation to our LORD'S Resurrection. † Col. i. 15. S. Matt. xxvi. 29. |