YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

A HISTORY OF THE
DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST

WORKS BY THE
REV. DARWELL STONE, M.A.

HOLY BAPTISM. (Oxford Library.) Crown 8vo, $s.
THE HOLY COMMUNION. (Oxford Library.)
Crown 8vo, $s.
OUTLINES OF CHRISTIAN DOGMA. Crown 8vo,
7.1. td.
CHRIST AND HUMAN LIFE. Crown 8vo, 2s. td. net.
OUTLINES OF MEDITATIONS FOR USE IN
RETREAT. Crown 8vo, zs. td. net.
THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. Cheap Re
issue, with a New Preface. 8vo, is. net.
THE LAW OF CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE,
ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO THE
DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER'S MARRIAGE
ACT. (Pusey House Papers.) Crown '8vo,
sewed, 30?.
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO,
LONDON, NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA.

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Crown 8vo, 7s. td. net.
THE CHURCH: ITS MINISTRY AND
AUTHORITY. Small Fcap. 8vo, is. net.
London : RIVINGTONS.

A HISTORY

OF

THE DOCTRINE OF
THE HOLY EUCHARIST

DARWELL STONE, M.A.
PUSEY LIBRARIAN
FORMERLY PRINCIPAL OF DORCHESTER MISSIONARY COLLEGE

IN TWO VOLUMES
Vol, I.

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA
1909

PREFACE.
Some explanation may be needed of the history of
this book, and of its relation to other writings of
mine. For many years it was my duty constantly to
lecture on Christian doctrine. In connection with
my lectures, it was my custom to read as fully as
circumstances permitted what has been written in
different periods on the subjects which I had to treat,
so that I might be able in lecturing to state briefly
the salient points of the teaching of representative
men and important times. In some cases this led to
my forming lists of passages which seemed to be of
special importance. One such list was in regard to
the Eucharist. Parts of the materials thus collected
on this subject were utilised in a series of articles,
entitled The Holy Eucharist: An Historical In
quiry, which I was allowed to contribute to the
Church Quarterly Review in the years 1901, 1902,
1903, and 1904 ; and these articles in turn lay behind
the much briefer treatment of the history of the doctrine
in the volume, The Holy Communion, in the Oxford
Library of Practical Theology. Since the publica
tion of that volume in 1904, I have spent much time
on the verification and revision and supplementing
and arrangement of the materials to which I have
referred ; and the result of the work is published in
this book. It will be seen that a plan of quoting at
considerable length has been adopted. In sq acting,

vi PREFACE
it has been my aim to show as well as is possible what
the meaning of the writers quoted is ; and I hope that
my own personal dislike of scanty quotations and un
explained allusions and generalisations which leave
readers at the mercy of authors may not have caused
me to make the passages unnecessarily long. In the
part of the book which deals with the period beginning
in the sixteenth century, the work of selection has not
been easy, in consequence of the vastness of the
literature : I have tried to choose writers and works
which are really representative, and to cite fully and
frankly opinions which 1 do not share : if I have
failed in this, the failure has been due not to lack of
will, but to human infirmity.
My thanks are due to the Editor of the Church
Quarterly Review for allowing me to use the sub
stance and very occasionally the language of the
series of articles already mentioned, and also of an
article contributed to the Review in October, 1908,
entitled Eucharistic Doctrine and the Canon of the
Roman Mass. My indebtedness to others is shown
in some footnotes ; and my special gratitude is due
to my friend, the Rev. C. O. Becker, Vicar of St.
Botolph's, Aldersgate Street, who most generously
read this book before it was in print, and gave me the
help of much valuable advice and many useful sug
gestions. The book is, as it is called, a history : the founda
tion of it was formed, as has been stated, in study
undertaken for purposes of my own : if it should help
any to a better understanding of the great doctrine
of which it treats, or if it should do anything to pro
mote the cause of peace, such a practical result will
be in accordance with my best hopes. D. S.
January 25, 1909,

PAGE

CONTENTS. VOLUME I.
CHAPTER I.
The New Testament.
Introduction —
1. Object — An historical statement 1
2. Importance of this 1
3. Need of systematic grouping and scientific estimate of evi
dence 2
I. Preliminary considerations —
1. The Person of Christ 2
2. Familiarity of idea of Communion with God by means of
a sacred meal to —
(a) Pagans 2
(6) Jews 3
(c) The Disciples of Christ 3
3. Place of rite in New Testament 3
II. The Institution —
1. New Testament Accounts 4
2. Parallels in St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenueus 6
3. Doctrinal inferences 7
III. Teaching of St. Paul 12
IV. Epistle to the Hebrews 15
V. Epistles of St. Peter 16
VI. The Revelation and the First Epistle of St. John 17
VII. The discourse at Capernaum - 17
VIII. Interpretation of passages 19
IX. Summary as to New Testament 20
CHAPTER II.
The Ante-Nioene Church.
Introduction —
1. Interest and importance of this period - 22
2. Basis of teaching 22
3. Grouping of writers » - - •> 22.

CONTENTS

I. Teaching as to presence and gift —
1. An undefined spiritual gift 23
2. The "symbols "or "figures" of the body and blood of
Christ 29
3. The body and blood of Christ 33
II. Teaching as to sacrifice —
1. Repudiation of carnal sacrifices 42
2. Sacrificial character of Christian belief and life and
worship 44
3. The Eucharist called a sacrifice 46
4. Use of Malachi i. 11 49
5. Association with the sacrifice of the cross and with our
Lord's risen and heavenly life - 49
6. Priestly character of Christian community 52
III. Summary 54

CHAPTER III.
The Period of the Great Councils.
Introduction —
1. Characteristics of period 55
2. Writers and documents 55
I. Ideas as to presence and gift —
1. General references to the body and blood of Christ 58
2. " Symbols " or " figures " - 61
3. Heightened efficacy of elements 67
4. The body and blood of Christ 70
5. Method of consecration 84
6. Spiritual character of presence 88
7. The body of Christ in the Eucharist and the mystical
body the Church 94
8. The heavenly body of Christ 96
9. Attempts at Explanation —
(a) Emphasis on continued existence of bread and
wine - - 98
(6) Emphasis on change of bread and wine 102
10. Adoration 106
II. Ideas as to sacrifice —
1. General sacrificial phraseology 109
2. Association with passion and death of Christ - 114
3. Association with risen and ascended life of Christ - 116
4. Culmination in Communion 121
5. The sacrifice of the Church . 123

CONTENTS

III. Evidence taken separately —
1. Aphraates and St. Ephraim the Syrian 124
2. Correspondence between Peter Mongus and Acacius 128
3. Homily ascribed to Eusebius of Emesa 129
IV. Summary 131

CHAPTER IV.
Eastern Theology from the Sixth Century to the Present Time.
Introduction —
General Characteristics of East - 133
I. Centuries VI., VII.—
Canons of Athanasius, Leontius of Byzantium, Ephraim
of Antioch, Eusebius of Alexandria, St. Anastasius
of Sinai, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Eutychius
of Constantinople, Maximus the Confessor, Sayings
of the Fathers 134
II. Iconoclastic Controversy —
St. John of Damascus, Council of Constantinople of 754,
Second Council of Nicaea of 787, Liturgy of St. Basil,
Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, On the Stainless Body 143
III. Sacrifice in centuries VI. -X. —
Eutychius of Constantinople, St. John of Damascus,
Second Council of Nicaea, Nicephorus of Constanti
nople, Liturgy of St. Basil, Liturgy of St. Chrysostom 152
IV. (Ecumenius, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Soterichus
Panteugenus, Council of Constantinople of 1156, Nicolas of
Methone, Germanus II., Cabasilas, Symeon of Thessalonica,
Council of Florence, Gennadius 156
V. Gabriel of Philadelphia 173
VI. Cyril Lucar, Orthodox Confession, Council of Constantinople
of 1642, Council of Jerusalem of 1672, Correspondence of
Eastern Bishops with Nonjurors, Council of Constantinople
of 1727, Russian Holy Synod in 1838, Longer Catechism,
Greek Catechisms (of Bernadakis, Moschakis, Kyriakos,
Nektarios), Bishop Makarios, Khomiakoff 175
VII. Summary 192

CONTENTS

CHAPTER V.
Western Theology from the Sixth to the Fifteenth Century :
Part I.
Introduction —
Differences of West from East 193
I. Centuries VI.-VIIL—
St. Gregory the Great, Isidore of Seville, St. Germain of
Paris, Venerable Bede, Alcuin, Theodulf of Orleans 193
II. Western Liturgies, centuries VI.-VIIL 203
III. Amalarius of Metz, Florus of Lyons 210
IV. Paschasius Radbert, Walafrid Strabo, Rabanus Maurus, Rat-
ramn 216
V. Hincmar of Rheims, Haymo of Halberstadt, Remi of Auxerre,
Gerbert - 233
VI. Aelfric - 236
VII. Pope Nicolas I., Ratherius of Verona 238
CHAPTER VI.
Western Theology from the Sixth to the Fifteenth Century :
Part II.
Introduction —
Prevalent doctrine early in Century XI. 242
I. Fulbert of Chartres 242
II. The Berengarian Controversy —
Berengar, Lanfranc, Durand of Troarn, Witmund of
Aversa, Eusebius Bruno, Councils at Rome, Brionne,
Vercelli, Paris, Tours, Rouen, Poitiers, Saint Maix-
ent, Bordeaux 244
III. St. Peter Damien (?) 259
IV. St. Anselm 261
V. Odo of Cambrai, Ivo of Chartres, William of Champeaux,
Alger of Liege, Gregory of Bergamo 263
VI. Hildebert of Tours, Honorius of Autun, Stephen of Autun,
Otto of Bamberg (?) 276
VII. Hugh of St. Victor, The Mirror of the Mysteries of the Church,
Robert Paululus, On the Canon of the Mystic Libation 283

CONTENTS

PAGE

VIII. Rupert of Deutz 291
IX. Abelard, Abbaud, William of St. Thierry 295
X. St. Bernard, Robert Pulleyn, Peter the Venerable 301
XI. Peter Lombard 303
XII. Peter of Poitiers, Pope Innocent III. 307
XIII. Fourth Lateran Council . 313

CHAPTER VII.
Western Theology from the Sixth to the Fifteenth Century :
Part III.
Introduction —
Features of Century XIII. 314
I. Alexander of Hales, William of Auvergne 314
II. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas 319
III. St. Bonaventura, Duns Scotus 334
IV. Illustrations of doctrine from —
1. Bull of Pope Urban IV. on the Feast of Corpus Christi 344
2. Hymns of St. Thomas Aquinas 346
3. Acts of reverence and adoration 352
4. The Lay Folks Mass Book, the Ancren Riwle - 356
5. Belief in physical support from reception of Sacrament 359
6. Durand of Mende - - 359

CHAPTER VIII.
Western Theology from the Sixth to the Fifteenth Century :
Part IV.
Introduction —
New views in Centuries XIV. -XV. 361
I. John of Paris, Durand of St. Pourcain, William of Ockham,
John Wyclif, Lollards, Sir John Oldcastle, John Hus,
Jerome of Prague, Peter d'Ailly, John Wessel 361
II. University of Oxford in 1381, Council of London of 1382,
Condemnation of Sawtry and Wyche, University of Oxford
in 1412, Archbishop Arundel, Council of Constance, Thomas
Netter, Council of Florence, Pope Eugenius IV. - 373

xii CONTENTS PAGE
III. Illustrations of doctrine from —
1. Mother Juliana of Norwich 380
2. John Myrc 381
3. Thomas a Kempis 382
4. Langforde's Meditations 384
IV. Further illustrations from —
1. Hereford Missal 385
2. Customary of St. Augustine's, Canterbury 385
3. Sarum Missal and Processional 385
4. York Processional 388
5. Sarum Cautels 388
V. Gabriel Biel 388
VI. York Guild of Corpus Christi 391
VII. Summary of the period from the Sixth to the Fifteenth
Century 392
Index of Subjects 399
Index of Passages in Holy Scripture referred to 401
Index of Authors, Councils, and Books referred to » 404

CHAPTER I.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
The object of the present book is to set out in as simple and
clear a form as may be possible the doctrines about the Holy
Eucharist which have been current among Christians. It is not
the aim of the author to enter into controversial arguments or
theological reasonings to any extent beyond that which the in
telligible treatment of facts necessarily involves. The world
and the Church being as they are, such arguments and reason
ings have their use and their proper place and even their neces
sity. But the purpose of the following pages is to provide an
historical account of the actual forms in which Christian belief
has been held. In attempting to carry out this purpose the
author cannot disguise from himself that he will be compelled
to call attention to much which very many might wish to be for
gotten. The surprises of history, and perhaps especially of Church
history, are often unwelcome. The complexities which historical
treatment reveals are sometimes provoking or painful or perplex
ing to those who have found in simple beliefs a stay for life or a
power in teaching. Nor may the student and the scholar ever
rightly forget that a sign of the kingdom of Him who is the
Light and the Hope of the world is that "the poor have the
Gospel preached to them ". Yet to close the eyes to facts is to
invite an awful Nemesis. History has its own ways of avenging
itself on those who ignore its lessons. Candid investigation is
not always the enemy of faith. And, if there is to be a way out
of current controversies, and a lessening of discord, and a step
towards that outward unity of Christendom for which true
Christians long, it will be as facts are realised and the history of
doctrine is grasped and understood. Those who live in the
present and work for the future will build on but insecure
foundations if they suffer themselves to be unmindful of the
past.

2 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
The needs thus contemplated will not be met simply by
collections of facts and catenae of quotations. The facts and the
quotations cannot be properly understood apart from their
setting. If the right value is to be assigned to evidence of this
kind, the evidence must be systematically grouped and scientific
ally treated. I.
The starting point for such an historical inquiry into the
doctrine of the Holy Eucharist as is here contemplated must
necessarily be found in the institution of the Sacrament by our
Lord Himself. In approaching the starting point there are three
preliminary considerations to be borne in mind, the Person of
Him who instituted the Sacrament, the preparation for the in
stitution which God had mercifully vouchsafed, and the place
which the administration filled in the earliest Christian life as
shown in the New Testament records.
1. No inquiry into Christian doctrine may forget Him who
is the centre of distinctively Christian thought and the way by
which Christian faith has its access to the Father. When the
Lord Jesus instituted the Eucharist He was really and perfectly
Man. All that makes up a human body and all that comprises
a human soul were His both in outward appearance and in in
ward reality. He was also truly and eternally God. There
was no loss or diminution to His Godhead and no maiming; of His
Manhood when in the mystery of the Incarnation the one eternal
divine Person of the Son of God made human nature His own.
In Him there is, not only to a pre-eminent degree but also after
a unique method, the union of God and man. The words which
He speaks, besides being human, are the words of God. The
actions which He performs, besides being human, are the actions
of God. It is the central motive of His life that in it God and
man are to be made at one and to hold communion. Here is
the verity apart from which the Christian religion does not exist.
Only by remembering it can there be hope of understanding the
meaning of what He does at the institution of the Eucharist as
at other times.
2. When the Eucharist was instituted, the idea of com
munion with God by means of a sacred meal had long been
familiar. Among the Greeks this idea underlay the mystic food

THE NEW TESTAMENT 3
and drink in the mysteries of Eleusis. All over the world it
has furnished the highest point of savage rites. God, who " left
not Himself without witness " in the Gentile world, and did not
destroy that image of God in man which human sin had marred,
enabled the dim yearnings of heathen thought to find, amid what
ever distortions, the vestiges of a great truth.1 For the Jew the
central place of worship was the place of meeting between God
and man, where God would dwell; the sacrifice which men
offered was the bread of God ; sacrifices in some instances led
up to the meal of the worshippers ; the altar of propitiation
was the table of communion ; Melchizedek, the " priest of God
Most High," " brought forth bread and wine " ; the personi
fied Wisdom of the Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus invited
to a mystic meal described in one passage as of bread and
wine.2 In the case of the Apostles this idea had been further
emphasised by our Lord Himself before the Eucharist was in
stituted. It permeated the miracles of the feeding of the five
thousand3 and of the four thousand.4 It was drawn out at
length by our Lord in the discourse recorded in the sixth
chapter of St. John's Gospel. " I am the bread of life." " I
am the living bread which came down out of heaven." " The
bread which I will give is My flesh." " Except ye eat the flesh
of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have not life in
yourselves. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood
hath eternal life." "He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My
blood abideth in Me and I in him." "He that eateth this
bread shall live for ever." 6
3. The references in the New Testament to the administra
tion of the rite of the Eucharist are of that incidental and
passing character which implies an ordinary and recognised part
1 See Hatch, Hibbert Lectures on The Influence of Greek Ideas and
Usages upon the Christian Church, pp. 287-90 ; Jevons, An Introduction to
the History of Religion, pp. 152, 154, 285, 414, 415 ; Frazer, The Golden
Bough, ii. 337-66 (second edition) ; Illingworth, Christian Character, pp.
145, 146. See also the present writer's The Holy Communion, pp. 1-9.
2Exod. xxix. 43-46; Lev. xxi. 6, 8, 17, 21, 22, xxii. 25 ; Num. xxviii.
2 ; Lev. iii. 11, 16 ; Exod. xii. ; Lev. vii. 15-21 ; Ezek. xii. 22, xliv. 16 ;
Mai. i. 7, 12 ; Gen. xiv. 18 ; Prov. ix. 1-5 ; Ecclus. xxiv. 19-21.
3 St. Matt. xiv. 19, 20 ; St. Mark vi. 41, 42; St. Luke ix. 16, 17 ; St.
John vi. 11, 12.
'St. Matt. xv. 36, 37 ; St. Mark viii. 6-8. 5St. John vi. 48-58.
1 *

4 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
of Christian life. In the First Epistle to the Corinthians St.
Paul speaks of it as an ordinance of Christ and an habitual
element in the worship of the Corinthians.1 In the Acts of the
Apostles " the breaking of bread " is so connected with " the
prayers," and " breaking bread at home " is so associated with
" continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple," as to in
dicate that the Eucharist was observed in the Apostolic Church ; 2
and a like conclusion can be inferred from the breaking of
bread by St. Paul at Troas on the first day of the week.3 Thus,
without including the meal at Emmaus * and the meal on the
ship after the shipwreck of St. Paul 5 among celebrations of the
Eucharist, there is sufficient indication of its place in the
habitual round of Christian life.

II.
The New Testament contains four accounts of the institution
of the Eucharist. Mentioned in chronological order, these are
given by St. Paul, and in the Second, First, and Third Gospels.
For the purposes of comparison, it may be convenient to quote
them in a tabular form.

1 Cor. xi. 23-25.
The Lord Jesus in the
night in which He was
betrayed

St. Mark xiv. 22-25. St. Matt. xxvi. 26-29. St. Luke xxii. 14-20.

As they were As they were And when the
eating, eating, hour was come,
He sat down,
and the Apostles
with Him, and
He said unto
them, With de
sire I have
desired to eat
this passover
with you before
I suffer : for I
say unto you, I
will not eat it,
until it be ful
filled in the
kingdom of God.
And He received
1 1 Cor. x. 16-21, xi. 23-29. 2 Acts ii. 42, 46. » Acts xx. 7, 11.
4 St. Luke xxiv. 30-35. On the improbability that this meal was the
Eucharist, see the author's The Holy Communion, pp. 15 16.
5 Acts xxvii. 35.

THE NEW TESTAMENT 5
1 Cor. xi. 23-25. St. Mark xiv. 22-25. St. Matt. xxvi. 26-29. St. Luke xxii. 14-20.
a cup, and when
He had given thanks,
He said, Take this,
and divide it among
yourselves : for I
say unto you, I will
not drink from
henceforth of the
fruit of the vine,
until the kingdom
of God shall come.
And He took
bread, and when He
had given thanks,
He brake it, and
gave to them,

tookbread ; and when He
had given thanks,
He brake it, and

said,
This is My body
whioh is 1 for you :
this do for My
memorial.
In like manner
also the cup
after supper,

He took
bread, and when He
had blessed,
He brake it, and
gave to them, and
said,
Take ye :
this is My body.

Jesus took
bread, and
blessed, and
brake it ; and
He gave to the
disciples, and
said,
Take, eat ;
this is My body.

saying,

This eup is the
new covenant in
My blood :

And He took a
cup,
and when He had
given thanks,
He gave to them :
and they all
drank of it.
And He said unto
them,

This is My blood
of the a covenant,
which is poured
out for many.

And He took a
cup,
andgave thanks, and
gave to them,

saying, Drink ye all of
it : for
this is My blood
of the '' covenant,
which is poured
out for many
unto remission

saying,
This is My body,
[which is given for you :
this do for My
memorial. And the cup in like
mannerafter supper,

saying,

This cup is the
new covenant in
My blood,
even that whioh is
poured out for you].5

1 The word " broken " is probably a very early addition, but not
part of the original text.
2 Some MSS. insert " new ".
3 It is doubtful whether the words in square brackets are part of
the original text. See Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ, pp. 157-60 ;
Frankland, The Early Eucharist, pp. 114-19.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST

1 Cor. xi. 23-25.
this do, as oft
as ye drink it,
for My memorial.

St. Mark xiv. 22-25. St. Matt. xxvi. 26-29.
of sins.

St. Luke xxii. 14-20.

Verily I say
unto you, I will
no more drink of
the fruit of the
vine, until that
day when I drink
it new
in the king
dom of God.

But I say
unto you, 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.

1 For as often as
ye eat this bread,
and drink the
cup, ye proclaim
the Lord's death
till He come. Before proceeding to discuss the doctrinal teaching which is
implied in the New Testament accounts of the institution of the
Sacrament, it may be convenient to quote statements in regard
to it which are found in the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr,
written about 145 a.d., and in St. Irenasus, writing about 190 a.d.
St. Justin Martyr writes: "The Apostles in their memoirs,
which are called Gospels, have handed down the command which
Jesus gave, that He took bread and gave thanks and said, Do
this for My memorial, this is My body ; and that in like manner
He took the cup and gave thanks and said, This is My blood ;
and that He gave it to them alone ".2 St. Irenasus writes : " He
took that which in its created nature is bread and gave thanks
and said, This is My body ; and in like manner the cup, which
is of that created nature which is used by us, He acknowledged
as His blood, and taught to be the new oblation of the New
Testament".3 What inferences as to doctrine, then, may rightly be drawn
from the accounts of the institution of the Eucharist ?
1 It appears most likely, but not certain, that these words are St.
Paul's comment, not quoted by him from our Lord's words at the institu
tion. 2 St. Justin Martyr, Ap. i. 66.
3 St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. IV. xvii. 6.

THE NEW TESTAMENT 7
1. All the accounts contained in the New Testament, as
also those which were known to St. Justin Martyr and St.
Irenaeus, concur in representing our Lord as having used the
words " This is My body ". It is probable that He spoke in
Aramaic ; but, unless we are to ignore every principle of sound
criticism, it must be supposed that the Greek words which all
our authorities give accurately represent what He said. In
Aramaic the word " is " would not be verbally expressed ; the
same meaning as that conveyed by it would be involved in the
juxtaposition of the subject "this" and the predicate "My
body ". The phrase then shows that our Lord used language
by which in some real though unexplained sense He identified
the bread which He held in His hand and gave to the Apostles
with His body. It would be unnatural to suppose that the
word " this " denoted anything different from the bread so held
and given, or that the word " body " was used in any unreal sense.
2. The accounts of our Lord's words used at the delivery
of the cup differ slightly. According to St. Paul and St. Luke
He said, " This cup is the new covenant in My blood " ; as
reported in the First and Second Gospels the words were,
"This is My blood of the covenant". Leaving aside for the
moment any consideration of what is involved in the use of the
word "covenant," it must be noticed that the phrase "This
is My blood " asserts, and the phrase " This cup is the new
covenant m My blood " implies, a similar identification of the
wine with our Lord's blood to the identification of the bread
with His body involved in His words at the delivery of the
bread. The word " this," or the phrase " this cup," obviously
denotes the contents of the cup ; the phrase " new covenant in
My blood" implies that what was given by our Lord and
received by the Apostles as marking and making the covenant
was His blood.
3. To the words " This is My body," at the delivery of the
bread, St. Paul adds, " which is for you : this do for My memo
rial," and the longer text of St. Luke adds, " which is given for
you : this do for My memorial ". To the words at the delivery
of the cup already quoted, additions are made of "which is
poured out for many" in the Second Gospel, of "which is
poured out for many unto remission of sins " in the First Gospel,
of " even that which is poured out for you " in the longer text of

8 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
the Third Gospel, and of " this do, as oft as ye drink it, for My
memorial " by St. Paul. The words " covenant," " do," " me
morial," and " poured out " need to be considered in connection
with one another.
(a) Covenant (8ia0j>er)). When our Lord said, "This is
My blood of the covenant," or " This cup is the new covenant
in My blood," His words were of such a kind as to suggest
a connection between the rite which He was instituting and
the sacrificial feasts in which the worshippers partook of the
sacrifice and thereby received the blessing associated with it.
They would recall also the covenants recorded in the Old Testa
ment and the promise of a "new covenant" in the prophecies of
Jeremiah.1 In particular a reference is naturally understood to
the covenant between the Lord and Israel related in the Book of
Exodus,2 which the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews de
scribes as the "first" "covenant" as compared with the "new
covenant" of which our Lord is the "mediator".3 In the mak
ing of the covenant with Israel the law of God was declared to
the people by Moses, and the people answered in acceptance of
the law, "All the words which the Lord hath spoken will we
do ". After this declaration and acceptance of the law there
were sacrifices of burnt offerings and peace offerings. As a
further stage in the sacrifice " Moses took half of the blood, and
put it in basons ; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the
altar". Then, after again declaring the law which he had
written in the " book of the covenant " and after the people had
again accepted it, " Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on
the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which
the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words".
These acts were followed by the vision of God and the com
pletion of the sacrificial meal. "Then went up Moses, and
Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel :
and they saw the God of Israel." " And upon the nobles of the
children of Israel He laid not His hand : and they beheld God,
and did eat and drink." It is unnecessary here to enter into
the many questions connected with the historical setting of this
account, or with the vision of God which is described in it. It
is sufficient to point out that to the mind of a Jew the phrase
•Jer. xxxi. 31-34. 2Ex. xxiv. 1-11. 3Heb. ix. 15-20.

THE NEW TESTAMENT 9
" My blood of the covenant," or " new covenant in My blood,"
would suggest a close association with a sacrificial rite in which
man approached God ; that the words were spoken at a meal
which was either the Passover itself or an anticipation or re
presentation of it ; 1 and that in its origin the Passover was a
sacrifice in which deliverance was accomplished by means of
blood, the symbol of life.2
(6) Do (iroielre). The first and obvious meaning of the
words " This do " is that they denote " Perform this action " ;
and it is clear that they were usually so understood by the writers
of the early Church and the compilers of the Liturgies. But
it has often been observed, and with justice, that in Holy
Scripture both the Hebrew word Till}}} and the Greek word
Troieiv have the sense of "offer" where the context contains
sufficient indication of a sacrificial meaning, in something the
same way that the English word " do '' is used in the sense of
" offer " in the well-known sentence in which Shakespeare wrote,
" Go bid the priests do present sacrifice," 3 that is, as rightly
explained by Mr. Michael Macmillan,4 " offer sacrifice immedi
ately". Thus, for instance, the translation adopted in the
Authorised Version and the Revised Version of a verse in Exodus,
" The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning ; and the other
lamb thou shalt offer at even," is a perfectly correct rendering,
although the word translated " offer " is literally " do " both in
the Hebrew (pJtP37) and in the Greek (iroieiv).5 Supposing then
that the setting in which our Lord's words were spoken is
thought to be sufficiently suggestive of sacrificial ideas, " This
do " may well be regarded as indicating, in addition to its primary
meaning of "Perform this action," a sacrificial element in the
rite instituted.
(c) Memorial (a.vd/ji,vr)cn<;). This word occurs five times in
1 It is not likely that the suggestion of Mr. Box (Journal of Theological
Studies, April, 1902) that the association is with the "Kiddush" not the
Passover is correct. On this and on the connection of the Last Supper
with the Passover see a note in the present writer's The Holy Communion,
pp. 289-91.
2 See Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, pp. 34-37 ; The Epistle to the
Hebrews, pp. 293-95.
3 Julius Ccesar, II. ii. 5. 4Note in loco in The Arden Shakespeare.
6Exod. xxix. 39; cf. e.g., Lev. ix. 7; Ps. lxvi. 15; see also St. Luke
ii. 27.

10 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. As translated
from the Hebrew in the Revised Version, the first four of these
passages are as follows : " Thou shalt put pure frankincense
upon each row, that it may be to the bread for a memorial
(Hebrew rnSjN? ; Septuagint et? avd^vrjo-iv), even an offering
made by fireTunto the Lord".1 " In the day of your gladness,
and in your set feasts, and in the beginnings of your months, ye
shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and
over the sacrifices of your peace offerings ; and they shall be to
you for a memorial (Hebrew Ift^V? 5 Septuagint avdfiVTjtrii)
before your God." 2 "A Psalm of David, to bring to remem
brance " (margin of Revised Version, " to make memorial " :
Hebrew "I^D^ 5 Septuagint ei? dvdfivycnv).3 " For the chief
musician. A Psalm of David ; to bring to remembrance " (margin
of Revised Version, " to make memorial " : Hebrew "V3)lV J
Septuagint et? di/a/wijow).4 The fifth passage, as translated in
the Revised Version from the Septuagint, is as follows : " For
admonition were they troubled for a short space, having a token
of salvation, to put them in remembrance (et? dvdfiwqcnv) of the
commandment of Thy law ".6 In the first two of these five
passages it is clear that the word denotes a sacrificial memorial
before God. In the fifth of them it is equally clear that the
context requires the meaning of a memento to man. The third
and fourth passages are not without share in the obscurity which
surrounds the titles of the Psalms ; but the probability is very
strong that a memorial before God is denoted. The best com
mentators explain the title of these two Psalms as a liturgical
note signifying that the Psalms were to be used in connection
with the offering of incense, or, as appears to be more probable,
the offering of the Azkara, as the portion of the meal offering
mixed with oil and burnt with incense on the altar (Lev. ii. 2)
and the incense placed on the shewbread and afterwards burnt
(Lev. xxiv. 7) were technically called in the Levitical ritual ; 6
and these are among the many passages in which the marginal
renderings of the Revised Version preserve translations more
acceptable to the best Hebrew scholars than those printed in
1Lev. xxiv. 7. "Num. x. 10. 3Ps. xxxviii. (Sept. xxxvii.) 1,
4 Ps. lxx. (Sept. lxix.) 1. 5Wisd. xvi. 6.
6 See, e.g., Delitzsch in loco and Kirkpatrick in loco.

THE NEW TESTAMENT 11
the text of that version.1 Moreover, on the less likely
hypothesis that the titles of these Psalms refer to their con
tents, not to their liturgical use, the sacrificial meaning of a
memorial before God would not be absent. " His broken
hearted faith," wrote Dr. Kay, explaining the title in reference
to the contents of the Psalm, " is presented to the Lord like the
asfcara^-frankincense of the meat-offering, burnt with fire." 2
As regards the use of the word memorial (d^d/w^o-t?) in the
Septuagint, then, it is used twice clearly in the sense of a sacri
ficial memorial before God, twice probably in that sense, and
once to denote a memento to men. The only place in the New
Testament, in addition to the accounts of the institution of the
Eucharist, in which the word is used is Hebrews x. 3. " In those
(that is the Jewish) sacrifices there is a remembrance (dvdfivr]crt<;)
made of sins year by year," where the memento to the wor
shippers in connection with the Levitical sacrifices is denoted.
On the whole it may be said that the word memorial naturally
suggests, without actually necessitating, the sense of a sacri
ficial memorial before God ; and that in the case of the
institution of the Eucharist the probability of a sacrificial
meaning is greatly strengthened by the use of the word coven
ant just before and by the sacrificial surroundings when our
Lord spoke.
(d) Poured out (eK^wofievov). This word occurs in the ac
counts of the Institution given in the First, Second, and Third
(longer text) Gospels. It is grammatically connected with the
word " blood " in the First and Second Gospels, and with the
word " cup " in the Third Gospel. In each place it was trans
lated "shed" in the Authorised Version. The Revised Version
has "poured out" in St. Luke, but "shed" is retained in St.
Matthew and St. Mark. Consistency seems to require " poured
out " as the right translation in each place ; 3 and the word sug
gests the pouring out of the blood of the slain victim at the
base of the altar in the Jewish sacrifices, rather than the shed-
1 See a valuable statement on the margins of the Revised Version in
Driver, The Book of Job, pp. xxiv.-xxxiii.
2 Kay in loco ; cf. Wordsworth in loco and Cook in loco.
3 See Westcott, Some Lessons of the Revised Version of the New Testa
ment, p. 90, note.

12 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
ding of the blood in death.1 The emphasis on this action m
the Jewish law, the analogy of the pouring out of drink offer
ings before the Lord, and the generally sacrificial character of
the whole rite, as well as the inferences which may be drawn
from the history of sacrifice in other nations, concur to make it
highly probable that in these Jewish sacrifices the blood was
poured out as an offering to God, and that the pouring out was
not merely a utilitarian method of disposing of the blood.
4. The sentence added in 1 Corinthians xi. 26, "For as
often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the
Lord's death till He come," will be more appropriately con
sidered in connection with the teaching of St. Paul than as part
of the account of the institution of the Sacrament, since it is
more probable that they are a comment of St. Paul than that
they were spoken by our Lord.
5. The elements used by our Lord were at that time associ
ated with sacrificial rites. Bread and wine were largely em
ployed both in Jewish and in heathen sacrifices. Among the
Jews the meal offerings consisted of fine flour, the drink offer
ings consisted of wine. It is not unworthy of notice that in
Latin one of the most distinctively sacrificial terms, immolatia,
the source of the English word immolation, was derived from
mola, the salted meal with which the victims in sacrifices were
sprinkled. In the first century of the Christian era bread and
wine would naturally suggest the idea of sacrifice.
6. The doctrinal inferences then which may rightly be
drawn from the accounts of the institution of the Sacrament
are that our Lord in some sense identified the bread and wine
which He gave to the Apostles with His body and blood ; and
that the Eucharist, while not explicitly described as a sacrifice,
was associated with terms and a method of administration
which are indicative of sacrifice rather than opposed to it.
III.
After the words of institution, it is necessary to consider the
teaching of St. Paul.
1 Cf. the use of ex^es) in the Septuagint in Exod. xxix. 12 ; Lev. iv. 7,
18, 25, 30, 34, viii. 15, ix. 9 ; 1 Ki. (= 1 Sam.) vii. 6; Isa. lvii. 6;
Ecclus. 1. 15. A different word (paiva) is used for the sprinkling of the
blood on the Day of Atonement in Lev. xvi. 14, 15, 19 ; cf. Exod. xxix.
21 ; Lev. iv. 17, v. 9, viii. 11, xiv. 16, 27 ; Num. xix. 4.

THE NEW TESTAMENT 13
1. Two passages in St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corin
thians treat directly of the Eucharist.
(a) In the first of these passages St. Paul is dealing with the
question of the duty of Christians in regard to the eating of
food sacrificed to idols. This leads him on to write on the pos
sibility of those who possess spiritual privileges failing to be
benefited by them, and to illustrate this truth from the history
of Israel. Returning to his subject of the relation of Christians
to idols, he writes, "Flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise
men ; j udge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we
bless, is it not fellowship in the blood of Christ (koivwvLcl tov
aifiaro? tov %pio-Tov)? The bread which we break, is it not
fellowship in the body of Christ (koivcovlo, tov o-a>/j,aTo<; tov
Xpio-Tov) ? seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one
body : for we all partake of (yLt€Te'%o/4ei') the one bread. Behold
Israel after the flesh : have not they which eat the sacrifices.
fellowship in the altar (icoiva>voi tov dvaiaaT-qpiov) ? What say
I then ? that a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an
idol is anything ? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles
sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God : and I would
not that ye should have fellowship with the demons (koivcovov?
Totv Baifiovuav). Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the
cup of demons : ye cannot partake of (fieri^etv) the table of the
Lord, and of the table of demons." 1 In this passage it is to be
observed that St. Paul (i.) treats the Eucharist as having in the
Christian religion a position in some respects parallel to the
sacrifices to demons in the heathen rites ; (ii.) regards the
Eucharist as a means of fellowship (icoivoavLa) in the body and
the blood of Christ ; (iii.) describes the partaking of it as a
ground of the unity in which Christians are one body ; (iv.) re
fers to two crucial moments in the rite, namely, the breaking
of the bread and blessing of the cup, and the reception of these
by the communicants.
(b) The second passage is that already referred to in connec
tion with the institution of the Sacrament. As in the first pas
sage, the reference to the Eucharist is incidentally introduced in
relation to a practical question. The existence of factions at
Corinth leads St. Paul to the subject of disorders in connection
with the Agape and the Eucharist. In the course of his rebuke
1 1 Cor. x. 16-21.

14 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
of these disorders he refers to his own reception from the Lord
of the description of the institution of the Sacrament which he
had delivered to the Corinthians. After recounting the institu
tion, he goes on, in words which are more likely to be his own
comment than part of what our Lord had said, " For as often as
ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim (KaTayyeWere)
the Lord's death till He come" ; and adds further, " Wherefore
whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord un
worthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread,
and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth
and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.
For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not
a few sleep." x Here, as in the tenth chapter, the idea of the
Eucharist as a means of fellowship in the body of Christ is found.
It is this idea which gives force to the warning that whosoever
eats or drinks unworthily is guilty of the body and the blood of
the Lord, and that one who receives the Eucharist without
discerning the body eats and drinks judgment to himself. St.
Paul speaks also of the reception of the Eucharist as a pro
clamation of the death of the Lord. The primary meaning
appears to be that the memorial instituted in the Eucharist
is a memento set up in the Church as a reminder to Christians.
But in view of what has been said already about the words
covenant, do, memorial, poured out, and the general sacrificial
setting of the institution and the parallel to heathen sacrifices,2
it is difficult to exclude the further idea of a proclamation
before God in the sense of a sacrificial memorial and presen
tation. It is to be noticed that St. Paul does not say that
the proclamation is simply of the Lord, but that it is of His
death ; that is, of the many aspects of our Lord's life which
must be remembered and presented in any memorial of Him,
that which is selected for special mention is the point of His
death. 2. St. Paul's representation of the Eucharist as a means of
fellowship in the body of Christ must be considered in relation
to his teaching that Christians are, by virtue of their baptism,
members of Christ and His body. At no great distance from the
explicit references to the Eucharist in the First Epistle to the
*1 Cor. xi. 26-30. 2See pp. 3, 8-12, supra.

THE NEW TESTAMENT 15
Corinthians, he writes, "As the body is one, and hath many
members, and all the members of the body, being many, are
one body ; so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all
baptised into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond
or free ; and were all made to drink of one Spirit. ... Ye are the
body of Christ, and members each in his part." x His teaching
about the Eucharist is not isolated. It has place in a whole
aspect of Christian life and the supernatural and sacramental
relation of the Christian to Christ.
3. With any indications in St. Paul's writings of the sacri
ficial character of the Eucharist must be connected his view of
the whole of Christian life and worship as having a sacrificial
aspect. He besought Christians " to present " (irapao-Trjo-ai) their
" bodies " — the bodies of those who, being " many, are one body
in Christ," and the members of the body of Christ — " a living
sacrifice, holy, well-pleasing to God " as their " spiritual (Xoyi/crfv)
service".2 He described the alms collected by the Philippians
and brought to him by Epaphroditus as " an odour of a sweet
smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God ".3 In reference
to his own work he wrote, " The grace that was given me of
God, that I should be the priest (XeiTovpyov) of Christ Jesus
unto the Gentiles, doing the work of a priest (lepovpyovvTa) in
respect of the Gospel of God, that the oblation (7rpoo-<popd) of
the Gentiles might be made acceptable, being sanctified by the
Holy Ghost ".* Because of this aspect of what Christians are
and do, the Eucharist is not regarded as anything isolated, but
in harmony with, and taking its place in, Christian life as a
whole. IV.
One of the main ideas of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the
abiding character of the priesthood of Christ. He is a High
Priest for ever. This carries with it the idea also of the abiding
character of His sacrifice. It is one sacrifice for ever. In union
with Christ and His heavenly sacrifice Christian worship and
1 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13, 27. 2Rom. xii. 1, 4, 5 ; 1 Cor. xii. 12-14.
3 Phil. iv. 18.
4 Rom. xv. 16. On this verse see Sanday and Headlam, in loco ; and
Sanday, The Conception of Priesthood in the Early Church and in the Church
of England, pp. 89, 90.

16 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
life are spoken of in the Epistle as possessing a sacrificial element.
" Through Him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God
continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to
His name. But to do good and to communicate forget not : for
with such sacrifices God is well pleased." 1 So also, Christian
life and worship as a whole are regarded as affording a parallel
to the Jewish sacrifices ; 2 and in a contrast between Christians
and Jews it is said, " We," that is, Christians, " have an altar,
whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle ".3
It is quite possible that in the word " altar " there is a reference
to the cross of Christ, or to Christ Himself ; but the word " eat "
distinctly suggests a connection with the Eucharist, and implies
that in this rite, forming as it does the centre of the earthly
worship and life of Christians, there is access to the abiding
sacrifice of Christ in heaven and to the heavenly High Priest
Himself, as the earthly sanctuary affords the means of approach
to the heavenly worship in which Christians " come unto Mount
Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,
and to innumerable hosts of angels, to the general assembly and
Church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God
the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood
of sprinkling that speaketh better than that of Abel ".4

The idea of the Christian body as priestly, and of the life
and worship of Christians as sacrificial is found also in the First
Epistle of St. Peter. "Ye also," St. Peter writes, "as living
stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood,
to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus
Christ. ... Ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy
nation, a people for God's own possession." 6
In the Second Epistle of St. Peter there is a strong expres
sion of the union with God which is allowed to Christians.
" That through these " (the promises of God), it is said, " ye
may become partakers of the divine nature." 6
1 Heb. xiii. 15, 16. ^Ibid. 9, 11, 12.
3 Ibid. 10. 4 Heb. xii. 22-24.
6 1 St. Peter ii. 5, 9. e 2 St. Peter i. 4.

THE NEW TESTAMENT 17
VI.
The Revelation of St. John implies the priestly and sacrificial
character of Christian life and worship, and that the central
point of these is to be found in the sacrifice of the heavenly
sanctuary. In the vision of the worship of heaven, the imagery
of which appears to have been taken from the worship of the
Church on earth, the living creatures and the elders are depicted
as worshipping the "Lamb standing, as though it had been
slain," that is, our Lord living and active after passing through
death present in His slain but victorious Manhood, and praising
Him because He has made men to be " a kingdom and priests "}
This same idea of the central action of our Lord in heaven
is found in the First Epistle of St. John. " If any man sin," it
is there said, " we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ
the righteous : and He is the propitiation for our sins ; and not
for ours only, but also for the whole world." 2 This advocacy of
our Lord is here referred to as a present work carried on by Him
in His heavenly life and making His propitiation effective for
Christians. As Bishop Westcott wrote : —
" Nothing is said of the manner of Christ's pleading : that is a
subject wholly beyond our present powers. It is enough that St.
John represents it as the act of a Saviour still living and in a living
relation with His people. His work for them continues as real as
during His earthly life, though the conditions of it are changed. He
is still acting personally in their behalf, and not only by the un
exhausted and prevailing power of what He has once done. He
Himself uses for His people the virtue of the work which He accom
plished on earth. . . . The 'propitiation' itself is spoken of as
something eternally valid and not as past." 3
VII.
In the discourse at Capernaum, after the feeding of the five
thousand recorded in the Fourth Gospel, in close connection
with the miraculous meal previously described, instruction on
"the meat which abideth unto eternal life " is summed up. Our
Lord identifies Himself with "the bread of life," of which the
manna in the wilderness was only a sign. In Him is to be found
the gift of eternal life. " This is the bread which cometh down
1 Rev. v. 6, 8-10. 2 1 St. John ii. 1, 2. 3 Westcott, in loco.
vol. i. 2

18 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
out of heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am
the living bread which came down out of heaven : if any man eat
of this bread, he shall live for ever : yea, and the bread which I
will give is My flesh, for the life of the world." To the puzzled
question of the Jews, " How can this man give us His flesh to
eat ? " the reply is given, " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
Man and drink His blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He
that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life ;
and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat
indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh
and drinketh My blood abideth in Me and I in him. As the
living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father ; so he
that eateth Me, he also shall live because of Me. This is the
bread which came down out of heaven : not as the fathers did
eat, and died : he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."
Knowing of the perplexity and murmuring of many of His
disciples, our Lord went on to say, "Doth this cause you to
stumble? What then if ye should behold the Son of Man
ascending where He was before ? The Spirit is the life-giver ;
the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that I have spoken unto
you are spirit, and are life." 1 Three comments may be made
here on the teaching contained in this discourse. (1) A possible
means of communion with Christ, and a necessary means of
possessing Christian life, is described as eating the flesh of Christ
and drinking His blood ; and it is hinted that this is made
possible by the operation of the Holy Ghost.2 (2) It is un
natural to separate the language of the discourse from the only
other occasion on which our Lord used similar language, namely,
the institution of the Eucharist. (3) The gift of our Lord's
flesh and blood is viewed in relation to His death in the words
" the bread which I will give is My flesh, for the life of the world," 3
and in relation to His resurrection when He spoke of Himself as
" the bread of life " and " the living bread ",i
1 St. John vi. 26-63.
2 An interpretation of " the Spirit" in the phrase " the Spirit is the
life-giver " to denote our Lord in His divine nature might be supported
by references to Rom. i. 4 ; 1 Cor. xv. 45 ; 2 Cor. iii. 18 ; but the usage in
St. John's Gospel is in favour of interpreting it of the Holy Ghost ; see St.
John i. 32, 33, iii. 5, 6, 8, 34, vii. 39, xiv. 17, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 13.
3 St. John vi. 51. iIbid. 35, 48, 51.

THE NEW TESTAMENT 19
VIII.
The positive and cumulative reasons which the New Testa
ment affords for interpreting our Lord's words at the institution
of the Eucharist as identifying that which He gave to His dis
ciples with His body and His blood cannot rightly be set aside
because of other expressions in the Gospels on which great stress
has been laid by some writers ; and the light shed on His words
by the spiritual character of His risen body is not to be ignored
because they were spoken before His death.
1. It has often been alleged that phrases by which our Lord
on other occasions described Himself are parallel to the words
used at the institution of the Eucharist and are merely metaphor
ical. An inference has been drawn that a metaphorical inter
pretation is to be placed on the words of institution, and that
they are to be understood to mean either that the bread and the
wine represent the body and blood of Christ without being His
body and blood or that they are means by which, though them
selves only bread and wine, those who receive in faith may par
take inwardly and spiritually of Christ. Such phrases are " I am
the bread of life," " I am the living bread," " I am the light of the
world," " I am the door of the sheep," " I am the good shepherd,"
"I am the way," "I am the true vine".1 In considering the
argument based on these expressions it is important to notice
three facts. First, 'as a matter of interpretation, the explanation
that the bread and wine are means, and only means, by which
the faithful communicants may spiritually receive Christ is not
satisfactory. The alternatives are really two, — " This is in fact
My body," or "This represents My body," — not three, — "This
is in fact My body," " This represents My body," " This is a means
by the reception of which My body may be spiritually received ".
Secondly, neither the phrases which are used to support a meta
phorical interpretation nor the circumstances in which these
phrases were spoken were parallel to the words and circumstances
at the institution of the Eucharist. Thirdly, a view by which
the phrases are regarded as simply metaphorical attaches to
them an altogether inadequate meaning. Each phrase denotes
an actual fact about our Lord. It is not by way of metaphor
but in spiritual reality that He feeds Christians, and gives them
JSt. John vi. 35, 41, 48, 51, viii. 12, ix. 5, x. 7, 8, 11, 14, xiv. 6, xv. 1, 5.
2 *

20 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
light, and admits them into the Church, and tends them, and
affords them access to the Father, and unites them to Himself.
In like manner, it is not by way of metaphor but in spiritual
reality that the bread and the wine of the Eucharist are His
body and His blood.
2. To avoid the difficulty of the gift at the institution of the
Eucharist being of the spiritual body and blood of the risen life
of Christ, it has been supposed by some who interpret our Lord's
words in their obvious sense that they were anticipatory only
and denote not what the Apostles received at the institution
but what they and other Christians were to receive after His
ascension.1 It is more reasonable to suppose that the anticipa
tion was in actual fact of the spiritual powers of our Lord's
risen life, and that, as in the days of His humiliation in the
course of His ministry He possessed by anticipation in His
human nature the glory of His ascended life for the purposes of
the Transfigui-ation, so at the close of His ministry before that
humiliation was ended He similarly possessed by anticipation
the powers of His risen life for the purposes of the institution of
the Sacrament and the gift to the Apostles.2
IX.
The doctrinal teaching of the New Testament on the subject
of the Holy Eucharist may then be summarised as follows.
1. An essential element in Christian life is such communion
with our Lord as is described as eating His flesh and drinking
His blood.
2. At any rate a pre-eminent way of eating His flesh and
drinking His blood is the reception of the Holy Communion.
3. In view of our Lord's words, "This is My body," "This is
My blood," and St. Paul's words, " The cup of blessing which
we bless " and " The bread which we break," the gift of our Lord's
flesh and blood is to be connected with the acts of the minister,
and not only with the reception by the communicant.
4. The Christian Church is in a supernatural and sacra-
1 See, e.g., Goudge, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 105,
106. 2 On the condition of our Lord's body during His mortal life see
Oxenham, The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement, Excursus iv. (pp. 358-62
fourth edition).

THE NEW TESTAMENT 21
mental relation to Christ ; Christians are a priestly body ; and
Christian life and worship have a sacrificial element.
5. The spiritual sacrifices in Christian life and worship must
be in union with the one, abiding, heavenly sacrifice of Christ.
6. The language used about the Eucharist and the position
assigned to it suggest that, as communion with Christ is pre
eminently granted by means of it, so the sacrificial aspect of
Christian life and worship have their centre in it, and are there
by brought into relation with the heavenly offering of Christ.
As a memorial of Him, it is a memorial in some special sense of
His death, which formed an essential element in that dedication
of His life which led on to the presentation of His risen and
ascended manhood in heaven.

CHAPTER II.
THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH.
The allusions to the Holy Eucharist in the Christian writings
between the close of the canon of the New Testament and the
Council of Nicaea in 325 are less numerous and less lengthy than
might perhaps be anticipated by those familiar with modern
controversies. For the purpose of an historical inquiry into
the doctrine held in the Church they have the advantage that
they are found in writers representing different lines of thought,
who lived in different localities and were of different types of
character. They thus possess far more value as testimony than
would be in much more voluminous evidence from one writer or
place only. Moreover, the period itself is of special interest and
importance because of its proximity to the time of the Apostles
and its priority to the friendship between the Church and the
State in the reign of Constantine. The basis of the thought
which the writers express was in the administration of the
Sacrament which they possessed in the Church, the words of the
New Testament, the tradition which they inherited as to details
in the administration and as to explanations of doctrine, and in
some cases the mystical interpretation of parts of Holy Scripture
not explicitly referring to the Eucharist. On this basis they
taught that the Christian in Communion partakes of Christ's
life, that the consecrated elements are in some sense the body
and blood of Christ, and that the Eucharist is in some sense a
sacrifice. If they are grouped geographically, Asia Minor is
represented by St. Justin Martyr and Abercius ; Syria by St.
Ignatius ; Alexandria by the Epistle of Barnabas, Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, and Dionysius of Alexandria ; Athens by
the Epistle to Diognetus and Athenagoras ; Rome by St. Clement
of Rome, St. Justin Martyr, and Hippolytus ; Gaul by St.
Irenaeus and an inscription at Autun ; Carthage by Tertullian
and St. Cyprian ; while the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH 23
may be either Syrian or Alexandrian, and the Canons of Hip-
polytus either Alexandrian or Roman. If a grouping on the
principle of theological affinities is attempted, the Alexandrian
writers may be placed together as representing with greater or
less completeness the obscurity, the mysticism, the intense
spirituality usually associated with Alexandria; the love of
system, the love of order, the power of rule which mark the
Church of Rome through the long course of history are already
manifest in St. Clement of Rome ; St. Ignatius is in much the
precursor of the most orthodox type of Eastern teaching ;
Tertullian and St. Cyprian have the legal turn of mind which
strongly marked African Christianity ; St. Justin Martyr and
Athenagoras and the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus and
St. Irenaeus have points of contact with both East and West. As
to dates, the Epistle of Barnabas may have been written between
70 and 79 ; St. Clement of Rome wrote about 95 ; St. Ignatius
was a martyr about 117; St. Justin Martyr wrote about 150;
the Epistle to Diognetus may be of the same date or a little
later ; Athenagoras flourished in the latter half of the second
century ; Abercius was Bishop of Hierapolis in the third quarter
of the second century ; St. Irenaeus wrote about 180 ; the Autun
inscription is probably of the end of the second century;
Clement of Alexandria died early in the third century, Hip-
polytus about 238, Origen in 253, Dionysius of Alexandria in
265, Tertullian died in the first half of the third century, St.
Cyprian in 258 ; the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles may have
been written either in the first or in the second century, the
Canons of Hippolytus either late in the second or in the third.
I.
In regard to the presence and gift in the Eucharist, the
writers who have been mentioned afford instances of three differ
ent kinds of phraseology.
1 . That which is bestowed in the Eucharist is described in
terms which denote a spiritual gift without defining its specific
nature. In the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles the words of
prayer quoted as used in connection with the administration of
the Eucharist include references to " the holy vine of David "
made known through Jesus, "the life and knowledge" made
known through Jesus, "the knowledge and faith and immor-

24 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
tality " made known through Jesus, and the " spiritual food and
drink and eternal life " bestowed through Him ; and that which
is received is described as " the holy thing ".
" Concerning the Eucharist (tijs evxapio-Ttas) thus give thanks
(eixo.pio-Trio-a.Te). First, as to the cup : we give thanks (evxo.pio-Tovp.ev)
to Thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which
Thou didst make known to us through Jesus Thy servant : to Thee
be the glory for ever. Then, as to the broken bread (tov K\do-p.a.Tos) :
we give thanks (evxo.pio-Tovp.ev) to Thee, our Father, for the life and
knowledge which Thou didst make known to us through Jesus Thy
servant : to Thee be the glory for ever. As this broken bread
(KXao-p.0.) was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered
together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together
from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom : for Thine is the
glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one
eat or drink of your Eucharist (evxa-pio-nai) but they who have been
oaptised in the name of the Lord (els ovopa Kvpiov) ; x for concerning
this also the Lord hath said, ' Give not that which is holy to the
dogs \2 And after ye have received (to epTr\rjcr6rjvat) thus give
thanks (evxapio-Trjo-are) : we give thanks (evxo.pio-Tovp.ev) to Thee,
holy Father, for Thy holy name, which Thou didst make to taber
nacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortal
ity, which Thou didst make known to us through Jesus Thy servant :
to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Almighty Master, didst
create all things for Thy name's sake, and didst give food and drink
to men for their enjoyment that they might give thanks (eu^apio-T^-
o-mo-iv) to Thee, but didst bestow on us spiritual food and drink and
eternal life through Thy servant." 3
Somewhat similar language to these expressions in the
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is found in the Epistles of St.
Ignatius in addition to much more explicit phraseology which
1 As Kvpiov is without the article, it probably means the Holy Trin
ity, not our Lord specifically. The actual form of Baptism is given in
chapter vii. as " In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost ".
2 St. Matt. vii. 6.
3 Didache, 9, 10. Compare the praise and thanksgiving addressed to
our Lord, which do not include any description of that which is given and
received in the Sacrament, in the Acts of John, 106-10, which probably
preserve language of the latter part of the second century : see Lipsius and
Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, II. i. 203-9.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH 25
must be noticed later. St. Ignatius refers to the Eucharist as
" the bread of God," and as " one bread," " which is the medicine
of immortality, the antidote that we should not die but live for
ever in Jesus Christ ".1 With these definite references to the
Eucharist may be compared the passages in which, with the
Eucharist probably in his mind, St. Ignatius speaks of " faith,
which is the flesh of the Lord," and " love, which is the blood of
Jesus Christ " ; " the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ,"
and " His blood, which is love uncorrupted " ; and " taking refuge
in the Gospel as the flesh of Jesus ".2
In discussing our Lord's teaching at Capernaum about the
spirit and the flesh in connection with the doctrine of the resur
rection of the flesh, Tertullian writes : —
" Making His spoken word life-giving, because that word is
spirit and life, He also described His flesh in the same way, because
the Word became flesh ; therefore, to obtain life, we ought to long
for Him, and to devour Him with our hearing, and to ruminate on
Him with our understanding, and to digest Him by our faith." 3
This kind of expression is more fully developed in the writings
of Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Clement writes : —
" The Lord expressed this by means of symbols in the Gospel ac
cording to John when He said, ' Eat My flesh and drink My blood,'
depicting (aXXrjyopwv) plainly the drinkable character of faith and
the promise by means of which the Church, as a human being
consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows and is welded
together and compacted of both, of faith as the body and of hope as
the soul, as also the Lord of flesh and blood." *
[After a more explicit passage quoted on pp. 37, 38, infra.] " But
you are unwilUng to understand it thus, but perhaps more generally
(Koivorepov). Hear it also as follows : The Holy Ghost uses flesh as
a picture (aXK-qyopei) for us, for by Him was the flesh created. Blood
signifies (cuvm-erai) for us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has
been poured into our life." 5
" The blood of the Lord is twofold. In one sense it is fleshly,
that by which we have been redeemed from corruption ; in another
sense it is spiritual, that by which we have been anointed. To
1 Eph. 5, 20. In the phrase " bread of God," " of God " occurs in all
the authorities except the Armenian Version, which omits.
2 Tral. 8, Rom. 7, Philad. 5. 3 De cam. res. 37.
' Paed. I. vi. 38. 6 Ibid. 43.

26 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
drink the blood of Jesus is to partake of the Lord's immortality ; and
the Spirit is the strength of the Word, as blood of flesh. As then
wine is mixed with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one,
the mixture, nourishes to faith ; and the other, the Spirit, guides to
immortality. And the mingling of both — of the drink and the
Word — is called Eucharist, renowned and beauteous grace ; and
those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in both body and soul,
since the will of the Father has mystically united the divine mixture,
man, by the Spirit and the Word. For in truth the Spirit is joined
to the soul that is moved by it, and the flesh, for the sake of which
the Word became flesh, to the Word." 1
" The food is the mystic contemplation ; for the flesh and blood
of the Word are the comprehension of the divine power and essence.
' Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,' 2 it is said ; for so He im
parts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual
manner, when now the soul nourishes itself, as says the truth-loving
Plato. For the eating and drinking of the divine Word is the
knowledge of the divine essence." 3
Thus, of one aspect of Clement's teaching it is true to say : —
" The flesh and blood of the Logos are the apprehension of the
divine power and essence ; the eating and drinking of the Logos is
knowledge of the divine essence ; the flesh is the Spirit, the blood
is the Logos, the union of the two is the Lord who is the food of
His people." 4
The mode of speech thus found in Clement of Alexandria is
earned on in the writings of Origen ; and the latter lays some
stress on the more perfect understanding of the phraseology
about the Eucharistic elements which is possessed by those who
have deeper knowledge of the Christian religion. Thus he
writes : —
" Our Lord and Saviour says, Unless ye eat My flesh and drink
My blood, ye will not have life in yourselves ; My flesh is truly food,
and My blood is truly drink. Because therefore Jesus is wholly
clean, His whole flesh is food, and His whole blood is drink, because
every work of His is holy and every word of His is true. Therefore
1 Paed. II. ii. 19, 20.
2Ps. xxxiv. (Sept. xxxiii.) 8, reading XpurT6s for xPW™s.
3 Strom. V. x. 67.
4 J. B. Mayor in Hort and Mayor, Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies,
Book vii., p. 383.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH 27
also His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink. For by the
flesh and blood of His word as clean food and drink He gives drink
and refreshment to the whole race of men. In the second place
after His flesh Peter and Paul and all the Apostles are clean food.
In the third place are their disciples. And so each one, in propor
tion to the extent of his merits and the purity of his senses is
made clean food for his neighbour." :
" Those of the Jews who followed the Lord were offended and
said, Who can eat flesh and drink blood ? But the Christian people,
the faithful people, hear the saying, and embrace it, and follow Him
who says, ' Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood, ye will not
have life in yourselves ; for My flesh is truly food, and My blood is
truly drink'. And moreover He who thus spoke was wounded on
behalf of men, for He Himself ' was wounded for our sins,' as Isaiah
says. Now we are said to drink the blood of Christ not only in the
way of Sacraments, but also when we receive His words, in which
life consists, as also He Himself said, 'The words which I have
spoken unto you are spirit and life '. Therefore He Himself was
wounded, whose blood we drink, that is, receive the words of His
teaching." 2
" That bread which God the Word confesses to be His own body
is the word that nourishes souls, the word proceeding from God the
Word, and is bread from the heavenly Bread, which is placed upon
the table of which it is written, ' Thou hast prepared before me a
table against those that trouble me '. And that drink which God
the Word confesses to be His blood is the word that gives drink and
excellent gladness to the hearts of those who drink, which is in the
cup of which it was written, ' And Thy gladdening cup, how ex
cellent it is '. And that drink is the fruit of the True Vine, which
says, ' I am the True Vine '. And it is the blood of that grape
which, cast into the wine-press of the passion, brought forth this
drink. So also the bread is the word of Christ, made of that corn
of wheat which falling into the ground yields much fruit. For not
that visible bread which He held in His hands did God the Word
call His body, but the word in the mystery of which that bread was
to be broken. Nor did He call that visible drink His blood, but the
word in the mystery of which that drink was to be poured out. For
what else can the body of God the Word, or His blood, be but the
word which nourishes and the word which gladdens the heart ?
Why then did He not say, This is the bread of the new covenant,
as He said, ' This is the blood of the new covenant' ? Because the
1 In Lev. Horn. vii. 5 ; cf. xiii. 6. 2 In Num. Horn. xvi. 9.

28 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
bread is the word of righteousness, by eating which souls are nour
ished, while the drink is the' word of the knowledge of Christ accord
ing to the mystery of His birth and passion. Since therefore the
covenant of God is set for us in the blood of the passion of Christ,
so that believing the Son of God to have been born and to have
suffered according to the flesh we may be saved not in righteous
ness, in which alone without faith in the passion of Christ there
could not be salvation, for this reason it was said of the cup only,
' This the cup of the new covenant '. " 1
" Let the bread and the cup be understood by the more simple
according to the more common acceptation of the Eucharist, but by
those who have learnt to hear more deeply according to the more
divine promise, even that of the nourishing word of the truth."2
Other instances of this kind of phraseology may be seen in
the Ethiopic document sometimes described as the Statutes of the
Apostles, which probably represents a third century form of the
" Lost Church Order," in the Syriac Didascalia of the Apostles,
also probably of the third century, and in the Verona Latin
fragments of the Canons of the Apostles, which probably repre
sent an ante-Nicene text. In the Statutes of the Apostles, besides
many more explicit statements, the value of the consecration of
the elements is in one place described as being that the gift may
be to the communicants " for holiness, and for filling them with
the Holy Spirit, and for strengthening of faith in truth, that
Thee they may glorify and praise ".3 In the Syriac Didascalia
the Eucharist is called "the divine food which endureth for
ever ". 4 In the Verona Latin fragments the words of admini
stration are, " the bread of heaven in Christ Jesus ".6
In any attempt to place the phraseology of which instances
have here been given in its right position in the history of
Christian thought, it must be remembered that the less definite
descriptions of the Sacrament in the Letters of St. Ignatius and
in the Statutes of the Apostles occur side by side with the more
explicit terminology in the same writings which will be quoted
later,6 that the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Origen
contain many instances of " the more common acceptation of the
Eucharist " which in the last quotation Origen described as suit-
1 In Mat. Comm. Ser. 85. 2 In Joann. xxxii. 24 (16).
s Horner's edition, p. 141. 4 Gibson's edition, p. 68.
6 Hauler's edition, p. 112. "See pp. 33, 39, infra.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH 29
able only for " the more simple," and that a marked characteristic
of the Alexandrian theology was the excessive extent to which it
carried allegorical and mystical interpretation.
2. Another kind of phraseology is found most markedly in
Tertullian, though it occurs also in Clement of Alexandria and
in the Statutes of the Apostles and in the Canons of the Apostles,
Clement incidentally says that "the Scripture named wine as
the mystic symbol (avpu^oXov) of holy blood "-1 In one place
the Saidic text of the Statutes of the Apostles refers to the
Eucharistic bread as " the form of the flesh of the Christ ".2
The Verona Latin fragments of the Canons of the Apostles speak
of the bread and wine as the " copy " (exemplum) or " antitype "
(antitypum) of the body and blood of Christ.3 Tertullian more
than once uses like language with explicit reference to the
Eucharist. He asserts our Lord's intention to have been to
show that bread was " the figure (figura) of His body " : he
explains the words " This is My body " as meaning " This is the
figure (figura) of My body " ; he interprets the words of institu
tion as placing our Lord's body under the head of, or in the
category of, bread (corpus eius in pane censeticr).4 He says also
that our Lord by the use of bread " makes present (repraesentat)
His very body ".5 The consideration of this type of phraseology
must include some discussion of (a) the meaning of the words
" symbol " (crvfifioXov) and " figure " (figura) ; (b) the meaning
of the word translated " makes present " (repraesentat) ; (c) the
relation of the passages here quoted to other statements of the
same writers.
(a) Students of the history of language and thought will be
quick to recognise the difficulty involved in such words as
"symbol" and "figure". Even at the present time most minds
marked by the characteristics of the thought of the West of
Northern Europe would approach the whole question of what is
meant and conveyed in a symbol quite differently from those
which have been mainly influenced by the traditions and associa
tions and tendencies of the South. The tendencies of the East,
again, are different from those of either North or South in the
West. In the past very different ideas have been connected
1 Paed. II. ii. 29. 2 Horner's edition, p. 319.
3 Hauler's edition, pp. 112, 117.
* Adv. Marc. iii. 19, iv. 40 ; De Orat. 6. 5 Ibid. i. 14.

30 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
with symbolism at different epochs and in different countries.
As regards the early Church it may be confidently stated that
the notions suggested by words meaning " symbol " would differ
in important respects from those which like words would suggest
to an ordinary Englishman or German of to-day. Dr. Harnack
has stated a crucial difference with great clearness. " What we
nowadays," he writes, " understand by * symbol ' is a thing which
is not that which it represents ; at that time ' symbol ' denoted a
thing which in some kind of way really is what it signifies " ; " What
we now call ' symbol ' is something wholly different from what
was so called by the ancient Church".1 That these general
statements would hold good in the case of Clement of Alexandria
is rendered likely by the characteristics of Alexandrian thought.
"" Symbol " is one of the words which the Alexandrian theologians
obviously borrowed from the terminology of the Greek mysteries.
Clement of Alexandria uses it for the various acts and objects
which in these mystic rites were regarded as at once the signs
and the vehicles of divine gifts, — the eating out of the drum,
the drinking from the cymbal, the carrying the vessel, the
entrance into the bridal chamber, the reception of the touch of
the serpent gliding over the breast, the dice, the ball, the lamp,
the sword, and other material things.2 With like thoughts
evidently in mind Origen refers incidentally to Baptism as " the
symbol of purification ".3 An essential element in the under
standing of the word in Greek theology is the recollection of
this connection with the pagan mysteries. Still more explicit
indications of the meaning of such terms in the phraseology of
Tertullian may be shown by an examination of his language
elsewhere and by a comparison of other known uses of the
word " figura ". In describing the Incarnation Tertullian uses
the phrase " caro figuratus " to denote that our Lord received
in the womb of His Virgin Mother not only the appearance but
also the reality of flesh.4 He says that our Lord made known
1 History of Dogma, ii. 144, iv. 289; cf. Hagenbach, History of Chris
tian Doctrines, § 73 ; Strauss, The Life of Jesus, § 124.
*Protrep. ii. 15, 16, 18, 22. Compare Wobbermin, Religionsgeschicht-
liche Studien zur Frage der Beeinflussung des Urchristenums durch das
.antike Mysterien wesen, p. 177 ; Hort and Mayor, Clement of Alexandria,
Miscellanies, Book vii., p. Iv.
3C. Cels. iii. 51. 4 Apol. 21 ; cf. Adv. Marc. iv. 21.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH 31
to the Apostles " the form (figura) of His voice "} He uses
the word " figura " in the sense of a main point in, or head of,
a discussion.2 Elsewhere he denotes by it the prophetic
anticipation of an event afterwards to be fulfilled.3 Such
a method of using the word follows the lines of what is
found in other writings. In one of Seneca's letters it is the
equivalent of the Greek word t'Sea as used in the Platonic
philosophy.4 The translation of " being in the form of God "
(iv /J>op<f>f) ©eov vTrdpj(cov) in Phil. ii. 6 by " in figura Dei con
stitute " in the old Latin version 5 ought not to be left out of
account in considering Tertullian's use of the word " figura " ;
and it is worth notice that after his time a Roman Council spoke
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as being " of one
Godhead, one power, one figura, one essence," 6 and a Gallican
version of the Nicene Creed translated " was made flesh and be
came man" (o-apKcodevTa, ivavdpcoTrrjo-avra) by "corpus atque
figuram hominis suscepit "J A scholar of great authority as to
the meaning of early Latin documents has inferred from these facts
that in the Tertullian "figura" is equivalent not to o-^jj/xa. but
to j^apa/cTrip,8 that is, it would approach more nearly to " actual
and distinctive nature " than to " symbol " or " figure " in the
modern sense of those terms. The question of the meaning of
such words in connection with the Eucharist will recur again in
a later period. It may be sufficient here to express the warning
that to suppose that "symbol" in Clement of Alexandria or
" figure " in Tertullian must mean the same as in modern speech
would be to assent to a line of thought which is gravely mis
leading. (b) The phrase " by which He makes present (repraesentat)
His very body " occurs in a passage in which Tertullian is de-
1Scorp. 12. * Adv. Marc. ii. 21.
3 De Monog. 6, "Aliud sunt figurae, aliud formae ; aliud imagines,
aliud definitiones ; imagines transeunt adimpletae, definitiones permanent
adimplendae ; imagines prophetant, definitiones gubernant ". Cf. Adv.
Iud. 10.
4 Seneca, Ep. lxv. 7, " Deus . . . plenus hie figuris est quas Plato
ISeas appellat, immortales, immutabiles, infatigabiles ".
5 See St. Cyprian, Test. ii. 13 ; iii. 39.
6 Council of 370 a.d., Hardouin, Concilia, i. 773.
'See Turner, Eccl. Occid. Mon. Iuris Antiqua, i. 174.
8 Turner, Journal of Theological Studies, vii. 596.

32 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
scribing the use of material things in the ministries of grace as
an argument against the view of Marcion that matter is essen
tially evil. The Lord whom Marcion acknowledges, he says : —
" Even up to the present time has not disdained the water which
is the Creator's work, by which He washes His own people, or the oil
whereby He anoints them, or the mixture of milk and honey with
which He feeds them as infants, or the bread by which He makes
present (repraesentat) His very body, requiring even in His own Sacra
ments the ' beggarly elements ' (mendicitatibus) of the Creator."1
The meaning of the Latin verb repraesentare is to make
present that which has been unseen or has passed out of sight.
According to the context in which it is used it may denote that
the presence is actual or that it is only to the mind. It and the
connected noun are favourites with Tertullian and he uses them
in both senses. In considerably more than half the instances in
his writings they denote actual presence, while in the other
instances an anticipatory or a mental or a stage representation
is meant. Thus the noun repraesentatio is used for the actual
manifestation of the kingdom of God in the future,2 for the
actual infliction of punishment in this life,3 for the second coming
of Christ at the end of the world,4 for the manifestations of God
by means of material elements in the Old Testament,5 for the re
velation of the name of Christ in the prophets,6 for the actual
infliction of the retaliation allowed by the Jewish law,7 for the
manifestation to the disciples of the Christ whom prophets and
kings had desired to see,8 for the presence of the bodies of men at
the judgment-seat,9 for that future realisation of God which is
contrasted with the present apprehension by means of faith,10 and
for the revelation of God in Christ through the Incarnation.11
Similarly the verb repraesentare is used for the actual descent of
fire from heaven which took place at the word of Elijah and for
which the disciples wished,12 for the accomplishing of the promises
1Adv. Marc. i. 14. 2 De Cor. 15 ; De Orat. 5.
3De Pudic. 14. 'Adv. Marc. iii. 7.
5 Ibid. 10. e ibid. iv. 13.
7 Ibid. 16. a Ibid_ 25.
9 Ibid. v. 12 ; De cam. res. 14, 17. 10 De cam.- res. 23.
11 Adv. Prax. 24 ; cf. the use of repraesentator in the same chapter.
12 De Patient. 3 ; Adv. Marc. iv. 23.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH 33
of God,1 for the effecting of healing in the miracles of Christ,2
for the work of the Father in manifesting His Son at the Trans
figuration,3 and for the presence of the body at the Day of Judg
ment.4 On the other hand, in a smaller number of instances the
noun is used for the mental anticipation of future punishment,5
and the representation of the Christian Church in a council ; 6
and the verb denotes the representation of a character by an
actor on the stage,7 the representation of a deity in an image,8
the imaginations of the mind,9 and the depicting of Christ in the
Psalms.10 Consequently an examination of the usage of Ter
tullian in other places does not decisively determine whether the
phrase " the bread by which He makes present His very body "
means that the " very body " is actually present in the element of
bread or that by means of the bread it is depicted or represented
to the mind and soul.
(c) It is therefore important to inquire what is the teaching
of Tertullian about the Sacraments, and about the Eucharist in
particular, in other passages than those in which he uses the
words "figura" and "repraesentat" which have so far been
examined. This other phraseology of his falls under the head of,
and must be taken with, the third of the three groups into which
the Eucharistic language of the writers of the first three centuries
has been divided.
3. According to a third kind of phraseology the bread and
wine of the Eucharist are described as the body and blood of
Christ. Besides the less definite language of St. Ignatius which
has already been quoted, it is one of his charges against the
Docetics that " they abstain from Eucharist and prayer," that
is, the public prayer of the Church, " because they do not acknow
ledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,
which suffered on behalf of our sins, which the Father in His
goodness raised " ; and it is part of his exhortation to the faithful,
" Be zealous to use one Eucharist, for there is one flesh of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for union with His blood ".11
1 Adv. Marc. iv. 6. 2 Ibid. 9.
3 Ibid. 22. * De earn. res. 17, 63.
6 Apol. 23. " De ieiun. 13.
7 Apol. 15 ; De spectac. 17. 8 Apol 16.
9 De monog. 10 ; Depoen.3. w Adv. Prax. 11.
11 Smym. 6 ; Philad. 4.
VOL. I. 3

34 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
In a different context St. Justin Martyr says much the same
as St. Ignatius. In the course of his defence of Christian belief
and worship and life against heathen attacks he refers at some
length to the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Holy
Eucharist. Of the latter he says : —
" This food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one
is allowed to partake unless he believes that our teaching is true
and has been washed in the laver for the remission of sins and for
regeneration and is living as Christ commanded. For we do not
receive it as common bread or common drink ; but just as Jesus Christ
our Saviour, made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood
for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food over
which thanksgiving has been made by the prayer of the word that
is from Him — that food from which our blood and flesh are by
assimilation nourished — is both the flesh and the blood of the Jesus
who was made flesh." l
The circumstances in which St. Irenasus referred to the
Eucharist resembled those which led to the teaching of St.
Ignatius. He had to deal with that fundamental Gnostic error
which interposed an insuperable barrier between spiritual beings
and material things, between the true God and the universe of
matter. In the mind of St. Irenasus the Eucharistic doctrine
and practice of the Church afforded the standing refutation of
any such mistake. And, as it showed the falsity of the central
delusion of the Gnostic thinkers, so also it supplied an answer
to their denials of the reality of Christ's flesh and of the resur
rection of the body.
"How can they allow," he says, "that the bread over which
the thanksgiving has been said is the body of their Lord and that
the cup is of His blood if they say that He is not the Son of the
Creator of the world, that is His Word, through whom the wood is
fruitful and the springs flow and the earth yields first the blade, then
the ear, then the full corn in the ear ? How, again, do they say that
the flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord
descends to corruption and does not attain unto life ? Either then
let them change their mind or let them cease to offer that which
has been mentioned. For our belief is in harmony with the Eu
charist ; and the Eucharist, again, establishes our belief. For we
offer unto Him the things that are His own, proclaiming harmoni-
1Ap. i. 66.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH 35
ously the communion and unity of flesh and spirit. For as the
bread of the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer
common bread but Eucharist, made up of two things, an earthly
and a heavenly, so also our bodies, partaking of the Eucharist, are
no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to
eternity." J
" How could the Lord, if He was the Son of another Father,
have rightly taken the bread which is of the same creation as our
selves and acknowledged it to be His body, and affirmed the mixed
wine in the cup to be His blood ? " 2
"If" "the flesh" "is not the object of salvation, then neither
did the Lord redeem us by His blood, nor is the cup of the Eu
charist the communication of His blood, nor is the bread which we
break the communication of His body. . . . The cup of created
wine, from which He bedews our blood, He acknowledged as His
own blood ; and the created bread, from which He increases our
bodies, He affirmed to be His own body. When therefore the cup
of mingled wine and the made bread receive the word of God, and
the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ,3 and the substance of our
flesh is increased and sustained by these, how do they say that the
flesh cannot receive the gift of God, which is life eternal, since the
flesh is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord and is a
member of Him ? ... As a cutting of the vine planted in the
ground bears fruit in its season, and as a grain of wheat falling into
the ground and being decomposed rises manifold by the operation
of the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then through the
wisdom of God comes to the use of men and receiving the word of
God becomes Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ ;
so also our bodies being nourished by it and laid in the earth
and decomposed there shall rise at the due season, the Word
of God granting them resurrection to the glory of our God and
Father." 4
The words of the first part of an inscription found at Autun
probably belong to the end of the second century or the quite
early years of the third. They speak of our Lord, described
under the well-known symbol of a fish from the initial letters
1Adv. Haer. IV. xviii. 5. *Ibid. xxxiii. 2.
3 So the Greek, kcu yiverai i] cvxapt-o-ria oSipa Xptoroi) : the Latin
version has "and the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ is
made ''.
*Adv. Haer. V. ii. 2, 3. 3*

36 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
of the Greek words for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour,"
as being in the hands of the communicant : —
" Divine race of the heavenly Fish,1 a holy heart
Put forth, receiving among mortals the immortal fount
Of sacred waters ; nourish, beloved, thy soul
With the ever-flowing waters of enriching wisdom.
Receive the honey-sweet food of the Saviour of the holy ; 2
Eat, drink, having the Fish in thy hands." 3
A very imperfect idea of the Eucharistic doctrine of Ter
tullian would be given if attention were confined to those pas
sages in his writings in which he describes the Eucharist as the
" figura " of the body of Christ and the means by which our
Lord "makes His body present". To understand it rightly,
it must be viewed in the general setting of sacramental .principle
which Tertullian emphasises. In his eyes the Incarnation has
introduced new aspects of the relation of man to God. The
human flesh which the Lord then took is an abiding reality.
" That same Person who suffered," he declares, " will come from
heaven ; that same Person who was raised from the dead will
appear to all. And they who pierced Him will see and recog
nise the very flesh against which they raged." 4 With this
Christ, thus retaining His human body and blood, Christians
are closely united. The baptised are clothed with Christ; in
them Christ lives.5 By the daily reception of the bread of life
there is continuance in Christ and abiding union in His body.6
Before the Incarnation the flesh was far off from God, " not yet
worthy of the gift of salvation, not yet fitted for the duty of
holiness " ; but Christ's work, accomplished in the flesh, has
changed all that.7 Since the Incarnation Sacraments have
become necessary and effectual ; 8 and that which in the ordin
ances of the Church touches the flesh benefits the soul.9 It is
1'lX0vs, from the initial letters of 'Itjo-ovs Xpio-ror 6foii Yios Scorijp.
For the fish as an early symbol of our Lord, see Smith and Cheetham's
Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, i. 673, 674. Cf. p. 38, infra.
2 Or "of the holy things of the Saviour " (Sarrjpoc ayiav).
3 See Leclercq in Cabrol's Dictionnaire d'Archeologie Chretienne et de
Liturgie, i. 3195-3198.
iDe cam. Christi, 24. 6Defug. 10 ; De poen. 10.
«Deorat. 6. 7 De pud. 6.
8 De Bapt. 11, 13. 9 De cam. res. 8.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH 37
in harmony with these general sacramental principles that Ter
tullian not only calls the Eucharist " the holy thing," i but also
often and naturally refers to it as the body of Christ. It is a
matter for anxious care that no drop of the wine or fragment
of the bread should fall to the ground.2 It was the Lord's
body which the disciples received at the Last Supper.3 It is
the Lord's body which the communicant receives in the Church
or reserves for his Communion at home.4 It is the Lord's body
with the richness of which the Christian is fed in the Eucharist.5
It is Christ's body and blood with which " the flesh is clothed,
so that the soul also may be made fat by God ".6 Even in un
worthy Communions it is the body of the Lord which wicked
hands approach, the body of the Lord which wicked men out
rage and offend.7 And yet side by side with all this must be
set that interpretation of the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel
already mentioned, which seems to regard the flesh and blood
of Christ there spoken of as His life-giving words received in
faith.8 The writings of Tertullian certainly bear witness to
his belief that the Eucharistic food is a special means of union
with the Manhood of Christ, and that in some sense it is His
body and His blood. When we view the complexity and vary
ing elements of his language, perhaps we are wise if we are
not too positive as to what further definitions he might have
made if he had explained more precisely what his exact meaning
was.9 As in Tertullian, so also in Clement of Alexandria and
Origen there are other elements than those to which reference
has already been made. Clement explains that the Lord feeds
Christians with His own flesh and blood even as a mother feeds
her infant child from her own body.
" The young brood which the Lord Himself brought forth with
throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swaddled with precious
1 De spectac. 25, " the mouth with which thou hast uttered Amen to
the holy thing (in sanctum) ".
'De cor. 3. 3 Adv. Marc. iv. 40.
*Deorat. 19. B De pud. 9.
0 De cam. res. 8. 7 De idol. 7.
8 De res. earn. 37. Cf. De orat. 6. See p. 25, supra.
9 Cf. Gore, Dissertations on Subjects Connected with the Incarnation, pp.
308-12.

38 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
blood. O holy birth, O holy swaddling clothes, the Word is all to
the babe, father and mother and tutor and nurse. 'Eat ye My
flesh,' He says, ' and drink ye My blood.' This suitable food the
Lord supplies to us, and offers flesh and pours out blood ; and the
little children lack nothing that their growth needs." 1
Origen speaks of Christ giving to Christians " His own body
and His own blood " ; 2 and of Christians receiving " the bread
which becomes a kind of holy body because of the prayer ".3 If
in some places he seems to identify the flesh and blood of Christ
with His words, in one remarkable passage he reminds his hearers
of the reverent care which they know is taken to prevent any
part of the body of the Lord which is received in the mysteries
from falling to the ground or being lost, and exhorts them to be
no less careful to receive the words of Christ than to protect
His body which Origen thus distinguishes from them : —
" If for the protection of His body ye take so great care, and
are right to take it, can ye suppose that to be careless of the word
of God is a less offence than to be careless of His body ? " 4
This identification of the Eucharistic food with the body
and blood of Christ is found also in the epitaph of Abercius, in
Hippolytus, in the document known as the Canons of H'vppoly-
tus, in the Statutes of the Apostles, in the Canons of the Apostles,
and in Dionysius of Alexandria. The epitaph which Abercius,
Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia in the reign of Marcus Aurelius,
wrote for his own tomb describes how in his journeys in West
and East, to Rome and Nisibis,
" Everywhere faith led the way, and set before me for food the
fish from the fountain,5 mighty and stainless (whom a pure virgin
grasped), and gave this to friends to eat always, having good wine
and giving the mixed cup with bread." 8
In a fragment of uncertain origin and history ascribed to
Hippolytus of Rome the "house" which the Wisdom of the
xPaed. I. vi. 42, 43.
%In Jer. Horn, xviii. (al. xix.) 13 ; cf. In Matt. Comm. Ser. 86, where
Origen speaks of the gift as Christ's "own body," though he says also that
Christ " gives according as each one is able to receive ".
3 C. Cels. viii. 33. 47» Ex. Horn. xiii. 3.
6 For the fish as an early symbol of our Lord, see pp. 35, 36, supra.
6 In Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, II. i. 480-81 ; Ramsay, Cities and
Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii. 722-23.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH 39
Book of Proverbs built 1 is interpreted of the flesh which the
Lord took of the Virgin in the Incarnation ; and the " table "
which Wisdom " furnished"2 is explained to denote " the promised
knowledge of the Holy Trinity, and the Saviour's precious and
stainless body and blood, which are daily consecrated on the
mystic and sacred table ". " He hath given us," it is added,
" His sacred flesh and His precious blood, to eat and drink for
remission of sins."3 In another fragment ascribed to Hippoly
tus is the sentence : —
" We receive His body and His blood, for He is the pledge of
eternal life for each one who draws near to Him in humility." 4
In the Roman or Alexandrian document known as the Canons
of Hippolytus is the provision : —
" The bishop is to give to them the body of Christ, saying, This
is the body of Christ, and they are to say, Amen. And, when he
gives them the cup, saying, This is the blood of Christ, they are to
say, Amen." 5
In the Statutes of the Apostles the effect of consecration is
said to be that the elements become the body and blood of
Christ, the bread and the wine are described as the body and
blood of Christ at the moment of Communion, any profanation
of the Sacrament is said to be a profaning of the body and
blood of Christ.6 In the Verona Latin fragments of the Canons
of the Apostles it is said that " the body of Christ is to be eaten
by believers and not to be despised," and that one who exposes
the contents of the cup to profanation is " guilty of the blood "
of Christ.7 In a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Xystus,
•Prov. ix. 1. ''Ibid. 2.
3 On Prov. ix. 1, in Hippolyti Opera, ed. Fabricius, i. 282; P.G. a.
625, 628. See also Salmon in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian
Biography, iii. 103. Dr. Salmon says, "It appears" from the "shorter
version of the same fragment " published by Tischendorf (Anecdota Sacra,
p. 227) that "all the Eucharistic language which we have a right to ascribe
to Hippolytus is " the sentence translated above, " He hath given us His
sacred flesh and His precious blood, to eat and drink for remission of sins ".
4 On Gen. xxxviii. 19, in Hippolytus Werke, ed. Bonwetsch and Achelis,
i. (2) 96.
s §§146, 147.
e Horner's edition, pp. 137, 140, 141, 156, 157, 178, 180, 181, 200,
201, 243, 255, 256, 257, 261, 276, 277, 319, 320, 326, 344, 345.
7 Hauler's edition, pp. 117, 118.

40 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Bishop of Rome, there is a description of one who in this re
spect had lived a normal faithful Christian life as having
"heard the thanksgiving (or the Eucharist) and joined in repeat
ing the Amen and stood by the table and stretched out his hands
for the reception of the holy food and received it and partaken for
a long time of the body and blood of our Lord." x
In another letter Dionysius speaks of the act of Communion as
touching the body and the blood of Christ.2
The writings of St. Cyprian contain very many incidental
references to the Eucharist. It is always mentioned with pro
found reverence. The Eucharistic food is described as " sancti
fied " 3 — a phrase applied also, it must be noticed, to a person
who has been made holy by being baptised,4 and to the water
and the oil made holy for use in the administration of Baptism.5
With obvious or expressed reference to our Lord's words, " Give
not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls
before the swine," 6 it is spoken of as " the holy thing," 7 or " the
holy thing of the Lord," 8 or " the pearls of the Lord ".9 " The
blood of Christ " is said to be " shown " or " set forth " by the
wine in the cup ; the bread and wine which the Lord offered to
the Father are called " His body and blood " ; the " wine of the
cup of the Lord " is spoken of as "blood".10 Communicants are
1 In Eusebius, H.E. vii. 9 ; cf. Feltoe, Dionysius of A lexandria, p. 68.
2 In Routh, Rel. Sacr. iii. 230, 231 ; cf. Feltoe, op. cit. p. 103; see also
Eusebius, H.E. vii. 26.
3Delaps. 25. 'E.g., Ep. lxix. 2, 8, 10, 11, 15, lxx. 2, lxxiii. 18.
5Ep. lxx. 1, 2. 6 St. Matt. vii. 6.
7 De laps. 26; cf. Pseudo-Cyprian, De spectac. 5. In Ad Demet. 1,
however, "sanctum " is used in a quite general sense. In Pseudo-Cyprian,
De aleat. 11, Christ and the angels and the martyrs are referred to as pre
sent at the Eucharist in general.
sDe unit. 8 ; De laps. 15, 26 ; Ep. xxxi. 6. 9 Ep. xxxi. 6.
10 Ep. lxiii. 2, "nor can His blood, by which we have been redeemed
and quickened, be seen to be in the cup, when wine, which is shown
(ostenditur) to be the blood of Christ, is absent from the cup" ; 4, "our
Lord Jesus Christ, who offered sacrifice to God the Father, and offered
the very same thing as Melchizedek, that is bread and wine, namely His
body and blood"; 6, "when the blood of the grape is spoken of, what
else is shown than the wine of the cup of the Lord which is blood ? " 7
" mention is made of wine that by wine may be understood the blood of the
Lord, and that what was afterwards manifested in the Lord's cup might be
foretold in the predictions of the prophets ".

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH 41
said to receive and to be sustained and protected by the body and
blood of Christ.1 When any communicate unworthily the body
and blood of the Lord are taken and drunk with defiled hands
and polluted mouth, and are outraged and profaned.2 To com
plete what may be gathered as to St. Cyprian's thought of the
Eucharistic presence, there are two passages which need to be
correlated to those already in view. In the first of these pas
sages St. Cyprian says of one who took part in the Eucharistic
rite after an act of apostacy : —
" He could not eat and handle the holy thing of the Lord, but
found that he was carrying a cinder in his open hands. By this
single instance it was shown that the Lord departs when He is
denied, and that what is received does not benefit unto salvation one
who is unworthy, since the saving grace is changed into a cinder on
the departure of the holy thing." 3
In the other passage St. Cyprian is speaking of an opposite
instance, where the faith of Christ is victoriously maintained in
time of persecution : —
" Let us arm," he says, " the right hand also with the sword of
the Spirit, so that it may bravely reject the deadly sacrifices of the
heathen, and that the hand which mindful of the Eucharist receives
the body of the Lord may embrace the Lord Himself, hereafter to
obtain the reward of the heavenly crowns of the Lord." *
In the first of these passages, in distinction from those in
which the body and blood of the Lord is said to be taken and
drunk and outraged and profaned in unworthy Communions,
the possibility is contemplated of a withdrawal of the sacred
presence in such cases ; in the second of them the embrace of the
Lord Himself seems to be regarded as a special gift over and
above what is in every good Communion.
The question of the crucial moment in the consecration of
the Eucharist belongs rather to later controversies than to the
ante-Nicene period of Church history ; but it may here be briefly
noticed that Tertullian 5 appeal's to connect the presence with
the use of the words of Institution, that St. Justin Martyr 6 and
1 De laps. 2 ; De dom. orat. 18 ; Ep. xi. 5, lvii. 2, lviii. 1, 9, Ixiii. 1.
*De laps. 16, 22, 25 ; Ep. xv. 1, lxxv. 21. 3 De laps. 26.
*Ep. lviii. 9. sAdv. Marc. iv. 40. 6 Ap. i. 66.

42 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Origen 1 ascribe it to the prayer offered in the Church, and that
St. Irenaeus speaks of it as effected by this prayer described as
"the invocation of God,"2 or "the Word of God".3 If the
Statutes of the Apostles 4 and the Verona Latin fragments of the
Canons of the Apostles 5 accurately represent ante-Nicene texts,
there already existed at this time a rite in which the words of
Institution were recited, and after them a prayer for the sending
of the Holy Ghost upon the offering of the Church was used.
II.
It is necessary next to consider the teaching of the writers
of the anti-Nicene Church which bears on the doctrine of the
Eucharistic sacrifice.
1. Throughout this period the repudiation of carnal sac
rifices is constant and is found in different quarters. As is
natural, the emphasis on it is very strong in documents so hos
tile to Judaism as are the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle
to Diognetus. "The Lord," says the writer of the Epistle of
Barnabas, probably not the companion of St. Paul but some
later namesake, —
" hath made manifest to us by all the prophets that He wanteth
neither sacrifices nor whole burnt-offerings nor oblations, saying at
one time, ' What to Me is the multitude of your sacrifices ? saith
the Lord. I am full of whole burnt-offerings, and the fat of lambs
and the blood of bulls and of goats I desire not, not though ye
should come to be seen of Me. For who required these things at
your hands ? Ye shall continue no more to tread My court. If ye
bring fine flour, it is vain ; incense is an abomination to Me ; your
new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot away with.' 6 These things
therefore He annulled, that the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ,
being free from the yoke of restraint, might have its oblation not made
with human hands. And He saith again unto them, ' Did I com
mand your fathers when they went forth from the land of Egypt to
bring Me whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices ? 7 Nay, this was My
command unto them, Let not any one of you bear a grudge of evil
against his neighbour in his heart, nor love ye a false oath.' 8 So we
i C. Cels. viii. 33. 'Adv. Haer. IV. xviii. 5. "Ibid. V. ii. 3.
4 Horner's edition, pp. 140, 141, 255, 343, 344.
6 Hauler's edition, p. 107. 6 Isa. i. 11-13.
'Jer. vii. 22, 23. 3Zech. viii. 17.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH 43
ought to perceive, unless we are without understanding, the mind
of the goodness of our Father ; for He speaketh to us, desiring us
not to go astray like them, but to seek how we may approach Him.
Thus then He speaketh to us, ' The sacrifice to God is a broken
heart,1 the smell of a sweet savour to the Lord is a heart that
glorifies its Maker '." 2
In like manner the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus says : —
" He that made the heaven and the earth and all things that
are therein, and furnisheth us all with what we need, cannot Himself
need any of these things which He Himself supplieth to them that
imagine they are giving them to Him. But those who think to
perform sacrifices to Him by means of blood and fat and whole
burnt-offerings, and to honour Him with these honours, seem to me
in no way different from those who show the same respect towards
deaf images ; for the one class think fit to make offerings to things
unable to participate in the honour, the other class to One who is
in need of nothing." 3
And in the Apology of Aristides it is said that "God asks
no sacrifice and no libation, nor any of the things that are
visible ".4
This repudiation of carnal sacrifices does not depend on the
particular point of view of the writers of the Epistle of Barnabas
and the Epistle to Diognetus and possibly of Aristides, that in
the establishment of such sacrifices even the Jews had misunder
stood the commands and wishes of God. It is found also in
the idea of St. Justin Martyr 5 and Tertullian 6 that the institu
tion of the sacrifices of the Jewish law was a concession to the
hardness of heart of the Jews and belonged to a past dispensa
tion ; in the assertions of St. Justin Martyr,7 St. Irenasus 8 and
Tertullian 9 that God needeth not such sacrifices ; and in the way
in which Athenagoras and Clement of Alexandria express their
scorn of the sacrifices of the heathen. Athenagoras writes : —
1 Ps. Ii. 19.
2 An unidentified quotation. The passage from the Epistle of Barnabas
is ii. 4-10.
3 iii. 4, 5.
4 Syriac text, 1; cf. 13; cf. also Armenian and Greek texts ; see Cam
bridge Texts and Studies, I. i. 28, 31, 36, 47, 100.
5 Dial. 22. 6 Adv. Marc. ii. 18, 22.
7Ap. i. 10, 13. sAdv. Haer. IV. xvii. 9Ad. Scap. 2.

44 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
"Look ye, I pray, at each charge that is made against us, and
first that we do not offer sacrifice. He who is Maker and Father
of this universe needs not blood nor fat nor the sweet smell of
flowers and incense, since He Himself is the perfect odour who
needs nothing from within or from without. . . . What further
need of a hecatomb is there ? . . . What are whole burnt-offerings
to me, since God needs them not ? " 1
Clement of Alexandria picks out from the comic poets derisive
descriptions of heathen sacrifices ; and expresses his view on the
subject in these terms : —
" As then God is not circumscribed in place nor made like to the
form of any creature, so neither is He of like nature, nor lacks He
anything after the manner of created things, so as because of hunger
to desire sacrifices for the sake of food. Things to which suffering
pertains are all mortal, and it is vain to offer meat to Him who is
not nurtured." 2
2. In this repudiation of carnal sacrifices it is recognised
that the place of them is taken by Christian belief and life and
worship. The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas speaks of " the
oblation not made by human hands " which pertains to " the new
law of our Lord Jesus Christ ".3 St. Justin Martyr associates
with his assertion that " the Creator needs not blood and liba
tions and incense " a statement that Christians offer to Him
prayer and praise and thanksgiving.4 Athenagoras links with
his rejection of carnal sacrifices a description of "the greatest
sacrifice of all " as recognition of the true God ; and adds to his
expression of contempt for whole burnt-offerings the words,
" Yet it is right to offer a bloodless sacrifice and to present our
reasonable service ".6 So also Clement of Alexandria defines " the
sacrifice which is acceptable to God" as " unswerving separation
from the body and its passions";6 and after pouring ridicule
on animal sacrifice, he proceeds to say ; —
" If the Deity, being by nature exempt from all need, rejoices
to be honoured, we have good reason for honouring God by prayer,
and for sending up to the most righteous Word this sacrifice, the
best and holiest of sacrifices when joined with righteousness, vener
ating Him through whom we receive our knowledge, through Him
1 Supp. 13. 2 Strom. VII. vi. 30. 3 ii. 6.
4 Ap. i. 13. 5 Supp. 13. « Strom. V. xi. 67.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH 45
glorifying Him whom we have learnt to know. At any rate our
altar here on earth is the congregation of those who are devoted
to the prayers, having, as it were, one common voice and one mind.
. . . The Church's sacrifice is speech rising like incense from holy
souls, while every thought of the heart is laid open to God along
with the sacrifice. . . . The truly hallowed altar is the righteous
soul, and the incense from it is the prayer of holiness." x
Elsewhere Clement, after describing a virtuous life of communion
with God, says : —
" These virtues I affirm to be an acceptable sacrifice with God,
as the Scripture declares that the unboastful heart joined with a
right understanding is a whole burnt-offering to God." 2
Elsewhere, again, he writes : —
" It is not then expensive sacrifices that we should offer to God
but such as are dear to Him, namely, that composite incerise of
which the Law speaks,3 an incense compounded of many tongues and
voices in the way of prayer, or rather which is being wrought into
the unity of the faith out of divers nations and dispositions by the
divine bounty shown in the covenants, and is brought together in
our songs of praise by purity of heart and righteous and upright
living grounded in holy actions and righteous prayer." 4
Again, in his description of the most perfect Christian, Clement
writes : —
" All his life is a holy festival. His sacrifices consist of prayers
and praises and the reading of the Scriptures before dining, and
psalms and hymns during dinner and before going to bed, and also
of prayers again during the night. By these things he unites him
self with the heavenly choir, being enlisted in it for ever-mindful con
templation in consequence of his uninterrupted remembrance of it.
Moreover, is he not acquainted with that other sacrifice which con
sists in the free gift both of instruction and of money among those
who are in need ? " 5
In the Canons of Hippolytus the prayer at the consecration
of a bishop and the ordination of a presbyter includes the sup
plication that " his prayers and oblations, which he offers day
and night " may be accepted by G°d.6 So too Origen describes
1 Strom. VII. vi. 31, 32. 2 Ibid. iii. 14.
3 Ex. xxx. 25. 4 Strom. VII. vi. 34.
6 Ibid. vii. 49. 6 § 16.

46 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
those whom the truth has set free from disti-action as " offering
to the God of the universe a reasonable and smokeless sacrifice,"
and the true worshipper as " continually offering the bloodless
sacrifices in his prayers to the deity ".1 In the Syriac Didascalia
of the Apostles is an exhortation : —
" Hear therefore these things, ye also, ye laymen, the Church
chosen of God. ... Ye then, holy and perfect Catholic Church,
royal priesthood, holy assembly, people of inheritance, great Church,
Bride adorned for the Lord God. As therefore was said before,
hear also now, Bring heave offerings and tithes and first fruits to
the Christ, the true High Priest. . . . Instead of the sacrifices of
that time, offer now prayers and supplications and thanksgivings ;
then were first fruits and tithes and oblations and gifts, to-day are
offerings that are presented by means of the bishops to the Lord God,
for those are your high priests. Priests and Levites, now presbyters
and deacons, and orphans and widows. For the Levite and the
high priest is the bishop." 2
3. Christian belief and life and worship then are regarded as
spiritual sacrifices by the very writers who are explicit in re
jecting sacrifice that is carnal. It should not therefore ex
cite surprise that in the ante-Nicene Church the Eucharist is
constantly referred to as a sacrifice. To denote it and in con
nection with it, sacrificial phraseology is habitually employed.
In the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles it is twice called with
out explanation " the sacrifice " of Christians.3 In the Epistles of
St. Ignatius the word " altar " (Ovcriao-Tijpiov) is used five times
in relation to Christian worship ; 4 and in two of the passages
the connection with the Eucharistic food, with the celebration of
the Eucharist, and with the liturgical prayer of the Church is
too close to allow of the Eucharist being altogether out of sight
in the use of the word. For St. Ignatius writes : —
" If any one be not within the precinct of the altar, he lacketh
the bread of God. For, if the prayer of one and another hath so great
force, how much more that of the bishop and of the whole Church." 6
" Be ye careful to observe one Eucharist ; for there is one flesh
1 C. Cels. vii. 1, viii. 21. 2 Gibson's edition, pp. 47, 48.
3 xiv. 1, 2, t) ffvo-la ip&v (or possibly in the former passage r)pa>v,
which is there the reading of the MS.).
4 Eph. 5 ; Magn. 7 ; Trail. 7 ; Philad. 4. » Eph. 5.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH 47
of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup for union with His blood ;
there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery
and the deacons." *
St. Justin Martyr says that the Jewish oblation of fine flour was
a type of the Eucharist ; and repeatedly calls the Eucharist a
sacrifice (BvarlaC)} St. Irenasus describes the Eucharist as " the
new oblation of the new covenant," " the oblation of the Church,"
"the pure sacrifice".3
" Giving to His disciples counsel to offer to God first fruits from
His creatures, not as to one who stands in need, but so that they
themselves may be neither unfruitful nor thankless, He took that
bread which is of created nature, and gave thanks, saying, ' This is
My body'. And the cup likewise which is of the same created
nature as ourselves He declared to be His blood, and taught the new
oblation of the new covenant ; which the Church receiving from
the Apostles offers throughout the whole world to God, to Him who
affords us food, as first fruits of His gifts in the new covenant." 4
" The oblation of the Church, which the Lord taught to be
offered throughout the whole world, has been reckoned a pure sacri
fice with God, and is acceptable to Him. . . . We ought to offer to
God first fruits of His creation. . . . Oblation as such (genus obla-
tionum) is not condemned, for there are oblations among us as well
as among the Jews, sacrifices in the Church as well as among the
ancient people of God ; but it is the way of sacrifice (species) only
that is changed, since the offering is now made not by slaves but by
freemen." 5
" We ought to make oblation to God, and in all things to be
found grateful to God the Creator . . . offering first fruits of those
things which are His creatures. And this oblation the Church alone
offers pure to the Creator, offering to Him of His creation with
thanksgiving." 6
Sacrificial phraseology then occurs throughout the second
century in different parts of the Church. The sacrificial idea
receives somewhat more definite expression in the third century
from the Carthaginian writers, Tertullian and St. Cyprian. In
a description of Christian life and worship Tertullian says, " We
annually offer oblations (oblationes facimus) on behalf of the
1 Philad. 4. 'Dial. 29, 41, 116, 117 ; cf. 70.
3 IV. xvii. 5, xviii. 1. 4 IV. xvii. 5.
5 IV. xviii. 1. 6 IV. xviii. 4.

48 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
departed on the anniversaries of their deaths ".1 Elsewhere he
mentions among the duties of a Christian husband that he
" offers sacrifice " on behalf of his wife,2 and of a Christian widow
that she " annually offers sacrifice on behalf of the soul " of
her husband " on the anniversary of his decease ".3 The words
"sacrifice," "priest," and "altar" are all used by him in a
Christian sense ; 4 and in a case which he contemplates of a com
municant on a fast day receiving the Sacrament in his hands
but not consuming it till later in the day at home, he speaks of
the communicant having taken part in the sacrifice.5 The writ
ings of St. Cyprian are full of allusions to the Eucharist as a
sacrifice. The priestly terms for the ministry, sacerdos for the
bishop, sacerdotium for his office, are found. To celebrate the
Eucharist is to " offer " and to " sacrifice ". The Eucharist it
self is the "sacrifice," or the "oblation," or "the sacrifice of the
Lord," or " the victim of the Lord ". The place where it is
offered is the "altar".6 In a remarkable sentence, occurring
when he is dealing with the point of practice that both wine
and water are to be placed in the Eucharistic cup, St. Cyprian
writes-: —
" If our Lord and God Christ Jesus is Himself the High Priest of
God the Father and offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father and
commanded this to be done for a memorial of Himself, certainly
that priest truly performs his office in the place of Christ who imi
tates that which Christ did, and then offers in the Church to God
the Father a real and complete sacrifice when he begins to offer as
he sees Christ Himself offered.'' 7
In the Statutes of the Apostles the Apostles are represented
as saying of our Lord, " As He is the Chief Priest for us, so He
offered spiritual sacrifice to God the Father before He was
crucified, and He commanded us to do likewise. . . . After His
1 De cor. 3. 2 De exhort, cast. 11. 3 De monog. 10.
iE.g., sacriflcium in De orat. 18, 19; sacrificare in Ad Scap. 2;
sacerdos in De bapt. 17 ; ara in De orat. 19.
6 De orat. 19.
6 E.g., sacerdos in De unit. 17 ; Ep. i. 2; sacerdotium in Ep. xvii. 2 ;
offerre in Ep. xvi. 2 ; sacrificare in De laps. 25 ; sacriflcium and ablatio in
Ep. i. 2 ; sacriflcium dominicum in Ep. lxiii. 9 ; dominica hostia in De unit.
17 ; altare in De unit. 17.
7 Ep. lxiii. 14.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH 49
ascension we offered according to the ordinance of the holy
bloodless oblation." x
4. This use of sacrificial language in connection with the
Eucharist must be viewed in the light of the interpretation fre
quently found of a passage in the book of the prophet Malachi.
Malachi proclaimed in the name of the Lord of Hosts, " From
the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same My
name is great among the Gentiles ; and in every place incense
is offered unto My name, and a pure offering : for My name is
great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Hosts".2 What
ever the exact meaning of this declaration for Malachi's own
generation,3 a prophetic anticipation of the extension of the
kingdom of God to include the Gentiles appears to have been
involved in it. Early Christian writers give it a more specific
interpretation. They regard it as a prophecy of Christian
worship, and in particular of the Eucharist. In The Teaching
of the Twelve Apostles, after referring to the Eucharist, and
calling it a "sacrifice," the writer goes on, "For this is the
sacrifice which was spoken of by the Lord, ' In every place and
at every time offer to Me a pure sacrifice ; for I am a great king,
saith the Lord, and My name is wonderful among the Gentiles ' ".4
A like foreshadowing of the Eucharist in the prophecy is ob
served by St. Justin Martyr 5 and St. Irenaeus.6 It is interpreted
of the spiritual sacrifices of the prayer and praise and thanks
giving of Christians by Tertullian,7 and of the new sacrifice of
the Christian Church by St. Cyprian.8 The mark made on early
Christian thought by these prophetic words ought not to be left
out of account in any consideration of the Christian use of sacri
ficial phraseology.
5. In this early period no explanation is found of the sense
in which the word sacrifice is applied to the Eucharist. Yet
both the general setting of the references and the repudiations
of carnal sacrifices imply that some deeper thought is involved
than the simple notion of the oblation of the elements, the offer
ing of the first fruits of created things, as an act of thanksgiving
1 Horner's edition, pp. 221, 292. 2 Mai. i. 11.
3 See Driver in loco in The Century Bible. "xiv. 3.
6 Dial. 28, 41, 116, 117. 6 Adv. Haer. IV. xvii. 5, 6.
Mil). Marc. iii. 22 ; Adv. Jud. 5, 6. 8 Test. i. 16.
VOL. I. 4

50 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
for the material blessings of life ; J and there are hints of two
lines of thought, different but not inconsistent, which at later
times are more fully developed.
The first of these hints suggests an association of the
Eucharist with the sacrifice of the cross. When St. Ignatius
says that the Eucharist is "the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,"
he adds, "which suffered for our sins".2 St. Justin Martyr
speaks of "the bread of the Eucharist, which our Lord Jesus
Christ commanded us to offer (iroielv) for a memorial (et?
apapLvncriv) of the passion, which He suffered for those who
cleanse their souls from all wickedness " ; 3 and in another place,
after mentioning the Eucharistic sacrifice as the fulfilment of
the prophecy of Malachi and the prayers and thanksgivings
which are the only sacrifices of Christians, he says, "In the
memorial (eV dvapLvrjo-ei) made by their food, both dry and
liquid, in which there is remembrance also of the passion, which
the Son of God suffered for their sakes".4 When Tertullian
describes our Lord as consecrating the wine " as a memorial of
His blood," 6 the reference may be to the blood of the Lord as
shed on the cross. In an obscure passage in which Origen
describes the Eucharist as " the only memorial which makes God
propitious to men," his description of our Lord as " that shew-
bread which God set forth as a propitiation through faith in
His blood " 6 may allude to the passion. St. Cyprian quite
definitely connects the Eucharist with the commemoration of
the passion, and says that " the passion is the sacrifice of the
Lord which we offer".7
The second hint afforded in this early period is that of the
association of the Eucharist with our Lord's risen and heavenly
life. St. Ignatius, St. Justin Martyr, and Tertullian all suggest
that the memorial in the Eucharist is not restricted to the
passion. St. Ignatius adds to his statement that the Eucharist
is " the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our
sins " the further comment, " which the Father of His goodness
raised".8 St. Justin Martyr, in addition to the descriptions
already quoted of the Eucharistic sacrifice as " a memorial of the
1 See the passages quoted from St. Irenaeus on p. 47, supra.
"Smyrn.e. 3 Dial. 41. 'Ibid. 117.
5De anim. 17. *In Lev. Horn. xiii. 3.
¦•Ep. lxiii. 5, 9, 17. 8Smyrn. 6.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH 51
passion," shows that he regards the " memorial " as of wider sig
nificance by saying also that Christ commanded Christians " to
offer (irotelv) it as a memorial (et? avdfivncriv) of His Incarnation
for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whose sake also
He became capable of suffering ". 1 Tertullian, in describing the
Priesthood of our Lord, says that He " after His resurrection
was clad with a garment down to the feet and named a Priest for
ever of God the Father ".2 In the Epistle of St. Clement of
Rome the life and worship of Christians are regarded as spiritual
sacrifices ; our Lord is called " the High Priest of our offerings,"
and viewed as abiding in " the heights of the heavens " ; all
Christians are said to have their own place and part in the
giving of thanks ; the offering of the gifts is mentioned as a
distinctive work of the ministry ; and these offerings of the
Christian ministry are compared with the ministrations com
manded in the Jewish law.3 If these passages are combined
with one another, the most reasonable explanation of them is
seen to be that St. Clement of Rome regarded the whole of
Christian worship as sacrificial, as having its centre in the offering
of the Eucharist on earth and the presentation by Christ the High
Priest of His offering in heaven. The heavenly centre of Chris
tian worship is more explicitly asserted by St. Irenasus. In close
connection with his assertion of the sacrificial character of the
Eucharist he explains that there is " an altar in the heavens," to
which " our prayers and oblations are directed," and " a temple,"
and " a tabernacle ".4 The same idea is found in characteristically
mystical interpretations of Holy Scripture in the Homilies of
Origen. Students who have made a serious attempt to master
the theology of Origen will hardly be confident that they have
fully understood the intricacies and versatility of his thought or
exhausted the meaning of a thinker so enterprising and eccentric,
so subtle and profound. But amid all that is doubtful this much
seems clear. To Origen the centre of Christian life and worship
was in the perpetual pleading of the ascended Lord at the Father's
throne. In the heavens are an altar and a sacrifice, not an altar
of wood or stone or a sacrifice of carnal things, but the abiding
offering of that sacred Manhood which the Son of God took for
1 Dial. 70. 2 Adv. Jud. 14.
3 Cf. 18, 35, 38, 40, 41, 44, 52, with 36.
4 Adv. Haer. IV. xviii. 6.
4*

52 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
the salvation of the creatures in the Incarnation, the blood of which
He shed in His death. In that offering the holy dead and the
priestly society of the Church on earth have their place and share.
Into it are gathered all the elements of the sacrificial life which
Christians live, the sacrifices of praise and prayers, of pity and
chastity, of righteousness and holiness. To it there is access in
Communion, and he who keeps the feast with Jesus is raised to
be with Him in His heavenly work. So Origen says, with the
emphasis of constant repetition, that our Lord in His heavenly
life " is the advocate for our sins with the Father," " approaches
the altar to make propitiation for sinners," presents in the inner
sanctuary, the true Holy of Holies, the heaven itself, all those
sacrificial offerings which Christians in the outer sanctuary on
earth bring to God's altar, so that they " come to Christ, the
true High Priest, who by His blood made God propitious to "
man " and reconciled " man " to the Father," and " hear Him
saying, ' This is My blood ' " ; and that " the souls of the
martyrs " and " those who follow Christ " " stand at the divine
sacrifices " and " reach to the very altar of God, where is the
Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the High Priest of good things to
come "} Moreover, —
" He who keeps the feast with Jesus is above in the great upper
room, the upper room swept clean, the upper room garnished and
made ready. If you go up with Him that you may keep the feast
of the passover, He gives to you the cup of the new covenant, He
gives to you also the bread of blessing, He bestows His own
body and His own blood.2
6. An important part of the teaching of Origen is that in
which he dwells on the priestly character of the whole Christian
body. " In accordance with the promises of God, ye are the priests of
God, for ye are a holy nation, a holy priesthood." 8
"He has given command that we may know how we ought to
approach the altar of God. For that is an altar on which we offer
our prayers to God, that we may know how we ought to offer, that
is, that we may lay aside filthy garments, which are the foulness of
1 In ..Lev. Horn. vi. 2, vii. 2, ix. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 ; InJud. Horn. vii. 2 ;
Mart. 30, 39.
2 In Jer. Horn, xviii. 13 (al. xix.). 3 In Lev. Horn. vi. 2.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCH 53
the flesh, the vices of character, the defilements of lust. Or, are
you ignorant that to you also, that is to the whole Church of God
and a nation of believers, the priesthood has been given ? . . .
You have then a priesthood, because you are a priestly nation, and
therefore you ought to offer to God the sacrifice of praise, the sacri
fice of prayers, the sacrifice of pity, the sacrifice of chastity, the
sacrifice of righteousness, the sacrifice of holiness. But that you
may offer these worthily, you have need of clean garments, . . .
and you require divine fire, not any fire alien from God, but that
which is given by God to men, of which the Son of God says, ' I
came to send fire on earth, and how I wish that it were kindled ' "
(St. Luke xii. 49). J
The same thought, based of course on the First Epistle of St.
Peter,2 is found in Clement of Alexandria when he says that
the true Christian is a " royal man, the holy priest of God " ; 3
that " the true presbyter and real deacon of the will of God " are
those who " do and teach the things of the Lord " ; 4 and that
" the only true priests of God are those who live a holy life ".5
Tertullian exaggerated it in his Montanistic days when he, con
trary to the tradition of the Church and his own earlier mind,6
allowed to the Christian layman the right to celebrate the
Eucharist in some circumstances.7 Before all these St. Justin
Martyr had expressed it in a fashion not unlike that in which it
is found in the writings of Origen.
"We, who through the name of Jesus believe as one man on
God the Creator of the universe, have put off our filthy garments, that
is, our sins, through the name of His first-begotten Son, and are set
on fire by the word of His calling, and are the true high-priestly
race of God, as God Himself testifies, saying that in every place
among the Gentiles they offer unto Him acceptable and pure sacri
fices. But God receives not sacrifices from any except through His
priests. God therefore testifies beforehand that all who through
this name offer the sacrifices which Jesus the Christ commanded,
that is, at the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, which are
offered in every part of the world by Christians, are acceptable to
Him." 8 1 In Lev. Horn. ix. 1. 2 ii. 5, 9.
3 Strom. VII. vii. 36. 4 Ibid., VI. xiii. 106.
5 Ibid. IV. xxv. 157, 158. 6 Depraes. haer. 41.
7 De exh. cast. 7. "Dial. 116, 117.

54 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
III.
It may be convenient to end this chapter with a brief
summary of the doctrinal teaching about the Eucharist found in
the writers of the ante-Nicene Church.
1. On the subject of the presence and gift contained in and
conveyed by the Eucharist three kinds of language were used
as the writers of the Church tried to present to their own minds
and in their teaching the ideas conveyed by the doctrine which
they had received. In these different groups the phraseology is
vague and indefinite about the nature of the spiritual gift which
is received, or describes the elements as the figure or symbol of
the body and blood of Christ, or identifies them with His body
and blood. In some cases instances of more than one of these
methods of phraseology, or of all of them, are found in the same
writer. In these instances it is most natural and reasonable to
understand the less definite language in the light of the more
definite ; and throughout the writers of the period the identifi
cation of the elements with the body and blood of Christ ap
pears to be the ruling idea. Yet it must also be observed that
parts of the teaching of Clement of Alexandria and Origen
have great affinities with the later opinions of some mystics and
even of the Quakers in characteristics which may have been due
in some measure to ideas derived from the Greek mysteries.
2. The belief that the Eucharist is a sacrifice is found
everywhere. This belief is coupled with strong repudiations
of carnal sacrifices ; and is saved from being Judaic by the
recognition of the elements as Christ's body and blood, of the
union of the action of the Church on earth with that of Christ
in heaven, and of the spiritual character of that whole priestly
life and service and action of the community as the body of
Christ which is a distinguishing mark of the Christian system.

CHAPTER III.
THE PERIOD OP" THE GREAT COUNCILS.
The period of Church History which begins with the Council of
Nicasa in the year 325 and ends with the close of the fifth cen
tury has many important characteristics of its own. For the
greater part of the time the friendship of the State has taken the
place of hostility or indifference. The dangers to the Church
from the world are now those rather of allurement than of per
secution. The proximity to the apostolic age is gone. The
heresies which arise are for the most part of a different type
from those of earlier times. With the new attitude of the
State and of the world have come more opportunity for thought
and more possibility of systematic action. Councils on a large
scale have become an ordinary feature in the Church's life.
There is a tendency for doctrine to be more carefully expressed
and more accurately formulated. The meaning and bearing of
the Incarnation in particular are considered and discussed and
explained with the most elaborate pains. In the four great
councils held at Nicaea in 825, at Constantinople in 381, at
Ephesus in 431, and at Chalcedon in 451, the four truths of the
Godhead, the Manhood, the one Person, the two natures of the
incarnate Son of God, which combine to make up the central
features of the doctrine of the Incarnation, receive explicit
expression and affirmation. At such a time of consideration and
definition it is of some special interest to observe what was said
and done in regard to the Eucharist.
The writers and documents belonging to this time which
contain references to the Eucharist are from very different quarters
and extend from the beginning to the end of the period.
The evidence from the East is of great amount. The Council
of Nicasa in 325 included representatives, says Dr. Bright, "from
Syria, Cilicia, Phoenicia, Arabia, Palestine, Egypt, Pontus, Gala-
55

56 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
tia, Cappadocia, Pamphylia, Thrace, Macedonia, Greece, Western
Europe, and countries lying outside the limits of the empire ".1
The Dialogue of the otherwise unknown Adamantius was prob
ably written soon after 330. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, the
great Church historian, the friend of the Emperor Constan-
tine, the most learned man of his time, who probably really
believed the full truth of our Lord's deity but hesitated to throw
in his lot unreservedly with its orthodox defenders because of
the intensity of his caution and the excess of conservatism which
made him reluctant to use a new term to describe an old truth,
died in 339 or 340. St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, whose
long life extended from about 296 to 373, was the foremost de
fender of the vital truth that our Lord is God in no less sense
than that in which the Father is God, the man who beyond all
others, even in an age of great men, possessed the keen vision and
the clear insight of the highest type of theological mind. His
friend, Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis in the Delta, probably the
writer of the Liturgical Prayers which go by his name, died about
370. The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem,
whose friendship with semi-Arians does not appear to have im
paired his own orthodoxy, were delivered in 347 before his con
secration as bishop. The Cappadocian doctors, St. Gregory of
Nazianzus, Bishop of Sasima in 372 and of Constantinople in 381,
but spending his life mostly in retirement, who died in 392, and
St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, who died about 895, though they,
and the latter in particular, were not unaffected by the influence
of Origen, were great champions of orthodoxy in the struggle with
Arianism and had much to do with the victory of the Catholic
faith over that heresy. St. Chrysostom, the great preacher of
Antioch, who became Bishop of Constantinople in 398, died in
407 after three years of an exile brought about by the machina
tions of a hostile faction and the enmity of the court. The
Apostolic Constitutions, though incorporating much older material,
appear to have been compiled in the neighbourhood of Antioch
in the latter half of the fourth century. Macarius Magnes pro
bably lived at the end of that century. St. Macarius of Egypt
died in 389. St. Cyril, who became Bishop of Alexandria in 412
and died in 444, was the great champion of the Church against
the Nestorian heresy. Theodoret, who was consecrated Bishop of
1 The Age of the Fathers, i. 78.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 57
Cyn-hus about 423 and died about 457, defended Nestorius and
attacked St. Cyril, probably through misunderstandings of the
position of both, though it is not impossible that in his zeal to
maintain the truth of the two natures of Christ he was led to
some want of balance of thought as well as of language. Isidore
of Pelusium, famous as an ascetic and spiritual guide, was a con
temporary of St. Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret, and died
not later than 450.
In the West, though the evidence is less in amount than
in the East, there are writers of great authority. At the
Council of Aries in 314 representatives of a great part of
Western Christendom were present ; and it may be regarded as
a general council of the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers, who was
consecrated Bishop of Poitiers in 353 and died in 368, in spite
of a tendency to minimise the reality of the human feelings of
our Lord, was a teacher of great orthodoxy and power, to whom
the Catholic faith in Gaul owed much, and a man who in the
midst of controversy shared to some extent in the great gift
of St. Athanasius, the capacity to understand when apparent
denials of the truth were verbal only and when they were the
outcome of real unbelief. St. Optatus was Bishop of Milevis in
Numidia in the latter half of the fourth century. St. Ambrose,
who was bom in Gaul, where at the time of his birth his father
was prefect, became Bishop of Milan in 374 and died in 397.
The treatise De Sacramentis, which has sometimes been ascribed
to St. Ambrose, is probably not his work, but is likely to have
been written in North Italy not much if at all later than 400.
St. Jerome, who was born in Pannonia about 346, was baptised at
Rome before 366, and between that time and his death in 420
lived in Gaul, Italy, Syria, and Constantinople. St. Augustine,
the most eminent of the Latin fathers, was baptised in 387 at
the age of thirty-three, was consecrated Bishop in 395 as assistant
to the Bishop of Hippo on the coast of Numidia, and succeeded
to that see a year later. He died in 430. His writings com
prise expositions of Holy Scripture, Sermons, Letters, controver
sial treatises against the Arians, the Manichaeans, the Donatists,
and the Pelagians in great abundance. St. Leo was Bishop of
Rome from 440 to 461, and Gelasius from 492 to 496.
The types of mind, the lines of argument, the methods of
thought, are almost as different as the places are various. In

58 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
estimating the testimony in regard to any doctrine, agreement
and difference are alike significant. I.
In the period of the great councils, the fourth and fifth
centuries, as in the period which precedes the Council of Nicaea,
it will be convenient to consider separately the evidences of
belief found in regard to the presence and gift in the Eucharist
and those relating to the Eucharistic sacrifice. Taking the ideas
as to the presence and the gift first, it will add to clearness to
classify them in distinct groups.
1. Representative writers both of the East and of the West
supply sentences in abundance in which there are references of
a general character to the Eucharist as the means whereby
Christians receive the body and blood of Christ. Of this general
way of speech it may be sufficient to quote instances from the
canons of the Council of Nicasa, from St. Athanasius, from St.
Macarius of Egypt, from a Roman writer of the latter part of
the fourth century, and from St. Leo the Great.
The eighteenth canon of the Council of Nicaea deals with a
practice which had arisen in some places by which in the ad
ministration of the Sacrament presbyters received -it from the
hands of deacons. It appears to have been usual in the middle
of the second century for the deacons to administer to the con
gregation in both kinds, though later the administration of the
species of bread was confined to the bishop or celebrating
presbyter, so that the deacons administered from the chalice
only.1 At the time of the Council of Nicasa it is evident
that the deacons in some places were in the habit of administering
not only to the congregation but also to those presbyters who
were present. In view of this practice and of another abuse
1 St. Justin Martyr, Ap. i. 65, 67 (administration of hoth kinds by
deacon both to congregation in church and to absent at home) ; Canons of
Hippolytus, 146, 147, 214 (administration in both kinds by hishop), 215 (ad
ministration by deacon to sick presbyter, absent from church, probably
in both kinds), 216 (administration by deacon with leave of bishop or
presbyter, apparently in both kinds) ; St. Cyprian, De laps. 25 (administra
tion of chalice by deacon) ; St. Athanasius on St. Matt. vii. 6, quoted on
p. 60, injra (administration of species of bread by deacon) ; Apostolic Con
stitutions, viii. 13 (administration of species of bread by bishop, of chalice
by deacon).

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 59
by which deacons had received before bishops other than the
celebrant, the Council laid down regulations as to the order of
reception and the method of administration, incidentally describ
ing the consecrated elements as the body of Christ in the sentence,
" It is contrary to the canons and to custom for those who have
not authority to offer to give the body of Christ to those who
offer". St. Athanasius frequently alludes incidentally to the Euchar
ist as the body and blood of Christ. The Encyclical Letter of the
Council of Alexandria of 339, quoted by him in his Defence
against the Avians, contains the words : —
"Our sanctuaries, as always, so also now are clean, adorned only
with the blood of Christ and the worship of Him."
" It is only to you who preside over the Catholic Church that it
pertains to administer the blood of Christ, and to no other. But as
he who breaks the cup belonging to the mysteries is impious, much
more impious is he who treats with insult the blood of Christ ; and
he so treats it with insult who ' does this ' 1 contrary to the rule of
the Church." 2
A letter of Julius, Bishop of Rome, quoted by St. Athanasius
in the same treatise, lays stress on the wrong done by a trial in
a civil court of a matter involving questions of fact as to the
administration of the Eucharist.
"The presbyters who asked to attend the inquiry were not
allowed to do so ; and the inquiry concerning the cup and the Table
took place before the prefect and his band in the presence of heathen
and Jews. . . . Presbyters, who are the ministers of the mysteries,
are not allowed to attend ; but an inquiry concerning the blood of
Christ and the body of Christ takes place before an external judge,
in the presence of catechumens, and worse still of heathen and Jews
who are of ill report in regard to Christianity." 3
In his Letter to Maximus St. Athanasius, in maintaining the
deity of Christ, speaks incidentally of Christians as "not par
taking of the body of some man or other but receiving the body
of the Word Himself".4 In the Festal Letters there are similar
phrases. 1 Evidently referring to our Lord's words at the institution of the
Eucharist. 2 St. Athanasius, Ap. c. Ar. 5, 11. 3 Ibid. 31. 4 § 2.

60 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
" We do not approach a temporal feast, my beloved, but an
eternal and heavenly. Not in shadows do we show it forth but we
come to it in truth. For they (the Jews) being filled with the flesh
of a dumb lamb, accomplished the feast, and having anointed their
door-posts with the blood, implored aid against the destroyer. But
now we, eating of the Word of the Father, and having the lintels
of our hearts sealed with the blood of the new covenant, ac
knowledge the grace given us from the Saviour." 1
" We eat, as it were, the food of life, and constantly thirsting we
delight our souls at all times, as from a fountain, in His precious
blood." 2
" Let us be prepared to draw near to the divine Lamb, and to
touch heavenly food." 3
Commenting on our Lord's words, " Give not that which is holy
unto the dogs," he says, " Do thou then also, deacon, take heed
that thou do not give to the unworthy the purple of the sinless
body ".4
In the Homilies ascribed to St. Macarius of Egypt it is said : —
" Those who partake of the visible bread spiritually eat the flesh
of the Lord." 5
The author of the Questions on the Old and New Testaments,
apparently a Roman writer contemporary with Pope Damasus,
who died in 384, refers to the Eucharist as the "reality" of
which there had been types in the manna and in the bread and
wine brought forth by Melchizedek, and speaks of that which is
given as the body of Christ.
" The manna is a type of the spiritual food which by the resur
rection of the Lord became a reality in the mystery of the Eucharist." 6
" Neither did the Lord deny to him (Judas) . . . His body." 7
" Melchizedek showed the future mystery of the Incarnation and
passion of the Lord when to Abraham first as the father of the
faithful he gave the Eucharist of the body and blood of the Lord
that there might be beforehand in the case of the father a type of
that which was to be a reality in the case of the sons." 8
1iv. 3. 2v. 1. »v. 5.
4 Fragment on St. Matt. vii. 6 (P.G. xxvii. 1380).
°xxvii. 17 (P.G. xxxi v. 705). For a valuable statement of the internal
evidence of these Homilies as supporting the ascription of them in the MSS.
to St. Macarius, see the Bishop (Gore) of Birmingham's article in the
Journal of Theological Studies, October, 1906, pp. 85-90.
6 xcv. 3. 7 cii. 25. " eix. 18.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 6l
Similar allusions to the Eucharist occur in the writings of St.
Leo the Great. Denouncing the Manichaeans at Rome, he said : —
" Since to conceal their unbelief they dare to be present at our
meetings, they behave at the communion of the mysteries in such a
way that sometimes, lest they should fail to be concealed, they receive
with unworthy mouth the body of Christ, though they altogether
refuse to drink the blood of our redemption." 1
In one of his passiontide sermons he taught : —
" Nothing else is brought about by the participation of the body
and blood of Christ than that we pass into that which we receive,
and bear throughout both in spirit and in flesh Him in whom we died
and were buried and were raised together with Him." 2
In another sermon, while maintaining the orthodox doctrine of
the Incarnation against the heresy of Eutyches, he said : —
" Ye ought so to partake at the Holy Table as to have no doubt
at all concerning the reality of the body and blood of Christ. For
that is taken in the mouth which is believed by faith ; and it is vain
for them to respond Amen who dispute against that which is
taken." 3
In a letter addressed to the clergy and people of the city of
Constantinople against Manichaean and other heresies, he
wrote : —
" In what darkness of ignorance and what depth of sloth have
they hitherto lain that they have neither learnt from hearing nor
understood from reading the truth which in the Church of God so re
sounds in the mouths of all that at the rite of the Communion not even
the tongues of infants are silent as to the reality of the body and
blood of Christ ? For in that distribution of spiritual nourishment
such a gift is bestowed, such a gift is taken, that receiving the virtue
of the heavenly food we pass into the flesh of Him who became our
flesh." 4
2. A second group of passages is formed by those in which
the elements are spoken of as " figures " or " symbols " or the
" image " or " likeness " of the body and blood of Christ. This
phraseology recalls a like manner of speech found in the second
and third centuries ; 5 and in the later writers as in the earlier
1 Serm. xlii. 5. 'Ibid, lxiii. 7. 3 Ibid. xci. 3.
4 Ep. lix. 2. 5 See pp. 29-33, supra.

62 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
it needs careful attention and consideration. In the period with
which the present chapter is concerned it is found in Adamantius,
Eusebius of Cassarea, Serapion of Thmuis, St. Cyril of Jerusalem,
St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the Apostolic Constitutions, St. Maca
rius of Egypt, Theodoret, the author of the book On the Sacra
ments, and St. Augustine.
In his Dialogue directed against the Manichaeans Adamantius
as a part of his argument in defence of the reality of our Lord's
body says : —
" If, as these say, He was fleshless and bloodless, of what flesh
or of what blood was it that He gave the images (ci/covas) in the bread
and the cup, when He commanded the disciples to make the
memorial of Him by means of these ? " 1
In the course of his treatment of the Incarnation and life of
our Lord as a fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies, in his
Demonstratio Evangelica, Eusebius of Caesarea refers to the words
in the dying prophecy of Jacob :
" Binding his foal unto the vine,
And his ass's colt unto the choice vine ;
He hath washed his garments in wine,
And his vesture in the blood of grapes :
His eyes shall be red with wine,
And his teeth white with milk ; " 2
and, after mentioning our Lord's words, " I am the true vine," 3
and His triumphant entry into Jerusalem, and the prophetical
saying of Zechariah,4 proceeds : —
" As to the passage, ' He shall wash His garments in wine, and
His vesture in the blood of the grape/ does He not as in mysteries
signify His mystic passion, in which He washed His garments and
His raiment in the laver by means of which it is made clear that He
washes away the ancient filth of those who believe in Him ? For
by means of the wine, which was the symbol (o-vp.fioXov) of His
blood, He cleanses from their former sins those who are baptised
into His death and have believed on His blood, washing and wiping
away their ancient garments and raiment, so that they, having been
redeemed by the precious blood of the divine and spiritual grape
and the wine of the aforesaid vine, put off the old man together
Jv. 6. 2Gen. xlix. 11, 12.
3 St. John xv. 1. 4Zech. ix. 9.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 63
with his deeds and put on the new man that is renewed unto know
ledge according to the image of the Creator. And I think that
the passages, ' His eyes gladdening from wine,' and ' His teeth
whiter than milk,' again mystically refer to the mysteries of the new
covenant of our Saviour. For it is my opinion that the words ' His
eyes gladdening from wine ' signify the gladness from the mystic
wine which He gave to His own disciples saying, ' Take, drink,
this is My blood which is poured out for you for the remission of
sins ; do this for My memorial ' ; and that the words ' His teeth
whiter than milk' signify the brightness and purity of the mystic
food. For again He gave to His disciples the symbols (to <rvp.fioXa)
of the divine dispensation, bidding them make the image
(tyjv eiKova) of His own body. For since He no longer allowed the
sacrifices offered with blood, nor those appointed by Moses in the
slaughter of divers animals, but ordained the use of bread as the
symbol (a-vp/36X(o) of His own body, He fittingly signified the
brightness and purity of the food by saying, ' His teeth whiter than
milk '." l
Similarly, Eusebius speaks elsewhere of the Eucharistic food as
" the symbols (o-vpfioXcov) of His body and His saving blood," 2
and as " the mystic symbols (diropp^Ta o-vpufioXa) of the saving
passion ".3
The Eucharistic Anaphora in the Prayers of Serapion of
Thmuis contains expressions which may be compared with those
quoted from Eusebius.
" To Thee we have offered this bread, the likeness (to bpoimpd) of
the body of the Only -begotten. This bread is the likeness (bpoiwpa)
of the holy body, because the Lord Jesus Christ in the night in
which He was betrayed took bread and brake and gave to His
disciples saying, ' Take and eat, this is My body which is being broken
for you for the remission of sins '. Wherefore we also making the
likeness (to d/u>ta>/ia) of the death have offered the bread. . . .
We have offered also the cup, the likeness (ro opoiupM.) of the blood,
because the Lord Jesus Christ, taking a cup after supper, said to
His own disciples, ' Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is
My blood which is being poured out for you for the remission of
trespasses '. Wherefore we also have offered the cup, presenting a
likeness (opoluipjx) of the blood." 4
1 VIII. i. 76-80. 2 Op. cit. I. x. 28.
3 H.E. x. 3. 4§1-

64 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures uses the
sentences, " According to the Gospel His body bore the figure
(tvttov e<pepev) of bread " ; x " In the figure (Tinrm) of bread is
given to thee the body, and in the figure (tw&j) of wine is given
to thee the blood " ; 'l " the antitype (dvTiTvirov) of the body
and blood of Christ".3
St. Gregory of Nazianzus incidentally speaks of the reserved
Sacrament as "the antitypes (t&v avTCTinrtov) of the precious
body or blood," and of the elements received by the communi
cant as "the figures (tovs tvttovs) of my salvation ".4
In the Apostolic Constitutions it is said that our Lord com
mitted to the Apostles " the mysteries that are antitypes of His
precious body and blood " ; 5 the Eucharist is described as " the
antitype of the royal body of Christ " ; 6 and the elements are
called the "antitypes" of "the precious blood" and "the
precious body " " of Jesus Christ ".7
The Homily ascribed to St. Macarius of Egypt, from which
a quotation has already been made,8 contains the sentence : —
" In the Church bread and wine are offered, the antitype of His
flesh and blood." 9 *
Theodoret repeatedly speaks of the elements as the "sym
bols" of Christ's body and blood.10
In describing the words used by the priest at the consecration
of the Eucharist the author of the book On the Sacraments,
which has sometimes been ascribed to St. Ambrose, writes : —
"You have taken the likeness of the death. . . . You drink
also the likeness of the precious blood. . . . The priest says, ' Make
this oblation to us approved, ratified, reasonable, acceptable, because
it is the figure (figura) of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ."11 St. Augustine uses phraseology resembling that of Tertullian 12
when he says : —
'xiii. 19. 2xxii. 3. 3xxiii. 20.
4 Orat. viii. 18, xvii. 12. 6 v. 14. 6vi. 30.
7 vii. 25. 8 See p. 60, supra.
9xxvii. 17 (P.G. xxxiv. 705).
10 Dial. i. ii. (t. iv. pp. 26, 26, 125, 126, Schulze ; P.G. Ixxxiii. 56,
165-68). 11 iv. 20, 21. 12 See pp. 29-33, supra.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 65
" The Lord did not hesitate to say, ' This is My body,' when He
gave the sign (signum) of His body." 1
" The supper, in which He committed and gave to His disciples
the figure (figuram) of His body and blood." 2
With these brief sentences of St. Augustine may be com
pared statements in his treatise Concerning Christian Doctrine
and his anti-Manichaean book, Against an Opponent of the Law
and the Prophets. In the treatise Concerning Christian Doctrine,
he says : —
" If a command either forbids what is disgraceful or wrong or
orders what is useful or kindly, it is not figurative. But, if it seems
to order what is disgraceful or wrong, or to forbid what is useful
or kindly, it is figurative. It is said, ' Except ye eat the flesh of the
Son of man and drink His blood, ye will not have life in yourselves '.3
This seems to order what is wrong or disgraceful : therefore it is a
figure, ordering that there is to be communion in the passion of the
Saviour, and that there is to be sweet and useful remembrance that
for us His flesh was crucified and wounded." i
In the book Against an Opponent of the Law and the Prophets,
after referring to the typical significance of the marriage relation
of Abraham with Sarah and Hagar and of the births of Isaac
and Ishmael and of marriage as a figure of the union between
Christ and the Church, he writes : —
" With faithful heart and mouth we admit that the Man Christ
Jesus, the Mediator between God and men, gives us His flesh to eat
and His blood to drink, although it seems more horrible to eat
human flesh than to kill it, and to drink human blood than to shed
it; and in all Holy Scripture, whenever anything is figuratively
said or done, in any matters contained in the sacred pages, it is to be
explained in accordance with the rule of sound faith, and we are to
listen hot with scorn but with wisdom." 5
Macarius Magnes mentions those who spoke of the Eucharist
in a way which he himself repudiated.
" It is not a figure (tv7tos) of the body and a figure of the
blood, as some whose minds are blinded have foolishly said
(eppcaffio8rjo-av), but really the body and blood of Christ." 6
1 C. Adim. Man. xii. 3. 'In Ps. iii. Enar. 1.
8 St. John vi. 53. 4 iii. 24.
B ii. 35. Cf. Ep. xcviii. 9, quoted on p. 84, infra. 6 iii. 23.
vol. i. 5

66 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
In considering what inferences may rightly be drawn from
the phraseology of which instances have been given it is necessary
to remember the elements of the problem pointed out in the last
chapter,1 namely the marked difference between the use of such
words as " figure " and " symbol " in the early Church and their
present usual meaning, the sense evidently attached to the word
" figure " in some passages in Tertullian and other Latin
writers, the influence of the language of the Greek mysteries on
the use of the word " symbol " by the Alexandrian theologians ;
and further to observe instances of a different type of phraseology
in the same writers to be given later.2 In addition to these
general considerations there are four special points which require
notice here, (a) In the Eucharistic Anaphora of Serapion of
Thmuis and in the treatise On the Sacraments — apart from one
passage in the latter, where the reference is shown -by the con
text to be to the outward sign 3 — the instances of the phrases
" likeness of the body " and " likeness of the blood " and " likeness
of the death" and "figure of the body and blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ " occur before the sentences which are evidently
regarded as the crucial moment of the consecration.4 (b) A
comparison of other passages in St. Cyril of Jerusalem in which he
uses the words " figure " (tvtto^) and " antitype " (dvTLTVTros)
shows meanings which he elsewhere attaches to them. Joshua is
said to have borne the figure (tvttov ecpepev) of Christ ; 5 the
barren fig-tree is said to have been cursed for the sake of the
figure (Sici tov tvttov) 6 ; incidents of the fall are regarded as
figures of incidents of the redemption accomplished by Christ ; 7
the brasen serpent is called the figure of the crucifixion ; 8 Jonah
is spoken of as a figure of Christ ; 9 the sprinkling of the blood
on the door posts and the crossing of the Red Sea are described
as figures of the blood of Christ and of Holy Baptism.10 Baptism
is called an antitype (avTiTvirov) of the sufferings of Christ ; u
and anointing is said to be an antitype (dvTiTvirov) of the Holy
i See pp. 29-33, supra. ' See pp. 67-84, infra.
3 De Sacr. iv. 20. See p. 64, supra, and especially pp. 81, 82, infra.,
where the context is quoted.
4 See pp. 84-87, infra. 6 x. 11.
6 xiii. 18. 7 xiii. 19. 8 xiii. 20.
s xiv. 20. 10xix. 2, 3. uxx. 6.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 67
Ghost.1 Yet, though these illustrations of St. Cyril's use of the
words taken by themselves might seem to point towards the
sentences formerly cited having the meaning that the Eucharistic
food merely represents the body and blood of Christ, his language
elsewhere will be found to be incompatible with such a view.2
(c) Theodoret, in addition to speaking of the elements as
" symbols," is explicit that after consecration they are what
they are called, the body and blood of Christ ; 3 and the
Apostolic Constitutions, while calling the elements " antitypes,"
very definitely describes them after consecration as our Lord's
body and blood.4 (d) On the other hand, the denial by Macarius
Magnes of the opinion of those who declared that the Eucharist
is a figure of the body and blood appears to imply that he
understood at any rate some who used this phraseology to denote
by it a belief contrary to his own identification of the elements
with the body and blood.5
3. One part of the teaching of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St.
Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Cyril of Alexandria suggests the idea
of the heightened efficacy of the elements. This thought is
prominent in St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Gregory of Nyssa,
and appears to be implied by St. Cyril of Alexandria.
In the Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem the
effect of the Eucharistic consecration is definitely compared with
the effect of the heathen invocation on heathen offerings and the
effect of the Christian invocation on the chrism in Confirmation,
and by implication it is regarded as parallel to the effect of the
Christian invocation on the water in Baptism.
" The things which are hung up at the idol festivals, whethei
flesh or bread or other such things, having been defiled by the
invocation of the foul demons, are reckoned in the pomp of the
devil. For as the bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the
invocation of the holy and adorable Trinity were simple (Xitos)
bread and wine, but when the invocation has taken place the bread
becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ, so
in like manner such food of the pomp of Satan, though in its own
nature simple (An-a), becomes profane (fieftyjXa) by the invocation
of the demons." 6 9-101, infra.

1 xxi. 1.

2 See p. 71, infra.

3 See pp.

A See p. 75, infra.

6 See pp. 73, 74, infra.
5 *

6xix. 7.

68 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
"Beware of supposing this chrism (p-vpov) to be bare (fiXov).
For as the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy
Ghost is no longer simple (\itos) bread but the body of Christ, so
also after invocation this holy chrism is no longer bare (yj/iXov) nor,
so to say, common but becomes Christ's gift of grace (^apicr/m) and
by the coming of the Holy Ghost fit to. impart His Godhead." :
" Do not pay heed to the laver as simple (Airui) water but to the
spiritual grace that is given with the water. For as the things that
are brought to the heathen altars, though simple (Ami) in their
nature, become defiled by the invocation of the idols, so contrari
wise the simple (Aitov) water on receiving the invocation of the
Holy Ghost and of Christ and of the Father acquires the power of
holiness." 2
A similar conception of the heightened efficacy of material
things and a similar parallel between the different rites of the
Church are expressed at some length by St. Gregory of Nyssa in
his sermon On the Baptism of Christ. In describing the effects
of Christian Baptism he says : —
"The Spirit" "blesses the body which is baptised and the water
which baptises. Wherefore despise not the sacred laver, nor count
it cheap as a common thing, because of the use of the water. For
that which operates is great, and the effects which it accomplishes
are wonderful. Since also this holy altar at which we stand is in its
nature common stone, nothing differing from the other blocks with
which our walls are built and our floors adorned. But through be
ing hallowed for the worship of God and receiving consecration it
is a holy Table, a stainless altar, no longer to be touched by all but
only by the priests, and that with reverence. The bread again is
up to a certain point common bread ; but when the mystery has
consecrated it, it both is called and becomes the body of Christ.
In like manner the mystic oil, in like manner the wine, being things
of little worth before they are hallowed, after the consecration
effected by the Spirit have each their distinctive operation. The
same power of the word makes the priest also reverend and honour
able, separated by his new consecration from the ordinary multitude.
For, while yesterday and the day before he was one of the multitude
and of the people, he is all at once rendered a- guide, a ruler, a
teacher of orthodoxy, a leader in hidden mysteries ; and he does
these things without any change in body or in form ; but being in
appearance what he was, by a certain invisible power and grace he
2xxi. 3 2iii. 3.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 69
is in his invisible soul transformed (peTapoptpwOeU) to what is
better." 1
A like comparison between the effects of the blessing of the
water in Baptism and the result of the Eucharistic consecration
appears to be implied in language about Baptism used by St.
Cyril of Alexandria, if compared with statements about the
Eucharist in the same father.2 Commenting on our Lord's
words to Nicodemus, " Except any one be begotten of water and
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,"3 St.
Cyril says : —
" The spirit of man is sanctified by the Spirit, the body by the
water which in its turn has already been sanctified. For as the
water that is poured out in cauldrons receives the power that is de
rived from the fire, so the perceptible water through the activity of
the Spirit is re-elemented (avao-Tot.x'uovTcu) 4 to a certain divine and
mystic power, and hereafter sanctifies those to whom it comes." 5
It is obvious that in themselves the parallel between the
different rites and the whole conception of the heightened effi
cacy of the Eucharistic elements are capable of two interpre
tations. In themselves they might mean that in all cases alike
the outward part is merely the instrument employed to effect a
particular purpose, or that, while in all cases the outward part
is the instrumental means whereby a spiritual purpose is
effected, in the case of the Eucharist it is more than an instru
ment and itself contains or is identified with that which it is the
means of bestowing. Though in the abstract either of these
interpretations might be a tenable explanation of the conception,
there are not wanting indications in the passages of St. Cyril of
Jerusalem which have been quoted already that the latter is in
tended by this father, and it will be found in the subsequent
course of this investigation that all the three writers from whom
quotations have here been made use language elsewhere which
shows that the parallel with the other rites was not meant by
them to exhaust the truth about the Eucharist, but that they
JT. iii. pp. 369, 370, ed. Paris, 1638 ; P.G. xlvi. 581-84.
2 See pp. 76, 105, infra. 3 St. John iii. 5.
4 Another reading is " transelemented " (/iCTaorotxeioOrcu).
5 In Joan. Ev. on iii. 5 (t. iv. p. 147, ed. Aubert ; P.G. lxxiii. 244,
245).

70 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
believed the elements not only to receive such a heightened
efficacy as enables them to effect the reception of the spiritual
food but also themselves to become the body and blood of Christ.
4. The passages which must be considered next are those
in which the consecrated elements are identified with the body
and blood of Christ. Such passages are found in writers of
different types in both the East and the West. In some
instances they are the work of those who use also phraseology
which has already been referred to as of a more general character,
or as describing the elements as " figures " or " symbols," or as
denoting the heightened efficacy of the elements. The following
quotations supply the illustrations of the identification of the
consecrated elements with the body and blood of Christ which
appear to be more distinct and most characteristic.
Two fragments of a Sermon to the Baptized ascribed to St.
Athanasius, quoted by Eutychius, who was Patriarch of Con
stantinople in the sixth century, in his Sermon on, the Pasch and
on tlie Most Holy Eucharist,1 are as follows : —
" You will see the Levites (that is, the deacons) bringing the
bread and the cup of wine, and placing them on the Table. And
so long as the supplications and prayers are not yet made, the bread
and the cup are bare elements (i/riAds). But when the great and
marvellous prayers are completed, then the bread becomes the body,
and the cup the blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2
" Let us come to the consecration of the mysteries. This bread
and this cup, so long as the prayers and supplications are not yet
made, are bare elements (tyiXo.). But when the great prayers
and the holy supplications are sent up to God, the Word descends
upon the bread and the cup, and they become His body." 3
Very similar is the language used in the Prayers of Serapion
of Thmuis, St. Athanasius's contemporary and friend. In the
Eucharistic Anaphora which these Prayers contain, after the
allusions to the bread and the cup as the " likeness " of the body
and blood of Christ,4 the following passage occurs : —
" O God of truth, let Thy Holy Word come upon this bread
that the bread may become the body of the Word, and upon this
cup that the cup may become the blood of the Truth." 5
1 § 8. P.G. lxxxvi. 2401. 2 P.G. xxvi. 1325.
8 Ibid. 4 See p. 63, supra. 6 § 1.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 71
The following are among the explicit statements made by
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures that the con
secrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.
" The bread and the wine of the Eucharist were simple (Xn-ds)
bread and wine before the invocation of the holy and adorable
Trinity ; but when the invocation has taken place the bread becomes
the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ." 1
" The bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy
Ghost is no longer simple (Aitos) bread but the body of Christ." 2
" Since then He declared and spake of the bread, ' This is My
body/ who will dare to doubt any longer ? And since He affirmed
and said, ' This is My blood,' who will ever hesitate so as to say it
is not His blood ? " 3
" Regard the bread and the wine then not as bare elements
(i/nAois) ; for they are (-rvyxo-vet) the body and blood of Christ accord
ing to the declaration of the Lord." 4
" We beseech the merciful God to send the Holy Ghost upon
the oblations that He may make the bread the body of Christ and
the wine the blood of Christ ; for whatever the Holy Ghost
has touched is surely consecrated and changed (rp/Caa-Tai koI
perafUpX-qTaij. ' 5
In a letter to Amphilochius, the Bishop of Iconium, St.
Gregory of Nazianzus uses the very remarkable expressions con
tained in the following sentence : —
" Be not negligent both to pray and to intercede for us, when
by word you draw down the Word, when with bloodless cutting
you sever the Lord's body and blood, using your voice as your
sword". 6
St. Gregory of Nyssa deals with the Eucharist at some length
in his Catechetical Oration. The possibility of Sacraments, he
teaches, is shown by the truth of the Immanence of God. They
cany on the principle of the Incarnation, and have their validity
because of the guarantee afforded by the promise of God.
Through Baptism and the Eucharist Christians possess union
with God through Christ. In Sacraments that is accomplished
*xix. 7. '" xxi. 3. 3 xxii. 1. * xxii. 6. ° xxiii. 7.
6 Ep. clxxi. Like phraseology about the severing of the body and
blood is found in the West in the thirteenth century and later: see,
e.g., pp. 66, 67, 315, 325, 361, 363, 372, 373, infra, and vol. ii.

72 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
continuously and for individuals which was accomplished once
for mankind in general by the Incarnation. Man is compounded
of body and soul. It is therefore necessary that those who are
to be in the way of salvation should lay hold of Christ by both
body and soul. Hence arises the need of both faith and Sacra
ments. Human nature has been poisoned through the body ;
and therefore the antidote to the poison must be received
through the body. This antidote can be nothing else than that
body which has conquered death and is the first fruits of our life.
The necessary entrance of the body of Christ into human bodies
can only be by means of eating and drinking. This fact suggests
the problem how it is
"possible for that one body, being continually (cis dei) portioned
to so many myriads of the faithful throughout the whole world, to
become in its entirety the possession of each recipient 1 through the
portion received, and yet to remain whole in itself. " 2
In attempting to solve this problem St. Gregory of Nyssa,
after showing that the life of the human body is preserved by
means of the food and drink which are consumed and digested
and assimilated and thereby become the body and blood of the
persons who eat and drink them, points out that this process of
nourishment took place in our Lord's earthly life, and that the
change which is effected in the Eucharist is parallel to that in
the preservation of His manhood by means of food.
" The body which was the body of God by receiving the nourish
ment of bread was in a certain manner (Xoyw tlvi) the same as it, the
nourishment, as has been said, being changed into the nature of the
body. For that which is characteristic of all was acknowledged also
in the case of that flesh, namely, that that body too was maintained
by bread. Moreover, that body by the indwelling of God the Word
was transmade (pLeTeiroiriOt)) to the dignity of Godhead. Rightly,
then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated
by the word of God is transmade (peTairoieio-6ai) into the body of God
the Word. ... In this case the bread, as says the Apostle,3 is con
secrated by means of the word of God and prayer ; not that it
advances by the process of eating into becoming the body of the
1 Reading okov e/caorou yevetrOai. With the reading ev eicdoTij) the
meaning is not substantially different.
2 Ch. 37. 3 1 St. Tim. iv. 5.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 73
Word, but it is at once transmade (peTairoiovpevos) into the body by
means of the word, as the Word said, ' This is My body '. . . . In
the dispensation of grace He plants Himself in all the faithful by
means of that flesh composed of wine and bread, blending Himself
with the bodies of the faithful, so that man also may become par
taker of incorruption by the union with the immortal. He bestows
these gifts as He transelements (peTao-Toixeiuxra.'s) the nature of the
visible things to that immortal thing by virtue of the consecration." x
It will be necessary to recur to this passage later on;2 it is
quoted now as showing St. Gregory of Nyssa's belief that the
consecrated elements are the body and blood of Christ, and his
defence of his belief on the grounds of analogy with natural pro
cesses and harmony with the principle of the Incarnation.
Teaching greatly resembling the characteristic thought of St.
Gregory of Nyssa occurs in Macarius Magnes. In the Dialogue,
which represents a discussion between a heathen opponent and a
Christian, the heathen is depicted as taking exception to the
Eucharist. The command to eat the flesh of the Son of Man
and drink His blood as a condition of life 3 is said to be unreason
able and savage ; and it is maintained that even if the words
have some allegorical and mystic meaning the impression created
by them is still injurious to the soul.4 To this objection a
lengthy reply is given. A new-born babe, it is said, must die
unless he eats the flesh and drinks the blood of his mother, since
his food is the mother's blood which a physical process has con
verted into milk. If, then, the infant thus eats the flesh and
drinks the blood of his mother, it is not unreasonable that Christ
should command those to whom He gave authority to become
the children of God to eat His flesh and drink His blood, to eat
the mystic flesh and drink the mystic blood of her who bare
them. For the Wisdom of God brought forth children and fed
them from the two breasts of the two covenants and gave them
her own flesh and blood and bestowed on them immortality;
and this Wisdom of God is Christ. Men are made from the
earth, and in corn and wine and other food they after a fashion
eat the flesh and drink the blood of the earth. From the earth
they are nourished, and the earth does not sustain loss or injury
1 Ch. 37. ' See pp. 103, 104, infra.
3 St. John vi. 53. " iii. 15.

74 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
through giving them nourishment. The only begotten Son
created the earth in the beginning, and in the Incarnation He
took from the earth His body. The bread and the wine are not
figures of Christ's body and blood but really His body and
blood, since the source of His body and the source of bread and
wine is the earth. The words of Christ would have been untrue
if they had been spoken by Abraham or any other than Christ
Himself. " Common bread that is grown in the earth, even though it is
the flesh of the earth, is not declared to have eternal life, but it
bestows on those who eat it only a short-lived benefit, since without
the divine Spirit its force is quickly quenched. But the bread
that is grown in the blessed earth of Christ, being united to the
power of the Holy Ghost, by the mere taste gives immortality to
man. For the mystic bread, having received the inseparable invoca
tion of the Saviour — the invocation that is on His body and blood —
unites him who eats to the body of Christ and makes him the
limbs of the Saviour. For as the writing-tablet receives power
through the letters which the teacher writes on it and gives this
power to the scholar, and by means of it uplifts and unites him to
the teacher, so the body, which is the bread, and the blood, which
is the wine, receiving the immortality of the unstained deity, give
it from themselves to him who receives them, and by means of it
restores him to the uncorruptible abiding of the Creator. There
fore the flesh of the Saviour when it is eaten is not destroyed,
and this blood when it is drunk is not consumed, but he who eateth
attains to an increase of divine powers, and that which is eaten
remains unspent, since it is kindred to and inseparable from the
inexhaustible nature." 1
In the writings of St. Chrysostom, besides abundant allusions
to the participation in Christ which is gained by Communion,
there are more explicit statements. He speaks with sympathy
and belief of the vision of which he had heard of angels " sur
rounding the altar and bowing down, as one might see soldiers
standing in the presence of a king ".2 The body and blood of
Christ are, he says, received in the hands, and in the mouth ; s
1 iii. 23. In iv. 25, Macarius makes a similar comparison between the
power of letters written by a king, as contrasted with the worthlessness
of the same letters written by a private individual, and the efficacy of the
water that is marked by the name of Christ in Baptism.
'De Sac. vi. 4. 3 Ad ilium, cat. ii. 2 ; In 2 Cor. Horn. xxx. 2.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 75
the tongue is touched by the flesh of Christ;1 the elements
become the body and blood of Christ;2 the Lamb is on the
Table ; 3 " that which is in the chalice is that which flowed from
the side " of our Lord on the cross ; 4 and the identification of
the bread and wine with the body and blood is implied in the
passionate declaration : —
" I will surrender my own life rather than grant unworthily the
reception of the blood of the Lord ; I will shed my own blood rather
than grant wrongly the reception of blood so awful." 6
In the second book of the Apostolic Constitutions communicants
are not only said to partake of " the body of the Lord and His
precious blood," but are also ordered to come up to the place of
Communion "with reverence and devotion as approaching the
body of a King " ; in the eighth book the words of administration
are given as " the body of Christ," " the blood of Christ, the
cup of life," and communicants are said to partake of "the
precious body and the precious blood of Christ".6
The teaching of St._Cyril of Alexandria about the Eudrarist
is closely connected with the truth of the ope Person of the
incarnate Son of God, with the defence of which his life is pre
eminently associated. In numberless passages he lays stress on
the fact that the value of the Eucharist is derived from, and
dependent on, the personal union between the divine and human
naturesToT our Lord. The flesh that was taken by our Lord in
the Incarnation and is received by communicants in the Eucharist
has its life-giving properties because it is the flesh, not of some
man however holy or in however close communion with God, but
of the Person of God the Word.7 An instance of teaching of
this kind which occurs in the third letter to Nestorius is of some
special interest, since the letter which contains it received a
general assent from the CEcumenical Council of Ephesus in 431. 8
The passage is as follows : —
" Proclaiming the death according to the flesh of the only be
gotten SoiTof God, that is, Jesus Christ, and confessing His resurrec-
1 In 7 Cor. Horn, xxvii. 5. 2 De prod. Jud. i. 6.
3 De coetn. et cruc. 3. * In 1 Cor. Horn. xxiv. 1.
6 In Mat. Horn, lxxxii. 6. 6 ii. 57, viii. 13, 14.
7 See, e.g., Ep. xvii. 7 ; Adv. Nest. iv. 4-6 ; Comm. in Joan. Ev. on vi.
64 ; Explan. duodecim cap. xi.
8Hardouin, Concilia, i. 1441.

76 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
tion from the dead and ascent into heaven,jwe celebrate the bloodless
sacrifice * in our churches ; and thus we approach the mystic blessings,
and are sanctified by partaking of the holy flesh and the precious
blood of Christ the Saviour of us all. And we receive it, not as
common flesh (God forbid), nor as the flesh of a man sanctified and
associated with the Word according to the unity of merit, orjis_hav-
ing a divine indwelUng, but as really the hfe-giving and veryjleshof
the Word Himself." 2
Besides reiterated statements to this effect there are passages
in which St. Cyril identifies the consecrated elements with the
body and blood of Christ.
" It was needful for Him, then, to be in us through the Holy
Ghost after a divine fashion ; and to be as it were mingled with our
bodies through His holy flesh and His precious blood, which verily
we also had for a life-giving blessing, as in bread and wine. For in
order that we should not be paralysed with horror, by seeing flesh
and blood set out on the holy Tables of the churches, God conde-
scends to our infirmities and sends the power of life into the_e!gments
and transfers (pe6tcrTT]o-iv) them into the efficacy (Ivepyeio) of His
own flesh, that we may have them for life-giving reception, and that
the body of life may be found in us_ a life-giving seed. _ , And ,dpjaiit
not that this is true, since He says clearly, ' This is_My^ocb^and
¦* This is My blood ' ; but rather receive in faith the^ word_of_the
Saviour ; for He is the Truth and does not lie." 3
" If then it is the body of God which is given, here is true God,
Christ the Lord, and not bare (i/aAds) man, or an angel, as they say,
ministering, or one of the created spirits. And if the drink is the
blood of God, then it is not simply God, one of the adorable Trinity,
the Son of God, but God the Word incarnate. But if the food were
the body of Christ, and the drink the blood of Christ, and according
to their view bare (i/aAds) man, how is it proclaimed as a means of
eternal life to those who approach the holy Table ? How, if they
were right, could it dwell 4 here and everywhere and not be dimin
ished ? For bare (\\iiXov) body is never a fount of life to those who
receive it." 5
^Bvo-iav: al. service (Xarpelav).
2 Aubert, v. (2, 2) 72 ; P.G. lxxvii. 113.
3Comm. in Luc. on xxii. 19 (P.G. lxxii. 912).
4 Reading evavki^erai. Another reading is av pepi&Tm (" how could
it be divided ? ").
6 Horn, in myst. cen. (Aubert, v. (2, 1) 378 ; P.G. lxxvii. 1028, 1029).

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 77
Each of thesejpassages appears to connect the presence and
gift oftEe fleSfjind blood of the one Person of God the Son
with the consecrated elements. That this was St. Cyril's belief
is confirmed By The terms in which he alludes to the reserved
Sacrament in his letter to Calosyrius, the Bishop of Arsinoe.
" I hear they say that the sacramental consecration does not
avail foFhallowTng if a portion of it be1 kept to another day. In
laying so they "are mad.' For Christ is not altered, nor will His-
Tioly body be changed ; but the power of the consecration and the
life-giving grace still remain in it." 1
The Letters of Isidore of Pelusium contain references to the
effect of Communion as the incorporation of the communicant
with Christ,2 and to the consecrated elements as the body and
blood of Christ.3
As illustrations of the identification of the elements with
the body and blood of Christ in the West during this period it
may be sufficient to quote from the writings of St. Hilary of
Poitiers, St. Optatus, St. Ambrose, the author of the book On
the Sacraments which has sometimes been ascribed to St. Am
brose, and St. Augustine.
The works of St. Hilary of Poitiers contain incidental refer
ences which imply that the consecrated elements are the body
and blood of Christ. In his description of the outrages at
Toulouse during the Arian persecution in 356, after mentioning
the ill-treatment of the presbyters and deacons, he says : —
" And on Himself, as holy persons understand with me, on Christ
Himself hands were laid," 4
apparently alluding to the insults offered to the holy Sacrament
as an Arian means of denying the validity of Catholic ministra
tions.5 In the version of the letter of the Eusebian bishops at
Philippopolis in 343 which St. Hilary preserves a like outrage
alleged to have been perpetrated on Arians by Marcellus of
Ancyra is described.
"As must be told with tears and mourning, he openly and
publicly profaned the consecrated body of the Lord hung on the
necks of the priests." 6
Hubert, vi. (2) 365 ; P.G. lxxvi. 1073-76.
2i. 228, iii. 195. 3i. 109, 123, iv. 166. 4C. Constant. Imp. 11-
6 See Bright, The Age of the Fathers, i. 239. 6Fragm. iii. 9.

78 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
In one passage in his treatise On the Trinity St. Hilary deals
with the subject of the Eucharist at some length. He there de
fends the doctrine that the union of Christians with God and
the unity of Christians with one another is accomplished and
maintained in nature not in will. As an illustration of this
doctrine he refers to Baptism, observing that St. Paul1 shows
that " the unity of the faithful " is derived from " the nature of
the Sacraments," so that the unity of Christians " in Christ
Jesus " arises from " the unity of the Sacrament " not from " an
agreement of will ".2 He gives a further illustration of the same
doctrine from the Eucharist.
" If in truth the Word has been made flesh, and if we in truth
receive the Word made flesh in the food of the Lord, must we not
believe that He abides in us naturally ? For He, born as Man, has
assumed the nature of our flesh now inseparable from Himself, and
has joined the nature of the flesh that is thus His own to the nature
of the eternal Godhead (ceternitatis) in order that in the Sacrament
{sub sacramento) that flesh may be communicated to us. For so are
we all one, because the Father is in Christ, and Christ is in us. . . .
If in truth then Christ has taken the flesh of our body, and if in
truth that Man who was born of Mary is Christ, and if in truth we
receive in the mystery (sub mysterio) the flesh of His body — and in
this way we shall be one, because the Father is in Him, and He is in
us — how is it possible to assert that this is a unity of will, seeing
that the special property of nature received through the Sacrament
is the Sacrament of a complete unity ? . . . Concerning the verity
•of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now it is
shown both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our faith
that in truth it is flesh and in truth it is blood. And these when
eaten and drunk bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and
Christ is in us. . . . Therefore He Himself is in us by means of His
flesh, and we are in Him, while our own nature (hoc quod nos sumus)
is with Him in God. . . . We have Christ dwelling in our fleshly
nature (in nobis camalibus) by means of His flesh, and we shall live
through Him in the same manner as He lives through the Father.
, . . We live through Him according to the flesh, that is, having
partaken of the nature of His flesh. . . . The mystery of the real
and natural unity is to be preached in the light of the glory of the
.Son bestowed on us, and of the Son dwelling in us by His flesh
1Gal. iii. 27, 28. * viii. 8.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 79
(carnaliter), while we are united in Him bodily (corporaliter) and
inseparably." J
St. Optatus of Milevis, in describing the outrages of the
Donatists against the Catholics, speaks of those who "com
manded the Eucharist to be thrown to dogs " as " guilty of the
holy body " ; compares the perpetrators of these outrages with
the Jews at the crucifixion of our Lord, since " the Jews laid
hands on Christ on the cross, by you He was smitten on the altar " ;
and calls the altar " the abode of the body and blood of Christ,"
and the place " where the body of Christ dwelt ".2
The treatise of St. Ambrose On the Mysteries contains a
careful statement and defence of the doctrine that the Eucharistic
bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. After an
explanation of Baptism and Confirmation he describes how
"the cleansed people, rich with these adornments, hastens to the
altar of Christ," and so goes on to speak of the Eucharist. The
Sacraments of the Church, he says, are more ancient than those
of the synagogue and more excellent than the manna with which
the Jews were fed in the wilderness. They are more ancient
than those of the synagogue because they were foreshadowed by
the sacrifice of Melchizedek, who was a type of Christ. They""\
are more excellent than the manna because those who ate of the \
manna died in the wilderness, while " whosoever shall eat of this j
bread," " the bread that came down from heaven," " shall never t
die," " and it is the body of Christ ". Moreover this food is " in
reality " (in veritate), while the manna and the water from the
rock were "in a shadow" (in umbra); and " light is better than
the shadow, the reality than the figure, the body of its Giver
(auctoris) than the manna from heaven ". At this point St.
Ambrose supposes that an inquiry is made how the Sacrament
can be the body of Christ ; and he proceeds to explain how the
Sacrament " is not what nature made but what the blessing con
secrated," and that " the nature itself is changed by the blessing,"
by several illustrations. The rod of Moses became a serpent.
The streams of Egypt were made blood. The Red Sea was
divided, and the Jordan was turned back, so that " the nature
of the waves of the sea and of the river stream was changed ".
1 viii. 13-17. ' ii. 19 (cf. ii. 21), vi. 1.

80 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Water flowed from the rock. The bitter water was made sweet.
The axe-head floated.
" We observe then that grace has more power than nature ; and
yet so far it has been the grace of the blessing of a prophet only of
which we have made mention. If the blessing of a man had so great
power that he could change nature, what are we to say of that
consecration of God wherein the very words of our Lord and Saviour
are instrumental ? For that Sacrament which you receive is made
by the word of Christ. If the word of Elijah had so great power
that it brought down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ
have power to change the nature (species) of the elements ? You
have read concerning the making of the whole world, ' He spake,
and they were made; He commanded, and they were created'.1
Shall not the word of Christ, which was able to make out of nothing
that which was not, be able to change things which are into that
which they were not ? For it is not less to give new natures to
things than to change their natures. . . . Was the ordinary course
of nature preserved when the Lord Jesus was born of Mary ? If
we look for what usually happens, it is the wont of a woman to
conceive when she has had intercourse with a man. Certainly then
for a virgin to conceive was outside the ordinary way of nature.
And this body which we make is that which was born of a virgin.
Why "do you look for the usual course of nature"15~the body of
Christ, when the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a virgin and not
according to nature ? In very deed it is the true flesh" of Christ,
which was crucified arid buried. ' In truth thep, the. Sacrament is
of His flesh. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims, 'This is My
body'. Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature
(species) is named ; after the consecration the body is denoted
(significalur). He Himself speaks of His blood, Before the. con
secration it is called by another name ; after the consecration it is
named blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true." 2
While there is much in the arguments of St. Ambrose which
is in harmony with those used by St. Gregory of Nyssa,3 St.
Gregory of Nyssa lays great stress on the analogy with the
processes of nature, while with St. Ambrose the chief emphasis
is on the Eucharistic consecratiorfas a "su]^natuTal~reaIity
which transcends nature.
The Belief sEo'wiTBy the treatise On the Sacraments differs
1 Ps. cxlviii. 5. ' §§ 43-54. 3 See pp. 71-73, supra.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 81
little, if at all, from that of St. Ambrose himself. There is a
like assertion of the greater antiquity and excellence of the Chris
tian Sacraments as compared with the rites of the Jews and the
gifts to the Jewish people, a like comparison with the miracles of
the Old Testament, a like emphasis on our Lord's birth from a
virgin, and a like distinction between the nature of the elements
before consecration and after it. On this last point the writer
says : —
" This bread is bread before the sacramental words ; when the
consecration has taken place, from being bread it becomes the flesh
of Christ. Let us then declare this. How can that which is bread
be the body of Christ? By consecration. But by what words is
the consecration effected, and who is He that spoke them ? For
everything else which is said before is spoken by the priest, prayer
is offered to God, prayer is made for the people, for kings, for all
others ; but when the time comes for the making of the venerable
Sacrament, the priest no longer uses his own words, but he uses the
words of Christ. Therefore the word of Christ makes this Sacra
ment. What is the word of Christ ? Assuredly that by which all
things were made. The Lord commanded, and the heaven was
made ; the Lord commanded, and the earth was made ; the Lord
commanded, and the seas were made. The Lord commanded, and
every creature was created. You see how powerful the word of
Christ is. If then there is so great force in the word of the Lord
Jesus that those things which were not should begin to be, how
much more does it bring to pass that those things which were shall
be and shall also be changed into something else. The heaven was
not, the sea was not, the earth was not ; but hear the words of
David, ' He spake and they were made ; He commanded, and they
were created'. Therefore that I may give you an answer, before
consecration it was not the body of Christ ; but after consecration
I tell you that it is now the body of Christ. He spake and it was
made ; He commanded and it was created. You were yourself, but
you were an old creature ; after you were consecrated, you began
to be a new creature. Do you wish to know how a new creature ?
'Every one,' says Scripture, 'in Christ is a new creature.' 1 . . . You
have learnt that from bread the body of Christ comes to be, and
that wine and water are placed in the cup but become blood by the
consecration of the heavenly Word. But perhaps you say, I do not
1 2 Cor. v. 17.
VOL. I. 6

82 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
see the nature : of blood. Yet it has likeness ; for as you have re
ceived the likeness of the death, so also you drink the likeness of
the precious blood, so that there may be no horror at gore, and
that none the less the price of redemption may accomplish its work.
You have learnt then that what you receive is the body of Christ." 2
As in other matters which the profound and versatile mind
of St. Augustine considered, so in regard to the Eucharist djffer-_.
ent fines of thought are found in his writings. Among them
is the identification of the elements with the body and blood
of Christ. In this connection notice must be taken of the
passages in which he maintains that at the institution of the
Sacrament our Lord held Himself in His own hands ; that the
bread becomes the body of Christ by receiving the blessing of
Christ ; that the instruction and experience of children in regard
to the Eucharist, apart from other knowledge, would naturally
lead to their supposing that Christ manifested Himself in His
incarnate life as bread and wine ; and that the gift received by
worthy and unworthy communicants is the same, though with
different effects.
In his Enarrations on the Thirty-third Psalm the mystical
exposition of the words, "He changed his behaviour3 before
Abimelech, who drove him away, and he departed," 4 leads St.
Augustine to say of our Lord : —
" Christ was carried in His hands, when in giving His own
body He said, 'This is My body'. For He carried that body in
His hands." 6
" When He gave His own body and His own blood, He took in
His hands what the faithful know; and in a certain manner
(quodam modo) He carried Himself, when He said, 'This is My
body'." 6
Elsewhere he says : —
1 Speciem. Possibly the meaning here is " appearance " ; but the use
of the word to denote " nature " in St. Ambrose, De Myst. 51, 52, 54, is
in favour of a similar meaning in this writer.
2iv. 14-20.
3 In St. Augustine's Latin version vultum suum; cf. Septuagint, to
7rpo(7G)7roi> avTov.
4Ps. xxxiv. (Hebrew, =xxxiii. in Septuagint, etc.), title.
6i. 10. 8ii. 2.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 83
" Not all bread, but that bread which receives the blessing of
Christ, becomes the body of Christ." 1
In a remarkable passage in the treatise On the Trinity he
writes as follows in reference to the theophanies and types of
the Old Testament : —
" What man knows how angels made or assumed those clouds
and fires to signify what they announced, even if the Lord or the
Holy Ghost was manifested in those bodily forms ? As in the case of
that which is placed on the altar and consumed at the end of the
rite of Christian worship little children do not know whence or
how it is made and whence it is taken for the use of religion.
And if they never learnt by experience of their own or of others and
never saw that outward sign (Mam speciem rerum) except when it is
offered and administered at the celebration of the Sacrament, and
if they were taught on the weightiest authority whose body and
blood it is, they would be sure to believe that the Lord appeared to
the eyes of men in that form (specie) and that it was that liquid
which flowed from such a smitten side." 2
In one part of his teaching St. Augustine is emphatic that
the identification of the elements with the body and blood of
Christ is so complete that even the wicked recipients of the Sacra
ment receive Christ's body and blood as really, though with dif
ferent effects, as those who partake of the Sacrament worthily.
Thus in his book On Baptism against the Donatists he says : —
" For as Judas, to whom the Lord gave the sop, allowed place
in himself to the devil not by receiving what was eyil but by re
ceiving in an evil way, so one who receives the Sacrament of the
Lord unworthily~3oes not bring about that it is evil because he is
evil or that he has received nothing because he has not received to
salvation."" Tor it is the body and blood of the Lord no less in
the case of those of whom the Apostle said, ' Who eats unworthily
eats and drinks judgment to himself." 3
Similarly in one of his Sermons he insists that it is possible
to " eat the very flesh " and " drink the very blood " of Christ
in such a way as to "eat and drink judgment," and that there
are two ways of " eating that flesh and drinking that blood,"
one of which leads to the recipient abiding in Christ and Christ
in him, the other of which leads to judgment.4
1 Serm. ccxxxiv. 2. 2 iii. 21. 3 v. 9. 4 lxxi. 17.
6*

84 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
It will be convenient to associate with this teaching two
statements, one of which appears to add some qualification and
the other of which closely resembles passages already quoted from
St. Gregory of Nyssa and Macarius Magnes.1 With the words
already quoted on the action of our Lord at the institution of
the Sacrament in carrying Himself in His own hands " in a cer
tain manner''2 may be compared a phrase in one of St. Au
gustine's Epistles, where he says : —
" If the Sacraments had not any likeness to those things of
which they are Sacraments, they would not be Sacraments at all.
And from this likeness for the most part also they receive the
names of the things themselves. As then after a certain fashion
(secundum quemdam modum) the Sacrament of the body of Christ is
the body of Christ, and the Sacrament of the blood of Christ is the
blood of Christ, so the Sacrament of faith is faith." 3
In an earlier passage than those already quoted from the
Enarrations on the Thirty-third Psalm, St. Augustine uses the
comparison between a mother feeding her child with her own
body and the feeding of the children of God with the body and
blood of Christ. He there says that our Lord has willed our
salvation to be in His body and blood, and that His humility
has made it possible for us to eat and drink these. The food
which the mother eats becomes fit food for her infant child by
means of the process of passing through her flesh. In like
manner the Wisdom of God feeds Christians ; and the Incarna
tion and the Passion have made possible the gift to them of
the flesh and blood of the Lord.4
5. The next step in the consideration of the Eucharistic
theology of the fourth and fifth centuries is to observe instances
of the connection of a particular moment in the rite with the
consecration of the elements.
In the Liturgical Prayers of Serapion of Thmuis the recital
of our Lord's words at the institution of the Sacrament appears
as an historical narrative, and is followed by the prayer for the
descent of the Word on the elements, so that they may become
"the body of the Word" and "the blood of the Truth".5
Here then the invocation of the Word is regarded as the crucial
1 See pp. 72-74, supra. 2 See p. 82, supra. 3 xcviii. 9.
4i- 6. 6 Quoted on pp. 63, 70, supra.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 85
moment in the consecration. The connection between the de
scent of the Word and the elements becoming His body in a
sermon by St. Athanasius,1 coupled with this prayer of Serapion,
makes it likely that this was an Egyptian characteristic of the
middle of the fourth century.
In two passages 2 in the Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of
Jerusalem the consecration is connected with the invocation of
the Holy Ghost. A like connection is found in the writings of
St. Chrysostom and of Theophilus of Alexandria. In his
Homily on the Burial-ground and the Cross, preached at
Antioch about 392, when exhorting to reverence, St. Chrysos
tom says : —
"When the priest stands before the Table, holding up his
hands to heaven, and calling on the Holy Ghost to come and touch
the elements, there is great quiet, great silence. When the Spirit
gives His grace, when He descends, when He touches the ele
ments, when you see the Sheep sacrificed and consummated, do you
then cause tumult or turmoil or strife or abuse ? " 3
In St. Jerome's Latin version of the Second Paschal Letter
of Theophilus of Alexandria the work of the Holy Ghost is thus
referred to : —
" He says that the Holy Ghost does not operate in those tilings
which are lifeless, and does not come to what is without reason. In
so contending he does not recognise that in Baptism the mystic
waters are hallowed by the coming of the Holy Ghost ; and that
the bread of the Lord, by which the body of the Saviour is shown
and which we break for our sanctification, and the sacred cup, which
are placed on the Table of the Church and are lifeless, are sancti
fied by the invocation and coming of the Holy Ghost." 4
In one passage in the Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of
Jerusalem 5 the consecration is connected with the invocation of
the Holy Trinity.
In the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions the conse
crating prayer is given as follows : —
" In the night that He was betrayed He took bread in His holy
and blameless hands, and, looking up to Thee, His God and Father,
1 Quoted on p. 70, supra. ' Quoted on p. 71, supra.
3 § 3. But see p. 87, infra, for what appears to be a different view.
4 Among St. Jerome's Epistles, xcviii. 13. 5 Quoted on p. 71, supra.

86 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, This is the mys
tery of the new covenant, take of it, eat, this is My body which is
broken for many for the remission of sins. Likewise also, having
mixed the cup with wine and water, and having consecrated it, He
gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it, this is My blood which is
poured out for many for the remission of sins ; do this for My me
morial ; for as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye pro
claim My death until I come. Mindful therefore of His passion
and death and resurrection from the dead and ascent into heaven
and His future second coming, in which He is to come with glory
and power to judge the living and the dead and to render to each
one according to His works, we offer to Thee, our King and
God, according to His ordinance this bread and this cup, giving
thanks to Thee through Him in that Thou hast counted us
worthy to stand before Thee and to do priestly service to Thee ;
and we beseech Thee propitiously to look on these gifts which are
set before Thee, O God who needest nothing, and to be well
pleased with them for the honour of Thy Christ, and to send down
on this sacrifice Thy Holy Ghost, the Witness of the sufferings of
the Lord Jesus, that He may make (a.iro<prjvrj) this bread the body of
Thy Christ, and this cup the blood of Thy Christ, that those who
partake thereof may be strengthened in piety, may obtain remission
of sins, may be delivered from the devil and his craft, may be filled
with the Holy Ghost, may be made worthy of Thy Christ, and may
obtain eternal life through Thy reconciliation to them, O Lord
Almighty." l
A different way of regarding the consecration is found in St.
Ambrose and Tn the writer of the treatise On the Sacraments.
The crucial moment is here represented as being in the recita
tion of our Lord's words at the institution of the Sacrament.
In St. Ambrose's work On the Mysteries the consecration is
more than once referred to as being effected by these words ; 2
and elsewhere he says that the word of Christ consecrates the
Eucharist.3 In the treatise On the Sacraments the writer refers
several times in general terms to the consecration being the
work of the word of Christ ; 4 and afterwards writes as follows
on this subject : —
" Do you wish to know that the Sacrament is consecrated by the
heavenly words? Receive what the words are. The priest says,
'viii. 12. 2Seep. 80, supra.
3 In Ps. xxxviii. Enar. 25 ; see p. 119, infra. 4 See p. 81, supra.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 87
Make this oblation to us approved, ratified, reasonable, acceptable,
because it is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ. Who on the day before He suffered took bread in His holy
hands, and looked up to heaven to Thee, holy Father, Almighty,
Eternal God, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave that which was
broken to His Apostles and His disciples, saying, ' Take and eat ye
all of this ; for this is My body, which will be broken for many '.
In like manner also after supper on the day before He suffered He
took the cup, and looked up to heaven to Thee, holy Father, Al
mighty, Eternal God, and gave thanks, and blessed, and gave to His
Apostles and His disciples, saying, ' Take and drink ye all of this ;
for this is My blood'. Behold all this. The words of the
Evangelist go as far as ' Take ' both in the case of the body and in
the case of the blood. Thus the words of Christ are, ' Take and
drink ye all of this ; for this is My blood '. And mark the separate
words. ' Who on the day before He suffered took bread in His holy
hands.' Before it is consecrated it is bread ; but when the words
of Christ have been added it is the body of Christ. Again, hear Him
saying, ' Take and eat ye all of it; for this is My body'. Before
the words of Christ the cup is full of wine and water ; when the
words of Christ have operated there is made (efficitur) the blood of
Christ, which redeemed the people." i
And in a Homily preached at Antioch about 395, St.
Chrysostom, who elsewhere refers to the consecration as effected
by the descent of the Holy Ghost, 2 speaks of Christ as the con
secrator and of the words of institution as the means of conse
cration.3 Thus, there is evidence of different customs from different
quarters. In Italy in the fourth century the consecration was
associated with the recitation of our Lord's words at the in
stitution of the Sacrament. In Egypt the invocation of the
Word, and later the invocation of the Holy Ghost, was regarded
as the distinctive act of consecration. In Syria, most of the
evidence connects the consecration with the invocation of the
Holy Ghost, but one passage in St. Cyril of Jerusalem refers it
to the invocation of the Holy Trinity, and one passage in St.
Chrysostom to the words of institution.
The prayer of consecration in the Syrian or Cilician document
1 iv. 21-23. ' See p. 85, supra.
3 Deprod. Jud. i. 6, quoted on p. 104, infra ; cf. ii. 6.

88 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
The Testament of our Lord has important characteristics ; and
part of it may for that reason be cited here. It is to be noticed
that what con-esponds to the invocation is addressed to the Holy
Trinity, and expresses the prayer that the elements may be
beneficial to the communicants without any explicit request for
their transformation into the body and blood of Christ. After
the recital of the words of institution and the commemoration
of our Lord's death and resurrection, the bishop is directed to
say:— " We offer to Thee this thanksgiving, Eternal Trinity, O Lord
Jesus Christ, O Lord the Father before whom all creation and every
nature trembleth fleeing into itself, O Lord the Holy Ghost ; we
have brought this drink and this food of Thy Holiness ; cause that
it be to us not for condemnation, not for reproach, not for destruction,
but for the medicine and support of our spirit. Yea, O God, grant
us that by Thy name every thought of things displeasing to Thee
may flee away. . . . Feed the people in uprightness ; sanctify us
all, O God ; but grant that all who partake and receive of Thy holy
things may be made one with Thee, so that they may be filled with
the Holy Ghost, for the confirmation of the faith in truth." 1
6. There are many examples of teaching that the presence
and gift are of a spiritual character. Instances may be given
from the writings of Eusebius of Cassarea, St. Athanasius, St.
Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, and St. Augus
tine. In his book On the Theology of the Church, Eusebius quotes
from Marcellus of Ancyra an argument based on our Lord's
words, " The flesh profiteth nothing," 2 to the effect that since
the flesh is profitless it is unreasonable to suppose that the Word
permanently preserves His union with it. In refutation of this
argument Eusebius writes: —
" But do you, receiving the Scriptures of the Gospels, perceive the
whole teaching of our Saviour, that He did not speak concerning
the flesh which He had taken but concerning His mystic body and
blood. For when He had sustained the multitudes with the five
loaves, and in this had shown a great wonder to those who beheld
it, very many of the Jews despised what was done and said to Him,
' What then doest thou for a sign, that we may see, and believe ? '
M. 23. 2St. John vi. 63.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 89
and then mentioned the mannai which was in the wilderness, say
ing, ' Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, as it is written,
He gave them bread out of heaven to eat '. To this the Saviour
answered, ' It was not Moses that gave you the bread out of heaven ;
but My Father giveth you the true bread out of heaven'. Then
He adds, ' I am the bread of life,' and again, ' I am the bread
which came down out of heaven,' and again, ' The bread which I
will give is My body (o-SipM,),' x and He adds again, ' Verily, verily,
I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink
His blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth My flesh
and drinketh My blood hath eternal life ; and I will raise him up
at the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true
drink. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in
Me and I in him.' When He had discussed these and such things
more mystically, some of His disciples said, ' The saying is hard ;
who can hear it ? ' The Saviour answered them, saying, ' Doth this
cause you to stumble ? What then if ye should behold the Son of
man ascending where He was before ? The Spirit is the life-giver ;
the flesh profiteth nothing ; the words that I have spoken unto you
are spirit, and are life.' In this way He instructed them to
understand spiritually (irvevpaTLKms) the words which He had
spoken concerning His flesh and His blood ; for, He says, you
must not consider Me to speak of the flesh with which I am clothed
(r)v irepiKeipai), as if you were to eat that, nor suppose that I com
mand you to drink perceptible and corporal (criopaTiKov) blood ; but
know well that ' the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit,
and are life,' so that the words themselves and the discourses them
selves are the flesh and the blood, of which he who always partakes,
as one fed on heavenly bread, will be a partaker of heavenly life.
Therefore, He says, let not this cause you to stumble which I have
spoken concerning the eating of My flesh and concerning the drink
ing of My blood ; nor let the offhand (7rpdxeipos) hearing of what I
have said about flesh and blood disturb you ; for these things ' pro
fit nothing ' if they are understood according to sense (alcrOrjTU)';) ;
but the Spirit is the life-giver to those who are able to understand
spiritually (TrvevpLaTiKus)." 2
In one of the Epistles to Serapion by St. Athanasius there is
an important passage on the spiritual meaning of our Lord's
words. St. Athanasius is discussing " the blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost," 3 and in commenting on the distinction between
'In St. John vi. 51 the word is "flesh" (<rdp£). 'Hi. 11, 12.
3 St. Matt. xii. 32 ; St. Mark iii. 29, 30 ; St. Luke xii. 10.

90 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
speaking against the Son of man and speaking against the
Holy Ghost explains that " the Son of man " denotes our Lord's
human nature, and that " the Holy Spirit " denotes His divine
Person. To illustrate this interpretation he refers to the words,
" What then if ye should see the Son of man ascending where
He was before ? The Spirit is the life-giver " ; 1 and proceeds
to explain the meaning of our Lord's discourse at Capernaum
as being that the flesh manifested in His earthly life is to be
given as food to each Christian, that the gift of it is to be in a
heavenly and spiritual manner, and that the purpose of the gift
is to preserve unto eternal life.
"Here also He has used both terms about Himself, namely
flesh and spirit ; and He distinguished the spirit from what relates
to the flesh in order that they might believe not only in what was
visible in Him but also in what was invisible, and might thereby
learn that what He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how
many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the
food of the whole world ? But for this reason He made mention
of the ascension of the Son of man into heaven, in order that He
might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from
henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly
eating from above and spiritual food given by Him. For, He says,
what I have spoken unto you is spirit and life, as much as to say,
That which is manifested, and is given for the salvation of the
world, is the flesh which I wear. But this and its blood shall be
given to you by Me spiritually as food, so that this may be imparted
(ava8i&oo-6cu) spiritually to each one, and may become to all a pre
servative for resurrection to eternal life." 2
So also in one of his Festal Epistles St. Athanasius empha
sises the need of faith, saying : —
" Let us mortify our members which are on the earth, and be
nourished with living bread — by faith and love to God — knowing
that without faith it is impossible to be partakers of such bread as
this." 3
With this teaching of St. Athanasius it is well to compare
some sentences in the Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jeru
salem which indicate that the gift is of a spiritual kind affecting
the whole nature of the recipients.
1 St. John vi. 62, 63. 2 iv. 19. 3 vii. 7.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 91
"Christ in discussion with the Jews said, 'Except ye eat My
flesh and drink My blood, ye have not life in yourselves '. They
not having understood His words spiritually were offended and
went back, supposing that He was urging them to eat flesh. In
the old covenant also there was the shew-bread ; but this as belong
ing to the old covenant has come to an end. But in the new
covenant there is heavenly bread and a cup of salvation, sanctifying
soul and body. For as the bread corresponds to the body, so also
the Word is appropriate to the soul." 1
'"Give us this day our substantial (eiriovo-iov) bread.' This
common bread is not substantial (iiriovo-ios), but this holy bread is
substantial (emo-vcrios), that is, appointed for the substance (ovo-ia)
of the soul. For this bread does not go into the belly, and is not
cast out into the draught ; but it is imparted (dvaSt'Sorai) to your
whole system (arvo-rao-iv) for the benefit of body and soul." 2
A like thought as to the spiritual character of the presence
and gift occurs in a passage of St. Chrysostom where he is
emphasising to the full the wonder and sanctity of the Sacra
ment. In one of the Homilies on St. Matthew he says : —
" How much purer than the rays of the sun ought to be the
hand which divides this flesh, the mouth that is filled with spiritual
fire, the tongue that is reddened with most awful blood." 3
St. Ambrose also joins to the strong assertions in his book
On the Mysteries that the bread and wine become at the con
secration the body and blood of Christ a reference to the
spiritual character of the Eucharistic food.
" In that Sacrament is Christ, because it is the body of Christ.
Therefore it is not bodily food, but spiritual. Whence also the
Apostle says of the type of it, 'Our fathers ate spiritual food and
drank spiritual drink '.4 For the body of God is a spiritual body ;
the body of Christ is the body of the divine Spirit, because the ,
Spirit is Christ." 5
There are elements in the teaching of St. Augustine which
need notice in the same connection. In one of his Sermons,
while commenting on the discourse at Capernaum, he mentions
the difficulty felt by some of the disciples, and says : —
" What then does He answer ? ' Does this make you stumble ?
What then if ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was
'xxii. 4, 5. *xxiii. 15. 3lxxxii. 5. 4 1 Cor. x. 3, 4. 5 § 58.

92 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
before ? ' What does He mean by ' Does this make you stumble ? '
Do you think that of this body of Mine which ye see I shall make
pieces, and cut up My limbs, and give them to you ? What does
He mean by ' If then ye shall see the Son of man ascending where
He was before ? ' Certainly He who could ascend whole could not
be consumed. Therefore He both gave to us healthful nourishment
from His body and blood and in a few words solved so great a ques
tion about His wholeness. Therefore let those eat who eat, and let
those drink who drink ; let them be hungry and thirsty ; let them
eat life, let them drink life. To eat this is to be nourished ; but so
are you nourished that the source of your nourishment does not
fail. To drink this, what is it but to live ? Eat life, drink life ;
you will have life, and yet the life is whole. Then this will happen,
that is, the body and blood of Christ will be life to each one, if
what is visibly received in the Sacrament is spiritually eaten and
spiritually drunk in very truth." J
There is a longer exposition of the same discourse in St.
Augustine's Treatise on the Gospel of St. JoKn^ where Thtela'eas
of feeding on Christ By faith and the need of spiritual union
with Christ if sacramental communion is to Be profitable cross
and recross the conception of the Eucharist as the body and
Blood of Christ.
" ' Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God,
that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent.' This then is to eat
the food which does not perish but * abideth unto eternal life'.
Why do you prepare teeth and stomach ? Believe and you have
eaten." 2
" The Lord said that He is the bread which cometh down from
heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is
to eat the living bread. He who believes eats ; he is invisibly fed
because he is invisibly reborn." 3
" We to-day receive visible food ; but the Sacrament is one
thing, the virtue of the Sacrament is another. How many there
are who receive from the altar and die, who die through receiving.
Whence the Apostle says, ' He eateth and drinketh judgmlmTunto
himself'.4 For the sop of the Lord was not poison when given to
Judas. And yet he received it, and when he received it the enemy
entered into him ; not because he received what was evil but be
cause being evil he received in an evil way that which was good.
acxxxi. 1. » xxv. 12. 3xxvi. 1. 4 1 Cor. xi. 29.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 93
Take heed then brethren, eat the heavenly bread spiritually, bring
innocence to the altar." 1
"'This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man
may eat thereof and not die.' Yes, but he who eats that which per
tains to the virtue of the Sacrament, not that which pertains to the
visible Sacrament ; who eats within, not without ; who eats in the
heart, not he who presses with the teeth." 2
" ' He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal
life.' He then has it not who does not eat that bread or drink that
blood ; for men can have the life of time without this, but eternal
life they certainly cannot have. He then who does not eat His flesh
and drink His blood has not life in Himself; and he who eats His
flesh and drinks His blood has life. And in each case the word
which He used ' eternal ' applies. It is not so with this food which
we receive for the purpose of sustaining this life of ours in time.
For he who shall not have received it will not live ; butjt doejs not
follow that he who shalljiaye rjceivedJyfcadlLlive, Fqrit can come
to pass that very many who have received it die jfrom old age or
disease or some accident. But in the case of this food and drink,
that is, the bodyand L blood pf „the,Lord,.i.t .is, not so. For- both Jhe
who receives it not has not life, and he_whp receives it has life, and
that too eternal. And so He wishes this food and drink to be under
stood to mean the participation (societatem) of His body and His
members, because the Holy Church is in His saints and faithful ones
who are predestined and called and justified and glorified. Of which
the first has already taken place, that is, the predestination ; the
second and third have taken place and are doing so and will do so,
that is, the calling and justifying ; the fourth now exists in hope
but has yet to be in fact, that is, the glorifying. The Sacrament of
thisthing^that is, of the unity of the body and blp°d of Christ, in
some places daily, in other places on certain selected days, is made
ready on the Table of the Lord, and is received from the Table of
the Lord, by some to life, by others to destruction ; but .the thing
itselfTof which this is the Sacrament, is to every man to life, to none
to destruction, whoever shall have been partaker of it." 3
" He explains how it is that what He speaks of happens, and the
meaning of eating His body and drinking His blood. 'He that
eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in
Him.' This then is to eat that food and to drink that drink, to
abide in Christ, and to have Him abiding in oneself. And jnthjs
wayhe who does not abide in Christ, and in whom Christ does not
'xxvi. 11. ' xxvi. 12. 3 xxvi. 15.

94 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
abide, without doubt neither eats His flesh nor drinks .Hfejripqdjiut
rather to His own judgment eats and drinks the Sacrament of so
great a thing." 1
" What is the meaning of ' The flesh profiteth nothing ' ? It
is true that the flesh profiteth nothing, but only when the flesh is
understood as they understood it ; for they regarded the flesh as it
is cut up in a corpse or sold in the market, not as it is given life by
the Spirit. . . . ' The flesh profiteth nothing,' but that is the flesh
alone ; let the Spirit be added to the flesh, . . . and it profiteth
much. ... As they understood the flesh, not so do I give My flesh
to be eaten." 2
" All this which the Lord spake about His body and His blood,
and His promise of eternal life to us in the grace of the administra
tion of it ; and that He willed the eaters and drinkers of His flesh
and blood to be understood in this way, that they should abide in
Him and He in them ; and that those who did not believe did not
understand ; . and that they were caused J;o stumble^ through inter
preting spiritual things in a carnal sense ; /and that when they were
caused to stumble and were perishing the Lord allowed consolation
to the "disciples who had remained, whom He asked for the purpose
of proving them, ' Would ye also go away ? ' so that the answer that
they would remain might be known to us ; for He knew that they
would remain ; — all this should have the effect on us, dearly beloved,
that we should not eat the flesh of Christ and the blood of Christ
only in the Sacrament, which many also who are evil do ; but jye
should eat and drink with spiritual participation (usque ad spiritus
participaiionem), so that we may abide as limbs in the body of J^ie
Lord, so that we may be given life by His Spirit, and may not^be
caused to stumble, even if many now eat and drink with ,us_Jhe
Sacraments in time, who at the last will enter eternal torments.
For now the body of Christ is mixed as in the threshing floor ; but
the Lord knoweth who are His." 3
7. The quotations which have been made from the writings
of St. Augustine, notably the last, serve to illustrate the close
connection which existed in his thought Between the Eucharist
as the body of Christ and the Church as His mystical body.
Further illustrations of this particular point may be seen in the
three following passages from his Sermons.
1 xxv . 18. This is the passage from which, in the form in which it
was interpolated by some writers in the Middle Ages, a quotation is made
in the Twenty-ninth Article of the Church of England. See p. 200, and
vol. ii. p. 209, infra.
2xxvii. 5. 3xxvii. 11.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 95
"That virtue which is there (in the Eucharist) understood is
unity, that being joined to His body and made His limbs we may
be that which we receive." :
" I promised you, who have been baptised, a sermon in which I
would explain the Sacrament of the Lord's Table, the Sacrament
which now also you see, of which last night you became partakers.
You ought to know what you have received, what you are about to
receive, what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you
see on the altar, having been consecrated by means of the word of
God, is tEe~BS3y of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup con
tains, having been consecrated by means of the word of God, is the
blood of Christ. In this way the Lord willed to impart His
body and His blood, which He shed for us for the remission of
sins. If"you have received well, you are that which you have
received?' 2
" That which you see is bread and the cup, which even your eyes
declare to you ; but as to that in which your faith demands instruc
tion, the bread is the body of Christ, the cup is the blood of Christ.
. . . Such a thought as this may occur in some one's mind. Our
Lord Jesus Christ — we know whence He received flesh, of the
Virgin Mary. As a babe He was suckled, was nourished, grew,
. . . He was slain, . . . He rose again, . . . He ascended into
heaven, . . . there He is now sitting at the right hand of the
Father : how is the bread His body ? How is the cup, or that
which the cup contains, His blood? Brethren, these things are
called Sacraments for this reason, that in them one thing is seen,
another thing is understood. That which is seen .has bodily
appearance ; that which is understood has spiritual fruit.7 If you
wish to understand the body of Christ hear the Apostle speaking
to the faithful, ' Now ye are the body and members of Christ '.s If
you then are the body and members of Christ, your mystery is laid
on the Table of the Lord, your mystery you receive. To that which
you are you answer Amen, and in answering you assent. For you hear
the words, The body of Christ ; and you answer Amen. Be a mem
ber of the body of Christ, that the Amen may be true. Wherefore
then in the bread ? Let us assert nothing of our own here ; let us
listen to the reiterated teaching of the Apostle, who when he
spoke of this Sacrament said, ' We who are many are one bread,
one body ' ; 4 understand and rejoice ; unity, truth, goodness,
love. ' One bread.' What is that one bread ? ' Many are one
body.' Remember that the bread is not made from one grain but
]lvii. 7. 2ccxxvii. 31 Cor. xii. 27. 4lCor. x. 17.

96 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
from many. When ye were exorcised, ye were so to speak ground.
When ye were baptised, ye were so to speak sprinkled. When ye
received the fire of the Holy Ghost, ye were so to speak cooked.
Be what you see, and receive what you are. This the Apostle spake
of the bread. What we are now to understand about the cup,
though it is not spoken, he shows with sufficient clearness. . . .
Brethren, recall whence the wine is made. Many grapes hang
on the cluster, but the juice of the grapes is gathered together in
unity. So also the Lord Christ signified us, wished us to belong to
Him, consecrated on His Table the mystery of our peace and
unity." 1
Thus in the teaching of St. Augustine there are three very
closely connected but not identical ideas as to the reception of
the body of Christ. The consecrated elements are Christ's body
and blood. Those who receive the elements have already been
made the members of Christ by means of Baptism. In the
reception they are His body.
An illustration of a similar line of thought may be taken
from St. Chrysostom. In his exposition of the teaching of St.
Paul that the Eucharistic bread is " a communion of the body
of Christ," St. Chrysostom writes : —
" What is the meaning of ' a communion ' ? We are that body
itself. For what is the bread ? The body of Christ. And what
do they who partake become ? The body of Christ, not many bodies
but one body." 2
So also Theodoret, commenting on the same passage in St.
Paul's Epistle, says : —
" Do not we who receive the holy mysteries communicate of the
Lord Himself, whose body and blood we say we are, since we all
partake of the one bread ? " 3
8. Illustrations have been given of teaching as to the
spiritual character of the Eucharistic presence and the relation
of the body of Christ in the Eucharist to the Church as the
mystical body of Christ. With this teaching it is well to link
a distinction found in the writings of St. Jerome between
different senses of the phrase, the body of Christ. As a prelude
to the consideration of a remarkable passage in which this dis
tinction is clearly stated, other passages referring to the Eu-
1 cclxxii. ' In 1 Cor. Horn. xxiv. 2. 3 On 1 Cor. x. 16, 17.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 97
charist in the writings of St. Jerome may be mentioned. St.
Jerome incidentally describes the reserved Sacrament, when
being carried to the sick, as " the body of the Lord " and His
" blood ",1 He affirms that all communicants " equally " receive
"the body of Christ," although "that which is one becomes
different in proportion to the merits of the recipients ".2 He
draws a contrast between the typical presentation of Melchizedek
and the presentation of Christ " in the reality of His body and
blood," 3 and maintains that " there is as much difference between
the shew-bread and the body of Christ as there is between a
shadow and bodies, between an image and the reality, between
the patterns of future things and those very things which were
prefigured by the patterns ".4 These statements must be viewed
in the light of the passage previously mentioned, where St.
Jerome explains that there is the same kind of difference between
the body of Christ in the days of His earthly life and the
spiritual body which is received in the Eucharist as there is
between the flesh of the saints while on earth and that flesh
wherewith they will behold God in heaven. His words are : —
" Who is He, they say, who is so great and of such a nature as
to be able to redeem the whole world by the ransom which He pays ?
Jesus Christ the Son of God gave His own blood, and delivered
us from slavery, and bestowed freedom on us. And in truth, if
we believe the histories of the heathen, that Codrus and Curtius
and the Decii Mures put an end to pestilences in cities and famines
and wars by their deaths, how much more must it be held possible
in the case of the Son of God that by His blood He cleansed not
one city only but the whole world ? But the blood of Christ and
the flesh of Christ are to be understood in two ways. There is that
spiritual and divine flesh and blood of which He said, ' My flesh is
truly food, and My blood is truly drink,' and ' Except ye shall have
eaten My flesh and drunk My blood, ye shall not have eternal life '.
There is also the flesh which was crucified and the blood which
flowed forth from the wound made by the soldier's lance. Accord
ing to this distinction a difference of blood and flesh is understood
also in the case of His saints, so that there is one flesh which will
1Ep. cxxv. 20. 'Adv. Jovin. ii. 25.
3Comm. in Mat. on xxvi. 26, " Ut . . . ipse quoque in veritate sui
corporis et sanguinis reprassentaret ", On reprasento see pp. 32, 33, supra.
4 Comm. in Tit. on i. 8, 9.
vol. i. 7

98 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
see the salvation of God, and there is another flesh and blood which
cannot possess the kingdom of God." 1
This passage is of great significance as emphasising that the
body and blood of the Eucharist are those of the risen and
ascended Christ, and bringing in all the distinctions between
the nature and possibilities of flesh and blood in the earthly
state of humiliation and those in the heavenly state of glory
on which St. Paul lays stress in the First Epistle to the Corin
thians.2 9. In the period now under review there is but little attempt
to explain the method of the relation of the presence of the
body and blood of Christ to the elements of bread and wine.
The writers who say anything bearing on this subject may be
divided into two groups, — those who push the connection be
tween the Incaraation and the Eucharist in the direction of
emphasising the abiding reality of the elements of bread and
wine, and those who tend towards affirming a change in the
elements themselves.
(a) Before the end of the fifth century four writers lay stress
on the continued existence of the bread and wine in the Eucharist
as parallel to the abiding reality of the manhood of Christ in
His incarnate life.
Nestorius was a native of Germanicia, who became Patriarch
of Constantinople in 428, was deposed in 431 as a consequence
of his failure to clear himself from the heretical denial of the
one Person of our Lord, and died about the middle of the fifth
century. In a recently discovered Syriac version of a work by
him, known as the Bazaar of Heraclides, he maintains that the
bread in the Eucharist remains bread after consecration, as the
body of our Lord remains body in His incarnate life. He sug
gests the answer No to the inquiry : —
" Is the bread the body of Christ by a change of ousia, or are we
His body by a change, or is the body of the Son of God one in
nature with God the Word ? "
and says : —
1 Comm. in Eph. on i. 7. On the effect of the Resurrection, and con
sequently eventually of the Incarnation, on the body of Christ, compare,
.e.g., St. Athanasius, Ep. ad Epictetum, 9; St. Augustine, De civ. Dei,
.xiii. 23 (2).
21 Cor. xv. 35-54.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 99
"How is it that^ when He said over the bread 'This is My
body,' He did not say that the bread was not bread and His body
not body ? But He said ' bread ' and ' body ' as showing what it is
in ousia. But we are aware that the bread is bread in nature and
in ousia. Yet Cyril * wishes to persuade us to believe that the
bread is -His body by faith and not by nature : that what it is not
as to ousia, this it becomes by faith." 2
Theodoret was born at Antioch near the end of the fourth
century, became Bishop of Cyrrhus in the north of Syria about
342, and died about 457. One of his works consists of three
dialogues between a Eutychian heretic and an orthodox divine.
In the course of the second of these dialogues the orthodox
divine maintains against the Eutychian that the body of the
Lord continues really to exist after the resurrection and ascen
sion, although it has become incorruptible, impassible, and
glorious. As part of his contention he introduces the subject
of the Eucharist, and the following discussion is represented
as taking place : —
" Orth. — Tell me now ; the mystic symbols which are offered to
God by those who perform priestly rites, of what are they symbols ?
" Eran. — Of the body and blood of the Lord.
" Orth. — Is it really the body, or is it not really so ?
" Eran. — It is really the body.
" Orth. — Good. For the image must have its archetype. For
painters also imitate nature, and depict the images of the things
that are seen.
" Eran. — True.
" Orth. — If then the divine mysteries are antitypes of that which
is really the body, therefore even now the body of the Lord is a
body, not changed into the nature of Godhead but filled with
divine glory.
1 That is, St. Cyril of Alexandria ; see p. 105, infra.
2 The above quotations are made from the English translation of a
part of the Bazaar of Heraclides in Bethune Baker, Nestorius and his
Teaching, pp. 145, 146. It is hoped that an edition of the Syriac text may
be published by Father Ermoni of Paris. Nestorius elsewhere laid stress
on our Lord having referred to that which is eaten by Christians as His
flesh, not His Godhead : see Loofs, Nestoriana, pp. 227-30, and the quota
tion in St. Cyril of Alexandria, Adv. Nest. iv. 5 (Aubert, t. vi. p. 114).
Mr. Bethune Baker in the above work gives his reasons for his opinion
that Nestorius was not a " Nestorian ".
7*

100 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
"Eran. — Opportunely have you introduced the subject of the
divine mysteries. For from this I will show you the change of the
Lord's body into another nature. Answer then my questions.
" Orth. — I will answer.
" Eran. — Before the priestly invocation what do you call the gift
that is offered ?
" Orth. — It is not right to say clearly ; for perhaps some who
are uninitiated are present.
"Eran. — Let your answer be phrased enigmatically.
" Orth. — Food of such and such grain.
" Eran. — And by what name do we call the other symbol ?
" Orth. — This name too is common, signifying a kind of drink.
" Eran. — But after the consecration what do you call these ?
" Orth. — The body of Christ and the blood of Christ.
" Eran. — And do you believe that you partake of the body of
Christ and of His blood ?
" Orth. — I do so believe.
" Eran. — As then the symbols of the Lord's body and blood are
one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation
are changed and become different, so the body of the Lord after
the ascension was changed into the divine substance.
" Orth.- — You are caught in the net of your own weaving. For
even after the consecration the mystic symbols do not depart from
their own nature. For they remain in their previous substance and
figure and form ; and they are visible and tangible as they were be
fore. But they are regarded as being what they have become, and
they are believed so to be, and they are worshipped as being those
things which they are believed to be." 1
In this discussion it is important to observe the points in
which the disputants agree, and those in which they differ. Both
the Eutychian heretic and the Catholic theologian agree that
after the consecration by the priestly invocation the Eucharistic
elements are the body and blood of Christ ; and that this pres
ence of the body and blood is effected by means of the consecra
tion. They differ in this respect. The Eutychian maintains
that after the ascension the body of Christ is changed info "the
divine nature so as to be no longer a human body, and after The
consecration the elements are changed into the body and bjQod
of Christ so as to be no longer bread and wine, The Catholic
maintains that after the ascension the body of C!Hrist~still
1Dial. ii. (t. iv. pp. 125, 126, Schulze ; P.G. t. lxxxiii. col. 165-68).

a

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 101
remains a human body, although it is now incorruptible and
glorious, and after the consecration the elements still continue
to be bread and wine in substance and figure and form, although
they are also the body and blopd, of Christ.
Similarly, in the first Dialogue the Catholic theologian says
that " Our Saviour changed the names, and placed upon the body
the name of the symbol and upon the symbol the name of the
body. Thus He called Himself a vine and spoke of the symbol as
blood. . . . He wished those who partake of the divine mysteries
not to give heed to the nature of the visible objects, but by means
of the interchange of the names to believe the change that is
wrought by His grace. For He who spoke of his natural body as
corn and bread, and again named Himself a vine, dignified the
visible symbols by the name of the body and the blood, not chang
ing their nature but adding the grace to the nature." 1
In a letter against the Monophysite heresy, which has been
ascribed to St. Chrysostom, but is probably of the latter half of
the fifth century, an argument in regard to the Incarnation is
derived from the continued existence of the bread in the Eucharist
after consecration : —
" As before the bread is consecrated we call it bread, but after 1
the grace of God has consecrated it through the agency of the priest i
it is no longer called bread but counted worthy of the name of the j
body of the Lord, although the nature of bread remains in it, and (
we speak not of two bodies but of one body of the Son, so in this ;
case when the divine nature was united to the body the two natures ;
made one Son, one Person." 2
The same line of thought is found also in GelasiuSjjyhp^was
Pope ~of~Rome from 492 to 496. In his treatise On theJTwo
Natures in Christ a comparison is made between the Incarnation
andPffie Eucharist. Pope Gelasius is there defending against
the Eutychians the doctrine of the abiding reality of the human
nature of Christ affirmed by the Council of Chalcedon ; and he
introduces an argument from the Eucharist in much the same
way as the Catholic theologian in the Dialogue of Theodoret
and the writer of the letter ascribed to St. Chrysostom. The
1 Dial. i. (t. iv. p. 26, Schulze ; P.G. t. Ixxxiii. col. 56).
2 Inter Opp. S. Chrys., Benedictine edition, iii. 744 ; P.G. Iii. 758.

102 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
one Person of Christ, he maintains, is abidingly in the two un
impaired natures of manhood and Godhead. In like manner
there are in the Eucharist both the body and blood of Christ
and the substance and nature of bread and wine.
" The Sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of Christ
is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made par
takers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the
bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and
likeness of the body and blood of Christ is set out in the celebration
of the mysteries. Therefore it is plainly enough shown to us that
we must think this in the case of the Lord Christ Himself which
we confess, celebrate, and receive in the case of the image of Him.
Thus, as the elements pass into, this, that is the divine, substance by
the operation of the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their
own proper nature, so they show that the principal mystery itself,
the efficacy and virtue of which they truly make present (re-
prcesentant) to us, consists in this, that the two natures remain each
in its own proper being so that there is one Christ because He is
whole and real." J
(b) On the other hand there are writers whose tendency is to
minimise any continuance of the elements of bread and wine
after the consecration, and to approximate towards some form
of the doctrine known in later times as the doctrine of Tran-
substantiation. Thei'e are sentences in the Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril
of Jerusalem which, if taken by themselves, might Be held to
imply such a physical change in the elements as requires the
cessation of the existence of the Bread and wine after conse
cration. When they are viewed in relation to the statements
which St. Cyril elsewhere makes that the consecrated elements
are not " simple " or " bare " bread and wine,2 such an explana
tion of them may be thought to be precluded ; but it may still
1 See Thiel, Epistola Romanorum Pontificum Genuine, i. 541, 542.
The passage is also in Bibl. Patrum, v. 476 (1575 a.d.), iv. 565 (1589
a.d.), viii. 703 (1677 a.d.) ; Routh, Script. Eccl. Opusc. ii. 493. That Pope
Gelasius is the author has been disputed : see Bellarmine, De Sacr. Euch.
ii. 27 ; Migne, P.L. lix. 11, 12 (6). But there appear to be good grounds
for ascribing it to him : see Thiel, op. cit. pp. 73-77 ; Batiffol, Etudes
d'histoire et de theologie positive, deuxieme s6rie, pp. 327-29.
2 See p. 71, supra.

A

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 103
fairly be said that their tendency is to make the continued exist
ence of the elements of but little importance. They therefore
to some extent supply a contrast to the line of thought which
underlies the arguments used in the treatises of Theodoret and
Gelasius. "He once at Cana in Galilee changed the water into wine, akin
to blood (oiKeiov alpaTi : another reading is oiKeia> vevpan, by His
own will) ; and is it incredible that He should change (peTaftaXuiv)
wine into blood ? When He was called to a bodily marriage, He
wrought this wonderful miracle; and shall it not much rather be
acknowledged that He bestowed on the sons of the bridechamber
the fruition of His body and blood ? Wherefore with full assurance
let us partake as of the body and blood of Christ ; for in the figure
(tvVu>) of bread is given to thee the body, and in the figure (tuttco)
of wine is given to thee the blood, in order that by partaking of the
body and blood of Christ thou mayest become of one body and of
one blood with Him (crvacru>p.os ko.1 crvva.ip.os airov). For so also do
we become Christbearers (xp<.o-To<p6poi), since His body and blood
are distributed throughout our members. Thus according to the
saying of the blessed Peter,1 we become partakers of the divine
nature." 2
" The seeming (<paivopevo<s) bread is not bread, even though it is
sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and the seeming
(tpaivopevos) wine is not wine, even though the taste will have it soi
but the blood of Christ." 3
"Trust not the judgment to thy bodily palate; no, but to un
faltering faith ; for they who taste are bidden to taste not bread
and wine but the antitype (avrirvTrov) 4 of the body and blood of
Christ." 5
St. Gregory of Nyssa teaches with great definiteness that by
the consecration the elements are transmade (peTairoielcrOai) and
transelemented (p,eTao-Toi,^eiovcr0ai,) into the body and blood
of Christ as in the ordinary processes of life bread and wine are
transmade into body and blood by consumption, digestion, and
assimilation, and as in our Lord's incarnate life the bread which
He ate was transmade into His body.6 In his use of the words
" transmade " and " transelemented " and in his whole argument
he appears to contemplate such a physical change in the ele-
1 2 St. Pet. i. 4. -xxii. 2, 3. 3 xxii. 9.
4 See pp. 64, 66, 67, supra. °xxiii. 20. 6 See pp. 72, 73, supra.

104 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
ments as takes place " when the constituent elements (o~Tot,%eia)
of bread and wine are, in the process of digestion, rearranged
under a new form (etfio?), so that they acquire the properties of
' body ' ".i Thus, the " form," as distinct from the " substance,"
of the bread and wine is changed, so as to be that of the body
and blood of Christ. The idea is parallel to, but different
from, the later Western doctrine of Transubstantiation, accord
ing to which the change is in the " substance " of the elements.
The differences between St. ^Gregory's view and this later doc
trine, real as they are, pertain rather to different methods
of philosophical thought than to essential theological prin
ciple. The nature of the effect of consecration on the elements is
treated with less detail by St. Chrysostom and St. Cyril of
Alexandria than by St. Gregory of Nyssa, and it is not probable
that they had bestowed much thought on the connected
philosophical subjects; but some such general notion as that
maintained by St. Gregory of a new " form " given by consecra
tion to the bread and wine may underlie words which they use.
Thus St. Chrysostom applies to the body of Christ what properly
refers to the outward element when he says that Christ's " flesh "
is " divided " in Communion ; 2 and that Christ, " enduring to
be broken that He may fill all," " suffers " in the Eucharist " that
which He did not suffer on the cross " 3 and writes of the elements
being " re-ordered " and " transformed " by the act of consecra
tion. " Christ now also is present. He who adorned that table is
He who now also adorns this. For it is not man who makes the
gifts that are set forth to become the body and blood of Christ ;
but Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest stands
fulfilling a figure, speaking those words, but the power and grace
are of God. This is My body, he says. This word re-orders
(peTappvOpi^ei) the gifts that are set forth." 4
" He who then did those things at that Supper is He who now
also accomplishes them. We hold the rank of ministers. But it
is He who consecrates and transforms (p.eTa.<TKevd£a>v) them." 5
1 Srawley, The Catechetical Oration of St. Gregory of Nyssa, p. xxxix.
See also Harnack, History of Dogma (English translation), iv. 296.
'In Mat. Horn, lxxxii. 5. 3 In 7 Cor. Horn. xxiv. 2.
4 De prod. Jud. i. 6 ; cf. ii. 6. 6 In Mat. Horn, lxxxii. 5.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 105
St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks of the elements being " trans
ferred ".
" That we may not be stupefied by seeing flesh and blood lying**"
on the holy Tables of the churches, God, condescending to our
infirmities, sends the power of life into the gifts that are set forth
and transfers (peOia-Tiqo-iv) them into the efficacy (evepyeiav) of His
own flesh, that we may have them for lifegiving participation, and
that the body of the Life may be found in us as a lifegiving seed." 1-
If a fragment ascribed to Isidore of Pelusium is really his, he
wrote, in language going somewhat beyond that of St. Chrysostom,
of the body of the Lord being subjected to the teeth and dissolved
in the mouth.2
Some such general idea again of a change of " form " rather
than a change of " substance " may underlie the assertions of
St. Ambrose that the effect of consecration is to " transform,"
and of the writer of the book On the Sacraments that the
elements continue to exist and yet are changed. St. Ambrose
writes : —
" The Sacraments " "by means of the mystery of the holy prayer
are transformed (transfigurantur) into flesh and blood." 3

The writer of On the Sacraments says : —
" If then there is such power in the word of the Lord Jesus
that those things which were not should begin to be, how much
more is it operative that the things which were should still be and
should be changed into something else. The heaven was not ; the
sea was not ; the earth was not ; but hear David saying, ' He spake
and they were made ; He commanded and they were created '.
Therefore, that I may answer thee, it was not the body of Christ
before the consecration ; but after the consecration I say to thee
that it is now the body of Christ." 4
It is not to be supposed that all the writers in either group
viewed the effect of consecration on the elements in exactly the
slSne^'lightrorthat this question had received any very careful
consideration ; but there is little room for doubt that there were
tendencies at work in two different directions among those who
1 In Luc. on xxii. 19, 20.
2 See Ep. xxxiv. ascribed to Michael Glycas ; cf. P. G. xcv. 399.
= Defide, iv. 124. "iv. 15, 16.

106 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
agreed that the consecrated elements were the body andjjlood
of Christ, — the tendency to lay great stress on the cpntinued_ex-
istence of the Bread and wine with all their natural properties
wholly unaltered, and the tendency to minimise the importance
of any such continuance or to affirm an actual change in them.
10. The attitude of reverence towards the Holy Eucharist
and the practice of adoration of our Lord in it are occasionally
referred to in this period.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures instructs
the newly' baptised to receive the Holy Communion with great
care and reverence.
" Make thy left hand a throne for thy right, as for that which is
to receive a king. And hollowing thy palm receive the body of
Christ, saying over it the Amen. Hallow then with care thine
eyes by the touch of the holy body, and partake of it, giving heed
lest thou lose any part of it ; for whatever thou shouldest lose would
be evidently a loss to thee as from one of thine own members. For
tell me, if any one gave thee grains of gold, wouldest thou not hold
them with all care, taking heed lest thou shouldest lose any of them
and suffer loss ? Wilt thou not much more carefully be on thy
guard lest a crumb fall from thee of what is more precious than
gold and precious stones? Then, after thou hast made thy com
munion of the body of Christ, draw near also to the cup of His blood,
not stretching out thy hands, but bending and in an attitude of
reverence and worship saying the Amen, hallow thyself by partak
ing also of the blood of Christ." x
St. Gregory of Nazianzus, writing with apparent reference to
the Sacrament reserved in church, speaks of "Him who is
honoured " upon the altar. His sister Gorgonia, he says, in a
time of great illness —
" Despairing of any other help, betook herself to the Physician
of all, and waiting for the dead of night, at a slight intermission of
the disease fell before the altar with faith, and, calling on Him who
is honoured thereon with a great cry and with every kind of entreaty,
and pleading with Him by all His mighty acts accomplished at any
time, for she knew both those of ancient and those of later times,
at last ventured on an act of pious and splendid boldness ; she
imitated the woman the fountain of whose blood was dried up by the
'xxiii. 21, 22.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 107
hem of Christ's garment.1 What did she do ? Placing her head on
the altar with another great cry and with a wealth of tears, like one
who of old bedewed the feet of Christ,2 and declaring that she
would not let go until she was made well, she then applied to her
whole body this medicine which she had, even such a portion of the
antitypes 3 of the honourable body and blood as she treasured in
her hand, and mingled with this act her tears. O the wonder of
it ! She went away at once perceiving that she was healed, with the
lightness of health in body and soul and mind, having received that
which she hoped for as the reward of hope, and having gained
strength of body through her strength of soul. These things in
deed are great, but they are true." 4
Passages in the Homilies of St. Chrysostom imply that his
hearers were familiar with the practice of adoring the sacra
mental presence of our Lord.
" This body even when lying in the manger the Magi reverenced.
Heathen and foreign men left their country and their home, and
went a long journey, and came and worshipped Him with fear and
much trembling. Let us then, the citizens of heaven, imitate these
foreigners. For they approached with great awe when they saw
Him in the manger and in the cell, and saw Him in no way such as
thou dost see Him now. For thou dost see Him not in a manger
but on an altar, not with a woman holding Him but with a priest
standing before Him, and the Spirit descending upon the offerings
with great bounty. . . . For as in the palaces of kings what is most
splendid of all is not the walls, or the golden roof, but the body of
the king sitting on the throne, so also in heaven there is the body
of the King ; but this thou mayest now behold on earth. For I
show to thee not angels, nor archangels, nor the heaven, nor the
heaven of heavens, but Him who is the Lord of these Him
self." 6
" Not in vain do we at the holy mysteries make mention of the
departed, and draw near on their behalf, beseeching the Lamb who
is lying on the altar, who took away the sin of the world." 6
Theodoret in a passage which has already been quoted re
presents the Catholic theologian in his discussion with the
Eutychian heretic as appealing to what is evidently common
1 St. Matt. ix. 20-22 ; St. Mark v. 25-34 ; St. Luke viii. 43-48.
2 St. Luke vii. 38. 3 See p. 64, supra. 4 Orat. viii. 18.
5 In 1 Cor. Horn. xxiv. 5. 6 Ibid. xii. 4.

108 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
ground when he says that the consecrated Sacrament is " wor
shipped " as being the body and blood of Christ.1
The speech addressed by St. Ambrose to the Emperor
Theodosius, recorded by Theodoret, when he forbad him to re
ceive the Holy Communion or enter the Church at Milan after
the massacre at Thessalonica, expresses a similar sense of the
reverence due to the consecrated Sacrament as that in the Cate
chetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem.
" With what eyes will you look on the temple of our common
Lord ? With what feet will you tread that holy threshold ? How
will you stretch out the hands that are still dripping with the blood
of your unjust slaughter ? How will you receive with such hands
the all-holy body of the Lord ? How will you raise to your mouth
the precious blood when in your rage you have transgressed by
shedding so much blood ? " 2
In his treatise Of the Holy Ghost St. Ambrose refers more
definitely to the adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist. Quot
ing a verse of the ninety-ninth Psalm as it is in the Septuagint
and the Latin versions, " Worship His footstool, for it is holy," 8
he explains the " footstool " to mean the incarnate Lord and the
worship to be such as the Apostles gave to Him " when He rose
again in the glory of the flesh ". This worship of Christ is right
and due because of His Godhead. Earth in general may not
bs worshipped, because it is a creature of God. But, he con
tinues : —
" Let us see whether the prophet does not say that that earth
is to be adored which the Lord Jesus took when He put on flesh.
And so by ' footstool ' is understood earth, but by earth the flesh of
Christ, which to this day we adore in the mysteries, which the
Apostles, as we have said above, adored in the Lord Jesus. For
Christ is not divided but is one ; and when He is adored as the Son
of God it is not denied that He was born of the Virgin." 4
In commenting on the same Psalm St. Augustine, like St.
Ambrose, quotes the verse as " Worship His footstool, for it is
holy ". The " footstool," he says, means earth. There is then
the difficulty how the earth may be worshipped, since God is the
right Object of worship. This difficulty is solved by the Incar-
1 See p. 100, supra. ' Theodoret, H.E. v. 18.
3 Ps. xcix. 5. 4 De Spir. Sdnc. iii. 76-80.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 109
nation, through which it becomes possible for earth to be wor
shipped without impiety. For our Lord, St. Augustine goes on
to say : —
"took earth from earth, because flesh is of earth, and from the
flesh of Mary He received flesh. And because He lived here in the
flesh itself, and gave the flesh itself for us to eat for our salvation,
and because no one eats that flesh without first adoring, a way
has been found in which such a footstool of the Lord may be adored !
and in which we not only do not sin if we adore but should sin if __
we did not adore." l II.
To the doctrine in regard to the presence and gift in the
Holy Eucharist found during the period of the great Councils
must be added the teaching of the same period about the
Eucharistic sacrifice.
1. The general sacrificial phraseology, often incidentally
introduced, which has already been noticed in the period pre
ceding the Council of Nicasa, is continued during this later
period, and illustrations of it may be given from writers of both
East and West.
In the eighteenth canon of the Council of Nicaea deacons
are described as "those who have not authority to offer" in
distinction from presbyters, who are referred to as "those who
offer". Eusebius of Caesarea repeatedly alludes to the Eucharist as
a " sacrifice " or the " memory " or " memorial " of a "sacrifice ".
Jews and Gentiles, he says, who have alike received the benefits
of Christ's atonement —
"are right in celebrating daily the memory of Him and the
memorial of His body and blood; and, being admitted to the
sacrifice and priestly ministration which are better than those of
ancient times, we deem it no longer holy to fall back to the first
and weak elements, which were symbols and images but did not
embrace the truth itself." 2
He describes how our Lord —
"offered to the Father on behalf of the salvation of us all a
wonderful sacrifice and unique victim, and delivered to us a memory
to offer continually to God in the place of a sacrifice." 3
xIn Ps. xcviii. Enar. 9. 'Dem. Evang. I. x. 18. 3 Ibid. 25.

110 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
After referring to the work of Christ as the accomplishment
of that which was foreshadowed in the sacrifices of the Old
Testament, he says : —
" Having then received the memory of this sacrifice to celebrate
upon the Table by means of the symbols of His body and His saving
blood, according to the laws of the new covenant, we are again
taught by the prophet David to say : —
'"Thou hast prepared a table before me in the sight of
mine adversaries :
" ' Thou hast anointed my head with oil ; and Thy cup
cheering me, how good it is.' J
" Plainly then are here signified the mystic chrism and the
solemn sacrifices of the Table of Christ, through which in our happy
sacrificial rites (KaXXtepovvres) we have been taught to offer all life
long bloodless and reasonable and acceptable sacrifices to the
supreme God through His High Priest, who is over all. . . . These
spiritual sacrifices (do-co/id-rous ko.1 voepas 0vcrtas) again the words of
the prophet proclaim, saying in a certain place : —
" ' Sacrifice to God the sacrifice of praise ;
And pay thy vows to the Most High :
And call upon Me in the day of trouble ;
And I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me.' 2
" And again, " ' The lifting up of my hands the evening sacrifice.' 3
"And again, " ' A sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit.' 4
" All these things then, which were divinely foretold of old, are
being celebrated among all the nations at the present time through
the teaching of our Saviour in the Gospels, the truth bearing wit
ness to the prophetic voice by which God rejecting the sacrifices of
the law of Moses proclaims that which is to be among ourselves, say
ing, ' From the rising of the sun even unto its setting My name has
been glorified among the nations ; and in every place incense is
offered unto My name, and a pure sacrifice '.5 We sacrifice then to
the supreme God a sacrifice of praise ; we sacrifice the divine and
solemn and most holy sacrifice ; we sacrifice in a new way according
to the new covenant the pure sacrifice. 'A contrite heart' has
been called ' a sacrifice to God '. ' A contrite and humbled
heart God will not despise.' 6 And moreover we burn the incense
1 Ps. xxiii. 5. aps. 1. 14, 15. 3 Ps. cxli. 2.
4 Ps. Ii. 17. 6 Mai. i. 11. 6 Ps. Ii. 17.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 111
spoken of by the prophet, in every place bringing to Him the
sweet smelling fruit of the excellent theology, offering it by means
of our prayers to Him. This also another prophet teaches in saying,
" ' Let my prayer be as incense before Thee.' l
" We then both sacrifice and burn incense, celebrating the mem
ory of the great sacrifice in the mysteries which He has delivered
to us and bringing to God our thanksgiving for our salvation (ri)v
iirip crwrqpias rjpS>v eixo-pio-riav) by means of pious hymns and pray
ers, and also wholly dedicating ourselves to Him and to His High
Priest, the Word Himself, making our offering (avauceLpevoi) in body
and soul." 2
"Our Saviour Jesus, the Christ of God, after the manner of
Melchizedek still even now accomplishes by means of His ministers
the rites of His priestly work among men. For as that priest of the
Gentiles never seems to have used bodily sacrifices, but only wine
and bread when He blessed Abraham, so our Saviour and Lord Him
self first, and then all the priests who in succession from Him are
throughout all the nations, celebrating the spiritual priestly work in
accordance with the laws of the Church, represent (aivtTTovTat) with
wine and bread the mysteries of His body and saving blood." 3
In one of his Festal Epistles St. Athanasius uses phraseology
of this same general character.
" For no longer were these things done at Jerusalem which is
beneath ; neither was it considered that the feast should be cele
brated there alone ; but wherever God willed it to be. Now He
willed it to be in every place, so that in every place incense and a
sacrifice might be offered to Him." 4
And in a fragment ascribed to St. Athanasius in a sermon by
St. John of Damascus 5 it is said that " the divine and bloodless
sacrifice is a propitiation ".6
The Liturgical Prayers of Serapion contain before the recital
of the institution of the Eucharist the words : —
" O Lord of Hosts, fill also this sacrifice with Thy power and
Thy participation ; for to Thee have we offered this living sacrifice,
this bloodless offering " ;
and between the recital of the institution and the invocation of
the Word,
1 Ps. cxli. 2. 'Dem. Evang. I. x. 28-38. 3Ibid. V. iii. 18, 19.
4 iv. 4. 5 De his qui in fide dormierunt, 19.
6 P.G. xxvi. 1249, xcv. 265.

112 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
" we have offered the bread, and beseech Thee through this sacri
fice. . . . We have offered also the cup." 1
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures speaks of
the Eucharist as " the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless service,"
" that sacrifice of propitiation," " this sacrifice," " the holy and
most awful sacrifice ".2
St. Gregory of Nazianzus in defending his flight to avoid
exercising the office of the priesthood writes : —
" I then knowing these things, and that no one is worthy of the
great God and the sacrifice and the High Priest who has not first
offered Himself to God a living sacrifice and holy, and set forth the
reasonable and acceptable service, and sacrificed to God the sacrifice
of praise and a contrite spirit, which is the only sacrifice which He
who giveth all demands from us, how was I to take courage to offer
to Him the external sacrifice (tyjv e^wOev, sc. Ova-Lav), the antitype of
the great mysteries, or how was I to put on the fashion and name of
a priest before I had consecrated my hands by holy works ? " 3
The writings of St. Chrysostom abound in references to the
" sacrifice," the " memorial of the sacrifice," the " victim," and
to the action of " offering " in the Holy Eucharist.4
In the Apostolic Constitutions the Eucharist is incidentally
referred to as a sacrifice, and is said to be offered ; 5 and the
following passage on the sacrificial character of Christian wor
ship occurs in the second book : —
"You therefore to-day, O bishops, are to your people priests
and Levites, who minister to the holy tabernacle, the Holy Catholic
Church, and stand at the altar of the Lord our God, and offer to Him
the reasonable and bloodless sacrifices through Jesus the great High
Priest. . . . Hear this, you of the laity also, the 'elect Church of
God. For the people were formerly called the people of God and
a holy nation. You, therefore, are the holy and sacred Church of
God, ' enrolled in heaven,' ' a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people
for God's own possession,' 6 'a bride adorned' 7ifor the Lord God, a
great Church, a faithful Church. Hearken now to what was said
*§1. 2xxiii. 8, 9. 3 Orat. ii. 95.
4 See, e.g., De Sac. iii. 4 ; In Ps. cxl. 4 ; In Act. Horn. xxi. 4 ; In Heb.
Horn. xvii. 3.
6 ii. 57, 58 ; viii. 12, 13. 6 Heb. xii. 23 ; 1 St. Peter ii. 9.
7 vvpfprj KeKaWcoirKrpevrj ; cf. fiToipaapevrjv as vvpcprjv KeKocrp-qpivriv tw
av8pl alrfjs in Rev. xxi. 2.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 113
formerly. Offerings and tithes belong to Christ the High Priest and
to His ministers. . . . Those which then were sacrifices are now
prayers and supplications and thanksgivings ; those which then were
first fruits and tithes and offerings and gifts are now oblations, which
are offered by the ministry of the holy bishops to the Lord God
through Jesus Christ, who died for them. For these are your high
priests, and the presbyters are your priests, and your Levites are the
present deacons and your readers and the singers and the doorkeepers
and your deaconesses and the widows and the virgins and your
orphans. But the high priest, who is above all these, is the
bishop." 2
St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Homily on the Mystic Supper
describes the Eucharist as " the priestly work of the awful sacri
fice," and refers to our Lord in connection with it as " the priest
and the sacrifice " " who offers and is offered ".2
There is like terminology in the West. A canon of the
Council of Aries, held in 314 a.d., like the Council of Nicasa
eleven years later in the East,3 incidentally contains the word
" offer " to describe the work of the presbyters which the deacons
might not perform.4 St. Optatus of Milevis uses the words " sacri
fice " and " offer " in regard to the Eucharist.6 St. Ambrose
says that it is part of the work of the Christian ministry to
" offer sacrifice for the people " ; that Christ " is Himself offered
on earth when the body of Christ is offered " ; and that the word
of Christ "consecrates the sacrifice which is offered".6 St.
Augustine refers to the Eucharist as " the sacrifice of our re
demption," "the sacrifice of the Mediator," "the sacrifice of
peace," "the sacrifice of love," "the sacrifice of the body and
blood of the Lord," " the sacrifice of the Church ".7 St. Leo
speaks of " the offering of the sacrifice " as an act of Christian
worship.8 As in the earlier period, this constant use of sacrificial lan
guage in reference to the Eucharist is unaccompanied by any ex
plicit and detailed explanation of the way in which the Eucharist
1 ii. 25.
2T. v. (2), pp. 377, 378, Aubert ; P.G. t. lxxvii. col. 1028, 1029.
3 See p. 109, supra. 4 Canon 16. 5 ii. 12.
6 In Ps. xxxviii. Enar. 26.
7 Conf. ix. 32 ; Enchir. 110 ; In Ps. xxi. Enar. ii. 28 ; In Ps. xxxiii.
Enar. i. 5 ; De civ. Dei, x. 20.
8 Serm. xxvi. 1, xci. 3.
vol. i. 8

114 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
is a sacrifice. Yet there are not wanting lines of thought which
tend towards suggesting some explanation ; and these are har
monious with what has already been noticed in the earlier
period. 2. The memorial in the Eucharist is sometimes connected
with the passion and death of Christ.
St. Athanasius in one of his Festal Letters, while drawing a
contrast between Jewish and Christian rites, says of Christians,
with apparent reference to the Eucharist, that they are —
"no longer slaying a material lamb, but that true Lamb which
was slain, even our Lord Jesus Christ, who was led as a sheep to
the slaughter and was dumb before her shearers ; being purified by
His precious blood." l
In the Liturgical Prayers of Serapion "the likeness of the
death " is said to be made when the sacrifice is offered.2
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his last Catechetical Lecture, after
referring several times to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, and after
speaking of the benefit which accrues through it to the faithful
departed, imagines an objector asking what good commemora
tion in the prayer of the Church can do to a soul which has de
parted from this world, and proceeds to reply to this possible
objection : —
" If a king were to banish men who had given him offence, and
then their relatives were to weave a crown and offer it to him on
behalf of those under punishment, would he not grant to them a re
mission of the penalties ? In the same way we also, when we offer
our supplications to Him on behalf of those who have fallen asleep,
even though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer Christ sacri
ficed on behalf of our sins, propitiating the merciful God for them
as well as for ourselves." 3
St. Gregory of Nazianzus, with apparent reference to a
sacrificial commemoration of the death of Christ, writes of the
" bloodless cutting " with which " the Lord's body and blood "
are "severed" by the "sword" of the priest's voice in the con
secration of the Eucharist.4
St. Chrysostom very closely connects the Eucharistic sacrifice
with the passion and death of our Lord.
1 i- 9- 2 § 1- 3 xxiii. 10. lEp. clxxi. quoted on p. 71, supra.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 115
" Him who was nailed to the Cross we are to see as a Lamb
slaughtered and sacrificed. . . . When thou seest the Sheep sacri
ficed and completely offered. ... He was slain for thee, and thou
neglectest to see Him sacrificed. . . . Think what that is which
has been shed. It is blood, blood, which blotted out the hand
writing of our sins, blood, which cleansed thy soul, which washed
away the stain, which triumphed over the principalities and the
powers. . . . He made a show openly, triumphing on the Cross." 1
"Reverence then, reverence this Table, of which we all have
communion, Christ slain on our behalf, the sacrifice that is laid
upon it." 2
" We offer, making a memorial of His death. . . . Our High
Priest is He who offered the sacrifice which cleanses us. We offer
also now that which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted." 3
In a sermon which has been ascribed to St. Chrysostom, but
which Dr. Loofs and Mr. Bethune Baker concur in regarding as
by Nestorius, there is a reference, similar to that by St. Gregory of
Nazianzus, to the prayer at the consecration as a sword. " Christ,"
it is said, "is crucified in symbol (icaTa tov tvttov), being slain
by the sword of the prayer of the priest." 4
The Apostolic Constitutions represent the Eucharist as a
commemoration of our Lord's passion and death.5
In the West this connection of the Eucharistic sacrifice with
the passion and death of Christ is found in St. Ambrose and
St. Augustine. The saying of St. Ambrose that " Christ " " is
offered as Man, as taking on Himself suffering (recipiens
passionem)," 6 probably refers rather to the taking of a nature
capable of suffering in the Incarnation than to the passion and
death in particular; but the same writer elsewhere explicitly
states that in the Eucharist "we proclaim the death of the
Lord "J St. Augustine, after referring to Communion, says that
our Lord —
"made Himself low that man might eat the bread of angels,
and ' taking the form of a slave, being made in the likeness of men,
and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, being
1 De coem. et cruc. 3. 2 In Rom. Horn. viii. 8. 3 In Heb. Horn. xvii. 3.
4 Inter opera S. Chrys., P.G. lxiv. 489; cf. Loofs, Nestoriana, p. 241 ;
Bethune Baker, Nestorius and his Teaching, p. 112.
6 viii. 12, quoted on p. 86, supra. 6 De off. i. 248.
''DefideAv. 124. 8*

116 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
made obedient even unto death, yea the death of the cross,' * that
now from the cross the flesh and blood of the Lord might be com
mended to us as a new sacrifice." 2
3. The Eucharist is regarded as a presentation, not only of
our Lord's death, but also of His resurrection and ascension and
heavenly life.
St. Gregory of Nazianzus lays strong stress on the heavenly
realities of which earthly rites are the figure, to share in which
the earthly rites are designed to lead ; and on the Eucharistic
memorial of the whole life of the Lord.
" Will they keep us from the altars ? But I know of another
altar, of which those things which now are seen are the types, to
which no axe or hand went up, on which no iron was heard, nor
any work of the craftsmen or men of skill, but all is accomplished
by the mind, and the ascent is by means of contemplation. At this
will I stand, at this will I offer acceptable gifts, sacrifice, and offering,
and burnt offerings, better than those which now are offered, as
the reality is better than the shadow." 3
" We will partake of the passover, still now after the fashion of
a type, yet more plainly than under the ancient law. . . . Let us
make the head, not the earthly Jerusalem but the heavenly City,
not that which is trodden under foot by armies but that which is
glorified by angels. Let us sacrifice not young calves or lambs with
horns and hoofs, of which much is without life and feeling ; but let
us sacrifice to God the sacrifice of praise upon the heavenly altar
with the heavenly dances ; let us hold aside the first veil, let us ap
proach the second and look into the holy of holies. To speak of
what is greater, let us sacrifice ourselves to God, or rather let us
continue sacrificing throughout every day and at every movement.
Let us accept all things for the sake of the Word. By sufferings
let us imitate His suffering. By blood let us honour His blood.
With ready mind let us ascend His cross. . . . Keep the feast of
the resurrection. ... If He descend into Hades, go down with
Him. Learn there also the mysteries of Christ. . . . And if He
ascend into heaven, go up with Him." 4
The teaching of St. Gregory of Nazianzus thus carries on
the ante-Nicene idea of the one sacrifice of Christ which, abid
ingly presented in heaven, gathers into itself earthly worship
1 Phil. ii. 7, 8. 2 In Ps. xxxiii. Enar. i. 6.
3 Orat. xxvi. 16. 'Ibid. xiv. 23-25.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 117
and life, and pre-eminently the Eucharistic oBlation in which
the Church offers to God the whole life of Christ as well as His
death. The same idea is found in St. Chrysostom. After re
ferring to the emphasis laid by the writer of the Epistle to the
HeBrews on the truth of the one sacrifice of Christ, he pro
ceeds : —
" What then ? Do we not offer every day ? Certainly we so
offer, making a memorial of His death. And this is one, and not
many. How is it one, and not many ? Inasmuch as it was once
offered, as that which was carried into the holy of holies. This
[the Jewish sacrifice] is a type of that [the sacrifice of Christ], and
this [the sacrifice in the Church] of that [the sacrifice of Christ].
For we ever offer the same Person, not to-day one sheep and to
morrow another, but ever the same offering. Therefore the sacri
fice is one. By this reasoning then, since the offering is made in
many places, does it follow that there are many Christs ? By no
means. For Christ is everywhere one, complete here and complete
there, one body. As then when offered in many places He is one
body and not many bodies, so also there is one sacrifice. Our
High Priest is He who offered the sacrifice which cleanses us. We
offer also now that which was then offered, which cannot be ex
hausted. This is done for a memorial of that which was then done.
For 'do this,' He said, 'for My memorial'. We do not offer
another sacrifice, as the high priest of old, but we ever offer the
same ; or rather we make the memorial of the sacrifice." 1
With this strong emphasis on the unity of the sacrifice must
be compared passages in which St. Chrysostom is no less emphatic
that the centre of the sacrificial worship of Christians is in
heaven, and that all true Christian life is a sacrificial offering.
" Our High Priest is in heaven, and far better than those among
the Jews, not only in the kind of priesthood but also in the place and
the tabernacle and the covenant and the Person. . . . We have our
victim in heaven, our Priest in heaven, our sacrifice in heaven. Let
us then present such sacrifices as can be offered on that altar, no
longer sheep and oxen, no longer blood and steaming fat. All these
things have been done away, and in their placelthe reasonable service
has been brought in. What is the reasonable service ? The offer
ings made through the soul, through the spirit. ' God,' it is said,
' is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and
1 In Heb. Horn. xvii. 3.

118 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
truth,' 1 things which need no body or instruments or places, such as
gentleness, restraint, mercy, endurance of evil, long-suffering, lowli
ness of mind." 2
"Do not thou, because thou hearest that He sitteth, suppose
that His being called High Priest is idle talk. For the former, His
sitting, pertains to the dignity which He has as God, and the latter
[His being called High Priest] pertains to His love for man and His
care for us. For this reason he elaborates this point, and dwells
upon it ; for he was afraid lest the other truth [that of the Godhead
of Christ as shown in His sitting] should overthrow this [the fact of
His being a High Priest]. Therefore he again brings the discourse
to this subject, since some were inquiring for what reason He died
being a Priest. Now there is no priest without a sacrifice. There
fore He also must have a sacrifice. And in another way : having
said that He is in heaven, he says and shows that He is a Priest
from every consideration, from Melchizedek, from the oath, from
offering sacrifice. . . . What are the heavenly things which he here
speaks of? The spiritual things. For though they are celebrated
on earth, yet they are worthy of heaven. For when our Lord Jesus
lies as a slain victim, when the Spirit is present, when He who sits
on the right hand of the Father is here, when sons are made by the
Washing, when they are fellow-citizens of those in heaven, when we
have a country in heaven and a city and a citizenship, when we are
strangers as to things on earth, how can all this fail to be heavenly ?
What ? Are not our hymns heavenly ? Is it not true that those
very songs which the divine choirs of the angel hosts sing in heaven
are the songs which we who are on earth utter in harmony with
them ? Is not the altar also of heaven ? How ? It has nothing
carnal. All the oblations become spiritual. The sacrifice does not
disperse into ashes or smoke or steaming fat ; but it makes the obla
tions bright and splendid. But how can the rites be other than of
heaven, when those who minister in them still hear who it was that
said, ' Whose ye retain, they are retained ; and whose ye remit, they
are remitted '.3 When these possess even the keys of heaven, how
can all things fail to be of heaven ? " 4
" When thou seest the Lord sacrificed and lying as an oblation,
and the priest standing by the sacrifice and praying, and all things
reddened with that precious blood, dost thou think that thou art
still among men and standing on earth ? Nay, art thou not
straightway translated to heaven, so as to cast every carnal thought
'St. John iv. 24. 'In Heb. Horn. xi. 2, 3.
3 St. John xx. 23. 'In Heb. Horn. xiv. 1, 2.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 119
out of thy soul, and with unimpeded soul and clean mind to behold
the things that are in heaven? " 1
The Apostolic Constitutions add to the mention of our Lord's
passion and death the commemoration of His " resurrection from
the dead and ascent into heaven, and His future second coming ".2
Like the connection of the Eucharistic sacrifice with the
passion and death of Christ, this association with our Lord's
risen and ascended life finds expression in the West in the
writings of St. Ambrose, in the treatise On the Sacraments, and
in the works of St. Augustine. St. Ambrose is fond of contrast
ing the "shadow" (umbra) in the Jewish law, the "image"
or " symbol " (imago) in Christian worship, and the " reality "
(veritas) which is in heaven. With this contrast in mind, he
writes : — ¦
" Now has the shadow of night and of Jewish darkness passed
by, the day of the Church has come. Now we see what is good by
means of symbol, and we hold fast the good which is in the symbol.
We have seen the High Priest coming to us ; we have seen and
heard Him offering His own blood for us : we priests, as we are
able, follow, that we may offer sacrifice for the people, though weak
in our deserts yet honourable in our sacrifice, because, although
Christ is not now seen to offer, yet He Himself is offered on earth
when the body of Christ is offered ; nay, He Himself is shown to
offer among us, since His word consecrates the sacrifice which is
offered. And He Himself indeed stands as an Advocate for us
with the Father ; but now we see Him not ; then shall we see,
when the symbol has passed away and the reality has come. Then
at length, not by a mirror but face to face, will those things which
are perfect be seen." 3
" Here the shadow, here the symbol, there the reality. The
shadow in the law, the symbol in the Gospel, the reality in heaven.
Formerly a lamb was offered and a calf was offered ; now Christ
is offered. But He is offered as Man, as one taking on Himself
suffering (recipiens passionem) ;and He offers Himself as High Priest,
that He may forgive our sins, here in symbol, in reality there where
He pleads with the Father for us as Advocate." 4
In another passage St. Ambrose closely connects the passion
and the offering in heaven : —
1 De Sac. iii. 4. * viii. 12, quoted on p. 86, supra.
3 In Ps. xxxviii. Enar. 25. ' De off. i. 248.

120 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
" A priest must offer something, and in accordance with the Law
enter into the holy places by means of blood. Therefore, since God
had rejected the blood of bulls and goats, it was needful for this
Priest also, as you have read, to make entrance into the supreme
holy of holies in heaven by means of His own blood, that the offering
for our sins might be for ever. Therefore the Priest and the Victim
are one and the same ; and yet the sacrifice is performed in the state
of manhood, for He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and He is a
Priest after the order of Melchizedek." ]
This association with the resurrection and ascension and
heavenly life of our Lord, as well as with His passion, is very
clearly shown in the portion of the canon of the Mass quoted in
the treatise On the Sacraments, which probably represents the
Liturgy used in North Italy about 400. Here there is first the
specific commemoration of the passion and resurrection and
ascension ; this is followed by the prayer for the reception of the
sacrifice on the heavenly altar ; and there is afterwards the
allusion to the gifts of Abel typifying the ungrudging dedication
of what costs most, the sacrifice of Abraham prefiguring the
death on the cross, and the offering of Melchizedek representing
the pleading of Christ as the High Priest in heaven.
" Therefore mindful of His most glorious passion and His resur
rection from the dead and His ascension into heaven, we offer unto
Thee this spotless offering, a reasonable offering, a bloodless offering,
this holy bread and the cup of eternal life ; and we pray and im
plore that Thou mayest receive this offering on Thy altar on high by
the hands of Thy angels, as Thou didst deign to receive the gifts of
Thy righteous servant Abel and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abra
ham and the offering which the high priest Melchizedek offered to
Thee." 2
St. Augustine closely connects the Eucharistic altar on earth
with the altar of our Lord's offering in heaven ; regards our
Lord's heavenly work as the fulfilment of the type in the sacri
fice which the Jewish high priest offered in the holy of holies;
and speaks of the approach to the earthly altar as symbolic both
of the present access of Christians to our Lord in heaven and of
their future entrance therein.
" There is also an altar before the eyes of God, whither the
Priest has entered who first offered Himself for us. There is an
1 Defide, iii. 87- 'De Sacr. iv. 27.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 121
altar in heaven ; and no one touches that altar who does not wash
his hands in innocency. For many who are unworthy touch this
altar on earth ; and God endures that His Sacraments suffer outrage
for a time." 1
" That the forgiveness of God may be obtained, propitiation is
made by a sacrifice. Therefore there is One who is our Priest, who
was sent by the Lord God, who took from us what He should offer
to the Lord, that is the holy firstfruits of flesh from the virgin's
womb. This burnt-offering He offered to God ; He stretched out
His hands on the cross. . . . He hung on the cross, and propitiation
was made for our wickedness. . . . Thou art the Priest, Thou art
the Victim ; Thou art the Offerer, Thou art That which is offered.
He is Himself the Priest who has now entered into the parts with
in the veil, and alone there of those who have worn flesh makes
intercession for us. In the type of which thing in that first people
and in that first temple, one priest entered into the holy of holies,
all the people stood without, and he who alone entered into the
parts within the veil offered sacrifice for the people standing with
out. . . . Propitiation having been made for our sins and iniquities
by that evening sacrifice [that is, the sacrifice on the cross] , we go
unto the Lord, and the veil is taken away. On this account also,
when the Lord was crucified, the veil of the temple was rent." 2
" This altar, which is now set in the Church on earth for cele
brating the symbols of the divine mysteries, exposed to earthly
eyes, many even of the wicked can approach. . . . But that altar
whither the forerunner Jesus has entered on our behalf, whither
the Head of the Church has gone before, while the rest of the
members are to follow, none of those can approach of whom, as I
have already related, the Apostle said, 'those who do such things
shall not possess the kingdom of God '.3 For the Priest alone, yet
clearly there the whole Priest, will stand, that is with the body
added of which He is the Head, which has already ascended into
heaven." 4
4. The Christian's act in offering the sacrifice is represented as
culminating in his Communion as uniting him to our once slain
but now living Lord.
St. Gregory of Nazianzus describes the Eucharist as —
" The bloodless sacrifice, by which we partake of Christ both as
to His sufferings and as to His Godhead." 5
1 In Ps. xxv. Enar. ii. 10. 'In Ps. Ixiv. Enar. 6.
8 Gal. v. 21. 'Serm.cccli.7. B Orat. iv. 52.

122 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
St. Chrysostom uses to "touch" or "partake of" or "re
ceive" the "sacrifice" as phrases denoting the reception of
Communion. "Be mindful, O man, what sacrifice thou art about to touch,
what Table thou art about to approach ; bethink thee that thou,
who art earth and ashes, dost receive the blood and body of Christ.
. . . When we receive the spotless and holy sacrifice, let us kiss
it tenderly, let us embrace it with our eyes, let us kindle our
minds." l
" It is needful to cleanse the conscience and then to touch the
holy sacrifice. For he who is polluted and unclean ought not even
on a festival to partake of that holy and awful flesh, while he who
is clean and has washed off his transgressions by careful penitence
both on a festival and always may rightly partake of the divine
mysteries and is worthy to enjoy the gifts of God." 2
" This [that is, the tongue] is the member by which we receive
the awful sacrifice." 3
" Many partake of this sacrifice once in the whole year, others
twice, others often." 4
St. Ambrose associates the proclamation of the death of the
Lord in the Eucharist with the act of Communion.
" As often as we receive the Sacrament which by means of the
mystery of the holy prayer is transfigured into flesh and blood, we
proclaim the death of the Lord." 5
St. Augustine connects communion with God with his de
finition of sacrifice, and makes the reception of Communion part
of the Christian sacrificial action.
"The fact that by the ancient fathers such sacrifices were
offered in the victims of beasts, which the people of God now reads
of but does not offer, is to be understood in no other way than that
by those things are signified these which are celebrated among us
with this intent that we may be united (inhcereamus) to God, and
that we may promote for our neighbour a like union. A sacrifice
therefore is a visible sacrament, that is a sacred sign, of an invisible
sacrifice. Whence that penitent in the prophet or the prophet him
self seeking to have God propitious to his sins says, ' If Thou hadst
willed sacrifice, I would indeed have given it, Thou wilt not de-
1In diem nat. D.N.J.C. 7. 'De bapt. Chr. 4. 3/M ps, cxi. 4.
' In Heb. Horn. xvii. 4. sDcfid. iv. 124.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 123
light in burnt offerings. A sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit ; a
contrite and humbled heart God will not despise.'1 Let us ob
serve how, where he said that God wills not sacrifice, there he
shows that God wills sacrifice. He then does not will the sacrifice
of a slain beast, but He wills the sacrifice of a contrite heart. . . .
That which is called by all men a sacrifice is a sign of a real sacri
fice. Now mercy is a real sacrifice ; whence is that said which I
quoted just now, 'For with such sacrifices God is well pleased'.2
Whatever things then in the service of the tabernacle or of the
temple in many ways concerning sacrifices are said to have been
commanded by God are understood to signify love to God and one's
neighbour. For ' In these two commandments,' as has been written,
'hangeth the whole Law and the prophets'.3 Therefore every
work which is done in order that we may be united (inhcereamus) in
holy fellowship to God, that is in regard to that end of good where
by we may be truly happy, is a real sacrifice." 4
Elsewhere St. Augustine, after explaining that the one true
sacrifice which Christ offered was foreshadowed in different ways
among heathen and Jews, adds : —
" Wherefore now Christians celebrate the memorial of the same
accomplished sacrifice by the most holy offering and reception of the
body and blood of Christ." 6
5. The last quotation but one from St. Augustine is pervaded
by a favourite thought of this Father, that the true sacrifice is
the dedication of self to God. This idea runs through Christian
theology as a whole. Instances of it in an earlier period have
already been referred to.6 It is emphasised in close connection
with the Eucharist in this period in passages which have been
quoted from the Eastern Fathers St. Gregory of Nazianzus 7 and
St. Chrysostom.8 But it finds its most characteristic expression
in the repeated teaching of St. Augustine that in the Eucharist is
the sacrifice of the Church and of Christians.
" The whole redeemed City itself, that is the congregation and
society of the saints, is offered as a universal sacrifice to God by the
High Priest, who offered even Himself in suffering for us in the
form of a servant, that we might be the body of so great a Head.
For this form of a servant did He offer, in this was He offered ; for
1 Ps. Ii. 16, 17. 2 Heb. xiii. 16. 3 St. Matt. xxii. 40.
' De civ. Dei, x. 5, 6. 5 C. Faust, xx. 18. " See p. 45, supra.
7 See pp. 112, 116, supra. 8 See pp. 122, 123, supra.

124 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
in this is He mediator and priest and sacrifice. And so when the
Apostle exhorted us that we should present our bodies a living
sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God, our reasonable service, and that we
be not conformed to this world but reformed in the newness of our
mind, to prove what is the will of God, that which is good and well-
pleasing and complete, which whole sacrifice we ourselves are. . . .
This is the sacrifice of Christians : ' the many one body in Christ '.
Which also the Church celebrates in the Sacrament of the altar,
familiar to the faithful, where it is shown to her that in this thing
which she offers she herself is offered." 1
After making the distinction that our Lord receives sacrifice
in His Godhead and in His Manhood is Himself the sacrifice, he
says : —
" Thus is He priest, Himself offering, Himself also that which
is offered. Of this thing He willed the sacrifice of the Church to
be the daily Sacrament ; and the Church, since she is the body of
the Head Himself, learns to offer herself through Him." 2
Later in the same treatise is the sentence —
" We ourselves, that is His City, and His most splendid and best
sacrifice, of which we celebrate the mystery in our oblations which
are known to the faithful." 3
In the course of his explanation that the sacrifice is offered
only to God, and not to the martyrs who are commemorated in
the offering of it, he writes : —
" The sacrifice itself is the body of Christ, which is not offered
to them, because they themselves are it." 4
III.
It is convenient to take separately from the evidence hither
to under review the writings of Aphraates and St. Ephraim the
Syrian, a correspondence between Peter Mongus and Acacius
of Constantinople, and a Latin Homily of uncertain date and
authorship. 1. The two Syrian writers, Aphraates and St. Ephraim the
Syrian, are naturally considered in close connection with one
another. Aphraates was a monk and bishop in East Syria in
the first half of the fourth century. St. Ephraim the Syrian was
1 De civ. Dei, x. 6. ' Op. cit. x. 20.
3 Ibid. xix. 23 (5). ' Ibid. xxii. 10.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 125
born later than 306 and died about 373. The greater part of
his life was spent at Nisibis and Edessa.
Aphraates says that the body and blood of Christ are re
ceived in the Eucharist, that Christ at the institution gave His
body for food and His blood for drink, and gave His body
with His hands, that He now gives the bread of life, and gives
us His body, and that there is sacrifice in the Church.1 The
passages which most distinctly connect the presence of the body
and blood of Christ with the elements are the following : —
" There is one door to your house, the house that is the temple
of God ; and it is not seemly for thee, O man, that filth and mire
should come out from the door by which the King enters. For
when a man abstains from all evil deeds and receives the body and
blood of Christ, he ought to guard his mouth, by which the Son of
the King enters." 2
" Our Lord arose from the place where He had kept the pass-
over and had given His body to be eaten and His blood to be
drunk, and went with His disciples to the place where He was
taken. Now one who has eaten his own body and drunk his own
blood is accounted among the dead. And our Lord with His own
hands gave His body to be eaten, and before He was crucified gave
His blood to be drunk." 3
St. Ephraim the Syrian refers to the body of Christ as the
means of nourishing and perfecting Christians. He regarded
the consecrated elements as the means of receiving the body of
Christ and as made to be His body and blood. He believed
that the presence of Christ's body was withdrawn from the ele
ments in the event of an unworthy Communion.
" He spat on His fingers and placed them in the ears of the
deaf man ; and He made clay of the spittle and anointed the eyes
of the blind man. So He taught us that there was defect in the
ears of the deaf man, as there was fault in the eyeballs of the man
who was born blind. Therefore by leaven from the body of Him
who completes was that which was lacking in our frame supplied.
For it was not fitting that our Lord should cut off anything from
His body to supply that which was lacking in other bodies ; but
with what could be taken away from His body He supplied the
1Demonstr. iii. 2, iv. 19, vii. 21, xii. 6, 8, 9, xxi. 9, 10(Graffin's Patro-
logia Syriaca, i. 101, 181, 349, 517, 624, 525, 528, 957, 960).
2 Demonstr. iii. 2, (Pair. Syr. i. 101). 3 Ibid. xii. 6 (Pair. Syr. i. 517).

126 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
deficiency of those who lacked, as mortals eat Him in that which
can be eaten." x
" He dipped the bread and gave it to the thief. ... He dipped
the bread and gave it to him who was secretly dead ; the bread
was that from which the medicine of life had been washed away." 2
"He washed away the medicine of life from the unleavened
bread ; He gave it to Judas as a medicine of death." 3
The foregoing quotations are from works which in the judg
ment of Dr. Burkitt,4 a very severe critic, may be cited with
security as by St. Ephraim ; with them may be compared three
other passages, containing like doctrine and referring also to
the reception of the Holy Ghost in the Eucharist, the first from
a work found in several MSS. the oldest of which is of the
ninth century, the second and third from a work found in a
MS. of the fourteenth century.5
" When the leper was purified, the priest sealed him with oil,
and brought him to the spring. The figure has passed ; the reality
has come. Behold, ye are sealed with oil ; in Baptism ye are com
pleted ; ye are joined to the flock ; with the body are ye nour
ished." 6
"Jesus took in His hands mere bread at first, and blessed it,
and signed it, and consecrated it in the name of the Father and in
the name of the Spirit, and brake it, and distributed it severally
to His disciples in His compassion. He called the bread His
living body, and He filled it with Himself and the Spirit ; and
stretching out His hand gave to them the bread which His right
hand had consecrated, saying, Take, eat ye all of this which My
word has consecrated. This which I have now given to you, regard
not as bread ; 7 eat this bread, and waste not the crumbs of it ; that
which I have called My body is really so. For the least crumb of it
sanctifies many thousands, and is sufficient to give life to all who eat
it. Take, eat in faith, nothing doubting that this is My body, and that
he who eats it in faith eats it in fire and the Spirit. If any one eats
1 Serm. de Dom. nostro, 11 (Lamy's edition, i. 171).
' Hymni Azymorum, xiv. 13, 15 (Lamy, i. 603).
3 Ibid, xviii. 16 (Lamy, i. 623).
4 Cambridge, Texts and Studies, vii. 2, pp. 24, 25.
6 See Lamy, i. 1, 2, 339, 340.
6 Hymni infest. Epiph. iii. 17 (Lamy, i. 37).
7 Compare some of the phraseology of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, quoted
on pp. 102, 103, supra.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 127
it doubting, to him it is mere bread ; but he who eats in faith the
bread which has been consecrated in My name, if he is holy, his
holiness is preserved, if he is a sinner, he is pardoned. But he
who despises it, or slights it, or treats it with contempt, let him
know that he treats the Son with contempt, who called the bread
His body and actually made it so to be. Take of it, eat ye all of
it, and in it eat the Holy Ghost ; for it is really My body." 1
" After the disciples had eaten the new and holy bread, and
perceived and believed by it that they had eaten the body of Christ,
Christ went on to unfold and deliver the whole Sacrament. He
took and mingled the cup of wine ; then He blessed it, and signed
it, and consecrated it, acknowledging it as His blood which was to be
poured out. Then, extending His right hand towards Simon, He
gave to him first the cup, that from it he might partake of that
which had been blessed ; then He gave it to him who was next to
Him. Then they all came near and drank from the cup, that is,
eleven of them. For when Jesus had distributed the bread to the
eleven without any distinction, Judas came near that he might
receive as the rest of the company who had drawn near and had
received, but Jesus dipped the bread in water, and washed away
the blessing from it, and in this way marked out the bread for
Judas. Hence it was known to the Apostles that it was Judas
who was about to betray Him. Jesus dipped the bread, that the
blessing might be annulled from it, and He gave it to Judas. The
bread which Judas ate was not still blessed, and he did not drink
from the cup of life. He was angry because the bread had been
dipped, for he knew that he was not worthy of life, and wrath
prevented him from drinking of the cup of the blood of Jesus ; he
went forth to the crucifiers, and so did not see the consecrated
cup. Satan hastened to separate Iscariot from his companions so
that he might not become a participant with them in the living
and life-giving Sacrament. . . . Jesus made them drink, and
explained to them that the cup which they had drunk was
His blood, This is My real blood, which is poured out for you all ;
take, drink ye all of it, because it is the new covenant in My blood ;
as ye have seen Me, so shall ye do for My memorial. And behold,
when ye are gathered together in My name in the Church in all
quarters of the world, do ye for My memorial this which I have
done, and eat ye My body, and drink ye My blood, the new and
the old covenant. ... I am the Son of the living Father ; in this
sixth period of a thousand years I came down from heaven to give
1Serm. in Hebd. Sane. iv. 4 (Lamy, i. 415, 417).

128 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
the new covenant to My Church and through the memorial of My
body and blood to abolish the destruction which I am bringing on
the wicked who sin against Me as the men of old. Other teaching
of life did our Lord deliver to His disciples in the evening when
He distributed His body and made His blood to be their drink." J
2. A correspondence between Peter Mongus, the Mono-
physite Patriarch of Alexandria from 477 to 490, and Acacius,
the Monophysite Patriarch of Constantinople from 471 to 489,
exists in an Armenian MS. in the library of the Armenian.
Fathers of St. Anthony now at Stamboul, which was at Rome
until 1871. In this correspondence the Eucharist is repeatedly
called a sacrifice and is said to be offered ; a vision is described
of "our Lord Jesus Christ in the form of a youth," "clad in a
white tunic of linen," having " the sign of the nails," " upon the
disk and paten which were laid upon the holy altar " ; and the
consecration is spoken of in the following terms : —
" The Holy Spirit shall hear you and shall come down upon your
sacrifice, and with His own divine power shall sanctify you who
are priests, as well as the heavenly hosts that stand around you,
and who aforetime stood around you, as well as all the priests and
all the congregations who live in consequence of your prayers. For
the Holy Spirit, that is equal in power and authority with the Father
and the Son, rests upon them. The same Holy Spirit by the might
of God shall come down and fill the entire sanctuary ; I mean
the holy altar upon which Christ is being sacrificed by you, the priest,
and is dispensed to them that are called and chosen. The Holy
Spirit Himself will then descend along with you, the chief priest,
and will overshadow and cover the entire sanctuary with His great
power and might, and change and convert the bread into the body
of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. As also the cup in which the
wine is poured out shall be changed and converted by His divine
authority into the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten
Son of God, the blood, I mean, which was poured forth from the
divine side for the forgiveness and remission of sins. For in this
divine blood we have been washed and hallowed and saved, and
His Catholic Apostolic Holy Church He rules even to the ends
of the earth. In this wise shall we who are priests of the Lord
1 Serm. in Hebd. Sane. iv. 6 (Lamy, i. 421-25). The author is in
debted to the Rev. D. C. Simpson, of Wadham College, Tutor of St.
Edmund Hall, for help in connection with Syriac writings.

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 129
Almighty receive with true faith and orthodoxy the spotless and
pure body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1
3: A remarkable Homily of uncertain date and authorship,
which probably belongs to some part of the period under con
sideration in this chapter, is best placed by itself. It is the Homily
on the body and blood of Christ which was traditionally ascribed to
Eusebius, who was Bishop of Emesa in Syria from about 340 to
about 360, which has of late Been thought more probably to be
the work of Faustus, the Bishop of Riez in Provence, who died
about 492. Some special interest beyond that which it has in
itself attaches to it because of the frequency with which parts of
it are quoted by the writers of the mediseval Church and by
some of the reformers. In it the Eucharist is described as an
abiding offering of the sacrifice of Christ; the elements are said
to be converted and changed at the consecration into the sub
stance of the body and blood of Christ ; this conversion is said
to be parallel to the work of God in creation and at Baptism ;
the reception of the body of Christ is spoken of as a spiritual
act in the power of grace ; and Christ is said to be wholly
present in that which each communicant receives. The whole
Homily is of great interest ; the parts of chief doctrinal import
ance are the following : —
"Because He was about to remove from our sight the body
which He had taken, and to raise it to heaven, it was needful that
He should consecrate for us on this day the Sacrament of His body
and blood, so that what was once offered for a ransom might in the
mystery (per mysterium) lawfully be worshipped continually, and so
that, because the redemption for the salvation of men was of daily
and unwearied power (quotidiana et indefessa currebat), there might
be also an abiding offering of the redemption, and that eternal
(perennis) Victim might live in memory and be ever present in
grace. . . . The visible priest by the word of Christ with unseen
power converts the visible creatures into the substance of Christ's
body and blood, saying, ' Take and eat, this is My body,' and
1 The above quotations are made from the translation of the Armenian
document which Mr. F. C. Conybeare published in the American Journal
of Theology for October, 1905, pp. 719-40. The long passage quoted is
on p. 731 ; the other passages referred to are on pp. 728-33, 736, 738,
739. The date of the MS. is 1298 ; Mr. Conybeare gives his reasons for
thinking that the translation of the correspondence into Armenian was
made in 595.
vol. i. 9

130 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
with repeated consecration, 'Take and drink, this is My blood'.
Therefore, as at the nod of the Lord's command the heights of
heaven and the depths of the sea and the expanses of earth sud
denly existed out of nothing, so His might gives equal power to
words in the spiritual Sacraments and accomplishes its effect. How
great and how wonderful are the results of the power of the blessing
of God, and how it ought not to seem new and impossible to you
that earthly and mortal things are changed into the substance
of Christ, ask yourself, who have already been regenerated in
Christ. ... As, therefore, without any bodily perception your
former vileness was laid aside, and you were suddenly clad with new
dignity, and, as it was not shown to eye or sense that God healed
in you what was wounded and removed what was diseased and
cleansed what was stained, so, when you approach the sacred altar
to be fed with heavenly food, behold the holy body and blood of
your God, honour it, wonder at it, grasp it with your mind, receive
it with the hand of your heart, and most of all inwardly drink it.
. . . For recognising and perceiving the sacrifice of the real body
of the Lord, let the power itself of the Consecrator strengthen you ;
and let Him who of old lay hid prefigured in the manna now be
manifested to you in grace. . . . When this bread is taken, each
individual has no less than all together ; one receives the w hole,
two receive the whole, a greater number receive the whole with
out any diminution ; because the blessing of this Sacrament knows
how to be distributed, but knows not how to be destroyed in the
distribution. ... As the grains that are united in the making of
the bread cannot be separated, and as the waters which are mixed
with the wine cannot again return to their own substance, so also
the faithful and wise who know that they have been redeemed by
the blood and passion of Christ ought in such a way to be joined to
their Head as inseparable members by keeping of the faith and
most earnest religious life that they cannot be separated from Him,
by will or by any necessity, or by any ambition of earthly hope, or
even be divided from Him by death itself. Nor should any one
doubt that the excellent creatures at the nod of the power of God
by the presence of the supreme majesty can pass into the nature of
the body of the Lord, when he sees that man himself is made the
body of Christ by the operation of the heavenly mercy of Christ.
And, as whoever comes to the faith of Christ is still in the chain of
his old sin before the words of Baptism, but when these have been
said is freed from all the filth of sin, so when the creatures that are
to be blessed by the heavenly words are placed on the holy altar,

THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT COUNCILS 131
before they are consecrated by the invocation of His name, the sub
stance which is there is bread and wine, but after the words it is the
body and blood of Christ." * IV.
The detailed statement and the classification of the evidence
make it possible to summarise the teaching of the period of the
great councils in regard both to the presence and gift and to the
sacrifice in the Eucharist.
1. The thought which runs through all the phraseology of
the period is that the Sacrament is the body and blood of
Christ. Careful attention to the use of the words " figure " and
" symbol " in the early Church and to the general teaching of
writers who employ these terms in regard to the Eucharist elicits
that such a description of the Eucharistic elements does not
indicate that they are regarded as, in the modern sense, simply
figurative or symbolical of the body and blood. Consideration
of the idea of their heightened efficacy shows that it does not
imply that a change in use and power and effect is alone in
dicated. Those writers who speak of the elements as " symbols,"
or as having heightened power, are seen also to believe that
they are that which they [symbolise and convey. This view of
the elements as the body and blood of Christ is connected in
different parts of the Church with the act of consecration,
whether the crucial moment of this be represented as the recita
tion of the words of Christ, the invocation of God the Word,
the invocation of God the Holy Ghost, or the invocation of the
Holy Trinity. Attempts are made to explain the mystery of the
presence of Christ's body and blood. Emphasis is laid in some
quarters on the spiritual character of the presence. The parallel
to known physical processes is elsewhere insisted on. The bear
ing of the fact that Christians are the body of Christ by Baptism
is pointed out. The difference between the state of the body in
this life and its condition after the resurrection is suggested as
affording an explanation. On one side the parallel of our Lord's
incarnate life is held to support a belief that the presence of His
body and blood in the consecrated Sacrament does not lessen
the reality of the bread and the wine ; on another side the
1 §§ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12. This Homily is printed among the works of
St. Jerome in P.L. xxx. 280-84. 9*

132 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
parallel of the conversion in physical processes tends towards a
view which attaches less importance to or ignores the continued
existence of the elements. The adoration of our Lord in the
Sacrament is referred to by some writers in terms which imply
that it was familiar and habitual in the Church.
2. The dedication of life to God is regarded as the true
sacrifice of Christians. This sacrificial offering of life has one of
its features in sacrificial worship. Thus, in the language speci
ally characteristic of St. Augustine, in the Eucharist the Church
offers itself, and Christians offer themselves. But this is only
one part of the Eucharistic sacrifice. It is the memory of
Christ, the act in which the Church remembers Christ, and in
remembering Him presents the memorial of Him to the Father.
As the memorial of Him, it is the memorial of every aspect of
His human life. Consequently at one moment the stress is laid
on the association with His passion and death, at another
moment on that with His risen and ascended life. Of the
Victim who is offered in His body and blood, that is His man
hood, it is equally true to say that He has died and that He
is now alive, risen, ascended, a High Priest in heaven. And as
to the fathers the idea of sacrifice naturally included communion
with God at least as much as propitiation of God, the culmina
tion of the act of sacrifice is spoken of as being in the reception
of Communion. These ideas are not found in any systematised
or elaborated form. They occur separately rather than corre
lated. For the most part the Eucharist is simply referred to as
a sacrifice as if that way of describing it were a matter of course
which needed no explanation. By combining different statements
this consistent representation of the Eucharistic sacrifice can be
discerned.

CHAPTER IV.
EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY TO THE
PRESENT TIME.
In the time which follows the period of the great councils it
will be convenient to consider the East separately from the
West. Such a division is not a matter simply of order and
system. For the characteristics of Eastern minds and of Eastern
theology differ widely from those of the West. In the East
till the ninth century there is more tendency to speculation, more
power of theological instinct, more capacity for realising abstract
truth. In the West there is a love of the concrete and the
practically useful and efficient, a desire to make sharp distinc
tions and press alternatives, a fuller regard for considerations
of common sense. And the controlling powers are different in
these different parts of the Church. In the East the authority
of the Church as a whole, expressing its voice by means of con-
ciliar decisions which the Christian community accepts and
ratifies, continues to be a dominant force. In the West the
government of the Church passes more and more into the hands
of the Popes, though councils and the collective acceptance of
doctrine continue to exist. In the East the power of the
State over the Church reaches a degree which the position of
the Papacy prevents in the West. In the East from the ninth
century conservatism is stronger ; and enterprise is greater in
the West. Marked differences of character and general history,
of which these are representative, necessarily affect the mainten
ance and development of particular doctrines, and among them
of the Eucharist. And from at any rate the eighth century
onwards the special form taken by the veneration of images in
the East has had an important bearing on some matters con
nected with Eucharistic doctrine. 133

134 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
I.
The Eastern writers of the sixth and seventh centuries yield
but little on the doctrine of the Eucharist. In what may be
found there are the same general ideas as in the earlier periods,
those of the communication of Christ's body and blood and of
the Eucharist as a sacrifice.
The document entitled The Canons of Athanasius Patriarch
of Alexandria has been preserved in a Coptic translation of the
Greek original and in an Arabic version of the Coptic translation.
The Arabic version appears to have been made in the eleventh
century; and the MS. containing the Coptic translation is
assigned to the sixth or seventh century. The Greek original
was compiled probably not later than the sixth century. In
this document the Eucharist is described as an offering, and as
the sacrifice of " the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ " ; 1
the expression " the body is divided " is used of the dividing of
the Sacrament ; 2 and it is said of the Eucharistic elements : —
"Because the Lord standeth upon the altar, so are the altar
vessels spiritual and neither silver nor gold nor stone nor wood ;
even as the bread and wine, before they are raised upon the altar,
are bread and wine, yet, after that they are raised upon the altar,
are no more bread and wine but the life-giving body of God and
blood, so that they that communicate therein die not but live
eternally." 3
Some special interest attaches to two passages in the writ
ings directed against the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies by
Leontius of Byzantium, a monk whose literary activity may be
placed in the first half of the sixth century, whom in recent
times a writer of insight has styled " the best theologian of the
sixth century ".4 Writing in strong condemnation of the view
which he ascribed to Theodore of Mopsuestia that " there was
one person of God the Word and another of Jesus the Christ,"
Leontius uses as an argument the inferences which may be de
duced from the Eucharist, and says : —
1 Arabic canons 32, 34, 39, 107 ; Coptic canon 40 (Riedel and Crum's
edition, pp. 32, 33, 69, 117 ; cf. pp. 73, 74).
z Arabic canon 39 (Riedel and Crum, p. 33).
3 Arabic canon 7 (Riedel and Crum, pp. 14, 15 ; cf. p. 75). Cf. the frag
ments of St. Athanasius quoted on p. 70, supra.
' Gore, Dissertations on Subjects Connected with the Incarnation, p. 276.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 135
" Whose body and blood then do those who are of such a mind
think that they receive ? Is it of Him who gave the benefit, or of
Him who received it ? If it is of God the Word, who gave the
benefit, how can they say this, when they do not acknowledge that
He was made flesh and became man ? If it is of Him who received
the benefit, their hope is vain, since they bring in the worship of a
man." 1
Here then Leontius cairies on the teaching in which St. Cyril of
Alexandria connects the value of the gift in the Eucharist with
the doctrine of the one Person of our Lord, since it is as Chris
tians receive the body and blood of Him who is personally God
that the Eucharist is the means of communion with Him and
reception of His power.2 Elsewhere Leontius, without explicitly
referring to the Eucharist, emphasises strongly the fact that in
God's use of natural means for supernatural purposes that
which is natural is not destroyed but empowered.
"The supernatural leads up and elevates the natural, and em
powers it for more perfect actions, such as it could not accomplish
if it remained within the limits of the natural. The supernatural
therefore does not destroy the natural but educes and stimulates it
both in its capacity for actions of its own and in its receiving power
for those things which are beyond this capacity." 3
Leontius gives instances of the operation of this principle in
the elevation of natural material by art ; and applies it to the
truth of the abiding reality of the human nature of our Lord
when used by Him in the Incarnation. Though not explicitly
referring to the Eucharist, this passage may be mentioned here
as a notable instance of the principle which, at an earlier time,
led Theodoret and Gelasius to insist on the continued existence
of the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist.4
A definite assertion of the application of this principle to
the Eucharist is found in a fragment from the treatise against
Nestorius and Eutyches written by Ephraim the Bishop of
Antioch in the middle of the sixth century, which has been pre
served, like much else in the works of Ephraim, through being
quoted by Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in the ninth
1 Adv. Incorrup. et Nestor. (P.G. lxxxvi. 1385).
2 See pp. 75, 76, supra.
3 C. Nestor, et Eutych. ii. (P. G. lxxxvi. 1333). ' See pp. 99-102, supra.

136 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
century. After speaking of the union of the two unimpaired
natures of Godhead and manhood in the one Person of Christ,
Ephraim continues: —
" So the body of Christ which is received by the faithful does
not depart from its perceptible (alaOr]T^) substance (oiWas) and
remains indivisible from the spiritual (voij-rijs) grace." 1
Here Ephraim so fully identifies the Sacrament with the
presence of Christ that he calls the outward element "the body
of Christ," and at the same time maintains that it preserves its
natural existence in the way in which the manhood of Christ
remains unimpaired in the union of the Incarnation.
On the other hand, the line of thought which tends to make
little of, or lose sight of, the continued existence of the elements
of bread and wine is also found in confusions between the inward
and the outward parts.
The Homilies ascribed to Eusebius Bishop of Alexandria were
probably delivered in the sixth century, though they may be
somewhat earlier. In the sixteenth of these the writer gives in
structions as to the keeping of Sunday. These instructions in
clude directions about attendance at the Liturgy. They are
noteworthy as containing a reference to the practice, alluded to
by Clement of Alexandria in the third century,2 of Christians
remaining in the Church throughout the whole celebration of the
mysteries but abstaining from Communion if their conscience tells
them that there is a hindrance to their communicating worthily.
In the course of the exhortation to be present at the Liturgy it
is said, " Behold thy Lord divided in pieces and distributed and
not spent," 3 where the phrase that in the Eucharist Christ is
" divided " applies to the inward reality that which is true of the
outward part.
A more extreme instance of confusion between the inward
and the outward parts, involving also the opinion that the body
of Christ present in the Eucharist is in the condition of the pre-
resurrection not the risen body, occurs in a treatise of St. Ana-
stasius of Sinai, probably written late in the sixth century. St.

1 Quoted in Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 229 (P.G. ciii.
'Strom. I. i. 5.
3Serm. xvi. 2 (P.G. lxxxvi. 416). See p. 104, supra, for a similar
expression in St. Chrysostom.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 137
Anastasius is there combating the error of the Gaianites, an
offshoot of the Monophysites, who maintained that the body of
Christ was incorruptible from the beginning of its union with
His divine nature in the Incarnation. To refute this error
he introduces in his work a discussion between an orthodox
theologian and an advocate of the position of the Gaianites.
In this discussion reference is made to the Eucharist, and both
disputants agree that the Sacrament is not mere bread or a
figure of the body of Christ but is His real body and blood.
The orthodox divine then proposes an extraordinary test. He
suggests that the consecrated Sacrament from a church of the
Gaianites should be reserved for some days. If at the end of
the time it remains uncorrupted, this will show, he says, that
the Gaianites are right in maintaining the incorruptibility of the
body of Christ from the beginning of His incarnate life. If, on
the other hand, it becomes corrupted, then, unless it be the case
that it is not the real body of Christ or that because of the
perverse belief of the Gaianites the Holy Ghost has not de
scended on it in the consecration, positions which the Gaianites
would themselves repudiate, the corruption shows that the
Gaianite contention is wrong, and that the body of Christ was
subject to corruption before His resurrection.
" The Orthodox. — Is the Communion of the all holy body and
blood of Christ, which you offer and receive, the real body and blood
of Christ, the Son of God, or is it mere bread, such as is sold at home,
and a figure of the body of Christ ? . . .
" The Gaianite. — God forbid that we should say that the holy
Communion is a figure of the body of Christ or mere bread, but we
truly receive the actual body and blood of Christ the Son of God. . . .
" The Orthodox. — So we believe and so we confess according to
the word of Christ Himself. . . . Since then Christ Himself bears
witness that what we Christians offer and receive is truly His body
and blood, bring to us from the Communion of your Church,
which you say is more orthodox than any other Church, and we
will place this holy body and blood of Christ with all honour
splendidly in a vessel ; and, in a few days, if it be not corrupted
or altered or changed, it will be plain that you rightly preach
Christ as having been in every way incorruptible from the very
beginning of the Incarnation. But, if it be corrupted or changed,
we must maintain one of the following alternatives. Either

138 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
that which you receive is not the real body of Christ but a figure
and mere bread, or because of your misbelief the Holy Ghost did
not descend upon it, or the body of Christ is corruptible before the
resurrection as being slain and put to death and wounded and di
vided and eaten. For an incorruptible nature is not cut or wounded
in the side and hands or divided or put to death or eaten or at all
held or handled ; but is of such a kind as the incorruptible nature
of angels and souls." 1
The argument here used by St. Anastasius shows, first, an
agreement between Catholics and Gaianites that the consecrated
elements are the real body and blood of Christ ; secondly, a con
fusion between the inward and outward parts which could spring
more readily out of an opinion that the elements themselves are
changed into the body and blood of Christ than from a belief
that they are His body and blood without departing in any way
from their natural substances ; and, thirdly, a view of the body
and blood of Christ present in the Sacrament which is at the
opposite pole of thought from the aspect of the presence as that
of the spiritual risen body, a notable instance of which in an
earlier period has been seen in the writings of St. Jerome.2
Incidentally the passage also shows the belief of St. Anastasius
that the consecration was effected at the invocation of the Holy
Ghost. A different way of regarding the Eucharist than that found
in Leontius of Byzantium and Ephraim of Antioch or in Eusebius
of Alexandria and Anastasius of Sinai may be seen in the in
tense mysticism of the writer known as Dionysius the Areopagite.
The date of this writer is involved in much uncertainty. His
writings are certainly not earlier than the fifth century, and are
possibly considerably later. It is not unlikely that Bishop
Westcott was right in his suggestion that Dionysius wrote be
tween 480 and 520 either at Edessa or under the influence of
the Edessene school.3 The central thought of the theology of
Dionysius is the conformity of man to God by means of partici
pation in the divine life. This is the object, he says, of all the
1 Hodegos, 23 (P.G. Ixxxix. 297). Note also that in Question 113 (P.G.
lxxxix. 765) St. Anastasius speaks of the reserved Sacrament as "the all
holy body of Christ ".
2 See pp. 97, 98, supra.
3 Essays in the History of Religious Thought in the West, p. 153.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 139
ordinances of religion and of all the ministrations of the Church.1
In the accomplishment of this object the Eucharist is a means of
the assimilation of the lives of those who partake of it to the
life of God. Through it they are mystically united to the human
nature which the eternal Word took in the Incarnation, and
thereby to the divine being.
" Let us with holiness observe for what reason the title which is
common to the other hierarchic rites is applied to this in a special
sense beyond the rest, so that it is uniquely styled Communion and
Assembly, since each mystic action gathers together our divided lives
into one uniform assimilation to God and by the divine union of
those that are separated bestows communion and unity with the
One. But we say that from the thearchic and completing gifts of
this is accomplished the completion of the reception of the other
hierarchic symbols." 2
"The hierarch . . . after he has received and given the the
archic Communion ends with holy thanksgiving, the multitude having
beheld only the divine symbols but he himself being ever hier
archically uplifted by the thearchic Spirit in the purity of his god
like state in blessed and spiritual perceptions to the holy archetypes
of the earthly rites." 3
" The most divine common and peaceful participation in one
and the same bread and cup enjoins on them [that is, the partakers],
as on those brought up in the same family, a godly harmony of
character, and brings them to the holy remembrance of the most
divine Supper, which is the primal type of the rites." i
" O most divine and holy Sacrament, revealing the garments of
riddles with which thou art in symbolic fashion clothed, show us
plainly, and fill our spiritual vision with single and unclouded light." 6
" There seems to me to have taken place among us the accom
plishment of all the divine works' the praise of which is sung, nobly
sustaining our substance and life, and forming with archetypal
beauty that which is godlike in us, and placing us in possession of
a more divine state and uplifting, taking care to recall to our ancient
condition by good things supplied to us the lack of the divine
gifts which we incurred through sloth, and by the complete recep
tion of what is ours to grant the most complete partaking of His
own, and thus to bestow on us communion with God and the things
that are divine." 6
1De eccl. Her. I. iii. 2 Ibid. III. i. 3 Ibid. Ill, ii.
'Ibid. iii. 1. 5 Ibid. 2. 6 Ibid. III. iii. 7.

140 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
"When the venerable symbols, by means of which Christ is
signified and is received, have been placed upon the divine altar,
at once the description of the holy things is here, which manifests
inseparably the bond of their supernatural and holy union with Him. " 1
" That which is one and simple and hidden in Jesus, the the
archic Word, by His Incarnation among us came in His goodness
and kindness without any change to that which is composite and
visible, and nobly wrought out unifying communion between us and
Himself, supremely uniting our lowliness with His divinity in the
identity of His spotless and divine life, if indeed we also are joined
to Him as limbs to a body, and if we do not become unfitted for
those divine and most healthy limbs and separate from them and
without share in their life through being slain by destructive pas
sions. For we must, if we desire communion with Him, look up to
His most divine life in the flesh, and by assimilation to it run up to
the godlike and spotless state of holy sinlessness. For so will He
harmoniously bestow on us communion that leads to likeness. This
is what the hierarch shows by the acts which he sacredly performs,
uncovering the hidden gifts and dividing their unity into many parts,
and by the supreme union of the elements distributed with those
who receive them making the partakers to have communion in them.
For in these he depicts perceptibly our spiritual life as in images,
bringing Jesus Christ under our sight, from that which is hidden in
His divine being kindly taking our form by His complete and un-
confused Incarnation among us, and without any change proceeding
from His natural unity to our divided nature, and through this noble
kindness calling the race of man to participation in Himself and His
own good things, if so be we are united to His most divine life, by
assimilation to it according to our power ; and thus shall we truly
be made in communion with God and the things that are divine." 2
The sermon On Easter and the Holy Eucharist by Eutychius
the Patriarch of Constantinople, who died in 582, is of importance
because in it Eutychius, besides referring to communicants
" receiving the holy body and blood," 3 calls the elements the
" antitypes," maintains that the whole body of Christ is received
in each fragment of the Sacrament, and condemns those who
adopted a practice of honouring the Sacrament before consecra
tion in ways which would be appropriate only after the elements
had been consecrated.
1De eccl. hier. III. iii. 9. 'Ibid. III. iii. 12, 13.
3 § 3 (P.G. lxxxvi. 2396).

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 141
"The Lord . . . after He had supped took the bread and gave
thanks and showed and brake it uniting Himself to the antitype.
In like manner also He mixed the cup of the fruit of the vine and
gave thanks and showed it to God the Father and said, ' Take, eat,'
and 'Take, drink'; 'This is My body,' and 'This is My blood'.
Therefore every one receives the whole holy body and precious
blood of the Lord, if he receive any part of these elements ; for
He is divided among all without any division because of the union.1
As also one seal imparts its impressions and forms to those things
which receive it, and remains one, and is not lessened after being
imparted, and is not changed towards those things which receive
it, even if they be very many in number. Or as again one voice
which is uttered by any one and poured out into the air also remains
whole in him who uttered it, and being in the air comes whole to
the ears of all, no one of those who hear it receiving more or less
than another, but is wholly undivided and complete to all, even
though they be ten thousand or more, although it is a body, for a
voice is nothing else than air which has been struck. Let no one
then suspect that after the mystic rite and the holy resurrection
the incorruptible and immortal and holy and life-giving body of the
Lord, placed in the antitypes by means of the priestly rites, puts
out its own powers less than the aforesaid examples, but let all be
sure that it is wholly found in every part. For all the fulness of
the Godhead of God the Word dwells bodily, that is essentially, in
the body of the Lord itself." 2
" They act with folly who, when the bread of the oblation and
the freshly mixed cup are about to be borne to the holy altar in the
liturgic rite, deliver to the people a hymn to be sung, suited as they
think to what is being done, saying that they are offering the King
of glory or even so calling the gifts which are being brought in and
have not yet been consecrated by the high-priestly invocation and
their splendid hallowing." 3
There is an interesting passage in a treatise by Maximus the
Confessor, who was appointed Abbot of the monastery of
Chrysopolis in the year 639, who was a leading champion of
Catholic truth against the Monothelite heresy. Maximus
following, as he says, Dionysius the Areopagite, explains the
1 I.e., the uniting of our Lord to the elements previously mentioned.
2 §§ 2, 3 (P.G. lxxxvi. 2393, 2396).
3 § 8 (P.G. lxxxvi. 2400, 2401). To support this condemnation Euty
chius quotes two passages ascribed to St. Athanasius, for which see p. 70,
supra.

142 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
meaning of Communion to be the incorporation of the Christian
with Christ, and a foretaste of the future perfect union with Him.
"By means of the holy reception of the stainless and life-giving
mysteries is denoted the communion and identity with Him that is
allowed in participation through likeness (raxa p.ede£w evSexopevrjv Si'
bpoioTtyros), by means of which man is privileged to become God from
being man. For those gifts of the Holy Ghost of which we believe
that we partake here in the present life through the grace that is in
faith, of these we believe that we shall partake in the future world
truly, really, in very deed, . . . passing from the grace that is in
faith to the grace that is of sight (raT eiSos), our God and Saviour
Jesus Christ transmaking us into Himself by the destruction of the
marks of the corruption that is in us, and granting to us the arche
typal mysteries which are indicated by the present perceptible
symbols." 1
In estimating the importance of the teaching thus implied by
Maximus notice must be taken of the mystical character of his
theology in general and of that of his master Dionysius ; and
the affinities with much in the writings of Clement of Alex
andria and Origen2 in an earlier period need close attention.
Considerable interest attaches to a passage in the Sayings
of the Fathers ascribed to Palladius, who was Bishop of Helen-
opolis early in the fifth century, by Anan-Isho a monk of
Northern Mesopotamia in the latter half of the sixth and the
first half of the seventh century as given in a Syriac MS. of the
thirteenth or fourteenth century now at M6sul. In this pas
sage mention is made of an individual instance of the opinion
that the consecrated elements are no more than the symbols of
the body and blood of Christ ; the ordinary repudiation of such
a view is recorded ; and an account is given of a vision of the
presence of the body and blood of Christ.
" Abba Daniel Parnaya, the disciple of Abba Arsenius, used to
tell about a man of Scete, and say that he was a man of great
labours but simple in the faith, and in his ignorance he considered
and declared that the bread which we receive is not in very truth
the body of Christ, but a similitude of His body. And two of the
fathers heard this word which he spake, and because they knew of
his sublime works and labours, they imagined that he had spoken
1 Mystagogia, 24 (P.G. xci. 704, 705).
2 See pp. 25-28, 37, 38, 54, supra.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 143
it in his innocence and simple-mindedness ; and they came to him
and said unto him, ' Father, we have heard a thing from a man
which we do not believe, for he saith that this bread which we re
ceive is not in very truth the body of Christ, but a mere similitude ' .
And he said unto them, ' It is I who have said this thing,' and they
entreated him, saying, ' Thou must not say thus, father, but accord
ing to what the Holy Catholic Church hath handed down to us,
even so do we believe, that is to say, this bread is the body of
Christ in very truth, and is not a mere similitude'. . . . And the
old man said, ' Unless I be convinced by the thing itself, I will not
hearken to this ' ; then the fathers said unto him, ' Let us pray to
God for the whole week on this mystery, and we believe that He will
reveal it unto us,' and the old man agreed to this with great joy,
and each man went to his cell. . . . And God heard the entreaties
of the two fathers, and when the week was ended they came to the
church, and the three of them sat down by themselves on one seat,
and the old man was between the other two; and the eyes of their
understandings were opened, and when the time of the mysteries
had arrived, and the bread was laid upon the Holy Table, there ap
peared to the three of them as it were a child on the Table. And
when the priest stretched out his hand to break the bread, behold
the angel of the Lord came down from heaven with a knife in his
hand, and he slew the child and pressed out his blood into the cup ;
and, when the priest broke off from the bread small members, the
old man drew near that he might partake of the holy offering, and
a piece of living flesh smeared and dripping with blood was given
to him. Now when he saw this he was afraid, and he cried out
with a loud voice, saying, 'I believe, O Lord, that the bread is
Thy body, and that the cup is Thy blood ' ; and straightway the
flesh which was in his hand became bread like unto that of the
mystery, and he took it and gave thanks unto God. And the old
men said unto him, 'God knoweth the nature of men, and that
it is unable to eat living flesh, and for this reason He turneth His
body into bread, and His blood into wine, for those who receive
Him in faith '." 1 II.
In the eighth century the iconoclastic controversy supplied
the absorbing subject of theological ithought among Eastern
Christians. The beginning of the controversy itself may be
1 The Paradise or Garden of the Holy Fathers (edited by Dr. Wallis
Budge), ii. 159, 160.

144 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
reckoned from the edict of the Emperor Leo III., known as
" the Isaurian," which was issued in the year 726. Before the
reign of this Emperor the reverence given to the images of the
saints by means of outward acts of veneration had reached a
high pitch. The edict of 726, the tenth year of his reign, was
directed against any such veneration; and a further edict,
issued in 730, prohibited the use of images for purposes of re
ligion altogether.1 These edicts led to a prolonged struggle.
Leo III. continued to use the power of the State against the
veneration of images until his death in 741. His successor, Con-
stantine Copronymus, carried on the same policy ; and under his
auspices a Council was held at Constantinople in 754, which de
creed that all images should be banished from the churches, and
forbade the making or veneration or possession of any image.
In spite of the resistance of most of the bishops, of the monks
as a body, and of the people in general, Constantine Coprony
mus endeavoured until his death in 775 to put down the use of
images, and met with much apparent success. The policy of
the State remained unaltered during the reign of Leo IV.,
which lasted from 775 to 780. After his death the Empress
Irene assumed the government during the minority of her son
Constantine VI. She was a zealous advocate of the veneration
of images ; and her rule made possible the meeting of the Second
Council of Nicaea in 787, which decreed that honour was to be
paid to images, and was eventually recognised as the Seventh
CEcumenical Council.2 The chief theologian of the East in the
eighth century, St. John of Damascus, took a prominent part in
the iconoclastic controversy, and was one of the most notable
defenders of the rightfulness of the cause which was victorious
at the Second Council of Nicaea. He was born before the end
of the seventh century, and died probably sometime between
the Council of 754 and that of 787.
In the first of his Discourses on the Holy Images St. John of
Damascus ascribes to the opponents of the veneration of images
a line of thought which is Jewish and even Manichsean. This
line of thought, he maintains, is grounded on notions of antagon
ism between what is divine and what is human which are unten-
1 For the view that the first edict ordered the destruction of images,
see Hefele, History of the Councils of the Church, v. 272-301.
2 See the present writer's The Christian Church, pp. 356-62.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 145
able since the redemption of man, and requires a degree of
contempt for material things which is inconsistent with the way
in which they have been used in the works of salvation and grace.
The wood of the cross, the tomb whence our Lord rose, the book
of the Gospels, are all material things ; and each one of them
has had its spiritual office to perform. In the celebration of the
Eucharist the same principle holds good.
" Is not the life-bringing Table, which ministers to us the bread
of life, material ? Are not the gold and the silver, from which
crosses and patens and chalices are made, material ? Above all these,
are hot the body and blood of our Lord material ? " 1
The same argument, in almost identical language, is repeated
in the second of the Discourses on the Holy Images.2 By using
it St. John of Damascus appears to take for granted that the
food which is given and received in the Holy Eucharist is the
actual^human body and blood which our Lord took in the In
carnation. In his comments oh the First Epistle to the Cor
inthians he reproduces the teaching of St. Chrysostom that " that
which is in the chalice is what flowed from the side " of Christ
on the cross, and that communicants are the body of Christ, but
does not reproduce St. Chrysostom's phrase that being " broken "
in the Eucharist Christ " suffers what He did not suffer on the
cross ".3
In his great doctrinal treatise On the Orthodox Faith St.
John of Damascus treats the subject of the Eucharist at greater
length. After recounting the facts of the institution he pro
ceeds : —
" If then the word of God is living and active, and the Lord
hath done all things whatsoever He hath willed ; . . . if the heaven
and the earth, fire and water and air, and all that pertains to them,
were made complete by the word of the Lord, and moreover man,
the most famous of living creatures ; if God the Word Himself by
the exercise of His will became man, and the pure and spotless
blood of the holy ever-virgin supplied to Him flesh without genera
tion by man — cannot He make bread His own body and the wine
and _the„ water blood ? . . . God said ' This is My body,.'.and 'This
is My blood,' and ' Do this for a memorial of Me ' ; and by His
1 i. 16. 2 ii. 14.
3 On 1 Cor. x. 16, 17. For the passages in St. Chrysostom, see pp. 76,
104, supra. vol. i. 10

146 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
almighty command it comes to be until He come. . . . For, as all
things which God did He did by the operation of the Holy Ghost,
so also now the operation of the Holy Ghost performs the things
which are beyond nature, which faith alone can grasp. ' How shall
this be to me,' says the holy Virgin, 'seeing I know not a man?'
The Archangel Gabriel answers, ' The Holy Ghost shall come upon
thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee '. And
now thou askest, How does the bread become the body of Christ,
and the wine and the water the blood of Christ ? I also say ToThee,
The Holy Ghost comes on them and makes them those things
which are beyond reason and thought. Bread and wine are taken ;
for God knows the weakness of man. . . . As in the case of Bap
tism, since it is customary for men to wash with water and anoint
themselves with oil, He has linked with the oil and the water the
grace of the Spirit, and has made it to be the laver of regeneration,
so, since it is customary for men to eat bread and to drink water and
wine, He has linked with them His Godhead, and has made them
His body and blood, in order that by means of wonted and natural
things we may reach those which are supernatural. The body,, that
is the body which was derived from the holy Virgin, is truly united
to Godhead, not that the body which ascended comes down from
heaven, but that the bread and wine itself is transmade (jxeTairoieZxai)
into the body and blood of God. But if you inquire as to the
method, how this comes to be, it is enough for you to hear that it is
by means of the Holy Ghost, as also from the holy Mother of God
by means of the Holy Ghost the Lord took to Himself flesh to be
His own. And we know no more than that the word of God is true
and active and almighty, while the method is inscrutable. iBut
there is no harm in saying this, that, as in the processes of nature
bread through being eaten and wine and water through being drunk
are changed (peTafidXXovTai.) into the body and Wood of him who
eats and drinks them, and do not become a different body from his
former body, so the bread that is offered and the wine and water
are by means of the invocation and descent of the Holy Ghost
supernaturally transmade (/xeraTrotoCi/rat) into the body and the
blood of Christ, and are not two things but one and the same thing.
. . . The bread and the wine are not a figure of the body and blood
of Christ (God forbid) but the body "of the Lord itself that js filled
with Godhead, since the Lord Himself said, ' This is My ' — not figure
of the body but — 'body,' and not figure of the blood but 'blood'. . ..
The bread of the Communion is not mere bread but united to God
head ; and the body united to Godhead is not one nature only, but

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 147
one nature of the body and another of the Godhead that is united
to it, so that both together are not one nature but two. . . . The
flesh of the Lord is life-giving Spirit, because it was conceived of the
life-giving Spirit ; for that which is bom (to yeyewrjpivov) of the
Spirit is spirit. Now this I say, not removing the nature of the
body but wishing to make clear its life-giving and divine character.
If some have called the bread and the wine the antitypes.-of . the
Body ancfthe blood of the Lord, as holy Basil said, they in using this
word spoke of the offering not after the consecration but before the
consecration. It is called participation, for by means of it we par
take of the Godhead of Jesus. It is called and really is Communion,
because through it we have communion with Christ and receive His
flesh and Godhead, and also through it have communion with and
are united with one another ; for since we partake of one bread, we
all become one body of Christ and one blood and members one of
another ; being called sharers in the body of Christ. . . . And they
are called antitypes of the things to come, not as not being really
the body and biood of Christ, but because now by means of them we
partake of the Godhead of Christ, while hereafter we shall partake
of it spiritually (voryi-ois) by means of the vision only." J
This explicit teaching of St. John of Damascus has points
of contact with that found in an earlier period in writers so
different from one another as St. Ambrose, St. Gregory of Nyssa,
and Macarius Magnes. LikeJ3t._ Ambrose St. John of Damas
cus lays stress on the parallels of the exertion of the almighty
power of God in the work of creation and in the birth of our
LordTfrom a virgin.2 Like St. Gregory of Nyssa he uses the
phrase " transmade " of the effect of consecration on the elements
andT compares the ordinary physical process by which bread and
wine which are eaten are changed into the flesh and blood of
him who eats them.3 Like Macarius Magnes, who uses parallels
in the same order of thought from the production of bread and
wine from the earth and the change of the blood of a mother
into milk so as to be her infant child's food, he repudiates the
phraseology which describes the elements after consecration as
the figures of the body and blood of Christ.4 This denial that
the consecrated elements are figures was probabljTdue partly to
an instinctive dislike of language which might be interpreted
1Defid. orth. iv. 13. 2See pp. 79, 80, supra.
3 See pp. 72, 73, supra. 4 See pp. 73, 74, supra.
10*

148 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
so as to be inconsistent with the doctrine that the consecrated
elements" are the body an4 Blood of Christ, and partly to the
stress of the iconoclastic controversy and the. ., fear jthat I1 _})}e
consecrated elements were described as figures thjs might Jead
to a view that they were no more the body and Blood of Christ
than the image of a saint is that saint. In this latter connection
there are important allusions to the phraseology in the Acts of
the councils already mentioned as held at Constantinople in
754 and at Nicaea in 787.
The Acts of the iconoclastic council held at Constantinople
in 754 contain the following statement : — •
" Let them be glad and rejoice and be full of boldness who with
most sincere soul make and desire and reverence the true image
of Christ, and offer it for salvation of soul and body, which the
High Priest and God, having wholly taken from us the mass of
our nature, at the time of His voluntary passion delivered to His
faithful ones as a figure and most clear memorial. For when He
was about voluntarily to give Himself up to His glorious and life-
giving death He took the bread and blessed it, and gave thanks
and brake it, and gave it to them and said, 'Take, eat, for the re
mission of sins; this is My body'. In like manner also He gave
them the cup and said, ' This is My blood, do this for My memorial '.
Thus no other form under heaven was chosen by Him, and hd other
figure can be an image of His Incarnation. See then jhejmage
of His life-giving body made honourably and worthily. For what
did the all-wise God intend by this? Nothing else than plainly
to show and make clear to us men the mystery which was accom
plished in His dispensation. For, as that which He took from us
is only the material of human substance perfect irf aTTrespects but
not formed in the likeness of any individual person lest an addition
of person be made to the Godhead, so also He commanded selected
material, that is the substance of bread, to be offered~asj*His image,
not wrought into the form of man lest idolatry should be introduced.
As therefore the' natural "body of Christ is holy since it is united
to Godhead, so also it is plain that that body which is His by
adoption, that is His image, is holy since it is united to Godhead
by grace through some consecration. For this also, as we have
said, our Master Christ brought about, that, .as. He united tojGod-
head the flesh which He took with its own natural sanctification
from the union itself, so also He was pleased that the bread of the
Eucharist as a true image of His natural flesh being consecrated

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 149
bymeans of the descent of the Holy Ghost should become a divine
body, the priest- mediating by making the offering in the trans
ference of that which is common so as to be holy. Further the
natural flesh of the Lord which was possessed of soul and mind
was anointed with the Holy Ghost so as to be of the Godhead. In
like manner also the God-given image of His flesh, the divine
bread, together with the cup of the life-giving blood from His side,
was filled with the Holy Ghost. This then has been shown to be
the true image of the fleshly dispensation of Christ our God, as was
said before, which He Himself, the true Creator of our nature, has
with His own mouth delivered to us." x
This statement of the iconoclastic Council of Constantinople
of 754 was read at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 ; and a
document subsequently read by Epiphanius the deacon, though
without the authority of the formal decree, evidently expressed
the mind of the latter council upon it. It is there said : —
" None of the trumpets of the Spirit, the holy Apostles, none of
our glorious fathers, ever called our bloodless sacrifice, which is for a
memorial of the passion of our God and of His whole dispensation,
the image of His body. For they did not thus receive from the
Lord to speak or acknowledge. . . . Never did the Lord or the
Apostles or the fathers call the bloodless sacrifice which is offered by
the~pfiesTan image but^the body itself and the blood itself. It has
indeed seemed good to some of the holy fathers that they should be
caUe(l_antityj)es before the completion of the consecration. . . .
Before the consecration they were called antitypes but after the
consecration they are called, and are, and are believed to be properly
the body and blood of Christ. But these fine fellows in their desire
to do away with regard for the venerable images have brought
in another image, which is not an image but body and blood.
. . . They have explained that this divine oblation is made by adop
tion. As to say this is sheer madness, so also to call the body and
blood of the Lord an image is equally insane and is as impious
as it is ignorant. Then leaving their falsehood they lay hold of a
little bit of the truth, saying that it becomes a divine body. Yet if
it is an image of the body it is not possible for it to be the divine
body itself. . . . They are like madmen who imagine things to be
different from what they really are, saying at one time that our
hallowed sacrifice is an image of the holy body of Christ, at another
time that it is His body by adoption." 2
1 Hardouin, Concilia, iv. 368, 369. 2 Ibid. 369-72.

150 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
It is instructive to compare the statements of these two
councils. The aim of the iconoclastic council of 754 was to
exclude the veneration and even the use of images by saying that
the Eucharist is the image and the only image of Christ, though
at the same time allowing that the elements Become the Body
and Blood of Christ by consecration through the descent of the
Holy Ghost. The aim of the Seventh CEcumenical Council was
to protect and secure the use and veneration of images by saying
that the consecrated elements are not an image but the actual
body and blood of Christ, and that such a term as antitype can
be applied to them rightly only before consecration. The de
cision embodied in the formal decree on the subject of images
was eventually received in the whole Church. The statement
about the Eucharist, which, as has been pointed out, does not
possess the authority of the formal decree, is apparently histori
cally in error in saying that the fathers had used the word anti
type only of the unconsecrated elements. The truth rather is
that by a different terminology some fathers had called the
Eucharist the image or symbol or figure of the body and blood
of Christ, while at the same time regarding it as actually His
body and blood.1 The distinction made by St. John of Damas
cus and the bishops of the Seventh CEcumenical Council that the
elements are the image of Christ's body and Blood Before conse
cration and His actual Body and Blood after consecration hacTan
important effect on the religious practice of the Eastern Churches
in promoting the prevalence of the veneration of the Sacrament
as an image of Christ before consecration.
Like doctrine to that in the proceedings of the Seventh
CEcumenical Council is contained in the writings of Nicephorus,
who became Patriarch of Constantinople in 806, was deposed in
815 through the dominance of the iconoclasts which followed
the accession of the Emperor Leo V., known as "the Armenian,"
in 813, and died in exile in 825. His body was translated to
Constantinople as the relics of one who had suffered for the truth
on the accession in 842 of the youthful Emperor Michael III.,
known as " the Drunkard," whose mother Theodora favoured the
veneration of images. According to the teaching of Nicephorus
" by means of the ministry of the priest " the Eucharist " becomes
properly and really the body of Christ," " that body whichJHe
^ee pp. 29-31, 36, 37, 61-67, 71-73, supra.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 151
took^from the holy Virgin "; it is " neither image nor figure of
that body, butjhe actual body of Christ " ; as God the Word was
conceived by the Virgin, and as bread and wine and water which
are eaten and drunk are naturally changed into the body and
blood of him who eats and drinks them, so the Eucharistic
elements " at the invocation by the priest and the descent of the
Holy_Ghost are supernaturally changed into the body and blood
of Christ " ; and they are " called antitypes not after the conse
cration But only Before it "?
The Byzantine rite current in the eighth and ninth and
tenth centuries, as shown in the texts of the Liturgies of St.
Basil a.nd St. Chrysostom given in the manuscripts of that date,
denotes the belief that in answer to the prayer for the descent of
the Holy Ghost the elements are made by God to be the body
and blood of Christ.
In the Liturgy of St. Basil are the words : —
" We draw nigh to Thy holy altar and offering the antitypes of
the holy body and blood of Thy Christ we pray and entreat Thee,
Most Holy One, that by the pleasure of Thy goodness Thy all-holy
Spirit may come on us and on these gifts which are presented to
Thee and bless and sanctify them and manifest this bread as the
precious body itself of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Amen. And this cup as the precious blood itself of our Lord and
God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen. Which was poured out for
the life of the world. Amen." 2
The corresponding passage in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom
is as follows : —
" We offer to Thee this reasonable and bloodless service and
entreat and pray and supplicate, Send down Thy Holy Spirit on us
and on these gifts which are presented to Thee and make this bread
the precious body of Thy Christ changing it by Thy Holy Spirit.
Amen. And that which is in this cup the precious blood of Thy
Christ changing it by Thy Holy Spirit. Amen." 3
1Antirrh. ii. 2, 3 (P.G. c. 333, 336). Cf. Apol. pro sacr. imag. 27, 69
(P.G. c. 605, 768).
2 Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, i. 329, 330. From the
MS. Grottaferrata r/3 vii. ascribed by Mr. Brightman (op. cit. i. Ixxxix.) to
the ninth or tenth century.
3 Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, i. 329, 330. From the
Barberina MS. ascribed by Mr. Brightman (op. cit. i. Ixxxix.) to the years
between 788 and 797.

152 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
In the Liturgy of the presanctified as used since at any rate
the latter part of the eighth century, at the Great Entrance,
when the elements consecrated at a previous celebration are
brought in from the sacristy to the altar, these words are said : —
" Now the powers of heaven with us invisibly do service ; for,
behold, the King of glory enters ; behold, the mystic accomplished
sacrifice is escorted ; let us draw near with faith and fear, that we
may become partakers of life eternal." J
A short treatise entitled On the Stainless Body of which We
are Partakers, which has found a place among the works of St.
John of Damascus but is probably of later date than his time,
may be noticed here. Most of the teaching contained in it is of
the same character as that of St. John of Damascus and lays
stress, as he does, on the parallel between the Holy Ghost de
scending on the holy Mother of our Lord and causing her, though
a virgin, to conceive her divine Son and the descent of the Holy
Ghost in the Eucharist whereby the bread and wine are super-
naturally made to be the body and blood of Christ. But there
is one remarkable passage in which the contrast between the pre-
resurrection and the risen body of Christ is pushed to the extent
of saying that the risen body had no blood, and it appears to
be implied that the body of Christ which is given and received
in the Eucharist is in the condition of the preresurrection not
the risen body. After speaking of the institution of the Sacra
ment, the writer goes on : —
" For what reason did He so act not after the resurrection but
before the resurrection ? Because the body that ,is incorruptible by
means of the resurrection is not broken nor eaten nor drunk ;
neither does the incorruptible body possess blood, as also it would
not in the proper sense be called flesh. . . . This body and blood
of our God of which we partake is corruptible, being broken and
poured out, eaten and drunk." 2 III.
The references to the Eucharist as a sacrifice continue to be
of much the same character during the period from the sixth to
1 Brightman, op. cit. i. 348. The same words are still used, except
that " longing " (rroBa) has been substituted for " fear " (<£o/3<»).
5 § 2 ', cf- § 5- On the authorship of this treatise see Le Quien's Intro
duction reprinted in P. G. xcv. 397-402 ; and cf. Smith and Wace's Diction
ary of Christian Biography, iii. 417.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 153
the tenth century as at an earlier time. It is unquestioned that
the Eucharist is a sacrifice. There is little explanation of the
way in which it is so. Occasionally the sacrifice is connected
with the passion of our Lord or with His whole incarnate life
or with His work in heaven. Its earthly culmination is in Com
munion. Eutychius the Patriarch of Constantinople in his Sermon on
Easter and the Holy Eucharist says that our Lord " mystically
sacrificed Himself" in the Upper Room at the Institution of
the Sacrament,1 and that on " rising from the dead, He offered
Himself to God the Father for the salvation of the whole human
race ".2
In his Answers to questions submitted to him St. Anastasius
of Sinai states that it is right for the Eucharistic offering to be
made on behalf of the departed, though he limits the sins for
which forgiveness may thus be obtained for the dead to lesser
offences.3 In his discourse On the Holy Communion he refers to
the Eucharist as " the bloodless sacrifice," 4 and in one place
speaks at some length of its connection with our Lord's heavenly
life. " Since the priest is the mediator between God and men and
makes propitiation to God for the remission of the sins of the people,
observe how he warns and exhorts all, saying to the congregation
in some such words as these, Since ye have set me as a mediator
with God on your behalf at this mystic Table, I beseech you, be ye
also zealous together with me : depart from all worldly thoughts ;
leave every bodily care ; for it is the time for earnest prayer and
not for vain idleness. Hearken how the deacon addresses you, ' Let
us stand rightly,' ' let us stand with fear '. Let us draw near to the
holy oblation, let us bow our necks, let us bind our thought, let us
bind our tongue, let us fill our mind, let us go up to heaven. Let
us lift up our mind and our hearts, let us raise the eye of our soul
up to God, let us pass through the heaven, let us pass through the
angels, let us pass through the cherubim, let us run even to the
very throne of the Lord, let us lay hold of the undefiled feet of
Christ themselves, let us implore, let us put constraint on the ten
derness of His mercy, let us make confession at the holy and super-
1 §§ 2, 5 (P.G. lxxxvi. 2393, 2397). 2 § 4 (P.G. lxxxvi. 2396).
3 Quast.xxii. (P.G. Ixxxix. 536), extra ord. (P.G. Ixxxix. 753), ex. (P.G.
Ixxxix. 764).
'De sac. syn. (P.G. Ixxxix. 837, 841).

154 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
celestial and spiritual altar. Thus the priest exhorts us saying,
'Let us lift up our hearts'. And what is our answer? It is, 'We
lift them up unto the Lord '. . . . Take heed, I beseech you, lest
you lift not up your heart to the Lord but drag it down to the
devil. What are you doing, O man ? The priest offer? the blood
less sacrifice on your behalf to the Lord, and are you despising it ?
The priest is in conflict on your behalf. Standing at the altar as
at a dread tribunal he beseeches and earnestly strives that the
grace of the Holy Ghost may descend from heaven upon you, and
are you careless about your own salvation ? " J
The treatment of the Eucharistic sacrifice by St. John of
Damascus is much briefer than his statement about the effects
of consecration. It is worth notice that in his account of the
institution he quotes our Lord's words in the form in which they
are given in the Liturgy of St. James 2 containing a reference to
the resurrection of our Lord as proclaimed in the Eucharist, " As
often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the
death of the Son of Man and confess His resurrection until He
come ". In distinct allusion to the sacrifice he only says : —
"With bread and wine did Melchizedek, the priest of God
Most High, receive Abraham as he was returning from the rout of
the aliens. That table prefigured this mystic Table, as that priest
was the figure and image of Christ the real High Priest. For, says
Scripture, ' Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek '.
Of this bread the shewbread was an image. This is the pure even
the bloodless sacrifice which the Lord said through the prophet
should be offered to Him from the rising to the setting of the sun." 3
At the Second Council of Nicaea Epiphanius the deacon
spoke of the Eucharist as " the bloodless sacrifice that is offered
by means of the priest " and " our bloodless sacrifice, the me
morial of the passion of our God and of His whole dispensation ".*
Nicephorus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, refers to the
Eucharist as a sacrifice of the body of Christ, in which Christ
" our great High Priest is in His manhood victim and lamb and
sacrifice " ; and says that in it Christians " proclaim the death
of the Lord, and confess His resurrection ".6
1 De sac. syn. (P. G. Ixxxix. 836, 837).
2 See Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, i. 52.
3Defid. orth. iv. 13. 4Hardouin, Concilia, iv. 369.
*Antirrh. ii. 3, 19 (P.G. c. 336, 372, 373). Cf. Apol. pro sacr. imag.
27 (P.G. c. 605).

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 155
In the Byzantine rite of the eighth and ninth and tenth
centuries, as shown in the texts previously referred to, mention is
made of the reception of the earthly sacrifice at the heavenly
altar ; our Lord's passion and resurrection and presence in heaven
are spoken of in close connection with the oblation; and the
commemoration of His death and resurrection is associated with
Communion. The Prayer of the Prothesis in the Liturgy of St. Basil
contains the words : —
"O God, our God, who didst send forth the heavenly Bread,
the nourishment of the whole world, our Lord and God Jesus
Christ, as Saviour and Redeemer and Benefactor, blessing and sanc
tifying us, do Thou Thyself bless this oblation, and receive it at Thy
heavenly altar." x
Between the recital of the words of institution and the
invocation of the Holy Ghost the Liturgy of St. Basil has the
following : —
" We also mindful of His saving sufferings, His life-giving cross,
the burial for three days, the resurrection from the dead, the
ascension into heaven, the sitting on the right hand of Thee our
God and Father, and His glorious and terrible second coming." 2
In the same place the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom has much
the same words : —
" Mindful of this saving command and of all the things which
have been done on our behalf, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection
on the third day, the ascent into heaven, the sitting on the right
hand, the second and glorious coming again." 3
At the end of the celebration the Liturgy of St. Basil has
the following prayer : — ¦
" Accomplished and completed, so far as is in our power, are
all things which Thou hast appointed unto us as the mysteries of
1 Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, i. 309. From the Bar-
berina MS. ascribed by Mr. Brightman (op. cit. i. Ixxxix.) to the years be
tween 788 and 797- Cf. the present form of the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom
in Brightman, op. cit. i. 360.
2 Brightman, op. cit. i. 328, 329. From the MS. Grottaferrata T/3 vii.
ascribed by Mr. Brightman (op. cit. i. Ixxxix.) to the ninth or tenth cen
tury. 3 Ibid. From the Barberina MS. (see above).

156 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
immortality : we have found the memorial of Thy death, we have
seen the figure of Thy resurrection, we have been filled with Thy
inexhaustible dainties, we have tasted of Thy endless life, which
mayest Thou count us all worthy to attain in the world to come, O
Christ our God." : IV.
As in other matters, so in regard to the Eucharist the main
lines of Eastern theology in later times follow the doctrine taught
by St. John of Damascus and that implied in the Liturgies of the
eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries. But from time to time there
are instances of teaching which it is well to notice either because
of the witness they afford to the continuance of a tradition or
because of some special feature.
The commentaries on the Acts and the Epistles by CEcumenius,
who was Bishop of Tricca in Thessaly in the latter half of the tenth
century, are to a large extent based on the Homilies of St. Chry
sostom and often reproduce his language. In regard to the Eu
charist he uses the phrase that in it our Lord " for our sakes en
dures that which He did not suffer on the cross (for it is said, a
bone of Him shall not be broken) in being broken that He may
unite us to Himself," and lays stress on Christians being that
which they receive.2 He follows St. Chrysostom also in his refer
ences to the different aspects of the one sacrifice of Christ, offered
on the cross, in heaven, and on the altar of the Church.
" It is the property of a ministering priest to stand and minister,
while to sit is the mark of God, to whom the priestly service is
offered. But, as has been said, He mingles things lowly with things
lofty, that He may show His Godhead by means of sitting and His
care for us and His manhood by means of ministering as priest.
And this work of priestly ministration and of offering sacrifice is to
cleanse men from their sins and make them holy. . . . He died
that He might offer the sacrifice, and He rose from the dead and
ascended into heaven that He might have heaven as His dwelling-
place, where He must offer sacrifice. And by offering sacrifice
understand His intercession on our behalf." 3
" As in the sacrifices which were offered for sin the blood was
1 Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, i. 344. From the Bar-
berina MS. (a.d. 788-797).
2 On 1 Cor. x. 14-18. See pp. 96, 104, supra, p. 158, infra.
3 On Heb. viii. 1-6.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 157
carried into the sanctuary by the high priest, and the body was
burned outside the camp, so also the blood of Christ which was shed
for the sins of the world cleansed all the world, and His body was
hung on the cross outside the city of Jerusalem. . . . This blood
then is brought in to our altar by our high priest." x
Theophylact was Archbishop of Bulgaria in the latter part
of the eleventh and the beginning of the twelfth century. He
died in a.d. 1107. His chief writings consist of commentaries
on the books of the New Testament and on some of the Minor
Prophets. His indebtedness to St. Chrysostom is very great.
His comments on the passages which refer to the Holy Eucharist
supply clear indications of his belief about it. His teaching on
the transformation of the communicant into Christ resembles
that which Maximus the Confessor derived from the writer known
as Dionysius the Areopagite.2 Like St. John of Damascus he
repudiates the phraseology which by describing the consecrated
elements as figures seemed to endanger the truth of the actual
presence of Christ, and regards the elements as changed by means
of the descent of the Holy Ghost at the consecration into the
body and blood of Christ. Thus he describes Communion as
" the mystic reception of the body " and " the flesh " " of the
Lord," 3 says that " he who eats " Christ is " transformed "
(ueTao-ToixetovpLevo';) into Him,4 denies that the bread and the
wine are an " antitype " of the body and blood of Christ, and
asserts that they are " transmade " (fieTaTroielrai) and " changed "
(fiBTaBdXXeTai) "by means of the mystic blessing and the
descent of. the Holy Ghost" into that body and blood.6 Like
St. Cyril of Alexandria 6 he emphasises the life-giving character
of the flesh which is received in the Eucharist because it is the
flesh of Him who is God.7 In one passage, most of which is an
expression of the ordinary teaching about the Sacrament, there
are traces of a tendency to confuse the outward part and the
unseen reality since Theophylact, following St. Chrysostom, there
speaks of Christ Himself being broken in the Eucharist.
" Holding the cup of the Eucharist in our hands we bless and
give thanks to Him who shed His blood on our behalf and bestowed
on us ineffable good things. St. Paul said not participation but
1 On Heb. xiii. 9-11. 2 See pp. 138-42, supra.
3 On St. John vi. 27, 48-51. 4 On St. John vi. 56-58.
6 On St. Matt. xxvi. 26-28 ; St. Mark xiv. 22-25 ; St. John vi. 48-51.
6 See pp. 75, 76, supra. ' On St. John vi. 56-58.

158 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
communion, that he might show something greater, that is most
complete union. What he says is this, that what is in the
chalice is what flowed from the side ; and in partaking of this we
hold communion with, that is we are united to, Christ. . . . That
which the Lord suffered not on the cross (for not a bone of Him was
broken) now He endures, being broken for our sake ; x for it is said
' which we break '. And he said ' is the communion of the body of
Christ ' in the sense that, as that body is united to Christ, so we
also are united to Him by means of this bread. . . . We are that
body itself. For what is the bread ? The body of Christ. And
what do they who partake of it become ? The body of Christ, not
many bodies but one body." 2
The teaching of Theophylact which bears on the doctrine of
the Eucharistic sacrifice is of very considerable interest. He
evidently regarded the sacrifice of our Lord as one abiding action
associated with His death on the cross, with His priestly work
in heaven, and with the Eucharist on earth. He speaks re
peatedly of the death on the cross as a sacrifice for sin. " Christ,"
he says, " was offered," that is in His death on the cross, " by
Himself"; "besides being High Priest, He is also sacrifice and
victim" ; " His death was the equivalent for the destruction of
all, and, so far as His act was concerned, He died on behalf of
all " ; " He died, bearing our offences, and offering sacrifice to the
Father, that He might blot out the sins which caused His death ".3
" Christ Himself offered one sacrifice, that is His own body, for
our sins"; "completely did He free from sins those who are
sanctified and anointed with His blood by being baptised into
His death " ; " through the offering of the body of Christ which
took place once for all we were sanctified ".4 Christ " offered,"
that is on the cross, " a sacrifice of such a kind and of so great
power that by means of it He once for all cleansed the world ".5
But the priestly action of Christ is not regarded by Theophylact
as ending with His death. " For our sake He entered in within
the heaven that He might open for us the way " ; He entered in
" on our behalf, that is that He might intercede with the Father
on our behalf, as also the high priest entered into the sanctuary
once in the year, making propitiation on behalf of the people ".6
" He entered in with a sacrifice that is able to appease the Father " ;
1 See pp. 104, 156, supra. 2 On 1 Cor. x. 16. 3 On Heb. ix. 28.
4 On Heb. x. 10, 12, 14. " On Heb. vii. 27. 6 On Heb. vi. 20.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 159
" He appears on our behalf because He entered in as High Priest,
for His entrance took place because of our reconciliation".1
" While it is true that He sits, yet He has not on this account
ceased to be High Priest " ; being a priest, " He is not a priest
without a sacrifice " ; " this was nothing else than His own body ".2
" Because of His manhood it is said that He intercedes"; "He
lives and is ever able to perform His high-priestly work on our
behalf" ; " that the Son bearing flesh should sit with the Father
is intercession on our behalf, since the flesh makes supplication
on our behalf to the Father ".3 His high-priestly work is as
sociated with the Eucharist on earth as well as with His inter
cession in heaven. In the Eucharist " He offers Himself by
means of His ministers,'' " with priestly action He will perform
{lepovpyrjo-ei,) for us the more perfect and mystic rites, giving
Himself to us for food and drink in a new fashion which surpasses
all thought ".* Carrying on the same conception Theophylact
speaks of the Christian " altar " and " the bloodless sacrifice
of the life-giving body," and says that " our high priests, ac
complishing the memorial of that sacrifice," that is the sacrifice
on the cross, " bring the blood of the Lord to our sanctuary and
to the altar, as to heaven ".5 " To-day at the mystic Table it
is He Himself who gives the mysteries " ; while the " memorial "
is in one of its aspects a reminder to Christians, it is also a
" sacrifice " which they " received from Christ Himself ".6
The writings of Euthymius Zigabenus, also called Zigadenus,
are of slightly later date than those of Theophylact. He was a
monk of Constantinople and flourished in the reign of the Em
peror Alexius Comnenus. He died about a.d. 1118. His most
important works are his commentaries on Holy Scripture and
his Dogmatic Panoply of the Orthodox Faith.
In regard to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist the
teaching of Euthymius is much the same as that of St. John of
Damascus and Theophylact. He lays stress on the effect of the
descent of the Holy Ghost as making the elements the body and
blood of Christ, denies that they are symbols, and compares the
consecration with the conception of our Lord by His virgin
Mother. In the Dogmatic Panoply of the Orthodox Faith he
quotes at length without comments of his own passages from the
1 On Heb. ix. 24. 2 On Heb. viii .3. s On Heb. vii. 25.
4 On Heb. vii. 3. 6 On Heb. xiii. 10-12. 6 On 1 Cor. xi. 23-26.

160 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
writings of St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. John of Damascus.1
In his comment on the record of the institution of the Sacrament
he says : —
" He did not say, These are symbols of My body and of My
blood, but, These are My body itself and My blood itself. It fol
lows therefore that we must not look at the nature of the elements
but at their efficacy. For, as He supernaturally added deity to the
flesh which He took, so He ineffably transmakes (peTa.Trot.el) these
also into His life-giving body itself and His precious blood itself,
and into the grace of them. Yet the bread bears a certain resem
blance to the body, and the wine to the blood. For the bread and the
body are of the earth ; and the wine and the blood are full of warmth.
And as the bread gives strength, so also does the body of Christ,
and moreover it sanctifies both body and soul. And as the wine
gladdens, so also does the blood of Christ, and moreover it becomes
a preservative." 2
There is a very close resemblance between the teaching of
Euthymius on the Eucharistic sacrifice and that of Theophylact.
There is the same central idea of the one sacrifice of Christ,
offered by Him in His death and in heaven, and offered by
Christians on earth. In the Agony in the Garden of Gethse-
mane Christ was fulfilling the type of the Jewish high priest and
was performing His office as "High Priest after the order of
Melchizedek," and " offered in His manhood prayers and suppli
cations ".3 " Christ, who is king as God, became also priest as
Man when He sacrificed Himself for the remission of our sins." 4
" He offered Himself as a sacrifice on our Behalf when He delivered
Himself up to death. The one same sacrifice then because of
its supreme value availed for the remission of all the defilements
of sin committed before the reception of Baptism."5 "Once
was He sacrificed, this one sacrifice availing and having power
surpassing every other."6 Consequently He does not leave
heaven after His entrance at the ascension and return again and
again ; but it is sufficient that He has entered once with His
1 Pan. Dogm. xxv., quoting St. Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. Cat. xxxvii.
(see pp. 71-73, supra), and St. John of Damascus, Defid. Orth. iv. 13 (see pp.
145-47, supra).
2 On St. Matt. xxvi. 28.
3 On Heb. v. 7, 10. The commentaries of Euthymius on the Epistles
were not printed till 1887. An edition of them was published at Athens in
that year, edited by Archbishop Kalogeras.
4 On Heb. vii. 14. 6 On Heb. vii. 27. 6On Heb. ix. 26.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY l6l
" sacrifice " of " His sacrificed flesh ".i " When He had made
His offering once for all, He sat down as Lord." 2 None the less
He continues to exercise His priestly office in heaven on our be
half. " Since He is an eternal priest He ever saves and He com
pletely saves " ; " even now also He is the representative, as Man,
on behalf of our salvation " ; " His manhood itself beseeches the
Father on our behalf".3 "In heaven He performs the priestly
work of representation on our behalf " ; " since He rose and
ascended and lives, again He performs as priest a better
and heavenly priestly office " ; " being in heaven He has ob
tained a more lofty priestly work, accomplishing as priest His
mediation with the Father on our behalf".4 It is His present
office " to make propitiation to the Father on our behalf as our
High Priest " ; " now in heaven He appears with His sacrificed
flesh ".5 This one sacrifice of Christ is also offered in the Eucha
rist. The Eucharistic " memorial " is a reminder to Christians
that our Lord "delivered up His body to death and shed His
blood on our behalf" and also a "sacrifice,"6 even "the mystic
sacrifice of the body of the Lord ".7
"We ever offer the same sacrifice, even that which was then
offered by Christ ; for it is for a memorial of that ; for He said, ' Do
this for My memorial '. As then it does not follow that there are
many Christs because Christ in many places offers the bloodless
sacrifice, but there is the same Christ everywhere ; so also here it
does not follow because we offer often that there are many offerings,
but there is one and the same offering." 8
In the middle of the twelfth century there was a controversy
on the subject of the Eucharistic sacrifice. The Byzantine Rite
of that date contained the words addressed to God the Son,
" Thou art He who dost offer and art offered and dost receive
the sacrifice".9 It was contended by Soterichus Panteugenus
1 On Heb. ix. 25. 2 On Heb. x. 11, 12. 3 On Heb. vii. 25.
' On Heb. viii. 2, 4, 6. 6 On Heb. ix. 24.
6 On St. Matt. xxvi. 28 and 1 Cor. xi. 25.
'On Heb. xiii. 9. 8 On Heb. x. 3.
9 See Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, i. 378. For the
earlier form as used in the eighth century, "Thou art He who dost offer
and art offered, who dost sanctify and art sanctified," see Brightman, op. cit.
i. 318. The phrase " He who offers and is offered, and receives and is dis
tributed " is used by St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Homily on the Mystic
Supper, t. v. (2), p. 378, Aubert ; P.G. lxxvii. 1029: cf. p. 113, supra.
VOL. I. 11

162 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
the Patriarch-elect of Antioch and others that the sacrifice of
the cross was offered only to the Father and the Holy Ghost, not
to the Godhead of the Son who Himself offered it ; and that to
assert the contrary would inevitably imply the Nestorian heresy.
Against this view it was maintained that, since the Son is a
Person in the Holy Trinity, the sacrifice must necessarily have
been offered to Him as well as to the Father and the Holy
Ghost; and it was urged that this theological argument was
supported by the assertion in the Liturgy that the Eucharistic
sacrifice, which must correspond to the sacrifice of the cross, is
offered to the Son. In these circumstances the controversy about
the sacrifice inevitably involved discussions in regard to the
Eucharist. A dialogue ascribed to Soterichus has been preserved
by Nicetas of Chonae, a thirteenth century writer. This dia
logue contains the following statement placed in the mouth of
Soterichus : —
"If you say that the Saviour offers to the Father those who are
saved by Him, and that He Himself is offered by means of the
bloodless sacrifice which is for His memorial, and that He as God
receives what we offer, we are in assent and concord with your
argument. But, if you predicate these statements of the natures, and
ignore the Person, and say that the nature which was taken offers
what belongs to the flesh, and that the sacrifice of the flesh is
offered, and that the Godhead receives the sacrifice, without know
ing it you are weaving a rope out of the sand. . . . Further, who
that is orthodox would wish to refer the reception of the offering
to the sacrifice which took place at the passion ? For the Apostle
Paul cries out, ' Christ died on our behalf once for all ' ; and again,
' This He did once for all when He offered up Himself,' and else
where, ' For by one offering He hath perfected for ever those that
contend'.1 When the Apostle says that His offering is offered
once for all and is one, do you say that He offers Himself daily ? "
To this contention of Soterichus the other interlocutor in the
dialogue replies : —
" Yes, He offered Himself once for all ; but He also now offers
those who are saved by Him, as we said. Moreover, He is offered
by means of the sacrifice that is supernaturally changed into His
life-giving and saving body and blood. Do you not hear the priestly
1 Rom. v. 8 ; Heb. vii. 27, x. 10, 14.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 163
ministrants saying whenever the rite is offered, ' The Lamb is sacri
ficed '."
The answer represented as that of Soterichus is as follows : —
" This indeed is rightly said by them, since they celebrate the
saving passion which was of yore as if it were present. For the
memorial which the Saviour commanded us to make renews by way
of representation, or rather by way of image, the things which
happened long ago as if they were present, as the custom in the
festival orations is to speak of things which are past as though they
were present on whatever day the celebration takes place. Where
fore also we say after the manner of a festival oration, Christ is
born, and He is baptised. It is our custom also to celebrate the
saving passion in this way." J
In connection with this teaching of Soterichus a council was
held at Constantinople under the Emperor Manuel Comnenus in
January, 1156. At this council it was unanimously agreed
that —
" The precious blood of the Only Begotten was offered not only
to the Father but also to the Son and the Holy Ghost, the one
Godhead " ;
a representative statement of those made at the discussions was
to the effect that —
"The life-giving sacrifice, neither at the first when it was
offered by the Saviour Christ nor at any time since to the present
day, has been offered and is offered only to the Father of the Only
Begotten, the Source of all things, but also to the Word who be
came incarnate, and the Holy Ghost is not left out in so divine an
honour ; and the oblation of the mysteries, which is consecrated on
each occasion by the power of the Trinity, has been made and is
made in general to the Godhead in the Trinity of Persons, which is
known to us as united and one, sharing in the same nature and co-
eternal " ;
and condemnations were passed on the statements that the sacri
fice of the cross was not received by God the Son and God the
Holy Ghost, that the sacrifice in the mysteries was not offered
to the Holy Trinity, and that the memorial in the mysteries
is by way of representation or by way of image. At a later
^his dialogue is in Nicetas of Chonae, Thesaurus Orth. Fid. xxiv.
(P.G. cxl. 140-48). 11 *

164 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
session of the council in May, 1156, it was affirmed that on the
cross our Lord " offered Himself in His manhood, while as God
He together with the Father and the Spirit received the sacri
fice," and that " the bloodless sacrifices " are offered to and re
ceived by the Trinity. Soterichus was with difficulty induced
to make a statement that he assented to the teaching of the
council that the sacrifice offered on the cross and that now
offered in the Church are one and the same. In spite of this
statement he was declared to be unfit to be consecrated Patri
arch of Antioch.1
The works of Nicolas, Bishop of Methone in the Pelopon
nesus, about the Eucharist have the interest that they were
written to defend the current doctrine against attacks. They
include two short treatises written in 1157 in connection with
the controversy raised by Soterichus Panteugenus. In these
treatises the opinion of Soterichus is very strongly condemned,
and is represented as necessarily involving heresy, since the tend
ency of it is to divide the one Person of Christ, to make a divi
sion in the Holy Trinity, and to deny to the Son equal glory
with the Father. The positive teaching of Nicolas in regard to
the sacrifice in the Eucharist does not differ from that found in
Theophylact and other Greek writers. The death of our Lord
on the Cross was the sacrifice in which "once for all" Christ
offered Himself a " living sacrifice ". There is an " abiding pre
sentation " of " the blood of salvation " on " the heavenly altar ".
Herein is exercised our Lord's priesthood after the order of Mel
chizedek. This "abiding presentation" in heaven is closely
connected -with the sacrificial action of the Church on earth,
whereby in the Eucharist our Lord "as Man offers and is
offered," and " as God, together with the Father and the Spirit,
receives His own sacrifice". There is one sacrifice, which was
offered "once for all" on the cross, is offered on earth in the
Eucharist " in relations of time," and is offered " abidingly " in
heaven.2 1 The proceedings of the council are in Nicetas of Chonae, Thesaurus
Orth. Fid. xxiv. For the passages quoted see P.G. cxl. 148, 149, 152,
176, 177, 185, 189.
2 The treatises were printed for the first time in an edition published
at Leipsic in 1865 by Andronikos Demetrakopoulos. The passages re
ferred to above are on pp. 18, 19, 37, 38, 48-53, 67.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 165
The same treatises contain incidental allusions to the pres
ence of Christ in the consecrated Sacrament, and to the gift be
stowed and received in Communion. The bread and wine are
said to be " transelemented (peTao-Toixeiovfievav) by the opera
tion of the Holy Ghost " into the body and blood of Christ ;
and the Holy Ghost makes " those who receive these in faith to
be of one body with Christ and partakers of Him ".1
The subject of the presence of Christ is treated more fully
by the same writer in his book Against those who doubt, and say
that the consecrated bread and wine are not the body and blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ. He describes the Eucharist as " the
mystic and bloodless priestly rite in which we believe that
the bread and the cup on being consecrated are transmade
(fieTaTroielo-dai) into the body and blood of the Lord ". The
"object" and "end" wherewith it was instituted are "partici
pation of Christ and the eternal life of those who have share
in Christ," who are granted " reception of the divine nature "
(e/c^eaxrt?) in becoming " the body of Christ " through receiving
it. The supernatural "change" (pATafioXr)) of the elements
into the body of Christ is analogous to the facts " transcending
nature and reason and mind and thought " in the birth of our
Lord from a virgin, His resurrection, His ascension, and the
other wonders of His life. Nicolas ends his treatise with the
prayer : —
" Deliver, Lord, by Thy mercy from such deceit and madness
all those who do not rightly acknowledge that the bread and wine
which are consecrated by us are the perfect body and precious blood
of Thy Christ." 2
The Mystic Contemplation of German us II. who was Patri
arch of Constantinople from 1221 to 1239, explains in elaborate
detail the mystical meaning of the various parts of the Euchar
istic rite, and incidentally alludes to doctrine which does not
differ from that already noticed in many writers. Germanus
refers, for instance, to —
" the holy Table " " on which is set forth the true and heavenly
bread, the mystic and bloodless sacrifice, who being sacrificed has
1Op. c*i.,pp. 51,56, 61.
2 This treatise is in P.G. cxxxv. 509-18.

166 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
given to the faithful His flesh and blood for food and drink of
eternal life" ;l
and writes : —
" The altar is the mercy seat on which offering was made for
sin according to the holy memorial of Christ, on which altar also
Christ offered Himself a sacrifice to God the Father, through the
offering of His body, as a Lamb slain, and as High Priest and Son
of Man, offering and being offered, sacrificed for a mystic and blood
less sacrifice and reasonable service for the faithful, by which we
have been made partakers of eternal and immortal life." 2
Of the consecration he says : —
" The divine gifts are signed that by the descent and glorious
presence of the Holy Ghost He may change and make them, the
bread the precious body itself of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that
which is in the cup the precious blood itself of our great God and
Saviour Jesus Christ, which was poured out for the life and salva
tion of the world ; and that to those who partake of it, it may be
for remission of sins and eternal life." 3
Of the presence of the whole body of Christ in each fragment
of the consecrated bread he writes : —
" After the elevation the division of the divine body is made.
Yet, though it is divided, it remains undivided and unsevered, being
known and found to be whole in each part of the separated pieces." 4
The doctrine of the Eucharist is treated with great fulness
by Nicolas Cabasilas, who was Metropolitan of Thessalonica in
the middle of the fourteenth century. A large part of his
lengthy treatise On Life in Christ is taken up with an exposition
of the benefits of Communion and the completeness of the union
with Christ which results from the reception of it. In another
treatise, the Explanation of the Holy Liturgy, he deals more fully
and systematically than any earlier writer with the sacrificial
aspects of the Eucharist. This latter book also contains inci
dental allusions to the doctrine of the presence of Christ in the
Sacrament. Thus, the effect of consecration is said to be " the
iP.G. xcviii. 387. The treatise is here printed among the works of
Germanus I. who was Patriarch of Constantinople from 715 to 730 ; but
there is much probability that it is not by him but by Germanus II. as
stated above.
'Ibid. 389. sIbid. 440. 'Ibid. 449.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 167
change (jieTafioXrj) of the gifts into the divine body and blood " ; x
Christ is described as "sanctifying the gifts, changing (/tera-
PdXXmv) them into His body and blood " ; 2 it is affirmed that
" God takes these gifts to be His own in such a way that He
makes them the body and blood of the Only Begotten," and
"receives our bread and wine and gives back to us the Son
Himself".3 Cabasilas writes in strong reprobation of the
Western view that the consecration is effected by the recital
of the words of institution,4 and in the following passage connects
the consecration with the invocation of the Holy Ghost and
describes its results :• —
" When " the priest " has made mention of that awful supper, and
how " the Lord " delivered it to His holy disciples before His passion,
and that He received the cup and took bread and hallowed the
Eucharist, and that He spoke the words by which He manifested
the mystery, and when he in turn has uttered the same words, he
bows down and prays and implores God, applying those divine
words of His only begotten Son, our Saviour, to the gifts offered
on the altar, that they receiving His all-holy and almighty Spirit
may be changed, the bread into His precious and holy body itself,
and the wine into His stainless and holy blood itself. And, when
this has been said, the whole of the priestly rite has been accom
plished and completed, and the gifts have been consecrated, and
the sacrifice has been perfected, and the great sacrifice and victim,
which was slain for the sake of the world, is seen to lie on the holy
Table ; for the bread is no longer a figure of the Lord's body, nor
a gift which bears an image of the real gift or which brings in
itself some representation of the saving sufferings as in a picture,
but the real gift itself, the body itself of the all-holy Lord, which
really received all the shame, the insults, the scourging, which was
crucified, which was slain, which witnessed before Pontius Pilate
the good confession, which was beaten, which was reviled, which
endured the spitting, which tasted the gall. In like manner also
the wine is the blood itself which leapt out from the slain body,
this body, this blood, which was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
which was born of the holy Virgin, which was buried, which rose
on the third day, which ascended into heaven, which sitteth on
the right hand of the Father." 5
In explanation of the attitudes of worship adopted at the
time of the Great Entrance, when the as yet unconsecrated
J C. 1. 2 C. 49. s C. 47. 4 Cc. 29, 30. 5 C. 27.

168 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
gifts are carried with much pomp to the altar, Cabasilas
writes : —
"The people sing and fall down before the priest with all
reverence and devotion, begging that he will remember them in
the offering of the gifts. He goes on accompanied by lights and
incense, and so approaches the altar. . . . It is right that the gifts
with which the sacrifice is to be offered should be brought in and
placed on the altar ; and that this should be done with all possible
dignity and solemnity. . . . This rite can also be regarded as signi
fying the last manifestation of Christ, in which He greatly kindled
the envy of the Jews, when He took His journey from His own
country to Jerusalem, where He was to be sacrificed, when He
entered the city riding, accompanied by many and greeted with
singing. Also it is right that we should fall down before the priest
and beg him to remember us in those prayers. ... If some of
those who fall down before the priest when he comes in with the
gifts worship and speak of the gifts which are brought in as the
body and blood of Christ, they are misled by the entrance of the
pre-sanctified gifts,1 being ignorant of the difference between this
rite and that. For in this entrance the gifts are still unsacrificed
and have not yet been consecrated ; but in that case they are com
plete and have been consecrated and are the body and blood of
Christ." 2
On the subject of the sacrifice this treatise of Cabasilas
follows much the same lines as those in the Mystic Contempla
tion of Germanus II. He expounds in detail the mystical
meaning of the various ceremonies in the Liturgy. The idea
already familiar in Greek theology, that before consecration
the elements are an image of the body and blood of Christ
although they cease to be such an image on actually becoming
the body and blood at the consecration is worked out so as to
depict the ceremonies as a representation in mystery of the
successive moments of the human life of Christ and to show
the rite itself as setting forth the whole Incarnation. Thus —
" In the sacred rite of the Eucharist the whole Incarnation of
Christ is written in the bread as on a writing tablet ; for as in a
figure we behold Him as a babe, and led to death, and crucified,
and pierced in His side; then also the bread itself changed
(pera^aXXofievov) into that all-holy body which really endured this,
1 I.e., in the Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified. 2 C. 24.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 169
and rose from the dead, and was taken into heaven, and sitteth on
the right hand of the Father."1
" The consecration of the gifts, the sacrifice itself, proclaims His
death and His resurrection and His ascension, because God changes
(peTa(3d\Xei) these precious gifts into the body of the Lord itself,
which received all these, since it was crucified and rose and ascended
into heaven. But the parts of the rite which precede the sacrifice are
those before the death, namely the coming, the showing forth, the
perfect manifestation. And the parts of the rite after the sacrifice
are the promise of the Father, as He said, the descent of the Holy
Ghost upon the Apostles, the conversion and union of the Gentiles
to God through them." 2
"He commanded us to make the memorial of Him in the
things which seem to signify weakness, the cross, the passion, the
death. . . . This the Lord Himself showed when He delivered the
mystery. For when He said, 'This is My body,' 'This is My blood,'
He did not add miracles to these by saying, 'I raised the dead,' ' I
cleansed lepers'. What did He add? Only His passion and His
death, ' That which is broken on your behalf,' ' That which is poured
out on your behalf." 3
"Let us observe how often and where this memory of the
priestly rite takes place. For it takes place twice, first at the be
ginning, when the oblation of the gifts is made, secondly when the
sacrifice of them is offered. . . . What in the second place is indi
cated by the memory of the cross and of the things which followed
the cross, this in the first place is the memorial of the Lord." 4
This memorial of Christ, thus mystically set forth in the
stages of the Eucharistic rite, is regarded by Cabasilas as the act
in which the Church keeps alive among Christians the memory
of Christ,5 and presents before God the commemoration of His
human life. Through the whole exposition runs the thought of
the oneness of Christ's sacrifice.
" This sacrifice is not an image and figure of a sacrifice but a real
sacrifice, and that which is sacrificed is not bread but the body of
Christ itself, and moreover the sacrifice of the Lamb of God is one
and took place once for all." 6
That the sacrifice of Christ was offered once for all does not
impair the reality of His abiding sacrificial action.
»C. 37 ; cf. 6, 8. 2C. 1 ; cf. c. 16. 3C. 7.
'C. 50. 6C. 9. 6C. 32.

170 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
"In offering and sacrificing Himself once for all He did not
cease from His priesthood, but He exercises this perpetual ministry
for us, in which He is our advocate with God for ever, for which
reason it was said of Him, ' Thou art a priest for ever '." 1
" He is the mediator through whom all the good things given to
us by God have come, or rather they are ever being given. For He
did not once for all mediate and deliver to us all for which He
mediated and then depart but He is ever a mediator, not by words
and supplications, as are ambassadors, but by act. And what is the
act ? It is His uniting us to Himself and His bestowing on us
through Himself His own gifts according to each one's desert and
the measure of his cleansing. . . . He it is who alone reconciles to
God, who makes this peace, apart from whom there is no hope for
those who are at enmity with God to receive any of His good things.
. . . What is it which reconciles God to the nature of men ? As
suredly that He sees His beloved Son as Man. So also He is re
conciled to each individual man, if one wears the form of the Only
Begotten, and bears His body, and is seen to be one spirit with Him.
... If then we must believe that some refreshment is granted to
the souls from the prayer of the priests and the offering of the holy
gifts, we must first believe that this also happens in this way in which
alone it is possible for man to obtain refreshment. In what way
has been said, namely by being reconciled to God and not being at
enmity with Him. And how is this ? By being united to God and
becoming one spirit with the Beloved, in whom alone the Father is
well pleased. But this is the work of the holy Table, which is
common, as has been shown by what has been said, to both living
and dead alike."2
Elsewhere Cabasilas explains that the sacrifice of the Eucha
rist, which is thus one with the sacrifice offered on the cross and
the high priestly work of Christ in heaven, is presented in prayer
for the living and the departed, and in thanksgiving for the
saints, especially the blessed Mother of God ; 3 and that it sancti
fies by way of intercession both the dead and the living, by way of
Communion the living only.4 Following the doctrine affirmed in
the condemnation of Soterichus Panteugenus, Cabasilas teaches
that the sacrifice is offered to the Father and the Son and the
Holy Ghost ; and that in it our Lord offers the sacrifice of Himself,
and is offered as a sacrifice, and receives the sacrifice, " offering
and receiving as God, being offered as Man ".5
1 C. 28 ; cf. cc. 2, 8. 2 C. 44. 3 C. 33. 4 C. 42. 6 C. 49.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 171
An instance of like treatment of the Eucharist to that of
Cabasilas may be given from the early part of the fifteenth cen
tury in the writings of Symeon, who was Metropolitan of
Thessalonica from 1410 to 1429. Symeon's Dialogue against
all heresies and on the Faith of our Lord and God and Saviour
Jesus Christ and on the sacred rites and all the mysteries of the
Church contains sections which deal at length with the rites and
the liturgy. Doctrinal teaching occurs only incidentally. Of
Communion Symeon says that it " unites to the Lord Himself,
and we really partake of His flesh and blood "} Of the conse
crated Sacrament he says that it —
" is Christ, really His body and blood itself, which He consecrated
for the sake of us His peculiar people, and allows and desires us to
taste and see and touch." 2
The detailed ceremonies of the liturgy are regarded as a mystical
representation of the events in the passion of Christ,3 and the
whole rite is viewed as the Church's presentation of Christ's
sacrifice in mystery before God.4 In his Exposition of the
Holy Sanctuary Symeon says that at the consecration "the
bread and the cup become the body and blood of Christ " ; that
the consecration is effected by the invocation of the Holy Ghost ;
and that —
" it is Christ Himself who acts through the priest together with
the Father and the Spirit, and it is He who offers and is offered,
who consecrates and is consecrated, who receives the sacrifice and is
distributed." 5
Explaining the attitudes of worship at the Great Entrance,
he writes : —
"All the faithful fall down before the priests, and rightly,
partly asking for their prayers and begging for their remembrance
in the rite, partly honouring the holy gifts. For, although they
are still unconsecrated, yet they have been dedicated to God in the
prothesis,8 and the priest there offered them to God and prayed
1 C. 36 ; cf. 99. 2 C. 99.
3 See especially cc. 84, 85, 92 ; cf. Symeon's Expos, de div. templo, 92-
96. Part of the latter treatise is translated in the Introduction to Neale
and Littledale, Translations of the Primitive Liturgies, pp. xxi.-xl.
4 Cc. 79-99. 5C. 88.
6 I.e., the preliminary part of the Liturgy, corresponding to the
Western Offertory, performed in the chapel on the left of the altar.

172 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
that they might be received on the heavenly altar. Therefore,
although they are still unconsecrated, yet they have been prepared
for consecration, and are an offering to God and antitypes of the
Lord's body and blood. . . . The holy images are worthy of venera
tion as representations of the realities ; so also are the gifts that are
dedicated to God and offered that they may become the body and
blood of Christ. If then we ought to assign honour and veneration
to the holy images, much more ought we to do so to the gifts them
selves, which are antitypes, as great Basil says, and are offered that
they may become the body and blood of Christ." J
The Definition of the Council of Florence, which was accepted
by the representatives of the Eastern Church in 1439, contained
incidental statements that " the body of Christ is really conse
crated," and that "the holy sacrifices " benefit the departed.2
At the time of the Council of Florence George Scholarius,
then a layman, who was afterwards known as Gennadius, was
eager for union between the East and the West, and inclined
to go a long way to meet Western ideas in order to promote
that union. Later in his life he became much more hostile to
the West, and in the period immediately preceding the fall of Con
stantinople in 1453 he displayed great enmity against the West
erns. In 1453 he was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople.
His Homily on the Sacramental Body of our Lord Jesus Christ is
of interest because in it Gennadius, while maintaining the positive
teaching of the traditional Eastern theology, introduces phrase
ology and lines of thought which by this time had become
current in the West. This may have been due partly to Western
influence at one time in his life, and partly to his study of and
affection for the Aristotelian philosophy. He uses the word
Transubstantiation (fieTovo-ioocn<:). He speaks of the change
(peTafioXr]) of the substance (ovcria) of the elements into the
substance (ovaia) of the body and blood of Christ ; of the
accidents (o-v/j,/3e@nic6Ta) of the bread and wine remaining un
changed ; of the body of Christ being without its appropriate
accidents (^wpt? t&v ai>Tq> irpeirovTav crvfifiefi'nicoTojv), while
the bread retains its accidents (o-vfifiefin/coTa) without its own
substance (ovcria) ; and of the outward state (ttj<; egadev Bia-
#ecre&j?) of the elements being preserved in view of the repug
nance which communicants might otherwise feel. He maintains
1 C. 78. 2 Hardouin, Concilia, ix. 421.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 173
that the body of Christ is not in the Sacrament naturally ((f>va-
t/cok) but after the manner of a Sacrament (/uuc-njptcoo'ak), and
therefore is not in it as in a place (/caOd-n-ep ecr/cnpa>p.evop ev twl
tottoj), and is not under the dimensions of the real body (u7ro
Tafc ISiai? Tat<; tov dXrjdivov crd>p^aTo<; SiacrTacreaiv) but under
the dimensions of the bread only (inrb tcw roi) apTov BcaaTacrecri,
pov~ais). He says that each fragment is the whole body of Christ,
and that the body of Christ in heaven and on every altar on
earth is one and the same, being that body which was born of
the Virgin, was once on the cross, and is now in heaven.1
V.
Gabriel Severus was born at Napoli di Malvasia or Monem-
vasia in Epidaurus in the Morea. In 1577 he was appointed
Bishop of Ala Sher (Allah-shehr) in Asia Minor, the ancient
Philadelphia, but, finding little to do in that diocese, he went
to Venice, where he acted as Bishop of the Eastern Christians in
the Venetian States. He became known as a theologian and
published several theological treatises. Among them is a work
on the Eastern acts of reverence at the Great Entrance entitled
Against those who say that the Orthodox Children of the Eastern
Church do wrongly and unlawfully in honouring and venerating
the Holy Gifts when the Cherubic Hymn is sung and the Priest
carrying them enters the Holy Sanctuary, which was published
in 1604 2 in reply to the attacks of Latin Christians on the
practice. In this treatise Gabriel defends the reverence at the
Great Entrance by the argument that the elements even before
consecration are worthy of veneration as being not only good
creatures of God but also set apart and sanctified to become
by the subsequent consecration the body and blood of Christ,
though they do not receive before they are transubstantiated at
the consecration that adoration which is given to them when con
secrated as being then the body and blood.
1 This Homily is printed in P.G. clx. 361-74.
2 This treatise, together with three other of Gabriel's works (TLepl twv
pepidav, Ilepl twv ko\vj3<ov, Tlepl tov pvorrfpiov rfjs deias Xeirovpyias), were
printed with a Latin translation and notes by the Oratorian Richard Simon
in a volume entitled Fides Ecclesiae Orientalis seu Gabrielis Metropolitae
Philadelphiensis Opuscula, published at Paris in 1671 (re-issued witha new
title-page in 1686). The references here given are to this edition.

174 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
" This bread and wine receives and possesses three degrees of
honour. The first it has by nature (<j>vo-lkS>s), the second it receives
by participation (/mtoxikSs), it enters on (eurbvenu) the third through
the Holy Ghost by Transubstantiation (peTovo-iacrTuJas). The natural
honour it has in that it is a creature and work of God. . . . Where
fore, it is not for this venerated, or worshipped, or carried in proces
sion, but is commended as the fair creation of God. The second
degree of honour and regard it receives by participation (peroxt-Kios)
when it is brought to the holy table, and blessed by the priest, and
dedicated.1 Then it is no longer bread and wine as before, but is
holy and an honourable gift and divine, and matter fit and set apart
and assigned to become properly the body and blood of Christ, the
substance of it, and the accidents of the substance, still remaining.
For this reason it is reasonably venerated, and rightly honoured,
and is reverenced, and is carried in procession 2 with hymns and
lights and sweet odours without any wrong. But the third degree
of regard and unspeakable honour it receives by Transubstantiation
(Kara. /Aerovo-iWiv) when it puts off the whole of its own substance
of the nature of bread, and is transubstantiated into the flesh and
blood of Christ. Wherefore it is not only venerated (Trpoo-KweiTai)
but is also adored (XaTpeverai), and is believed by all the orthodox
Christians to be properly the flesh and blood of Christ our God,
although its accidents are preserved, the Lord granting this as a
concession to human weakness." 3
" If we kneel to a material image which cannot become the flesh
of Christ, why should you forbid us to offer honour and the bowing
of head and knees to the matter that is dedicated to God,
and inseparably appointed to become the body and blood of Christ,
since even before the Transubstantiation which results from the
blessing and prayer of the priest it has an ineffaceable hallow
ing ? . . . Therefore, brethren, it is right and pious and holy and
fitting for orthodox Christians to honour (npav) and venerate
(Trpoo-Kweiv) the holy image of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus
Christ, as the Holy Church of Christ commands ; but it is still more
right for the holy gifts to be honoured (ripao-Oat) and reverenced
(yepaipecrOat) in that they are holy gifts and matter dedicated to God
appointed and suitable to become the flesh and blood of Christ by
means of the blessing and the power of the prayers. . . . The Eastern
1 I.e., at the Prothesis ; see p. 171, note 6, supra.
'I.e., at the Great Entrance.
3 Pp. 3, 4. The substance of the above passage occurs also several times
elsewhere in this treatise.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 175
Catholic Holy Church of Christ, which keeps the faith unhurt,
teaches her true children to venerate (Trpoo-Kweiv) and reverence
(yepaipeiv) the holy gifts when they are brought in, and to say,
' Lord, remember me in Thy kingdom,' as holy gifts and honourable
and matter definitely appointed to be changed (pera^XrjOrjvaL) into
the flesh and blood of Christ, but not as the completed (reXuov) body
of the Lord ; for this she orders them to adore (XarptveLv) when the
priest standing at the doors of the sanctuary says, ' Draw near with
the fear of God and faith and love '. And then each one says, not,
' Lord, remember me in Thy kingdom,' but, ' I believe, Lord, and
confess that Thou art Jesus Christ the Son of the living God, who
came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first '." 1
VI.
In the first half of the seventeenth century the Eastern
Church was brought into contact with some of the results of
the Western Reformation. Cyril Lucar, Patriarch first of
Alexandria and then of Constantinople, had resided in Germany
and Switzerland, and had there studied Western theology. He
had been attracted by some elements in the teaching of the Re
formers, was a correspondent of Archbishop Laud, and showed
his interest in and appreciation of England by his gift of the
Alexandrian MS. of the Old and New Testaments, which is
now in the British Museum, to King Charles I. and by sending
Metrophanes Kritopulos, afterwards Patriarch of Alexandria, to
England, where he studied at Balliol College. He formed the
project of a theological system which might preserve what he
deemed to be the best features of the traditional theology of the
East in combination with those parts of the teaching of the
Western Reformers which appealed to him. In pursuance of
this object he drew up a document entitled The Eastern Con
fession of the Orthodox Faith. This Confession was published
in Latin in 1629; and a translation into Greek, dated 1631, was
published in 1633. On the Sacraments in general the fifteenth
chapter of the Confession stated : —
" We believe that there are in the Church mysteries of the
Gospel which the Lord delivered in the Gospel ; and that these are
two. For so many were delivered unto us ; and He who instituted
them delivered no more. And we firmly maintain that these con-
1 Pp. 15, 16.

176 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
sist of a word and an element ; and that they are seals of the promises
of God, and procure grace. But for the mystery to be perfect and
entire, it is necessary that the earthly matter and the outward act
concur with the use of that earthly thing which was instituted by
our Lord Jesus Christ, united with sincere faith ; for when faith is
wanting in the receivers the entirety of the mystery is not pre
served." 1
So far as the Eucharist is concerned, this statement appears to
mean that for a valid Sacrament there are needed, besides the
consecration of bread and wine, the use in Communion and the
faith of the communicants.
The sixteenth chapter of the Confession was on Baptism. In
the seventeenth chapter Cyril Lucar wrote : —
"We believe the other mystery instituted by our Lord to be
what we call the Eucharist. For in the night in which the Lord
gave Himself up, He took bread and blessed and said to His Apostles,
' Take, eat ; this is My body '. And He took the cup of the
Eucharist and said, 2 ' Drink ye all of it ; this is My blood which is
poured out for you ; do this for My memorial '.3 And Paul adds
' For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim
the Lord's death'.4 This is the simple, true, and genuine tradi
tion of this wonderful mystery, in the performance and administra
tion of which we acknowledge and believe is the true and real
presence of our Lord Jesus Christ ; nevertheless, such as our faith
presents and offers to us, not such as Transubstantiation (/*erowr<.Wis)
vainly invented teaches. For we believe that the faithful who
partake of the Supper eat the body of our Lord Jesus Christ not by
perceptibly pressing and dissolving the Communion with the teeth,
but by the soul realising Communion. For the body of the Lord
is not what is seen in the mystery with the eyes and received, but
what faith spiritually apprehends and presents and bestows upon us.
Wherefore it is true that we eat and partake and have Communion,
if we believe. If we believe not, we are deprived of all benefit of
the mystery. Consequently to drink the cup in the mystery is
1Kimmel, Mon. Fid. Eccl. Orient, i. 34.
2 This is the translation of the Greek text Xapmv to ttottjpiov evxapiarias
eXeye. In his The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, p. 203, Mr. J.
N. W. B. Robertson suggests that evxapio-rias is "a mistake for eixapi-
o-T^o-at, analogously to what is said of the bread, and agreeably to the Latin,
which has ' Et accepto calice gratias agens, dicebat ' ".
3 St. Luke xxii. 20. 4 1 Cor. xi. 26.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 177
really to drink the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the same
manner as is said of the body. For as He who instituted gave
commandment concerning His own body, so also He did concern
ing His own blood, which commandment ought not to be mutilated
according to the fancy of every one, but rather the tradition of the
institution should be preserved entire. When, therefore, we worthily
partake and entirely communicate in the mystery of the body and
blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, we are already, we confess, recon
ciled to our Head, and united to Him, and made one body with Him,
having also the certain hope of being co-heirs with Him in the
kingdom." 1
Here also the presence of Christ in the Sacrament is said to
depend on the Sacrament being received in Communion, and
on the faith of the communicants. Consequently, in denying
" Transubstantiation," Cyril appears to have intended to reject
not only any Western technicalities of which he may have known
but also the traditional Eastern doctrine that by means of the
act of consecration the elements become the body and blood of
Christ. Cyril Lucar was strangled in 1638 by the order of the Sultan
Murad IV. in consequence of accusations of treason brought
against him. It is probable that these accusations were simply
a device of theological opponents who resented Cyril's acceptance
of some of the opinions which had arisen among the Reformers
in the West and his opposition to plans then being formed for
the union of the East with Rome.
One result of the work of Cyril Lucar was the compilation
of The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern
Church in 1640. The object of this Confession was to re-assert the
traditional doctrine of the East in those matters in which Cyril
Lucar had denied or modified it. It was drawn up in Russian
by Peter Mogila, the Metropolitan of Kieff, and other theologians.
It was translated into Greek. It was approved by the Council of
Jassy in 1642 ; by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch, and Jerusalem in 1643 ; and by the Council of Jerusalem
in 1672. On the subject of the Eucharist the teaching of the
Confession was as follows : —
" Christ is now in heaven only and not on earth after that
manner of the flesh wherein He bore it and lived in it when He
i Kimmel, Mon. Fid. Eccl. Orient, i. 35-37.
vol. i. 12

178 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
was on earth ; but after the sacramental manner, whereby He is
present in the holy Eucharist, the same Son of God, God and Man,
is also on earth by way of Transubstantiation (Kara peTovaiiacnv).
For the substance (ovaia) of the bread is changed (peraBaXXeTai) into
the substance (ovo-iav) of His holy body, and the substance (ovala)
of the wine into the substance (ovo-iav) of His precious blood.
Wherefore it is fitting to worship and adore the holy Eucharist even
as our Saviour Jesus Himself." 1
" The priest must know that at the moment when he consecrates
the gifts the substance (ovo-ia) itself of the bread and the substance
(oio-ia) of the wine are changed (p,eTa/3dXXeTai.) into the substance
(ovaiav) of the real body and blood of Christ through the opera-
tion of the Holy Ghost, whom the priest invokes at that time,
consecrating this mystery by praying and saying, ' Send down Thy
Holy Ghost on us and on these gifts set before Thee, and make this
bread the precious body of Thy Christ and that which is in this cup
the precious blood of Thy Christ, changing (perafiaXwv) them by
Thy Holy Ghost '. For immediately after these words the Transub
stantiation (//.ei-cmo-Moo-is) takes place, and the bread is changed (aXXrjo-ei)
into the real body of Christ, and the wine into His real blood.
Only the species (etSij) which are seen remain, and this by the ordi
nance of God, first, that we may not see the body of Christ, but
may believe that it is there ; . . . secondly, because human nature
shrinks from the eating of raw flesh. . . . The honour which
it is fitting to give to these awful mysteries is of such a kind as
that which is given to Christ Himself. . . . This mystery is also
offered as a sacrifice on behalf of all orthodox Christians, both the liv
ing and those who sleep in hope of a resurrection to eternal life ;
and this sacrifice shall never fail until the last Judgment. The fruits
of this mystery are these : first, the commemoration of the sinless
passion and death of Christ . . . ; secondly, . . . this mystery is a
propitiation and atonement with God for our sins both of the living
and of the dead . . . ; thirdly, . . . that each Christian who shall
frequent this sacrifice and partake of this mystery may be delivered
by means of it from the temptation and danger of the devil." 2
This Confession thus followed the ordinary teaching of the
East that the bread and wine become the body and blood of
Christ through the operation of the Holy Ghost, invoked in the
Liturgy ; that the presence is such as to call for adoration ; and
1 1. 56. See Kimmel, Mon. Fid. Eccl. Orient, i. 125, 126.
2 1. 107. See Kimmel, Mon. Fid. Eccl. Orient, i. 180-84.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 179
that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Further, it asserted that the
substance of the Bread and the wine is changed into the suB-
stance of the body and blood of Christ, and accepted the word
" Transubstantiation " which Cyril Lucar had repudiated, prob
ably using it, as he had used it, simply to denote the change of
the elements by consecration into Christ's body and blood. As
to the nature of the presence of the body and blood different
statements in the Confession suggest different ideas. The refer
ence to the natural shrinking from " the eating of raw flesh " as
one of the reasons why the outward species remain looks as if
the spiritual character of the Eucharistic presence of Christ's
risen and ascended body and blood had been forgotten. On
the other hand, the distinction between the manner of Christ's
presence in the Eucharist and that of His visible presence on
earth and His presence in heaven is perhaps a stronger indica
tion of belief in the spiritual character of His presence in the
Eucharist. In 1642, two years after the first drawing up of The Ortho
dox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church, a
council was held at Constantinople to condemn the opinions of
Cyril Lucar. The decrees of the council contain the following
statement concerning his teaching about the Eucharist : —
" He so destroys the Holy Eucharist as to leave to it nothing
but an empty figure, as if our worship were still in the shadow of
the ancient law. For he says that not the bread which is seen and
eaten is, after it has been consecrated, the real body of Christ, but
that which is spiritually perceived, or rather represented. Which
opinion is full of all impiety. For Jesus did not say, ' This is the
figure of My body,' but 'This is My body,' and 'This is My
blood' — this, that is, which is seen and taken and eaten and
broken, when it has been consecrated and blessed." 1
Thirty years later, in 1672, under Dositheus, the Patriarch
of Jerusalem, a council, known as the Council or Synod of Jeru
salem or of Bethlehem, was held at Bethlehem at which the Con
fession of Cyril Lucar was again considered. The holding of
the council was partly due to the controversy in the West between
Claude and Arnauld in which Claude had claimed the authority
of the Eastern Church for his contention that Transubstantiation
1 C. 17. See Hardouin, Concilia, xi. 173-76.
12*

180 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
was a modern invention.1 At the council doubt was expressed
whether the Confession ascribed to Cyril Lucar was really by
him. Many passages from his Homilies were cited containing
different teaching from that in the Confession. In those relat
ing to the Eucharist were the expressions, "When you com
municate, what do you see ? Is it bread and wine ? Do you
not discern ? If this is all you behold, you see an appearance ;
but, if you open the eyes of the soul, and see the Lord, you
would recognise there the flesh of the Lord " ; and " the infinite
power of the Deity in the Transubstantiation of the bread ".2
It was further asserted at the council, that, if the Confession
was the work of Cyril Lucar, it must have been simply an ex
pression of his own opinions, and not an utterance of the
Easterns in general or of the Church, so that, even on the sup
position that he wrote it, it could not be taken as in any way
committing the Eastern Church. As a positive statement of
Eastern theology the council affirmed the Confession of Dosi-
theus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem. The parts of this Confession
which relate to the Eucharist are as follows : —
"We reject as alien to Christian doctrine the opinion that the
integrity of the mysteries requires the use of the earthly thing.
For this is contrary to the mystery of the offering, which, being in
stituted by the heavenly Word, and consecrated by the invocation
of the Holy Ghost, is perfected by the presence of that which is
signified, namely, the body and blood of Christ. And the perfect
ing of this necessarily goes before its use. For, if it were not per
fect before its use, then he who uses it badly would not eat and
drink judgment to himself, since he would partake of bare bread
and wine. But, as it is, he who partakes unworthily eats and
drinks judgment to himself. Therefore the mystery of the Eucha
rist has its perfection not in the use but even before the use.
Moreover, we reject as destructive and abominable the opinion that
the integrity of the mystery is impaired by weakness of faith." 3
" In the celebration of this we believe that our Lord Jesus Christ
is present, not figuratively, or in an image, or by superabundant
grace, as in the other mysteries, nor by a simple presence, as some
of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, nor by conjunction, as
that the Deity of the Word is personally united to the bread of the
1 See the statements by the Council in Hardouin, Concilia, xi. 181, 265.
2Hardouin, Concilia, xi. 208.
3 C. 15. See Hardouin, Concilia, xi. 249.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 181
Eucharist which is set forth, as the Lutherans most ignorantly and
miserably think ; but really and actually, so that after the con
secration of the bread and the wine the bread is changed (peTa(3dX-
XeaOai), transubstantiated (pierovcnovo-Oai), transmade (peTairoieiaOai),
and reordered (peTappv6pi?eo-6ai), into the real body of the Lord
itself, which was born in Bethlehem of the Ever- Virgin, was baptised
in Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose, ascended, sitteth at the right
hand of God the Father, and will come on the clouds of heaven ;
and the wine is transmade (peTa-n-oieicrdai) and transubstantiated
(peTovcriova-Oai) into the real blood of the Lord itself, which was
poured forth for the life of the world when He hung on the cross.
Further, we believe that after the consecration of the bread and
the wine the substance (ovcria) of the bread and the wine no longer
remains, but there is the body itself and the blood of the Lord in the
species (ewki) and form (tvttw) of the bread and the wine, that is to
say, under the accidents (o-vpfiefiriKoo-iv) of the bread. Further, that
the all-pure body itself and blood of the Lord are distributed and
enter the mouth and stomach of the communicants, both pious and
impious ; only they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins
and eternal life, but they involve to the impious and unworthy con
demnation and eternal punishment. Further, that the body and
the blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and
teeth by way of accident (Kara a-v/t/Je/ify/cds), that is, in the accidents
(o-vpfSefiT]K.6Ta) of the bread and the wine, in which they are ac
knowledged to be visible and tangible, while in themselves they
remain altogether unsevered and undivided. Wherefore also the
Catholic Church says, ' He is separated and distributed who being
separated is not divided, who is ever eaten and never consumed,
but sanctifies those who partake,' 1 that is, worthily. Further, that
in every part and the smallest fragment of the changed (peTa-
/3Xr]6evTo<s) bread and wine there is not a part of the body and blood
of the Lord, for that would be blasphemous and wicked, but the
whole Lord Christ wholly in substance (/car oicriav), that is, with His
soul and Godhead, perfect God and perfect Man. Wherefore,
though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the
same hour, there are not many Christs or many bodies of Christ,
but one and the same Christ is present really and actually, and His
body and His blood are one in all the several churches of the faith
ful ; and this not because the body of the Lord which is in heaven
descends on the altars but because the bread which is offered and
'Quoted from the Liturgies of St. Chrysostom and St. Basil. See
Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, i. 393.

182 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
set forth in all the several churches, being transmade (jxeTa-n-owvpevos)
and transubstantiated (ptTovo-iovpevos), becomes and is after the con
secration one and the same as that which is in heaven. For the
body of the Lord is one in many places, and not many bodies. . . .
Further, that the body itself and the blood of the Lord which are
in the mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honoured in the highest
way, and worshipped with divine adoration. For the worship of
the Holy Trinity and of the body and blood of the Lord is one.
Further, that it is a real and propitiatory sacrifice offered for all the
orthodox, living and dead, and for the benefit of all. . . . Further,
that before the use immediately after the consecration and after
the use that which is kept in the holy pyxes for the reception of
those who are about to depart is the real body of the Lord, and not
in any respect different from it; so that before the use after the
consecration, in the use, and after the use, it is altogether the real
body of the Lord. Further, that by the word Transubstantiation
(peTovo-icoa-is) the manner in which the bread and the wine are trans
made (peTaTroiovvTai) into the body and blood of the Lord is not ex
plained ; for this is altogether incomprehensible and is impossible
except for God Himself; and attempts at explanation bring Christians
to folly and error. But the word denotes that the bread and the
wine after the consecration are changed (peTa/3dXXeTai) into the
body and blood of the Lord not figuratively or by way of image or
by superabundant grace or by the communication or presence of the
Deity alone of the Only Begotten. Neither is any accident (crvp.Be-
firjKos ti) of the bread and of the wine transmade (peTaTroieirai) in
any way or by any change into any accident (avp.BeBrjKo<s ti) of the
body and blood of Christ ; but really and actually and substantially
(ovo-uoSCis) the bread becomes the real body of the Lord itself, and
the wine the blood of the Lord itself, as has been said above." 1
There is an incidental statement on the reality of the
presence in, and the honour due to, the reserved Sacrament.
"It is a ridiculous charge that, because some Eastern priests
keep the holy bread in wooden vessels within the Church but out
side the sanctuary hanging on one of the pillars, they do not ac
knowledge the actual and real change (peraBoXrjv) of the bread into
the body of the Lord. For that certain poor priests keep the
Lord's body in wooden vessels we do not deny ; for Christ is not
honoured by stones and marbles, but He asks from us a sound
purpose and a pure heart. And this is as it is put by Paul.
1 C. 17. See Hardouin, Concilia, xi. 252-56.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 183
For he says, 'We have the treasure in earthen vessels'.1 But
where particular Churches are able, as with us in Jerusalem, within
the sanctuary of each Church the Lord's body is honoured and has
a lamp with seven lights always burning before it.'' 2
These declarations of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 re
assert the main lines of the traditional Eastern doctrine. It
is of interest to observe the marks made by Western contro
versies in the repudiation of any theory of "conjunction" such
as that ascribed to Luther,3 and of any view that the presence
of Christ is vouchsafed only during the use of the Sacrament
in Communion such as that held by the later Lutherans,4 and
in the assertions about the "accidents". 5
During the years from 1716 to 1725 a lengthy correspond
ence took place between the English and Scottish Nonjurors and
the Bishops of the Greek Church in hope that some plan for
re-union might be agreed upon. The Eucharist was one of the
subjects discussed. Throughout, the Easterns adopted the
theological position and terminology of the Council of Jerusalem
of 1672, and affirmed that the elements are consecrated by the
operation of the Holy Ghost ; that by consecration they are
changed and transubstantiated into the body and blood of
Christ ; that the accidents remain ; that the whole Christ,
perfect God and perfect Man, is substantially in every part of
the consecrated bread and wine ; and that the body of Christ,
present in the consecrated elements, is to be adored.6 They
were careful to quote a synodical declaration of the year 1691
in which it was explained that in using the word Transubstanti
ation (fieTovo-iaio-is) the Easterns had not borrowed from the
West but had followed their own tradition, and that by it they
intended no further definition than that in the Sacrament there
1 2 Cor. iv. 7. ' Q- 4. See Hardouin, Concilia, xi. 265.
3 See vol. ii. p. 88, infra. ' See vol. ii. pp. 23, 24, 32, infra.
5 See, e.g., pp. 306, 321, 329, 362, 365, and vol. ii. pp. 10, 11, infra.
6 See Williams, The Orthodox and the Nonjurors, pp. 56-59, 69, 70, 76-
82. For a description of the original documents, now in the Theological
College at Edinburgh, see Bishop Dowden in the Journal of Theological
Studies, i. 562-68 ; and for the documents printed from the copies at
Constantinople and a collation of the originals at Edinburgh with these,
see Martin and Petit, Collectio Conciliorum Recentiorum Eccl. Univ. i.
369-624.

184 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
is a change (fj.eTa/3oXrj) of the bread and wine into the body
and blood of Christ.1
The decrees of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 have re
mained ever since that time the authorised statements of the
doctrine of the Greek Church. As a short summary made in
the eighteenth century of the teaching contained in them it may
be convenient to quote the article concerning the Eucharist in
an exposition of the faith put out by a council held at Constan
tinople in 1727.
" It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and
all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy liturgy and bloodless sacrifice,
which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on
our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is
offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy
cup, and they are supernaturally changed (peTaBdXXeaOai), the
bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His
precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and
invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words
of the Lord. Not that the consecration is effected by the words
' Take, eat,' etc., or by the words 'Drink ye all of it,' etc., as the
Latins think ; for we have been taught that the consecration takes
place at the prayer of the priest and at the words which he utters,
namely, ' Make this bread the precious body of Thy Christ, and
that which is in this cup the precious blood of Thy Christ, changing
(peTaBaXiiv) them by Thy Holy Ghost,' as the glorious Apostles and
fathers filled with the Spirit who compiled the holy liturgies ex
plained and handed down, and as this tradition of their divine
teaching has come to us and to the Holy Church of Christ, and as
also is clearly shown by the example of the Lord Himself, who first
prayed and then commanded His Apostles, 'Do this for My
memorial'. Therefore we acknowledge that at the invocation of
the priest that ineffable mystery is consecrated, and the living and
with-God-united body itself of our Saviour and His blood itself are
really and substantially (ovo-iwSCis) present, and that the whole
without being in any way impaired is eaten by those who partake
and is bloodlessly sacrificed. And we believe without any doubt
that in the reception and communion of this, even though it be in
one kind only, the whole and complete Christ is present ; neverthe
less according to the ancient tradition which has prevailed in the
1 See Williams, The Orthodox and the Nonjurors, p. 78 ; cf. Martin and
Petit, Coll. Cone. Recent. Eccl. Univ. i. 465.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 185
Catholic Church we have received that Communion is made by all
the faithful, both clergy and laity, individually in both kinds, and
not the laity in one kind and the priests in both, as is done in the
innovation which the Latins have wrongly made. As an explanatory
and most accurately significant declaration of this change (peTaBoXTJs)
of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and
His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word
Transubstantiation (pieTovcriuyo-ews), which the Catholic Church as a
whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this
mystery. Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened
bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in
leavened bread, as has been the custom from the first in the Catholic
Church of Christ." 1
In 1838 the decrees of the Council of Jerusalem, which had
now been for over 150 years the authorised formularies of the
Greek Church, were accepted by the Holy Synod of the Russian
Church with certain modifications. In the decree relating to
the Eucharist the phrase " the substance of the bread and wine
no longer remain," was altered to "the very bread and wine
no longer remain " and the words " under the accidents of the
bread " were omitted.2 The reason for these alterations appears
to have been a desire on the part of the Russian divines to
avoid some of the technicalities which had become current in
the West.
The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Church of
the East, based on earlier catechisms, was drawn up in its present
form by Philaret, the Metropolitan of Moscow, and was adopted
after revision by the Russian Holy Synod in 1839. It was sub
sequently translated into Greek and received the approval of
all the Eastern Patriarchs. It contains the following questions
and answers on the subject of the Eucharist : —
" Q. — What is the Communion ?
" A. — The Communion is a Sacrament in which the believer,
1 C. 6. See Martin and Petit, Coll. Cone. Recent. Eccl. Univ. i. 897-
99. 2 See Neale, History of the Holy Eastern Church, ii. 1174 ; Palmer (of
Magdalen College), Dissertations on Subjects Relating to the " Orthodox " or
" Eastern-Catholic " Communion, pp. 207, 208 ; Palmer (of Worcester
College), A Treatise on the Church of Christ, i. 172, 173 ; W. J. B. on The
Russian Church and the Council of Trent in the Guardian of March 31,
1897.

186 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
under the forms of bread and wine, partakes of the very body and
blood of Christ, to everlasting life. . . .
"Q.— What is the most essential act in this part of the Liturgy ?
"A. — The utterance of the words which Jesus Christ spake in
instituting the Sacrament, 'Take, eat, this is My body; drink ye
all of it, for this is My blood of the New Testament'; Matt. xxvi.
26, 27, 28 ; and after this the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and
the blessing the gifts, that is, the bread and wine which have been
offered. " Q. — Why is this so essential ?
"A. — Because at the moment of this act the bread and wine are
changed or transubstantiated into the very body of Christ, and into
the very blood of Christ.
" Q. — How are we to understand the word Transubstantiation ? x
"A.— In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs it
is said that the word Transubstantiation is not to be taken to define
the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the body
and blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but
only this much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and sub
stantially becomes the very true body of the Lord, and the wine
the very blood of the Lord. . . .
"Q. — What benefit does he receive who communicates in the
body and blood of Christ ?
" A. — He is in the closest manner united to Jesus Christ Him
self, and in Him is made partaker of everlasting life. . . .
" Q. — What part can they have in the Divine Liturgy who only
hear it without approaching the Holy Communion ?
"A. — They may and should take part in the Liturgy by prayer
and faith and especially by a continual remembrance of our Lord
Jesus Christ, who expressly has commanded us to ' do this in remem
brance of Him' (Luke xxii. 19).
" Q. — What should we remember at that time in the Liturgy
when they make the procession with the Gospel ?
"A. — Jesus Christ appearing to preach the Gospel. So also
when the Gospel is reading we should have the same attention and
reverence as if we saw and heard Jesus Christ Himself.
1 It seems best to follow Blackmore in translating presushchestvlenie
Transubstantiation, as the Greek equivalent peTowlao-is has been trans
lated. It has however been stated that Philaret, who wrote this Catechism,
did not approve of thiB translation, probably on the ground that the con
notation of ova-La differs from that of substantia. See an article in the
Tzerkovny Viestnik, translated in the Guardian of May 12, 1897.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 187
" Q. — What should we remember at that time in the Liturgy
when they make the procession with the gifts from the table of pre
paration to the altar ?
" A. — Jesus Christ going to suffer voluntarily as a victim to the
slaughter, while more than twelve legions of angels were ready
around to guard Him as their King. . . .
" Q. — What should we remember at the moment of the con
secration of the Sacrament, and while the clergy are communicating
within the altar ?
" A. — The mystical supper of Jesus Christ Himself with His
Apostles, His suffering, death, and burial.
" Q. — What is set forth after this by the drawing back of the
veil, the opening of the royal doors, and the appearance of the holy
gifts ?
"A. — The appearance of Jesus Christ Himself after His resur
rection. " Q. — What is figured by the last showing of the holy gifts to
the people, after which they are hid from view ?
"A. — The ascension of Jesus Christ into heaven."1
In the office for the consecration of a bishop in the Russian
Church, which has been in use since 1725, the bishop-elect makes
a profession which includes the following statement : —
" I do believe and understand that the Transubstantiation of the
body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper is made, as the Eastern
and ancient Russian doctors teach, by the influence and operation of
the Holy Ghost at the invocation, when the bishop or priest prays to
God the Father in these words, 'Make therefore this bread the
most honourable body of Thy Christ '." 2
Four of the best known of the Greek Catechisms in ordinary
use at the present time are the Holy Catechism of M. Bernadakis,
the Orthodox Christian Catechism of M. Moschakis, the Christian
Catechism of M. Kyriakos, and the Orthodox Holy Catechism of
1 From the English translation of the Longer Catechism of the Orthodox
Catholic Church of the East, given in Blackmore, The Doctrine of the Russian
Church, pp. 89-94.
2 Printed by King, The Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church in
Russia, p. 296, from a form issued at St. Petersburg in 1725. The references
to Peter the Great, the Holy Synod, and the reigning Empress show that
the parts of the office surrounding the profession are later than the forma
tion of the Holy Synod in 1721 and the death of Peter the Great in
January, 1726.

188 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Bishop Nektarios. Of these that by M. Bernadakis is the
shortest and simplest, that by Bishop Nektarios is the longest
and most complete, the other two are intermediate. Each of the
four contains teaching about the Eucharist. That in the Holy
Catechism of M. Bernadakis is as follows : — ¦
"The third mystery is the Eucharist, which is also called Re
ception and Communion. . . . The priest takes bread and wine with
water, which with the prayers of the priest and the prayers and
supplications of the Church are changed (peraBdXXovrai) by the
Holy Ghost ; and the bread becomes the body of Christ and the
wine His blood. In this way the Christian partakes of the actual
(10W) body and blood of Christ, although the Holy Communion
has the taste not of flesh and blood but of bread and wine. The
Christian by partaking of the holy body and blood of the Saviour
Christ becomes one with Him, and thus gains possession of the
strongest weapon against the devil and sin, and is sanctified and
strengthened for works that are good and well-pleasing to God." 1
In the Orthodox Christian Catechism of M. Moschakis it is
said : —
" The Eucharist is a mystery in which by partaking of the bread
and the wine we believe that we have communion in the body and
blood of Christ. . . . Great is the mystery of the Eucharist because
it represents (dvairapiora.) the death of Jesus and His sacrifice on
the cross on our behalf, and because by it we are made one with
Jesus. . . . Baptism is our spiritual regeneration, and the Eucharist
is our spiritual food and sustenance." 2
The following is the explanation given in the Christian Cate
chism of M. Kyriakos : —
"The Eucharist is that holy rite in which we believe that by
partaking of the bread and the wine we have communion in the
body itself and the blood of the Lord, and are united with Him,
and also make remembrance of His death on our behalf. . . . The
Eucharist . . . represents to us (dvaTrapio-T-qo-iv rjpiv) actually and
really the death itself and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Therefore the Protestants err when they deny the notion of sacri
fice in the Eucharist, and that it stands in the closest possible rela
tion to the death of the Lord on the cross." 3
1 Pp. 26, 27 (seventh edition, 1882).
2 P. 59 (fifth edition, 1897).
3 Pp. 91, 92 (fourth edition, 1897).

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 189
In the explanation of the High Priesthood of Christ given in
the Orthodox Holy Catechism of Bishop Nektarios the following
passage occurs : —
"For ever does He offer Himself a sacrifice on behalf of the life
and salvation of the world through His holy mysteries, which He
has appointed in His Church, because in the rite of the mystic
sacrifice it is He who offers and is offered, who receives the sacri
fice and is distributed." 1
Farther on in the same Catechism, in the explanation of the
Eucharist Bishop Nektarios writes : —
" The Eucharist is the spiritual food of the Christian, which gives
life to the soul and leads man to immediate communion with the
Saviour Christ, because he who communicates, receives under the
species (eTSos) of the bread and the wine the precious body itself and
the precious blood itself of our Lord Jesus Christ, and is united mys
tically with Him. The Eucharist is for the healthful joy of soul and
body, for remission of sins, and for eternal life. ... In this mys
tery the priest gives and the faithful partake of and communicate in
the body and blood of our Saviour Christ. . . . The Christian . . .
under the species (ei8r)) of the bread and the wine receives the body
itself and the blood of the Lord. . . . The words ' Do this for My
memorial ' signify the continual memory of the Incarnation of the Son
of God, our Saviour Jesus Christ, and His saving sufferings, the great
benefit which we received through the redemption, and the eternal
good things of which we have been counted worthy in the kingdom
of God. . . . Those who receive worthily become partakers of the
body and blood of the Lord . . . and receiving the remission of
their sins are declared to be heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and
receive eternal life." 2
These Catechisms represent in simple ways the theology about
the Eucharist which has been seen to be traditional in the East.
Naturally they express it in a less technical manner than the
decrees of the Council of Jerusalem. Like the Longer Catechism
of the Orthodox Catholic Church of the East they do not refer
to the " accidents " ; unlike it they make no mention of " Tran
substantiation ". But it is evident that the doctrine which they
are intended to convey is the same as that taught by the Council
of Jerusalem and in the Longer Catechism.
1 P. 72 (edition 1889). 2 Pp. 172, 173.

190 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
The treatise on Dogmatic Theology by Dr. Makarios, who
was Bishop of Vinnitza and Rectorof the Seminary in St. Peters
burg in the middle of the nineteenth century, is of high repute
as representing the doctrine ordinarily held and taught in the
Russian Church. In this treatise the doctrine of the Eucharist
is explained and defended at length. The general lines adopted
are identical with those which have already been observed in
many quarters ; and a few short extracts may sufficiently show
the teaching contained in the book.
" At the moment when the minister who celebrates the Sacra
ment of the Eucharist, following the commandment of the Saviour,
invokes the Holy Ghost on the oblations and blesses and consecrates
them . . - the bread and the wine are really changed by the descent
-of the Holy Ghost to the real body and real blood of Jesus Christ." 1
" The bread and the wine cannot become the real body and the
real blood of Jesus Christ except by the translation or change of the
substance itself of the bread and the wine into the substance of the
body and the blood of Jesus Christ, that is, by Transubstantia
tion." 2
" Under the species of the bread and wine . . . the body and the
blood of Jesus Christ . . . are complete and inseparable ; for Jesus
Christ is always one and inseparable ; . . . His body and His blood
remain inseparable and always complete, inasmuch as His body is a
living body which 'being raised from the dead dieth no more'
(Rom. vi. 9), a glorified body, a spiritual body (1 Cor. xv. 43, 44),
<m& immortal." 3
" In the Eucharist the body and the blood of the Saviour, which
are offered to us as food, are offered also as a sacrifice to God for
men." 4
" The sacrifice offered to God in the Eucharist is in its nature
exactly the same as that of the cross ; for to-day we still offer on the
altars of the Church the same Lamb of God who offered Himself of
old on the cross for the sins of the world, the same flesh infinitely
pure which suffered then, the same blood infinitely precious which
was then poured out. To-day also this mysterious oblation is
invisibly accomplished by the same eternal High Priest who offered
Himself on the cross." 5
1 ii. 456. All the passages from Makarios are quoted from, and the re
ferences are given to, the French translation of his book published at Paris
in 1860 under the title Th'eologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe par Macaire.
2ii. 471. sii. 475, 476. 4ii. 492. 6ii. 498.

EASTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 191
" In the method and circumstances of the oblation the Euchar
istic sacrifice differs from the sacrifice of the cross. On the cross
the Lord Jesus offered visibly in sacrifice to God His body infinitely
pure and His blood of infinite value ; in the Eucharist He offers
them under the species of the bread and the wine. There He
Himself, immediately, as High Priest celebrated the sacrifice of
expiation ; here, though He also Himself celebrates it, He does
so invisibly through the agency of the pastors of the Church.
There the sacrifice was offered by the actual immolation of the Lamb,
it was a bloody sacrifice, for the Lord Jesus really suffered, poured
out His blood, tasted death in His flesh ; to-day, in that ' being
raised from the dead He dieth no more,' and that 'death hath no
more dominion over Him ' (Rom. vi. 9), the sacrifice is offered in the
Eucharist by means of mysterious transformation by the Holy Spirit
or Transubstantiation of the bread and the wine into the body and
the blood of Jesus Christ without sufferings, without shedding of
blood, without death. . . . The two sacrifices are inseparably united,
properly speaking forming only one sacrifice, and yet at the same
time different the one from the other." 1
This treatment of the doctrine of the Eucharist by Bishop
Makarios follows so closely the ordinary Eastern teaching since
the Council of Jerusalem that one point only in it calls for com
ment. The entire absence of any allusion to the work of our
Lord in heaven in connection with the Eucharistic sacrifice is
in marked contrast to the way in which Eastern theologians in
patristic and later times lay stress on the unity of the one sacri
fice offered on the cross, in heaven, and in the Eucharist. 2
In further illustration of the teaching of the Russian Church
the following passage from M. KhomiakofPs Essay on the Unity
of the Church is of great interest : —
" Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist the holy Church
teaches that in it the change of bread and wine into the body and
blood of Christ is verily accomplished. She does not reject the
word Transubstantiation ; but she does not assign to it that material
meaning which is assigned to it by the teachers of the churches
which have fallen away. The change of the bread and wine into the
body and blood of Christ is accomplished in the Church and for the
Church. I f a man receive the consecrated gifts, or worship them,
or think on them with faith, he verily receives, adores, and thinks
1 ii. 499, 500. ' See, e.g., pp. 117, 118, 158-61, supra.

192 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
on, the body and blood of Christ. If he receive unworthily, he
verily rejects the body and blood of Christ ; in any case, in faith or
in unbelief he is sanctified or condemned by the body and blood of
Christ. . . . Not in spirit alone was Christ pleased to unite Himself
with the faithful, but also in body and in blood ; in order that the
union might be complete, and not only spiritual but also corporal.
. . . We shall not rise again without the body, and no spirit except
the Spirit of God can be said to be entirely incorporeal. He that
despises the body sins through pride of spirit." J
VII.
The main fact to be noticed in the history of Eucharistic
doctrine in the East from the sixth century to the present time
is the continuance and unanimity of the teaching that the con
secrated elements are the body and blood of Christ, that the
consecration is effected by the work of the Holy Ghost elicited
by the invocation of Him in the Liturgy, and that the Eucharist
is a sacrificial presentation of Christ to God. In the earliest part
of the period and often afterwards there is a tendency to confuse
the outward and the inward parts of the Sacraments ; from the
eighth century onwards a distinction is clearly made that before
consecration the elements are the image of the body of Christ,
and that, on becoming His actual body at the consecration, they
cease to Be the image ; in the fifteenth and later centuries
elaborate distinctions are found between the substance and the
accidents and between the natural and the sacramental presence
of Christ, and the word Transubstantiation is used. The idea of
the sacrifice during the greater part of the period is that of one
sacrifice pleaded on the cross, in heaven, and on the altar, though
in the latter part of it the connection between our Lord's
heavenly offering and the offering of the Eucharist is but seldom
expressed. The description of the elements before consecration
as the image of Christ's body, taken with the way of regarding
images customary in the East, is associated with the setting forth
of the stages of Christ's earthly life, passion, resurrection, and
ascension in the Liturgy as a sacrificial presentation.
1 Pp. 207, 208 of the translation in Birkbeck, Russia and the English
Church.

CHAPTER V.
WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH TO THE
FIFTEENTH CENTURY.
Part I.
Some of the more characteristic differences between Eastern and
Western theology have been noticed in the introduction to the
last chapter. It is unnecessary to repeat here what was there
said. But there are specific points of difference of historical fact
to which it may be well to refer. In the East the history of
Eucharistic doctrine is for the most part untouched by con
troversy. Such controversies as arose concerning the application
of the word image to the elements and the direction of the offer
ing of the sacrifice leave unbroken the main stream of belief in
the principal aspects of the doctrine. The discussions in the
sixteenth century about the teaching of Cyril Lucar were rather
the repelling of alien ideas coming in from outside than real
difference among theologians properly Eastern. In the West
the history from the ninth century to the fifteenth is continually
broken by controversy ; and from the sixteenth century onwards
the literature of the subject is almost wholly controversial.
Without going beyond the fifteenth century, there are at best
marked differences of view and at worst bitter controversy in the
clisputes resulting fi-om the teaching of Paschasius Radbert in the
ninth century, the conflicts concerning Berengar in the eleventh,
the varying types of scholastic thought in the thirteenth, and
the questionings and denials and re-assertions of mediaeval doctrine
in the fourteenth and fifteenth. I.
In the writers of the period from the sixth century to the
eighth there are but scanty references to Eucharistic doctrine,
and few of them are of any special importance. It may be suffi-
vol. i. 193 18

194 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
cient to mention some passages in the writings of St. Gregory
the Great, Isidore of Seville, St. Germain of Paris, the Vener
able Bede, Alcuin, and Theodulf of Orleans.
St. Gregory the Great was born at Rome about 540 ; he be
came Pope in 590 ; he died in 604 His life and writings are
entitled to special interest on the part of Englishmen who re
member him with gratitude as " ' Gregory our father,' who ' sent
us Baptism'".1 His allusions to the presence of Christ in the
Eucharist make no attempt at definition, but they imply a belief
that the consecrated elements are the body and blood of Christ.
Of the gift bestowed and received in Communion he says : —
"The good Shepherd laid down His life for His sheep, that in
our Sacrament He might give (verteret) His body and blood, and
might satisfy the sheep whom He had redeemed with the nourish
ment of His flesh." 2
" His body is taken, His flesh is. distributed for the salvation of
the people, His blood is poured not now into the hands of unbelievers
but into the mouths of the faithful." 3
He incidentally refers to the reserved Sacrament as " the body
of the Lord " in the account of a monk who had died without
the blessing of St. Benedict, whose body could not be kept under
the earth until the Sacrament had been placed on his breast.
" The man of God at once gave with his hand the Communion
of the body of the Lord, saying, ' Go and place this body of the
Lord on his breast with great reverence, and thus lay him in the
grave '. And when this was done the earth received and kept his
body and no longer cast it out." 4
St. Gregory, without exactly defining wherein the sacrifice of
the Eucharist consists, asserts that it is a sacrifice, ascribes specific
effects to the offering of the sacrifice, connects it with both the
passion and the heavenly offering of our Lord, and sees in it some
kind of renewal of the passion. After mentioning instances of
deliverance from captivity, impending death, and purgatory
1 Bright, Chapters of Early English Church History, p. 40, quoting
from the Council of Clovesho of 747 and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, sub
ann. 565. The author cannot deny himself the pleasure of referring to
the learned and admirable book by Dr. F. Homes Dudden, entitled Gregory
the Great, His Place in History and Thought.
'In Ev. Horn. xiv. 1. 3 Dial. iv. 58. 'Ibid. ii. 24.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 195
through particular offerings of the sacrifice with specific aims, he
declares the duty of
"offering to God daily oblations of tears, the daily sacrifices of
His flesh and blood. For this victim in a unique way saves the soul
from eternal destruction, which in mystery renews (reparat) for us
the death of the only-begotten Son, who, though He rising from the
dead dieth no more and death shall not again have dominion over
Him, yet living in Himself immortally and incorruptibly is again
sacrificed on our behalf in this mystery of the sacred oblation. . . .
Let us think of what kind this sacrifice on our behalf is, which to
set us free ever represents the passion of the only-begotten Son.
For who of the faithful can hold it doubtful that in the very hour of
the sacrifice at the voice of the priest the heavens are opened, in
that mystery of Jesus Christ the bands of the angels are present,
things lowest are brought into communion with the highest, things
earthly are united with the heavenly, and the things that are seen
and those which are unseen become one ? " x
Elsewhere he speaks similarly of the renewal of the passion and
of the association with the heavenly offering.
" He who in Himself rising from the dead dieth no more still
by means of this sacrifice suffers again in His own mystery on our
behalf. For as often as we offer unto Him the sacrifice of His pas
sion, so often we renew His passion to ourselves to set us free." 2
" Without intermission the Redeemer offers a burnt-offering on our
behalf, who without ceasing presents to the Father His Incarnation
for us. For His Incarnation is itself the offering of our cleansing,
and, when He shows Himself as Man, He washes away by His in
tervention the sins of man. And by the mystery of His humanity
He offers a perpetual sacrifice because these things also which He
cleanses are eternal." 3
In this teaching two things are alike clear. St. Gregory
does not mean that the Eucharist involves any physical renewal
of our Lord's sufferings or any repetition of His death ; he does
assert that it is a mysterious presentation to the Father of the
passion and death and risen and ascended life of the incarnate
Son. With the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist as the offering of
Christ St. Gregory links the oblation which Christians make of
themselves. In like manner he connects the need of good con-
1Dial. iv. 58. 'In Ev. Horn, xxxvii. 7. * Mor. i. 32.
13*

196 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
duct on the part of communicants with the necessity of receiv
ing Communioa As in much else of his theology, he thereby
follows teaching emphasised by St. Augustine.1 On these sub
jects he writes : —
"The mere reception of the Sacraments of our Redeemer is not
enough really to consecrate the mind unless good works also be
added. For what does it profit to receive with the mouth His
body and blood and to be His enemy by evil conduct ? " 2
" We must offer ourselves to God with a penitent heart, because
we who celebrate the mysteries of the passion of the Lord are
bound to imitate the rite which we perform. Then will it be really
a sacrifice to God on our behalf, when we have made ourselves a
sacrifice. . . . After death we shall not need the healthful sacri
fice, if before death we ourselves have been a sacrifice to God." 3
Incidentally St. Gregory refers to the worship of our Lord
in the Sacrament when, in a passage already quoted, he speaks
of the Lord's body being carried " with great reverence," 4 and
when he elsewhere "says : —
"That the Sacrament of the Lord's passion may not be in
effectual in us, we are bound to imitate what we receive, and to
proclaim what we revere (veneramur)." 6
Isidore of Seville was born at Seville or at Cartagena about
560 ; he became Archbishop of Seville ahout 600 ; he died in
636. He was thus a younger contemporary of Pope Gregory
the Great ; and they may be taken as representative, St.
Gregory of the Italian, Isidore of the Spanish, theology of their
time. Isidore teaches that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and that the
elements are made by consecration to be the body and blood of
Christ. " A type of this sacrifice was shown before in the priesthood of
Melchizedek. . . . 'Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
Melchizedek,' 6 that is, according to the rite of this sacrifice which
Christ completely offered in His passion, and which He commanded
that His Apostles also should have as His memorial. . . . Christ,
the Wisdom of God, has made for Himself a house, that is, the holy
!See pp. 94, 123, 124, supra. *In Ev. Horn. xxii. 8.
3 Dial. iv. 59, 60. 4See p. 194, supra.
6 Mor. xiii. 26. 6 Ps. ex. 4 ; Heb. v. 6, vii. 17.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 197
Church, in which He has offered the sacrifices of His body, in
which He has mingled the wine of His blood in the cup of the
divine Sacrament, and has made ready a Table, that is, the altar of
the Lord, sending His servants, the apostles and teachers, to the
foolish, that is, to all nations ignorant of the true God, saying to
them, 'Come, eat My bread, and drink the wine which I have
mingled for you,' * that is, Receive the food of the holy body, and
drink the wine which I have mingled for you, that is, Take the cup
of the sacred blood." 2
"The transformation (conformatio) of the Sacrament, that the
oblation which is offered to God, being sanctified by the Holy
Ghost, may be transformed (conformetur) to the body and blood of
Christ. . . . The sacrifice which is offered by Christians to God,
Christ our Lord first instituted as Master, when He gave to the
Apostles His own body and blood. . . . The bread which we break
is the body of Christ. . . . The wine is His blood. . . . The bread,
because it strengthens the body, is called the body of Christ ; the
wine, because it produces blood in the flesh, is referred to the blood
of Christ. Though these things are visible, yet being sanctified by
the Holy Ghost, they are changed (transeunt) into the Sacrament of
the divine body. ... To offer the sacrifice for the repose of the
faithful departed, and to pray for them, because this custom is pre
served throughout the whole world, we believe has been handed
down from the Apostles themselves." 3
Like St. Augustine and St. Gregory the Great, Isidore clearly
teaches that Communion does not benefit those who receive
unworthily. "They who live wickedly in the Church and do not cease to
communicate, imagining that they are cleansed by such Communion,
are to learn that it is of no avail for cleansing them." 4
In two sentences already quoted, the phrase "sanctified by
the Holy Ghost " ascribes to the Holy Ghost the work of the
consecration of the elements. In his letter to Redemptus Isidore
quotes the words of institution in a manner which implies that
he regarded them as the formula of consecration.
" The essentials of the Sacrament are the words of God used by
the priest in the sacred rite, that is, 'This is My body,' and wheaten
1Prov. ix. 5. 'Defid. cath. II. xxvii. 1, 3.
3De eccl. off. I. xv. 3, xviii. 1, 3, 4, 11.
'Sent. I. xxii. 7.

198 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
bread and wine, with which it is customary to mix water because
both, that is, blood and water, flowed from the side of Christ." x
In the same letter Isidore mentions that the presence is of the
glorified body of Christ and that the whole Christ is present in
both species.
"When the consecration has taken place, it is not the case, as
some ignorant people think, that the flesh of Christ alone is under
the species of bread, and that in the cup only the blood is taken ;
but in each kind is God and Man, whole and perfect Christ in His
glorified body, whole Christ in the cup, living Bread who came
down from heaven, whole in each kind." 2
St. Germain of Paris was an older contemporary of the two
writers last mentioned. He was born at Autun about 496, be
came Archbishop of Paris in 555, and died at Paris about 576.
He is thus a representative of Gallican theology. He says that
" the bread is transformed (transformatur) into the body, and the
wine into the blood," and that " the mystery of the Eucharist is
offered in commemoration of the passion of the Lord ".3 U nless
the reference is to a portion of the consecrated Sacrament
reserved from a preceding celebration, he speaks of the still un
consecrated elements, when solemnly carried to the altar at the
offertory, as " the body of Christ ".4
The Venerable Bede was born in 673 at Jarrow or Wear-
mouth. From the age of seven until his death in 735 he lived
under monastic rule. Ordained deacon in 691 and priest in 702,
he devoted his life to the work of a Christian student. An in
teresting figure to all who care for erudition or industry or devo
tion, he is an object of very special interest to English people,
being, as Dr. Bright well said, " our first truly national scholar
and author, the father of our history," " the man of patriotic
feeling, who loves old English songs, and hates whatever en-
1Ep. vii. 2. 'Ibid.
3 Expos, brev. antiq. lit. Gall. i. (P.L. lxxii. 93).
1 Op. cit. (P.L. lxxii. 92, 93). An instance of similar Eastern phrase
ology is in the words used at the offertory in the Nestorian Liturgy, " The
body of Christ and His precious blood are upon the holy altar " : see
Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, i. 267- With the use of this
anticipatory language may be compared the veneration at the Great
Entrance in the East, though probably to be ascribed to a different cause :
see pp. 171-75, supra.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 199
feebles his country or degrades the national life," " a man ' vener
able' and dear to all generations of English Christianity, a
' candle,' in the words of the great St. Boniface,1 ' which the Lord
lighted up ' in Northumbria ".2 Voluminous and various as are
Bede's writings, they do not contain any systematic teaching
about the Eucharist. Incidental allusions, however, show that the
doctrine held by this Northumbrian scholar was not different
from that professed by St. Gregory the Great in Italy and Isidore
of Seville in Spain and St. Germain of Paris in Gaul. Thus, he
describes Communion as " the reception of the body and blood of
the Lord " ; 3 he refers to the Eucharist as a " sacrifice," " the
most holy offering," " the heavenly sacrifice," " the sacrifice of
the saving Victim," which is offered to God on behalf of the
living and the dead ; 4 and in one of his Homilies for Easter Even
he says of the worship of Christians : —
"We celebrate the rite of the Mass, we offer anew to God for
the advance of our salvation the most holy body and precious blood
of our Lamb, by which we have been redeemed from sin." "°
Alcuin was born of a noble Northumbrian family about 735.
In his youth he was a pupil of Egbert the Archbishop of York,
who had been the disciple and friend of the Venerable Bede, and
of Ethelbert, who succeeded Egbert in his archbishopric. He was
ordained deacon by Ethelbert soon after 767. Much of his life
was spent at the court of the Emperor Charles the Great.
Bishop Stubbs has told us that "the schools of Northumbria
had gathered in the harvest of Irish learning, of the Franco-
Gallican schools," " and of Rome " ; that in the school of York
" was centred nearly all the wisdom of the West " ; that " its
greatest pupil was Alcuin " ; and that " he carried the learning
which would have perished in England, into France and Germany,
where it was maintained whilst England relapsed into the state of
ignorance from which it was delivered by Alfred ".6 He died at
Tours aBout 804. His unquestioned writings show that in regard
to the Eucharist he did not differ from St. Gregory the Great
1 Ep. xxx viii.
2 Bright, Chapters of Early English Church History, pp. 368-71.
3Ep. ad Egbertum, 9 (P.L. xciv. 665).
• Hist. Eccl. ii. 5, iii. 2, iv. 14, 22, 28, v. 10.
5 Horn. II. i. (P.L. xciv. 139).
6 In Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, i. 74.

200 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
and Isidore of Seville and St. Germain of Paris and Bede. His
commentary on St. John's Gospel reproduces the teaching of St.
Augustine as to the need of abiding in Christ and of spiritual
union with Him,1 with the additions made by him or by some
other writer of his time for the purpose of preventing readers
from supposing the passage to be a denial that the unworthy
communicant receives the body of Christ, and so as to run : —
" This then is to eat that food and to drink that drink, to abide in
Christ, and to have Him abiding in oneself. And in this way he
who does not abide in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide,
without doubt does not spiritually eat His flesh, though carnally and
visibly he press with his teeth the Sacrament of the body and blood
of Christ, but rather to his own judgment eats and drinks the Sacra
ment of so great a thing." 2
In his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews 3 he reproduces
the teaching of St. Chrysostom on the one sacrifice offered by
our Lord on the cross, in heaven, and on the altar of the Church
on earth. i In his letters the following passages occur : —
" We have heard that some maintained that salt is to be placed
on the sacrifice of the body of Christ. . . . From water and flour
is made the bread which is consecrated to be the body (in corpus)
of Christ ; water and wine will be consecrated to be the blood (in
sanguinem) of Christ. : . . Did the flesh of Christ rot in the tomb,
so that His body should now need salt in the sacrifice ? . . . Of
this most sacred oblation a type went before in Melchizedek, who
was wont to offer wine and bread to the most high God. Moreover
the consecration of this mystery shows the effect of our salvation.
In the water is understood the people of the believers. In the
grains of wheat whence the flour is made that it may become bread,
the union of the whole Church is indicated, which by the fire of the
Holy Ghost is baked into one body, so that the members may be
united to their Head. Also, in the waters which are mixed with
the wine there is a figure, as we said, of the nations. But in the
wine the blood of the Lord's passion is shown." 6
" Forget not, I beg, the name of your friend Alcuin, but store it
1 See pp. 93, 94, supra.
2 On St. John vi. 57. The additions are "spiritually " and "though
carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the Sacrament of the body and
blood of Christ"- See pp. 93, 94, supra, and vol. ii. p. 209, infra.
sOn x. 1-4. " See pp. 117, 118, supra. 5Ep. xc. (P.L. c. 289).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 201
up in some casquet of your memory, and bring it out at that fitting
time when you have consecrated the bread and wine to be the sub
stance (in substantiam) of the body and blood of Christ." x
Questions have been raised whether the treatise entitled Con
fession of the Faith, ascribed to Alcuin, is his work ; but, since,
whoever the author, it is a good representative of Western
thought and belief of the eighth and ninth centuries, parts of
it may be quoted here. The fourth book of the treatise is called
Of the Body and Blood of the Lord. After au expression of per
sonal unworthiness and of a deep sense of the mystery of the
Sacrament, the writer proceeds : —
" Though it is offered by man, yet this Sacrament is a divine
thing. And if it is a divine thing, or rather because it is such, God
forbid that anything should be understood about it in other than a
divine and spiritual sense. Therefore, although with bodily eyes I
see the priest offering bread and wine at the altar of the Lord, yet
by the gaze of faith and by the pure sight of the heart I behold the
supreme officiant and true High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ, offer
ing Himself, of whose flesh and blood we eat and drink, and are
thereby washed and satisfied and sanctified, and are made partakers
of the one and supreme Godhead. Verily He Himself is the
priest, He Himself is the sacrifice ; and therefore this saving victim
is not ever or anywhere diminished or increased, changed or altered,
whether it is a righteous or a guilty priest who approaches the altar,
but this Sacrament abides always and everywhere the very same.
For by the power and words of Christ that bread and cup have been
consecrated from the first. By the power and words of Christ it is
always consecrated, and will be consecrated. Christ Himself speaks
daily in His priests. His is the word which sanctifies the heavenly
Sacraments. Priests perform their office, but Christ by the majesty
of divine power does the work. . . . He Himself by the power of
the Spirit the Paraclete and by the heavenly blessing consecrates
His holy body and blood. Therefore in this most holy offering of
the Lord's body and blood common worship is presented to God both
by the priests and by the whole family of the house of God. . . .
I do not doubt that the citizens of heaven are present at this mystery,
so that by means of the ministrations and prayers of the angels, as
at the altar on high, it is offered in the sight of the divine majesty.
For, if in that home there is a sacrifice of perpetual praise and a
perpetual priest, there is a perpetual priest and a perpetual altar in
1Ep. xii. (P.L. c. 203).

202 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
heaven, not material but reasonable and spiritual, to which the offer
ing is borne. . . . This is the true offering, in which the Son is
offered and the Father is reconciled. This is the true and eternal
victim, because His is the true and eternal power, and through Him
is accomplished the true and eternal salvation. . . . He is offered
while He is not being slain, He is eaten without being diminished,
He restores others but fails not in Himself, being eaten He is alive
because He rose from the dead. ... All eat of Him, yet each one
eats Him whole. He is divided into parts, and yet He is whole in
every part. . . . Cleanse first your conscience. You can be injured not
aided, if you approach unclean. So great is the virtue of this sacri
fice that the body and blood of Christ is for righteous only, not for
sinners. It cleanses those sins without which this life cannot be. . . .
Because Christ foresaw that we should sin after that salvation where
with He redeemed us, He instituted this ineffable Sacrament in order
that by its sanctifi cation we might be pardoned without intermission.
Therefore to some He comes for remission of sins and increase of
virtue, to others for weight of judgment and greatest loss. . . .
To each one will the body and blood of Christ be life, if that which
is visibly taken in the Sacrament is spiritually eaten and spiritually
drunk in very truth. . . . Where is His body, there truly is Christ
Himself."1 Theodulf of Orleans may have been a native either of Spain
or of Italy. He was brought to Gaul by the Emperor Charles
the Great, and became Bishop of Orleans and Abbot of Fleury
about 788. The probable date of his death is 821. Incidental
references to the Eucharist in his writings afford an additional
instance to those already given of the ordinary settled belief of
the Western theologians at the end of the eighth and beginning
of the ninth century before the controversies of the ninth cen
tury arose. Theodulf speaks of the Eucharist as a sacrifice ; he
says that the Jewish priests had not a sacrifice so holy as that
of Christians, and that Christian priests " handle not beasts as
victims but the stainless body and blood of the Lord itself,"
and that " by the visible offering of the priests and the invisible
consecration of the Holy Ghost the bread and wine are changed
(transeunt) into the dignity of the body and blood of the
Lord".2 ] Conf.fid. iv. 1, 2, 3, 7. See pp. 213, 214, infra.
2 Cap. i. 5 ; Cap. ii. ; De ord. bapt. 18 (P.L. cv. 193, 216, 240).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 203
II.
Reference has been made in an earlier chapter to the liturgi
cal prayers in use in North Italy at the close of the fourth cen
tury.1 It may be convenient to quote here some parts of the
Western rites used in the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries.
Taking first the fixed element known as the canon of the
Mass,2 this may be quoted as given in the Gelasian Sacramen
tary, a Roman document of the seventh or eighth century : —
"Thee therefore, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ
Thy Son our Lord we humbly pray and beseech that Thou wouldest
accept and bless these offerings, these gifts, these holy spotless
sacrifices, which we offer to Thee, in the first place, for Thy Holy
Catholic Church, that Thou wouldest deign to keep in peace, to
guard, to unite, and to govern it throughout the whole world, to
gether with Thy servant our Pope and our ruler the bishop. Re
member, O Lord, Thy servants and handmaidens, and all here present,
whose faith is known to Thee, and their devotion plain, who offer to
Thee this sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all their own, for
the redemption of their souls, for the hope of their salvation and
safety, who pay their vows to Thee, the eternal and true and living
God. Joining in communion with and venerating the memory in
the first place of the glorious and ever virgin Mary, the mother of
our God and Lord Jesus Christ, and also of Thy blessed Apostles
and martyrs Peter and Paul . . . and all Thy saints, to whose merits
1 See pp. 87, 120, supra.
2 It is probable that the canon was compiled out of Latin prayers of a
variable order in the time of Pope Damasus, who died in 384. See E.
Burbidge in the Guardian, 24th March, 1897. See Pseudo-Augustine,
Quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test, (contemporary with Damasus), eix. 21, for a refer
ence to the words " the high priest Melchizedek " ; Liber Pontificalis
(early in the sixth ceutury), xlvii., Leo I., for a statement that St. Leo the
Great added the words "a holy sacrifice, a stainless offering " ; St. Gregory
the Great, Ep. ix. 12, for a statement that the canon was composed by
some " learned man " (scholasticus). The canon is usually regarded as
beginning with "Thee therefore " and ending before the Lord's Prayer :
see Atchley, Ordo Romanus Primus, p. 138 ; Bona, Rer. Liturg. II. xi. 1,
xiv. 5 ; Lambertini (Pope Benedict XIV.), De sacros. sacrif. Missae, II. xii.
2 ; and the present Roman Missal, Rubr. gen. Miss. xii. xiii., Ritus serv. in
eel. Missae, vii. viii. ix. In the Gelasian Sacramentary, however, it is said
to begin with the Sursum corda ; and early in the ninth century Amalarius
of Metz speaks of the "Thee therefore " as being " in the midst of the
canon" ; see De eccl. off. iv. 27 (P.L. cv. 1146).

204 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
and prayers grant that in all things we may be defended by the
help of Thy protection. Through Christ our Lord. This oblation
therefore of our service, and also of that of Thy whole family, we
beseech, O Lord, that Thou wouldest be pleased to accept, and to
order our days in Thy peace, and to command us to be delivered
from eternal condemnation and numbered in the flock of Thy elect.
Through Christ our Lord. Which offering do Thou, O God, we
beseech, vouchsafe to make in all things blessed, approved, ratified,
reasonable, and acceptable, that it may become to us the body and
blood of Thy dearly beloved Son our Lord God Jesus Christ. Who
on the day before He suffered took bread into His holy and vener
able hands, and with His eyes lifted up to heaven to Thee, the God,
His almighty Father, gave thanks to Thee, and blessed, brake,
gave to His disciples, saying, Take and eat ye all of this. For this
is My body. In like manner after supper, taking also this excellent
cup into His holy and venerable hands, and also giving thanks to
Thee, He blessed, gave to His disciples, saying, Take and drink ye
all of this : for this is the cup of My blood of the new and eternal
covenant, the mystery of faith, which will be poured out for you and
for many for the remission of sins. As often as ye shall do this, ye
shall do it for a memorial of Me. Wherefore, O Lord, we Thy
servants, and also Thy holy people, are mindful of the so blessed
passion of Christ Thy Son our Lord God, and also of His resurrection
from the dead, and also of His glorious ascension into heaven; we
offer to Thy excellent majesty of Thy gifts and bounties a pure offer
ing, a holy offering, a stainless offering, the holy bread of eternal
life and the cup of everlasting salvation. Upon which mayest Thou
deign to look with favourable and gracious countenance, and to ac
cept, as Thou didst deign to accept the gifts of Thy righteous
servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, and that
which Thy high priest Melchizedek offered to Thee, a holy sacrifice,
a stainless offering. Humbly we beseech Thee, Almighty God,
command these to be borne by the hands of Thy Angel to Thy altar
on high in the presence of Thy divine majesty, that all we who shall
receive from this participation of the altar the most holy body and
blood of Thy Son may be filled with all heavenly blessing and
grace. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.1 To us sinners also, Thy
1 Here the Rheinau MS. inserts, " Remember also, O Lord, the names
of those who have gone before us with the sign of faith and sleep in the
sleep of peace. To them, O Lord, and to all who rest in Christ we be
seech Thee to grant a place of refreshment, light, and peace. Through
Christ our Lord."

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 205
servants, trusting in the multitude of Thy mercies, mayest Thou
deign to grant some part with Thy holy Apostles and martyrs, with
John . . . and with all Thy saints, into whose company we beseech
Thee to admit us, not weighing our merit but allowing us indulgence.
Through Christ our Lord. Through whom all these good things, O
Lord, Thou dost ever create, sanctify, quicken, bless, and bestow on
us. Through Him and with Him and in Him is to Thee God the
Father almighty in the unity of the Holy Ghost all honour and glory
for ever and ever. Amen." l
The text of the Leonine Sacramentary is probably of the
latter part of the sixth century, though it is assigned by some
scholars to the seventh. It represents the use of the Roman
Church of that time. Among the prayers contained in it which
bear on the doctrine of the Eucharist are the following :—
" Humbly we beseech Thee, O Lord our God, that we who have
received the substance of the heavenly table may attain to eternal
life." " Look, O Lord, with propitiation on the sacrifice that is to be
celebrated, that it may cleanse us from the faults of our state and
make us acceptable to Thy name."
"We humbly implore Thy majesty, that, as Thou dost feed us
with the food of the most holy body and blood, so Thou wilt make
us partakers of the divine nature."
"We give Thee thanks and praise, O Lord, who hast fed us
with the communion of the body and blood of Thy dearly beloved
. Son our Lord, humbly imploring Thy mercy that this Sacrament of
Thine, O Lord, may not be to us guilt for punishment but may be
made a healthful intercession for pardon."
" We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the gifts which Thou hast be
stowed, that in regard to our mortal life they may testify the aid of
Thy creation, and may accomplish for us the remedy of immortality." 2
A series of eleven Gallican Masses in a MS. of the end of
the seventh century which was found at Reichenau contains the
following passages : —
1 The above is quoted as printed from the MS. in the Vatican Library
in Wilson, The Gelasian Sacramentary, pp. 234-36. Other readings are
given by Mr. Wilson in his notes on pp. 237-40. For a critical com
parison of the early texts of the Roman canon see E. Bishop in the Journal
of Theological Studies, iv. 655-77.
'Sacr. Leon. (P.L. Iv. 69, 74, 76, 77 ; Feltoe's edition, pp. 61, 67, 71,
72).

206 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
" We pray that Thou wilt bless this sacrifice with Thy blessing,
and pour upon it the dew of Thy Holy Spirit, that it may be a valid
(legitima) Eucharist to all who receive it."
" May this oblation being converted (conversa) into the body and
blood of Christ prevail ; may it be for rest to the departed ; may it
abide for reward to those who offer it, for salvation to those who
receive it."
"We implore Thee, Almighty Father, to pour the Spirit of
sanctification upon these creatures laid on Thine altar, that by the
transformation (transfusione) of the heavenly and invisible Sacrament
this bread may be changed (mutatur) into the flesh, and the cup
transformed (translalus) into the blood."
" May there descend, O Lord, the fulness of Thy power, God
head, goodness, might, blessing, and glory upon this bread and upon
this cup, that there may be to us a valid (legitima) Eucharist in the
transformation (transformatione) of the body and blood of the Lord."
" We consecrate (sacramus) the body and blood of Thy dearly
beloved Son."
" He commanded also that, as often as His body and blood
should be taken, there should be a commemoration of the passion
of the Lord. . . . We pray that Thou wilt bless this sacrifice with
Thy blessing, and pour upon it the dew of the Holy Spirit, that it
may be a pure and real and valid (legitima) Eucharist to all who
receive it." x
The Gothic Missal is probably of the end of the seventh
century or of the eighth. It is largely Gallican, though it
contains some Roman elements. The following passages may
be quoted from it : —
" Fed with heavenly food, and remade by the drinking of the
eternal cup, let us unceasingly give thanks and praise to our Lord
God, seeking that we who have spiritually received the most holy
body of our Lord Jesus Christ, being freed from carnal vices, may be
counted worthy to be made spiritual."
" We humbly pray that Thou wilt deign to receive and bless
and sanctify this sacrifice, that it may be made to us a valid (legitima)
Eucharist in Thy name and the name of Thy Son and the name of
the Holy Ghost, for the transformation of the body and blood of
our Lord God Thy only begotten Son Jesus Christ."
" Let us venerate the day of the Epiphany, asking with pious
1Mone, Lateinische und Griechische Messen, pp. 18, 19, 21, 24, 26, 27 ;
xepriuted in P.L. cxxxviii. 866, 867, 869, 871, 873.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 207
prayer that He who then changed water into wine may now convert
the wine of our offerings into His blood."
" Let there descend, O Lord, on these sacrifices of Thy blessing
the co-eternal and co-working Spirit the Paraclete, that the offering
which we have made to Thee from Thy fruitful earth we may so
receive, through the heavenly gift and Thy sanctifi cation, that, the
fruits of the earth being transformed (translata) into the body and
the cup into the blood, what we have offered for our faults may
avail to our merits."
" May Thy body, O Lord, which we have received and Thy cup
which we have drunk remain within us ; grant, Almighty God, that
no stain may abide where pure and holy Sacraments have entered."
"Mindful of the most glorious passion of the Lord, and of His
resurrection from the dead, we offer to Thee, O Lord, this stainless
offering, a reasonable offering, a bloodless offering, this holy bread
and the cup of salvation, beseeching Thee to pour upon us Thy Holy
Ghost, that we who eat and drink may thereby attain to eternal
life and the everlasting kingdom." 2
The Gelasian Sacramentary represents, as has been said
above, the use of the Roman Church in the seventh or eighth
century. The following are among the passages in it which con
cern the doctrine of the Eucharist : —
" Do Thou, O Lord, pour upon these Thy servants whom we
dedicate with the honour of the presbyterate the hand of Thy bless
ing, that ... in the service of Thy people they may transform
with stainless blessing the body and blood of Thy Son."
" We humbly beseech Thee, O Lord our God, that, as Thou
dost feed us with the food of the most holy body and blood of
Thy Son, so Thou wilt make us to be partakers also of His divine
nature." " O Lord God Almighty, deign to sanctify and bless and con
secrate these linen cloths for the use of Thy altar for covering
and enfolding the body and blood of Thy Son our Lord Jesus
Christ." " We consecrate and sanctify this paten that on it may be made
the body of our Lord Jesus Christ."
" May the mystic offering, O Lord, avail for us, and may it
free us from our guilt and strengthen us with everlasting salva
tion." 2 1Miss. Goth. (P.L. lxxii. 229, 237, 242, 246, 315, 316).
2 Sacr. Gelas. (ed. Wilson, pp. 24, 44, 134, 242).

208 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Some remarkable expressions in the Mozarabic Liturgy of
Spain may possibly be as old as the period here dealt with.
" Here no bleating of sheep, no lowing of oxen, no cry of birds
under the stroke of death brings grief. There is no horror of blood,
no disgust at raw flesh ; but the offering is so wonderful and mar
vellous that it is bloodless, since it is received alive. For, though
real body is eaten, and most plain blood is drunk, yet no horror is
caused, since the salvation of souls is ministered in spiritual food
and drink. . . . We pray that Thou wouldest sanctify this offering
by uniting to it Thy Spirit, and ratify it by the complete transforma
tion of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1
The Antiphonary of Bangor is an Irish book from the
Monastery of Bangor in County Down, Ireland. It is of the
closing years of the seventh century. It contains a hymn ap
pointed to be sung at the time of the Communion. Literally
translated, it is as follows : —
" Come ye who are holy, take the body of Christ,
And drink the holy blood by which ye were redeemed.
Saved by the body and blood of Christ,
And by it refreshed, let us give thanks to God.
By this Sacrament of the body and blood
Are all delivered from the jaws of hell.
The Giver of salvation, Christ, the Son of God,
Saved the world by His cross and blood.
For all was the Lord sacrificed :
He Himself is Priest and Victim.
The Law ordered victims to be offered ;
By it are shadowed the mysteries of God.
The Giver of light and Saviour of all
Has bestowed wonderful grace on the holy.
Let all draw near believing with a pure mind ;
Let them take the eternal guard of salvation.
The Keeper of the holy, their Ruler and Lord,
Is the Giver of everlasting life to believers.
1 Miss. Mixtion (P.L. Ixxxv. 249, 250).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 209
He gives the bread of heaven to the hungry ;
From the living stream He supplies the thirsty.
Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord Himself,
Is here, who is to come to judge mankind." 1
The Stowe Missal is another Irish book, though it is marked
by Roman and Gallican influences. It dates from the eighth
century. A chant sung after the consecration at the fraction
of the consecrated bread contains the words, " The bread which
we break is the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, Alleluia ; the
cup which we bless, Alleluia, is the blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ, Alleluia, for the remission of our sins, Alleluia ".2
These liturgical books supply abundant illustrations that the?
Eucharist was regarded as a sacrifice, and of the two parallel |
ideas that the consecrated elements are the body and blood of/'
Christ, and that in Communion there is a spiritual gift to the]
souls of the recipients of the Sacrament.3
Together with these doctrines there were ways of treating
the consecrated Sacrament which would seem strange to those
who in later times held the same beliefs. In the order of
the Roman Mass which appears to have been drawn up about
the year 770 by Pope Stephen III. on the basis of an earlier
order, though the Pope "with bowed head salutes the Holy,"
that is, the consecrated Sacrament reserved from the previous
Eucharist, the placing of the consecrated bread in linen bags
and the pouring of the consecrated wine from the chalice into
other vessels involved risks of irreverence which at a later date
Christians would have wished to avoid.4 The probable ex
planation is to be found in the different feelings and habits of
life of different times.
1 The Antiphonary of Bangor (Henry Bradshaw Society), i. 10, v, 11, r,
ii. 10, 11. There is a metrical translation of this hymn in Hymns Ancient
and Modern (No. 269, new edition, " Draw nigh and take the body of the
Lord ") ; The English Hymnal (No. 307, " Draw nigh, and take the body of
the Lord "), and other hymn-books.
2 The Stowe Missal (Henry Bradshaw Society), i. 45, 46.
8 See Batiffol, Etudes d'histoire et de thiologie positive, deuxieme serie,
pp. 349-54. 4 §§ 8, 19, 20 (P.L. lxxviii. 941, 946, 947 ; Atchley's edition in vol.
vi. of the "Library of Liturgiology and Ecclesiology," pp. 128, 140,
142). VOL. I. 14

210 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
III.
Amalarius of Metz was a pupil of Alcuin at Aix-la-Chapelle
not earlier than 782. He became Bishop of Treves in 811.
He died about 850. In his treatises On the Offices of the Church
and Selections on the Office of the Mass he expounded an elabo
rate system of interpreting the prayers and ceremonies of the
Eucharist as a symbolical presentation of the life and death and
resurrection and ascension of our Lord, in such a way that one
element of the Eucharistic sacrifice was the series of acts in which
the Church made its own recollection and its commemoration
before God of the whole incarnate life of Christ. The line of
thought thus adopted has much in common with the idea of the
elements before consecration as the image of the body of Christ
current in the East in the eighth century and with the Eastern
liturgical treatises of the thirteenth and fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries.1 It does not seem impossible that Amalarius may
have been to some extent indebted to Eastern theologians.
From 813 to 814 he was on an embassy at Constantinople;
in 825 there was a project of his being sent thither again ;
some interest taken by him in the East may have led to his
selection for such work ; and, since the earlier of the two treatises
was not completed till 827, he may easily have been influenced
in the writing of it by ideas learnt during his sojourn at Con
stantinople in 813 and 814. On the other hand there is nothing
improbable in this way of regarding the successive stages of the
Liturgy having been worked out as a natural result of beliefs
common to the East and the West independently of any direct
influence of Eastern methods or thought.
One of the letters of Amalarius seems to show that he did
not regard the eating of the flesh of the Son of Man spoken
of by our Lord in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel as
equivalent to the reception of the Eucharist; for he explains
the words " Except ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of
Man and shall have drunk His blood, ye shall not have life in
yourselves " 2 as meaning " Unless ye shall have been partakers
of My passion and shall have believed that I died for your
salvation, ye shall not have life in you ".3
These two lines of thought did not hinder Amalarius from
!See pp. 148-50, 165-72, supra. 2St. John vi. 63.
sEp. iv. (P.L. cv. 1334).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 211
believing that at consecration the elements are made to be the
body and blood of Christ, and that these consecrated gifts are
a sacrifice which is accepted by God in heaven. Speaking of
the Consecration and the prayers which follow it, he says : —
" Here we believe that the simple nature of the bread and of
the mingled wine is turned (verti) into a spiritual (rationabilem) nature,
namely of the body and blood of Christ. ... In the Sacrament of
the bread and the wine, as well as in my memory, the passion of
Christ is present. . . . The priest adds in his own name and in that
of the people, 'Wherefore, O Lord, we Thy servants and also
Thy people, mindful of the so blessed passion of the same Thy Son
Christ our Lord, and also of His resurrection from the dead, and
also of His glorious ascension into heaven, do offer unto Thy ex
cellent majesty, of Thine own gifts and bounties, a pure offering, a
holy offering, a stainless offering'. . . . 'The holy bread of eternal
life, the cup of everlasting salvation.' The bread of eternal life and
the cup of everlasting salvation is Christ, or, as I said before, the
bread is the pure offering, the holy offering, the cup is the stainless
offering, and the bread and the wine are both because they make
one body. . . . Then the prayer goes on, ' Upon which vouchsafe
to look with a favourable and gracious countenance, and to ac
cept, as Thou wast pleased to accept the gifts of Thy righteous
servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, and that
which Thy high priest Melchizedek offered unto Thee, a holy
sacrifice and a stainless offering'. The priest prays God the Father
that, as in past time He deigned to look on the gifts of Abel and
the sacrifice of the patriarch and also that of Melchizedek, so he
will have regard to the present supplication, which had its beginning
from the sacrifice of Christ. Then he prays that they may be
received by saying, ' We humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God,
command these to be borne by the hands of Thy holy Angel
to Thy altar on high to the presence of Thy divine majesty, that
all we who from this participation of the altar shall receive the
most holy body and blood of Thy Son may be filled with all heavenly
blessing and grace: through Christ our Lord'. The priest prays
that the offering on earth may be accepted in the presence of the
divine majesty, so that they who are to receive it may at the same
time be made heavenly and filled with the grace of God. Won
derful and great is the faith of the holy Church, which . . . believes
that the sacrifice on earth is carried by the hands of the angels into
the presence of the Lord, and perceives that it may be eaten by a
human mouth. For it believes that this is the body and blood
14*

212 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
of the Lord, and that the souls of those who partake are filled
with heavenly blessing by eating it." 1
In spite of the deep sense of the spiritual realities which
transcend material things shown by Amalarius in these and other
passages in his writings, he evidently felt much difficulty in re
conciling his belief in the Eucharistic presence with the material
surroundings of consecration and Communion. A habit of his,
which perhaps may have seemed less strange to him and his con
temporaries than it would to an Englishman of the twentieth
century, of spitting after he had received the Sacrament gave
scandal to some who thought that this practice involved irrever
ence ; and, when he knew this, his defence of himself included
the following statement : —
" When the body of the Lord has been received with good inten
tion, I must not discuss whether it is invisibly taken up into heaven,
or is kept in our bodies till the day of burial, or is breathed out into
the air, or passes out from the body with the blood, or goes out
though the passages, as the Lord says, ' Everything which goeth
into the mouth passeth into the belly, and is cast out into the
draught '.2 This alone must be my care that I take it not with the
heart of Judas, and that it is not despised but most healthfully dis
cerned from common food." 3
And in the work On the Offices of the Church it is difficult to be
sure whether his meaning is that there is an actual division in
our Lord's body in the Eucharist and that He has three distinct
bodies, or whether the allusion is simply to a mystical division
and to three different aspects of His body. Thus, he writes : —
"Threefold is the body of Christ, that is, of those who have
tasted death and are about to die. The first is that holy and stainless
body which was taken from the Virgin Mary ; the second is that
which walks on the earth [i.e., the Church militant] ; the third is
that which lies in the tomb [i.e., departed Christians], By the particle
of the offering which is placed in the cup the body of Christ which
has now risen from the dead is signified ; by that which is eaten by
the priest or the people that which still walks on the earth ; by that
which is left on the altar that which lies in the tomb." 4
1De eccl. off. iii. 24, 26 (P.L. cv. 1141-42).
2 St. Matt. xv. 17; St. Mark vii. 18, 19.
3Ep. vi. (P.L. cv. 1338).
'De eccl. off. iii. 35 (P.L. cv. 1154-55).
\

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 213
In his later work, Selections on the Office of the Mass, which may
have been written after the controversy shortly to be mentioned,
though he speaks of the unity of Christ's body, he still seems
unable to shake off the idea of some kind of division in it.
"As there are many churches throughout the world because of
the differences of place, and nevertheless there is One Holy Catholic
Church because of the unity of faith, so also the many offerings
which are made because of the supplications of those who offer are
one bread because of the unity of the body of Christ. For, if you
ask why the whole of the oblation is not placed in the cup since it
is clear that the Lord's whole body rose, the answer is that in part
it is about to rise, in part it now lives, so that it dieth no more,
in part it is mortal and yet is in heaven." l
On the assumption that his statements were intended to assert
an actual division in the body of Christ, and that some of his
mystical interpretations of the ceremonial of the Mass involved
a return to Jewish ideas, Amalarius was bitterly attacked by
Florus, a deacon of Lyons and Master of the Cathedral School
there ; his teaching was brought before the Council of ThionviUe
in 835 and the Council of Qiercy-sur-Oise in 838 ; and at the
latter council some kind of condemnation was passed upon it.2
An unfavourable view involving strong disapproval has been
taken of his opinions by a theologian of so great insight as Dr.
Vacant ; 3 but when his teaching is considered as a whole it is
perhaps more likely that assertions, which, if literally and ma
terially meant could not be defended, were intended to be of a
mystical nature, and that Dom Morin is right in saying, " The
heresy of which Florus accused him on the subject of the three
fold body of Christ cannot be taken seriously ".4
Florus the Deacon, who died about 860, was himself the
author of a treatise entitled On the Explanation of the Mass,
which was probably written at an earlier date than his attacks
on Amalarius. Many sentences in this work are identical with
sentences in the fourth book of the Confession of the Faith
ascribed to Alcuin, from which quotations have already been
1 Eccl. de off. miss. (P.L. cv. 1328).
2 Florus, Opuscula adv. Amal. (P.L. cxix. 71-96).
3 Hist, de la Conception du Sacrifice de la Messe dans l'£glise Latine,
p. 31. 4 In the Diet, de Theologie Catholique, i. 934.

214 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
made.1 This may be due to the Confession of the Faith being
not by Alcuin but later than the Book By Florus, or to both
writers having incorporated phraseology ordinarily current in the
eighth and ninth centuries. In this treatise and in the writings
against Amalarius the belief of Florus as to the means and effect
of consecration is made very clear. The consecration is ac
complished by the operation of the Holy Ghost at the recitation
of the words of institution ; by virtue of consecration the elements
are made to be the body and blood of Christ ; this work is effected
not in any material fashion but in ways wholly spiritual.
" By the action of the power of the Holy Ghost the oblation,
. . . although it is taken from mere fruits of the earth, is made the
body and blood of the only begotten Son of God by the ineffable
power of the divine blessing." 2
" In these words [i.e., the recital of the institution] without which
no language, no place, no city, that is, no part of the Catholic Church
can make, that is, consecrate the Sacrament of the body and blood
of the Lord, the Lord Himself gave to the Apostles, whence the uni
versal Church might continually celebrate the memory of its Re
deemer ; and the Apostles gave them generally to the whole Church.
By the power and words of Christ, then, the consecration is always
made, and will be made. It is His word which hallows the heavenly
Sacraments. He speaks daily in His priests. They perform the
office ; He works by the majesty of divine might. . . . He Himself
by the power of the Spirit the Paraclete and the heavenly blessing
makes" "these holy sacrifices " "to be His holy body and blood.''3
" The bread of the most holy oblation is the body of Christ, not
by way of matter or in visible appearance, but by spiritual power
and might. For the body of Christ is not produced for us in the
field, nor does His blood grow on the vine, nor is it pressed out in
the threshing-floor. Mere bread is made from the fruits of the
earth, mere wine is distilled from grapes ; to these comes the faith
of the Church which offers them, there is added the consecration of
the mystic prayer, there is added the outpouring of divine power ;
and so, wonderfully and in ineffable manner, that which isjiaturally
bread and wine of earthly growth is spiritually made the body_of
Christ, that is, the mystery of our life and salvation, in which we
behold one thing with the eyes of the body and another thing with
the gaze of faith, and partake of not only what we receive with the
aSee pp. 201, 202, supra. 'De expos, miss. 59.
3 Ibid. 60 ; cf. p. 201, supra.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 215
mouthbut also what we believe with the mind. . . . The body of
Christ, as has been said before, is not in visible appearance but in
spiritual power." J
The work of Florus, On the Explanation of the Mass, contains
many allusions to sacrifice. The true sacrifice was foreshadowed
among the Jews, was offered on the cross, is pleaded in heaven,
and is commemorated in the Eucharist, wherein the Church makes
its memorial of the passion and enters into the heavenly worship.
"Between Godhead alone and manhood alone there mediates
the human divinity and divine humanity of Christ,2 who even
offered Himself for us in the passion." 3
" By that unique sacrifice, in which the Mediator was slain, are
heavenly things made one with earthly, and earthly with heavenly." 4
"He performed for us the office of priest when on the altar of
the cross He offered to God the Father the stainless offering of His
flesh." 5
"The Mediator of God and men, God above us, Man for our
sakes, by means of His manhood pleads for us to the Father, by
means of His Godhead hears and accepts us with the Father." 6
" Our holy fathers in the Old Testament offered to the one God
and Creator of all things victims which He Himself willed should
be offered to Him, promising through the likeness in these the real
Victim, through whom He reconciled us to Himself by the remis
sion of sins in Christ Jesus our Lord, so that a likeness foreshadow
ing the reality of the sacrifice was offered to Him, to whom was to
be offered the reality itself set forth in the passion of the body and
blood of Christ. Before the coming of Christ the flesh and blood
of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in likeness by means of victims,
in the passion of Christ they were set forth in the reality itself,
after the ascension of Christ the memory thereof is celebrated in
the Sacrament." 7
" The Church offers this sacrifice wherein Christ is shown forth
as having already suffered, who is the real Priest because He
offered Himself as a real sacrifice on our behalf." 8
"This sacrifice of praise, that is, the offering of the Lord's
passion, . . . the devotion of the faithful offers for themselves and
for all their own . . . both for the living and for the dead." 9
JOpusc. adv. Amal. i. 9.
2 Obviously, a loose way of describing the one Person of Christ, who
is God and Man.
»C. 22. 4C. 25. 6C. 33. 6C. 22.
7C. 4. 8C. 4. 9C. 53.

216 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
" This is the real offering, in which the Son is offered, in which
the Father is reconciled,1 and well pleased with the living offering
appoints our days in His peace." 2
" He takes away the sins of the world and washes us from our
daily sins in His blood, when at the altar the memory of His
blessed passion is renewed." 3
" That the hearts of the faithful may become heavenly, and, as
they have borne the image of the earthly, may bear also the image
of Him who is of heaven, . . . they ought to be cleansed not with
the gore of brute beasts but with the spiritual gore of the blood of
Christ, who . . . offered Himself through the Holy Ghost without
spot to God. For this is daily renewed for us in the Sacrament of
the body and blood of the Son of God." 4
"The priest begins to utter the prayer by which the very
mystery of the Lord's body and blood is consecrated. For so is it
right that in that hour of so holy and divine action the whole mind
should be withdrawn by the grace of God from earthly thoughts,
and that the Church with the priest and the priest with the Church
should in spiritual desire enter into the heavenly and eternal
sanctuary." 5
" No one with carnal thought is to suppose that there is in
heaven a material altar, made from a heavenly or super-heavenly
body, but rather . . . we are to understand that the heavenly altar
of God is reasonable and spiritual in the chosen and reasonable
creature, that is, angelic and human, which in the holy angels, from
the time that it was made, upraised in the contemplation of their
Creator and wholly united in the spirit of peace, is a real and
heavenly altar of God, from which God receives the perpetual
sacrifice of praise and offering of joy, to the unity of which altar
the whole multitude of chosen men are joined now by faith, and
hereafter by the sight of the vision of God." 6
In the course of his treatise Florus takes some pains to ex
plain that the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered to the Son and the
Holy Ghost as well as to the Father by virtue of their co-equal
Godhead.7 IV.
A controversy of a different kind from that originated by the
writings of Amalarius arose in consequence of a treatise By Pas-
1 In c. 4 the phraseology is different : " He reconciled us," " we are
reconciled ".
2C. 58. 3C. 90. 4C. 59. 5C. 42. 6C. 66. 7 Cc. 32-35.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 217
chasius Radbert. Paschasius was a monk of the Abbey of Cor-
Bey, who, after being master of the monastic school, was elected
abbot in 844. He resigned that office in 851, and died in 865.
About 831 Paschasius composed a treatise on the Eucharist for
the instruction of some of the younger monks in one of the
daughter houses of the Abbey of Corbey ; and in 844 he presented
a revised edition of this treatise under the title On the Lord's
Body and Blood to the King, afterwards the Emperor, Charles
the Bald. In this treatise and also in a letter written at a later
time Paschasius, like Florus, is careful to emphasise the spiritual
character of the presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, thus still
preserving the mark made on Western theology by this element
in the teaching of St. Augustine.
" These mysteries are not carnal, though they are flesh and blood,
but are rightly understood as spiritual. ... It is foolish ... to
speculate about . . . the mixture of this food with other food
in the process of digestion. When spiritual food and drink are
taken, and through them the Holy Ghost works in man, so that
anything still carnal in us is made spiritual and man becomes
spiritual, where can such mixture come in at all ? As far as the life
of eternity is from this present mortal life, so far does this food sur
pass that common food which we share with the beasts." l
"Wrong is the thought of those who have carnal ideas about this
mystery." 2
While thus maintaining the spiritual character of the presence
of our Lord, Paschasius follows the general tradition of the
Church in regarding the consecrated elements as Christ's body
and blood, and deduces from the idea that the elements are
changed at the consecration — which, though found at various
times in the West,3 is most characteristic of the East4 — the
notion that they are wholly and substantially converted into the
body and blood of Christ, so that after consecration they do not
truly and properly continue to exist as bread and wine. Further,
the consecration is effected at the recital of the words of institu
tion by the power of Christ and the operation of the Holy Ghost ;
and the body thus present is that very body which was born of
1 De corp. et sang. Dom. xx. 2, 3.
2 Ep. ad Frudegardum (P.L. cxx. 1356).
'See, e.g., pp. 105, 197, 198, supra.
4 See, e.g., pp. 102-4, 146, supra.

218 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
the Virgin, which suffered on the cross and rose from the tomb.
That so marvellous a work is accomplished is due, like creation
itself, to the exercise of the almighty power of God.
" Since nothing is beyond the power of God, therefore He can do
all things. For God, the Maker of the universe, did not create the
natures of things in such a way as to remove from them His own will,
because the existence of all created things depends on the same will
and power of God in which it had its origin, not only that it should
be whatever it is but also that it be in such a way as the will of God
itself decreed, which is the cause of all created things. ... As often
as the nature of a created thing is changed or increased or lessened,
it is not diverted from Him in whom it is, because it so is and so
becomes as He in whom it is decrees. It is plain therefore that
nothing is beyond or contrary to the will of God, but all things are
altogether subject to Him. Let not any one then be disturbed con
cerning this body and blood of Christ, that in the mystery there is
real flesh and real blood, so long as He who created has so willed ;
. . . and, because He has willed, though the figjrre_of_bread and
wine remain, yet these are altogether a figure, and after consecration
we must believe that there is nothing else than the flesh and blood
of Christ. . . . And that I may speak more wonderfully, this cer
tainly is no other flesh than that which was born of Mary and
suffered on the cross and rose from the tomb. . . . God is truth ;
and, if God is truth, whatever Christ promised in this mystery, that
certainly is true ; and therefore it is the real flesh and blood of
Christ, which He who eats and drinks worthily has eternal life abid
ing in him ; but to bodily sight and taste they are not changed for
this reason that faith may be exercised to righteousness, and that
because of the merit of faith the reward of righteousness may
ensue." 1
"Because it is not right that Christ should be torn by the
teeth, He has willed that in the mystery this bread and wine be
potentially created by the consecration of the Holy Ghost really His
flesh and blood, and in being so created be daily mystically sacrificed
for the life of the world, that, as real flesh was created from the
Virgin without paternal generation by the operation of the Spirit, so
by the operation of the same Spirit the same body and blood of Christ
be mystically consecrated from the substance of the bread and wine,"
. . . [He speaks of no other than real flesh and real blood, though
mystically; whence, because the Sacrament is mystic, we cannot
1 De corp. et sang. Dom. i. 1, 2, 5.

<\ {

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 219
deny that it is a figure. But, if it is a figure, we must ask how it
can be a reality. . . . It is reality then in that the body and blood
of Christ are made by the power of the Spirit at His word from the
substance of bread and wine ; it is a figure in that the priest as it were
performs some outward action for the memorial at the altar of the
sacred passion so that, while this was once for all accomplished, v
there is the daily offering of the Lamb." x J
" What is that which men eat ? Behold, all without distinction
often receive the Sacraments of the altar. Clearly they so receive ;
but one spiritually eats the flesh of Christ, and drinks His blood,
while another does not, although he is seen to receive a morsel from
the hand of the priest. And what does he receive, since there is one
consecration, if he does not receive the body and blood of Christ ?
Truly, because being guilty he receives unworthily, as Paul the Apostle
says, ' He eats and drinks judgment to himseltj not first examining
himself, and not discerning the Lord's body'.2 Behold, what does
the sinner eat, and what does he drink ? In truth, he does not eat p,
and drink the flesh and blood usefully to himself, but judgment,
though he is seen to receive with the rest the Sacrament of the
altar. . . . He does not believe or understand of what kind or how
great judgment he takes, because he sees all alike visibly eating of
one food and does not sufficiently know by reason of faith whether
there is any further virtue in it. Wherefore the virtue of the Sacra
ment is withdrawn from him, and moreover the judgment on his
guilt is doubled on account of his presumption." 3
" Up to this point are the words of the evangelists ; then follow
the words of God, full of power and all effectiveness, ' Take and eat
ye all of this, for this is My body'. . . . Believe, my son, that
this is so, since He has said, and you cannot doubt that it is done ;
He has commanded, and it has been created. . . . 'This is the
cup of My blood, of the new and eternal covenant.' By this word
that which before was wine and water is made blood. ... As often
as you drink this cup or eat this bread, think not that you drink any
other blood than that which was poured out for you and for all for
the remission of sins, or that you eat any other flesh than that which
for you and for all was betrayed and hung on the cross. . . . That
this mystery, although it is real flesh, can be called bread the Apostle
proves, when he says, ' Let a man examine himself, and so let him
eat of that bread, and drink of the cup ' ; * for it is the flesh of
Christ and real flesh, and yet is rightly called the living Bread which
1 De corp. et sang. Dom. iv. 1. ' 1 Cor. xi. 29.
3 De corp. et sang. Dom. vi. 2. ' 1 Cor. xi. 28.

220 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
came down from heaven, flesh indeed by grace but bread by effect,
because, as this earthly bread supplies temporal life, so that heavenly
Bread affords eternal and heavenly life, because it is life eternal." l
"When He brake and gave to them the bread, He did not say,
This is, or there is in this mystery, a kind of virtue or figure of My
body, but He said plainly, 'This is My body '. And therefore it is
what He said, and not what any one pretends. . . . Wherefore I
marvel that there are some now who want to say that in the Sacra
ment there is not in fact the reality of the flesh and blood of Christ,
but a kind of virtue of the flesh and not the flesh itself, a virtue of
the blood and not the blood itself, a figure not a reality, a shadow
not a body." 2
The teaching of Paschasius in regard to the Eucharistic sacri
fice is of great interest. He regards the Eucharist as unques
tionably a sacrifice. In it the Church on earth offers gifts and
prayer through the instrumentality of the ministering priest.
When at the consecration the bread and wine are made to be the
body and blood of Christ by the power of the Lord and of the
Holy Ghost, they are uplifted into the heavenly sphere, presented
on the heavenly altar of the body of Christ, offered by Christ as
His own sacrifice, and given back by Him to the communicants
on earth as supernatural food.
" When the priest begins to offer this sacrifice, he adds to the
other prayers, ' Command these to be borne by the hands of Thy
holy Angel to Thy altar on high, in the presence of Thy divine
majesty '. And do you think, O man, to receive the gift from any
other place than from that altar, to which on high it has been trans
lated, and where it is consecrated ? But perhaps blind reasoning
may object, How is it so suddenly offered in heaven in the presence
of the divine majesty, while here, though it is called either bread or
flesh, it is always visibly held in the hand of the priest. . . . Learn,
O man, that you taste something else than that which is perceived
by the fleshly mouth, that you behold something else than that
which is shown to the eyes of the flesh. Learn that God is spirit
and is everywhere without the limitations of restrictions of space
(illocaliter ubique est). Understand that these things are spiritual,
and as no question of space enters in (sicut nee localiter) so neither are
they borne on high in carnal fashion into the presence of the divine
majesty. Think then if anything corporeal can be on high, when the
1 Op. cit. xv. xvi.
2 Ep. ad Frudegardum (P.L. cxx. 1357).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 221
substance of the bread and wine is effectually made by an inner change '\
(efficaciter interim commutatur) into the flesh and blood of Christ, so
that after the consecration it is now believed actually to be the real
flesh and blood of Christ, and is regarded by believers as nothing
else than Christ the Bread from heaven. Do you think there is any
other altar where Christ the High Priest stands than His own body,
by means of which and on which He offers to God the Father the
offerings of the faithful and the faith of believers ? And, if that
heavenly altar is believed to be actually the body of Christ, you will
no longer think that you receive His flesh and blood from any other
source than from Christ's body itself." x
" This offering is daily repeated — though Christ suffered once for
all in the flesh, and by one and the same passion of His death once
for all saved the world, and death shall no more have dominion
over Him in His rising to life from this death — because in truth the
wisdom of God the Father foresaw this as necessary for many
reasons, chiefly because we daily sin, at least with those sins without
which mortal weakness cannot live, because, though all sins were
forgiven in Baptism, yet the weakness of sin still remains in the
flesh. . . . And therefore, because we daily fall, daily is Christ
mystically offered on our behalf, and the passion of Christ is daily
presented (traditur) in the mystery, so that He who by once dying
conquered death may daily forgive the sins of repeated offences by
means of these Sacraments of His body and blood. . . . Not only
did He wash us from our sins in His blood when He gave His blood
for us on the cross, or when any one of us was washed in the
mystery of His most holy passion and in the Baptism of water ;
but also He daily takes away the sins of the world, and daily washes
us from our sins in His blood, when the commemoration of His
blessed passion is reproduced on the altar, when the creature of
bread and wine is translated into the Sacrament of His flesh and
blood by the ineffable sanctification of the Spirit. . . . That our
Redeemer still to this day celebrates by the daily memorial of His
blessed passion all which He did once for all at the time of His
passion is, I think, the chief reason why we continually reproduce
the memory of His most holy death by daily offering the sacrifice
of His most sacred body and blood on the altar." 2
" If you give heed to the priest, give heed to Christ the Word of
the Father, who is flesh, and doubt not that what was once for all done
is daily performed in the mystery, when by means of it flesh and
1 De corp. et sang. Dom. viii. 1, 2. 2 Ibid. ix. 1, 2.

222 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
blood are made our eternal food, for this purpose indeed that we
also may be His body. Wherefore the priest does not say of him
self that he himself can be the creator of body and blood, because
if this could be, which is absurd, he would be the creator of the
Creator; but he beseeches the Father through the Son, through
whom we have access to Him. . . . Before the body of Christ
comes to be by consecration there is the offering of the priest, as he
himself confesses, or the joint offering of the family of those who
offer it, but by the word and power of the Holy Ghost there is a
new creation in the body of the Creator for our restoration and
salvation. Wherefore it is proved, as Scripture shows, that He ever
stands at the altar on high, so that from His offering of His sacrifice
we may receive the body and blood." J
In view of the teaching of Paschasius some incidental ex
pressions in a liturgical work by his contemporary Walafrid
Strabo, who was born in 806, became a monk at Reichenau in
821 and abbot there in 842, and died in 849, are of interest.
The sentences are : —
" In the Last Supper, which He held with His disciples before
His betrayal, after the rites of the ancient Passover, Christ gave to
the same disciples the Sacraments of His body and blood in the
substance of bread and wine, and taught them to celebrate these for
the commemoration of His most sacred passion." 2
"We must so understand that the same mysteries of our re
demption are really the body and blood of the Lord that we ought
to believe them to be pledges of that complete unity which we now
have with our Head by hope and shall have hereafter in fact. . . .
He who eats and drinks the body and blood of the Lord worthily
shows that he is in God and that God is in him." 3
Rabanus Maurus was a monk of Fulda, who became abbot
of that monastery in 825 and Archbishop of Mentz in 847. He
died in 856. A noticeable feature in his Eucharistic teaching
was his explicit rejection of the contention of Paschasius Rad
bert that the body present in the Eucharist is the same body as
that which was born of the Virgin and suffered and rose. Yet
it may be doubted whether the difference on this point was
really deep. Paschasius was at pains, as has been seen, to em-
1 De corp. et sang. Dom. xii. 2, 3.
2 De ecclesiasticarum rerum exordiis et incrementis, 16 (P.L. cxiv. 936).
3 Op. cit. 17 (P.L. cxiv. 937).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 223
phasise the spiritual character of the presence. Rabanus Maurus
taught clearly that the presence is that of the real flesh and
blood of the Lord. If it was the belief of Paschasius that the
bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ which He
took and used in the Incarnation, being so made in spiritual
fashion by the power of the Holy Ghost, and if it was the be
lief of Rabanus that the elements are really changed at con
secration into Christ's flesh and blood by an actual spiritual
transformation, only in some different state and mode of presence
from His state in His life on earth and His mode of presence in
the glory of His heavenly life, the difference of their points of
view does not appear to have been greater than might have been
removed by a more accurate understanding of the real meaning
in the mind of each.
The rejection by Rabanus Maurus of the assertion of Pas
chasius Radbert is contained in the following passages : —
" The Sacrament of the body and blood is made from visible
and bodily things ; but it effects the invisible sanctification and
salvation both of body and of soul. . . . Certain people lately,
having wrong ideas about the Sacrament of the body and blood of
the Lord, have said that this is the body itself and blood of the ,
Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary, and in which the Lord
Himself suffered on the cross and rose from the tomb, in reply
to which error, writing as fully as we could to Egilus the abbot,
we have explained what is rightly to be believed about the body
itself." i
" How is it right for this flesh of Christ to be eaten, if it was
born of Mary and suffered on the cross and rose from the tomb,
especially since that flesh of Christ rising from the tomb was so
glorified that it could no longer in any way be eaten ? " 2
The assertions that the consecrated elements are really the
body and blood of Christ are as follows : —
" Who would ever have believed that bread could be converted
into flesh, or wine into blood, unless the Saviour Himself had said
1 Pasnitentiale, 33 (P.L. ex. 492, 493).
'Ep. iii. 2 (P.L. cxii. 1513). There is some doubt as to the authorship
of this letter ; but it is probably by Rabanus, and that referred to in the
previous quotation. On the distinction between the body of Christ in the
Eucharist and that in His life on earth, cf. the passages from Clement of
Alexandria and St. Jerome, quoted on pp. 25, 26, 97, 98, supra.

224 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
so, who created bread and wine and made all things out of nothing ?
lt is easier to make something out of something than to create all
things out of nothing. The Saviour Himself willed to take a human
body and to unite man to God so that there should be one Mediator
of God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. And He Himself willed
that by us bread and wine should be offered to Him and should be
divinely consecrated by Him, and that the faithful people should
believe that the mystery which He delivered to His disciples is
real."1 "That the body and blood of the Lord are real flesh and real
blood, each Christian ought to believe, to know, to hold, and also to
acknowledge and unhesitatingly assert." 2
On the different effects of the reception of the Sacrament in
different cases Rabanus Maurus writes : —
"Our Lord gave His body and blood in those things which are
gathered together into some one thing, as from many grains or un
leavened cakes, in order that He might show the unity of the love
of the saints and might allow the unity of His body and His mem
bers to be understood, that is, the holy Church in those who are
predestined and called and justified and glorified, His saints and
faithful ones. Of these things the first has already happened, that
is, in predestination ; the second and third have happened and are
happening and will happen, that is, the calling and justifying ; the
fourth is in fact yet to come, that is, the glorifying. Of this thing
the Sacrament, that is, the unity of the body and blood of Christ,
is taken from the Table of the Lord, by some to life, by others to
destruction, but the thing itself is to every man for life, to no one
for destruction, whoever shall have been partaker of it, that is,
shall have been made a member of Christ the Head in the heavenly
kingdom, because the Sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the
Sacrament is another, for the Sacrament is received by the mouth,
by the virtue of the Sacrament the inner man is fed. For the
Sacrament goes to the nourishment of the body, but by the virtue
of the Sacrament the honour of eternal life is obtained. In the
Sacrament all the faithful who communicate enter the bond of
unity and peace. For in the virtue of the Sacrament all the
members joined to their Head and united together will rejoice in
eternal glory. As then this [i.e. the Sacrament, in the sense of the
lDe sac. ord. 19 (P.L. cxii. 1185).
'Ep. iii. 1 (P.L. cxii. 1510, 1511). On this letter, see p. 224, note
2, supra.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 225
outward part] is converted into us when we eat and drink it, so also
we are converted into the body of Christ when we live obediently
and devoutly. But yet, as we have said above, so great is the
dignity and the power of the Sacrament itself that whoever shall
have received it unworthily brings on himself condemnation rather
than salvation. . . . Then do we really and healthfully receive the
body and blood of Christ, if we not only wish that we may eat the
flesh and blood of Christ in the Sacrament but also that we may eat
and drink even for the participation of the Spirit, so that we may
abide as members in the body of the Lord and may be quickened
by His Spirit." 1
The teaching of Rabanus Maurus on the subject of the
Eucharistic sacrifice is less vividly expressed than that of Pas
chasius Radbert, but does not substantially differ from it. The
following passages show that he regarded the Eucharist as a
sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ offered by priest and
people and presented in the worship of the heavenly sanctuary.
" They are offerings which are voluntarily given ; they are gifts
which are offered for the sake of some kindness or reward, as we
offer to God in order that our sins may be forgiven ; they are sacri
fices which are consecrated together with prayers. . . . This offering
must be made to God alone. ... It ought to be offered on behalf
of the Holy Catholic Church. . . . The priest has prayed for all
those who have come to hear Mass. Then he prays for those who
bring their offerings, ' Who offer to Thee this sacrifice of praise '.
He calls it a sacrifice of praise because they offer it in the first place
for the praise of God. Afterwards he adds, ' For themselves and
for all their own, for the redemption of their souls, for the hope
of their salvation and safety, they pay their vows to Thee, the
eternal, living, and true God'. . . . The priests themselves . . .
ought to be mindful that they celebrate the Mass and offer the
sacrifice instructed by the example of Christ; and they ought to
know what they celebrate, because a request is foolish if a man
does not know what he asks. The holy people ought also to re
member that Christ suffered not only for the priests but also for
the people. . . . 'We offer to Thy excellent majesty of Thy gifts
and bounties a pure offering, a holy offering, a stainless offering,
the holy bread of eternal life, and the cup of everlasting salvation.'
O Lord, mindful of all Thy good gifts which we have mentioned,
we offer to Thy majesty 'a pure offering,' that is, with a pure heart,
1De cler. inst. i. 31 (P.L. cvii. 317, 318).
vol. i. 15

226 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
because Thy body is pure, which we believe is made to be from
this bread. We offer 'a holy offering,' because Thou didst sanctify
Thy body when Thou didst unite man to God ; and now sanctify
this bread that it may become Thy body. We offer 'a stainless
offering,' because Thou without stain of sin didst suffer for us. We
offer ' the holy bread of eternal life,' because Thou art the living
Bread which came down from heaven, and Thou hast willed us to
receive Thy body in this bread which has been consecrated by
Thee, and Thou hast willed us to take Thy blood through the cup
of Thy passion. Do Thou sanctify this offering, that it may become
to us Thy body and Thy blood. ... As Melchizedek offered bread
and wine, so Christ in His passion offered His body and blood to
God the Father on our behalf. And in bread and wine He willed
us to imitate the mystery of His passion. . . . Humbly we pray
that our gifts, offered upon this altar which can be seen, the
heavenly Father will command to be borne by the hands of His
holy Angel to that altar on high which is before His divine majesty,
which we cannot see with our eyes because it is not bodily but
spiritual." 1
The treatise of Ratramn entitled On the body and blood of
the Lord is of great importance in connection with the contro
versy which surrounded the teaching of Paschasius Radbert.
Ratramn was born early in the ninth century, was a monk and
priest at Corbey, the monastery of Paschasius himself, and after
wards became Abbot of Orbais. He is known to have been
alive in 870. As has been mentioned, about 844 Paschasius
presented his treatise On the body and blood of the Lord to
Charles the Bald. It was possibly in consequence that Charles
addressed two questions in regard to the doctrine of the Eu
charist to Ratramn. These two questions are thus described
by Ratramn : —
"Your excellent majesty inquires whether the body and blood
of Christ, which in the Church is taken by the mouth of the faithful,
is made such in mystery or in external reality (in veritate), that is,
whether it contains anything hidden, which is open only to the
eyes of faith, or whether without the veil of any mystery the sight
of the body outwardly sees that which the vision of the mind in
wardly beholds, so that all that is done is clearly manifested and
seen ; and whether it is that body itself which was bom of Mary
1 De sac. ord. 19 (P.L. cxii. 1183-87).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 227
and suffered and died and was buried, which rose again and as
cended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father." 1
In thus stating the questions, it will be seen that Ratramn ex
plains the phrase " in mystery " to mean that the body and blood
of Christ are really present but cannot be discerned by the senses
and are cognizable only by faith, and the phrase " in external
reality (in veritate) " to mean that they are not only really present
but also to be discerned by the outward faculties. So explained,
it is obvious that there could only be one answer to the first
question. After defining " figure " as " a certain outshadowing
which exhibits its meaning by certain veils," such as the word
" bread " or " vine " to denote our Lord ; and " external reality
(veritas) " as " a plain setting forth of a matter which is veiled
by no shadowy images but conveyed by clear and open and
natural significations," "an uncovered and open signification,"
such as the statement that Christ was born of the Virgin,
suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried,2 — Ratramn proceeds : —
" Now let us return to that subject for the sake of which this has
been said, namely the body and blood of Christ. For, if that mystery
be celebrated under no figure, then it is not rightly called a mystery,
since that cannot be called a mystery in which there is nothing
hidden, nothing removed from the bodily senses, nothing concealed
under any veil. But that bread which by the ministry of the priest
is made the body of Christ, shows one thing outwardly to the human
senses, and proclaims another thing inwardly to the minds of the
faithful. Outwardly indeed the form of bread, which it was before,
is presented, the colour is exhibited, the taste is perceived ; but in
wardly a far different and much more precious and much more ex
cellent thing is.*ignifieqf*because what is heavenly and divine, that is,
1 the body of Christ, is shown forth, which is perceived and taken and
eaten (not by the fleshly senses but by the gaze of the faithful soul.
Likewise the wine, which by the consecration of the priest is made
the Sacrament of the blood of Christ, shows one thing on the surface
and contains another thing within. For what else is seen on the sur
face but the substance of wine ? Taste it, there is the savour of wine ;
smell it, there is the scent of wine ; look at it, there you see the colour
of wine. But, if you consider it within, no longer the liquid of wine
but the liquid of the blood of Christ is the savour when it is tasted,
and is recognised when it is beheld, and is acknowledged when it is
1De corp. et sang. Dom. 5 (P.L. cxxi. 129, 130). 'Ibid. 7, 8.
15*

228 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
smelt, to the minds of believers. Since no one can deny that this
is so, it is plain that the bread and wine are by way of figuretfie body
and blood of Christ. For according to sight, neither is the nature
(species) of flesh recognised in that bread nor is the fluid of blood
manifested in that wine ; yet after the mystic consecration they are
no longer called bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ." l
So far it does not appear that there is any difference between the
teaching of Ratramn and that of Paschasius. To both alike the
inner unseen spiritual reality is the body and blood of Christ ; to
both alike that which is apparent to the bodily senses is bread
and wine. According: to Ratramn's own definition of his terms,
that the body and blood of Christ are present by way of figure
does not in his terminology mean that they are not present as a
matter of fact but they are present in such a way that they can
not be discerned by the bodily senses ; and a denial of " external
reality (veritas) " does not imply that they are not spiritually
real. N But, as Ratramn goes on to develop his own way of re
garding the mystery, a difference between him and Paschasius
appears to emerge. \ Ratramn is further than Paschasius from
any idea of actual change in the elements themselves,, and he
makes a clear distinction between that body of Christ which is
in the Sacrament and the flesh which was born, crucified, and
buried. " How is that called the body of Christ, in which no change is
perceived to have been made ? For every change is either from not
being to being, or from being to not being, or from being one thing
to being another thing. But in this Sacrament, if it is considered
simply as a matter of external reality (in ventatis simplicitate), and if
nothing else is believed than that which is seen, no change is per
ceived to have been made. For it has not passed from not being
to being, as is the change in things that are born, since before they
were not, and in order to be they have passed from not being to
being. But in this case the bread and the wine existed before they
passed into the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. Nor
again is there the change from being to not being, as is the change
in the case of things which suffer failure or annihilation ; for whatever
perishes first existed, and that which has never been cannot be de
stroyed ; and in this case this change is perceived not to have been
made, since according to external reality (secundum veritatem) the
1 De corp. et sang. 9, 10.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 229
nature (species) of the creature is perceived to have remained what
it was before. Further, neither is there here perceived to have been
made that change which is from being one tfimg~to being another,
which is seen in things which undergo change of quality, as for in
stance when what before was black is changed so as to be white ;
for in this case no change is detected in taste or colour or smell. If
then no change has taken place, it is not different from what it was
before. Yet it is something different) since the bread has been made
the body, and the wine the blood, of Christ. . . /Since they confess
that they are the body and blood of God, and that this could not
be except by a change being made for the better, and since this
change is made not_cor£orall^Jiui^piritually, it must be said that
it has been made by way of figure, since under the veil of bodily
bread and bodily wine the spiritual body and spiritual blood exist. J
fNotthat two things different from one another exist, namely body
and spiritj but that one and the same thing is in one respect the
nature (species) of bread and wine, and in another respect the body
andbhfed of Christ. So far as they are corporally handled, their
nature (species) is that of corporal creatures ; but according to their
power, and as they have been spiritually made, they are the mysteries
of the~6ody and blood of Christ."/1
" Let us consider the font of Holy Baptism. ... In that font,
if one considers only what the bodily senses see, there is. seen the
element of water, which is subject to corruption and is not capable
of washing anything but the body ; but through the consecration of
the priest the power of the Holy Ghost is added, and it is made able
to wash not only bodies but also souls, and by spiritual efficacy to
remove spiritual stains." 2
"The sea and the cloud [i.e., those referred to in I Cor. x. 1-4]
conveyed the cleansing of sanctification not in respect of their out
ward bodily nature but in respect of that sanctification of the Holy
Ghost which they invisibly contained. For there was in them a
visible form, apparent to the bodily senses not in image but in ex
ternal reality (in veritate) ; and there was also a spiritual power which
was shining within, which was discernible not to the sight of the
flesh but to the eyes of the mind. ... In those bodily substances
[i.e., the manna and the water from the rock] the spiritual power of
the Word was present, which gave food and drink to the minds
rather than the bodies of believers. . . . One and the same Christ
at that time gave to the people in the desert, who were baptised in
the cloud and in the sea, His flesh for food and His blood for drink,
1De corp. et sang. Dom. 12, 13, 16. 'Ibid. 17.

230 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
and now in the Church gives to the people of believers as food the
bread of His body and as drink the stream of His blood. . . . He
who now in the Church by almighty power spiritually converts
bread and wine into the flesh of His body and the stream of His
own blood at that time also wrought invisibly in making the manna
which was given from heaven His body, and the water which flowed
from the rock His own blood. ... As a little before He suffered
He was able to convert the substance of bread and the creature of
wine into His own body which was about to suffer and into His
blood which was afterwards to be poured out, so even in the desert
He was able to convert the manna and the water from the rock into
His flesh and blood, although long time was to elapse before His
flesh was to hang for us on the cross, and before His blood was to be
poured out to cleanse us." 1
" Christ said to His disciples, who received His words not with
unbelief but in faith, though they did not grasp how to understand
them, ' Does this make you stumble ? What then if ye should see
the Son of Man ascending where He was before,' 2 as though to say,
Think not that My flesh or My blood is to be corporally eaten or
drunk by you, or that it has been divided or is to be divided into
pieces, for after My resurrection ye shall see Me ascend into
heaven with the completeness of My whole body and blood. Then
shall ye understand that My flesh is not to be eaten by believers as
faithless people think, but that bread and wine really converted in
mystery into the substance of My body and blood are to be taken by
believers." 3
" From all which has so far been said it has been shown that the
body and blood of Christ, which are received by the mouth of the
faithful in the Church, are figures in respect of visible nature (speciem) ;
but in respect of invisible substance, that is, the power of the divine
Word, they are really the body and blood of Christ." 4
" Now we must examine the second question propounded, and
see whether that body itself which was born of Mary and suffered
and died and was buried, which sits at the right hand of the Father,
is that which is daily taken by the mouth of the faithful in the
Church in the mystery of the Sacraments. . . . St. Ambrose says
that in that mystery of the blood and body of Christ a change is
made, and that it is made wonderfully because it is divine, and
ineffably because it is incomprehensible. Let those who wish to
lDe corp. et sang. Dom. 21, 22, 23, 25, 28.
2 St. John vi. 61, 62.
3 De corp. et sang. Dom. 30. 4 Ibid. 49.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 231
take nothing here according to power hidden within but to weigh
everything according to what- visibly appears say in what respect
the change is here made. \For as regards the substance of the
creatures, they are after consecration what they were before. Bread
and wine they were before, and after they have been consecrated,
they are seen to remain in the same nature (specie). There has
been then an inner change by the mighty power of the Holy Ghost ;
and it is this which faith beholds, which Feeds the soul, which supplies
the substance of eternal life. . . . Those things which are seen are
not in nature (specie) but in power thelTody and blood of Christ. . . .
STTAmbrose . . . distinguishes between the Sacrament of the flesh
and the external reality (veritate) of the flesh, inasmuch as he says
that He was crucified and buried in the external reality (veritate) of
the flesh which He took of the Virgin, but that the mystery which
is now celebrated in the Church is the Sacrament of that real flesh
in which He was crucified ; he openly teaches the faithful that that
flesh in respect of which Christ was crucified and buried is not a
mystery but an external reality of nature (veritas natures), but
that this flesh which now contains the likeness of that flesh in
mystery is not flesh by nature (specie) but sacramentally (sacramento),
since indeed as to nature (in specie) it is bread but by way of Sacra
ment (in sacramento) it is the real body of Christ. . . . The differ
ence is great which distinguishes the body in which Christ suffered
and the blood which He shed from His side when hanging on the
cross from this body which is daily celebrated by the faithful in the
mystery of the passion of Christ and the blood which is taken by
the mouth of the faithful, so that it may be a mystery of that blood
by which the world was redeemed." l
" It is further to be considered that in the bread there is a
figure not only of the body of Christ but also of the body of the
people believing in Him. ... As that bread is taken to be the
body of Christ in mystery, so also in mystery the members of the
people believing in Christ are signified. And as that bread is
called the body of believers not corporally but spiritually, so also
it must be understood to be the body of Christ not corporally but
spiritually. So also water is ordered to be mixed with the wine
which is called the blood of Christ, and one is not allowed to be
offered without the other. . . . The water in the Sacrament bears
the image of the people. If then the wine when consecrated by
the office of the ministers is corporally converted into the blood of

1 De corp. et sang. Dom. 50, 54, 56, 57,

232 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Christ, the water also which is mixed with it must be corporally
converted into the blood of the believing people. . . . Whatever
signification there is of the body of the people in the water is
taken spiritually ; whatever therefore is indicated of the blood of
Christ in the wine must be taken spiritually." 1
"This body and blood are the pledge and image of a future
thing, so that what is now shown by way of likeness shall in the
future be revealed by way of manifestation. Since they will here
after manifest that which they now signify, that which is now cele
brated is one thing, that which will be hereafter manifested is
another. Wherefore thaTwhichTIhe Church celebrates is both the
body and the blood of Christ, but as a pledge, as an image. But the
manifested reality (veritas) will be when there is no longer pledge
or image but when the reality of the thing itself will be outwardly
shown (ipsius rei Veritas apparebit)." 2
" Let it not be thought that in the mystery of the Sacrament
the body and blood of the Lord Himself are not taken by the
faithful, for faith receives what it believes, not what the eye sees.
It is spiritual food and spiritual drink, spiritually feeding the soul
and bestowing the life of eternal satisfaction." 3
The allusions to the Eucharistic sacrifice in the treatise of
Ratramn are incidental only. In the course of his argument he
contrasts it with the sacrifices of the Jews by saying that " they
had a figure of things to come," while " this sacrifice is a figure
of things past " ; he says that the Eucharistic body of Christ is
"for the commemoration of His passion and death," and that
"the bread and wine, which are called and are the body and
blood of Christ, represent the memory of the Lord's passion and
death " ; and he adds that " they are placed on the altar for a
figure or memorial of the Lord's death, that they may recall to
our present recollection that which was done in time past ".4
This book of Ratramn on the Eucharist is of great import
ance not only in its bearing on the beliefs and controversies of
the ninth century, but also because of the influence exercised by
it in later times. The use of it in England in the tenth
century may be seen from the reproduction of much of the
teaching contained in it by Aelfric.6 It is probably the book
which, in the belief that it was the work of John the Scot,
1 De corp. et sang. Dom. 73, 74, 75. ''Ibid. 86, 87.
3 Ibid. 101. 4 Ibid. 91, 92, 99, 100. 6 See pp. 236-38, infra.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 233
otherwise known as Scotus Erigena, played a part in the Beren-
garian controversy in the eleventh century.1 The estimation in
which it was held by Ridley in the sixteenth century was a fact
of most momentous consequence to the Church in England.2 It
is tantalising to be baffled by the problem of Ratramn's mean
ing. The present writer has read the book many times in the
hope of being able to form some clear idea on this subject, and
can only confess his failure to reach a conclusion which seems to
him to satisfy all the elements in Ratramn's teaching, and to
solve the problem whether he regarded the inner spiritual gift
which the elements are made to be and convey as simply a
mysterious power of effecting a spiritual union with Christ or as
Christ Himself present in those elements and to the communi
cant in spiritual fashion.

Hincmar of Rheims was one of the most prominent of the
figures in the ecclesiastical world of the ninth century. He was
born about 806, was made Archbishop of Rheims in 845, and
died in 882. Among his wri tings is a treatise On Avoiding Vices
and Acquiring Virtues, which was addressed to Charles the Bald,
three chapters of which relate to the Eucharist. Most of what
he thus wrote is little more than a reproduction of statements
of earlier writers, as, for instance, St. Ambrose and St. Augus
tine and St. Gregory the Great and Paschasius Radbert and
Florus of Lyons, on the perpetual offering of His manhood by
Christ in heaven, on the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, on
the commemoration there made of Christ's death, on the effect
of consecration in making the elements the body and blood of
Christ by virtue of the creative power of God there exercised as
in the conception by the Virgin and the miracles of the Old
Testament, on the spiritual character of the presence and gift
so that the whole Christ is entirely present in each fragment of
the Sacrament, on the reception of the body of Christ by those
who already are His mystical body, and on the different conse
quences of reception in those who communicate worthily or un
worthily.3 Hincmar's agreement with Paschasius as to the
identity of the Eucharistic body with the body which our Lord
^ee p. 245, infra. 2See vol. ii. p. 184, infra.
3De cav. vit. et virt. exerc. 8, 9, 10 (P.L. cxxv. 912-28).

234 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
took of His virgin mother appears to be shown by a passage
where he says : —
" In the holy Church, which is the body of Christ, neither are
the priestly acts efficacious nor are the sacrifices real unless the actual
High Priest reconcile us in the characteristic life and reality of our
nature (in nostrae proprietate ac veritate naturae) and the actual blood
of the stainless Lamb cleanse us, who, though He be set on the right
hand of the Father, yet in the same flesh which He took from the
Virgin accomplishes the Sacrament of propitiation." :
Another instance of the acceptance of the teaching of Pas
chasius Radbert may be given from a letter of Haymo. Haymo
was bom about 778 ; he was a friend of Rabanus Maurus at Fulda
and at Tours ; he became Abbot of Hersfeld in 839 and Bishop
of Halberstadt in 840 or 841 ; he died in 853. His fame as an
expositor of Holy Scripture was very great. In his letter about
the Eucharist he says :—
" We believe and faithfully confess and hold that by the opera
tion of the power of God, as has been said above, this substance,
that is, the substance of bread and wine, that is, the nature of bread
and wine, is substantially converted into another substance, that is,
into flesh and blood. . . . The invisible Priest changes His visible
creatures into the substance of His flesh and blood by His unseen
power. In which body and blood of Christ the savour and appear
ance of bread and wine remain to prevent disgust on the part of
those who receive them, the nature of the substances being wholly
converted into the body and blood of Christ. ... It must be ob
served that this consecrated bread and cup are called signs. But
this is not to be understood in relation to the flesh and blood of
Christ ; . . . for in that case they would not be the body and blood
of Christ. No sign is that of which it is the sign ; and no thing is
called the sign of itself but of something else. And every sign,
insofar as it is understood to be a sign, is different from that which it
signifies. The body and blood of Christ then are called a Sacrament,
that is, a sacred sign, not of themselves, . . . but they are rightly
called signs in regard to the likeness of those who receive them.
For, as bread, which is consecrated to be the body of Christ, is
made one bread out of many grains, and as the liquid, which becomes
by consecration the blood of Christ, is made one liquid out of many
grapes, so all those who receive this Sacrament worthily are made
lDe cav. vit. et virt. exerc. 10 (P.L. cxxv. 928).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 235
one body in Christ out of many people. The body and blood of
Christ can also be called signs, in another way, inasmuch as that which
we eat and transfer into our body of Christ seems to be incorporated
and united in some kind of way with us. Therefore this bodily and
temporal eating and incorporation of the flesh and blood of Christ
signifies that spiritual and perpetual vision of eternal society and re
freshment, whereby we shall be with Him incorporated and united
in the future, so to remain with Him for ever. . . . This also the
faith of those who receive this Sacrament ought firmly to hold, that,
whatever fragment they may seem to receive of this Sacrament, they
receive the body of Christ not divided and separated into parts but
wholly complete. . . . He is no different from an unbeliever who
irreverently, when he is defiled by all the offences of sin, presumes
to approach the Table of the Lord ; or rather he is worse than an
unbeliever and deserves more severe punishment. . . ' That ye
come not into judgment,' x that is, that ye do not receive the body
of Christ blameably to your condemnation." 2
A short treatise On the Celebration and Meaning of the Mass,
which forms the fortieth chapter of a treatise On the Divine
Offices wrongly ascribed to Alcuin, may have been written by
Remi of Auxerre about 908. In it the Eucharist is regarded as
a commemoration of the passion,3 and a means of union with the
worship and the priestly work of Christ in heaven.4 The earthly
offering is the act of the whole Church, though needing the
specific ministry of the priest.6 The consecration is effected by
the blessing of God and the power of the Holy Ghost and the
power and words of Christ ; and at all the altars where it
takes place there is the one body of Christ which He took from
the Virgin and gave to the Apostles.6 He is thus daily eaten and
drunk, yet He abides living and unhurt.7 He who gave His
blood for us on the cross, and who washes the baptised by the
mystery of His passion, "also daily takes away the sins of
the world, and washes us from our daily sins in His blood, when
the memorial of His same blessed passion is made at the altar ".s
The famous French scholar Gerbert, who as Sylvester II. was
Pope from 999 to 1003, wrote a short book On the body and
blood of the Lord, partly to defend the main thesis of Paschasius
1 1 Cor. xi. 34. 2 De corp. et sang. Dom. (P.L. cxviii. 815-18).
3 P.L. ci. 1246. 'Ibid. 1262, 1263. 6 Ibid. 1258.
"Ibid. 1260. 7 Ibid. 1261. 8 Ibid. 1270, 1271.

236 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
and partly to deprecate some of the coarser current speculations
as to the natural processes to which the body of Christ might be
supposed to be subjected after the reception of it by communi
cants. His own beliefs may be shown by the following quota
tions : —
" Let us, ' not minding high things but condescending to things
that are lowly,' x simply acknowledge that there is a figure, since
the bread and the wine are outwardly seen ; but also a reality, since
the body and blood of Christ are believed in reality to be within."
" That which we receive from the altar is by nature (naturaliter)
the body of the Lord, since it is so in reality, not as represented."
" As a certain wise man says, . . . how plain it is that the body
of Christ is one with that which He took from the Virgin's womb.
For it must actually and unhesitatingly be believed that at the very
time of the sacrifice the heavens are opened at the prayer of the
priest, and it is borne by the ministry of angels to the altar on high,
which is Christ Himself, who is both Priest and Victim, and by His
touch becomes one."
"There is the outer man, who is subject to corruption, and there
is the inner man, who is renewed. Now the body of Christ is
spiritual food which pertains rather to the inner man, with whom
the process of digestion has nothing to do. Yet if it should pertain
at all to the outward man, it would be pious and healthful to believe
that it is diffused throughout the members so as to benefit those
who are to be raised in the general resurrection. It is clear that it
does not share the lot of natural food." 2
VI.
On the other hand, towards the end of the tenth century
there is an instance in England of the influence exercised by the
treatise of Ratramn On the body and blood of the Lord. Aelfric
was Abbot of Cerne in Dorset before 1000 and became Abbot of
Eynsham in 1005. He is to be distinguished from three other
Churchmen of the same name with whom he has sometimes been
confused, namely, Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury ; Aelfric,
Archbishop of York ; and Aelfric, Abbot of Malmesbury.3 Be
tween the years 985 and 990 he wrote two books of homilies,
1 Rom. xii. 16.
'De corp. et sang. Dom. 4, 7, 8, 10 (P.L. cxxxix. 182, 185, 187, 188).
3 See Hunt in the Dictionary of National.Biography, i. 164-66, and The
English Church from its Foundation to the Norman Conquest, p. 374.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 237
each containing forty homilies, five being subsequently added to
the second book, the number forty being reckoned by him as
sufficient for the preaching for one year. One of his homilies,
appointed for use on Easter Day, is on the Eucharist. The fol
lowing quotations show how closely Aelfric adopted the teaching
and phraseology of Ratramn : —
" Certain men have often asked, and do yet ask, how the bread
which is prepared from corn and baked by fire's heat can be turned
into Christ's body, or how wine that is pressed from many grapes can
be turned into the Lord's blood by blessing. Now we say to such
that some things are said of Christ through a figure and others liter
ally. It is a true and certain thing that Christ was born of a maiden,
and of His own will suffered death, and was buried, and on this day
rose from death. He is called bread through a figure, and a lamb,
and a lion, and what else. . . . But yet according to true nature Christ
is neither bread nor a lamb nor a lion. Why then is the holy housel
called Christ's body or His blood, if it be not truly what it is called ?
The bread and the wine which are hallowed through the priest's Mass
appear one thing without to men's understanding, and another thing
inwardly to believing minds. Without they seem to be bread and
wine both in aspect and in taste ; and after their hallowing they be
truly Christ's body and His blood through spiritual mystery. . . .
Great is the difference between the invisible might of the holy housel
and the visible appearance of its own nature. By nature it is corrupt
ible bread and corruptible wine ; and by the power of the divine
word it is truly Christ's body and His blood ; not however bodily but
spiritually. Great is the difference between the body iii which Christ
suffered and the body which is hallowed for housel. The body truly
in which Christ suffered was born of Mary's flesh, with blood and
with bones, with skin and with sinews, in human limbs, with a reason
able soul living ; and His spiritual body, which we call housel, is
gathered of many corns, without blood and bones, without limb,
without soul, and therefore nothing therein is to be understood bodily
but all is to be understood spiritually. . . . This housel is temporal
not eternal, corruptible and divided into sundry parts, chewed by the
teeth and sent into the belly ; nevertheless in spiritual power it is
all in every part. Many receive this holy body, and yet it is all in
every part after the spiritual mystery. . . . This mystery is a pledge
and symbol ; Christ's body is truth. This pledge we hold mystically
until we come to the truth, and then will this pledge be ended.
Truly it is, as we said before, Christ's body and His blood, not bodily

238 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
but spiritually. Ye are not to search how it is done, but to hold to
your belief that it is done." 1
Like the teaching of Ratramn, on which it is based, this
homily of Aelfric is open to two interpretations, either merely
that through reception of the Sacrament there is a gift of
spiritual union with Christ, or that by consecration the elements
are made to be spiritually the body and blood of Christ. On
either interpretation, what has so far been quoted is very different
from the doctrine taught by Paschasius Radbert. It must be
added that Aelfric goes on to recount two legends of the sight
of human flesh and blood being vouchsafed to some who were
present at the celebration of the Eucharist, which are more
congruous to a belief that the consecrated elements are the body
and blood of Christ than to any other view and recall passages in
the work of Paschasius.2
In an exhortation at the end of the canons of Aelfric, after
directions as to the Mass of the Presanctified and the reserved
Sacrament, it is said : —
"The housel is Christ's body, not bodily but spiritually, not
the body in which He suffered but that body of which He spake
when He blessed bread and wine for housel one night before His
passion. . . . Know now that the Lord, who was able to change
the bread into His body before His passion, and the wine into His
blood, in a spiritual manner, Himself daily blesses bread and wine
by the hand of His priests into His spiritual body and blood." 3
VII.
Before the period of the ninth and tenth centuries is left,
two quotations from other writers may be made, in each case
for a special reason.
Nicolas I. was Pope from 858 to 867. In one of his letters
to the Eastern Emperor Michael III. written in 860 during the
1This homily is in Anglo-Saxon and English in Thorpe's edition of
Aelfric's Homilies, published by the Aelfric Society, ii. 268-73, and in
Thomson, Select Monuments of the Doctrine and Worship of the Catholic
Church before the Norman Conquest. There is an English translation also
as an appendix to The Book of Bertram published at Oxford in 1838.
2 See Thorpe's edition, ii. 272, 273 ; Thomson, op. cit. pp. 26-29 ; and
cf. Paschasius, De corp. et sang. Dom. xiv.
3 Thorpe, Ancient Laws, ii. 360, 361 ; Johnson, English Canons, i. 405.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 239
controversy which arose about the Patriarchate of Constantinople,
Nicolas refers incidentally to the Eucharist as affording an illus
tration of the rightfulness of the practice of venerating the
images of Christ and His Mother and the saints. His language
resembles that of St. Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth century ; *
and, like St. Gregory of Nyssa, he combines the two ideas,
different but not inconsistent, of the heightened efficacy of the
elements and of their being made the body and blood of Christ
by consecration. After speaking of images in general and of
the figure of Christ above the altar, he proceeds : —
" The holy altar, on which we pay to almighty God the vows
of our sacrifices, is by nature common stone, differing not at all
from other blocks, which adorn our walls and floors. But because
it has been consecrated by the help of God and has received a
blessing, it is made to be a holy Table. Again, the bread, which
is offered upon the altar, is by nature common bread ; but, when it
has been consecrated as a Sacrament, it becomes in reality the body
of Christ, and it is so called. So also the wine, which before it has
been blessed is of some moderate worth (vinum modicum aliquid digna
¦existentia ante benedictionem), after the consecration by the Spirit is
made the blood of Christ. For the image of the cross itself, before
it receives the figure of its form, is common wood like any other
wood ; but, on receiving the all venerable likeness, it is holy, and
terrible to demons, because the form of Christ has been made
on it." 2
As was pointed out before, the idea of the heightened efficacy
of the elements is in itself consistent either with a view that
they are merely instruments or with a conception that they are
through consecration the body and blood of Christ.3 In the case
of Pope Nicolas I. it is obvious from his phrases " it becomes in
reality the body of Christ " and " it is made the blood of Christ "
that he held it concurrently with the belief that the elements
are the body and blood of Christ through consecration.
The other passage is from Ratherius, who became Bishop
of Verona in 931, and, after many vicissitudes due in part to
his earnest struggles to promote Christian morality and in part
to the violence of his temperament, died at Namur in 974.
Ratherius joins to an explicit assertion that the consecrated
1 See pp. 68, 69, supra. ' Ep. iv. (P.L. cxix. 778).
3 See pp. 69, 70, supra.

240 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
elements are really the flesh and blood of Christ a protest against
too closely searching into the method by which this presence is
effected. "As at Cana of Galilee the water was made real and not figura
tive wine by the command of God, so this wine by the blessing of
God is made real and not figurative blood, and the bread is made
flesh. If it seems an argument against this that the taste and the
colour remain, I put something else before you. Do you believe
the authority of Scripture, which says that man was formed from
the mud of the earth ? I have no doubt that you will answer that
you do believe it. Well, you remember the words, ' Dust thou art,
and unto dust shalt thou return V I imagine that you reply that
you remember the passage and believe it. Then the man whom
you see in front of you is dust and ashes. That is so, you say, be
cause he was made from the mud. What appearance then of mud
is here ? There is none : I should rather call it earth. Is there
any appearance of earth ? No. Is man none the less earth ? He
is. What of the appearance of mud ? It has been transformed by
the wisdom of the Creator. Does the substance yet remain ? It
does. So also here, though the colour remains, and the taste, yet
believe that what you receive is by the operation of the same
wisdom real flesh and blood, as you do not doubt that, when the
appearance of mud is changed by creation into the appearance of
man, nevertheless the substance of the mud remains. But you ask,
perhaps unseasonably, that the vanity of human curiosity may have
place, whence and by what agency it has come, and if it is brought
down from above, and if the bread is invisibly taken up, or if the
bread itself is changed into flesh. These are, I think, the stones
with which a beast, that is, a carnal heart and a natural (animalis)
man, who perceiveth not the things which are of the Spirit of God,2
is stoned, if it have presumed to touch the mount of the mysteries
of God.3 Therefore let us inquire of the Gospel : ' Jesus,' it says,
'taking bread gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Take and
eat, this is My body. In like manner also the cup after He had
supped, saying, This is the cup of My blood of the new and eternal
covenant, the mystery of faith, which will be poured out for you
and for many for the remission of sins.' 4 You have of what body
i Gen. iii. 19. ' 1 Cor. ii. 14. 3 Heb. xii. 20 ; <cf. Exod. xix. 13.
* St. Matt. xxvi. 26-28 ; St. Mark xiv. 22-24 ; St. Luke xxii. 19, 20 ;
1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. Ratherius quotes " and eternal," " the mystery of faith,"
as in the canon of the Mass.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 241
this is the flesh and blood by so much the more certainly as you
are instructed by the voice of the same Truth, who speaks. For
the rest, I beg, be not anxious, since you hear that it is a mystery,
and that of faith ; for, if it is a mystery, it cannot be grasped ; if
it is of faith, it ought to be believed, but not to be investigated." 1
1Ep. i. 3, 4 (P.L. cxxxvi. 646-48).

VOL. I.

16

CHAPTER VI.
WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH TO THE
FIFTEENTH CENTURY.
Part II.
There can be but little doubt that in the early years of the
eleventh century the doctrine taught by Paschasius Radbert that
the elements are wholly converted by consecration into that
body and blood of Christ which He took from the Virgin, in
which He was born and suffered and died, which was buried in
the tomb and rose and ascended into heaven, was usually held
in the West ; and it is probable that in many cases it was held
without the emphasis on the spiritual character of the conversion
at the consecration and of the presence after consecration which
had marked the teaching of Paschasius himself.
I.
An instance of teaching in which stress is laid both on the
reality of the presence and on the spiritual character of the gift,
both on the substantial identity and on the mystical distinctness
of the body born of the Virgin and the body present in the
Eucharist, may be seen in two letters of Fulbert, Bishop of
Chartres, who died in 1029. In one of these letters Fulbert
says : —
" Let us now go on to the venerable Sacrament of the body and
blood of the Lord, which is so terrible to speak of as the mystery is
not of earth but of heaven, not to be weighed by human understand
ing but to be wondered at, not to be discussed but to be reverenced.
. . . Pitying the failure of our weakness, He provided for us against
the daily offences of our frailty the remedy of the appeasing sacrifice,
so that, because a little later he was going to take away from our
sight into heaven His body which He once for all offered for us for
our ransom, lest we should be deprived of the present help of His
ascended body, He left to us the healthful pledge of His body and
242

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 243
Dlood' I]£L?il2_2L-a:n_.emPty mystery but the real body of Christ,
^l0}1, '"J^ZJ™!!?^? through the" uniring "force of the Holy Ghost
the unseen power invisibly" brings to be under the visible form of
the creaturelh" the holy rites. . '. "' When we" "receive the Com
munion of His body and blood, we boldly say that we are united to
His body and that He abides in us. I say He abides in us, not only
through unity of will but also through the reality of united nature.
For, if the Word was made flesh, and we really receive the Word
rmde--flesh in the food" of the Lord, how can we fail to think that
Christ abides in us~ih His nature (naiuraliter) ? . . . Though the
elements^ little^before bear the likeness of a simple nature, yet
later they have a heavenly nature, when through the gift of conse
cration the true majesty is poured out, and that which appeared out
wardly as the substance of bread and wine now becomes within the
body and bloody Christ. . . . From the faith of the inner man
comes the power of tasting the divine" sweetness," when of a surety
through the reception of the healthful Eucharist the soul of the
communicant within is entered by Christ, whom the heavenly mind
in its chaste sanctuary receives in that form whereby in the memorial
of the mystery by the revelation of the Spirit it beholds Him present
asan infant or sacrificed on the altar of the cross or resting in the
tomb or rising from conquered death or raised on high above the
heavens in the glory of the Father. ... It were impious to doubt
that, by the equal power of Him at whose command all things sud
denly out of nothing came to be, the earthly matter in the spiritual
Sacraments, transcending the merit of its nature and being, is
changed into the substance of Christ." 1
In the other letter Fulbert quotes, and makes his own, an
answer once received by him from a bishop in reply to an in
quiry which had brought up the question of the possibility of
any difference between the reserved Sacrament given to priests
at their ordination for their Communion on forty subsequent
days and the Sacrament consecrated in an ordinary Mass. In
this answer of the bishop it is said : —
" The bread consecrated by a bishop and the bread hallowed by
a priest are transformed into one and the same body of Christ by
virtue of the unseen power of the one operative force. But in a cer
tain kind of way there is said to be one thing which, after the flesh
had been taken in the Virgin's womb, bore the injury of the cross,
1 Ep. v. (P.L. cxii. 201-3).
16*

244 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
and rising from the tomb appeared to the disciples, the memorial of
which the bishop is seen to celebrate in the bread given to the
priests ; another thing is celebrated in mystery, when the bishops
and all the priests on the Table of the altar in the Sacrament of the
communicated flesh are seen to consecrate the holy bread daily by
the secret prayer, which pertains to that which the newly ordained
priests consecrate and receive with the pontifical offering. For that
body of the Lord, raised from the dead and placed in heaven, dieth
no more, while this of the Sacraments to us dies daily, to us rises
daily, appears and is consumed. But neither in regard to this ought
the mind of the faithful to incur the scandal of doubt on hearing
that Christ, after once for all tasting death, will die no more, and
also that the flesh of the taken manhood is seated in the glory of
the Father, and also that the bread consecrated on earth is called
the real body of Christ, since both that which was taken from the
Virgin and that which is consecrated from the material and virginal
creature is transformed into the substance of real flesh by the un
seen action of one and the same Spirit in His working ; that is, not
the flesh of any one but really that flesh of Christ of which He said,
' Except ye shall have eaten My flesh, ye will not have life in you '." 1
II.
Berengar of Tours was a pupil of Fulbert, and it is possible
that he, though probably affected more by the treatise of Rat
ramn On the body and blood of the Lord than by any other in
fluence, may have derived from Fulbert ideas which he developed
in some parts of his future teaching. Bom at Tours about 1000
and educated at Chartres, he became Director of the Cathedral
School at Tours in 1031, and was appointed Archdeacon of
Angers, though without ceasing to reside at Tours, about 1040.
He was a diligent student of Holy Scripture, of the tradition of
the Church, and of philosophy ; and appears to have been known
for independence of judgment, and for originality of thought.
During the ten years which followed his appointment as Arch
deacon of Angers about 1040 he developed views in regard to the
Eucharist which led to a controversy far more acute than those
1 Ep. iii. (P.L. cxii. 194, 195). It may be worth while to notice the
phrase " the sacrifices of bread and wine are transfigured into the life-
giving mysteries of the body and the blood of the Lord " in Othlon, a monk
of St. Emmeran at Ratisbon, who died in 1072 or 1073 at Fulda ; see his
De tribus quastionibus, 48 (P.L. cxlvi. 128).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 245
of the ninth century. About 1048 Adelman of Liege, afterwards
Bishop of Brixen, who had been a fellow-pupil of Fulbert with
Berengar at Chartres, wrote to Berengar telling him of, and asking
him to deny, a widespread report that he held opinions other
than those of the Catholic faith " about the body and blood of
the Lord, which is daily offered in every land on the holy altar,"
and regarded it " not as the real body and real blood of Christ
but a kind of figure and likeness ". In this letter Adelman com
plains that he has received no reply to a similar inquiry addressed
to Berengar two years before ; and gives some of his reasons for
his belief that He who made the light out of nothing and turned
water into wine can make bread His body and wine His blood.1
Not later than the summer of 1049 Hugh, Bishoja_of_Langres,
who alsjphad been a^el]£W^u^U jwith _B_erengar, wrote to him on
the same subject, remonstratmg_with him for his contention that
that_body__of Christ is in the Sacrament " in such a way that the
nature and essence oFthe 'bread" and wine are'not changed," and
maintaining that, if the body present in the Eucharist is only a crea
tion ofthe mind and_theactual body of Christ is in the Sacrament
merely in power and effect, this Sacrament would lose its dis-
tmctnesT1r61n^fn*eT^cfamehts and particularly from Baptism.
The same letter contained a statement that the altar is " both
priest and sacrifice," since Christ is Himself " the altar on high of
the Father ".2 In 1050 Berengar himself addressed a short letter
to Lanfranc, then Prior of Bee, who afterwards became Archbis
hop of Canterbury, in which he declared his acceptance of " the
opinions of John the Scot about the Sacrament of the altar," and
his rejection of those of Paschasius ; and added that, if Lanfranc
regarded John the Scot as a heretic, he must similarly condemn,
among others, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine.3
By " the opinions of John the Scot " Berengar probably meant
the views expressed either in the treatise of Ratramn On the body
and blood of the Lord, which may by this time have come to be
ascribed to Scotus Erigena, or in a work maintaining a similar
position actually written by Scotus and now lost.4 This letter
1Ad Bereng. Ep. (P.L. cxliii. 1289-92).
2 De corp. et sang. Christi (P.L. cxlii. 1325-34).
8 Hardouin, Concilia, vi. (1) 1015, 1016.
4 See Floss in P.L. exxii. pp. xx-xxii ; Gore, Dissertations on Subjects
Connected with the Incarnation, pp. 240, 247 ; Miss Alice Gardner, Studies
in John the Scot, pp. 91-93.

246 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
was read at a council held at Rome under Pope Leo IX. in 1050 ;
and a sentence of excommunication was passed on Berengar in
his absence. Lanfranc states that there was a report that he,
like Berengar, held opinions regarded as unorthodox : and at
the command of the Pope he explained his belief before the
council with the result that what he said was approved.1 Pro
bably in the same year, 1050, a council was held at Brionne near
Bee, convoked by William of Normandy, afterwards William I.
of England, at which Berengar is said to have been reduced to
silence by argument and to have assented to declarations of the
doctrine ordinarily believed.2 In September, 1050, a council was
held at Vercelli, to which Berengar was summoned ; but he was
prevented from attending by the action of King Henry I. of
France, who imprisoned him for a short time. At this council a
condemnation was passed on " the book of John the Scot on the
Eucharist " and on the opinions of Berengar.3 In October, 1050,
King Henry I. summoned a council, which met at Paris, to con
sider the same matter ; and at this council the opinions of Ber
engar were again condemned.4 Four years later, in 1054, a
council was held at Tours under the presidency of Hildebrand,
afterwards Pope Gregory VII., as papal legate. Berengar was
present, and denied the charge brought against him of having
said that " the holy bread of the altar is only bread and does not
differ from unconsecrated bread," and asserted that " the bread
and wine of the altar after the consecration are really the body
and blood of Christ ".5 In 1059, during the Papacy of Nicolas
II., a council was held at Rome. Berengar was present, and,
apparently after considerable pressure, burnt his own writings
and assented to the following document, which was drawn up by
Cardinal Humbert : —
1 Lanfranc, De corp. et sang. Dom. 4 (P.L. cl. 413) ; Hardouin, Cone.
vi. (1) 1015, 1016.
2 Durand of Troarn, De corp. et sang. Dom. 33 (P.L. cxlix. 1422) ; Har
douin, Cone. vi. (1) 1017, 1018. For the date see Vernet in Vacant and
Mangenot's Diet, de Thiol. Cath. ii. 724.
3 Lanfranc, De corp. et sang. Dom. 4 (P.L. cl. 413) ; Hardouin, Cone. vi.
(1) 1017, 1018.
4 Durand of Troarn, De corp. et sang. Dom. 33 (P.L. cxlix. 1422, 1423) ;
Hardouin, Cone. vi. (1) 1021, 1022.
5 Lanfranc, De corp. et sang. Dom. 4 (P.L. cl. 413); Witmund of
Aversa, De corp. et sang. Dom. iii. (P.L. cxlix. 1487) ; Berengar, De sac. cen.
p. 51 (ed. Vischer) ; Hardouin, Cone. vi. (1) 1041, 1042.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 247
" I, Berengar, an unworthy deacon of the Church of St. Maurice
of Angers, acknowledging the true Catholic and Apostolic faith,
anathematise every heresy, especially that concerning which I have
hitherto been in ill repute, which attempts to affirm that the bread
and wine which are placed on the altar are after consecration only
a Sacrament and not the real body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and that these cannot be held or broken by the hands of the priests
or crushed by the teeth of the faithful with the senses but only by
way of Sacrament (sensualiter nisi in solo sacramento). And I assent
to the Holy Roman and Apostolic See, and with mouth and heart I
profess that concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Table I hold
the faith which the Lord and venerable Pope Nicolas and this holy
synod have by evangelical and apostolical authority delivered to be
held and have confirmed to me, namely that the bread and wine
which are placed on the altar are after consecration not only a Sacra
ment but also the real body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
that with the senses (sensualiter) not only by way of Sacrament but
in reality (non solum sacramento sed in veritate) these are held and
broken by the hands of the priests and are crushed by the teeth
of the faithful." J
At a council held at Rouen in 1063 a formula, which had
been drawn up on some previous occasion, was recited as an act
of repudiation of opinions ascribed to Berengar : —
" We believe with the heart and profess with the mouth that the
bread placed on the Lord's Table is only bread before consecration,
but at the consecration itself is converted by the ineffable power of
GoaHmfo^lie nature and substance of flesh, and not of any other
flesh but of that flesh which was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born
of the Virgin Mary, which also for us and for our salvation was
scourged, hung on the cross, lay in the tomb, on the third day rose
from the dead, and sits on the right hand of God the Father. In
like manner the wine which mixed with water is placed in the cup
to be sanctified Is really and essentially converted into that blood
which from the wound pierced in the Lord's side by the soldier's
spear happily flowed for the redemption of the world." 2
1 Lanfranc, De corp. et sang. Dom. 1, 2 (P.L. cl. 409-11); Berengar,
De sac. cena, pp. 25, 26, 74 (ed. Vischer) ; Hardouin, Cone. vi. (1) 1064.
Lanfranc says that Berengar actually subscribed this statement ; Berengar
himself says that he only accepted it in silence.
2 Hardouin, Cone. vi. (1) 1141, 1142.

248 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Some time after the council held at Rouen in 1063 Lanfranc
published his book On the body and blood of the Lord. x In it
he defended at length the doctrine expressed in the declaration
drawn up by Cardinal Humbert and accepted by Berengar at the
Council of Rome of 1059, and charged Berengar with the con
tinued teaching of false doctrine, which he had then promised to
avoid. According to the representations here made by Lanfranc,
the teaching of Berengar contained denials of any conversion at
the consecration and that the consecrated elements were in any
but a wholly symbolical and figurative sense the body and blood
of Christ. Against these views of Berengar, Lanfranc develops
the expression of his own belief. The bread and the wine, he
maintains, are converted at consecration into the real body and
blood of Christ. Though they may still be called bread and
wine, as being the Bread from heaven and the Wine which
maketh glad the hearts of the servants of God, they are incom
prehensibly and ineffably converted into the substance of Christ's
flesh and blood ; and that which is converted must in that part
cease to be what it was before. The flesh and blood are invis
ible and spiritual ; but they aretheHesh and blood of that body
wUch^jvas_yisibly manifested. The rite is full of mystery ; and
injitjthe nature of the elements is essentially changed. The
miracles by which the flesh of Christ has actually been seen in the
Sacrament show the reality of His presence in it. As material
bread nourishes the flesh of those who eat it rightly, so the
spiritual and invisible body of Christ nourishes the soul of those
who receive it worthily. Though Christ is really eaten by com
municants on earth, yet in heaven He is whole and unbroken.
On the cross Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for the redemp
tion of men ; in the Sacrament there is the memorial of the
daily offering of the same flesh as that offered on the cross. To
quote two passages in which Lanfranc sums up the doctrine
which pervades the whole treatise : —
"We believe then that the earthly substances, which are on the
Lord's Table, are divinely consecrated in the priestly mystery, and
are ineffably, incomprehensibly, wonderfully converted by the opera
tion of heavenly power into the essence of the Lord's body, the
1 Apparently, the passage in chapter ii. (P.L. cl. 411), which refers to
the council held at Rome in 1079, is a later addition.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 249
species of the things themselves being preserved, and certain other
qualities, so that men may not shrink through perceiving what is
raw and bloody and that through belief they may receive the fuller
rewards of faith, the Lord's body itself none the less existing in
heaven at the right hand of the Father, immortal, unviolated, whole,
unbroken, unhurt, so that it can be truly said that we receive that
very body which was taken from the Virgin, and yet that it is not
the same : — the same indeed so far as concerns the essence and
peculiarity and power of the real nature, but not the same as regards
the species of bread and the species of wine and the other things
mentioned above."
" The real flesh of Christ and His real blood are offered on the
Lord's Table, are eaten and drunk, bodily, spiritually, incomprehen
sibly." !
With the doctrine thus expressed by Lanfranc may be com
pared the provision made in his statutes for Canterbury Cathe
dral, which may previously have been in use at Bee, for the
carrying of the Sacrament in procession on Palm Sunday, and
for acts of adoration in connection with the procession.
"When the cantor begins the antiphon 'The multitudes meet,'
two priests vested in albs are to come forward, who are to carry the
shrine, which a little before daybreak ought to have been placed
there by the same priests, in which the body of Christ ought to
have been laid. Those who carry the banners and the crosses and
the other things which have been mentioned above are to move
forward at once to the shrine ; and, while those who carry the
shrine stand still, they are to stand on the right and on the left of
the shrine in the order in which they have come. . . . At the end
of the antiphon ' The multitudes meet ' the boys and those who
are with them are to begin the antiphon ' Hosanna to the Son of
David,' genuflecting both at the beginning and at the end of the
antiphon, because ' Hosanna ' is said in both places. The choir is
to repeat this antiphon, and in like manner to genuflect. Then the
boys are to sing the antiphon 'With the angels,' genuflecting only
at the end of the antiphon. This antiphon is to be repeated by the
monks, and in like manner a prostration is to be made. When this
has been done, the abbot or the cantor is to begin the antiphon
' Hail our King,' and the bearers of the shrine are to pass through
the midst of the station, while those who carry the banners and the
^De corp. et sang. Dom. 18, 19 (P.L. cl. 430, 435).

250 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
other things mentioned before go in front, all keeping in returning
the order which they had in coming. As the bearers of the shrine
pass by, all are to genuflect, not all at once but one by one on this
side and on that as the shrine passes before them. . . . Before the
entering of the gates the shrine is to be placed on a table covered
with a pall in such a way that the aforesaid bearers, standing on
each side, may have their faces turned towards the shrine in their
midst." 1
Like veneration on Maundy Thursday and Good Friday is
mentioned in these statutes. The priest was ordered after Mass
on Maundy Thursday to place " the body of the Lord " in an
" appointed place most beautifully adorned," " censed before and
after," before which a light was to be continually burning. It
was directed that after the adoration of the cross on Good
Friday the priest and the deacon, preceded by lights and incense,
should go to the place where the Sacrament was, that it should
be censed and brought to the high altar, and that, on the
approach to the altar, "all the brethren should genuflect and
adore the body of the Lord ".2
The same statutes of Lanfranc contain careful provisions
for dealing with any accident which may have befallen the
Sacrament.3 Another treatise of importance against Berengar is that
of Durand, the Abbot of Troarn, On the body and blood of
the Lord. Durand died an old man in 1089 ; his book was
probably written nearly twenty years earlier, about the same
1 Decreta pro Ord. S. Benedicti, i. 4 (P.L. cl. 456). Cf. the Ordinarium
Canonicorum Regularium S. Laudi Rotomagensis ascribed to John, Arch
bishop of Rouen, who died in 1079, in P.L. cxlvii. 167, 168. See also
Martene, De ant. monach. rit. III. xii. 13-15. For other instances of this
procession, see pp. 352, 353, 385-88, infra.
'Op. cit. i. 4 (P.L. cl. 460, 465). Cf. John of Rouen, op. cit. (P.L.
cxlvii. 171, 175); De off. eccl. (P.L. cxlvii. 50, 52). See also Martene,
op. cit. III. xiii. 46, xiv. 39. For the Salisbury custom of burying the
Sacrament in the Sepulchre from Good Friday to Easter Day in the
thirteenth century or earlier, see Frere, The Use of Sarum, i. 153. For
an earlier practice of apparently placing the Sacrament in the altar at the
consecration of a church, see the Pontifical of Egbert, a tenth-century copy
of an eighth-century Office Book, in Surtees Society publications, xxvii.
46, and the Council of Chelsea (816), can. 2, in Haddan and Stubbs,
Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents, iii. 580. See also pp. 387, 388, infra.
3 Op. cit. x. (P.L. cl. 492, 493).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 251
time as that of Lanfranc. Durand, like Lanfranc, represents
Berengar and his adherents as holding that the consecrated
elements are only figuratively the body and blood of Christ.
His own belief also appears to have been much the same as
that of Lanfranc in his assertions of the reality of the presence
of the body and blood and of the spiritual character of the
change effected at the consecration. The visible elements, he
maintains, are invisibly and substantially made the real body
and blood of Christ by the incomprehensible working of God
the Holy Ghost when the words of institution are recited bv the
priest. The flesh thus present is the same as that which was
taken of the Virgin and is now in heaven ; and the elements are
changed into it by the operation of the same power as accom
plished the Incarnation. Being the flesh of Christ, it is the ob
ject of the adoration of Christians. It is spiritually received by
communicants ; and by receiving it they are united to Christ, so
that He is in them, and they are in Him, and they are trans
formed from what is human to what is divine and from what is
carnal to what is spiritual. Being so spiritual and divine a
thing, it is not subject to the ordinary processes of digestion
but fits the souls of those who receive it for dwelling with God.
It is offered as a sacrifice appointed by God, whereby He is pro
pitiated and men are reconciled for their sins of daily infirmity.
To quote two passages, which include in a short space some
of the main features of the teaching contained in this
book : —
" The Sacrament of the Lord, is really the body and blood of
Christ, not only in the effective and spiritual force of power but
also in the most complete peculiarity of natural reality ; nor is it
any~otlier than that same flesh which the Virgin conceived _of_the
Holy Ghosjti_and_ brought fqrOi~^th the integrity of her spotless
virginity unbroken, contrary indeed to the ordinary course of
human n^urenBlrt~notr contrary to the reality of the human body ;
which was condemned to the cross, and sentenced to death, but
afterwards glorified in the triumph of the blessed resurrection, and
ascended above the heights of heaven, and now sits on the eternal
right hand of the Father, where for us, according to the true words
of the Apostle Paul, He has been made a High Priest for ever, and
in His human flesh continually intercedes, while in the reality
of His divine nature He receives the prayers of His faithful

252 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
people, and in His divine power and majesty grants their
prayers." :
" It is a grave offence to suppose this, namely, that the flesh of
the Lord should be thought to be received as common flesh or as
that of some animal, since rather it must be believed to be spiritu
ally received by a Sacrament, and yet to be none other than that
which bore the passion, though the species of the bread that is
offered be seen ; and it ought to be faithfully believed that this is
accomplished by the appointment of God, so that human weakness,
which is not wont to feed on its own flesh, may find nothing in the
appearance to shrink from, and for the rest may realise the truth
that the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ is in the Sacrament, of
which the Apostle says, ' Though we have known Jesus Christ after
the flesh, yet now we know Him so no more '.2 Here the Apostle
does not deny the reality of the nature taken from us, but he shows
the incorruptibility of our glorified substance as it is in God through
the resurrection, which, as it is incorruptible in God, so we receive
incorruptible in the Sacrament under the visible and accustomed
species. But the minds of those who receive it are to be conformed
and fitted to this so great Sacrament, so that what is received in
the mystery may be of profit to them by inward result to the end
that whoever partakes of so great holiness may be dead to the
world and to sin, and may strive henceforth to live in newness of
life." 3
A third treatise of importance by an opponent of Berengar,
published, like the two which have been hitherto mentioned,
during the period between the earlier condemnations of his
teaching already recorded and the Roman Councils of 1078
and 1079 yet to be described, is that entitled On the Reality of
the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, by Witmund of
Aversa. Witmund was a Norman, a pupil of Lanfranc, and re
garded as one of the most eminent theologians of his day. He
was offered an English bishopric by William the Conqueror but
refused to accept it because of his conviction that William's
policy of filling English sees with Norman bishops was destruc
tive of the best interests of the English Church and nation.
He was afterwards nominated Archbishop of Rouen by William,
But declined to continue to seek that office in consequence of
opposition to his appointment. Later he went to Italy. Pope
1De corp. et sang. Christi, 9 (P.L. cxlix. 1387). 22 Cor. v. 16.
3De corp. et sang. Christi, 23 (P.L. cxlix. 1411).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 253
Gregory VII. made him a cardinal, and Pope Urban II. ap
pointed him Archbishop of Aversa. His book on the Eucharist
is longer and more systematic than either of those by Lanfranc
and Durand of Troarn ; and it shows traces of a more careful
study both of the opinions of Berengar and of other current
views. Yet, in spite of his great reputation, he appears to have
possessed much less insight than either Lanfranc or Durand;
and his theological statements differ in important respects from
both earlier and later Western theology. He mentions four
different opinions about the Eucharist which he aims at refut
ing. He ascribes two of these four opinions to two different
schools of Berengarians, the first being that the Sacrament is
only a figure of the body and blood of Christ, the second, which
he describes as said to be that of Berengar himself, being that
in the Sacrament " the body and blood of the Lord are really
but secretly contained, so that in some kind of way they can be
received, and are, so to speak, impanated," the holders of these
two opinions agreeing that "the bread and the wine are not
essentially changed". The third opinion is that part of the
elements is changed into the body and blood of Christ, while
part of them remains unchanged. The fourth opinion is that
the bread and the wine are wholly changed into the body and
blood of Christ ; but that, if they are received unworthily, they
are changed back again into bread and wine. The common
reason for these third and fourth opinions is the desire to avoid
admitting that those who communicate unworthily receive the
body and blood of Christ. In contravening these opinions Wit
mund shows his own belief. According to it the elements are
essentially changed in a way to which the change of ordinary
food into the substance of the body of those who eat it may be
regarded as parallel. The body of Christ is pressed by the
teeth of communicants, as it was touched by St. Thomas and
the holy women after the resurrection. Christ is able in the
Sacrament to divide His body. On the other hand, no death
or inj ury results ; each fragment of the Sacrament is the whole
body of Christ ; He does not divide Himself but bestows Him
self on each individual to whom He comes ; His body does not
suffer coiTuption, or reception by irrational creatures,1 or the
*But he also says in ii. 8 (P.L. cxlix. 1449; Hurter, Opusc. Selecta,
xxxviii. 62) that, " even if by some judgment of God any irrational crea-

254 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
ordinary processes of digestion. Witmund carries his doctrine
of a substantial change so far that he ascribes incorruptibility to
the sacramental species, and appears to regard this as a conse
quence of his belief that the presence of Christ is not by way of
impanation or invination or after the manner of a figure but
substantially. On the subject of the reception by the wicked,
he says one who communicates unworthily "eats and does not
eat : he eats bodily but he does not eat spiritually ".1 At the
end of his book Witmund sums up his position by saying : —
" Our sacrifice is not a shadow only or a figure of the flesh and
blood of Christ, nor can it cover Christ impanated in it as Berengar
thinks, nor can reality allow that the substance of the bread and
wine is in part changed but in part abides unchanged, nor may one
think that after being changed it returns to what it was before or is
changed again into something else. It remains that by the help of
God this is the unimpaired and firm faith, that the whole of the
bread and the whole of the wine of the altar of the Lord are so sub
stantially changed by the consecration of God into the flesh and
blood of Christ that afterwards henceforth for ever they are nothing
else at all than the flesh and blood of our Saviour and Lord God
Jesus Christ." 2
In reply to Lanfranc and probably with other attacks on his
teaching in view, Berengar wrote his treatise On the Holy Supper.
In this book Berengar complains of the unfair and violent treat
ment of himself by the rulers of the Church ; affirms his right to
appeal to argument and logic, since reason is the gift of God and
a characteristic of the image of God ; depreciates the import
ance of the opinions of maj orities ; and appeals to the accredited
authorities of Scripture and tradition. The book is extremely
controversial and is occupied almost entirely with attacks on,
and arguments against, his opponents ; though it represents his
mature view, which he says he has gradually attained, there are
great difficulties in ascertaining from it what he really held as
positive opinion. It is clear that he denied any destruction of
the elements or material change in them. " After consecration,"
tures should not only touch but also he able to devour the most holy
mysteries," this is not a reason for denying "the reality of the Lord's
flesh and blood ".
1 iii. 51 (P.L. cxlix. 1492; Hurter, Opusc. Selecta, xxxviii. 179).
2 iii. 57 (P.L. cxlix. 1494 ; Hurter, Opusc. Selecta, xxxviii. 185).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 255
he says, " there is on the altar the material bread " ; " the bread
and wine cannot materially lose their own nature " ; the bread
and the wine are not so called after consecration in any " figura
tive sense but literally " ; they " are not destroyed but abide "1
It is clear also that he denied any carnal presence of Christ.
He explicitly rejects the idea that " the body of Christ is brought
down from heaven and carnally present on the altar".2 It is
doubtful whether by his assertions that the consecrated elements
are the body and blood of Christ he means that they are so
in actual fact and spiritual reality, or whether he means only
that they are so figuratively or virtually. On the one hand,
there are passages which most easily lend themselves to the
latter interpretation, as when he says : —
"The blood of Christ the Lord is set before you, but not car
nally, that you may be washed in it ; it is set before you, but not
carnally, that you may also drink it. If the Lord God had in
stituted that you must do these things carnally according to the
outer man, in the first place and principally you would rightly have
shrunk back in the worth of the mind ; but nothing has been set
before you which can rightly be horrible to you. Christ the Lord
requires from you that you believe that His mercy towards the
human race led Him to shed His blood and that so believing you
may be washed by His blood from all sin ; He requires that you,
having that same blood of Christ always in remembrance, may in it,
as in food for making the journey of this life, base your inner life,
as you base your outward life in outward food and drink. . . . He
requires that, believing inwardly that God so loved the world that
He gave His only begotten Son as a propitiation for sins, you may
be outwardly plunged in this element of water and thus by means
of the element of water represent to yourself the death of Christ ;
. . . He requires that by means of bodily eating and drinking,
which takes place through outward things, through bread and wine,
you may remind yourself of the spiritual eating and drinking which
are in the mind concerning the flesh and blood of Christ, while you
refresh yourself inwardly with the Incarnation and passion of the
Word, so that in humility, by which the Word became flesh, and in
patience, through which He shed His blood, you may establish your
inner life, as you ought, in humility, and, as you ought, excel in
patience, so that in these you may rest and delight yourself, as in
your outer life you rest in food and drink." 3
1 Pp. 31, 122, 209, 248 (ed. Vischer). 2 P. 199. 3 Pp. 222, 223.

256 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
On the other hand he says that the Eucharistic bread is "the
body of Christ " ; that " after consecration the bread and wine
are really the body and blood of Christ" ; that "the bread and
wine are converted by means of the consecration into the real
body and blood of Christ on the altar"; that they are "the
Sacrament of the Lord's passion, of the mercy of God, of peace
and unity, lastly of the flesh and blood taken from the Virgin,
each in their proper and distinct ways " ; and writes as follows
of the change at the consecration : —
"The word converted has more senses than one. For some
things are converted by the destruction of the subject into something
which they were not before ; but it is quite a different thing for
something to be converted by the consecration of its subject than
for it to be converted by the destruction of its subject. Now the
bread and the wine by the attestation of all Scripture are converted
into the flesh and blood of Christ by consecration ; and it is clear
that everything which is consecrated, and everything which is
blessed by God, is not removed or taken away or destroyed but
abides and is necessarily advanced to something better than it was
before." 1
In regard to the sacrifice Berengar quotes with approval from
the Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews which he thought
to be the work of St. Ambrose : —
" Christ was once offered, but the sacrifice of the Church is the
representation (exemplum) of the sacrifice of Christ. ... As that
which is everywhere offered is one body and not many bodies, so
also there is one sacrifice, and the High Priest is He who made the
offering which cleanses us. We offer that even now. We ever offer,
not a different sacrifice, but the same, or rather we make the remem
brance of the sacrifice." 2
The obscurity in Berengar's own statement of what he de
scribes as his developed and mature opinion, the real changes in
his thought which appear to be indicated by this description,
and his vacillations under persecution combine to explain the
fact that Lanfranc and Durand of Troarn represent him as
holding that the consecrated elements are only figures of the
body and blood of Christ, while Witmund distinguishes him
from those Berengarians who so held and says that he himself
1 Pp. 31, 34, 51, 52, 67, 64, 161, 162, 248. 2 P. 131 ; cf. p. 191.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 257
was said to adopt such a view of the presence of Christ in the
consecrated elements as Witmund describes as "impanation " or
" invination ".
After councils condemnatory of his opinions at Poitiers in
1075 and at Saint Maixent in 1076,1 Berengar was summoned
to Rome by Pope Gregory VII. for a council which took place
in 1078. At this council he accepted the following state
ment : —
" I profess that the bread of the altar is after consecration the
real body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin, which suffered on
the cross, which sitteth on the right hand of the Father ; and that
the wine of the altar, after it has been consecrated, is the real blood
which flowed from the side of Christ." 2
At a later council held at Rome in 1079 Berengar subscribed,
after some resistance and attempted evasions, a fuller and more
explicit statement : —
" I, Berengar, believe with my heart and confess with my moutb
that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are by the
mystery of the holy prayer and the words of our Redeemer substanti
ally converted into the real and true and life-giving flesh and blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and are after the consecration the real
body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin and which vi as offered
and hung on the cross for the salvation of the world and which
sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and the real blood of Christ,
which was shed from His side, not only by way of sign and sacra
mental power but in peculiarity of nature and reality of sub
stance." 3
A year later, in 1080, Berengar gave an account of his belief
at a council held at Bordeaux, which was apparently allowed by
the council.4 He died in 1088 on St. Cosme, an island in the
Loire near Tours.
It is probable that Berengar in the earlier stages of his teach
ing was desirous of emphasising the spiritual character of the
consecration of the elements and the presence of Christ. From
this he himself at times may have gone on to deny the traditional
1 Hardouin, Cone. vi. (1) 1551-54. 2 Mansi, Suppl. ii. 27-30.
3 Lanfranc, De corp. et sang. Dom. 2 (P.L. cl. 411) ; Hardouin, Cone.
vi. (1) 1583-85.
4 Hardouin, Cone. vi. (1) 1587, 1588.
VOL. I. 17

258 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
doctrine that the consecrated elements are the body and blood
of Christ. Such a denial formed part of the Belief of some of his
adherents. As there were two schools among his folio werSj_some
regarding the consecrated elements as merely figures and_others
asserting the presence of Christ in them in some form^tjh^r^than
theu- change into His body and blood, so differences existed to a
certain extent among their opponents. There was a marked
tendency not only to affirm the traditional doctrine that the con
secrated elements are Christ's body and blood but^ also _to__use
language of a carnal character in x'egard to this presence.  In
stances of this tendency may be seen in the statement imposed
on Berengar at the Council of Rome in 1059, and in the writings
of Lanfranc and Witmund. But in other parts of Lanfranc's
work and in the treatise of Durand of Troarn an opposite ten
dency, namely to protect the spiritual character of the consecra
tion and presence, may be discerned. And it is noteworthy that
the most carnal phraseology of the statement made at the Council
of Rome of 1059 is absent not only in the shorter definitions of
the Councils of Rouen of 1063 and Rome of 1078 but also in the
longer statement of the Council of Rome of 1079. Moreover,
while there is no doubt that carnal tendencies existed both in
language and in thought, the probability must not be forgotten
that such phrases as " the real body and blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ are held and broken by the hands of the priests and are
crushed by the teeth of the faithful" were used by many as
clumsy ways of expressing the conviction that the Sacrament
which is so held and broken and crushed is the body and blood
of Christ. A letter which was addressed to Berengar by Eusebius Bruno,
who became Bishop of Angers in 1047 and died in 1081, is of
considerable interest. Berengar had expressed his wish to hold
a discussion on the Eucharist with Gottfrid, a priest of Tours?
who had defended the doctrine taught by Lanfranc, in the
presence of Eusebius to act as judge. Eusebius wrote to refuse
the request, to express his sense of the danger in which the whole
controversy was involved, and, while not deprecating study and
the consideration of the writings of the fathers on the part of
those who were fitted for such tasks, to emphasise his wish that
men would " live in the quiet of Christian peace, content with
the simple teaching and sufficient support of the holy faith found

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 259
in the most holy words of Christ " at the institution of the Sacra
ment. After quoting the account of the institution, he said : —
"We believe and confess that by the power and act of this Word,
by whom all things were made, after the consecration by the priest
consecrating by these words the bread is the real body of Christ, and
in the same way the wine is His real blood. If any one should ask
how this can be, we answer him not according to the order of nature
but according to the almighty power of God. Both this and all
things whatsoever He has willed God has done in heaven and on
earth, in the sea and in all deeps. For no eloquence of language
could explain according to the order of nature how God the Word,
who was in the beginning with God, was conceived of the Holy
Ghost and the Virgin, and how after the resurrection the real body
of the Lord Jesus could find admission to the disciples when the
doors were shut, and could be touched by them ; and yet it must
be believed most firmly and most faithfully that these things were
done in reality according to the almighty power of God." 1
III.
The treatise entitled An Exposition of the Canon of the Mass,
which has been ascribed to St. Peter Damien, the Cardinal Bishop
of Ostia, the friend of Pope Gregory VII., who died in 1071, if
not by St. Peter Damien himself, may have been written at no
long interval after his death with the intention of setting out his
beliefs. The facts that throughout the Berengarian controversy
to the time of his death St. Peter Damien was the trusted friend
of the authorities of the Church and that at the Roman Council
of 1078 Berengar appealed to words of his as a justification of
his own opinions 2 may supply an indication that he had expressed
what the Church authorities were really desirous to maintain and
had said something to protect the spiritual aspects of the mystery
of the Eucharist. With such an indication the teaching con
tained in the Exposition of the Canon of the Mass would fall in
well. The writer goes through the canon of the Mass from the
recital of the institution to the Agnus Dei 3 with brief comments
1Ep. ad Beren. de sacram. Euchar. (P.L. cxlvii. 1201-4).
2 Mansi, Suppl. ii. 29, 30.
3 The canon of the Mass is usually regarded as ending before the
Lord's Prayer : see p. 203, note 2, supra. For the use of the term as here
to describe the office to the end of the Mass, see, e.g., Odo of Cambrai,
Expos, in can. Missae, referred to on pp. 263-66, infra. Cf. Gihr, Das
heilige Messopfer, p. 553. 17 *

260 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
and explanations. He describes the Eucharist as the " sacrifice
of the body and blood " of Christ and the "sacrifice of praise" ;
as the commemoration of three events, the passion, the resurrec
tion, and the ascension ; and, in the words of St. Gregory the
Great, the means of the union of earthly and heavenly worship
when borne to the altar on high by the ministry of angels.1 At
the recital of the words of institution by the priest the bread and
wine are changed into the flesh of Christ which was taken from
the Virgin and the blood which He shed on the cross by the
power of the Word which was exercised in the creation and the
Incarnation, in the miracles of the Old Testament, and when the
water was made wine.2 This change is called Transubstantiation ;
and the bread and the wine are said to be transubstantiated into
the flesh and blood of Christ.3 On questions which, as has been
seen, were keenly discussed in the Berengarian controversy it is
here said : —
" The whole Church daily partakes of, yet never consumes, the
flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. But whether parts are
made into parts or the whole into the whole He knows who ac
complishes it ; what is left I burn with fire, for we are commanded
to believe, we are forbidden to distinguish. But because an im
portunate questioner demands an answer, we grant that, the faith
being preserved, such bread is changed into such body, and not
a part into a part. Nevertheless, the majesty of the faith being
preserved, I confess that, when the bread has been consecrated,
the whole Christ is in the whole species of bread, whole under
every separate part, whole in what is great and what is small,
whole in what is unbroken and what is broken. ... It is inquired
whether the body of the Lord is local, whether it makes local
distance, whether it ought to be said that He lies or sits or
stands ; but many other inquiries could be made on the present
subject, which I wish rather to leave untouched than to define rashly ;
for ' the beast which shall have touched the mountain shall be stoned '.*
JCc. 2,8,12 (P.L. cxiv. 881, 884, 886). In c. 12 the passage of St.
Gregory the Great cited on p. 195, supra, is quoted.
2Cc. 3, 4 (P.L. cxiv. 881, 882).
3Cc. 7, 14, 16 (P.L. cxiv. 883, 888, 889). These are probably the
earliest instances of the words " trans ubstantiatio" and " transubstantiare ''.
" Transubstantiatio " occurs next in Hildebert of Tours and " transubstan
tiare " in Stephen of Autun ; see pp. 275, 280, infra.
' Heb. xii. 20 ; cf. Ex. xix. 13.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 26l
It is safer in such matters to remain within the limits of reason than
to go beyond them. . . . Many often ask and but few understand
what is here broken, what is devoured by a beast, what is consumed
when the Sacrament is burnt. The answer is that as the substance
is miraculously converted into the Lord's body and the body begins
to be in the Sacrament, so after a kind of way there is a miraculous
return, when that ceases to be there. . . . The species of bread is
broken and crushed, but the body of Christ is taken and eaten ; the
references to corruption concern the species of bread, those to recep
tion concern the body of Christ. . . . Christ passes from the mouth
to the heart ; it is better that He go to the mind than that He de
scend to the stomach. This food is not of the flesh but of the soul.
. . . The species suffers corruption and defilement, but the reality is
never corrupted or polluted.1 . . . For three reasons He instituted
the Sacrament of His body and blood to be received under a different
species, to increase merit, to help feeling, to avoid ridicule ; to in
crease merit, because in this one thing is seen and another thing is
believed ; to help feeling, lest the mind should be repelled by what
the eye would see ; to avoid ridicule, lest the heathen should mock
at anything done by a Christian".2
The treatise contains comments on some of the ceremonial used
in connection with the prayers of the canon of the Mass, particu
larly on the signing of the Sacrament with the cross as signifi
cant of the stages in the mystical commemoration of the passion
and on the commixture as signifying " the union of the flesh and
the soul in the resurrection of Christ ".3
IV.
The writings of St. Anslem supply an instance of the teach
ing ordinarily current at the end of the eleventh centuiy and the
opening years of the twelfth. Anslem was born at or near Aosta
about 1033, was a pupil of Lanfranc at Bee, and succeeded him
1 Cf. the letter addressed to Meginhard by Wolphem, who became
Abbot of Branwiller near Cologne about 1091, quoted in the Life of
Wolphem by his pupil Conrad, "This visible sun, created and not al
mighty, sends its beams into the sewers and other filth of the world, and
draws them back again to itself without any defilement ; and this body,
after Communion has been completed in the Catholic way, draws itself
back to the Father safe and sound, living and complete" : see P.L. cliv.
414. 2 Cc. 4, 5, 6, 7 (P.L. cxiv. 882-84). 3 Cc. 16, 18 (P.L. cxiv. 889-91).

262 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
as Prior of Bee in 1063. From 1078 to 1093 he was Abbot of
Bee, from 1093 to 1109 Archbishop of Canterbury. He often re
fers to the consecrated bread and wine as the body and blood of
Christ and to the Eucharist as a sacrifice or the sacrifice of the
body and blood of Christ.1 His Prayers describe the consecra
tion as being effected by the descent of the Holy Ghost on the
offerings ; contain words of loving address and devout adoration
to " that most sweet body of the most sweet Lord which " the priest
holds " in the hands," " which is really that body which was born
of the Virgin and crucified and laid in the tomb, which on the
third day rose from the dead, which ascended into heaven and
sitteth at the right hand of the Father " ; and refer to the
angels as present at " the hour of sacrifice " and worshipping the
flesh and blood of Him who created them.2 In one of his letters
he touches briefly on some matters which had been the subject
of much discussion and controversy : —
" It must not be supposed that in taking the blood we receive
the soul of Christ without His body, or that in taking the body we
receive His body without His soul, but when we take the blood we
receive the whole Christ God and Man, and when we take the body
we receive Him whole in like manner. And although we take first
the body and then the blood, yet we do not receive Christ twice but
we receive Him once being immortal and impassible. ... It must
be understood that the bread placed on the altar is changed by
means of the words of the rite into the body of Christ, and that the
substance of bread and wine does not remain. Yet the species does
remain, that is, the form and colour and taste ; and according to the
species which remains certain things happen which cannot possibly
happen according to that which they are, namely to be broken and
to be shut in one place. . . . According to the species, again, the
Sacrament can be received by faithful and unfaithful alike. Yet
the faithful receive in a different and unique way, namely, that,
since they are conformed to Christ by innocence, by the reception
of His body and blood they are conformed to God, in the present
their virtues are increased and their free will is strengthened, and in
the future they are fully endowed with immortality and impassibility,
as also is He. . . . Which method of receiving all the unfaithful
altogether lack. Nevertheless it is not to be denied that the
1See, e.g., De azym. et fermen. 1, De sacram. divers. 4, Ad Waleranni
quer. resp. 2 (P.L. clviii. 541, 542, 550, 553).
2 See, e.g., Orat. 27, 28, 29, 35 (P.L. clviii. 918, 919, 924, 927).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 263
wicked themselves receive the real substance of the body of
Christ. . . . Within the Catholic Church in the mystery of the
body of Christ nothing less is received from an evil priest, and no
thing more is received from a good priest, because the consecration
takes place not by the merit of the consecrator but by the word of
the Creator and the power of the Holy Ghost ; for if it were by the
merit of the priest not at all would it pertain to Christ. But now
as it is He who baptises, so it is He who by the Holy Ghost makes
this bread and wine to be transformed into His flesh and blood." 1

Odo of Cambrai was born at Orleans in 1050 ; he became
Master of the Cathedral School at Tournai in 1087, abbot of the
monastery of St. Martin at Tournai at some later date, and
Bishop of Cambrai in 1105 ; he was exiled in 1110, and died at
Anchin in 1113. In his treatise An Exposition on the Canon of
the Mass he goes through the canon of the Mass sentence by
sentence with explanatory comments. It is of much interest in
regard both to the Eucharistic presence and to the Eucharistic
sacrifice. On the presence the teaching of Odo is very clear that
at the moment of consecration the elements become the body
and blood of Christ. More than once he speaks as if the bread
and the wine cease to exist when consecrated, and he refers to
the deception of the senses in a way which seems to imply not
only the presence of the body and blood of Christ but also the
absence of the bread and wine. With these statements he links
strong assertions of the spiritual character of the flesh and blood
of Christ as present and received and a reference to the spiritual
condition of His body after the resurrection, though there are
fewer traces in this book of serious effort to co-relate the reality
and the spirituality of the presence of Christ than are found in
the treatise on the same subject ascribed to St. Peter Damien
and in the letter already quoted from St. Anselm. Of the bread
immediately before consecration he says, " It is still bread, not
yet flesh " ; of it immediately after consecration he writes, " Now
it is flesh, it is no longer bread ".2 Of the act of consecration
he says, " By the word of Christ " " the creature " " becomes the
body and blood of Christ ".3 On the deception of the senses he
1Ep. cvii. (P.L. clix. 255-58).
'P.L. clx. 1061 ; cf. 1065. sIbid. 1063.

264 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
writes, " It is perceived by the senses to be wine ; and it is not.
It does not appear to be blood ; and it is." J As to the spiritual
character of the flesh and blood, his words are : —
" This offering is pure because, although it is real flesh and blood,
yet it is spiritual and incorruptible. It is divided, and it cannot be
consumed. It is eaten, and it remains uncorrupted. It is crushed,
and it is unimpaired. It is broken, and it is whole. This offering
is flesh, but it is not carnal. Rather it is unstained light, and
therefore pure. It is body, but not corporal. Rather it is spiritual
light, and therefore pure. It is pure and cleansing, pure and puri
fying, pure because divine, purer than material light." 2
With this should be compared an earlier passage in the treatise
in which Odo exhibits less carefulness to avoid confusion of ex
pression than the book ascribed to St. Peter Damien and the
letter of St. Anselm. He there writes : —
" We daily consume Christ on the altar, and yet He abides ; we
eat Him, and yet He lives ; we crush Him with the teeth, and yet
He is unbroken. Now we consume and eat and crush not only in
the species but also in fact, not only in the form but also in the
substance. And in a marvellous way He who abides is consumed,
He who is unmarred is crushed, He who is undivided is distributed,
as after the resurrection He gave a spiritual body to be handled.
With like contrariety that which is spiritual cannot be touched, and
that which can be touched is not spiritual. For in the species and
taste of bread and wine we eat and drink the very substance of the
body and blood, the substance under the same qualities being
changed, so that under the figure and taste of the former substance
the real substance of the body and blood of Christ is made to be." 3
On the subject of the Eucharistic sacrifice there are passages
of great interest in connection with the prayers in the canon
of the Mass in which supplication is made that the offering
may be accepted as the offerings of Abel, Abraham, and
Melchizedek were accepted, and that it may be borne to the
altar on high.
"Why do we pray the Father to be favourable and gracious
towards the offering, and to accept it, when there is nothing which
He holds more acceptable and when He always regards it favourably
and graciously? For it is written, 'This is My beloved Son, in
1 P.L. clx. 1063. 'Ibid. 1064. 3 Ibid. 1062.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 265
whom I am well pleased'.1 But the reference is to those who offer,
that they who are afraid because of their sins and have no trust in
themselves, may stretch out on their behalf an acceptable offering,
so that, protecting themselves under its shield, they may implore
the Father to be favourable and gracious to them, and may desire
that they be accepted because of that the acceptableness of which
they never question, so that they who dare not offer in themselves,
lest they should provoke by evil, set forth the beloved Son, that
they may come in, and under His protection enter the presence of
the Father. . . . There is a difficulty how we pray that the body
and blood of the Lord may be borne in the presence of God,
since it is written that Christ ever stands before the face of the
Father, making intercession for us, and we read that Christ, ascend
ing to heaven, was exalted above all things, sitting on the right
hand of the Father. How then do we pray that Christ may be
borne where He ever is ? . . . We pray that, as Christ was borne
away from the earth into heaven in the presence of His disciples,
and vanished out of their sight, being about to send the gift of the
Holy Ghost afterwards, so this offering may be borne from the
earthly altar, on which it is offered, to the altar on high in the
presence of God, so that thence we may be filled with all heavenly
blessing and grace, so that what is visibly done on earth may be
invisibly accomplished in heaven. It is offered here, it is accepted
there, not by change of place or by succession of time, as if a
movement of translation were begun in this place and completed
in another. But in the same place that which was bread becomes
the flesh of the Word. There is no transference of place that bread
may become flesh ; yet there is transference from the altar to
heaven, because from being bread it is made God. But, since God
is everywhere, it is not by change of place that the flesh which is
made from bread is joined to God. ... In mentioning Christ we
pray that our prayers may be borne by the hands of the angel,
that the good angels may present good prayers under the plea of
so great a sacrifice. . . . What is it for the offering to be borne to
the altar on high except for the sheep to be placed on the shoulders
of the Shepherd ? And what is it for the sheep to be placed on
the shoulders except for man to be taken by the Word ? And what
is higher than the Word of God ? Daily the Word of God takes
to Himself the faithful by their participation in this sacrifice. The
Word of God then is the altar on high, to which we pray that the
offering may be borne in the presence of God and that we through it
1 St. Matt. iii. 17.

266 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
may be brought in. The presence of God is the Word of the
Father in whom He sees all things which He has done. . . . What
then is the meaning of the offering being borne to the altar on high
in the presence of God except that our offering be joined to the
Word, be united to the Word, become God, and that through it
we may be taken to God and that our prayers may be accepted. . . .
The Church has a visible altar on earth, and there is an invisible
altar in heaven with God. The offering which we offer to God on
this altar is joined to God and becomes God. In this sacrifice
earthly things are joined to heavenly, the creature to God. When
from this altar we take His creature, we receive God from the altar
on high. When here we take the body and blood of Christ, we
receive God from heaven, in whom we are filled with all heavenly
blessing and grace." 1
Here, as in his teaching about the presence, Odo is hampered
by his lack of clear thought or expression ; but there can be
little doubt that he is struggling to convey and explain the
idea strongly emphasised by Paschasius Radbert, that at con
secration the elements which have thereby become the body and
blood of Christ are spiritually borne to the altar on high in the
heavenly sphere and there presented in the presence of God and
then given back to the people on earth as the body and blood
of the Lord.2
Ivo of Chartres was born at Beauvais about 1040. After
being abbot of the monastery of St. Quentin at Beauvais he
became Bishop of Chartres in 1091. He died in 1116. His
collection of enactments of Church law known as Panormia con
tains forty sections relating to the Eucharist. They are col
lected from very various sources of very different dates and
concern many matters of doctrine and practice. It is assumed
in them that the bread and wine become the body and blood of
Christ at consecration, and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice.
They include the declaration to which Berengar assented at the
Council of Rome of 1059.3 One of the Sermons of Ivo is a
lengthy comparison between the rites of the Old Testament
and those of the Christian religion. The earlier part of it is oc
cupied with an enumeration and explanation of Old Testament
lP.L. clx. 1066-68. 2See pp. 220-22, supra.
3 Panormia, i. 123-62 (P.L. clxi. 1071-84). The declaration made by
Berengar is in section 126 (P.L. clxi. 1072). For it see p. 247, supra.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 267
prophecies and types of Christ, especially of His priesthood and
sacrifice. After these Ivo goes on to explain the mystical
significance of the stages of the offering of the Eucharist. He
regards the details of the rite from the Introit to the Offertory
as the mystical representation of the Old Testament foreshadow-
ings of Christ. From the secret prayers which follow the Offer
tory to the end there is the presentation in mystery of our
Lord's earthly passion and of His intercession in heaven, both
being represented as prefigured by the ceremonies of the Jewish
Day of Atonement. On the, Jewish Day of Atonement there
were the death of the victim and the sprinkling of the blood in
the Holy of Holies ; in the sacrifice offered by Christ there are
His death, His presentation of His blood in heaven, and His
abiding pleading ; in the Eucharist there are the commemoration
of His death and the union of the earthly offering with His
acts in heaven. The quotation of one passage of some length
may be sufficient to show his line of interpretation : —
" The priest [that is, in the Eucharist] spiritually expresses what
he asks for, namely, that these bodily elements may become to us
the body and blood of Christ. This prayer as with smoke of most
subtle perfumes shrouds the mercy-seat, and asks that the earthly
and corruptible element may be united to the heavenly and incor
ruptible body. But faith alone must be used for this height of
divine counsel, and it goes forth even to the parts within the veil,
into which it could not enter if it strove to prove by the persuasive
words of human wisdom the mysteries therein contained. The
priest who serves the shadow [that is, of the Jewish law] turns to
the East and sprinkles the mercy-seat and the sanctuary and the
tabernacle with the blood of the bullock, and in the same rite with
that of the goat which was offered ; for the same Christ of whom the
bullock was a type and who was signified by the goat which was
offered for sin, — even Christ ascending to the East, that is, to the
Father, from whom He came forth, — sprinkles Him, that is, the
Father, whom He made propitious to us by the sprinkling of His
blood. He sprinkles also the sanctuary and the tabernacle, be
cause, entering into the holy places by His own blood, He made at
peace things divine and human, for, as the Apostle says, ' It pleased
the Father in Him to restore all things which are in heaven and
which are on earth,' x that is, the Church, which on earth was lost
^ol. i. 19, 20.

268 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
because of the disobedience of our first parent and in heaven was
lessened because of the fall of the apostate angel. Our priest in
the sacred mysteries, as if within the veil, imitates this sprinkling
of the blood of Christ, as often as, turning to the East, whence the
Saviour came to us, naming the mysteries themselves by their typi
cal or proper names, He signs them with the sign of the cross. For
what is the meaning of placing the sign of the cross on the things
that have been consecrated or are to be consecrated in the mysteries
themselves except to commemorate the death of the Lord ? . . .
When the sprinkling of the blood of Christ has been commemorated
in the Lord's words, the words of the rite follow, commemorating
the same sprinkling of the blood by the mouth of the priest raising
his prayer to the Father, ' Wherefore also, O Lord, we Thy servants,
mindful of the passion and resurrection and ascension of Thy Son,
offer to Thy majesty,' that is, we commemorate as offered in these
visible gifts, ' a pure offering,' that is, without the leaven of malice ;
' holy,' that is, consecrated ; ' stainless,' that is, such as the animals
signified which were sought for sacrifice without blemish. And this
commemoration of the real sacrifice the priest prays may be ac
cepted by God the Father as were accepted the gifts of Abel
and Abraham and Melchizedek. . . . Since they could not hurt
His Godhead, they sent Christ living into the wilderness, because
they let Him go, free by the death of the flesh to ascend to that
glory which He had alone with the Father, by the hands of a pre
pared man, that is, Himself, carrying the sins of the children of
Israel, that is, taking away the sins of the world, not possessing
them. This our priest commemorates when he says to God the
Father, ' Command these to be borne by the hands of Thy angel to
Thy altar on high '. Who is that angel but the Angel of great
counsel, who by His own hands, that is, by works endowed with
unique worth, merited to ascend into heaven, and to raise Himself
to the altar on high, that is, to the right hand of the Father,
making intercession for us ? Then the high priest returns to the
camp, and the Lord says to the disciples, instructing them about
His ascension, 'I am with you always even to the end of the
world'.1 Both of these acts the priest imitates. First, by his
prayers he raises the body of Christ above the whole height of
heaven. Then as if returning to the camp he says, 'That all
we who shall have received from this participation of the altar the
most holy body and blood of Thy dearly beloved Son may be filled
with all heavenly blessing '. Lo, there come to the mind the words
1 St. Matt, xxviii. 20.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 269
of Blessed Andrew the Apostle, in which he says both that the
body of the Lord is in heaven and that the body of the Lord can
be taken from the altar. ... If you ask how this can be, I will
shortly answer, It is a sacrament of faith ; search can be made into
it healthfully, but not without danger. ... We have Christ whole
in heaven making intercession to the Father for us through the
showing forth of His flesh ; we have also His body whole in the
Sacrament of the altar ." 1
William of Champeaux was a philosopher and scholastic
theologian of great reputation in the early years of the twelfth
century. He was Archdeacon of Paris and afterwards Bishop
of Chalons-sur-Mame. In 1113 he founded the famous school
of St. Victor at Paris. In 1121 he died. A fragment only of
his work On the Sacrament of tlie Altar exists. It may be worth
while to quote from it a clear expression of the doctrine of
concomitance and of the spiritual character of our Lord's risen
body : —
" He who receives either species receives the whole Christ.
For Christ is not received limb by limb or bit by bit but whole in
one kind or in the other. Wherefore infants just baptised receive
the cup only, because they cannot take bread, and in the cup they
receive the whole Christ. . . . Though there are the separate parts
according to breaking and smell and warmth and taste, yet in each
species is the whole Christ, who after His resurrection is wholly in
visible and impassible and indivisible, so that neither is there the
blood without the flesh, nor the flesh without the blood, nor either
without the human soul, nor the whole human nature without the
Word of God personally united to it." 2
William adds that the two kinds of the Sacrament are re
tained in the Church as one of those things which cannot be
changed, because the object of the institution in two species
was in order that there might be preserved the memory of the
body which hung on the cross and of the blood which flowed
from our Lord's side.3
Alger of Liege was born about 1070, was appointed a canon
of Liege about 1101, became a monk of Cluny in 1121, and
died about 1131. His reputation as a theologian stood very
1Serm. v. (P.L. clxii. 556-58).
'Desacram. alt. (P.L. clxiii. 1039, 1040). sIbid.

270 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
high, and his treatise On the Sacraments of the Lord's Body and
Blood was greatly esteemed in the Church. At the outset of
this treatise Alger mentions six errors about the Eucharist
which it is his purpose to refute. The six errors are, first, that
the bread and wine are not really but only figuratively the body
of Christ ; secondly, that Christ is impanated in the bread ;
thirdly, that the bread and wine are changed into the flesh and
blood not of Christ but of some son of man accepted by God;
fourthly, that the conversion of the elements does not take place
if the consecrating priest is a bad man ; fifthly, that the con
secrated elements again become only bread and wine if they are
received by wicked communicants ; and sixthly, that the flesh
of Christ when taken in Communion is subject to the ordinary
processes of digestion.1 In distinction from these six errors
Alger develops the doctrine which he himself holds. He is
careful to show the connection of his teaching on the subject of
the Eucharist with other doctrines. Thus, he emphasises the
truths of the Incarnation, the Virgin-birth, the resurrection, the
ascension, and the union of Christians to Christ in His mystical
body the Church.2 He is evidently desirous of avoiding con
fusions of thought which had arisen through want of care in de
fining terms, and explains that the word " Sacrament " is used
to denote both "the Sacrament" and "the reality of the Sacra
ment " (res sacramenti), and the phrase " body of Christ " to de
note both " the Sacrament " and " the body of Christ ".3 He
explicitly asserts that at the consecration the substance of the
elements is converted into the substance of the flesh and blood
of Christ, so that " what is there is not seen, and what is seen is
not there," and that " the flesh itself, since it is local,4 is really
and substantially present both in heaven and on earth," and
" the flesh and blood of Christ are really eaten and drunk by the
people, while Christ Himself abides living and whole in His
kingdom".5 This conversion of substance is held to involve
1 Prol. (P.L. clxxx. 739, 740). 2i. 1-3 (P.L. clxxx. 743-51).
3 i. 4 (P.L. clxxx. 752).
4 The word " local " is probably here used in the sense of not ubi
quitous, as distinct from the sense of circumscribed by dimensions in
which later Western theologians denied a local presence of Christ in the
Eucharist. s Prol. (P.L. clxxx. 741) ; cf. i. 5, 6, 9 (P.L. clxxx. 762, 755, 768).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 271
that the substance of the elements ceases to exist ; " in the
Sacrament the body of Christ comes to be and is where bodily
it was not, not only by way of Sacrament but also by a miracle,
since there the bread ceases to be that which it was ".: Yet
while the substance of the elements is thus converted, they re
tain " certain qualities," " the accidents do not cease to exist,"
" the form and solidity and colour and taste of the bread " are
" real " and not " phantasms ".2 Since the body of Christ is
thus really present on earth, as in heaven, He is adored in the
Sacrament.3 With these explicit assertions of the conversion of
the substance of the elements into the substance of the flesh and
blood of Christ Alger links much emphatic teaching of the spirit
ual manner of the presence. He supposes that at the institution
of the Sacrament our Lord gave His "incorruptible and im
mortal" body to the disciples by an anticipation of the spiritual
character of His risen body in some way parallel to His manifes
tation of His body after the resurrection with the marks of the
wounds and susceptible of touch, the properties of the body
after the resurrection being in the one case vouchsafed before it,
and the properties of the body before the resurrection being in
the other case vouchsafed after it.4 Following out this line of
thought, he teaches that the body of Christ is taken in the
Eucharist, " by faith, with the mind, with the hand of the heart,
by inner drinking, spiritually," that it is " spiritual and incorrup
tible and invisible " as well as " substantial " ; that it is " not
carnal but spiritual food and drink " ; and that Christ remains
" whole and undivided and unbroken ".6 Alger regards the
Eucharistic sacrifice as a commemoration of the death of Christ.
Though Christ does not again die, yet in the Sacrament there
is a memory and presentation of His death ; the sacrifice on the
altar is the same as that on the cross.6 While thus a commem
oration of Christ's death, the Eucharistic sacrifice is also a means
of union with His offering in heaven, as it is with His heavenly
life; and in an incidental reference to the words of the canon of
the Mass Alger writes : —
H. 8 (P.L. clxxx. 761).
2i. 6, 7 (P.L. clxxx. 756, 757, 759).
3 i. 1 4 (P.L. clxxx. 780). ' i. 9 (P.L. clxxx. 768).
5i. 11, 15 (P.L. clxxx. 771, 772, 774, 783).
6i. 16 (P.L. clxxx. 786, 789).

272 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
" The priest, consecrating the body of the Lord on the earthly
altar as the minister of Christ (vice Christi), and yet not assigning
anything to his own merits but all to the power and grace of God,
prays in the canon to God the Father, saying, ' Command that these
oblations be borne to Thee by the hands and power of Thy Son, Thy
Angel, who is the Angel of great counsel, not to this lowly and
visible altar, where now He is, but to Thy altar on high, that is,
Thy Son, whom Thou hast exalted to Thy right hand, in the presence
of Thy majesty, that there may be to us the body and blood of Thy
beloved Son,' showing that the Son Himself, by the command of
the Father, is in heaven offering sacrifice and is the sacrifice which
is offered and is that on which it is offered ; because we lean alto
gether on His faith and grace for our belief that the earthly ele
ments are converted into Christ, and that He Himself, sitting in the
heavenly places at the right hand of the Father, intercedes for us,
and is consecrated and is in the Sacrament of the altar." 1
In the glosses which Alger adds to the words of the canon of
the Mass in this passage he, like other mediaeval writers, notably
Ivo of Chartres, interprets the " holy angel " by whom the offering
is borne to heaven to denote our Lord, and, like Odo of Cambrai
and others, explains the "altar on high" as a description of
Him. Alger of Liege also wrote a much shorter work entitled On
the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is a brief explanation of the mysti
cal significance of the words and ceremonies of the Mass on much
the same lines as the more elaborate treatise by Odo of Cam
brai. The object of the celebration of the Mass from this point
of view is described as being to "set forth the memorial of
Christ coming in the flesh and represent His passion in mystery ".2
Among the details mentioned, the explanations of the use of the
sign of the cross on the elements and on the priest, of the kiss
on the altar after the consecration, and of the prayer for the
bearing of the offering to the heavenly altar, are of interest.
" Our priest begins ' Thee therefore,' and as it were entering
the Holy of Holies pours forth general prayer for the whole Church,
and marking the sign of the cross sprinkles that oblation with the
blood of Christ ; and as often as he makes the sign of the cross on
the heavenly sacrifice, so often he sprinkles with the blood of Christ
the oblation that is set forth. . . . The priest humbly prays the
1 i. 14 (P.L. clxxx. 781). ' P.L. clxxx. 853.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 273
Lord to command these to be borne by the hands of the holy angel
to His altar on high, so that in this hour the mystery may be clear
of the union of the bread to the Lord's body and the communica
tion to it of the one substance. Also he then kisses the altar, that
he may show his desire to become a partaker of the same Sacra
ment ; and, guarding himself with the sign of the cross, prepares
himself to receive the mystery "-1
Here the idea of the commemoration of the passion is so
prominent that the signing of the elements with the cross is
regarded as the mystical sprinkling of the blood of Christ, and
the union of the earthly rite with the heavenly offering is so
clearly in view that the priest is said as it were to enter the
Holy of Holies on beginning the canon and the elements on the
altar are described as the " heavenly sacrifice ".
Gregory of Bergamo, who after being a monk at Asti became
Bishop of Bergamo in 1134, wrote a treatise entitled On the
Reality of the Body of Christ. He mentions that there had been
a revival of Berengarianism in the form of denials that the Sacra
ment of the altar is more than a figure of the body and blood of
Christ. From his treatise some of the arguments used by the
advocates of this revived Berengarianism are known. Our Lord's
words, " Ye have the poor always with you ; but Me ye have not
always," 2 were said to be inconsistent with the continued pres
ence of His real body in the Sacrament. The words "This do
for My memorial " 3 were said to show that He would not be
actually present until He should come again at the end of the
world. St. Paul's statement, " Christ being raised from the dead
dieth no more," 4 was held to refute the belief that in the Eucha
rist there is a sacrifice of Christ. " The flesh profiteth nothing " 5
was urged against the teaching that in the Sacrament His flesh
is given. " Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet
now we know Him so no more"6 was similarly used. Other
arguments were based on teaching in the fathers that in the
Eucharist there is a likeness of Christ, and that the sayings
about His flesh and blood are to be spiritually understood,
which were taken to mean that there is a likeness only without
actual presence, and that there is no bodily gift of His flesh and
1P.L. clxxx. 855, 856. 2St. Matt. xxvi. 11.
3 St. Luke xxii. 19. 4 Rom. vi. 9.
6 St. John vi. 63. 6 2 Cor. v. 16.
vol. i. 18

274 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
blood. To these arguments Gregory replies in detail. "Me
ye have not always " he regards as stating the fact that we have
not Christ to talk with us, to be seen by the eyes of the body,
to be the ordinary companion of our usual life. " This do for
My memorial," " The flesh profiteth nothing," " Now we know
Him so no more," do not, he maintains, really militate against
the actual presence of Christ's flesh in the Sacrament. It is
part, he says, of the ordinary teaching in regard to the sacrifice
of Christ in the Eucharist that He does not again die but abides
whole and unbroken and unhurt in His heavenly life.1 Incident
ally Gregory mentions another argument of his opponents, to the
effect that the words " This is My body " are to be interpreted
figuratively to correspond with " The seven good kine are seven
years " 2 and " The reapers are angels," 3 an argument which he
meets by pointing out that the circumstances in which these
phrases were spoken were altogether different, and by saying that
the right parallels are with " This is the blood of the covenant
which God commanded to you- ward " 4 and " This is My beloved
Son " 5 and " This is the Son of God " 6 in each of which cases
an actual identification is denoted.7 In stating his own position
Gregory maintains that there is an actual conversion of substance
at consecration, that the Sacrament is the body and blood of
Christ "not only in that which it is believed actually to be
within but also in the outward species of bread and wine," that
the Sacrament is itself the body of Christ and as a figure denotes
the Church, that in this actual conversion the species are retained
to avoid horror and to give opportunity for faith and to prevent
scandal to the heathen, and that there is both the bodily eating
of the flesh and blood of Christ in the reception of the Sacrament
and the spiritual eating of the inner union of the soul to Christ.8
He sums up the main points of his doctrine in the following
passage : —
"The whole Church of God dispersed throughout the world
holds that the visible creatures, the bread and the wine of the altar,
1 De verit. corp. Christi, Prol. 1-9 (Hurter, SS. Patr. Opusc. Sel. xxxix.
1-38). 2 Gen. xii. 26. 3 St. Matt. xiii. 39.
' Heb. ix. 20 ; cf. Ex. xxiv. 8.
6 St. Matt. iii. 17. 6 St. John i. 34.
7 De verit. corp. Christi, 22 (Hurter, xxxix. 86-91).
8 Cc. 18, 19, 27, 30, 31 (Hurter, xxxix. 73-80, 107, 113-19).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 275
are at the solemn consecration of the priestly act converted by the
ineffable and incomprehensible power of God who thus orders into
the essence of the Lord's body and blood, the species of the afore
said things remaining with certain other qualities ; and that the
real body and blood of Christ is itself taken by communicants from
the Lord's Table not only with the mouth of the heart but also with
the mouth of the body, the body of Christ itself being unhurt and
unmarred in the heavenly places." 1
The main features of the belief of Gregory of Bergamo are
the same as those of Alger of Liege ; but a reader in passing
from one to the other misses in Gregory the insistence on the
spiritual character of the presence and gift in the Eucharist as
being of the risen body of Christ which is so marked in the
more famous and influential writer. VI.
Hildebert of Tours was born in 1057. He became Bishop
of Le Mans in 1097 and Archbishop of Tours in 1125. In 1133
or 1134 he died at Tours. Hildebert's writings are rich in
teaching about the Eucharist. One of his Sermons incidentally
contains as a description of the act of consecrating the noticeable
phrase, " When I utter the words of the canon and the word
of the Transubstantiation".2 His treatise On the Exposition
of the Mass, in explaining the words of the ordinary and canon
of the Mass, states that the bread and wine are made the flesh
and blood of Christ at the consecration by the word of the
Creator and the power of the Holy Ghost ; that this flesh is
that which was born of the Virgin ; that, when the Sacrament
" is broken and eaten, Christ is offered and eaten and yet re
mains whole and living " ; that " the nature of the bread and the
wine is turned into the spiritual (ration abilem) nature of the
body and blood of Christ " ; and that the ceremonial acts con
nected with the words of the canon in the signing of the elements
with the cross are parts of the mystical representation of the
passion of Christ.3 The poems On the Mystery of the Mass, On
1 C. 21 (Hurter, xxxix. 58).
2 Serm. xciii. (P.L. clxxi. 776). This appears to be the second instance
of the use of the word Transubstantiation, if that in the treatise An Ex
position of the Canon of the Mass ascribed to St. Peter Damien is reckoned
as the first : see p. 260, supra.
3 De expos, missce, (P.L. clxxi. 1156, 1165, 1168, 1172, 1173).
18 *

276 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
the New Sacrifice which Abrogates the Old, and On the Holy Eu
charist contain like doctrine. The Mass is throughout regarded
as a mystical representation of Christ's passion, which is viewed
as fulfilling the types of the Old Testament and particularly
that of the Day of Atonement, and having its issue in the
presentation by Christ in heaven of the blood which He shed
on the cross. In it are commemorated His passion, death,
burial, resurrection, and ascension ; in it through His blood,
which is sprinkled by Him on the Father in heaven and on men
on earth, heaven and earth are joined by the ministry of angels ;
in it Christians are in close contact with the abiding intercession
of Christ in heaven, and receive Him who remains unbroken
as they partake of that flesh in which there is " nothing carnal
and nothing bloody".1 The same doctrine as regards the
presence and gift is expounded in Hildebert's Short Treatise on
the Sacrament of the Altar, in which he says : —
" What understanding can grasp in what way the flesh of Christ
comes to us daily from heaven to the altar, and from the altar into
us, and yet leaves not the heaven from which it comes ? For as of
old the Godhead of Christ came to us from heaven, so also now
His manhood comes thence to us ; and as He came from heaven
with His Godhead and yet did not depart thence, so also now He
comes from heaven with His manhood, which nevertheless always
abides there. And as the Godhead came by means of the manhood,
so also the manhood comes thence by means of the Godhead. At
that time God came openly by means of His manhood ; and now
Man comes invisibly by means of His Godhead. Then God came
in a way known to the senses ; now Man comes in a way which
the senses cannot discern. Then God came in human fashion ; and
now Man comes after the method of God. Nor is it Man only in
His spirit but also in His flesh ; neither is it without His Godhead
but with and in and by reason of His Godhead ; and therefore the
whole work is divinely done. For what is more divine than that
the body of Christ, since it is flesh and not spirit, is nevertheless
the food not of the flesh and the body but of the spirit and the
mind ? It is indeed the food of the inner man ; and yet it is not
human but divine, entering into the spirit in a spiritual and divine
manner, not converting itself into spirit but feeding the spirit
1De my st. missa, De nov. sacrif. vet. abrog., De sacr. Euch., passim,
especially P.L. clxxi. 1184, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1194, 1198, 1201, 1212.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 277
spiritually and divinely, entering spiritually, working spiritually,
coming by a spiritual way from heaven, returning to heaven by a
spiritual way. This body is among us, and it is in heaven ; it is
among us also in different places, on different altars, at a time not
different. Nor is it divided into parts, but it is on every altar
whole and complete. Nor is it in number more than one, but it
is one only. Nor is it imaginary, but it is real. Nor is it only by
way of Sacrament, but it is of the body itself. For it is itself in
one place only after a natural manner, but it is in many places after
a manner of power. It is in one place by way of nature ; it is in
many places by way of divine grace and power. It is in one place
after a bodily manner ; it is in many places after a spiritual manner.
For to be at the same time in more places than one is not an attri
bute of body but of spirit, though not perhaps of any other spirit
than divine spirit, that is, of uncreated and uncircumscribed spirit,
not also of spirit that is created and therefore circumscribed. . . .
Not only is the body of Christ wholly present after the manner of
a spirit at the same time in different places, that is, on many altars ;
but it also has on each separate altar a certain spiritual way of
existing. For, although it is everywhere in itself an object of sense
because of the properties of body, yet it is present to us on the
altar not as an object of sense in the form which it takes. Where
fore also it can be said to be there both as an object of sense and
not as an object of sense. As an object of sense indeed because
of the real property in body of being sensibly perceived, and because
the species of the Sacrament is subject to the senses ; but not as
an object of sense so far as concerns the manifestation of form and
the perception of our sense. . . . When the Sacrament is divided
into parts, nevertheless the body is not severed into parts, so as
to be taken with division and in parts ; but it is received whole and
undivided under the divided parts in each part by each one who
receives. . . . The force of human reason seems to fail more in the
Sacrament of the Lord's body and blood than in any other work
of divine power. In others perhaps it can be of some avail ; but
what can it avail here ? Is it able to grasp in what way the sub
stance of the bread and wine is converted into the substance of the
body and blood of the Lord, while nevertheless the accidents of the
bread and wine are not in like manner converted but remain un
changed without the substance of bread and without the substance
of wine? How are there accidents without a subject, or these
accidents without the subject in which they had their origin ? In
these things is a way unknown to reason but not altogether unknown

278 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
to faith. Reason here is ignorant of all, but faith seizes on what
reason grasps not." 1
Hildebert is perhaps more hindered than helped by the phil
osophical terminology which he is careful to use in speaking of
the Eucharistic presence ; and, unlike Alger of Liege, he does
not seem to have effectively realised the bearing of the spiritual
character of the body of our Lord after His resurrection. In
spite of any such difficulties in the way of elucidating the doctrine
which he held, his insistence on the spiritual method of the pre
sence of our Lord's body and blood is both clear and powerful.
Honorius of Autun was a priest of Autun, famous as a com
mentator on the liturgy and office books of the Church, who died
after the beginning of the Papacy of Innocent II. in 1130. His
Sacramentary or Booh on the Reasons and Mystical Meaning of
the Rites of the Divine Office in the Church refers to details in the
prayers and ceremonies of the ordinary and canon of the Mass as
forming parts of the mystical commemoration of the stages of the
passion and resurrection of Christ on the same lines as those
customary in the other liturgical writers of the twelfth century.
There are incidental allusions to the change of the bread and
wine at the consecration into the flesh and blood of Christ ; our
Lord's offering in heaven, with which the Eucharistic sacrifice is
regarded as being united, is described as His " supplication to the
Father for us, in which He ever shows forth what kind of death
He bore for the life of men " ; there is a reference, like those in
earlier writers, to the " threefold body of Christ "? In the work
by Honorius entitled Eucharistion or Book on the Body and Blood
of the Lord this idea of the " threefold body " is more fully ex
plained. In its first sense the body of Christ is " that body which
was taken from the Virgin in the Incarnation, which was offered
for us on the altar of the cross, which was raised to heaven after
the victory over death, and is set on the right hand of God ".
In its second sense the body of Christ is " that body which by
the consecration of the Holy Ghost is daily made out of the sub
stance of bread and wine in the priestly mystery, and by the
power of God is made into the body which was born of the Virgin,
and, though it is eaten by all the people, is declared by the
xBrev. Tract, de sacram. alt. (P.L. clxxi. 1149-53).
2 Cc. 31, 88, 89, 90 (P.L. clxxii. 763, 793, 795, 796).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 279
Catholic faith to remain whole ". In its third sense the body
of Christ denotes the whole Church, which being Christ's body
eats His body and in eating it is made into it and becomes " one
flesh with Him ",1 In this treatise Honorius deals at some length
with the question of what is received by those who communicate
unworthily. The consecration of the Sacrament, he says, is not
affected if the consecrating priest is a bad man. Christ Himself
is really the consecrator ; and His action is not impaired by the
unworthiness of the priest who is His minister. But unbelievers
and wicked persons who communicate are not " partakers of
Christ," " do not abide in Christ, who is life, but are far from
Him, and therefore do not take the body of Christ, but eat and
drink judgment to themselves ". In " this spiritual food " " the
wicked receive the outward species of the Sacrament, but the
inward quickening virtue is withdrawn from them, as the man
hood of Christ was crucified by the Jews, while His Godhead
suffered no injury".2 Some of these statements might seem to
deny the reception of the body of Christ by the wicked ; but, as
Honorius proceeds further in his argument, he definitely accepts
the more usual doctrine that the body of Christ is received
by those who communicate unworthily, although they derive
no benefit from it but eat and drink it to judgment; for he
writes : —
" Since this bread at consecration is substantially turned into the
body of Christ, a question is asked whether in the mouth of those
who take it unworthily, it is changed again into a different nature.
As Christ ' being raised from the dead dieth no more/ 3 so His flesh
made from bread will not be changed into any other nature. It will
be the same thing in the mouth of the worst of men as it is in the
mouth of the most holy, as He was the same in the hands of those
who cruelly crucified Him as He was in the hands of those who de
voutly buried Him. But, as the sun is the same in its heat and in
its brightness, and yet produces different results in these two aspects,
namely, burning the earth by its heat and giving light by its bright
ness, so the flesh of Christ remaining the same produces different
results in different persons, incorporating the righteous with Himself,
separating the unrighteous from His life. And, again, as the same
ordinary bread strengthens men but chokes infants, so the same thing
i Cc. 1, 3, 4, 5 (P.L. clxxii. 1250, 1251, 1252, 1253).
2 Cc. 6-8 (P.L. clxxii. 1253-55). 3 Rom. vi. 9.

280 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
is the cause of glory to the worthy and the cause of punishment to
the unworthy." 1
Stephen of Autun was appointed Bishop of Autun before
1112. At some later time he resigned his bishopric and became
a monk at Cluny. He died in 1139. His treatise On the Sacra
ment of the Altar contains the same doctrine as is usually found
in this period. The earthly oblations are said to be converted
by the blessing of God into that body of Christ " which hung on
the cross, which was glorified in the resurrection, which was
divinely honoured (deificatum) in the ascension " ; the prayer
offered by the Church in the Eucharist is "that the food of
angels may become the food of men, that is, that the oblation of
bread and wine may be transubstantiated 2 into the body and
blood of Jesus Christ " ; the consecration takes place at the re
cital of the words "This is My body," "This is My blood";
" the bread and the wine pass not into divine nature but into the
human substance " ; " the whole Christ is under each species and
under each particle of each species " ; " there are two ways of
taking the body and blood of the Lord, sacramental and spiritual ;
good and bad share in the sacramental taking ; only the good
partake in the spiritual way " ; " the flesh of Christ is twofold :
there is that which was born of the Virgin and is taken in the
Sacrament, and there is that which is eaten when there is faith
ful belief, without which the sacramental taking does not profit " ;
" to take the flesh " of Christ and " to drink " His " blood bestows
no benefit unless it is received with faith and love," and " so to
eat the flesh of Christ is to take it in spirit and in truth " ; the
presence of Christ is spiritually discerned by faith and is of that
spiritual body with which He rose from the dead.3
" It is our faith and must really be believed that when the priest
says the words, ' This is My body,' there is no longer earthly bread
but that Bread which came down from heaven, the Mediator of God
and men, Jesus Christ. Also by the power of the words, ' This is
the cup of My blood,' the wine is converted into His blood. Under
i C. 9 (P.L. clxxii. 1255).
2 The verb transubstantiare occurs twice (cc. 13, 14 ; P.L. clxxii. 1291,
1293) in this treatise. This is the second instance of the use of it, if that
in the treatise An Exposition of the Canon of the Mass, ascribed to St.
Peter Damien, is reckoned as the first : see pp. 260, 275, supra.
3 Cc. 13-17 (P.L. clxxii. 1287, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1296, 1297).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 281
each species and under each particle of each species Christ Jesus is
and is taken whole. He who dwells in heaven and sits at the right
hand of the Father is Himself really in this Sacrament, is crushed by
the teeth, aud remains unbroken. He is eaten and is not corrupted ;
He is offered, and dies not. He gives Himself to us for our Com
munion in such a way as He gave Himself to His disciples for them
to eat, since He who made Himself capable of being touched by the
disciples after the resurrection when He had become incorruptible
and not susceptible to touch could give Himself to them in His im
mortal state when He was still mortal. . . . What is hidden from
our senses is revealed to faith. Human reason asks and says, What
is this ? How is this ? It understands not how, it rises not to this
secret ; faith alone believes and acknowledges. The senses see
bread and wine in taste and colour ; faith beholds under each species
its Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The senses see that which is not ;
faith beholds that which is. What the senses see they think inani
mate, and to the senses of all living it seems a bodily food ; faith
beholds the living Bread which came down from heaven, the Bread
of angels, the living Fount of water springing up to eternal life.
Faith in love believes it is He through whom it hopes to receive the
forgiveness of sins and the gift of pardon and re-creation and satis
faction in His glory." *
" O wonderful miracle ! O marvellous and most divine Sacra
ment ! What mind fears not ? What intellect fails not ? Every
sense is dull ; all processes of reasoning disappear. Let the search
ing of dialecticians be gone. It is proved and acknowledged by
faith alone that the food of angels becomes the food of men. That
which the priest lifts up, he lays not down. That which is lifted up
and that which is laid down appear to be the same in species, in
colour and taste ; yet one thing appears, and another thing lies hid.
It was lifted from the altar ordinary bread ; it is laid down the im
mortal flesh of Christ. That which was natural (animalis) food has
been made spiritual food. That which was the temporary refresh
ment of men has been made the eternal and unfailing satisfaction
of the angels." 2
Stephen speaks of the rite itself and the details of the prayers
and ceremonial as the mystical commemoration of the acts of
Christ, of His passion, death, burial, resurrection, ascension and
heavenly work.3 Christ once died, and is daily offered by the
1 Cc. 15, 16 (P.L. clxxii. 1293, 1294). 2 C. 13 (P.L. clxxii. 1293).
3Cc. 12, 13, 17, 18 (P.L. clxxii. 1283-92, 1300-3).

282 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Church in the presentation of His passion. That presentation is
joined with Christ's own offering of Himself.
" He Himself sacrifices and is sacrificed, He Himself is the offering
and the priest, because He is God and Man. His minister, because
he is only man, only sacrifices and is priest. Christ the Mediator of
God and man reconciles men to God ; His minister makes the people
acceptable to God. Christ intercedes for us at the right hand
of the Father ; His minister prays for the flock entrusted to him.
Christ forgives sins ; His minister binds and looses. Christ on the
altar of the cross offered Himself to the Father a holy offering well
pleasing to God ; His minister offers the very same Christ on the
Table of the altar. ... So we recall His passion, resurrection, and
glorious ascension." 1
" Our redemption was accomplished when Christ suffered once
for all on the cross. For by the passion of Christ we have been re
deemed and delivered from the hand of hell. When through the
pressure of our faults we daily fall, we rise again from this fall and
are renewed by the continual (iterata) offering which takes place on
the altar. The act of offering is repeated (immolatio iteratur) ; Christ
does not die, but His passion is commemorated by His presence.
. . . This oblation is not only of the priest but of the whole family,
that is, the clergy and people, and not only of the congregation who
are present but of the whole Church." 2
" Let us not offer our heart to God in unrighteousness, but let us
lay down our heart on the altar on high, that is, in the presence of
the divine majesty ; and, if we live soberly and devoutly and right
eously, we shall find Him gracious and propitious to us. This is that
which we pray in the words which follow, 'Command that these be
borne by the hands of Thy holy angel,' not that Christ by a change
of place may ever be ascending to the Father, since He stands before
the Father interceding for us, but that our devotion may be borne
by the hands of the holy angel, that is, by Thy Son, who is Thy
right hand, through whom Thou workest all things, and the Angel
of great counsel, through whom Thou dost order and appoint and
create and sanctify and bless all things. He is the presence of the
Father, that is, the Wisdom through whom the Father acts and
orders. And therefore through Him and in Him and before Him
we pray that our offerings may be borne." 3
i C. 9 (P.L. clxxii. 1280, 1281).
2 C. 13 (P.L. clxxii. 1290).
3 C. 17 (P.L. clxxii. 1298).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 283
" Christ sprinkles when He sanctifies us by the pouring out of His
blood. The priest sprinkles when he appeases God by this sacrifice,
and the grace of pardon is bestowed. By naming the altar on high
he commemorates the Holy of Holies of the Jewish law, and that
Holy of Holies in which Christ once entered even by His own blood." 1
There is much doubt whether a Sermon ascribed to Otto of
Bamberg, the Apostle of Pomerania, who was appointed Bishop
of Bamberg in 1103 and died in 1139, as having been delivered
to him to his Pomeranian converts about 1125, is really by Otto,
or is earlier than the latter half of the twelfth century ; but a
passage from it may be cited here as showing the teaching which
either Otto himself or a later biographer thought suitable for
the instruction of those who had recently been converted to
Christianity. While giving instruction as to the reception of
Communion and attendance at the Eucharist, it does not define
the doctrine further than by saying that this Sacrament is " the
true food of the soul, having in it eternal life ". The passage
occurs in the course of a list of the seven Sacraments of Baptism,
Confirmation, Unction of the Sick, the Eucharist, Penance, Matri
mony, and Orders.2 It is as follows : —
" The fourth Sacrament is the body and blood of the Lord. This
Sacrament is necessary for those who are to live and those who are
to die ; whether we live or die, we must always use this food for the
way (viatico). For it is the true food of the soul, having in it eternal
life. Wherefore Masses must be frequently celebrated, and you
ought to assemble at them with devotion, that with some frequency
(saepius) you may partake of this food for the way (viatico). If you
cannot, because you are carnal, partake of this most holy thing your
selves at all Masses, at least partake through your mediator, that is,
the priest, who communicates for you, by hearing Mass faithfully
and reverently and devoutly. Yet you yourselves, if it cannot be
more often, ought to make your confessions and communicate of
the Sacrament itself at least three or four times in the year." 3
VII.
Hugh of St. Victor was born about 1097. He became
Canon of St. Victor at Marseilles in 1118, and Master of the
1C. 18 (P.L. clxxii. 1302).
2 For the restriction of the word Sacrament to these seven rites, see
the present writer's Outlines of Christian Dogma, pp. 150, 151, 318, 319.
3 Serm. ad Pomer. (P.L. clxxiii. 1358).

284 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
School of St. Victor at Paris in 1133. He died in 1141. He
may rightly be regarded as the most eminent theologian of the
University of Paris and of Western Christendom in general of
his time. The doctrine of the Eucharist is dealt with at some
length in his works The Sum of the Sentences and On the Sacra
ments. In The Sum of the Sentences he describes the Eucharist
as the Sacrament in which " is taken not only grace but also He
from whom all grace comes," and as the means of union with
Christ and of being freed from daily sins.1 There are three
things in the Sacrament, first, the visible species of bread and
wine; secondly, the real body of Christ which hung on the
cross and lay in the tomb and is at the right hand of the
Father; and, thirdly, the efficacy (efficacia) of the Sacrament,
namely, the spiritual flesh of Christ and the virtue of the Sacra
ment.2 The " form," or words by which the Sacrament is con
secrated, he defines as the recital of the words " This is My
body," " This is My blood ".3 For the consecration three things
are necessary, first, that there be a priest; secondly, that the
priest say these words ; and thirdly, that he apply the saying of
the words to the consecration of the Sacrament as distinct from,
for instance, saying them as part of an instruction. After the
consecration, at which the substance of the bread is converted
into the body of Christ without any increase being made in that
body, the elements are not material bread and material wine
but the real body and blood of Christ, though the species and
taste remain as subsistences hiding the body of Christ, " which
in its own form and nature really exists under them," "lying
hid invisibly on the altar under a form other than its own".4
It is an error to hold either that the Eucharist is only a Sacra
ment of Christ's body and not the very substance and reality of
His body or that the substance of the bread is annihilated by
the body of Christ coming to be under the species of bread, the
truth being that the substance of the bread is not annihilated
but is converted into the substance of the body of Christ.5 In
each species Christ is whole, and there cannot be His body with
out His blood or His blood without His body ; and, while the
two species mystically show the twofold effect of the reception of
the Sacrament in availing for both body and soul, the receiving
1 VI. 2. 2VI. 2, 3. 3VI. 4. <VI. 2, 4. »VI. 5.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 285
in the two kinds must not be regarded as the making of two
Communions and involving a repetition of the Sacrament.1
When the Sacrament is broken, Christ is not broken, since His
body is now incorruptible and immortal and impassible; but
those are not right who say that the breaking is in appearance
only, it being better to say that the breaking is in regard to the
species.2 All communicants, whether good or bad, receive the.
body and blood of Christ ; but only the good receive the efficacy
(rem) and virtue of it.3 Contrary to the opinion which after
wards became usual, Hugh inclines to the view that an excom
municate or avowedly heretical priest cannot validly consecrate.
In discussing this question, he incidentally calls attention to the
plural number used by the officiant in not saying " I offer " but
"We offer," and mentions that the offering is made "in the
name (ex persona) of the whole Church".4 The method of
treatment adopted by Hugh in the treatise On the Sacraments
is somewhat different; but the doctrine taught is the same.
At the institution of the Sacrament Christ by His divine power
changed the bread and wine into His own body and blood ; and .
this same change takes place through the acts of His ministers.5
In reply to the question whether it was His passible or impas
sible, His mortal or immortal, body which Christ gave to His
disciples, Hugh said that in matters of this kind it was better to
reverence than to search into the secrets of God ; that it ought
to be enough for simple faith to know that He who is almighty
gave what and as in His wisdom He willed to give ; but that he
inclined to the belief that, though the institution was before
the resurrection, yet our Lord then gave His body in that im
mortal and impassible state which was ordinarily to belong to it
after the resurrection, the ordinarily mortal state before the
resurrection being taken by Him not of necessity but of will.6
As in the treatise already referred to, Hugh here speaks of the
three things in the Sacrament, the visible species, the reality of
the body and blood, and the virtue of the spiritual grace ; and
of the faith and love without which the virtue and efficacy (res)
cannot be received; and declares that "the mere reception of
the body and blood without the effect " which depends on re
ceiving worthily does not "impart salvation".7 The Sacrament
!VL 6. 2VL8. 3VL7. 4VI. 9.
6 II. viii. 2. 6 II. viii. 3. 7 II. viii. 5, 7, 8.

286 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
is the " sign " and " image " and " figure " as well as the " real
ity" of the body of Christ; "under the species of bread the
real flesh of Christ is taken, and when His flesh is taken
worthily there is also the gift of the reception and communion
and participation of His Godhead"; at the consecration "the
real substance of bread and the real substance of wine are con
verted into the real body and blood of Christ, the species only
of the bread and wine remaining, the substance passing into
substance " ; the conversion is " not after the manner of union but
after the manner of transition," and the substance of the bread
and wine is converted not annihilated.1 Christ remains un
broken and undivided though the species is broken and divided ;
and He is not hurt if the species is corrupted or defiled.2 In
regard to questions such as those of an earlier time as to
whether the body of Christ, after being received by the com
municants, is subject to the ordinary processes of digestion,
Hugh writes : —
"Perhaps again you inquire in thought what becomes of the
body of Christ after it has been taken and eaten. Such are the
thoughts of men that they are ill disposed to rest where search
should least be made. Your heart then asks you, What happens to
the body of Christ after I have taken and eaten it ? Listen then.
Do you seek for the bodily presence of Christ ? Seek it in heaven.
There is Christ sitting at the right hand of God the Father. He
willed to be for a time with you when and as long as was necessary.
He granted to you for a time His bodily presence that He might
raise you to His spiritual presence. He came to you bodily and for
a time gave you His bodily presence in order that through it His
spiritual presence might be found, which should not be taken
away. So through the flesh which He took He came of old into
the world, and according to His bodily presence for a time lived
among men, that He might rouse them to seek and find His spiritual
presence. Afterwards, when the dispensation was completed, He
departed according to His bodily presence and remained according
to His spiritual presence. ... So now in His Sacrament He comes
to you for a time, and He is in it with you bodily, that you through
the bodily presence may be roused to seek the spiritual presence,
and may be helped to find it. When you hold His Sacrament in
your hands, He is bodily with you. When you take it in your
1 II. viii. 6-9. 2II. viii. 11, 12.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 287
mouth He is bodily with you. When you eat and taste it, He is
bodily with you. Lastly, while you exercise sight and touch and
taste on it, He is bodily with you. As long as the natural senses are
bodily met by the Sacrament, His bodily presence is not taken
away. When the bodily sense has ceased to perceive the Sacrament,
then His bodily presence is no longer to be looked for, but His
spiritual presence is to be kept. . . . Hereafter if you seek the
bodily presence of Christ, seek it in heaven. Seek it there where
it was before He began to be with you bodily through His Sacra
ment, and whence He did not depart when He came to you." l
In The Mirror of the Mysteries of the Church, a work for
merly ascribed to Hugh of St. Victor but now usually thought
to be by some other writer, the teaching on the conversion of the
elements in the Eucharist into the real body of Christ, which
was born of the Virgin and suffered on the cross and rose from
the tomb and ascended to the right hand of the Father, is much
the same as in the writers of the twelfth century generally ; and
the doctrine of Hugh of St. Victor on the different effects of the
reception of the body and blood of Christ in good and bad com
municants, and on the gift of the bodily presence being a means
towards the realisation of the spiritual presence, is closely re
produced.2 There are passages of some interest on both species
being the one body of Christ, on the failure of logic in regard to
the Eucharist, and on the sprinkling of Christ's blood, the last of
these resembling language used by Hildebert of Tours.3
"Both bread and wine are converted into body and blood.
But it is beyond me to define whether each is converted into both.
Yet it is safer to say that the bread is converted only into the body,
and the wine into the blood, than that each is converted into both,
unless this should seem to contradict our belief that under each
species both are taken. But this is not a difficulty, if we examine
the matter more closely. For under the species of bread both body
and blood can be and can be taken, not because the bread has
passed into both, but because, where the body is, it is one and is
not divided and is not taken in a divided fashion, and yet the
¦species under which it is taken are separate, but they are at the
same time both the body and the blood, though we speak in a
divided fashion in regard to the different species. . . . Though it is
usually said that the body of Christ is taken, yet whole Christ is
^I. viii. 13. 2 C. 7 (P.L. clxxvii. 364-66). 3 See p. 276, supra.

288 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
taken, and not a part under the species of bread and a part under
the species of wine, but whole here and whole there, not a part in
a part but whole in a part. . . . However many parts you make, it
is whole in each separate part. Marvel not at this ; it is the work
of God." i
" It was His own body and His real body which He then gave
to His disciples and which is now taken and eaten at the altar, the
same, I say, as that which was born of the Virgin and is now im
mortal in glory at the right hand of God. A marvel indeed ! The
flesh which is eaten below remains unbroken in the heights. Why
are you springing up with your logic ? What are you thinking of
in this, you sophist ? Why are you here hunting for arguments ?
That would be to sprinkle dust on the stars. Your logic does not
reach so high." 2
" The high priest of old entered the Holy of Holies with blood
once in the year ; and Christ ' through His own blood entered in
once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption'.3
So the minister of the Church enters with blood into the Holy of
Holies as often as, bearing in mind the memory of the blood of Christ,
he begins the mystery, who recalls the passion of Christ not only in
mind but also by the sign of the cross, when he marks the sign of
the cross at the beginning of the canon. . . . The high priest, as
the law ordered, sprinkled both the altar and the outward sanctuary
with the appeasing blood ; and Christ sprinkles the Father with
blood as often as He appeases Him through the flesh which He
took. He sprinkles the altar as long as He is restoring the number
of the angels. He sprinkles the outward sanctuary while He marks
men and reconciles to the Father the things which are on earth.
The priest also sprinkles men, because by means of this sacrifice
he appeases God and pleads for pardon and so sprinkles on us. For
when he cleanses us he increases the number of the citizens of
heaven. And when he names the altar on high he makes mention
of the Holy of Holies." 4
The book entitled On the Ceremonies, Sacraments, Offices, and
Observances of the Church, which was formerly ascribed to Hugh of
St. Victor, is now usually thought to have been written by Robert
Paululus about 1178. As in other writings of this period, the
prayers and ceremonies of the ordinary and canon of the Mass
are here regarded as the mystical representation of the Incarnation
i C. 7 (P.L. clxxvii. 361, 362, 364). 2 C. 7 (P.L. clxxvii. 362).
3 Heb. ix. 12. 'C. 7 (P.L. clxxvii. 369, 370).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 289
and death and resurrection and heavenly life of Christ. The
signing of the elements with the cross is mostly taken as a
mystical reference to the work of the Holy Trinity in effecting
the consecration, towards which this action is partly an instrument
and partly a witness, though not without allusion also to Christ
and His wounds.1 The bread and wine are said to be changed
and transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ.2 It
may be worth while to quote passages on the effect of consecra
tion, on some aspects of the offering of the sacrifice, and on the
mystical meaning of the ceremonies of the elevation and covering
of the consecrated elements and the commixture.
" At these words ' This is My body ' the food of the body is made
spiritual food by the operation of divine power and human love, sur
passing all human reason ; the power of boundless majesty descends
on the bread and wine ; we receive the real divinity and humanity
of Christ, who reigns in heaven, as truly as we can obtain from
the sun the real substance of fire by a small ball containing
crystal." 3
" The golden altar [in the Jewish tabernacle] signifies the altar
of faith in the heart that is purged by penitence, and bright and
clear with the testimony of a good conscience. . . . On this altar
the priest, now dead to the world but living to God, no longer the
old Melchizedek, flesh born of flesh, but the new man, spirit born
of spirit, offers the invisible offering of flesh and blood through the
oblation of earthly food. For what is more fittingly said to be offered
on the altar of faith than that most holy sacrifice which is perceived
only by faith, and only through faith profits, and through the merit of
faith is accepted ? . . . Beyond the veil was the ark of the covenant,
and on it the mercy seat. . . . The ark signifies the manhood of
Christ, which is beyond the veil, because Christ has ascended beyond
the heaven and sits on the right hand of the Father. . . . The mercy
seat on the ark is the propitiation of God on Christ. ... Or the
mercy seat is the mercy of God by which He is propitious to His
people. ... To this ark, to this mercy seat, the new priest . . .
earnestly desires to approach. . . . The priest with his mind raised
to heaven, but recognising his own weakness, seeing with the eyes
of his heart the angels standing on the mercy seat as ready to aid,
prays that his sacrifice may so be uplifted thither that he himself
XII. 29, 31, 37 (P.L. clxxvii. 430, 431, 434).
2 II. 11, 36 (P.L. clxxvii. 416, 434).
3 II. 32 (P.L. clxxvii. 431).
VOL. I. 19

290 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
may be joined and united to God, and through spiritual union may
be made one spirit with Him." 1
" After the oblation of the real and perfect sacrifice on the same
altar of faith he offers the sacrifice of prayer, and seeks something
still higher, for whom nothing is enough until he is united to God in
heaven through the body of Christ and joined to the Godhead
through the manhood. For he who has set up a ladder for himself
desires to ascend it. . . . Since to that supreme altar on high of the
invisible mercy seat, as being in the presence of the majesty of God,
where the eternal High Priest stands before God the Father, he
cannot yet ascend as he would, as he himself shows when he bends
himself before the visible altar, he prays that by the hands of the
angel, that is, his own guardian angel, his sacrifice may be borne
thither, so that he may receive the virtue of the Sacrament itself,
and through the body of Christ, which is in heaven and is received
on earth from the visible altar, he may attain to the supreme mercy
of God and may be counted worthy to be united with Him." 2
" That the priest may show how through Christ the minds of the
faithful attain to the glory of the Trinity, he depicts as fully as he
can the mystery of the passion. After the signs of the cross he
raises on high with both his hands the Sacrament of the body and
blood of Christ, and then puts it down, which signifies the raising of
the body of Christ on the cross and the laying of the same body in
the tomb. Wherefore also he covers the cup with the pall of the
corporal, which signifies the wrapping in the linen cloths. For up
to this point the cup has been covered for the sake of security, but
now it is covered for the sake of the mystical significance." 3
" The third part [that is, of the consecrated bread when broken
at the solemn fraction at the close of the Lord's prayer] , which is
placed in the cup, is the propitiation for the living ; and that flesh
mingled with the blood atones for the work of flesh and blood. Of
the other two parts one is the propitiation for the faithful departed,
who need our prayers, who are still detained in penalties ; the other
is the giving of thanks for those who are already triumphing. Yet
Pope Sergius speaks differently on this. For he considers that the
commixture of the body and blood signifies the union of the body
and soul of Christ which took place at the resurrection." 4
Another book formerly ascribed to Hugh of St. Victor but
now usually thought to be by a different writer is that entitled
1 II. 27, 28 (P.L. clxxvii. 428, 429). ' 11. 33, 34 (P.L. clxxvii. 432).
3 II. 38 (P.L. clxxvii. 435). ' II. 39 (P.L. clxxvii. 436).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 291
On the Canon of the Mystic Libation and its Parts. This book
may be by John of Cornouailles, and, if so, may have been
written about 1170. In it the bread and wine are said to be
translated and transformed into the body and blood of Christ ;
the substance of the bread and wine is said to pass into and be
come His real body and blood ; our Lord is described as con
secrating and making His flesh and blood from bread and wine.1
The need of receiving worthily, if there is to be spiritual profit,
is very strongly emphasised ; and the last sentence of the book
is that "we shall be counted worthy to be delivered by the
healthful sacrifice after death, if before death we ourselves have
been a sacrifice to God ".2 The Eucharist is viewed as a com
memoration of the passion and resurrection and ascension ; 3 and
the prayers and ceremonies of the canon of the Mass are inter
preted with a wealth of mystical significance indicative of the
attributes and acts and gifts of God and the qualities needed in
those who are to communicate worthily. To give one instance
of this mystical interpretation, the bread and wine and water
are said to be significant of " the efficacy (res) and virtue " of the
Sacrament as denoting faith and hope and love, without which
there cannot be profitable reception ; of the Father and the Son
and the Holy Ghost ; and of purity, strength and activity, and
a right intention, which again are needed for a right approach
to the altar.4 VIII.
Rupert of Deutz, after being a monk at Liege, became Abbot
of Deutz in 1120, and died there in 1135. His most important
works are expositions of Holy Scripture of a highly mystical
character, which are marked by great spiritual insight and power.
In addition to statements of an ordinary kind as to the change
and translation of the bread and wine into the real flesh and
blood of Christ, which hung on the cross and flowed from His
side,6 they contain passages of some importance on the relation
'Cc. 2, 5, 10 (P.L. clxxvii. 459, 462, 463, 469, 470).
2 Cc. 2, 10 (P.L. clxxvii. 459, 470). Cf. a different way of expressing a
similar thought in St. Gregory the Great, Dial. iv. 60, quoted on p. 196, supra.
3 C. 6 (P.L. clxxvii. 463). " C. 2 (P.L. clxxvii. 559).
5 See, e.g., In Lev. i. 16 ; In S. Spir. iii. 21 ; Comm. in Cant. Cant, i ;
Comm. in loan. vi. vii. (P.L. clxvii. 760, 1662, clxviii. 860, 861, clxix. 468,
481, 495). 19*

292 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
of the elements to Christ's body and blood, and of the Euchar
istic presence and sacrifice to the passion of Christ.
" In the mount of vision, that is, in the Holy Catholic Church,
outside which no one will ever see God, the same Son is continually
offered to God the Father, and yet remains immortal and impassible.
For in this way of offering there is a resemblance to the sacrifice of
the holy and faithful patriarch [that is, Abraham in the sacrifice of
Isaac] , because as in that case so also in this case there is no blood
poured forth of a son slain by the hands of cruel men but the same
Son abiding living and unbroken is presented to God the Father by
the hands of the faithful, and is received in their mouths. ... He
[that is, Abraham] carries fire and sword, because without the fire
of the Holy Ghost no one is worthy to approach so great a mystery,
and without the sword of the word this sacrifice of salvation is not
offered. Christ is present as was Isaac according to His own words
of truth, ' Where two or three are gathered together in My name,
there am I in the midst of them '.1 . . . Whole is He present, whole
He lies on the sacred altar, not that He may suffer again but that
His passion may be presented as a memorial (memoriter reprcesentetur)
to faith, to which all past things are present. Christ is again offered
and yet remains impassible and living, as Isaac was offered and yet
was untouched by the sword. The bread is broken for Him and
is eaten ; but, though that bread is now Christ Himself, yet Christ
remains whole and living. How is it, you ask, that the bread
which is seen is Christ ? I reply : As any kind of metal, for in
stance gold or silver, when it is melted and liquid by strong fire, is
really gold and is also said to be and is fire. For it appears to be
gold, and it is what it was ; and yet it is most truly called fire, and
it is what it was not. Therefore assuredly the bread which is
brought to and plunged in the fearful and ineffable mystery of the
passion of Christ still appears to be the bread which it was, and
yet in reality it is Christ, which it was not. ... As Isaac was
offered, and yet was not slain, so also Christ is offered, but He is
sacrificed after an impassible and immortal fashion." 2
" ' Roast ' with fire,' 3 that is, burnt by the travail of the passion.
Wherefore, because the very force of the passion gives greater
strength for the resurrection, the psalmist says in the person of
Christ, 'My strength is dried up like a potsherd'.* For what is
a potsherd before it goes through the fire but soft mud ? But from
'St. Matt, xviii. 20. 'In Gen. vi. 32 (P.L. clxvii. 430-32).
3 Ex. xii. 9. ' Ps. xxii. 15.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 293
fire it gains solidity. Thus the power of Christ's manhood as a
potsherd was dry, because from the fire of the passion it grew to
the power of incorruption. More fully, because the Virgin con
ceived Him of the Holy Ghost, who is eternal fire, and He Himself
through the same Holy Ghost, as the Apostle says, offered Himself
a living sacrifice to the living God,1 by the same fire is the roasting
on the altar, for by the operation of the Holy Ghost the bread
becomes the body and the wine the blood of Christ. This cannot
human wisdom understand. . . . You must assign all to the opera
tion of the Holy Ghost, whose work is not to destroy or corrupt any
substance which He takes for His own uses but, while the good of
the substance remains what it was, to add invisibly what it was not.
As God did not destroy human nature when, by His operation in
the Virgin's womb, He united it to the Word, so He does not change
or destroy the substance of bread and wine according to the outward
species of which the five senses are cognisant, when He unites it to
the body of the Word which hung on the cross and to the blood
which He shed from His side. Again, as the Word sent down from
on high was made flesh not by being changed into flesh but by tak
ing flesh, so the bread and wine raised on high from below become
the body and blood of Christ not by being changed into the taste
of flesh or into the horror of blood but by taking invisibly the reality
of each part, that is, the divine and the human, of the immortal
substance which is in Christ. Therefore, as we, according to the
true and Catholic belief, acknowledge that the Man who had His
nature from the Virgin and hung on the cross is God, so we truly
say that what we receive from the holy altar is Christ, and we pro
claim it as the Lamb of God." 2
" He who approaches unworthily does not partake of the suffer
ings of Christ, and does not hold with the mouth of his mind that
which he receives with the mouth of his body. . . . This visible
Sacrament is the body and blood of Christ, which he receives with
the mouth, for his unworthiness cannot destroy the worth of so great
a consecration, but he does not obtain the efficacy (rem) of the Sacra
ment, because he does not regard the passion of Christ with his mind
and with faith working by love." 3
" All water, whether of the sea or of rivers or of springs or of
cisterns or of lakes, all water, I say, whencesoever it has been taken
or produced, is one according to substance. When, therefore,
1 Eph. v. 2 ; Heb. ix. 14.
'In Ex. ii. 10 (P.L. clxvii. 617, 618).
3De S. Spir. iii. 22 (P.L. clxvii. 1664).

294 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
whencesoever it has been taken, it is brought to the Sacrament
of the crucified Lord, the reason of the faithful does not doubt that
it is the very same as that which, as I said before, our Lord shed
from His side. But what is it according to substance except water ?
Water drawn up by the roots ascends through the vines, and, gradu
ally invigorated by the heat of the sun, becomes wine. Again, since
man is made up out of the four elements, blood is in him from the
substance of water. And so wine and blood are from the same
substance of moisture, and to neither of these is the element of fire
lacking. For blood is warm and wine is glowing. Only in colour
and taste do they differ, and, since these are accidents, they are of
no importance in divine acts. For substances, not accidents, are
reckoned in the number of creatures." 1
" It is possible for one to eat unworthily, but no one ought to eat
unworthily. For the bread which has once been consecrated never
afterwards loses the effect of consecration or ceases to be the flesh
of Christ, but it does not in any way profit one who is unworthy." 2
Rupert's treatise On the Divine Offices contains comments on
the prayers and ceremonies of the ordinary and canon of the
Mass in which the rite is represented as a memorial of the In
carnation and passion and resurrection and ascension of our Lord.
As in his expositions of Holy Scripture, he speaks of the con
secrated bread and wine as the real body and blood of Christ.3
The same illustration of the production of the real substance of
fire from the sun by a crystal as is used by Robert Paululus4
occurs here.5 The following passages are of some special in
terest : —
" The holy Church, offering the new and real sacrifice, offers not
only the bread and wine, which are bodily seen, but also that which
is not seen except by the eyes of faith, the Word of God, the Son of
God."« " The matter or substance of the sacrifice which was then and
now is in the hands of our High Priest is not simple, as our High
Priest Himself is not of divine substance only or of human substance
only. For both in the High Priest and in the sacrifice there is a
divine substance and there is an earthly substance. In each there is
an earthly substance, that which can be seen in a bodily or local way.
1 Comm. in loan. vi. (P.L. clxix. 462). 'Ibid. 470.
3 1. 28, II. 2 (P.L. clxx. 26, 33, 35). ' See p. 289, supra.
6 II. 5 (P.L. clxx. 38). « II. 2 (P.L. clxx. 34).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 295
In each there is a divine substance, the Word invisible, who in the
beginning was God with God. For when the same High Priest,
holding bread and wine, said ' This is My body,' ' This is My blood,'
it was the voice of the Word incarnate, the voice of the eternal
beginning, the Word of ancient counsel. The Word who had taken
human nature, that is, remaining in the flesh, took the substance of
bread and wine with His life as instrument and united the bread to
His flesh and the wine to His blood. . . . The Word of the Father
coming between the flesh and blood, which He took from the Virgin's
womb, and the bread and wine, which He took from the altar, makes
one sacrifice. When the priest distributes this to the mouths of the
faithful, the bread and wine are consumed and pass away. But the
Son of the Virgin with the Word of the Father united to Him both
in heaven and among men remains whole and unconsumed. But he
who is without faith obtains nothing from the sacrifice besides the
visible species of bread and wine. . . . He who eats the visible bread
of the sacrifice and drives away from his heart that which is invisible
by his want of faith, slays Christ, because he separates life from that
which has been made alive, and with his teeth tears the dead body
of the sacrifice, and in this way is guilty of the body and blood of
the Lord." 1
" He commands these to be borne by the hands of His holy angel
to His altar on high and to be in the presence of His divine majesty
unlocally and invisibly. For the unlocal and invisible majesty is
everywhere, His altar on high is everywhere, which is the faith of
the Catholic Church." 2 IX.
Peter Abelard was born at Pallet near Nantes in 1079 and
after a career of strange and varied vicissitudes died at the
Abbey of St. Marcel near Chalons-sur-Saone in 1142. A man
of great genius and intellectual subtlety, he was one of the most
famous philosophical teachers of his time. As a theologian he
was held in ill repute, and some of his opinions were condemned
at councils held at Soissons in 1121 and at Sens in 1140 and
afterwards by Pope Innocent II. In his treatise Christian The
ology he says incidentally that " it is not yet clear that there
1 II. 2 (P.L. clxx. 40, 41).
2 II. 13 (P.L. clxx. 44). See also the account of the miraculous pre
servation of the Sacrament among the ruins from the fire in De incendio
oppidi Tuitii, 5 (P.L. clxx. 337).

296 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
has been an end of that supreme controversy concerning the
Sacrament of the altar, whether the bread which is seen is only
a figure of the Lord's body or is also the reality of the substance
itself of the Lord's flesh ".1 In the book entitled Yes and No
he arranged statements of earlier Christian writers on 158 sub
jects with the intention of showing that there had been wide
diversities in Christian thought, and placed a large number of
passages under the heading " Concerning the Sacrament of the
Altar, that it is essentially the reality itself of the flesh and
blood of Christ, and the contrary ".2 In the Epitome of Chris
tian Theology — which, if not by Abelard himself, probably re
presents his opinions — there is a chapter entitled " Concerning
the Sacrament of the altar ". It contains statements that the
Sacrament was instituted to keep Christians in mind of the
passion and death of Christ ; that after consecration the bread
is the "real body of Christ, or rather Christ Himself" ; that at
the institution and at subsequent celebrations the gift to each
communicant is of the whole and unbroken body of Christ ; and
that " many are of Christ's body who do not receive this Sacra
ment, while many receive it who are not His members ". There
is a brief reference to the question whether the body which our
Lord gave to the disciples at the institution was in the passible
or the impassible state ; and it is said that on this point there
is nothing defined by authority, and that Christ " gave it such
as He willed ; for, if He willed to give it to them in the im
mortal state, He could well even at that time assume impassi
bility ".3 In regard to the fraction of the Sacrament the words
are : —
"Concerning that fraction which is there seen a doubt is some
times raised whether the body of Christ itself, as it is really there,
so also is broken in reality. But we say that as there seems to be
bread and is not, and as there seems to be wine when nevertheless
there is not wine, so the body of Christ seems to be broken, though
it undergoes no breaking and suffers no division. Neither is it the
case that this appearance is a phantasm, because its object is not
to promote deception or an error of faith, but to bestow the Sacra
ment." 4
1 Lib. iv. (P.L. clxxviii. 1286). 2C. 117 (P.L. clxxviii. 1518-37).
3 C. 29 (P.L. clxxviii. 1740-43). " Ibid. 1742.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 297
This somewhat obscure statement was probably meant to
express the same opinion as that held by Hugh of St Victor 1
and others, that, when the Sacrament is broken, the fraction is
not of the body of Christ but of the species.
A different, and apparently more unusual, view was main
tained in a book called On the Fraction of the Body of Christ by
Abbaud, the abbot of an unknown monastery, which is thought
to have been published about 1130. Abbaud contends that it
is involved in the reality of the presence of the real body of
Christ that it is really broken in the Sacrament on earth, though
it abides whole and unbroken in heaven. In reply to the ob
jection that such a position is self-contradictory, " since it pre
dicates of one and the same body that it abides unbroken and
that it is broken," he dwells on the marvellous capacities of
Christ's body and on the power of God : —
"The weakness of man is not able to set the bounds of the
power of God, though rash attempts to do so are made. For the
things which are impossible with men are possible with God. Is
this the only thing which is asserted about the body of Christ that
is contrary to human reason, and impossible according to the law
of human bodies ? Is it not asserted of the same body that in the
mystery of His birth He came forth to the eyes of men from the
closed womb of the Virgin, and in His resurrection entered in to
His disciples when the doors were shut, and showed Himself to
them as susceptible of touch and also incorruptible ? Lo, here are
three marvels, that this one may not be alone but may be a fourth
of those which reason grasps not, while faith allows them to the
power of God. Let others think as seems well to them ; but to
me it is devout and good to think that the body which the great
and incomprehensible height of Deity willed to make its own very
far excels not only mortal bodies but even immortal and heavenly
bodies by a certain ineffable and unique and divine power. To
wish to reason about that body according to the law of other bodies
is to seek the living among the dead." 2
" As with God in regard to time a thousand years are as one
day, and one day is as a thousand years, so also in regard to place
it is truly said that a thousand places or as many as you will or
even all places are with God as one place. For Him, who is always
and everywhere wholly present, local absence can make nothing
1 See pp. 271, 285, supra. ' P.L. clxvi. 1344.

298 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
absent, local distance can make nothing distant, local division can
divide nothing. That then which is broken with us, because it is
locally divided, remains unbroken with God, to whom all places
are one place." 1
A book against the teaching of Abelard in general, entitled
Disputation agamst Peter Abelard, was written by William of
St. Thierry, who was a native of Liege, became Abbot of the
Cluniac Monastery of St. Thierry near Reims in 1119, resigned
that office and joined the Cistercian Order in 1134, and died at
Signy in 1148. One chapter of it refers to the doctrine of the
Eucharist. In this chapter a view ascribed to Abelard,2 that on
the conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into the
substance of the body and blood of Christ " the accidents of the
former substance remain in the air," is rejected, and it is sug
gested that the accidents of the bread and wine
"are in the body of the Lord, not forming it but by the power
of the wisdom of God working in them fitting and shaping it, so
that according to the rite of the mystery and the way of a Sacra
ment it may be able to be moved and handled and tasted in a
different form, which could not happen in its own form, the ac
cidents working outwardly so that it may be handled and taken
bodily, and grace working inwardly so that it may be taken incor-
ruptibly and may have a savour to the believer and may spiritually
quicken and nourish him who has love." 3
William adds that anything which may befal the Sacrament
through carelessness or ignorance happens to the accidents and
not to the body of Christ ; and that the body of Christ is far
removed from the possibility of any such injury.4
William of St. Thierry also wrote a treatise On the Sacrament
of the Altar addressed to Rupert of Deutz in protest against one
element in his teaching about the Eucharist. William asserts
with the greatest explicitness against Rupert that the substance
of the bread is wholly changed into the substance of the body of
Christ ; that, though the species remain, the bread ceases to be
bread ; and that the accidents of the bread and wine are without
1 P.L. clxvi. 1346.
2 See Capitula Haresum Petri Abelardi, 9, inter opp. S. Bern. (P.L.
clxxxii. 1052).
3 C. 9 (P.L. clxxx. 280) ' Ibid. 281.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 299
a substance of their own in the consecrated Sacrament.1 The
most prominent parts of the treatise are those in which William
writes on the manhood of our Lord, and on the need of receiving
the Eucharist worthily if there is to be the spiritual and profit
able partaking of that body of Christ which is taken in Com
munion. From these parts the following quotations may be
made : —
" In considering the flesh of Christ in the mysteries we ought
not to be wise after the flesh. For 'though we have known Christ
after the flesh, yet now we know Him so no more '.2 And again we
ought not so to lessen the reality of the flesh by a kind of spiritual
search as by a sort of reasoning to seem to destroy His nature which
was united to the Word of God but yet was not changed into the
Word. For 'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and
for ever ' ; 3 and He glorified that nature, in which He partook of
flesh and blood so as to be made like unto His brethren in all things
as a merciful High Priest, in such a way that He did not destroy it ;
He advanced it in such a way as not to empty it. For the body of
God must be thought of as it is, of our nature but of another glory.
For, if the body of our lowliness will be made glorious and spiritual
in the resurrection, inasmuch as it will be dignified by spiritual
power and incorruption and glory, how much more is that body in
which dwells bodily all the fulness of Godhead glorious and spirit
ual, the body of Him who rose the first fruits from the dead, even
Christ ? If in us it will hereafter be, that whatever is mortal will be
removed from our life, and whatever is human will be changed to a
better state of its own nature, so that what is now spirit and soul
and body will then be all spiritual or spirit, how much more did He,
who from the natures united together is the substance (res) of both
natures, lacking neither, being Christ God and Man in both, when
by the power of His resurrection He made an end of those things
in Him which belonged to the passible and mortal man, advance
that form which was to be enriched with the increase of so great
glory to such a point in Himself that, as the Apostle says, He ex
alted it and gave it 'the name which is above every name'.4 . . .
If the power of authority and the devotion of faith have made it
credible that that body entered in and passed out through ways that
were closed, I do not see what can make it incredible that that body
has been and is capable of other things which are beyond the nature
1 Pref., c. 3 (P.L. clxxx. 341, 342, 349, 350).
2 2 Cor. v. 16. 3 Heb. xiii. 8. 4 Phil. ii. 9.

.300 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
of bodies. . . . Why is it difficult to believe that the nature of flesh,
which is so united to that supreme nature that the possessions of the
one belong to the other, is able through divine power especially
after the glorifying of the resurrection to be in different places at a
not different time ? . . . Although His bodily elevation, whereby
that nature was raised above the heavens, is undoubtedly to be be
lieved, yet the exaltation, whereby He is believed to have been
exalted above the heaven of heavens, is to be understood as so great
& verity that He be believed to be glorified in dignity and glory and
power above all heavenly beings. For He has sat down, as the
Apostle says, 'on the right hand of the majesty on high, having be
come by so much better than the angels as He hath inherited a
more excellent name than they'.1 Now this right hand is to be
understood in no other way than those better things which that
majesty possesses. Yet I do not say that that nature of the Lord's
body is everywhere, because there is no need for it to be except
where He wills, and where by a fixed Sacrament of the faith He
accomplishes the work for which it was taken and glorified, namely
the mystery of the salvation of men. . . . God alone is necessarily
everywhere, because, since all things consist in Him, nothing could
be where He was not, and therefore there is an inevitable necessity
that the presence of His substance and power is everywhere. . . .
At one moment the Lord Christ, while He was resting in the tomb,
was in heaven and on earth and everywhere, but according to His
Godhead ; at the same moment of time He was resting in the tomb,
but according to the flesh alone ; at the same time He was in Hades
delivering His own, but according to the soul alone ; at the same
time He was sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Father, but
according to the Godhead alone ; and, if we should ask about any
one of these things, it must be plainly answered that the Lord
Christ did it, but according to the peculiar nature of each substance.
But the present question is not about this presence of His body.
According to that presence of which we had begun to treat, the
Lord is present at one time in different places in His body, by an
incomprehensible and indescribable way made certain to faith, wher
ever the need of human salvation requires." 2
" From His flesh He brings to our souls so great resources for
loving Him, and supplies them with great and wonderful and living
nourishment. We take this nourishment with eager feeding when
we sweetly remember and hide in our memory what Christ did and
suffered for us. And this is the banquet of the flesh and blood of
1 Heb. i. 3, 4. ' C. 1 (P.L. clxxx. 345-48).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 301
Jesus, from which he who partakes of it has life abiding in him.
And we partake of it when with burning faith which works through
love we lay on the Table of the Lord such things as we have received
thence, namely, that, as He gave Himself for our salvation without
any necessity constraining Him, so we commit ourselves wholly to
His faith and love as our salvation demands. . . . The good guest
of Christ abides in Christ through the affection of devout love, and
has Christ abiding in him through the effect of the holy rite. . . .
The more one loves, the more he eats this food ; and again by loving
more he eats more and more, and loves more and more, though
of this love in this life we only receive a pledge, waiting for the
fulness of it as the reward in the future world. Lo, this is to eat
that flesh of which Jesus says, ' He that eateth My flesh abideth in
Me, and I in him'.1 . . . Without doubt the body of the Lord al
ways becomes present on the Table of the altar when that solemn rite
is duly celebrated ; but He does not always come to those through
whom He comes. . . . Not all who eat bodily are filled spiritually
with that heavenly blessing and grace." 2
X.
The writings of St. Bernard, the famous Abbot of Clairvaux,
who was born in 1091, became a monk at Citeaux in 1113,
founded the monastery of Clairvaux in 1115, and died in 1153,
considering their large amount, contain surprisingly few allusions
to the Eucharist. But there is sufficient to show his agreement
with the writers of his time in general in their insistence on the
reality of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist and on
the spiritual character of this presence. In one of his Letters he
speaks of the effect of consecration being to make the bread and
wine the body and blood of Christ, and expresses his opinion
that in a case where through forgetfulness there was no wine in
the chalice the bread had none the less been made Christ's body
by the consecration.3 In his Life of St. Malachy, the Arch
bishop of Armagh, he refers incidentally to the celebration of
the Eucharist as the offering of " the living Bread from heaven " ;
and tells of the refutation by St. Malachy of one who had " pre
sumed to say that in the Eucharist there is only a Sacrament
and not the fact (rem) of a Sacrament, that is, only the blessing
and not the reality of the body ".4 In his Sermons he says that
1 St. John vi. 56. 2 Cc. 5-7 (P.L. clxxx. 352, 353).
3 Ep. Ixix. 2, 3. 4 Cc. 5, 26.

302 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
" the Bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the
world, namely the body of the Lord Jesus," " the new flesh of the
resurrection," is received in Communion ; that " the flesh of the
Lamb " " is given to us spiritually not carnally " ; that " the
real substance of the flesh itself is undoubtedly present to us in
the Sacrament " ; and that, though in the Sacrament we have the
Word in the flesh and as a reality, yet " without spirit even the
Sacrament is taken to judgment, and the flesh profits nothing,
and the letter kills, and faith is dead ".1
Robert Pulleyn, afterwards Cardinal and Chancellor at Rome,
was teaching at Oxford in 1133. The eighth book of his Sen
tences contains some discussions about the Eucharist. It is
spoken of as a sacrifice.2 At the institution our Lord con
secrated bread and wine to be His body and blood. 3 As then
given, the Sacrament was the mortal body of the Lord, but was
possessed of the qualities of His immortal body.4 At the conse
cration the bread and wine are converted into the body and blood
of Christ, so that they pass into a different nature. The sub
stance of bread and wine ceases to be, but the properties which
the senses can discern remain. Christ is taken whole in each
part of each species. At the breaking of the consecrated
Sacrament, the body of Christ is not broken.5 The special
significance in the blood is of the soul. 6 The reception by the
laity in one kind only is a matter within the competence of the
Church to decide ; and in_ receiving the flesh of Christ they re
ceive also His blood. 7
Peter the Venerable became Abbot of Cluny in 1122 and
died in 1156. Among his writings is a treatise against the
followers of Peter of Bruis, who had denied that the Eucharist
is a rite of value which ought to be retained in the Church.
The substances of the bread and the wine, it is here said, are
converted into the real body and blood of the Lord.8 This
change of substance takes place by the power of the Word of
God ; it does not involve a change of species or form.9 The
Sacrament is a sign which is what it denotes, a reality and
1In vig. nat. Dom. serm. i. 6 ; In fest. S. Martini Episc. serm. 10, 11 ;
In Cantica serm. xxxiii. 3.
2 VIII. 2. 3 VIII. 2. * VIII. 4.
6 VIII. 5. 6 VIII. 2. 7 VIII. 3.
8 P.L. clxxxix . 799, 801-6. 9 Ibid. 804-6.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 303
not a shadow or figure.1 By it Christ is present not only as
God but also as man.2 When His flesh is eaten, He remains
unbroken, immortal, incorruptible, the Object of adoration, and
by means of His immortal body He leads those who are mortal
to immortality.3 The reality of His flesh and blood remains
hidden in the species of bread and wine.4 He gives His flesh
and blood not only to be honoured and adored but also to be
eaten and drunk, so that this spiritual food and drink may en
able men to attain to a blessed immortal life.5 In this Sacrament
the Church has a sacrifice, and in it offers the body and blood
of its Redeemer.6 The sacrifice of Christians throughout the
world is one ; and the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of
the world, is the only Victim on Christian altars.7 It is a pre
sentation of the passion and death of the Lord.8 It was once
for all offered on the cross, and is ever offered on the altar.9 It
was instituted in order that there might be a means to preserve
the memory of Christ.10 Although He is offered on the altar,
and although there is a presentation of His death, He does not
suffer pain or death.11 If it asked why it is a presentation of
His death rather than of His resurrection or ascension, the
answer is that by His death He restored life to the dead and
saved the world.12 The presentation is made through the pre
sence on the altar of the flesh which suffered on the cross, and
the blood which then was shed.13 There is in it a renewal of
redemption, and a daily remission of sins to those who are
penitent.14 XI.
The Sentences of Peter Lombard, the " Master of the
Sentences," who became Bishop of Paris in 1158 and died in
1160, was one of the most famous and one of the most influen
tial of mediaeval works. It bears the marks of a conviction
that, while authority must decide as to matters of faith, Chris
tian theology is able, if rightly considered, to approve itself to
the deeper instincts of human reason ; and that objections to it
1 P.L. clxxxix. 814. a Ibid. 812. 3 Ibid. 814.
4 Ibid. 815. 5Ibid. 816. 6 Ibid. 789, 808. 7 Ibid. 796.
8 Ibid. 796. "Ibid. 798. ™ Ibid. 811. " Ibid. 812.
12 Ibid. 813. 13Ibid. 813. M Ibid. 813.

304 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
and difficulties in the way of accepting it are matters for dis
cussion and argument. Concerning the Eucharist, Peter Lom
bard earned further and gave the support of his influence to the
attempt, found among writers of the Church from the time of
Lanfranc downwards, to use " the realistic distinction between
the substance — the impalpable universal which was held to
inhere in every particular included under it — and the accidents
or sensible properties which came into existence when the pure
Form clothed itself in Matter," 1 in the interests of a doctrine
which should at the same time maintain the traditional teaching
that the consecrated elements are the body and blood of Christ
and avoid carnal notions which tended to impair the spiritual
character of the presence thus affirmed. Apart from the direct
quotations from the fathers which form a large part of his work,
much which he says reproduces the thought and the language
of earlier writers already referred to ; but his special importance
justifies a brief statement as to the whole of his teaching in re
gard to the Eucharist. The Eucharist, he says, " gives spiritual
refreshment " ; in it " He who is the fount and source of all
grace is wholly taken " ; " this heavenly food leads to heaven
the faithful who are passing through the desert of this world,
and is rightly called food for the journey (viaticum) because it
refreshes us on the way and brings us to our country ".2 At the
recital of the words " This is My body," " This is My blood,"
" the conversion of the bread and wine into the substance of the
body and blood of Christ takes place ".3 " The thing which is
signified and contained is the flesh of Christ, which He took from
the Virgin, and the blood which He shed for us," as distinct
from " the thing which is signified and not contained," namely,
" the unity of the Church " ; and a distinction must be made
between " the Sacrament and not the thing," that is, " the visible
species of bread and wine," " the Sacrament and the thing," that
is, " Christ's own flesh and blood," and " the thing and not the
Sacrament," that is, "the mystical flesh of Christ ".4 There are
"two ways of eating" the Sacrament, the "sacramental," by
which both good and bad partake, and the " spiritual," by which
only the good partake ; 5 so that " the flesh of Christ which was
1 Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, i. 47.
2IV. viii. 1. 3Ibid.3. * Ibid. 4. 5IV. ix. 1.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 305
taken from the Virgin, and the blood which was shed for us, are
taken by the good not only sacramentally but also spiritually,
while they are taken by the bad only sacramentally, that is,
under the Sacrament, that is, under the visible species";1
and " it is clear that the body of Christ is taken by good and
bad, but by the good to salvation, by the bad to destruction ".2
Peter Lombard emphatically condemns the view that " on the
altar there is not the body of Christ or His blood, and that the
substance of the bread and wine is not converted into the sub
stance of flesh and blood," and that " the body of Christ is there
only by way of Sacrament, that is, by way of sign, and is eaten
by us only by way of sign ".3 " The body of Christ is in one
place," that is, " in heaven," " visibly in human form " ; " His
reality, that is, His divinity, is everywhere " ; " His reality,
that is, His real body, is on every altar where the Sacrament is
celebrated".4 "The real body and blood of Christ are on the
altar, or rather the whole Christ is there under each species ;
and the substance of the bread is converted into the body, and
the substance of the wine into the blood." 5 Whether the con
version at the consecration is " formal " or " substantial " or " of
some other kind " Peter Lombard says that he is unable to de
fine, but that he cannot regard it as " formal " since the species
remain, and that the teaching of authority seems to point to it
being "substantial".6 He rejects the views that "the bread
passes into the body of Christ " in such a way that " the sub
stance of bread and wine " " is resolved into pre-existing matter
or is reduced to nothing," and that " the substance of the bread
and wine remain " so that it is there as well as the substance of
the body and blood of Christ ; on the contrary, after consecra
tion " there is no substance there except that of the body and
blood of Christ," " though the species remain "J The reason why,
when Christ is wholly received under either kind, the Sacrament
is taken in two kinds is as a sign that He " took the whole of
human nature in order to redeem the whole ; for bread is related
to flesh, and wine to the soul, because wine makes blood, in
which the scientists say is the seat of the soul"; "though
Christ is received whole in either kind, yet the conversion of the
' IV. x. 2.

' IV. ix. 2.

2 IV. ix. 3.

3 IV. x. 1.

6 IV. x. 4.

6 IV. xi. 1.

7 IV. xi. 4.

VOL. I.

20

306 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
bread is only into flesh, and the conversion of the wine is only
into blood".1 At the institution of the Sacrament our Lord
gave to His disciples "such a body as He then had, that is,
mortal and passible ; but it is now taken by us immortal and im
passible ".2 In considering the question in what subject the acci
dents, which remain after the consecration, are, Peter Lombard
inclines to the opinion that "they exist without a subject rather
than that they are in a subject ".3 He regards it as a misunder
standing of the declaration imposed on Berengar4 to suppose
that the body of Christ itself is broken and divided ; the fraction
is real and not apparent only, but is of the species of bread not of
the substance of the body of Christ, " since the body of Christ is
incorruptible ".5 In the mystical significance of the ceremonies
of the rite " the fraction is a representation of the passion and
death of Christ".6 Evil priests validly consecrate, because "the
consecration is effected not by the merit of the consecrator but
by the word of the Creator " ; but Peter Lombard differs from
the opinion that has been usual in saying, like Hugh of St.
Victor, that an excommunicate or avowedly heretical priest
cannot validly consecrate ; like Hugh of St. Victor again he
alludes to the use of the plural number "we offer" not the
singular " I offer " as marking that the priest consecrates " in the
person of the Church ". He holds it a possible view that, if the
Sacrament is eaten by an irrational animal, " the body of Christ
is not taken," though he can only answer the inquiry as to what
in that case is taken and eaten by saying " God knows "J It
may be well to quote the passage in which, in addition to the
brief reference to the mystical commemoration of the passion
in the ceremonies of the rite already mentioned, Peter Lombard
treats of the sacrifice in the Eucharist : —
" It is next inquired whether that which the priest does is pro
perly called a sacrifice or offering, and whether Christ is daily offered
or has been offered once only. To this it can be said shortly that
what is presented and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice
and an oblation, because it is the memorial and representation of
the real sacrifice and holy offering which was made on the altar of
the cross. On the cross Christ died once, and there was He offered
1 IV. xi. 6. ' IV. xi. 8. 3 IV. xii. 1. ' See p. 247, supra.
6 IV. xii. 2-5. 6 IV. xii. 6. 7 IV. xiii. 1.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 307
in Himself; in the Sacrament He is offered daily, because in the
Sacrament there is the commemoration of that which was done once.
. . . This commemoration is not repeated for the sake of His weak
ness, for He perfects human nature, but for the sake of ours, because
we sin daily. Hence it is gathered that what is done on the altar
is and is called a sacrifice ; and that Christ has been offered once and
is offered daily, but in one way at that time, in another way now.
And also it is shown what is the virtue of this Sacrament, namely,
the remission of venial sins and the perfecting of virtues." 1
It is important to notice that, though thus preserving the
teaching that the Eucharistic sacrifice is a commemoration of
the passion of Christ, Peter Lombard does not refer to the com
memoration mentioned by many writers of our Lord's whole
incarnate life including His resurrection and ascension or to
the connection of the Eucharist with His heavenly offering.
XII.
Peter of Poitiers was a disciple of Peter Lombard. He was
appointed Chancellor of Paris in 1193. He died in 1205. He
wrote a treatise of five books of Sentences, in which four chapters
relate to the Eucharist. In these chapters Peter of Poitiers
teaches that the bread and wine are changed at the consecration
into the body and blood of Christ which He took of the Blessed
Virgin, while their properties remain. He uses the words
" Transubstantiation " and " transubstantiate " freely. He ex
plains that the body of Christ in the Sacrament is held and
eaten and crushed by the teeth and broken in the same sense in
which it is said to be seen " because the form of bread under
which it is veiled is seen ". The body itself " remains whole and
incorruptible " : it is the glorified body in the immortal and im
passible state which ensued on the resurrection.2 On the
Eucharistic sacrifice Peter of Poitiers practically reproduces
the statement of Peter Lombard which has been quoted.3 He

" It is inquired whether that is a real sacrifice which is daily
made on the altar by the priest and whether Christ is daily sacri
ficed, and daily slain, and so whether one death of Christ is not
enough. In answer to which it must be said that Christ is sacrificed
in the Sacrament, and this sacrifice is called a sacrifice simply for
1IV. xii. 7. ' V. 10-13 (P.L. ccxi. 1241-57). 3 See pp. 306, 307, supra.
20 *

308 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
the reason that it represents the real sacrifice which was once made
with extended hands on the cross. As a picture represents that of
which it is an image, and as an image is called by the name of the
thing which it signifies, as the image of Achilles is called Achilles,
so this sacrifice is called by the name of the real sacrifice, which was
once made." x
An interesting feature in this treatise is in the record which
it supplies of discussions and divergent opinions on minute
points, as whether the prayers of the rite and the invocation
of the Holy Trinity are necessary to the consecration, whether
the water mixed with the wine is turned into the blood or into
the water which flowed from the side of Christ or remains un
converted, whether the consecration of the bread is effected at
the words " This is My body " or not until the words " This is
My blood,"2 and whether Christ consecrated the Sacrament
when He gave the elements to the disciples with the words
" This is My body " and " This is My blood " or at the act of
blessing which preceded. On this last point Peter's own view
appears to have been that our Lord said " This is My body " at
the act of blessing and that the Transubstantiation then took
place, and that He said the same words again to the disciples
when He gave them the Sacrament but simply as asserting what
the Sacrament was and not as then consecrating.3
Lothair Conti, of the family of the Counts of Segni, was born
at Anagni in 1160 or 1161, was made a cardinal in 1190, and
became Pope with the title of Innocent III. in 1198. He died
in 1216. His book On the Holy Mystery of the Altar was
written before he was Pope, and may be taken as representative
of the doctrine held to be true in the closing years of the twelfth
century. In this book there is but little explicit teaching about
the Eucharistic sacrifice, though the rite as a whole is viewed as
a commemoration of the passion and resurrection and ascension
of Christ, the ceremonies of the ordinary and canon of the Mass
are regarded as a mystical representation of the passion and burial
and resurrection,4 and the union of earthly and heavenly worship
is referred to by the quotation of the words of St. Gregory the
Great about it 5 and by the explanation of the double sense of
1 V. 13 (P.L. ccxi. 1256). 2See pp. 312, 313, infra.
3 V. 11 (P.L. ccxi. 1245). ' V. 1-4, 7, 8, 12.
5 Quoted on p. 195, supra.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 309
the four kinds of altars, whereby the " higher altar " denotes the
Holy Trinity and the Church triumphant, the " lower altar " the
Church militant and the " Table of the temple," the " inner altar "
a clean heart and faith in the Incarnation, the " outward altar "
the altar of the cross and the Sacraments of the Church, in the
comment on the words " Command these to be borne by the
hands of Thy holy angel to Thy altar on high," in which " these "
is explained to denote " the offerings and prayers of the faithful,"
and the " holy angel " is interpreted to mean the created
angels.1 Like Hugh of St. Victor and Peter Lombard, Innocent
III. lays stress on the use of the plural number in the phrase
" we offer," and explains that " though one only offers the sacri
fice, yet he says ' we offer ' in the plural number because the
priest does not offer sacrifice only in his own person but in the
person of the whole Church," and that " not only priests but also
all the faithful offer, for that which is specially accomplished by
the ministry of the priests is done generally by the offering of
the faithful ".2 The offering is primarily directed to God the
Father as the first principle of the Godhead, " yet the sacrifice
of praise is offered equally to the undivided Trinity, as to the
Father so to the Son and to the Spirit of Both, for as the majesty
is indivisible so the worship is indivisible ".3 The treatment of
the Eucharistic presence and gift, as distinct from that of the
sacrifice, is very full and explicit and detailed. Many difficult
questions are discussed at some length, and in regard to most of
them Innocent, in spite of frequent assertions as to the limita
tions of human thought, pronounces with some confidence. The
main lines of his teaching closely follow what has been observed
in earlier writers. At the consecration the species remain, but
the substances of the bread and wine are converted so that under
the different species the one body of Christ is contained.4 In
the Sacrament is the real body of Christ.5 The conversion into
the flesh and blood of Christ has analogies with the exercise of
the power of God in the creation, in the miracles of the Old
Testament, in the Incarnation, and in the miracle at Cana of
Galilee.6 The flesh in the Eucharist is that which was taken
from the Virgin, and the blood is that which was shed on the
iV. 5. 2III. 5, 6. SIII. 8.
4 III. 3. . 5IV. 2. 6IV. 7.

310 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
cross ; but when it is eaten in the Sacrament the flesh is not
divided or torn but remains whole and unbroken, since " He who
is eaten lives because after death He rose, and being eaten He
dies not because He rose to die no more".1 "There is no
material formation of flesh and blood from the bread and wine,
but the matter of the bread and wine is changed into the sub
stance of flesh and blood, nor is any addition made to the body,
but the elements are transubstantiated into the body." 2 Inno
cent repeats the ideas and the phraseology of St. Peter Damien3
on the questions whether " parts pass into parts or the whole
into the whole," and about local distance and position, saying
that such questions must be left to God, but asserting that the
whole Christ is in both species and in every fragment.4 When
the substance of the bread and wine is converted ;into the sub
stance of the body and blood of Christ, the accidents remain, and
with the accidents " the natural properties appear to remain, the
quality of bread which removes hunger by satisfying and the
quality of wine which destroys thirst by refreshing".5 The
declaration to which Berengar assented at the Council of Rome
in 1059,6 containing the statement that " the real body of Christ
is in reality handled and broken by the hands of the priests and
is crushed by the teeth of the faithful," is accepted by Innocent
with the explanation that " the body of Christ lis not divided
into parts or torn by the teeth, since it is immortal and im
passible,"7 an explanation which shows that he regarded the
wording of the declaration as a clumsy way of saying that the
Sacrament which the priests handle and the faithful receive is the
body of Christ. In the event of the profanation of the Sacra
ment by an animal the body of the Lord miraculously ceases to
be there.8 Though it is the immortal body of Christ which is
now received in the Sacrament, it is perhaps more likely that at
the institution He gave His body in its mortal state than that
the qualities of the risen body were then anticipated ; yet each
of the four qualities which are now characteristic of the risen
body had on some occasion been manifested before the resurrec
tion, " the subtlety when He was born of the Virgin, the glory
when He was transfigured on the mount, the agility when He

iIV. 7.

2 IV. 7.

3 See pp. 259-61, supra.

' IV. 8.

5 IV. 9.

6 See p. 247, supra.

7 IV. 10.

8 IV. 11.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 311
walked on the sea, the impassibility when He was eaten at the
Supper".1 "The real body of Christ is eaten sacramentally,
that is, under the species ; but the mystical body is eaten spiritu
ally, that is, in faith under the species of bread, in faith of
heart." 2 " Both good and bad eat the body of Christ, but the
good to salvation, the bad to judgment."3 ' The teaching and
words of Hugh of St. Victor 4 on the bodily reception being a means
to the spiritual presence, which enables the soul to lay hold of
Christ at the right hand of God, are reproduced.6
" If it be asked whether Christ locally descends from heaven or
ascends into heaven, when He conveys or withdraws His bodily pre
sence, or otherwise begins or ceases to be under the species of the
Sacrament, I reply that we ought not to be curious in such matters.
... I do not know how Christ approaches, I am ignorant also how
He departs, He knows who is ignorant of nothing." 6
"When the first part of the words of consecration is said, the
bread is changed from its nature into the body, and when the second
part of the words is said, the wine is changed into the blood, yet
the body is never without the blood, and the blood is never without
the body, as neither is without the soul, but under the form of bread
the blood is in the body when the bread has been changed into the
body. So also it is in regard to the species of wine. Not that the
bread is changed into the blood, or the wine changed into the body,
but because neither of these can be without the other. Therefore
the blood is under the species of bread not from the power of the
Sacrament but from a natural concomitance." 7
" One and the Same both then and now, both here and elsewhere,
is offered by all, whole in heaven, whole on the altar, at the same
time sitting at the right hand of the Father and abiding under the
species of the Sacrament. . . . Christ is one in different places as
He is whole in different portions." 8
" Christ gives Himself wholly to us for food, that as He renews us
by His Godhead, which we taste spiritually with the heart, so He may
renew us by His manhood, which we eat bodily with the mouth, that
so He may lead us from things visible to things invisible, from things
temporal to things eternal, from things earthly to things heavenly,
from things human to things divine." 9

nv. 12.

2 IV. 14.

3 IV. 14.

' See pp. 286, 287, supra.

6 IV. 15.

8 IV. 16

'IV. 17-

8 IV. 27.

9 IV. 44.

312 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
" By the mystery of the cross He delivered us from the power of
sin. By the Sacrament of the Eucharist, He sets us free from the
desire to sin ; for, if the Eucharist be worthily taken, it frees from
evil, it strengthens in good, it blots out venial sins, it protects from
mortal sins." 1
" Christ in His divine nature is in things in three ways, locally
in heaven, personally in the Word, sacramentally on the altar. For,
as in His Godhead He is essentially whole in all things, so in His
manhood He is whole sacramentally in many places. By the power
of this Sacrament it becomes possible that they who are of earth
ascend to heaven." 2
In one of the passages just quoted — in the words " When the
first part of the words of consecration is said, the bread is changed
from its nature into the body " — Innocent III. expresses his own
opinion that the consecration of the bread is completed before
the consecration of the chalice. While so writing he refers to
the contrary opinion of others, possibly alluding to Peter the
Eater,3 who was Chancellor of Paris from 1168 to 1178, or to
Peter the Chanter, who was Precentor of Paris from 1184 to
1197.4 At a later point in his treatise he again expresses the
same opinion ; but says that in the event of a priest being unable
to proceed to the consecration of the chalice after consecrating
the bread, or of the discovery after the consecration of the bread
that there was no wine in the chalice, it is better for the sake
1 IV. 44. 2 IV. 44.
3 Petrus Comestor or Manducator. Father Herbert Thurston has sug
gested (Tablet, 26th October, 1907, p. 644) that this name might be trans
lated " Peter the Bookworm," since it was given him in consequence of the
way in which he devoured all the literature which he could find.
4 For Peter the Eater's advocacy of the view that the consecration of
the bread was not completed till the consecration of the chalice, see Giral-
dus Cambrensis, Gemma Ecclesiastica , i. 8 (Opera, ii. 27, 28, Rolls Series,
vol. xxi. b). For the acceptance of the same view by Peter the Chanter, see
Ca:sarius of Heisterbach, Dialogus, ix. 27 ; Mir acuta, i. 4, in Meister, Die
Fragmente der Libri Octo Miraculorum des Cmsarius von Heisterbach, pp. 10,
11. See also Father Thurston's article in the Tablet of 26th October, 1907,
and his note on p. 98 of his edition of Bridgett, A History of the Holy
Eucharist in Great Britain. Peter the Eater in his Historia Seholastica,
Evang. 152 (P.L. cxcviii. 1618), suggests, like Peter of Poitiers (see p. 308,
supra), that our Lord may have said "This is My body " twice at the insti
tution of the Sacrament.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 313
of security, since there are two opinions on the point, that the
consecration of the bread should be repeated.1
XIII.
The Fourth Lateran Council was held in 1215 during the
papacy of Innocent III. Its first chapter, headed "On the
Catholic Faith," contained the following statement about the
Eucharist : —
"There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside which
no one at all is in a state of salvation (salvatur). In this Church
Jesus Christ Himself is both priest and sacrifice ; and His body and
blood are really contained in the Sacrament of the altar under the
species of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into
the body and the wine into the blood by the power of God, so that,
to effect the mystery of unity, we ourselves receive of that which is
His what He Himself received of that which is ours. And, more
over, no one can consecrate this Sacrament except a priest who has
been duly ordained according to the keys of the Church, which
Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors." 2
It may be observed that in this statement, while it is said
that Christ's " body and blood are really contained in the Sacra
ment of the altar under the species of bread and wine" and
while the word " transubstantiated " is used, there is no explicit
definition as to the change of substance or as to the retention of
the accidents. In this respect the declaration of the council is
more guarded than the writings of some of the theologians of
the time, a feature probably due to the care exercised in a
document the acceptance of which might be required as a
matter of faith. Further, it did not contain any statement as
to the nature of the presence and could be accepted either by
any who might hold a carnal view or by those who followed the
theologians of the twelfth century in their emphasis on the
spiritual character of the body of Christ present in the Sacra
ment. 1 IV. 22, 24. For a statement on this matter in a letter of St. Bernard,
see p. 301, supra. Cf. p. 308, supra.
2 Hardouin, Concilia, vii. 15-18.

CHAPTER VII.
WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH TO THE
FIFTEENTH CENTURY.
Part III.
The thirteenth century was marked by the extended use of the
writings of Aristotle and by the development of the Dominican
and Franciscan theologies, and also by the growth of practical
instructions in regard to Eucharistic adoration.

Alexander of Hales was a native of Hales in Gloucestershire.
After filling various ecclesiastical offices in England, he studied
and taught at Paris. In 1222 he entered the Franciscan Order,
and in his work as lecturer had much to do with the growth of
learning in that Order. He died at Paris in 1245. He was the
first schoolman to use the whole of the writings of Aristotle
which were then accessible ; and he used also parts of the writ
ings of the Arabian philosophers. He did much to promote
Realism. His Sum of Theology was completed after his death
by his scholars about 1 252 ; but probably represents his opinions
even where it is not wholly his work. In its general method it
exhibits the characteristics of scholastic theology which had by
this time become marked. Abelard had placed different opinions
on the same subjects side by side as expressed in quotations
from earlier writers in his Yes and No. Peter Lombard had to
some extent stated the views which he himself rejected. Alex
ander of Hales gives at length in all cases the position differing
from his own, fully stating the arguments by which it may be
defended, and answering them one by one. The book contains
a long and elaborate treatment of the Eucharist. This affords
an excellent instance of the way in which at this time the in
terest in the theology of the Eucharistic sacrifice had been to a
314

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 315
large extent crushed out by the interest in the elaboration of
the doctrine of the presence and gift. On the sacrifice the
teaching is but scanty. One of the five causes of the institution
of the Sacrament is " the commemoration of the death of Christ,"
and another is "the pardon of daily sins"; but this "com
memoration" seems to be referred to more as a reminder to
Christians than as a memorial before God, and the " pardon " is
viewed rather as a gift in Communion than as an effect of a sacri
fice.1 The prayers and ceremonies of the ordinary and canon of
the Mass are regarded, as in earlier writers, as a mystical pre
sentation of the incarnate life, passion, and resurrection of our
Lord.2 The interpretation of Peter Lombard that the fraction
of the consecrated bread is a representation of the passion, is
followed;3 and the two species are said to show the passion and
sacrifice of Christ.4 The frequent celebration of the Mass is a
means of repairing the daily faults of living Christians and also
of mitigating the penalties of the souls in purgatory.5 The
Eucharistic sacrifice is not further explained. In regard to the
presence and gift, on the other hand, the treatment is most
full. When writing on the subject of the Sacraments in
general, before entering on the discussion of separate Sacra
ments, Alexander describes a Sacrament as a " real sign " which
effects and contains what it denotes,6 which has virtue attached
to it through "the institution of the Saviour," "the form of
words " appointed by Christ and used in the Church, " the due
action of ministers," "the passion and resurrection of Christ,"
and "the faith of the Church".7 The consecration of the
Eucharist is effected by the recital of the words "This is My
body," " This is My blood " ; 8 and may be validly accomplished
by a wicked or heretical or schismatical or degraded priest.9 At
the consecration the bread and the wine are converted by Tran
substantiation into the body and blood of Christ, and do not re
main under the signs together with the body and blood.10 In
:IV. x. 2 (2); cf. IV. x. 8 (1, i.). The other three causes are "the
ministration of the food of life," " the invitation to the taste of Godhead,"
and "the fulfilment of the Scriptures".
2 Tract, de ojfic. miss, in IV. x. 5.
3 IV. x. 9 (4). 4 IV. x. 3 (1). 5 IV. x. 5 (1, iii.).
6IV.v. 3 (4, iii.). 7IV. v. 3 (5, vii.). 8IV. x. 5 (1, ix.).
9 IV. x. 5 (1, iv. v.). 10IV. x. 6 (3, i.).

316 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
this conversion only the accidents remain.1 The bread is not
annihilated, but is changed for the better.2 The conversion of
substance is marvellous and supernatural, and is accomplished
by the power of the Holy Ghost.3 Through it Christ is whole
and indivisible under each species by concomitance, though the
bread is changed into the flesh and the wine into the blood.4
In the change there is no local movement, and the body of
Christ does not descend from heaven.5 The accidents remain
without a subject.6 They retain their own properties and are
still the objects of sense.7 The accidents do not possess the pro
perty of nourishing ; but by a return of the substance of bread
and wine they nourish and are corrupted.8 As there is no local
descent of the body of Christ when the elements are converted
into His flesh and blood, so His presence is not of a limited kind
or local or circumscribed.9 It can be grasped by the minds of
mortals when illuminated by faith.10 The real body of Christ,
into which the bread has been converted, is not broken when the
species is broken, because it is incorruptible and indivisible and
remains whole and unbroken in every part of the divided species ;
and Alexander maintains that the declaration of Berengar, as ac
cepted by the Church, was intended to affirm that the conse
crated bread is really the body of Christ, not that the body itself
is broken.11 This real fraction of the species is possible because
of the retention of the accident of quantity.12 At the institution
of the Sacrament Christ gave His body in the immortal and im
passible state in which it is now received in Communion by an
anticipation of the spiritual endowments of His risen body.13
When received worthily the Sacrament conveys forgiveness of
venial sins and protection against and sorrow for mortal sins ; it
increases virtues ; it has greater efficacy when taken sacrament
ally and spiritually than when taken spiritually only.14 The
good and the bad communicants alike receive the body of Christ
sacramentally : 15 but it has no efficacy and is not eaten spiritually
unless it is received worthily,16 and it cannot be taken by irrational
JIV. x. 5 (3, ii.). 2IV. x. 5 (3, iii.). 3IV. x. 5 (3, iv.).
' IV. x. 3(2), 5(3, v.). 6IV. x. 5(3, iv.). TV. x. 7 (1, i. ii.).
7 IV. x. 7 (2, i.). 8 IV. x. 7 (2, ii. iv.). » IV. x. 7 (3, vi. vii.).
10 IV. x. 7 (3, viii.). "IV. x. 9 (1). i2IV. x. 9 (2).
13 IV. xi. 2 (1, iii.). "IV. x. 8 (1, i. 2, 3, iii.).
16 IV. xi. 1 (1). 16IV. x. 8 (3, i. ii.), xi. 1 (1).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 317
creatures or by angels.1 In the event of it ceasing to be under
the sacramental species there is no local movement, as there is no
local movement or descent at the consecration.2 Before the in
stitution of the Sacrament the faithful ate Christ spiritually.3
Since Christ is wholly taken in Communion under either kind, it
is lawful to receive the Sacrament in the species of bread only,
"as is done almost everywhere by the laity in the Church".4
On the whole it may be said that the tendency of Alexander's
statements, though his elaborate and detailed discussion of
minute points is painful reading, is to continue the attempt of
earlier writers to use the philosophical treatment of Eucharistic
doctrine to preserve a spiritual way of regarding the presence of
the body and blood of Christ. There are parts of his work,
however, which tend in a different direction, as when he dis
cusses whether, if the body had been reserved when Christ died
on the cross, the body so reserved would have been dead,5 and
whether, if the body had been consecrated during the three
days between our Lord's death and His resurrection, it would
have been body without soul,6 and in his lengthy dissertation on
the body of Christ passing into the stomach,7 though his view
of the return of the substances of bread and wine enables him to
avoid supposing that it suffers corruption.8 Consideration of his
work suggests the thought that by his time the use of the real
istic philosophy to protect the spiritual character of the Euchar
istic presence and gift had overshot the mark.
William of Auvergne became Bishop of Paris in 1228 and
died in 1249. In his philosophical teaching he made great use
of Aristotle and of much Arabian philosophy, although himself
in some respects a Platonist. On the subject of sacrifice in
general and of the Eucharistic sacrifice there are notable passages
in his writings. Many of the elements in sacrifice, according to
his teaching, involve the acknowledgment of the sovereignty of
God and the dedication of man to Him ; another element is that
of communion with God, as the bodily refreshment in the sacri
ficial meal denotes the spiritual communion of the soul with Him ;
another is that of the association of one who offers sacrifice with
the rest of the family of God through the sacrificial meal.9 The
UV. xi. 2(2, i.). 2IV. xi. 2(2, i.). 3IV. xi. 2 (2, i.).
4IV. xi. 2(4, iii.). 5IV. xi. 2(1, v.). 6IV. xi. 2(1, vi.).
7 IV. xi. 2 (4, iii.). 8IV. x. 7 (2, iv.). 9 De legibus, 24.

318 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
sacrifice which is required from men is of themselves ; it has its
inner side in the offering of a humble and contrite heart, and its
outward side in external works of doing and suffering. The
perfect sacrifice is that of Christ, who offered Himself on the
cross for the reconciliation of the world, and made atonement to
God.1 The priestly work of Christ is carried on in heaven in the
presence of God the Father ; but in order that the Church on earth
may have a sacrifice the offering of the Eucharist has been ordained ;
and Christ is no less acceptable to the Father on the altar than
He was on the cross, when He paid the price of the deliverance
of the world, and " the oblation which was made on the altar of
the cross and that which is daily made on the altar are of the
same merit," since the Victim is the same.2 Thus, the Eucharist,
on its sacrificial side, has the element of appeasing God and of
turning away His wrath.3 On the side of Communion, it is the
means by which God supplies the soul with the needed food of
spiritual life ; 4 and it sanctifies those who receive rightly. At
the consecration " the material and visible bread gives place to
the coming of the life-giving Bread, paying honour to the
Creator," " the form, that is, the variety of the accidents, being
preserved for the ministering of the Sacrament " ; " in the Tran
substantiation nothing at all remains of the bread except " " the
variety of the sensible accidents or sensible form ".5 The body of
Christ into which the bread is transubstantiated at the consecra
tion has the spiritual gifts of the risen life ; and its presence in
the Sacrament is accomplished by the change of the elements,
not by its movement from heaven to earth.6 William of
Auvergne suggests a different solution of the problem presented
by the impossibility of the spiritual body of Christ being a power
of bodily and material nourishment and by the absence of the
substance of bread in the consecrated Sacrament than that sug
gested by Alexander of Hales. Like Alexander, he holds that
the accidents cannot nourish substance; but, while Alexander
regarded the Sacrament as having the power of nourishing the
body through the return of the substance of bread and wine,
1 De legibus, 28 ; De sacram. Euch. 2 ; Cur Deus homo, 7 ; De rhet. div.
33. 'De sacram. Euch. 5. sIbid. 3.
' De sacram. Euch. 3 ; Cur Deus homo, 7.
5 De sacram. Euch. 1. 6 Ibid. 4.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 319
William maintains that the Sacrament does not possess the power
of nourishing the body, although the accidents can remove hun
ger and relieve thirst.1 William's method is much less elaborate
and argumentative than that of Alexander ; his work presents
the same general features of an earnest desire to use the Aris
totelian philosophy as a support to the doctrine of the Eucharist,
and to protect the spiritual character of the Eucharistic presence
of Christ ; in him, though to a less extent than in Alexander,
may be marked the hampering effects of the application of a
philosophic system to spiritual realities. II.
The use of the Aristotelian philosophy as an aid to theology
was carried still further by the Dominicans Albert the Great
and his pupil St. Thomas Aquinas. Albert the Great was bom
at Lauingen in 1193, joined the Dominican Order about 1222,
was famous as a teacher at Paris and Cologne, became Bishop
of Ratisbon in 1260, but resigned that see two years later,
and died at Cologne in 1280. His voluminous works include
treatises On the Sacrifice of the Mass and On the Sacrament
of the Eucharist ; and parts of his commentaries on the Gospels
refer to the Eucharist in connection with the accounts of the
institution and with the discourse at Capernaum recorded by
St. John ; but the most complete and clearest statements of his
Eucharistic doctrine are in his comments on the Sentences of
Peter Lombard. The book of these comments exhibits in a highly
developed form the scholastic method of setting out at length an
adversary's case, and proceeding to refute it step by step ; in the
main the appeal is to authority, but the whole work is pervaded
by the idea of the essentially rational character of the revealed
religion, and a good instance of the general point of view in this
respect is afforded by a statement in connection with the Eucha
rist that —
" In this Sacrament and in all other articles of the faith there are
many things above reason but there is nothing in them contrary to
reason, because God would be contrary to Himself if He had given
us reason and yet acted in the Sacraments against the dictates of
reason." 2 'Op.cit.l. 'IV. x. 9.

320 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
The Eucharist is described as spiritual food.1 There are said
to be three ways of receiving the real body of Christ, first, that
which is sacramental but not spiritual, or a Communion made
unworthily ; secondly, that which is both sacramental and
spiritual, or a Communion made worthily ; and, thirdly, that
which is spiritual and not sacramental, in which some receive
Christ spiritually and not sacramentally by uniting themselves
with Him by the memory of His passion and sacrifice.2 Hence
there are three ways of spiritual Communion, first, that which
may be used from the beginning of Christian life, when there is
union with "the mystical body of Christ and with Christ the
Head not by means of the Sacrament but by means of the
faith and love of the Head and the members " ; secondly, " the
tasting of the sweetness of the grace of Communion with the
body in meditation " on the part of those who have already be
come communicants ; and, thirdly, that which is sacramental as
well as spiritual.3 On questions about the relation of the body
of Christ to the body and mind of those who communicate
sacramentally, Albert states that it does not pass into the
stomach and undergo the processes of digestion after the manner
of ordinary food, but that in another sense it does pass into the
stomach because " it passes to every place to which the species
of bread and wine go, under which is contained the whole Christ
in actual reality " ; and that it does not pass into the mind by
way of a substantial entrance, but that it does pass into the
mind by producing sacramental grace in the mind.4 Evil com
municants receive the real body of Christ, and thus the body of
Christ, which itself is good, has evil effects in those who receive
it unworthily.5 The change at consecration is of the whole sub
stance of the bread and wine into the whole substance of the
body and blood of Christ.6 This Transubstantiation is neither
natural nor miraculous but is marvellous.7 It does not resemble
any movement or change of a natural kind.8 The substance of
the bread and wine is not destroyed when it is thus converted,
but neither does it remain so as to co-exist together with the
body of Christ.9 Christ is whole in each part of each species as
the spiritual food of the soul, since His body cannot be without
1 IV. viii. 1. 2IV. ix. 1. 3IV. ix. 2.
4 IV. ix. 5. 6 IV. ix. 7, 12. 6 IV. xi. 1, 2.
7 IV- xi. 4. 8IV. xi. 5. 9IV. xi. 7.'

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 321
His blood, and His blood is contained in His body ; but this is
not by the force of the Sacrament but because of the union be
tween body and blood.1 At the institution of the Sacrament
Christ gave His body to His disciples in its impassible and im
mortal state by an anticipation of the prerogatives of the risen
body.2 On the question whether, if the body of Christ had been
reserved or consecrated during the three days between His death
and His resurrection, it would have been His dead body, the
answer is given that this could have happened as an abstract
possibility but that it would have been unfitting.3 In the con
secrated Sacrament the accidents remain without a subject.4
They all retain their real existence ; and, when the consecrated
species of bread is broken, there is a real fraction in them,
though the body of Christ is not broken.5 Like Alexander of
Hales, Albert the Great explains the language of Berengar's
declaration at the Council of Rome of 1059, as accepted by the
Church, to have been an assertion of the presence of the body of
Christ on the altar, not that the body itself is broken.6 There
are different ways of the presence of Christ. In His divine
nature He is present, like the Father and the Holy Ghost, in
all things by way of essence and power ; like the Father and the
Holy Ghost, in the saints by grace ; and differently from the
Father and the Holy Ghost, in the human nature which He
united to His divine Person. In His human nature He has a
local and circumscribed presence, such as that in the Virgin's
womb or on the cross ; and He has also that presence whereby
" He Himself, full of grace, in His deity and in His humanity, is
the reality of the Sacrament and the spiritual food of the Church
after a supernatural manner, and after such a manner He is in the
Sacrament," in regard to which presence considerations of place
have no force.7 Thus, as regards that way of presence which is
circumscribed by place, Christ is now in one place only, that is,
in heaven ; but in an accidental way He is in a place in the
1 IV. xii. 4, xiii. 11 ; In Ev. Matt, on xxvi. 26 ; In Ev. Joan, on vi.
63. 2 IV. xii. 13 ; In Ev. Joan, on vi. 63. 3 IV. xii. 14.
4 IV. xii, 16 ; De sacram. Euch. III. iii. 1 (8).
5 IV. xiii. 1, 2, 4, 6 ; In Ev. Matt, on xxvi. 26 ; In Ev. Marc, on xiv.
22; In Ev. Luc. on xxii. 19.
6 IV. xiii. 10. 'IV. xiii. 7.
vol. i. 21

322 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Church and on the altar, because the sacramental species in
which He is have a local presence there.1 Wicked priests can
validly consecrate;2 and so can an excommunicated priest, and
Peter Lombard in denying this would be right only if he meant
to refer to an excommunicated priest who did not retain what
is essential in the Church's method of celebrating.3 As to the
question whether an animal can receive the body of Christ, an
animal is not capable of union with Christ; nevertheless "so
long as the species are discernible, the body of Christ is there ".4
On the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice the teaching of
Albert the Great is much less systematised and complete. The
prayers and ceremonies of the rite are commemorative of the
passion ; 5 there is a union of earthly and heavenly worship ; 6
the Sacrament is a memorial ; 7 the fraction signifies the passion ; 8
the connection of the blood is with the soul ; 9 the Sacrament has
its "special effect" "through the oblation which Christ made on
the cross," " which every priest continually makes by way of
commemoration when he celebrates Mass ".10
" Christ is most really offered every day, when the sacrifice is
presented to God the Father ; for offering means an act of oblation
so far as the thing which is the oblation is concerned, and sacrifice
means the same act so far as the effect is concerned. Wherefore;
since, so far as the thing which is the oblation is concerned, the
oblation always abides offered and to be offered for us, we always
offer and always sacrifice. But it is not so about the crucifixion ;
for this means not the act of the thing offered but rather the unjust
act of the Jews or the passion, so far as it was brought about by
them. So it could never be repeated." u
A passage in the Sermons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the
Eucharist, attributed to Albert the Great but probably not by
him, which has also been ascribed to St. Thomas Aquinas, will
be quoted later in connection with the teaching of St. Thomas.12
St. Thomas Aquinas was born at Roccasecca in the kingdom
of Naples in 1226. As a boy he was taught at the Abbey of
1 IV. xiii. 12. ' IV. xiii. 29. 3 IV. xiii. 30.
4 IV. xiii. 38. s De sacrif. miss. III. xv. 1, and passim.
6 Sent. IV. xi. 9 ; In Ev. Luc. on xxii. 19 ; De sacrif. miss. III. xv. 1.
7 Sent. IV. xii. 2. 8 Ibid. xiii. 15.
"Ibid. xii. 3. 10 In Ev. Joan, on vi. 63.
11 Sent. IV. xiii. 23 ; cf. De sacram. Euch. V. iv. 12 See p. 328, infra.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 323
Monte Cassino, and afterwards studied at the University of
Naples. In 124>3 he became a member of the Dominican Order.
He was a pupil of Albert the Great. He was a teacher at Paris,
Cologne, Rome, Bologna, and Naples. He died in 1274. Like
his master Albert the Great he applied the Aristotelian philo
sophy as a whole to theology on a large scale ; and one chief
aim of his work was the reconciliation of theological and spirit
ual truth with philosophic thought, of the demands of reason as
understood in his time with the inherited beliefs of the Church.
His treatment of the Holy Eucharist is harmonious with the
rest of his theology. Ends evidently in view are the preserva
tion of the traditional doctrine that the consecrated species are
the body and blood of Christ, the avoidance of carnal con
ceptions of that body and blood as thus present, the gaining of
support against unbelief from the Aristotelian philosophy, and
the statement of the doctrine accepted so as to be in accordance
with what were believed to be the true lines of philosophic
thought. The Sum of Theology, the last work of his life, may
be taken as affording, in conjunction with his book on the
Sentences, the best representation of his teaching. The treat
ment of the Eucharistic sacrifice is less voluminous than that of
the Eucharistic presence and gift ; but it contains suggestions
which had a very important influence on the later history of the
doctrine in the West.
In regard to sacrifice in general and to the sacrifice in the
passion of Christ, the teaching of St. Thomas contains the
following points. " It is a result of the natural reason for man
to use certain objects discernible to sense, offering them to God
as a sign of due submission and honour," so that " the offering
of sacrifice belongs to natural law ".1 The offering of sacrifice
includes both " the sacrifice which is offered outwardly " and
"the inner spiritual sacrifice whereby the soul offers itself to
God " ; and " as we ought to offer to the Most High God alone
the spiritual sacrifice, so also to Him alone we ought to offer the
outward sacrifices".2 The "inner sacrifice" is the "first and
chief sacrifice " ; and the offering of it is an obligation to which
" all are bound ". As regards external sacrifices, the Jews were
bound to those of their religion, and others are bound to those
1 S.T. II.' lxxxv.l. 'Ibid. 2.
21 *

324 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
acts which their obligation requires. "Priests offer the sacri
fices which are specially ordained for divine worship not only for
themselves but also for others " ; and " there are certain other
sacrifices which any one can offer to God for himself".1 In
replying to an objection to the statement that a sacrifice is an
act of a specific kind, St. Thomas says : — •
"Sacrifices are properly so called when something is done in
regard to things offered to God, as that animals were slain and
burned, or that bread is broken and eaten and blessed. And this
the name itself signifies ; for a sacrifice is so called because man
makes something sacred. But an offering is directly so called when
something is offered to God, even if nothing is done in regard to it ;
as money or bread is said to be offered on the altar, in regard to
which nothing is done. Wherefore every sacrifice is an offering,
but not every offering a sacrifice. Now first fruits are offerings, be
cause they were offered to God, as we read in Deuteronomy xxvi. ;
but they are not sacrifices, because nothing sacred was done in regard
to them." 2
Carrying further the idea of a sacrifice as an offering to God in
which "something is done," St. Thomas says that the name
sacrifice is properly applied to " something done that is properly
due to God for His honour to appease Him " ; and that, since
our Lord's voluntary bearing of the passion was " in the highest
degree acceptable to God as the outcome of the greatest love,"
" it is clear that the passion of Christ was a real sacrifice ".3 As
mediator between God and man, and as offering the prayers of
the people to God, and as making satisfaction for sins, Christ is
a Priest ; 4 " insofar as He was Man, He was not only Priest but
also a perfect sacrifice " ; 5 His priesthood has " complete power
of making expiation for sins";6 "the consummation of the
sacrifice, which consists in those for whom the sacrifice is offered
obtaining the end of the sacrifice," " was pre-figured in the en
trance of the Jewish high priest into the holy of holies once in
the year with the blood of a goat and a bullock " ; " and in like
manner Christ entered into the holy of holies, that is, heaven
itself, and prepared for us a way of entrance through the power
of His blood, which He shed for us on earth " ; 7 the Jewish
i S.T. II.2 lxxxv. 4. ' Ibid. 3. 3 5. T. III. xlviii. 3.
'Ibid. xxii. 1. 6Ibid. 2. eIbid. 3.
7 Ibid. 5.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 325
high priest, though thus a type of Christ, was an inadequate
aud incomplete type, since Christ as Priest actually cleanses
away sins, and has an eternal priesthood after the order of
Melchizedek.1 The teaching of St. Thomas on the Eucharistic sacrifice must
be considered in the light of the ideas of sacrifice in general and
of the sacrifice and priesthood of Christ which have been men
tioned. " In the new law " of the Christian religion " the real
sacrifice of Christ is communicated to the faithful under the
species of bread and wine," fulfilling the type of the offering of
bread and wine in the priestly work of Melchizedek.2 As a
sacrifice the Eucharist " has the power of satisfaction ".3 " By
way of sacrifice it benefits others than those who receive it, inas
much as it is offered for their salvation." 4 " In the work of
satisfaction the mind of the offerer is of more moment than the
amount of the offering " ; and " therefore, although this offering
from its amount is sufficient to make satisfaction for all penalty,
yet it effects satisfaction for those for whom it is offered and also
for those who offer it according to the amount of their devotion
and not for all penalty".5 It is the "representation of the
passion of the Lord," the " memorial of the passion of the Lord,"
the " commemoration of the passion of the Lord, which was a real
sacrifice," the " sacrifice of the new law instituted by Christ so as
to contain Christ Himself who suffered not only in signification
or figure but also in actual reality".6 "It is called a sacrifice
insofar as it represents the passion itself of Christ ; and it is called
a victim insofar as it contains Christ Himself who is the saving
Victim." 7 The separate taking of " the bread as the Sacrament
of the body and the wine as the Sacrament of the blood," forms
part of the " memorial " of " the passion of Christ, in which the
blood was separated from the body ".8 The prayers and cere
monies of the rite combine to form a mystical presentation of the
passion and the resurrection of Christ.9 The consecrating words
1 S.T. III. xxii. 6. 2 Ibid.
3 Ibid, ixxix. 5 ; cf. Sent. IV. xii. 2 (3), xiii. 1 (3, 2).
'Ibid, lxxix. 7. B Ibid. 5.
6 Ibid. Ixxiii. 4, 5, lxxiv. 1, lxxv. 1, lxxix. 1, lxxxiii. 2, 3.
7 Ibid. Ixxiii. 4.
8 Ibid, lxxiv. 1; cf. lxxvi. 2, ad 1, lxxviii. 3, ad 2, ad 7, lxxx. 12,
ad 3. 9 Ibid, lxxxiii. 5 ; cf. Sent. IV. viii. 2.

326 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
are said by the priest, " in the person of Christ Himself," and " the
priest offers and takes the blood in the person of all," and " in
the prayers speaks in the person of the Church," so that in offer
ing the sacrifice he is the representative both of Christ and of the
Church, and the sacrifice is completed when he has received the
Sacrament in both kinds.1 Each of the three following passages
is of some special importance.
" In a twofold way the celebration of this Sacrament is called the
offering of Christ. First, it is so called because, as Augustine says to
Simplicianus, 'symbols are usually called by the names of those
things of which they are symbols, as when looking on a picture or
wall painting we say, This is Cicero, This is Sallust '.2 Now the
celebration of this Sacrament, as has been said before, is a kind of re
presentative symbol of the passion of Christ, which is the real offer
ing of Him. And therefore the celebration of this Sacrament is
called the offering of Christ. Because of this Ambrose says, ' In
Christ the offering was once made, powerful for eternal salvation.
What, then, of us ? Do not we offer sacrifice every day? Yes, but
for the commemoration of His death.' 3 In another way the celebra
tion of this Sacrament is called the offering of Christ so far as con
cerns the effect of the passion of Christ, because by means of this
Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the passion of the
Lord. Wherefore in a certain Secret Prayer for Sunday it is said,
' As often as the commemoration of this sacrifice is made, the work
of our redemption is carried on '. So far as concerns the first method
then, it could have been said that Christ was offered even in the
figures of the Old Testament. Whence also it is said, ' Whose names
have not been written in the book of life of the Lamb, who has been
slain from the foundation of the world '.4 But so far as concerns
the second method, it is peculiar to this Sacrament that in the cele
bration of it Christ is offered." 5
" The Eucharist is not only a Sacrament but also a sacrifice. In
sofar as it is a Sacrament, it has effect in every one who is alive [that is,
spiritually], in whom it needs that life [that is, spiritual life] already
exists. But insofar as it is a sacrifice, it has effect also in others for
1S.T. III. lxxviii. 1, lxxx. 12, ad 3, lxxxii. 1, 3, 4,7, ad 3, lxxxiii. 1»
ad 3. 2 St. Augustine, De divers, quaest. ad Simplicianum, ii. 3 (2).
3 From the commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews formerly
ascribed to St. Ambrose, on x. 1.
4 Rev. xiii. 8. 5 S. T. III. lxxxiii. 1.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 327
whom it is offered, in whom it does not need that spiritual life should
already exist in fact but only in possibility ; and therefore, if it finds
them disposed, it obtains grace for them by the power of that real
sacrifice, from which all grace has flowed into us, and in consequence
it blots out mortal sins in them, not as an immediate cause, but insofar
as it obtains for them the grace of contrition. And as for the argu
ment to the contrary that it is not offered except for the members of
Christ, we must understand that it is offered for the members of
Christ when it is offered for any that they may be members. . . .
Insofar as it is a sacrifice, it possesses a method of satisfaction ; and
according to this it takes away penalty in part or in whole, as also
do other satisfactions, according to the measure of penalty due for sin
and of the devotion with which the Sacrament is offered. Yet the
whole penalty is not always taken away by the power of this Sacra
ment." J
In explanation of the words in the canon of the Mass, " Com
mand these to be borne by the hands of Thy holy angel to Thy
altar on high," he writes : —
"The priest does not seek either that the sacramental species
be taken to heaven or that the real body of Christ, which does not
cease to be there, should be taken thither ; but he seeks this for
the mystical body, which is signified in this Sacrament, that is, that
the angel who stands by in the divine mysteries may present to
God the prayers of priest and people, according to the words, ' The
smoke of the incense from the offerings of the saints went up out
of the angel's hand '.2 Now by the altar of God on high is meant
either the Church triumphant itself, to which we seek to be trans
ferred, or God Himself, to partake of whom we seek. ... Or by
the angel is meant Christ Himself, who is the Angel of great counsel,
who joins His mystical body to God the Father and to the Church
triumphant." 3
In considering this teaching of St. Thomas on the Eucharistic
sacrifice, it may be noticed that the connection with the heavenly
worship and the heavenly offering of Christ, though referred to,
is little emphasised ; that the commemoration of the passion is
prominent ; that the two separate species are mentioned in con
nection with the separation of our Lord's body and blood in the
passion; that the idea of a sacrifice as an offering in which
1 Sent. IV. xii. 2 (2, 2, ad 4), (3). 2Rev. viii. 4.
3 S.T. III. lxxxiii. 4, ad 9.

328 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
" something is done " " to appease " God is strongly expressed ;
that the priest offers the sacrifice " in the person of all " as well
as consecrates " in the person of Christ " ; that as a satisfaction
it takes away penalty which is due for sin ; and that the sacrifice
may be offered with good results to those who at the time are
not in grace. All these points are important in their bearing
on the later history of the doctrine of the sacrifice.
A passage from the treatise Of the Venerable Sacrament of
the Altar, which has been printed with the works of St. Thomas,
which is a later form of the Sermons on the Eucharist attributed
to Albert the Great,1 though probably neither by Albert nor
by Thomas, may be quoted here for the sake of convenience,
since it will be necessary to refer to it subsequently. It is as
follows : —
" The second reason for the institution of this Sacrament is the
sacrifice of the altar, against a certain daily ravage of our sins ; that,
as the body of the Lord was once for all offered on the cross for
original sin, so it should be offered continually on the altar for our
daily sins, and that in this the Church should have the precious and
acceptable office of appeasing God beyond all sacrifices of the law." 2
On the subject of the Eucharistic presence and gift St.
Thomas writes with elaborate fulness and characteristic clearness.
The Eucharist is " spiritual nourishment " ; 3 in it are " spiritual
food and spiritual drink";4 the reception of it is "the end of
all the Sacraments " ; 5 " through it we have communion with
Christ, and partake of His flesh and Godhead, and through it
we have communion with and are united to one another " ; it
" really contains Christ ".6 " In this Sacrament are the real
body and blood of Christ " ; but they " cannot be discerned by
the senses or the understanding but only by faith, which rests
on the authority of God ". Though Christ " promises to us
His bodily presence as a reward," "yet neither has He deprived
us of His bodily presence in our pilgrimage on earth, but by
means of the reality of His body and blood joins us to Himself
in this Sacrament ". To say that " the body and blood of Christ
are in this Sacrament only by way of sign," is to maintain what
1 See p. 322, supra. ' Opusc. xxi. (al. lviii.) 1.
3S.T. III. Ixxiii. 1. 'Ibid. 2.
5 Ibid. 3. 6 Ibid. 4.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 329
is "heretical, as being contrary to the words of Christ".1 The
consecration is effected by the recital of the words " This is My
body," " This is My blood " by the priest " speaking in the
person of Christ " ; the substances of the bread and wine are
then converted into the substance of the body and blood of
Christ ; the consecrated Sacrament, as being the body of Christ,
is to be adored ; the opinion that " after the consecration the
substance of bread and wine remains in the Sacrament " " cannot
be maintained," and "is to be rejected as heretical" ;2 the sub
stances of bread and wine are not " annihilated " and are not
resolved into some more elementary material condition, but are
converted into the substance of the body and blood of Christ,
so that " by the power of God the whole substance of the bread
is converted into the whole substance of the body of Christ, and
the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of the
blood of Christ " by a conversion which is " not formal but sub
stantial," which " by a distinctive name can be called Transub
stantiation ".3 In this change " all the accidents of bread and
wine remain," and " are there in actual reality," and " are dis
cerned by the senses," while the substance is the object of the
mind ; 4 but " the substantial form of the bread does not remain ".5
" The Catholic faith requires the acknowledgment that the whole
Christ is in this Sacrament" ;6 He is " whole under each species
of the Sacrament," so that " under the species of bread is the
body of Christ from the power of the Sacrament, and His blood,"
as also " His soul and Godhead," " from real concomitance," and
" under the species of wine is the blood of Christ from the power
of the Sacrament, and the body," as also His " soul and God
head," "from real concomitance"; this concomitance is the
result of the present inseparable nature of the body and blood
of Christ, and if the Sacrament could have been celebrated at
the time of the death of Christ, " under the species of bread
would have been the body of Christ without His blood, and
under the species of wine would have been His blood without
His body".7 By this concomitance "Christ is whole under
each part of the species," and the bulk and all the accidents of
1 5. T. III. lxxv. 1. ' Ibid. 2 ; lxxviii. 1-6.
3 Ibid. lxxv. 3, 4. 'Ibid. 5. ; cf. I. lxxviii. 3.
6 Ibid. lxxv. 6. «Ibid. lxxvi. 1.
7 Ibid. 2.

330 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
His body are in the Sacrament.1 When in the Sacrament there
is a miraculous appearance of flesh or blood or of Christ Him
self, this is not due to the reality of Christ being seen, but
either to an effect in the eyes of those who see the appearance
or to a miraculous change in such accidents as shape and colour.2
The accidents which remain in the Sacrament after consecration
are " without a subject " ; 3 the accident of " dimensi ve quantity "
is as a subject to the other accidents ;4 the sacramental species
" can perform, when the substance of bread and wine is turned
into the body and blood of Christ, every action which they could
perform while the substance of bread and wine existed " ; 5 they
can become corrupted, and possess the power of imparting phy
sical nourishment, because " at the consecration " " the property
of matter " " is miraculously attached to the dimensive quantity
of the bread and wine".6 The sacramental species can be
broken ; and, when the fraction of the consecrated Sacrament
is made, it is of them, not of the body of Christ, for " the real
body of Christ cannot be broken, first because it is incorruptible
and impassible, and secondly because it is whole under every
part " of the Sacrament. 7 On the problems, which had often
proved puzzling, how the sacramental species, which are the
body of Christ, can be corrupted and can nourish and can be
broken, although the body of Christ is incorruptible and spiritual
and impassible, St. Thomas thus reached a solution which he
deemed satisfactory ; on connected problems he taught that, if
a beast should eat the consecrated Sacrament, "it would eat
the body of Christ by way of accident and not sacramentally,
as one might eat it who should take a consecrated host not
knowing that it was consecrated " ; 8 and that wicked and here
tical and schismatical and excommunicated and degraded priests
can validly consecrate.9 On the question whether it was the
glorified or the mortal body of Christ which He gave to His
disciples at the institution of the Sacrament, St. Thomas decided
that at that time " there was under the species of the Sacrament
in an impassible way that which in itself was passible, as there
*S.T. III. lxxvi. 3. 'Ibid. 8.
3 Ibid, lxxvii. 1. 'Ibid. 2.
* Ibid. 3. 6 Ibid. 4, 5, 6. 7 Ibid. 7.
sIbid. lxxx. 3. "Ibid, lxxxii. 5, 6, 7, 8.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 331
was in an invisible way that which in itself was visible".1 On
the subject of beneficial reception, he, like earlier writers, says
that all communicants alike receive sacramentally the body of
Christ, but distinguishes between the reception which profits
and that which is to judgment, and between reception which
is merely sacramental and that which is both sacramental and
spiritual, and refers to the possibility of Spiritual Communion
when the Sacrament is not actually received by one who desires
to receive it.2 Following the main lines of earlier writers, St.
Thomas writes in many places fully and explicitly on the nature
of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. The body of Christ
is in the Sacrament " spiritually " and "invisibly" "by the
power of the Holy Ghost " ; it is not in the Sacrament " as a
body in a place " but " in a certain special way, which is peculiar
to this Sacrament ".3 The presence is not effected by a " local
movement".4 The change in consecration is not like any
" natural change " but is " wholly supernatural ".5 " The body
of Christ is in this Sacrament by way of substance and not by
way of quantity," 6 or by way of " dimensions," 7 or so as to be
"limited" or "circumscribed".8 "So far as concerns place,
Christ in Himself according to His own being is not moved " in
the Sacrament, "but only by way of accident, because He is
not in this Sacrament as in a place," and " that which is not
in a place is not moved in itself in place but only in relation to
the movement of that wherein it is".9 "The body of Christ
is not locally in the Sacrament of the altar." 10
" It does not pertain to the body of Christ, insofar as it is a body,
nor insofar as it is united to deity, to be in many places ; but it has
this by reason of consecration and of Transubstantiation, insofar as
different pieces of bread, which are transubstantiated into it, are in
different places. And because the substance of the bread passes
into the body of Christ, the accidents remaining, therefore the quan
tity of each piece of bread remains, and in consequence the place of
each piece of bread." n
1 S.T. III. lxxxi. 3. 'Ibid. lxxx. 1, 3, 4, 5, 11.
3 Ibid. lxxv. 1. "Ibid. 2. ''Ibid. 4.
sIbid. lxxvi. 1. Ubid. lxxvi. 3.
*Ibid. 5. "Ibid. 6.
''¦"Sent. IV. xliv. 2 (2, 5, ad 1) ; Quaest. Quodlib. I. xxii. ad 1.
11 Sent. I. xxxvii. 3 (2, ad 1).

332 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
" No body is in relation to a place except through the mediation
of the dimensions of quantity ; and therefore any body is in a place
where its dimensions are commensurate to the dimensions of place ;
and in this way the body of Christ is in one place only, that is, in
heaven." 2
" The body of Christ according to its own dimensions is in one
place only, but, by the mediation of the dimensions of the bread
which is changed into it, it is in as many places as those in which
this conversion is effected, not indeed by way of division into parts
but whole in each case, for every piece of bread that is consecrated
is converted into the unbroken body of Christ." 2
" All pairs of places are distinguished in relation to one another
according to some contrariety of place, those which are above and
below, those which are before and behind, those which are to the
right and to the left. But God cannot make two contraries to be
at the same time, for this involves contradiction. Therefore God
cannot make the same body to be locally in two places at the same
time. . . . For any body to be in any place is nothing else than for
the body to be circumscribed and included in the place according to
the commensuration of its own dimensions. But that which is in
cluded in any place is in that place in such a way that none of it
is outside that place : wherefore to maintain that it is locally in one
place and yet that it is in another place is to maintain that contra
dictories are at the same time. Therefore it follows from what has
been said that this cannot be done by God." 3
" Two bodies cannot be at the same time in the same place. . . .
It is not possible according to nature for two bodies to be at the same
time in the same place, whatever kind of bodies they are." 4
A further instance of like teaching may be cited from the
treatise On the Sacrament of the Eucharist ascribed to St. Thomas,
since, though probably by some other and much inferior writer,
it represents to a large extent his lines of thought on this subject
as shown in the foregoing quotations and elsewhere.
" The body of Christ is really in heaven and is really on earth
on every altar and at every place where there is wheaten bread con
secrated by a priest with the required form. In this then is the
chief miracle, that a body identically one and the same is in different
places. . . . We see that one and the same thing can be in different
i Sent. IV. x. 1 (1, ad 5). 2 C. Gent. IV. Ixiv.
3Quaest. Quodlib. III. ii. 'S.T. I. lxvii. 2.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 333
places in different respects and different ways, as our Lord speaks in
the Gospel when He says, 'Where your treasure is, there is your
heart,' 1 ... as the Apostle spoke, saying, ' Our citizenship is in
heaven '? . . . In such a sense it is easy to understand a statement
that the body of Christ is in heaven according to its natural existence,
and is on earth according to its sacramental existence. But that a
body identically the same should be in different places in one and
the same existence, this seems altogether impossible by the common
law of nature. And yet we believe that the body of Christ according
to its sacramental existence is in more places than one and in different
places, that is, wherever bread is duly consecrated. And this seems
to be altogether contrary to the reason of a real body. But still it
can be said that the reason why one body cannot be in different
places is that a body which is naturally in any place is limited and
circumscribed by that place, and is commensurate to it, so that the
whole body is superficially in the whole place, and the parts of the
body are commensurate to the parts of the place, so that separate
parts of that which is in the place are allotted to the separate parts
of the place. And thus the body of Christ is in the pyx or in the
host, yet it is not there locally in the way which has just been de
scribed, that is, according to the condition and measure of that which
is in a place and the place. For the body of Christ, though it is in
a place, yet is not there under its own dimensions or under its own
quantity, but under the quantity and the dimensions under which
the bread was. . . . Christ is whole not only in each host but also
in each cognisable part of any host, which certainly could not be if
He were localised there ; and none the less the whole body of Christ,
which was offered on the cross, is there most really and substantially,
as the whole soul is most really in the whole body and in any part
of it. . . . The body of Christ always remains in heaven, and yet is
really on the altar and in the mouth of every one who receives. . . .
Though the body of Christ itself, so far as it is of itself, is in one place
only according to its corporal nature, nevertheless, because the bread
which is converted is in more places than one, therefore it necessarily
follows that the body itself is in more places than one, and this not
through any change in itself but through the conversion of what is
different into it. . . . The real glorious body of Christ, identically
the same, which was born of the Virgin, and suffered on the cross,
and rose from the dead on the third day, and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, is really
and essentially in this Sacrament." 3
1St. Matt. vi. 22. 2Phil. iii. 20. 3 Opusc. xx. (al. lix.) 8, 11.

334 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Different minds will estimate differently the soundness of the
arguments and conclusions of St. Thomas in accordance with dif
ferences of natural temperament and experience and philosophic
opinions ; it might well be agreed by all scholars that with the
methods of his age and with the light that was possible to him
he strove earnestly to preserve belief in the spiritual character of
the Eucharistic presence of the body of Christ. The significance
of this fact will be seen when it is remembered that his was the
most powerful theological influence in the West in the Middle
Ages.1 III.
It is of interest to turn from the great Dominicans Albert the
Great and St. Thomas Aquinas to the Franciscan doctors who
inherited the traditions of Alexander of Hales. In the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries there were marked differences in the
general temperament and outlook of Franciscans and Dominicans.
In mental severity, in pure intellect, in calm and controlled reason
ing faculties, in caution, the advantages for the most part lay
with the Dominicans. The Franciscans were superior in origin
ality, in freedom of thought, in intellectual sympathy. It would be
a misrepresentation of a very grave kind to say that the Domini
cans were not zealous or devout, or that the Franciscans were not
disciplined ; but it is true that restraint is a chief characteristic
of the Dominican writers, and enthusiasm of the Franciscan.
Among the Franciscans St. Bonaventura in the thirteenth century
and Duns Scotus at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of
the fourteenth to some extent fill the places which are filled among
the Dominicans by Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas.
St. Bonaventura was born at Bagnorea in 1221. He became
a member of the Franciscan Order in 1243 and General of that
Order in 1257. In 1265 he declined the Archbishopric of York,
offered to him by Pope Clement IV. In 1273 Pope Gregory X.
made him Cardinal-bishop of Albano. He died at the Council
of Lyons in 1274. He is known as the Seraphic Doctor. The
doctrine which he held on the subject of the Eucharist may be
seen in his treatise on the Sentences, and his book On Prepara
tion for Mass. With these may be considered some passages in
1 For the devotional attitude of St. Thomas as shown in his Eucharistic
hymns, see pp. 346-52, infra.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 335
On the Instruction of the Priest in Preparing Himself for Cele
brating Mass, and The Exposition of the Mass, works of doubt
ful authorship, which have been ascribed to St. Bonaventura by
some writers.1 Considering the differences between the Domini
can and Franciscan schools of theology, the agreement of the
teaching of St. Bonaventura with that of St. Thomas Aquinas
about the Eucharist is remarkable. On the questions, which
furnished constant perplexity during the Middle Ages, whether
the body of Christ could be eaten by a beast in the case of some
accident to the consecrated elements and whether the accidents
nourish the body, his decisions differ from those of St. Thomas.
While it is true, he says, that the body of Christ " is inseparably
united to the species so long as they can be considered a Sacra
ment and can be used by man," in the event of the species being
eaten by a beast they cannot be applied to human use, and " thus
the Sacrament ceases to be, and the body of Christ ceases to be
there, and the substance of the bread returns " ; and he describes
this opinion as " the more usual and certainly the more honour
able and the more reasonable ".2 As to physical nourishment by
reception of the Sacrament he thinks it the more probable
opinion that the substances of the bread and wine return for
that purpose.3 On other matters which relate to the presence
and gift, his decisions so closely resemble those of St. Thomas
that it is unnecessary to go through them in any detail ; and it
may be sufficient to quote as instances of his lines of thought and
method of treatment passages on the effects of Communion and fre
quency of Communion, a short positive statement of his belief as to
the presence of Christ, a prayer for use at the time of Communion,
and a statement about the life of our Lord in the Sacrament.
Of the effects of Communion St. Bonaventura writes : —
"This Sacrament has not its efficacy in any one who does not ap
proach it worthily. And to approach worthily consists in a man
preparing himself as he ought.4 . . . Since this is the Sacrament
of union, its first effect is ... to unite more closely those who
are already united. ... It is said to unite more closely, because it
makes him who approaches worthily more fervent, as a glowing
1 On the improbability of these two treatises being by St. Bonaventura,
see the edition of his works published at Quaracchi, 1882-1902, vol. x.
p. 22. 2 Sent. IV. xiii. 2 (2, 1). 3 Ibid. xii. 1 (2, 2). " Ibid. 2 (1, 1).

336 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
coal, and also stronger, as good food. And, since it makes love
more glowing, it aids in removing the ill effects of venial sin. Since
it strengthens, it affords help for avoiding all wicked deeds. And,
for both reasons, it helps in the increase of virtues and of love most
of all."1 On frequency of Communion, he says : —
"If any one were always prepared, it would always be useful for
him to receive this Sacrament, since in that case he would have a
clean habitation for it, and would eat this food spiritually with
honour and devotion. Because in the time of the primitive Church
Christians were clean by their baptismal innocence and glowing with
love through the gifts of the Spirit, it was right that they should
communicate daily. When in many love grew cold and the bap
tismal purity was lost through sin, it was left to the decision and
conscience of each one that he should receive when he saw himself
to be rightly disposed, lest otherwise he should eat to his own con
demnation. And, because men began to become negligent, it was
needful that frequency should again be established by the supreme
Pontiff. But, because many communicated frequently without pre
paring themselves well, Fabian established the custom that men
should communicate on the three yearly festivals on which they are
better prepared, and which they more eagerly look for, namely,
Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost.2 And because as time went on
men still prepared themselves carelessly at these three times, this
was at last reduced to the Easter Communion, which is preceded by
the time of preparation, namely, Lent. If, therefore, inquiry is
made whether any one ought to communicate frequently, it should
be said that, if he see himself to be in the condition of the primi
tive Church, it is praiseworthy that he communicate daily ; if in
the condition of the Church as it came to be, that is, cold and
sluggish, that he communicate rarely ; if he is in a middle state, he
ought to act in a middle way, and sometimes to abstain so as to
learn reverence and sometimes to approach so as to be inflamed
with love, because honour and love are due to such a guest ; and
then he ought to incline in that direction in which he sees that he
makes the better progress, which a man learns only by experi
ence." 3
1 Sent. IV. xii. 2 (1, 3).
2 A decree to this effect is ascribed to Pope Fabian in the canon law :
see Decret. III. ii. 16.
3 Sent. IV. xii. 2 (2, 2). Substantially the same position is shortly ex
pressed by St. Thomas Aquinas in S.T. III. Ixxx. 10, where he says, " because

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 337
On the presence of Christ in the consecrated Sacrament, he
says : —
"When the words of Christ are uttered, the material and visible
bread, giving honour to the coming of the life-giving and heavenly
Bread as its true Creator, leaves its own place, that is, the visible
species of the accidents, to perform the office of sacramental service ;
and as soon as it ceases to be there really exist under those acci
dents in a wonderful and ineffable way : — First, that most pure flesh
and sacred body of Christ which, by the operation of the Holy Ghost,
was the offspring of the womb of the glorious Virgin Mary, was
hung on the cross, was laid in the tomb, was glorified in heaven.
Secondly, since flesh does not live without blood, that precious
blood which with happy result flowed on the cross for the salvation
of the world is necessarily there. Thirdly, since there cannot be
true man without rational soul, the glorious soul of Christ, exceeding
in grace all virtue and glory and power, in which are stored all the
treasures of wisdom and of the knowledge of God, is there.
Fourthly, because Christ is true God and true Man, it follows that
God is there, glorious in His majesty. All these four at the same
time, and each wholly at the same time, are perfectly contained
under the species of bread and wine, not less in the cup than in the
host, and not less in the host than in the cup." 1
A prayer for silent utterance in the heart at the moment of
Communion is as follows : —
" My Lord, who art Thou, and who am I, that I should presume
to place Thee in the foul sewer of my body and my soul ? What
hast Thou done to me that I should inflict this dreadful injury on
Thee ? A thousand years of tears would not suffice for once worthily
receiving so noble a. Sacrament. How much more am I unworthy,
wretched man, who daily sin, and continue without amendment,
and approach in sin. But Thy mercy is infinitely greater than my
misery. Therefore, trusting in Thy goodness, I presume to receive
Thee."2 On the life in the Sacrament he says : —
in most men many hindrances to this devotion often occur through want
of the right disposition of body or soul, it is not useful for all men to ap
proach this Sacrament daily, but as often as a man finds himself prepared
for it ".
1 De prep, ad miss. 1.
2 Ibid. 13 ; cf. De instruct, sacerd. ad se prep, ad celebr. miss.
vol. I. 22

338 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
" The body of Christ is living ; and, if living, organic ; and, if
organic, of quantity ; therefore, if on the altar it be not withdrawn
from life, neither is it from bulk. . . . The body of Christ or Christ
there sees and hears, though He does not speak so as not to be out
wardly discerned. . . . The external senses presuppose bulk : there
fore He is there in bulk. . . . The body is in the host with its
completeness and has its size in such a way that it is not there after
the manner of size." 1
On the elevation of the consecrated Sacrament immediately
after consecration there is the following passage in the treatise
The Exposition of the Mass : —
" It must now be considered why the priest in the Mass lifts on
high the body of the Lord and shows it to the people who are
present. The body of our Lord Jesus Christ is lifted up by the
priest in the Mass for many reasons. Of these reasons, the first and
chief is to obtain the grace of God the Father, which we have lost
by our sins. . . . The priest then at the altar lifts up the body of
Christ, as if to say : O heavenly Father, we have sinned, and we
have provoked Thee to anger. But now look on the face of Christ
Thy Son, whom we present to Thee, and we call Thee from anger
to pity. . . . The second reason why it is elevated is to obtain
every good thing of which we are in need in the present life and in
that which is to come. . . . The priest lifts up the body of Christ
as if to say to those who are present, If ye wish to obtain what ye
desire, have peace among yourselves, and love one another with
mutual affection, because Christ by His death reconciled us to God
and the angels, and through love He prepared for us eternal joys.
Thirdly, the body of Christ is elevated to claim our right, which
we have in heaven now in hope, and are to have at length in fact.
Our right which we have in heaven is eternal life. . . . The priest
at the altar lifts up the body of Christ as if to say, O ye angelical
spirits, who are here present, be ye witnesses that eternal life is
our right ; and to establish this we lift up Him who gives us the
right, Christ, who suffered for us. The fourth reason why the body
of Christ is elevated is to show the power of God. For great is the
power of God, because at the utterance of the words, This is My
body, the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ. This
is a change of the right hand of the Most High, and transcends all
perception. Therefore the priest lifts up the body of Christ as if
1 Sent. IV. x. 1, 2, 4. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, S.T. III. lxxvi. 3 ; see
pp. 329, 330, supra.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 339
to say, Before ye saw bread on the altar, but now after the con
secration ye see the real body of Christ. If therefore God has with
so great power been able to make such a change, He is able to
change us from guilt to grace, and afterwards to glory. The fifth
reason why the body is elevated is to declare the wisdom of God ;
for by a wonderful and ineffable wisdom Christ shows Himself to us
hidden. . . . Sixthly, the body of Christ is elevated at the altar to
show His bounty. For what bounty is greater than that man
should eat the bread of angels. Therefore the priest lifts up the
body of Christ at the altar as if to say, O faithful ones of Christ,
rejoice and behold ; for this is the heavenly food of the angels,
which the most bounteous King of heaven has granted to us, that
ye may be filled with all grace and blessing. . . . Seventhly, the
body of Christ is elevated to show the goodness of Christ. For
what greater goodness is there than that Christ deigns to be a
prisoner on the altar. . . . The priest lifts up the body of Christ at
the altar as if to say, Lo, He whom the whole world cannot contain
is our prisoner ; therefore we must not let Him go until we obtain
that for which we seek. Eighthly, the body of Christ is elevated
to gladden the holy Church by the standard of the army. . . . The
priest lifts up the body of Christ at the altar as if to say to the
elect, . . . Behold our standard which for our sakes was emblazoned
and portrayed on the cross. Behold, the Lord Jesus is in our midst.
Ninthly, it is elevated that we may imitate and follow Christ. . . .
The priest lifts up the body of Christ as if to say to sinners and
other Christians, Behold the Son of God, who for us was stretched
and raised on the gibbet of the cross ; follow Him, that ye may
suffer at least something for Him who suffered so much for us." 1
The explanation of the elevation before the commixture in
the same treatise is : —
" By the raising of the body of Christ above the cup and the
signing of the cup with it is to be understood that by Christ death
is conquered, life is restored, and glory is given." 2
On the subject of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the actions of the
priest are described in the treatise The Exposition of the Mass
as mystically representing the actions of Christ;3 and in this
treatise and in the writings of St. Bonaventura the prayers and
ceremonies of the ordinary and canon of the Mass are viewed as a
commemoration of the Incarnation and passion and resurrection
1 Expos, miss. 4. 'Ibid. 3 Ibid. 1.
22*

340 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
of Christ, of the mysteries of the divine life, and of the union of
the Church with Chiist ; 1 by means of the Eucharistic rite the
Church on earth is united to the worship in heaven and to the
heavenly life of Christ ; 2 the bread and the wine are said to be
significant of the body which suffered and the blood which was
shed in the passion ; 3 the fraction of the consecrated host is
described as a commemoration of the passion.4
John Duns Scotus may have been a native of Northumberland
or of Scotland or of Ireland. The date of his birth is uncertain.
He was a member of the Franciscan Order. At the beginning of
the sixteenth century he was teaching at Oxford. He was
afterwards a teacher at Paris and at Cologne, where he died in
1308. He is known as the Subtle Doctor. The parts of his
writings which treat of or bear on the doctrine of the Eucharist,
like those which deal with other subjects, are marked by great
complexity and subtlety, and a noticeable feature is the skill and
care with which he elaborates arguments in support of positions
which he does not himself adopt. As regards the Eucharist,
there is little disagreement on points of importance between him
and St. Thomas, although the minds of the two writers were
evidently remarkably different. His reluctance to describe any
notion as impossible may be illustrated by the facts that, though
he himself accepts the doctrine of Transubstantiation as being the
doctrine of the Church, he allows the abstract possibility of the
presence of the body of Christ together with the bread in the con
secrated Sacrament,5 and that, though he distinguishes between
the natural mode of the presence of Christ in heaven and the
sacramental mode of His presence in the Eucharist and describes
the Eucharistic presence as not quantitative or dimensive or
local, he maintains that it is possible in the abstract for the same
body to be at the same time present locally in two different
places,6 and for the body of Christ to be at the same time both
in heaven and in the Eucharist in a natural manner.7 His lines
of argument might often at first sight suggest that he looked on
the Eucharistic presence as being of a carnal character ; but
such an impression is not supported by an examination of his
1 Sent. IV. xii. 2 init. ; De prep, ad miss. 6 ; Expos, miss. 2, 4.
' Expos, miss. 4. 8 De prep, ad miss. 2.
' Sent. IV. xii. 1 (3, 3). 5 Ibid. x. 1.
6 Ibid. 2 ; Quaest. Quodl. x. 7 Ibid. 3.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 341
own position and definitions, as may be seen by his statements
that the body of Christ is present without any local movement
and not carnally or locally but spiritually and by a different mode
of existence than His natural existence in heaven.1 Some special
interest attaches to his opinions about the words of consecration,
the relation of the priest to the Church, and the relation of our
Lord to the act of sacrifice in the Mass.
On the words of consecration, after saying that the words of
the consecration of the body are " This is My body " with their
meaning shown by their position in the rest of the canon, and
alluding to a doubt about the difference of " This is the cup of
My blood " from " This is My blood," he writes : —
" There is a second doubt whether all the words from ' In like
manner' to 'Wherefore also mindful' belong to the form which we
use. It is commonly held that the words ' Do this for My
memorial' do not in this way belong to the form. And this is
proved because the words ' Take this ' do not refer more to the
blood than to the body ; for Christ ordered the consecration to be
made of the body as of the blood ; therefore, if the words ' Do this
for My memorial ' belong to the consecration of the blood, by like
reasoning they are part also of the consecration of the body ; 2 and
in consequence, when the host is elevated, the body of Christ is
still not there, and so there is idolatry, which is not to be said. . . .
Perhaps there is no one who knows for certain, neither the bishop nor
the ordained, what are the exact words of ordination to be a priest ;
and yet we must not say that no one has been ordained to be a priest
in the Church. In like manner different priests use different words in
administering the Sacrament of Penance, and it is not certain about
any words exactly which they are, yet we must not say that no one
is absolved in the Church. What advice, then, shall there be ? I
say that the priest intending to do what the Church does, reading
distinctly the words of the canon from the beginning to the end,
really consecrates ; nor is it safe for any one, thinking himself very
skilled in his own knowledge, to say, I wish to use exactly these
words for the consecration of the blood ; but it is safer to be simple
and say, I wish to utter these words with the intention with which
Christ ordained that they should be uttered, so that I say as of the
1 Sent. IV. x. 1, 3, 4 ; Quaest. Quodl. x.
2 In the canon of the Mass known to Scotus, as in the present Roman
canon, the words "Do this for My memorial " did not occur after the con
secration of the host, but only after the consecration of the chalice.

342 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
form those which are of the form by Christ's appointment, and for
reverence those which are for reverence. But what is to be done if
it happen that the priest dies before all the words have been
uttered? Is the blood to be reckoned as really consecrated? I
say here — as I said in a case previously considered, whether if
some priest begins at this point 'This is My body' without saying
completely the words that precede — that in all such cases we must
adore only with a condition, if it is really consecrated. And are
the words to be repeated ? I say that they are not to be repeated
without condition. But are they to be repeated with a condition ?
I say that in this case there is no such necessity as there is in the
case of Baptism ; because in that case, when there is a doubt about
the baptism, there is a doubt about salvation. Therefore in that
case it is sometimes lawful to baptise with a condition. But in this
matter, if there is good ground for a doubt in any one of the cases
mentioned whether the consecration has been completed, there is
no danger threatening salvation if there is no repetition whether
without condition or with a condition. What then is to be done ?
Is that matter to be kept for ever ? I say that it is not, because it
would become corrupted ; but the priest after his Communion in his
own Mass can receive that matter with a conditioned intention of
this kind, If this is consecrated, I receive it as consecrated, but, if
it is not consecrated, as not consecrated, as that about which there
is uncertainty ; and in this plan there is no danger, because he is
fasting until he receives the wine of the ablution, and if it is not
blood which he receives, he does no irreverence to the body and
blood which he has already received, because immediately after the
reception of the blood we receive mere wine at the altar." 1
The following passages bear on the relation of the priest to
the Church and of our Lord to the act of sacrifice.
" The Mass avails not only by virtue of the merit or work of
him who works but also by virtue of the sacrifice or work wrought.
Or, it avails not only by virtue of the personal merit of the priest
who offers but also by virtue of the merit of the whole Church, in
the person of which the sacrifice is offered by means of the minister
of all ; otherwise the Mass of a bad priest, who has no personal
merit in that act but only demerit, would be of no avail to any one
in the Church, which is unfitting by the common judgment, and
rightly, according to the words ' The bread which I will give is My
flesh, for the life of the world ' ; 2 for, whenever Christ offers as
1 Sent. IV. viii. 2. 2 St. John vi. 51.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 343
High Priest, the bread which He gives, that is, His flesh, is the life
of the world." 1
"The good to be rendered by virtue of the sacrifice does not
correspond exactly to the good contained in the Eucharist ; for that
good is equal when the Eucharist is reserved in the pyx; and yet it
is not then of equal value to the Church as when it is offered in the
Mass, whether this be called indefinitely the offering of the Euchar
ist or the consecration or the reception or the oblation or some
action of the priest in the person of the Church. Therefore beyond
the good contained in the Eucharist the offering of the Eucharist
is required. This is not accepted unless there be the acceptance of
one who offers. ... As the Eucharist is not fully accepted exactly
by reason of what is contained in it, but there is need that it be
offered, so neither is it fully accepted when offered except by reason
of the good will of some one offering it, yet not exactly by reason
of the will of the celebrant himself, for this pertains to personal
merit, not to the virtue of the sacrifice, nor immediately by reason
of the will of Christ Himself offering, for, though Christ is here
offered willingly in the sacrifice, yet He does not here immediately
offer sacrifice, as is said ' Nor yet that He should offer Himself often '
and ' Christ was once offered,' 2 that is, by Himself offering ; otherwise
it would seem that the celebration of one Mass would be of equal
value to the passion of Christ, if He who offered immediately and
He who is offered were the same in the Mass as in the passion.
But it is certain that the Mass is not of equal value to the passion
of Christ, though it has a very special value in so far as there is in
it a very special commemoration of the offering which Christ made
on the cross. . . . The Mass is both a representation of the offering
on the cross and a means of pleading through it, that is, that
through the offering of the passion God will accept the sacrifice of
the Church. . . . The Eucharist when offered is accepted not by
reason of the will of Christ as immediately offering but by reason of
the will of the whole Church, which has a finite power of merit. So
let it be that it is accepted by reason of the will of Christ as offering,
that is, ordaining the offering, and giving to it value and accept
ance, yet that it is not of equal value to the passion of Christ and is
not accepted as the passion of Christ, and so that its merit is finite,
to which the good which is due by virtue of the sacrifice corre
sponds. But, since it is accepted by reason of the will of the whole
Church, is it of both the Church triumphant and the Church mili-
1 Quaest. Quodl. xx. ' Heb. ix. 25, 28.

344 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
tant ? Not so ; rather, the sacrifice is peculiar to the Church mili
tant, as also is the Sacrament in which it is a sacrifice. ' 1
In this teaching of Duns Scotus about the Eucharistic sacri
fice may be observed some of the characteristic features of the
Franciscan theology, a revolt against what seemed hardness and
stiffness in the Dominican doctrines, a desire to bring together
the acts of the priest and the acts of the Church, a keen regard
for the value of human merit which was thought by the divines
of the Thomist school to amount to a tendency to Pelagianism.
There may also be seen an eagerness to protect the unique char
acter of the death of our Lord on the cross. It may be sug
gested that, if the Scotist theologians had kept more clearly in
view the connection of the Eucharistic sacrifice with the heavenly
offering of our Lord, they might have been saved from some
difficulties which led them to dissociate the offering of the Mass
from the acts of Christ. IV.
The doctrine held in the thirteenth century may be further
illustrated by the Bull of Pope Urban IV. relating to the institu
tion of the feast of Corpus Christi, the Eucharistic hymns of St.
Thomas Aquinas, practical instructions in regard to adoration,
some devotional acts and instructions, and the mystical interpreta
tions of William Durand.
1. A local observance of the feast of Corpus Christi in the
diocese of Liege appears to have been sanctioned by Robert
Bishop of Liege in 1246; and in 1264 Pope Urban IV. com
manded this feast to be kept throughout the whole Western
Church. In the Bull containing this command the Pope said : —
" When about to leave this world and to go to the Father, our
Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ . . . instituted the supreme and
wonderful Sacrament of His body and blood by giving His body for
food and His blood for drink. . . . This is the most sweet memorial,
the saving remembrance, in which we renew the pleasant memory
of our redemption, in which we are drawn back from evil, and
strengthened in good, and advance to increase of virtue and grace,
in which we make progress by the bodily presence of the Saviour
Himself. . . . In this sacramental memorial of Christ, Jesus Christ is
present with us, under a different form indeed, but in His own sub-
1 Quaest. Quodl. xx. ; cf. Sent. IV. xiii. 2.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 345
stance. . . . O worthy memorial, never to be omitted, in which we
call to mind that our death is dead, that our destruction has been
destroyed, that the life-giving Wood nailed to the cross has brought
to us the fruit of salvation. . . . Though His bounty to us has been
so great, yet still wishing to show in us His abounding love in His
great generosity, He has bestowed Himself on us, and surpassing all
fulness of rich gifts, exceeding every way of love, He has made Him
self our food. O unique and wonderful generosity, when the Giver
comes as the Gift, and that which is given is the same as He who
gives. O great and splendid bounty, when He gives Himself. He
has given Himself for food, that, as man fell through death, by food
also he may be restored to life. Man fell through the food of deadly
wood ; man has been raised through the food of life-giving Wood.
In the one was the means of death ; in the other was the nourishment
of life. ... If any one shall eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.
This is the food which fully refreshes, which really nourishes, which
highly sustains, not the body but the heart, not the flesh but the
spirit,1 not the belly but the mind. For man, therefore, who needed
spiritual nourishment, the merciful Saviour Himself in the goodness
of His mind provided for the refreshment of the soul from this noble
and powerful sustenance. . . . This bread is taken but in truth it is
not consumed ; it is eaten, but it is not changed ; because it is in no
way transformed into him who eats it, but, if it is worthily received,
he who receives it is conformed to it. O most excellent Sacrament,
to be adored, to be venerated, to be worshipped, to be glorified, to
be extolled with highest praise, to be exalted by worthy oratory, to
be honoured with all zeal, to be celebrated with devout observance,
to be held fast by pure minds. . . . This memorial ought to be con
tinually celebrated, that we may be ever mindful of Him whose
memorial we know it to be, because, the more often His gift is seen,
the more firmly is the memory of Him retained. Therefore, although
this memorial Sacrament is already celebrated in the daily observance
of Mass, yet we think it fitting and worthy that at least once in the
year, specially to overthrow the perfidy and madness of heretics,
there be a more solemn and notable memory. For on the day of
the Supper of the Lord, on which Christ Himself instituted this
Sacrament, the Universal Church ... is not able to be fully at
leisure for the commemoration of this chief Sacrament. For in regard
to the saints, whom we venerate throughout the year, the Church
observes this, that, although we often renew the memory of them in
1 The Latin texts have " food " (escam), but " spirit " (spiritum) appears
to be required by the sense.

346 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
litanies and Masses and in other ways, yet none the less the Church
keeps their birthdays more solemnly on fixed days in the course of
the year by celebrating special feasts on these days. And because
on these feasts some due solemnity is omitted through negligence,
or through occupation in private affairs, or in some other way through
human weakness, our Mother the Church has appointed a fixed day,
on which there may be a commemoration of all the saints together.
. . . Therefore this should most of all be observed in regard to the
life-giving Sacrament of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, who is
the glory and crown of all the saints, that it should shine forth with
a special festival and solemnity. . . . Moreover, when we held a
lower office, we knew that it had been divinely revealed to certain
Catholics that a feast of this kind ought to be generally observed in
the Church. Therefore, to confirm and exalt the Catholic faith, we
have worthily and reasonably determined to appoint that concerning
so great a Sacrament, besides the daily memorial which the Church
makes of it, there be celebrated yearly a more solemn and special
memorial, appointing for this purpose a fixed day, namely, the
Thursday after the Octave of Pentecost, that on this day the devout
bands of the faithful may flock in joy to the churches. . . . We ex
hort in the Lord, and command . . . that you keep so great and
glorious a feast every year on the aforesaid Thursday with devotion
and solemnity, . . . carefully exhorting either yourselves or through
others those who are committed to your charge on the Sunday im
mediately preceding the aforesaid Thursday that by means of genuine
and honest confession, giving of alms, earnest and careful prayers,
and other works of devotion and piety, they may strive so to prepare
themselves that they may be counted worthy to become partakers
of this most precious Sacrament on that day, and may be able to
receive Him with reverence, and through His power to obtain an
increase of grace." 1
2. At the bidding of Pope Urban IV. the office for use on
the feast of Corpus Christi was written by St. Thomas Aquinas.
A literal translation of the hymns contained in it will show how
St. Thomas expressed in devotion the doctrine which has aheady
been illustrated from his theological writings.2
1 Cherubini, Bullarium Romanum, i. 146-48 ; Hardouin, Concilia, vii.
547-52. Cf. the Bulls of Martin V. and Eugenius IV. in 1429 and 1433
respectively ; see Cherubini, op. cit. i. 327, 328, 342, 343 ; Hardouin, op.
cit. viii. 1490, 1491.
2 See pp. 322-34, supra.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 347
" Tell, my tongue, the mystery of the glorious body,
And of the precious blood, which for the ransom of the world
The King of the nations, the Fruit of the noble womb, shed.
Given for us, born for us from a pure virgin,
And dwelling in the world, and sowing the seed of the word,
In wondrous fashion He ended His patient sojourn.
On the night of the Great Supper, sitting at meat with His
brethren,
When He has fully observed the law by the appointed foods,
He gives Himself with His own hands as food to the twelve.
The Word made flesh makes real bread flesh by word,
And wine becomes the blood of Christ, though sense fails ;
Faith alone is able to strengthen the pure heart.
Therefore, bowing, let us revere so great a Sacrament,
And let the ancient pattern give way to the new rite ;
Let faith supply what the senses lack." 1
"At the holy feast let there be joy,
And from the heart let songs resound,
Let things of old depart, let all be new.
Hearts, voices, and deeds.
The night of the Last Supper is called to mind,
When Christ is believed the lamb and the unleavened bread
To have given to His brethren according to the law
Declared to the ancient fathers.
After the typical lamb and the completed feast,
The Lord's body given to His disciples,
Whole to all and whole to each,
By His hands we confess.
He gave to them in their weakness the stay of His body,
He gave to them in their sadness the cup of His blood,
Saying, Take the cup which I give,
Drink ye all of it.
1 Opuscula, xvii. (al. lvii.). There is a metrical translation of this hymn
in Hymns Ancient and Modern (No. 260, new edition, "Now, my tongue,
the mystery telling "), The English Hymnal (No. 326, " Of the glorious
body telling "), and other hymn-books.

348 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
So did He institute this sacrifice,
Of which He willed the office to be committed
To priests alone, to whom thus it pertains
That they should take, and give to the rest.
The bread of the angels becomes the bread of men,
The bread of heaven makes an end of types.
O marvel, he eats the Lord
Who is the poor and lowly servant." 1
" The Word of heaven proceeding forth,
Yet leaving not the right hand of the Father,
Going to His work,
Came to the evening of life.
For death by a disciple
To be given to His foes,
First in the food of life
He gives Himself to His disciples.
To whom under two kinds
He gave flesh and blood,
That of twofold substance
The whole man He might feed.
In birth He gave Himself as a fellow,
While sharing their meal He gave Himself for food,
Dying He gave Himself for a ransom,
Reigning He gives Himself as a reward.
O saving Victim,
Who openest the gate of heaven,
Wars from our enemies press on,
Grant strength, bring aid." 2
"Praise, Sion, the Saviour,
Praise the Leader and Shepherd,
In hymns and songs.
1 Opuscula, xvii. (al. lvii.).
'Ibid. There is a metrical translation of this hymn in Hymns Ancient
and Modern (No. 261, new edition, " The heavenly Word proceeding
forth"), The English Hymnal (No. 330, "The Word of God proceeding
forth "), and other hymn-books.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 349
Dare all thou canst,
For He is greater than all praise,
Nor canst thou praise Him enough.
A special theme of praise,
The living and life-giving bread,
Is set forth to-day.
Whom on the table of the holy Supper,
To the band of the twelve brethren,
To have been given we doubt not.
Let praise be full and sounding,
Pleasant and seemly be
The gladness of mind.
For a solemn day is kept,
On which is called to mind
The first institution of this Table.
On this Table of the new King
The new passover of the new law
Ends the ancient passover.
That which is old, the new,
The shadow, the reality puts to flight.
Light dispels night.
That which Christ did at the Supper,
He ordained to be done
For His memorial.
Taught by the ancient precepts,
Bread and wine we hallow
As the sacrifice of salvation.
The doctrine is given to Christians
That bread is turned into flesh,
And wine into blood.
What thou dost not grasp, what thou dost not see,
Bold faith makes sure,
Beyond the order of nature.

350 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Under different kinds,
Signs only and not things,
Precious things lie hidden.
Flesh is food, blood is drink,
Yet the whole Christ remains
Under each kind.
Not separated by him who takes Him,
Not broken, not divided,
Whole He is taken.
One takes Him, a thousand take Him,
The one takes as much as they,
Nor being taken is He consumed.
To the bad He is death, to the good He is life,
See from equal taking
How different is the result.
When the Sacrament is broken,
Doubt not, but remember
As much is under a fragment
As is covered by the whole.
Of the reality there is no division,
Of the sign only is the breaking,
Whereby neither state nor stature
Of Him whose is the sign is diminished.
Lo, the bread of the angels
Is made the food of the sojourners,
Really the bread of the sons,
Not to be given to dogs.
In figures it is foretold,
When Isaac is sacrificed,
The lamb of the passover chosen,
The manna given to the fathers.
Good Shepherd, very Bread,
Jesu, have mercy on us,
Thou feed us, Thou protect us,
Thou make us to see what is good
In the land of the living.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 351
Thou who knowest and canst do all things,
Thou who here feedest us mortals,
There to sit at Thy table,
Co-heirs and partners
Of the holy saints make us." x
Another Eucharistic hymn composed by St. Thomas Aquinas
but not included in the office for the feast of Corpus Christi is
the following : —
" Devoutly I adore Thee, unseen Godhead,
Who under these signs really liest hid ;
To Thee my whole heart submits itself,
Because contemplating Thee it wholly fails.
Sight, touch, taste, in Thee are deceived,
But to the hearing alone is trust safely accorded.
I believe whatever the Son of God has said,
Nothing is more true than this word of truth.
On the cross lay hid only the deity,
But here lies hid also the humanity ;
Yet believing and confessing both,
I seek what the penitent robber sought.
Thy wounds as Thomas I do not behold,
Yet I confess Thee as My God ;
Make me always to believe Thee more,
In Thee to have hope, Thee to love.
O memorial of the death of the Lord,
Living Bread, giving life to man,
Grant to my mind to live of Thee,
And of Thee always sweetly to be wise.
Pelican of goodness, Jesu Lord,
Cleanse me unclean in Thy blood,
Of which one drop could save
The whole world from all guilt.
Jesu, whom I now see veiled,
May that be which I so long for,
i Opuscula, xvii. (al. lvii.). There is a metrical translation of this hymn
in The English Hymnal (No. 317, " Laud, O Sion, Thy salvation ") and
other hymn-books.

352 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
That beholding Thee with unveiled face,
I may be blessed in the sight of Thy glory." 1
3. Mention has already been made of the eleventh century
instructions for the carrying of the Sacrament in the procession
on Palm Sunday in the statutes of Lanfranc, and for the adora
tion in connection with the procession.2 The Acts of the Abbots
of St. Albans, probably the work of Matthew Paris in the first
half of the thirteenth century, record that the Abbot Simon,
who was Abbot of St. Albans from 1166 to 1183, had a vessel
of gold adorned with precious stones made in which to keep the
Sacrament over the high altar ; that King Henry II. , on hearing
of this, sent to St. Albans a very costly cup in which was to be.
placed " the case immediately containing the body of Chiist " ;
and that the Abbot Simon also had made a shrine of peculiar
beauty, in which " the body of the Lord " might be carried in
the procession on Palm Sunday, and brought back to the Church
" with the greatest reverence, that the faithful may see of how
great honour the most holy body of the Lord is worthy, which at
this time suffered itself to be scourged, crucified, and buried".3
Before the end of the twelfth century there is a provision in the
Synodical Constitutions of Odo, the Bishop of Paris, that is,
Eudes de Sully, that " the laity are to be frequently admonished
that, whenever they see the body of the Lord carried out, they
are to genuflect as to their Lord and Creator, and to pray with
joined hands until it has passed by".4 In the course of the
thirteenth century there are very numerous instances of practi
cal instructions for the adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist.
Like the eleventh century statutes of Lanfranc,5 and in accordance
1 Opuscula, xvii. (al. lvii.) There is a metrical translation of this hymn
in Dr. Pusey's edition of the Paradise for the Christian Soul, p. 405, and in
a less complete and exact form in Hymns Ancient and Modern (No. 266,
new edition, "Thee we adore, O hidden Saviour"), The English Hymnal
(No. 331, " Thee we adore, O hidden Saviour "), and other hymn-books.
2 See pp. 249, 250, supra.
3 Gesta Abb. S. Alb. i. 190-92 (Rolls Series, vol. xxviii. 4 a). The
practice of carrying the Sacrament in the Palm Sunday procession at St.
Albans may have been due to the adoption of the statutes of Lanfranc by
the Abbot Paul, the first Abbot after the Norman Conquest : see Gesta
Abb. S.Alb. i. 52,61.
4 Syn. Const, v. 6 ; see Hardouin, Concilia, vi. (2) 1940.
5 See pp. 249, 250, supra.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 353
with the practice in use at St. Albans in the twelfth century,1 a
thirteenth century manuscript of Irish origin now in the Bodleian
Library, which gives the usage of the Church of Sarum, contains
provisions for the carrying of the Sacrament in procession on
Palm Sunday, and for adoration in connection with the pro
cession.2 The English historian and theologian Gerald de Barry,
usually known as Giraldus Cambrensis, who was born about 1147
and died about 1223, says that the Eucharist ought to be carried
to the sick " with due honour and reverence," and " adored
and worthily venerated by the people" when so carried.3
It is recorded of Cardinal Guido that, when he was at Cologne
in 1203, he ordered that " at the elevation of the host 4 all the
people in the church should prostrate themselves at the sound of
the bell, and remain prostrated until after the consecration of
the chalice " ; and that, when the Sacrament was carried out of
doors for the Communion of the sick, " all the people both in the
streets and in the houses should adore Christ ".5 The Constitu
tions approved in 1208 by William, Bishop of Paris, contain an
injunction that "in the celebration of Mass, when the body of
Christ is elevated, at the elevation itself or a little before a bell
is to be rung, as has been appointed elsewhere, so that the minds
of the faithful may be roused to prayer".6 In 1217 it was de
creed in one of the Constitutions of Richard Poore, Bishop of
Salisbury, that " the laity are to be admonished to act reverently
at the consecration of the Eucharist, and to kneel, especially at
the time when, after the elevation of the Eucharist, the sacred
host is put down".7 In 1219 Pope Honorius III. ordered the
1 See p. 352, supra.
2Rawl. MS. c. 892, fo. 44 a, 46 b. The author is indebted to Mr,
Charlton Walker for calling his attention to this MS. Cf. the Sarum
Consuetudinary in Frere, The Use of Sarum, i. 59-61.
3 Gemma Ecclesiastica, i. 6 (Opera, ii. 20, Rolls Series, vol. xxi. b).
4 The direction for the elevation of the host immediately after the con
secration of the bread may have been due originally to the controversy
whether the consecration of the bread was completed before the consecration
of the chalice. See pp. 308, 312, supra, and cf. the article by Father
Thurston referred to in note 4 on p. 312, supra.
5CsBsarius of Heisterbach, Dialogus, ix. 51 ; cf. Raynald, Ann. Eccl.
s. a. 1203, xiii.
6 Const. 15 ; see Hardouin, Concilia, vi. (2) 1979.
7 Ibid. 38 ; see Hardouin, Concilia, vii. 100.
vol. i. 23

354 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Irish bishops to provide that the people should " bow reverently "
at the elevation of the host in the Mass, and when the Sacrament
was taken to the sick.1 Under his successor Pope Gregory IX.
this injunction became part of the canon law.2 The Council of
Durham in 1220, in connection with the statement that Christ
" really refreshed " His disciples " with His body and blood under
the species of bread and wine transubstantiated by the power of
God, the bread into His body and the wine into His blood," and
that communicants " receive without doubt under the species of
bread that which hung for us on the cross," and "in the cup that
which was poured from the side of Christ," ordered that " the
people should be taught to act reverently and kneel at the con
secration of the Eucharist, especially at that time when, after the
elevation of the Eucharist, the sacred host is put down ".3 The
Council of Oxford of 1222 ordered that " lay people are to be
frequently taught that, wherever they see the body of the Lord
to be carried, at once they genuflect as to their Creator and Re
deemer, and with joined hands pray humbly while it passes by,
and that this most of all is done at the time of the consecration
at the elevation of the host, when the bread is transformed into
the real body of Christ, and that which is in the cup is trans
formed into His blood by the mystic blessing ".4 The Constitu
tions of Walter de Cantelupe, Bishop of Worcester, issued in 1240
gave instructions that, when the Sacrament was carried to the
sick, the people should " on their knees adore their Saviour by
the way ".5 In the Ancient Statutes of the Carthusians, which
are probably of the middle of the thirteenth century, it is said
that " when ' This is My body ' has been said, the host is elevated
so that it can be seen, and a bell is rung. ... At the elevation
of the host, if we are praying standing, we fall down to the
ground, as when ' And was made Man ' is said, and we do not
rise until the chalice is put down." 6 In the Statutes of Arch
bishop Peckham of 1280 it was ordered that the people should
"prostrate themselves, or at least pray humbly, wherever it
might happen that the King of glory was earned under the cover
ing of bread ".7 The Council of Exeter of 1287 provided that
1 Ep. iii. ; see Mansi, Concilia, xxii. 1100.
2 Decret. Greg. III. xii. 10. 3 Wilkins, Cone. i. 678, 579.
4 Ibid. 594. e ftfa 667_
6 See Martene, De Ant. Eccl. Rit. I. iv. 12 (25).
7 Wilkins, Cone. ii. 48.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 355
the host should not be elevated till the words "This is My body "
had been fully said, " lest the creature should be adored by the
people instead of the Creator " ; and that " the faithful " should
" adore the body of the Lord by humbly bowing and if possible
on bent knees " when the Sacrament was carried to the sick.1
Passing by similar instructions elsewhere, some provisions of the
Council of Cologne of 1280 may be cited as affording an illustra
tion of what were held to be the practical consequences of the
doctrine about the Eucharist.
" No priest is to elevate the host to show it to the people until
he has said the words ' For this is My body '. And the bell is to be
struck with three strokes on one side, that the faithful who hear,
wherever they may be, may come and adore. . . . If any part of the
blood or body of the Lord has fallen on the covering of the altar,
that part is to be cut out and burnt, and the ashes are to be
placed in a sacred place or the piscina. And, if a part of the cor
poral has been stained with the blood, it is to be carefully washed
three times, and the water is to be taken by the priest or some
other religious person fasting. And after being washed the afore
said cloth can be used as before. Also, if a drop of the blood has
fallen on a vestment, that part is to be cut out and burnt, and the
ashes are to be placed in a sacred place, as was said before. If the
blood has fallen on wood or stone or solid earth, that part, if it can
conveniently be, is to be licked by the priest, and afterwards scraped,
and what is scraped off is to be placed in a sacred place or the
sacred piscina. . . . Priests are to place a decent covering over the
vessel in which the body of the Lord is carried, and to carry it to
the sick with reverence and raised. If the sick man frequently and
easily suffers from sickness, the body of the Lord is not to be given
to him ; but let him believe, and it is enough that he receives
spiritually.2 Also, we enjoin that any priest, before he communicates
the sick man, is to ask him whether he believes that under this form
and species of bread is the body of the Lord, which was born of the
Virgin, suffered on the cross, and on the third day was raised. If
the sick man has confessed this by word or evident sign, the priest
is to give him Communion, if there is no other hindrance. . . . When
the body of the Lord is carried, the faithful who are present, if it
can fittingly be, are to genuflect and smite their breasts and reverently
adore with bowed heads and joined and uplifted hands. And horse-
1 Wilkins, Cone. ii. 132, 133.
2 Cf. York Manual and Sarum Manual (Surtees Society, lxiii. 52, 50*).
23*

356 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
men are not to disdain to come down from their horses to adore
Him who for them came down from heaven." 1
4. Further illustrations of the way in which practical effect
was given to the doctrine ordinarily held in the thirteenth cen
tury may be derived from The Lay Folks Mass Book and the
Ancren Riwle.
The Lay Folks Mass Book was written by Dan Jeremy, who
may have been Canon of Rouen and afterwards Ai'chdeacon of
Cleveland, in French probably in the twelfth century and was
translated into English in the thirteenth century. It describes
the " housel " as being " both flesh and blood ". At the ringing
of the bell at the consecration the people are directed to kneel
down and behold the elevation and "do reverence to Jesus
Christ's own presence," holding up both hands, and, in default of
prayers in their own words, to say : —
" Praised be Thou, King,
And blessed be Thou, King,
Of all Thy giftes good
And thanked be Thou, King.
Iesu, all my joying,
That for me spilt Thy blood,
And died upon the rood,
Thou give me grace to sing
The song of Thy praising."
In the later texts the instructions are the same ; but the
words given to be addressed to our Lord at the elevation are
different : — " Welcome, Lord, in form of bread,
For me Thou didst suffer hard deed.
As Thou didst bear the crown of thorn,
Suffer me not to be forlorn." 2
The Ancren Riwle, that is, the rule of the anchoresses or re
cluses, is a document of the thirteenth century, which is thought
by some to have been written by Bishop Richard Poore, who
was Bishop of Chichester from 1214 to 1217, Bishop of Salisbury
1 Hardouin, Cone. vii. 823-26.
2 See The Lay Folks Mass Book, edited by Canon Simmons for the Early
English Text Society, pp. 20, 21, 38-41. The modernised forms as quoted
above are on p. xxix.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 357
from 1217 to 1228, and Bishop of Durham from 1228 to 1237,
and died at Tarrant in Dorset in 1237, though the citation of
Dominican prayers and the doubt expressed as to the doctrine
of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin have led
others to think it to be the work of a Dominican writer.1 It
contains several allusions to the Eucharist.
" When ye are quite dressed, . . . think upon God's flesh, and
on His blood, which is over the high altar, and fall on your knees
towards it, with this salutation, ' Hail, Thou Author of our creation !
Hail, Thou price of our redemption ! Hail, Thou who art our sup
port during our pilgrimage ! Hail, O reward of our expectation ! '
Be Thou our joy,
Who art to be our meed.
Our glory be in Thee
Through endless time.
Abide with us, O Lord !
Remove dark night ;
Wash off all guilt ;
Grant godly balm.
Glory to Thee, O Lord,
Thou Virgin's Son.
Thus shall you do also when the priest elevates it at the Mass, and
before the confession, when you are about to receive the host."
" In the Mass, when the priest elevates God's body, say these
verses, standing, ' Behold the Saviour of the world ; the Word of
the Father ; a true sacrifice ; living flesh ; entire Godhead ; very
Man ' ; and then fall down with this greeting, ' Hail, cause of our
creation ! Hail, price of our redemption ! Hail, our support
during our pilgrimage ! Be Thou our joy, who are about to be our
reward. May our glory be in Thee, for ever and ever. Abide
with us, O Lord. Remove our darkness. Wash from us all our
guilt. Grant a holy remedy. Glory be to Thee, O Lord. But is
there any place in me into which my God may come, who made
heaven and earth ? Is it so, O Lord my God ? Is there in me
anything which may contain Thee ? Wilt Thou indeed come into
my heart and inebriate it ? And do I embrace Thee, my good
wine ? What art Thou to me ? Pity me, that I may speak. The
1 See pp. xi. xii. of the Essay on The Spiritual Life of Medieval Eng
land, by the Rev. J. B. Dalgairns, prefixed to his edition of Walter Hilton's
The Scale of Perfection. The sentence relating to the Immaculate Concep
tion is on p. 30 of the edition of the Ancren Riwle cited below.

358 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
house of my soul is too narrow that Thou shouldest come into it.
Let it be enlarged by Thee. It is in ruins, repair it. 1 confess
and know that it contains what is offensive to Thine eyes. But who
shall cleanse it, or to whom but Thee shall I cry ? Cleanse Thou
me, O God, from my secret faults ; and from the sins of others
spare Thy servant. Have mercy, have mercy, have mercy upon
me, O God, according to Thy great mercy,' and so the whole
psalm to the end, with Gloria Patri ; 'O Christ, hear us' twice;
'Lord, have mercy upon us. Christ, have mercy upon us. Lord,
have mercy upon us'; 'Our Father'; 'I believe'. 'O my God,
save Thy servant, who putteth his trust in Thee. Teach me to do
Thy will, for Thou art my God. Lord, hear my prayer, and let my
cry come unto Thee.' 'Let us pray : Grant, we beseech Thee, Al
mighty God, that Him whom we see darkly, and under a different
form, on whom we feed sacramentally on earth, we may see face to
face, and may be thought worthy to enjoy Him truly and really, as
He is, in heaven, through the same.' After the kiss of peace in
the Mass, when the priest consecrates, forget there all the world,
and there be entirely out of the body ; there in glowing love em
brace your beloved Saviour, who is come down from heaven into
your breast's bower, and hold Him fast until He shall have granted
whatever you wish for."
" Believe firmly that all the power of the devil melteth away
through the grace of the holy Sacrament, which ye see elevated
above all as oft as the priest saith Mass, and consecrateth that
Virgin's Child, Jesus, the Son of God, who sometimes descendeth
bodily to your inn, and humbly taketh His lodging within you.
God knoweth, she is too weak, and too evil-hearted, who with the
aid of such a guest fighteth not bravely. Ye ought to believe truly
that all that the holy Church readeth and singeth, and all her
Sacraments, give you spiritual strength, but none so much as this ;
for it bringeth to nought all the wiles of the devil."
" Men esteem a thing as less dainty when they have it often ;
and therefore ye should be, as lay brethren are, partakers of the
Holy Communion only fifteen times a year. . . . And, if anything
happens out of the usual order, so that ye may not have received
the Sacrament at these set times, ye may make up for it the
Sunday next following, or, if the other set time is near, ye may wait
till then." 1
!The Ancren Riwle was edited for the Camden Society by the Rev.
James Morton in 1853. The above quotations are from pp. 13, 14, 25-27,
200, 201, 312, 313 of the edition edited by Abbot Gasquet in the series
" The King's Classics ".

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 359
5. A belief was current during much of the middle ages that
some of the devout were sustained by the reception of the Eu
charist without partaking of any other food. An instance of
this belief from the early part of the thirteenth century may be
seen in the account given by Caesarius of Heisterbach of a woman
who was accustomed to communicate frequently and had received
leave from her parish priest to receive the Sacrament every Sunday,
who " was sustained without hunger from Sunday to Sunday by
her Communion ".1
6. The Rationale of the Divine Offices was the work of
William Durand, who was born at Puymoisson in Provence about
1230. He was a teacher of the canon law at Modena, was sent
as legate to the Council of Lyons by Pope Gregory X. in 1274,
was appointed Bishop of Mende in 1286, and died at Rome in
1296. The doctiine postulated in the elaborate ceremonial
instructions and mystical interpretations is that which is charac
teristic of the time. Durand details eleven miracles in regard
to the body of Christ, first, that " the bread and wine are tran
substantiated into the body and blood " ; secondly, that " the
bread is daily transubstantiated into the body, and yet there is
no increase in God " ; thirdly, that " it is daily taken and eaten,
and yet there is no diminution in it " ; fourthly, that " being in
divisible, it is divided, and remains whole and complete in each
part of the Eucharist " ; fifthly, that " when taken by the wicked,
it is not defiled " ; sixthly, that " the body of Christ, which is
the food of life, is deadly to sinners " ; seventhly, that " being
taken by the priest or by others, from the shut mouth it is
carried up to heaven " ; eighthly, that " the measureless body is
in so small a host"; ninthly, that "the same body is whole
in different places, and is received by different persons " ; tenthly,
that " when the bread is transubstantiated, the accidents of the
bread remain " ; and eleventhly, that " under the species of bread
the body and blood of Christ, even the whole Chiist, exist and are
received, and likewise under the species of wine both are received,
and yet there is not a double reception of the body and blood of
lMiracula, ii. 36, in Meister, Die Fragmente der Libri Octo Miracu
lorum des Ccesarius von Heisterbach, p. 115. Some English instances are
mentioned in Bridgett, A History of the Holy Eucharist in Great Britain,
pp. 238, 239 (edition 1908).

360 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Chiist ".1 The reasons which he gives for the elevation of the host
immediately after the consecration are that " all who are present
may see it, and may pray for what is profitable to salvation " ;
that the superiority of this sacrifice to all other sacrifices may be
observed ; that there may be a sign of the exaltation of Christ,
the true Bread ; that there may be a sign of the resurrection ;
that the people may know the moment of consecration, " and that
Chiist has come to the altar, and may prostrate themselves to
the ground with reverence ".2 Elsewhere he says the elevation
later in the canon represents the taking down of our Lord from
the cross, and His being laid in the tomb.3 In its sacrificial
aspect, he speaks of the Eucharist as the offering of the body of
Chiist ; 4 as being wholly sacrificial, though one of the special
points of sacrifice is the consecration ; 5 and as being the memory of
the passion and death and burial and resurrection and ascension.6
He explains in great detail the commemoration of the incarnate
life made in the rite and ceremonies of the Mass by the acts in
which the Church remembers Chiist and thereby makes a mystic
presentation to God.7
JIV. xii. 16-27. 2IV. xii. 51. 3IV. xlvi. 22.
4 IV. xl. 5IV. i. 16. 6IV. i. 21.
' IV. passim. For this idea, see also pp. 168, 169, 210, 267-69, 272,
supra, and vol. ii. pp. 120-24, infra.

CHAPTER VIII.
WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH TO THE
FIFTEENTH CENTURY.
Part IV.
As has been seen in the last chapter, the doctrine that the sub
stances of the bread and wine are wholly changed into the sub
stance of the body and blood of Christ at the consecration of
the Sacrament had become the ordinary doctrine held in the
Western Church by the end of the thirteenth century. What
ever differences there might be as to some details, and however
Thomist and Scotist theologians might dwell on different aspects
of the Sacrament, there was a very general acceptance of this
central point ; and it appears to have been the usual view that
the Church was committed to it by the decree of the Fourth
Lateran Council in 1215. In the course of the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries instances are found of positions differing to
a greater or less extent from this ordinary doctrine.
I.
John of Paris was a Dominican theologian of eminence, who
was a Professor of Theology in the University of Paris at the
end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth
century. About 1300 he wrote a treatise entitled On the Mode
of the Existence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament of the
Altar, the following quotation from which shows the character
istic point in his teaching on this subject : —
" I intend to defend the real and actual presence of the body
of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar, and that it is not there only
as by way of sign. And, though I hold and approve the usual
opinion that the body of Christ is in the Sacrament of the altar by
means of the conversion of the substance of bread into itself, and
361

362 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
that the accidents remain there without a subject, yet I do not dare
to say that this is of faith ; but the real and actual presence of the
body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar can be securely held
otherwise. Nevertheless, I solemnly declare that, if it be shown
that the aforesaid method has been positively affirmed by a sacred
canon or by the Church or by a General Council or by the Pope,
whose power is that of the whole Church (qui virtute continet totam
ecclesiam), I do not wish anything which I say accounted as said,
and am ready to withdraw it at once. And, if it has not yet been
positively affirmed but shall come to be so affirmed, I am ready to
assent to it at once. . . . For the substance of the bread to remain
under its own accidents in the Sacrament of the altar can be under
stood in two ways. First, the substance of the bread may be held
to remain in the Sacrament of the altar under its own accidents
in a subject of its own ; and this is untrue, because in this case there
would not be association of properties (communicatio idiomatum)
between the bread and the body of Christ, nor would it be true to
say, The bread is the body of Christ, or ' My flesh is really food '.l
Secondly, the substance of the bread may be held to remain under
its own accidents, not in a subject of its own, but in relation to the
being and subject of Christ, so that in this way there would be one
subject in the two natures. And this is true." 2
The purport of this somewhat obscure passage appears to be
that, provided it were secured that in the Eucharist there is only
one subject, it might be asserted that the substance of the bread
remained after consecration. On such a view, the subject in
the Eucharist would correspond to the one Person of our Lord
in His incarnate life, and the two substances of the earthly
elements and of His body and blood would correspond to the
two natures of manhood and Godhead. According to this
treatise of John, the same view was held by other divines at
Paris besides John himself.3 His book, however, was condemned
by William, the Bishop of Paris, who deprived John of his
professorship. He determined to appeal against this deprivation
to Pope Clement V., but died at Bordeaux in 1306 without hav
ing done so.
Like John of Paris, Durand of St. Pourcain was a Domini
can and a Professor of Theology at Paris, where he taught early
1 St. John vi. 55. 2 Pp. 85, 86, ed. London, 1686.
3 Op. cit. p. 97.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 363
in the fourteenth century. He became Bishop of Limoux in
1317, Bishop of Puy-en-Velay in 1318, and Bishop of Meaux in
1326. He died in 1334. His treatise on the Sentences of Peter
Lombard contains some discussion of the nature of the Euchar
istic presence He asserts that " the conversion of the substance "
of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of
Chiist is true and is taught by the Church. At the same time
he allows that in the abstract it is possible for the substance of
the bread to remain together with the substance of the body of
Christ, basing this view largely on his rejection, very noticeable
in a Dominican writer, of the Thomist opinions about place ; 1
and observes that the difficulties as to the capacity of corruption and
the power of nourishing the body in the consecrated Sacrament
would be solved if it were held that the substance of the bread
and wine remains after consecration.2 On the way in which the
" conversion of the substance " is effected, he writes : —
" Saving a better judgment, it can be thought that, if in this
Sacrament there is a conversion of the substance of the bread into
the body of Christ, this takes place in this way, that the form of the
bread ceases to be, but that the matter of the bread is under the
form of the body of Christ suddenly and by the power of God, as
the matter of nourishment is under the form of the person nourished
by the power of nature. . . . Now it is clear that the aforesaid
method of the conversion of the substance of the bread into the
body of Christ is possible ; but the other method, which is commonly
held, is unintelligible ; neither has either of these been more ap
proved or condemned by the Church than the other." 3
William of Ockham was one of the most famous of the
advocates of Nominalism in the fourteenth century. He was
born in 1280 at Ockham in Surrey. He became a member of
the Franciscan Order. Like the Dominicans John of Paris and
Durand of St. Pourcain, he was a Professor of Theology at
Paiis. In 1322 he became the English Provincial of the Francis
cans. In 1328 a condemnation was passed on his Nominalistic
opinions by the University of Paris ; and from that time until
1347, when he died at Munich, he took refuge from the hostility
of Pope John XXII. at the court of Lewis, the King of Bayaria.
In his theology in general the most noticeable feature is his
1 See pp. 331, 332, supra. ' Sent. IV. xi. 1. s Ibid. 3 (5).

364 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
assertion of the authority of Holy Scripture and the beliefs of the
Universal Church as distinct from the possibility of error on the
part of individual teachers however eminent or a General Council
or the Pope. On the subject of the Holy Eucharist he claimed
that he had no intention of diverging from the current doctrine
taught at Rome, saying, " Whatever the Church of Rome believes,
this alone and nothing different I believe either explicitly or im
plicitly " ; and he appears to have departed from his general prin
ciple of the absolute validity of the teaching of Holy Scripture
and the Universal Church alone on the ground of a supposed
revelation of the doctrine of Transubstantiation to the Church at
some later time than the period of the Fathers. He observes
that, " although it is expressly found in the New Testament that
the body of Christ is to be taken under the species of bread,
yet it is not there expressed that the substance of bread does not
remain," and that on this latter point " there have been different
opinions from early times". He regards the view that "the
substance of bread and wine remains, and in the same place and
under the same species is the body of Christ," as " very reason
able apart from a decision of the Church to the contrary," " as
avoiding all the difficulties which result from the separation of
accidents from their subject," as "not contrary to anything in
the canon of the Bible," as "not repugnant to reason"; and
he says that "there is no more contradiction in the body of
Christ co-existing with the substance of bread than in it co-exist
ing with the accidents of bread ". But he accepts the ordinary
doctrine on the ground of Church authority.
" The substance of the bread and the wine ceases to be, and the
accidents alone remain, and under them the body of Christ begins to
be. This is clear to the Church by some revelation, as I suppose ;
and therefore the Church has so decided." x
John Wyclif was at one time Master of Balliol College.
Afterwards, he was the incumbent of several benefices in succes
sion. The last of these was the rectory of Lutterworth in Lei
cestershire, where, after ten years' residence, he died in 1384.
He resembled Ockham in the intensely scholastic character of his
mind and in the importance which he attached to the authority
of Holy Scripture. Unlike Ockham, he was a Realist ; and he
1 Quodl. sept. iv. 34, 35.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 365
went far beyond Ockham in his rejection of the authority of the
Church. In or before 2 1381 Wyclif began his attack on the doctrine of
Transubstantiation by publishing a series of statements on the
Holy Eucharist. The most important of its twelve propositions
are the following : —
" The consecrated host which we see on the altar is neither Christ
nor any part of Him but an effectual sign."
"The Eucharist has, by virtue of the sacramental words, both
the body and the blood of Christ really and actually in every part of
it." " Transubstantiation, identification, and impanation . . . are not
to be established from Scripture."
" It is contrary to the opinions of saints to assert that there is
accident without subject in a real host."
" The Sacrament of the Eucharist is in its nature bread and wine,
containing, by virtue of the sacramental words, the real body and
blood of Christ in every part of it."
" The Sacrament of the Eucharist is in figure the body and blood
of Christ, into which the bread and wine are transubstantiated, of
which some being (aliquiditas) remains after consecration, although,
as the faithful believe, laid asleep."
"The existence of accident without subject is not tenable." 2
The publication of these statements was followed by the de
claration known as the Confession. In it Wyclif said : —
" I have often confessed, and do still confess, that the bread in
the Sacrament, or consecrated host, which the faithful perceive in
the hands of the priest, is really and actually the very same body of
Christ and the same substance as was taken from the Virgin and as
suffered on the cross and lay dead in the tomb for the holy three
days, and rose on the third day, and after forty days ascended into
heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father. The proof
of this is, that Christ, who cannot lie, so declares. Nevertheless, I
do not dare to say that this bread is the body of Christ essentially or
substantially or corporally or identically (identice). . . . For we believe
that there is a threefold way in which the body of Christ is in the
consecrated host, namely, virtual, spiritual, and sacramental. Virtual,
1 See Matthew in English Historical Review, April, 1890, pp. 328-30.
Cf. De Benedicta Incarnatione (written before 1378), cap. xi. (pp. 186, 189-
91, edition Harris), where Wyclif appears to accept Transubstantiation.
'Fasciculi Zizaniorum (Rolls Series, vol. v.), p. 105.

366 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
whereby throughout His whole rule He benefits in the good things
of nature and grace. The spiritual way is that whereby the body of
Christ is in the Eucharist and in the saints by means of grace. And
the third way, the sacramental, is that whereby the body of Christ
is in the consecrated host after a unique manner. . . . But, besides
these three ways of being, there are three other ways more actual
and more real, which the body of Christ fitly has in heaven, namely,
substantially, corporally, and by dimensions. And men of gross ideas
understand no other way of the being of a natural (naturalis ; al.
material, materialis) substance besides these. But they are not at
all fit to grasp the mystery of the Eucharist and the subtlety of
Scripture." x
Further on in the same Confession Wyclif repudiated the
idea of "accident without subject," and affirmed that there is
"real bread and wine" in the consecrated sacrament.2
It is possible that the statements of belief ascribed to Wyclif
at the Council of London of 1382 are an accurate representation
of his teaching. Those on the subject of the Eucharist are the
following : —
" The substance of the material bread and wine remains in the
Sacrament of the altar after consecration."
"The accidents do not remain without a subject in the same
Sacrament after consecration."
" Christ is not in the Sacrament of the altar identically (identice),
really, and actually in a proper bodily presence."
" If a bishop or a priest is in mortal sin, he does not ordain or
consecrate or baptise." 3
Like teaching occurs in the works of the latter part of Wyclif s
life generally, and in particular in the detailed treatment in the
Trialogus and the very lengthy discussions in De Eucharistia.
The elaboration and subtlety of the arguments prevents either
work from lending itself easily to quotation ; but the following
short extracts may give some idea of the doctrine taught.
1 Op. cit. pp. 115-17. 'Ibid. p. 131.
3 Hardouin, Concilia, vii. 1890, 1891. The theory that a bishop or
priest in mortal sin cannot ordain or consecrate or baptise formed part of
Wyclif s doctrine of " dominion," that is, the view that " dominion is
founded in grace," and that no one whom mortal sin excludes from grace
is capable of receiving any spiritual gift or performing any spiritual action
or owning any temporal possession.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 367
" This venerable Sacrament is in its own nature real bread, and
is sacramentally the body of Christ." x
" It is not to be understood that the body of Christ comes down
to the host which is consecrated in any Church, but it remains above
in heaven fixed and unmoved ; therefore it has spiritual being in the
host and not dimensional being and the other accidents which are
in heaven." 2
"In the words of Christ Elijah denotes that prophet of the
ancient law ; and in consequence the predication is to be said to be
of relation (habitudinalis) but not of identity (identica), since Christ
perceived that the Baptist is Elijah figuratively, and the Baptist per
ceived that he is not Elijah personally. . . . And so I understand
other predications of relation (habitudinales) in Holy Scripture. And
if you ask when the Baptist began to be Elijah, it seems to me that
it was when he had that relation (habitudinem) to Elijah by the ap
pointment of God, and that so the Baptist at least naturally was
Elijah before Christ uttered those words. But concerning the Sacra
ment of the altar it seems probable that the bread is the body of the
Lord when the sacramental words are uttered, and not before, so
that by virtue of the words of Christ the bred has at the same time
the name of the Sacrament and the name of the body of our Lord
Jesus Christ." 3
" It is not inconsistent that Christ is sacramentally in the wine
mixed with water or other liquid, and even in the midst of the air,
but pre-eminently in the soul, since the end of this Sacrament is
that Christ dwell in the soul by means of virtues, so that the layman
who remembers the body of Christ in heaven brings about better
and more effectually than the priest who consecrates, and equally
really, though in a different manner, that the body of Christ is with
him. But the common people believe most faithlessly and blas
phemously that this sacramental sign of the body of Christ is actually
Christ Himself. And in this heresy clergy and prelates are in
volved." *
"It appears that the second opinion — the Thomist opinion
that the same thing can be in two places at once only by being in
one place dimensionally and in other places potentially and sacra
mentally, as against the Scotist opinion that the same thing can be
dimensionally in more places than one at the same time — is to be
held, since it is impossible for the same body to be at the same
1 Trialogus, iv. 4 (p. 258, edition Lechlei). 'Ibid. 8 (p. 272).
3 Ibid. 9 (p. 275). See also iv. 1-10 (pp. 244-81), passim.
' De Eucharistia, cap. 4 (pp. Ill, 112, edition Loserth).

368 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
time in different places by way of locality and dimensions. ... It
is clear concerning the body of Christ that it is dimensionally in
heaven, and potentially in the host as in a sign." l
Wyclif s statements that the body of Chiist is not present in
the consecrated Sacrament " essentially or substantially or cor
porally or identically," or " identically, really, and actually in a
proper bodily presence," and that "the consecrated host" "is
neither Chiist nor any part of Him but an effectual sign of Him,"
and that " the Sacrament of the Eucharist is in figure the body
and blood of Christ," have often been understood as meaning that
the consecrated bread and wine are only symbols of the body and
blood of Chiist, and not the body and blood themselves. Such
an interpretation has much to support it ; yet a comparison of
different statements with one another and a careful examination of
his exact phraseology tend to sustain the view that he was en
deavouring in a scholastic fashion to assert the real presence of
the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated Sacrament, while
distinguishing the way in which He is present on the altar from
the way in which He is present in heaven, and maintaining the
real character of the bread and wine after consecration, and at
tempting to avoid what seemed to him the insuperable logical
contradictions of the current explanations ; that his phrase " The
consecrated host which we see on the altar is neither Christ nor
any part of Him but an effectual sign of Him " was intended to
apply to the outward part ; and that in like manner the state
ment " The Sacrament of the Eucharist is in figure the body and
blood of Christ " was an effort to express the doctrine that the
consecrated elements are symbols of the body and blood of Chiist
which contain and convey that which they denote.2
In 1395 a Bill was presented in Parliament incorporating
twelve Conclusions representing the opinions of the Lollards,
which were also affixed to the doors of Westminster Abbey and
St. Paul's Cathedral. Of these Conclusions the fourth referred
to the Eucharist in the following terms : —
" The feigned miracle of the Sacrament of bread leads all men
but a few into idolatry ; for they think that the body of Christ,
i De Eucharistia, cap. 8 (pp. 232, 233, 268, 271); see also the whole
treatise passim, and cf. De Apostasia.
2 See pp. 29-31, 61-67, supra.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 369
which is never out of heaven, is by the power of the words of the
priest in its essential being enclosed in a small piece of bread, which
they show to the people. But God would that they would believe
what the evangelical doctor says in his Trialogus,1 that the bread of
the altar is by way of relation (habitualiter) the body of Christ ; for
we suppose that in this way any man or woman who is a believer in
God's law can make the Sacrament of this bread without any such
miracle." 2
In 1402 a statement about the opinions of the Lollards was
laid before the Archbishop of Canterbury by Sir Louis de Clifford,
who had for some time favoured them. In this statement they
were said to hold —
" That the seven Sacraments are only dead signs, and are of no
value in the way in which the Church uses them."
" That the Church is nothing but the synagogue of Satan ; and
therefore they will not go to it to worship the Lord, or to receive
any Sacrament, least of all the Sacrament of the altar, because they
maintain that it is nothing but a morsel of dead bread and a tower
or pinnacle of Anti-Christ." 3
The doctrine that in the Sacrament there is real bread and
also the body of Christ is found in the Confession and subsequent
explanation of the Lollard Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham,
made in 1413. It is there said : —
" The most worshipful Sacrament of the altar is Christ's body in
form of bread, the same body that was born of the Blessed Virgin,
our Lady Saint Mary, done on the cross, dead and buried, the third
day rose from death to life, the which body is now glorified in
heaven." 4
" As Christ when dwelling here on earth had in Himself God
head and manhood, yet the Godhead veiled and invisible under the
manhood, which was open and visible, so in the Sacrament of the
altar there is real body and real bread, that is, the bread which we
see, and the body of Christ veiled under it which we do not see." 5
1 See p. 367, supra.
2 See Fasciculi Zizaniorum (Rolls Series, vol. v.), pp. 361, 362.
3 See Walsingham, Historia Anglicana (Rolls Series, vol. xxviii. b), ii.
252, 253.
* Fasciculi Zizaniorum, p. 438. The Confession was in English. The
spelling has been modernised above.
6 Op. cit. p. 444.
vol. i. 24

370 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
In the description of the tenets of the Lollards given about
1449 by Reginald Pecock, the Bishop of St. Asaph, afterwards
Bishop of Chichester, some of them were charged with holding
that the Sacraments and the Church's use of them were " points
of witchcraft and blindness," and with abhoiring " the Sacrament
of the altar," " insomuch that they not only scorn it, but they
hate it, miscall it by foul names, and will not come for its sake
into the bodily church while this Sacrament is hallowed, treated,
and used in the Mass ".1
There is some doubt as to the opinions held in regard to the
Eucharist by John Hus and Jerome of Prague. It is clear that
the influence of the teaching of Wyclif was very great in Bohemia
in the early part of the fifteenth century.2 Yet, whatever may
be the facts as to the earlier teaching of Hus, he himself expli
citly denied having taught that the material bread remains after
consecration or that a priest in mortal sin cannot consecrate, and
acknowledged the term Transubstantiation and the doctrine de
noted by it, though deprecating close inquiries as to the manner
of the change effected by consecration, and saying that for simple
Christians it was enough to recognise that the body and blood
of Chiist are really present after consecration.3 Jerome of
Prague was charged at the Council of Constance in 1415 with
holding that " the bread is not transubstantiated into the body
of Christ," and that " the body of Christ is not in the Sacrament
by way of presence and body but only as a sign," and that
" Christ is not really in the host or the Sacrament of the altar,"
and that " the host is not Christ " ; 4 but there is some evidence
of his having said that the Sacrament is bread before the con
secration and the body of Christ after the consecration, though
according to the same authority he evaded the question whether
the bread remains in the consecrated Sacrament.6 The state
ments ascribed to Wyclif about the Eucharist were included in
the propositions of Wyclif which he repudiated ; and when before
1 The Repressor of over much blaming of the clergy, c. 15 (Rolls Series,
vol. xix. a), ii. 563.
2 See Loserth, Johannis Wyclif de Eucharistia, Introduction, pp. xliv-lx.
3 De sac. corp. et sang. Dom. 2, 3 (Hus et Hieronymi Prag. Hist, et Mon.,
Nuremberg, 1558, i. 39, 40) ; cf. De corp. Christi (op. cit. i. 163-167).
4 Von der Hardt, Magn. Cone. Const, iv. 648.
5 Poggio, Ep. ad A retln. (in von der Hardt, op. cit. iii. 66).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 371
his death he retracted his abjuration of Hus and Wyclif, he may
have meant to except from the retractation his denial of Wyclif s
statements about the Eucharist in saying that "he did not
follow or hold anything which " Wyclif and Hus " had taught
against the doctors of the Church concerning the Sacrament of
the altar," and that he " believed and held all that the Church
believes and holds, and gave more credence to Augustine and the
other doctors of the Church than to Wyclif and Hus ".1
One of the leading opponents of Hus and Jerome of Prague
was Peter d'Ailly, who was appointed Chancellor of the Univer
sity of Paris in 1389, became Bishop of Puy-en-Velay in 1395 and
of Cambrai in 1396, was made a cardinal in 1411, and died in
1420. His great distinction and his opposition to Hus and
Jerome of Prague make it the more noticeable that in his trea
tise on the Sentences, while accepting the doctrine that the sub
stances of the bread and wine cease to be in the Sacrament at
consecration, he had spoken of the contrary opinion as "pos
sible," as " not repugnant to reason or to the authority of the
Bible," and as in itself " easier to understand and more reason
able " than any other view, and did not appear to regard it as
actually precluded by any binding decree.
" The fourth opinion is more common, that the substance of
bread does not remain but simply ceases to be. The possibility of
this is clear. For it is not impossible to God that substance should
suddenly cease to be, though it is not possible through created power.
And, though it is not clearly involved in Scripture that this is so,
nor even, so far as I can see, in the decision of the Church, yet because
the Church favours it rather than any other opinion as being the
common opinion of saints and doctors, therefore I hold it. And it
is according to this way that I say that the bread is transubstantiated
into the body of Christ in the meaning set forth in the description
of Transubstantiation." 2
An instance of rejection of the current doctrine which seems
to go beyond the teaching of Wyclif is found in the book of
John Wessel On the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Wessel was
born at Groningen about 1429, was educated under the Brethren
hardouin, Concilia, viii. 457, 563, 565 ; Hus et Hieronymi Prag. Hist.
et Mon., Nuremberg, 1558, ii. 352, 353 ; Von der Hardt, Magn. Cone. Const.
iv. 761, 771 ; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vii. 276 ; cf. p. 377, infra.
2 IV. vi. 2. 24*

372 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
of the Common Life at Zwolle, studied at the University of
Cologne, and taught at Paris and afterwards at Heidelberg.
He died in 1489 after some years of retirement at Groningen.
In early life he was a Realist but afterwards became a Nomina
list. He appears to have taught that there is no essential
difference between the presence of Christ in the Sacrament and
that which may be found elsewhere ; and this not in the sense
in which the mediaeval teachers had explained that by means of
Spiritual Communion those who were hindered from actual Com
munion might receive the body of Christ,1 and in which the
mediaeval office books directed the priest to say to a sick man
who was unable to receive Communion, " Brother, in this case
real faith is sufficient for thee, and good intention : only believe,
and thou hast eaten," 2 but in the very different sense which
made the Eucharistic gift of no other character or degree than
that which may at any time be in the devout prayer of a believer.
The following are among the passages in his book which appear
to indicate this meaning.
" Expressly must the word of the Lord be observed, ' Except ye
shall have eaten, ye will not have life in you'. But they who be
lieve in Him have real life. Therefore they who believe in Him
are those who eat His flesh." 3
" Wheresoever His Name is blessed . . . there is He really pre
sent not only with His Godhead and goodwill, but also corporally.
... I do not say that it is granted to every Christian man that
he can have Christ sacramentally present by means of the Eucharist
whenever he wishes ; for this is granted to priests only. But I say
that the Lord Jesus is really present to one calling on His Name,
really present not only with His Godhead but also with His flesh
and blood and whole manhood. For who will doubt that the Lord
Jesus is often corporally present to His faithful ones in their agonies,
though His session at the right hand of the Father is not left be
cause of this ? Who will doubt that this can happen simultaneously
uii such a way outside the Eucharist as in the Eucharist ? " 4
" So did the Magdalen eat of Him when she sat at the feet of
Jesus, whom she loved much. ... So to partake of His flesh and
, blood is rather to eat than if ten thousand times we should receive
1 See pp. 320, 331, supra.
' York Manual and Sarum Manual (Surtees Society, lxiii. 52, 50*). See
also St. Augustine, In Joan. Ev. Tract, xxv. 12, xxvi. 1 ; cf. p. 92, supra.
3 C. 10. ' C. 24.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 373
the Eucharist at the altar from the hand of the priest with a dry
heart and a cold will, even though in a state of salvation." 1
II.
Throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the au
thorities of the Western Church consistently aimed at suppress
ing any attempts to find or assert a doctrine of the Eucharistic
presence other than that which had become usual by the end
of the thirteenth century. It has already been mentioned that
John of Paris was deprived of his professorship by the Bishop
of Paris at the beginning of the fourteenth century for his
guarded statements on the subject of the substance of the bread
and wine in the consecrated Sacrament.2 And the controversy
with Wyclif led to very explicit utterances on the part of the
Church authorities.
In 1381 a solemn declaration was made by the Chancellor
and doctors of the University of Oxford against the opinions of
Wyclif on the Sacrament of the altar. In the formal docu
ment issued by the Chancellor it was said —
"Certain persons, . . . endeavouring to rend the coat of the
Lord and the unity of our holy Mother the Church, renew, alas ! in
these days certain heresies formerly solemnly condemned by the
Church, and publicly teach them both in the University and outside
it, saying two things among their other pestilential assertions, first,
that in the Sacrament of the altar the substance of material bread
and wine, which were before consecration, remain after consecration ;
secondly, which is dreadful to hear, that in this venerable Sacrament
the body and blood of Christ are not essentially or substantially or
corporally, but figuratively or symbolically (tropice), so that Christ is
not really there in His own proper bodily presence ; from which as
sertions the Catholic faith is endangered, the devotion of the people
is lessened, and this our Mother University is to no small extent
defamed. We therefore . . . have summoned many doctors of
sacred theology and professors of canon law, whom we believed to
be of great skill, and, when the aforesaid assertions had been openly
explained and carefully discussed in their presence, it was at length
finally decided and declared by their judgment that the assertions
are erroneous and opposed to the decisions of the Church and con
trary to truths which are Catholic and plainly result from the words
of the saints and the decisions of the Church, namely, that by the
1 C. 28. 2 See p. 362, supra.

374 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
sacramental words, duly pronounced by a priest, the bread and wine
on the altar are transubstantiated or substantially converted into the
real body and blood of Christ, so that after consecration there do
not remain in the venerable Sacrament the material bread and
wine, which were there before, in the two substances or natures, but
only in the species of the same, under which species the real body
and blood of Christ are actually contained, not only figuratively or
symbolically (tropice), but essentially, substantially, and corporally,
in such a way that Christ is really there in His own proper bodily
presence." 1
At the Council of London of 1382 each of the four statements
about the Eucharist already mentioned as ascribed to Wyclif at
this council2 was separately declared to be "heresy," and the
four statements were placed in the group of errors described as
" heretical and contrary to the decision of the Church ".3
In 1401 a priest named William Sawtry was burnt at Smith-
field after maintaining, among other opinions, that " after con
secration duly made by a priest the bread remains in the same
nature as before ".4
Statements made by, and a recantation received from, a priest
named Richard Wyche early in the fifteenth century are of very
considerable interest. Wyche was accused of false doctrine before
the Bishop of Durham, probably in the year 1401 ;5 and one of
the subjects about which he was questioned was that of the
Eucharist. An account of his examination contained in a letter
by Wyche himself has been preserved in a manuscript which was
found in the University Library at Prague by Professor Loserth
of Czernowitz. His first statement during his examination was
that he believed that " the consecrated host is after consecration
the real body of the Lord," and that, after it is divided, " each
part is the real body of the Lord in the form of bread ". On
being asked whether he believed that "after consecration the
real flesh and the real blood of Chiist are there," he answered,
1 Lyndwood, Provinciate, p. 59 (iii.), edition Oxford, 1679.
2 See p. 366, supra. 3 Hardouin, Concilia, vii. 1890-93.
'Fasciculi Zizaniorum (Rolls Series, vol. v.), p. 411.
6 See Matthew in English Historical Review, July, 1890, p. 530. If
this date is accepted, William, given in Wyche's recantation in Fasciculi
Zizaniorum (Rolls Series, vol. v.), p. 501, as the name of the Bishop of
Durham must be a mistake for Walter, Walter Skirlawe having been
Bishop of Durham from 1388 to 1406.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 375
" I believe that the host is the real flesh and the real blood of
Chiist". To the further question, "Is bread there after con
secration ?" he replied after some hesitation, " I believe that the
host is the real body of Chiist in the form of bread ". He re
fused to accept the correction that the consecrated host " is the
body of Chiist in the species of bread, not in the form " ; and
when asked, " Is material bread there or not ? " answered, " Holy
Scripture does not call the host material bread, therefore I am
unwilling1 to believe the same as an article of faith". In sub
sequent examinations, in reply to similar questions whether the
bread remains after consecration, he answered on different occa
sions, " I am not bound to believe otherwise than Holy Scripture
says '' ; "I have never seen the term ' material ' in Holy Scrip
ture " ; " It is enough for any believer to believe as Chiist said
without adding to His words ". As a result of the examinations
Wyche was excommunicated, and imprisoned, with a view to his
degradation and the confiscation of his property.2 Eventually,
he signed a recantation, which contained fourteen retractations
and six positive statements. The affirmations on the subject of
the Eucharist were : —
" The bread made of flour derived from corn and of water, which
is placed on the altar to be consecrated by the ministry of the
priest, after the words of consecration duly uttered by the priest
does not remain the bread of corn which was before placed there,
but is transubstantiated into the real body of Christ which was born
of the Virgin and suffered on the cross ; and the accidents of
material bread remain there, being set there without any substance
of the same ; "
" The wine which is placed on the altar to be consecrated by
the ministry of the priest, after the words of consecration uttered
over it by the priest is not wine, but is transubstantiated, and it is
transubstantiated into the real blood of Christ which was shed for
our redemption on the cross ; and there remain only the accidents
of wine without any substance of the same." 3
heading " nolo " for " volo " in the MS.
aA copy of this letter, which is headed in the MS. "Gesta cum
Richardo Wycz presbytero in Anglia," was sent by Professor Loserth to
Mr. F. D. Matthew, and was printed by him in the English Historical
Review, July, 1890, pp. 530-44.
3 Appendix VI. to Shirley's edition of Fasciculi Zizaniorum (Rolls
Series, vol. v.), pp. 503, 504.

376 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Years after, Wyche was known to teach contrary to this
recantation, and he was tried and degraded and burnt for
heresy. A proclamation of King Henry VI., dated 15th July,
1439, set forth the facts of his trial and abjuration " many
years now past," and of his more recent teaching and trial before
the Bishop of London, and degradation and execution; and
prohibited the making of pilgrimages to the place where he
had been burnt, or other devotion to him on the plea of miracles
worked by him.1
In a letter addressed to Archbishop Arundel of Canterbury
and the Bishops of the Province of Canterbury in the year 1412,
the University of Oxford placed among condemned propositions
the statements that "as Christ is at the same time God and
Man, so the consecrated host is at the same time the body of
Chiist and real bread, because it is the body of Chiist at least in
representation (in figura) and is real bread in nature," that "the
consecrated host " " is real bread by way of nature and the body
of Christ by way of representation (figwraliter)f and that
"a Catholic says that the sacramental bread is the body of
Christ, and the wine in the cup is His blood, in such a way "
as the expressions "the seven kine are seven years,"2 and
"the rock was Chiist,"3 and "this is Elijah,"4 are used in Holy
Scripture. 5
In 1413 Archbishop Arundel of Canterbury delivered to Sir
John Oldcastle a statement of doctrine declared to be obligatory,
in which it was said : —
" The faith and the determination of Holy Church touching the
blissful Sacrament of the altar is this, that after the sacramental
words be said by a priest in his Mass the material bread that was
before is turned into Christ's very body, and the material wine that
was before is turned into Christ's very blood, and so there leaveth
1 The proclamation is printed in Foxe, Acts and Monuments, iii. 703
(edition 1843-49). Since the above was in type the author has read
Gairdner, Lollardy and the Reformation in England, i. 171-84.
2 Gen. xii. 26. 3 1 Cor. x. 4. ' St. Matt. xi. 14.
6 Wilkins, Cone. iii. 342 ; cf. iii. 302 for a document of the University
of Oxford in 1406 in which it is said that Wyclif had not been convicted of
heresy, and that the bishops had not ordered the exhumation and burning
of his body : see also Gairdner, op. cit. i. 55, 56.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 377
on the altar no material bread nor material wine, the which were
there before the saying of the sacramental words." 1
The doctrine of the Eucharist was prominent among the
matters considered at the Council of Constance in 1415 and 1416.
The representation of Wyclif's teaching in the propositions in
which the Council of London of 1382 stated it, and which that
council declared to be heretical, was condemned ; 2 and these
propositions were among the statements which Jerome of Prague
was required by the council to repudiate.3 It was asserted that
"the whole body and blood of Christ are really contained both
under the species of bread and under the species of wine".4
One of the reasons given for the condemnation of Jerome of
Prague was that, though " he professed that he held and believed
what the Church holds about the Sacrament of the altar and the
Transubstantiation of the bread into the body," yet he " adhered
to the condemned propositions and errors of Wyclif and Hus ".5
Among the questions which the council required Hus to answer
were the following : —
" Whether he believes that after the consecration by the priest
there is not in the Sacrament of the altar under the veil of bread
and wine material bread and material wine, but wholly the same
Christ who suffered on the cross and sitteth at the right hand of the
Father." 6
"Whether he believes and asserts that, when the consecration
by the priest has taken place, under the species of bread alone by
itself and apart from the species of wine there is the real flesh and
blood and soul and deity of Christ and the whole Christ, and the
same body absolutely and under each one of those species sever
ally." i
One of the chief literary opponents of the teaching of the
followers of Wyclif was Thomas Netter or Notter, usually known
as Thomas Waldensis. He was bom at Saffron Walden about
1380, was a member of the University of Oxford, and became a
Carmelite. He died in 1430 at Rouen on his way to Paris.
1 Fasciculi Zizaniorum, pp. 441, 442 ; Wilkins, Concilia, iii. 355. The
statement was in English. The spelling has been modernised above.
2 Hardouin, Concilia, viii. 299, 302, 909. 3 Ibid. 457.
4 Ibid. 381. B Ibid. 565 ; cf. p. 371, supra.
eIbid. 915. ''Ibid.

378 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Besides whatever share he may have had in the collection of the
documents in the treatise Bundles of Tares of John Wyclif1 he
wrote an elaborate treatise on the doctrine of the Catholic Church,
one part of which, begun in 1425 and finished in 1427, is entitled
On the Sacraments. In this, the teaching of Wyclif is very fully
and severely criticised. The positive doctrine and the general
lines of thought are those inherited from the middle ages. A
point of interest is in the assertions that the body of Christ is
received in the Eucharist bodily (corporaliter) and in the flesh
(carnaliter) as well as spiritually. These assertions are subject
to the ambiguity which has often to be noticed2 whether the
meaning is that the reception is of the real body and flesh of
Chiist or that the body of Christ is received in a natural and
carnal way. The question is difficult to decide, and the alter
natives would not present themselves to a fifteenth century writer
in quite the same way as at the present time ; but the probability
seems to be that the point intended to be emphasised was that
what is in the Sacrament and is received by the communicant is
actually the real flesh and blood of Chiist which He took of the
Virgin and which suffered on the cross and rose from the dead
and ascended into heaven. Some of the passages which bear on
this question are the following : —
" Let us lay down and assert that the venerable consecrated
host is the sacred flesh of Christ in its nature under the sensible
form of bread." 3
" That Christ is to be adored not only in His Godhead but also
in the fleshly portion of His manhood, Ambrose proves,4 because
the Apostles adored Him, rising in the glory of the flesh, that is,
the flesh rising in glory. If then the faithful adore on the altar
this same flesh, this consecrated host alone existing in the same
glory, why are they to be called idolators ? There we neither know
nor revere any other consecrated host. Our chief Sacrament and
the consecrated host of all Christians is simply the living and divine
flesh of Christ." 5
"The mystery and Sacrament of the altar is simply the body
1 See pp. 365, 366, 374, 376, 377, supra. Cf. Shirley in his edition of
the Fasciculi Zizaniorum (Rolls Series, vol. v.), Introduction, pp. lxx-lxxvii.
2 See p. 258, supra, and vol. ii. pp. 168, 169, infra. 3XXI. 3.
4 Evidently an allusion to De Spir. Sane. iii. 76-80, quoted on p. 108,
supra. 5 XXVI. 6.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 379
and blood of the Saviour substantially in reality of nature, but
veiled by the figure of bread and wine." i
" We have to prove the absence of material bread in the con
secrated host." 2
" The Church of Christ declares and teaches that the words of
the Gospel3 are to be understood concerning bodily and fleshly
eating, and naturally and yet also spiritually, as the object in the
Sacrament is flesh that according to its essential being is natural
and naturally, although also spiritually, as it is in heaven in glory." 4
" The body of Christ is not carnal (carnalis) food, but spiritual ;
yet it has not been made spirit, and it has not ceased to be a fleshly
(carnale) body." 5
" Christ abides in us bodily through this Sacrament, but not bodily
by the bodily character of bread, . . . but of the flesh, in which the
Word was made flesh. And according to this flesh also He abides
in us naturally, and not only by the consent of the will. Do I sin
then if I add, Therefore not only spiritually, but also bodily, natur
ally, and carnally He is eaten ? For, as you [that is, Wyclif] said
above, to eat this food spiritually is to abide in Christ by love ; but
Christ is eaten not only in this way by the consent of the will, but
also corporally and carnally ; therefore He is eaten carnally and
not only spiritually." 6
" The flesh of Christ, of which the species is not there seen, is
believed to be there substantially ; and the species of bread, the
substance of which is not believed to be there, is there seen ; and
the real body of Christ, which hung on the tree, is there under the
species of bread, and is not only signified by the bread." 7
The matters before the Council of Florence in 1439 were very
different from those discussed at Constance in 1415 and 1416 ;
but the fact already stated in a different connection 8 that the
Definition of that council included incidental statements that
" the body of Christ is really consecrated " and that " the holy
sacrifices " benefit the departed 9 may also be mentioned here ;
and the following passage may be quoted from the Decree of
Pope Eugenius IV. to the Armenians, which was a result of the
proceedings of the council.
" The words of the Saviour, by which He consecrates this Sacra
ment, are the form of this Sacrament ; for the priest consecrates
iXXX. 3. 2XXXV. 2. 3I.e. St. John vi. 53.
4 LVIII. 3. 6 LVIII. 4. 6 LVIII. 6.
'L1X. 2. 8 See p. 172, supra. 9 Hardouin, Concilia, ix. 421, 422.

380 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
this Sacrament speaking in the person of Christ. For by the power
of these words the substance of the bread is converted into the
body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into His blood,
nevertheless in such a way that the whole Christ is contained under
the species of bread and the whole Christ is contained also under
the species of wine. Also, under any part of the consecrated host
and the consecrated wine, when a division is made, is the whole
Christ. The effect of this Sacrament which it produces in the soul
of one who receives it worthily is the uniting of the man to Christ.
And, because through grace man is incorporated in Christ and
united to His members it follows that through this Sacrament grace
is increased in those who receive it worthily ; and every effect which
material food and drink produce for the bodily life by sustaining
and increasing and restoring and delighting it, this Sacrament pro
duces for the spiritual life ; and in it, as Pope Urban says, we i ecall
the pleasant memory of our Saviour, we are held back from evil,
we are strengthened in good, and we advance to growth in virtues
and graces." 1 III.
Some of the practical aspects of the beliefs and teaching of
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries may be illustrated from
the writings of Mother Juliana of Norwich, John Myrc, and
Thomas a Kempis, and from Langforde's Meditations.
1. The book entitled Revelations of Divine Love was the
work of Mother Juliana, a Norwich anchoress, who lived from the
first half of the fourteenth century to the first half of the
fifteenth. It contains an account of sixteen revelations or
visions seen by Mother Juliana in the year 1373, when she was
thirty years old. One of the characteristic ideas in the teaching
of the book is that of the Motherhood of God and of Christ. In
connection with the Motherhood of Chiist there is an allusion to
the Eucharist.
"The mother's service is nearest, readiest, and securest.
Nearest, for it is most of nature ; readiest, for it is most of love ; and
securest, for it is most of truth. This office nor might nor could
never none have done to the full but He alone. We wit that all
our mothers bear us to pain and dying. What is that but our very
Mother Jesus ? He alone beareth us to joy, and to endless living,
blessed may He be. Thus He sustained us within Him in love and
1 Hardouin, Concilia, ix. 439.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 381
travail unto the full time that He would suffer the sharpest thorns
and grievous pains that ever were, or ever shall be, and died at the
last. And when He had done, and so borne us to bliss, yet might
not all this make satisfaction to His marvellous love. And that He
showed in these high overpassing words of love, 'If I might suffer
more, I would suffer more '. He might no more die, but He would
not cease working. Wherefore Him behoveth to find us, for the
dear worthy love of Motherhood hath made Him debtor to us. The
mother may give her child to suck her milk, but our precious
Mother Jesus He may feed us with Himself, and doth full cour
teously and full tenderly with the Blessed Sacrament, that is the
precious food of very life. And with all the sweet Sacraments
He sustaineth us full mercifully and graciously. And so meant He
in these blessed words, where He said, ' I it am, that holy Church
preacheth thee and teacheth thee ' ; that is to say, all the health and
the life of the Sacraments, all the virtue and all the grace of My
word, all the goodness that is ordained in holy Church to thee, ' I it
am '. The mother may lay her child tenderly to her breast, but
our tender Mother Jesus, He may homely lead us into His blessed
breast by His sweet open side, and show us there in part of the
Godhead, and the joys of heaven, with ghostly secureness of end
less bliss."1
2. John Myrc was a canon of Lilleshall in Shropshire in the
early part of the fifteenth century. In his Festival Book he
writes thus about the Eucharist : —
"The fourth is the holy Sacrament of the altar, the which is
Christ's own body, His flesh and blood in form of bread, the same
that was born of the Virgin Mary, and done on the rood ; this is
made through the virtue of God's words of the priest that hath
power, which power neither angel nor archangel hath, but only
man in mind of Himself. This Sacrament is every man and woman
bound by the law once a year as at Easter, if he be fourteen years of
age and have discretion to receive it, when they been with shrift
and penance made clean of their sins, and else to be put out of the
Church and of Christian burial, but if it be for sickness or for some
reasonable cause, which cause he must certify his curate of. For
1 The Revelations of Divine Love was edited by the Benedictine Dom
Cressy in 1670. It was reprinted in 1845. The above quotations are
from pp. 228-30 of the edition edited by Mr. Henry Collins in 1877 in
the Medieval Library of Mystical and Ascetical Works.

382 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
he that unworthily receiveth this Sacrament receiveth his damna
tion." x
In his Instructions for Parish Priests John Myrc includes in
the teaching to be given to the people that they are to believe
that they receive " God's body " " in form of bread," and that the
consecrated wine is " God's blood that He shed on the rood " ; that
they are to kneel down and hold up their hands and say words
of prayer to our Lord when the bell rings at the consecration ;
that when they meet the priest carrying the Sacrament out of
doors, they are to kneel down and " worship Him that all hath
wrought " ; that the " sight " of " God's body " leads to earthly
benefits and protection to him who has seen it on any day.2 If
a sick man is unable to receive the Sacrament, he is to be told
that " God alloweth his heart and his will ". 3
3. The book entitled The Music of the Church, usually
known as The Imitation of Christ, was probably written by
Thomas Hammerken of Kempen, Thomas a Kempis, an Augus-
tinian monk who died in 1471 at the age of ninety-one. The
main subj ect of the first two books is the moral and spiritual dis
cipline by means of which a Christian may become a true follower
of Chiist ; the third book, often wrongly placed as the fourth,
deals with the Eucharist as the means of union with Chiist ; the
fourth book, regarded in its right order, which the ordinary edi
tions displace, is on the mystical union of the soul with Chiist, to
which sacramental Communion leads those who use it well. Some
passages from this well-known treatise may be quoted as affording
instances of the devotional aspects of the mediaeval doctrine of
the Eucharist on its highest sides.
" Thou art present with me here upon the altar, my God, Holy
of Holies, Creator of men, and Lord of angels." 4
" Here in the Sacrament of the altar Thou art wholly present,
my God, the Man Christ Jesus ; here too a rich harvest of eternal
salvation is reaped as oft as Thou art worthily and devoutly re
ceived." 5
1 See Appendix II. of the Early English Text Society's edition of The
Lay Folks Mass Book, p. 121. The spelling has been modernised above.
2 Pp. 8, 9, 10, 17, 29, Early English Text Society's edition. There is
much information as to the importance attached to seeing the Sacrament
in an article by Father Thurston in The Month for June, 1901.
3 Op. cit. p. 61. ' III. i. 9. B III. i. 9.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 383
" O the admirable and hidden grace of this Sacrament, which
only the faithful ones of Christ do know, but the unbelieving and
slaves of sin cannot experience. In this Sacrament spiritual grace
is conferred, and lost virtue is restored in the soul, and the beauty
which sin had disfigured returns. This grace is sometimes so great
that out of the fulness of devotion here given not the mind only but
the weak body also feels great increase of strength bestowed on it." 1
"Thou, O Lord my God, true God and Man, art contained
wholly under the small species of bread and wine, and art eaten yet
not consumed by him who receives Thee." 2
" As often as thou callest to mind this mystery and receivest the
body of Christ, so often dost thou enact the work of thy redemption,
and art made partaker of all the merits of Christ. For the love of
Christ is never diminished, and the greatness of His propitiation is
never exhausted." 3
" None but priests duly ordained in the Church have power to
celebrate and to consecrate the body of Christ. The priest is indeed
the minister of God, using the word of God by God's command and
appointment. Nevertheless God is there the principal Author and
invisible Worker, to whom all that He wills is subordinate, and all
that He commands is obedient. Thou oughtest then to trust God
Almighty in this most excellent Sacrament more than thine own
sense or any visible sign." *
" There is no worthier oblation nor greater satisfaction for the
washing away of sins than to offer oneself unto God purely and
wholly with the oblation of Christ's body in Mass and Communion." 6
" Every devout person every day and every hour can profitably
and unimpeded draw near to Christ in Spiritual Communion, and
yet on certain days and at time appointed he ought to receive the
body of his Redeemer sacramentally with affectionate reverence, and
rather seek the honour and glory of God than his own comfort." °
" In this Sacrament I have Thee really present, though hidden
under another species. For to look upon Thee in Thine own divine
brightness, mine eyes could not endure, nor could the whole world
exist in the splendour of the glory of Thy majesty. Herein then
Thou hast compassion on my infirmity, that Thou dost veil Thyself
under a Sacrament. Him do 1 really possess and adore whom angels
adore in heaven ; I for a while as yet by faith, but they by sight
and without a veil." 7
" Simple and chaste should be the eyes that are wont to behold
1 III. i. 11. 2 HI. ii. 5. 3 III. ii. 6. ' III. v. 1, 2.
6 III. vii. 4. 6 III. x. 6. 7 HI. xi. 1, 2.

384 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
the body of Christ. Pure and lifted up to heaven should be the
hands that are wont to touch the Creator of heaven and earth." 1
" Beware of curious and unprofitable searching into this most pro
found Sacrament, if thou wilt not be plunged into the depths of
doubt. ' He that pries into majesty shall be overpowered by glory.' 2
God can work more than man can understand. . . . Human reason
is feeble and may be deceived, but true faith cannot be deceived.
All reason and natural inquiry ought to follow faith, not to go before
or break in upon it. For faith and love do here especially take the
lead, and work in hidden ways in this most holy, most supremely
excellent Sacrament. ... If the works of God were such that they
might be easily comprehended by human reason, they could not be
called marvellous or ineffable." 3
4. Langforde's Meditations for Ghostly Exercise in the Time
cf the Mass may be a fifteenth century work. In it the details
of the rite are described as a mystical representation of the
passion and resurrection of Chiist. At the consecration the
people are directed to pay " due reverence to the blessed body
of our Lord," and to say at the elevation of the host, " Hail,
Light of the world, King of kings, Glory of heaven, who didst
gladly bear the penalty of death for us. Hail, our Salvation,
true Peace, Redemption, Power," and at the elevation of the
chalice, " Hail, price of our Redeemer. Hail, pledge of our
eternal inheritance. Hail, glorious blood of Christ. Blessed be
the Lord my God, Jesus Chiist, from whose side Thou wast
poured for the redemption of the world." 4
IV.
In the attitude of devotion of which illustrations have been
given the presence of Christ is closely connected with the con
secrated elements. It is because the bread and wine are regarded
as being after consecration the body and blood of our Lord that
the devout worshipper is able to speak and pray in the manner
which has been described. Other consequences of the same be
lief in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and in the early
part of the sixteenth may be seen in the Hereford Missal, the
Customary of St. Augustine's Abbey at Canterbury, the Sarum
Missal and Processional, the York Processional, and the Sarum
Cantels of the Mass.
1 III. xi. 7. 2 Prov. xxv. 27. 3 III. xviii. 1, 4, 5.
4 In Tracts on the Mass (Henry Bradshaw Society), p. 24.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 385
1. The fourteenth century manuscript of the Hereford Missal
provides, like earlier documents already quoted, showing practices
of the eleventh and twelfth and thirteenth centuries,1 for the
carrying of the " body of Chiist " in procession on Palm Sunday,
and for acts of adoration in connection with the procession. It
is directed that relics be carried as well as the Sacrament.2
2. In the manuscript of the Customary of St. Augustine's
Abbey at Canterbury, which was apparently written in the first
half of the fourteenth century, there are directions for carrying
the " body of Chiist " in procession on Ascension Day above the
reliquary of St. Letard.3
3. In the Sarum Missal the priest is directed after the con
secration of the host to " incline himself to the host,4 and after
wards elevate it above his forehead so that it can be seen by the
people," and after the consecration of the chalice to "elevate
the chalice to his breast or above his head ".5
In the same Missal the following directions are given for the
Communion of the celebrant : —
" After the peace has been given the priest is to say the following
prayers privately before he communicates himself, holding the host
in both hands.
" O God the Father, Fount and Source of all goodness, who in
Thy pity didst will that Thine only-begotten Son shouldst descend
for us to this lower world, and take flesh, which I unworthy hold
here in my hands.
'' Here the priest is to incline himself towards the host, saying,
"I adore Thee, I glorify Thee, I praise Thee with the whole
purpose of my mind and heart, and I pray Thee not to forsake us
Thy servants, but to forgive our sins, so that we may be able to
serve Thee, the one living and true God, with pure heart and
chaste body. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
1 See pp. 249, 250, 352, 353, supra.
2 See Henderson, Missale ad usum per Celebris ecclesice Herefordensis, pp.
79-81. The author has to thank Mr. Charlton Walker for freshly collating
for him the MS. belonging to University College, now in the Bodleian
Library (MS. Univ. Coll. 78A).
3 Customary of St. Augustine's Canterbury, i. 115, ii. 285 (Henry Brad
shaw Society edition).
4 A later Missal adds "and adore it with bowed head ".
5 Like provisions are in the Sarum Missals of all dates, as also in other
Missals. The sentences quoted above are on col. 617 of the Burntisland
edition, published in 1861-83.
vol. i. 25

386 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
"O Lord Jesu Christ, Son of the living God, who of the will of
the Father and by the co-operation of the Holy Ghost hast given
life to the world by Thy death, deliver me, I beseech Thee, by this
Thy most holy body and blood from all my iniquities and from
every evil ; make me always to obey Thy commands, and suffer me
never for ever to be separated from Thee, O Saviour of the world.
Who with God the Father and the same Holy Spirit livest and
reignest God for ever and ever. Amen.
" Let not the Sacrament of Thy body and blood, O Lord Jesu
Christ, which I albeit unworthy receive, be to me for judgment and
condemnation ; but by Thy goodness may it be profitable to the
health of my body and soul. Amen.
" Bowing low, he is to say to the body, before he receive it,
" Hail for evermore, most holy flesh of Christ, to me before all
and above all the greatest joy. The body of our Lord Jesus Christ
be to me a sinner the Way and the Life, in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
" Here he is to receive the body, first making a cross with the
body itself before his mouth. Then with great devotion he is to
say to the blood,
" Hail for evermore, heavenly drink, to me before all and above
all the greatest joy. The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ
be profitable to me a sinner for an abiding healing unto eternal fife.
Amen. In the name'of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost. " Here he is to receive the blood ; and, when he has received
it, the priest is to incline himself, and to say with devotion the fol
lowing prayer.
" I give Thee thanks, O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Eternal
God, who hast refreshed me with the most sacred body and blood
of Thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ ; and I pray that this Sacrament
of our salvation which I, an unworthy sinner, have received may
not turn to me for judgment or for condemnation according to my
deserts, but may be profitable for the health of my body and soul
unto eternal life. Amen." x
The Sarum Missal and Processional provide for the carrying
of the Sacrament in the Palm Sunday procession by the follow
ing directions : —
" While the palms are being distributed, a shrine with relics is
to be prepared, in which the body of Christ is to hang in a pyx ;
1 Col. 625-27 (Burntisland edition).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 387
... a light is to be borne before it in a lantern, and an unveiled
cross and two banners are to be carried in front. Then the proces
sion is to go to the place of the first station. . . . After the Gospel
three clergy of the second grade ... are to turn to the people,
and standing on the west side of the great cross are to sing together,
Behold the King cometh to thee, O Sion, mystic daughter, meek,
lowly, sitting on beasts, whose coming the prophetic lesson has
already foretold. After each verse the officiant is to begin the
antiphon ' Hail,' turning to the relics, and the choir are to take it
up from him, genuflecting and kissing the ground. The officiant is
to genuflect first, and the choir are to genuflect with him.
Then the procession is to go to the place of the second station ;
and the shrine with the case of relics is to be borne with the light
in the lantern between the sub-deacon and the thurifer, the banners
being on either side ; and the cantor is to begin the antiphon,
Worthy art Thou, O Lord our God, to receive glory and honour.
Then the antiphon, 'The multitudes meet'. . . . They are to enter
the church by the same door under the shrine with the case of relics
held up across the door, singing, When the Lord entered the holy
city, the Hebrew boys proclaimed the resurrection of life ; with
branches of palms they cried, Hosanna in the highest ; when they
heard that Jesus had come to Jerusalem, they went out to meet
Him ; with branches of palms they cried, Hosanna in the highest.
Here the fourth station is to be, before the cross in the church ;
and at the station the officiant, the cross being now uncovered, is to
begin the antiphon, and the choir is to take it up, genuflecting and
kissing the ground. . . . When this is done, they are to enter the
choir." 1
The Sarum directions further appointed a like manner of
treating the Sacrament on Good Friday and the following days,
whereby the Sacrament was placed together with the cross in
the Sepulchre on Good Friday, remained there throughout Holy
1 Col. 258-62 (Burntisland edition) : cf. Martene, De Ant. Eccl. Rit. IV.
xx. ordo 7. See also the fifteenth century direction for this procession
in Crede Michi, p. 50 (Henry Bradshaw Society edition). For this proces
sion on Palm Sunday at Rouen, see Martene, op. cit. IV. xx. 11, and
ordo 5 ; and cf. p. 250 note 1, supra. For the carrying of the Sacrament
in the procession on Corpus Christi Day, see the Bulls of Pope Martin V.
(1429 a.d.) and Pope Eugenius IV. (1433 a.d.), the Letter of the Council
of Basle (1434 a.d.), and the Statutes of the Provincial Council of Cologne
(1452 a.d.), in Cherubini, Bullarium Romanum, i. 328, 342 ; Hardouin,
Concilia, viii. 1489-91, ix. 1368. 25*

388 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Saturday, and on Easter Day was brought in procession to the
altar.1
4. In the York Processional instructions are given that after
the Gospel in the blessing of the palms on Palm Sunday and
before the procession goes round the church —
" The body of the Lord is to be brought out by another priest
vested in an alb and silk cope with a silver cup through the eastern
part of the church, with a pall held over it by two deacons and two
acolytes, two clergy going before with torches to the aforesaid
station. Then the priest is to bless, genuflecting three times and
saying, Worthy art Thou, O Lord our God, to receive glory and
honour. Afterwards the choir are to do the same, and to take up
the antiphon. Then the priest is to return with the body into the
church by the same way that he came." 2
5. The Sarum Cantels of the Mass provide with elaborate
care for the bodily and spiritual preparation of the priest before say
ing Mass, for his reverent demeanour and precise performance of
the prayers and ceremonies, for securing that the elements are of
the right matter and in proper condition, for certain emergencies
in the celebration, and for the steps to be taken in the event of any
accident befalling the Sacrament. It may suffice to give one
instance of the last-mentioned provisions.
" If a drop from the chalice has fallen on the altar, the drop
must be sucked up, and the priest is to do penance for three days.
But, if the drop has penetrated through the linen cloth to the second
linen cloth, he must do penance for four days ; if to the third linen
cloth, for nine days ; if the drop of the blood has penetrated to the
fourth cloth, he must do penance for twenty days. And a priest or
deacon must wash the linen cloths which the drop has touched three
times over a chalice ; and the washing is to be preserved with the
relics." 3 V.
Gabriel Biel was a professor of theology at Tubingen in the
latter half of the fifteenth century, and died at that place in
1 Missale, col. 332, 333 (Burntisland edition) ; Frere, The Use of
Sarum, i. 153 ; cf. p. 250 note 2, supra.
2 P. 149 in the edition in vol. lxiii. of the publications of the Surtees
Society. 3 Col. 655 (Burntisland edition).

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 389
1 495 . He may be regarded as the most famous of the Scotist theo
logians of the time. On the Eucharistic presence he accepts the
ordinary teaching of his age. At the consecration the bread and
wine are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Chiist, so
that " the body of Chiist, which was taken from the Virgin Mary,
which suffered and was buried, which rose and ascended into
heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, in which
the Son of God will come to judge the living and the dead, is
really and actually contained under the species of bread".1
" The substance of bread does not remain but is actually and
really converted or transubstantiated or changed into the sub
stance of the body of Chiist." 2 Both " matter" and " form " of
bread cease to be, " perchance by the withdrawal of the conserva
tion of God " ; " the accidents are preserved in their own being
without a subject"; "the real body of Chiist by real presence
comes into the place of the substance of the bread under the same
accidents, so that the bread is no longer there (ad panis desi-
tionem)".3 On the effects of Communion, after pointing out
that good material food injures some by reason of the unhealthy
state of their bodies, and that in like manner the " spiritual
food" of the Eucharist does harm to those who receive it
" irreverently and unworthily," Biel goes on to say : —
" I think that no mortal being can fully describe the fruits of
the offering and reception of it by those who approach or offer
worthily. ... In this most sacred food, when worthily received,
the real body of Christ is joined by a unique union to His mystical
body, which is denoted in this Sacrament, and from it there comes
to the members of the mystical body a whole inflow of blessed life.
Christ the Bridegroom is joined to the Church His bride ; and from
Him she receives the adornment of perfection according to the
measure of each member until she comes to the measure of the ful
ness of Christ. . . . This food kindles love, keeps up the memory
of the Lord's passion, sustains for the performance of good, strengthens
for the preservation of holy desire, increases hope, cleanses venial sin
and sometimes mortal sin, refreshes with eternal consolation him
who eats it spiritually, gives the life of grace, unites firmly to Christ,
establishes faith without error, fortifies against the falls which are
the result of human weakness, and lessens the burning fire of fleshly
lust in the face of the assaults of the devil." 4
1 Sacri canonis missae expos, leet. xxxix. lit. C.
2 Op. cit. leet. xl. lit. A. 3 Ibid. H. ' Ibid. Ixxxv. lit. A, B.

390 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
In view of later controversies, the teaching of Biel about the
Eucharistic sacrifice is of some importance. He explains that
the Eucharist is called a sacrifice because it was " instituted to
be a memorial of the supreme sacrifice offered on the cross ".1
He speaks of the priest as " the instrument and minister of the
Church " ; and says that the sacrifice is " the sacrifice of the
whole Church," and that " the Church offers it through the priest
as through a minister appointed and ordained for this purpose,"
and that the holiness of the Church secures the acceptance of the
sacrifice even when the priest who offers is not pleasing to God
because he is sinful. Yet the priest is " not only an instrument "
but also " an administrator," and " in offering the sacrifice in the
person of the Church, he can apply its fruit and virtue specially
to some one person or to certain persons," and he can " determine
his own intention as to those for whom he will specially offer it ".2
In connection with the consecration Biel says incidentally that
" Jesus Christ Himself is priest and sacrifice ".3 On the merit of
the sacrifice he writes : —
" It is clear that the merit of the Mass is not infinite so far as
the merit of the Church which offers it and the personal merit of
the priest who celebrates are concerned. For neither grace which
is the root of merit nor the acts of the creatures, the Church and the
priest, which are elicited by grace, are infinite. Therefore neither
is the merit infinite. For merit is commensurate to grace and to
act. . . . The merit of the offering of Christ in the sacrifice of the
Mass is far less than was the merit of His offering on the cross.
For on the cross Christ offered Himself immediately, being made a
real sacrifice, dying once for the effectual redemption of all the pre
destined. ... In the service of the Mass there is the same sacrifice
and oblation, not by a repeated death but by the commemorative re
presentation of the once suffered death. . . . Wherefore He suffered
once only ; and yet we daily present the memorial of His one death
in this sacramental sacrifice. . . . The Mass is not of equal value
with the passion and death of Christ as regards merit, because in the
sacrifice of the Mass Christ does not again die, though His death,
and therefore all its merit, is specially commemorated in it. . . . If
the Mass were of equal value with the passion and death, then, as
Christ suffered once only for the redemption of the whole world, so
1 Sent. IV. viii. 1.
2 Sac. can. miss. exp. leet. xxvi. lit. B, E, H.
3 Op. cit. leet. xl. lit. A.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 391
also one Mass would suffice for the redemption of all souls from all
the pains of purgatory, and for obtaining from God all good, which is
not to be said." 1
Elsewhere Biel writes of the effects of the sacrifice of the
Mass: —
"The Sacrament of the Eucharist, as a sacrifice offered to the
Most High Father, takes away not only venial but also mortal sin,
I do not say simply of those who receive it, but, of all those for
whom it is offered, so far as concerns guilt and penalty, to a greater
or less degree according to the disposition of those for whom it is
offered.2 . . . And therefore this service is offered for the living
and for the dead." 3
In most of the doctrine thus taught about the Eucharistic
sacrifice Biel follows closely the lines of the theology of Duns
Scotus. 4 The last quotation, like a passage previously quoted
from a treatise ascribed to Albert the Great and St. Thomas
Aquinas,6 has some special importance in regard to the controver
sies about the Eucharistic sacrifice which it will be necessary to
discuss in considering the theology of the sixteenth century.
VI.
The Guild of Corpus Christi in the city of York was founded
in the year 1408. The register book of the Guild, now in the
British Museum, contains a discourse on the text " This is My
body " prefixed to the list of members. This discourse may be
cited as an instance of teaching given popularly in the fifteenth
century. In it the following passage occurs : —
'"The Father of mercies, and Lord of all comfort, who com-
forteth us in all our affliction ' 6 ' sent His only begotten Son,' 7 who
humbled Himself by taking our flesh, and most meekly bore all
kinds of insults to increase our merit, and as time went on wrought
many miracles in the glory of His pity, so that at last He restored
the whole human race to the unity of peace by the most health-
giving suffering of His body. Therefore, because the one body of
Christ, offered in sacrifice for our sins, sustained by the light of the
1 Op. cit. lecfc. xxvii. lit. K, L.
2 Biel here quotes the passage from St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. IV. xii.
2 (2, 3), which has been cited on pp. 326, 327, supra.
3 Op. cit. leet. lxxxv. lit. L. ' See pp. 340-44, supra.
5 See pp. 322, 328, supra. 6 2 Cor. i. 3, 4. 7 St. John iii. 16.

392 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
majesty of God, scourged and crucified by the Jews, was a most
fitting means, and because ... we daily fall by the weight of sin,
this body, now impassible, is daily consecrated in the Church under
the species of bread and wine for the cure of sins, and is left to
all Christians as a memorial sign. . . . This offering is repeated
daily, though Christ by once for all suffering in the flesh once for all
saved the world by His one and the same endurance of death.
From this death He rose to life, and ' death shall no more have
dominion over Him ' ; 1 and because we daily fall, Christ is daily
sacrificed in mystery, and the passion of Christ is mystically set
forth as of Him who once for all conquered death by His death and
daily pardons our recurring offences and sins by means of this Sacra
ment of His body and blood. Moreover, this precious Sacrament is
daily repeated to keep in mind the prayer that, as Christ united the
members with the Head by His precious passion, so we may be
united by faith and hope and love." 2
VII.
It is no easy task to summarise so complicated a history as
that of Western Eucharistic theology from the sixth century to
the fifteenth. Yet an attempt must be made to gather up the
threads of the preceding account.
The evidence afforded by the sixth and seventh and eighth
centuries shows little more than the preservation of the tradition
that the consecrated elements are the body and blood of Christ,
that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and that those only benefit by
Communion who partake of the Sacrament worthily. The sacri
fice is connected with both the passion and the heavenly life of
our Lord. The power of obtaining specific results as the direct
outcome of the offering of the sacrifice is more clearly taught by
St. Gregory the Great than by any earlier writer except St.
Augustine. Isidore of Seville lays stress on the presence of Chiist
in the Sacrament being the presence of His glorified body, and
on the corollary that Chiist is wholly present with both body
and blood in each species.
The ninth and tenth centuries were marked by the controver
sies which arose from the teaching of Amalarius of Metz and
1 Rom. vi. 9.
2 The register and the discourse are printed in vol. lvii. of the Surtees
Society's publications ; the passage quoted above is on p. 3.

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 393
Paschasius Radbert. Amalarius appears to have been the first
Western writer to put in clear and detailed form the idea of the
prayers and ceremonies of the Mass as parts of a great drama of
mystic representation of the life and death and resurrection of
Chiist. Some of his explanations were thought to suggest a gross
and carnal view of the presence of Christ and of the offering of
the sacrifice, and consequently led to his being attacked ; but,
though some of his statements are confused, the probability is
strong that he, like his opponents, was keenly desirous of main
taining the spiritual aspects of both presence and sacrifice. Both
parties in the controversy lay stress on the commemoration of
the passion of Chiist and the union with the heavenly worship
as elements in the sacrifice. The controversy raised by Paschasius
centred round the nature of the change effected by the consecra
tion of the Sacrament. In the mind of Paschasius the elements
were wholly made the body and blood of Christ, and this body
and blood were those with which Chiist was bom of the Virgin.
Others denied this identification of the Eucharistic body with
that of our Lord's earthly life; and to a greater or less extent
questioned the actual character of any change in the elements.
Both Paschasius and his opponents emphasise the spiritual nature
of the presence of Christ's body ; both attach importance to the
records of miracles which on the surface may suggest carnal
ideas of a body in the natural state of the pre-resurrection life.
All alike regard the Eucharist as a commemoration of the pas
sion ; Paschasius in particular expounds with great beauty and
power the union of the earthly sacrifice with the heavenly actions
of our Lord. By all alike the benefits of Communion are re
stricted to those who receive worthily. At the end of the tenth
century the explicit teaching of Paschasius appears to have been
widely accepted.
The marked feature of the eleventh century was the Beren
garian controversy. The course of it shows two tendencies at
work in regard to the presence of Chiist in the Sacrament, both
probably derived from the theology of Paschasius. The first of
these tendencies is in the direction of naturalistic language and
thought. This was a not unnatural result of emphasis on the
actual character of the change effected by consecration coupled
with but little attention to the spiritual nature of the risen body
of Christ. The second tendency was of an opposite kind, to

394 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
insist on the spiritual nature of the presence to the extent of im-
paring conviction that it was of the real body of our Lord. In
the working out of these two tendencies, some of the language
used by leading theologians and some of that imposed on
Berengar are likely to suggest the idea of a carnal and natural
istic presence, and some of Berengar's own statements incline
towards a denial that our Lord is really present under the con
secrated species. Among his followers there appear to have been
those who went further than he did himself in this direction.
If both parties are viewed at their best, the anxiety of those who
were influenced by the second tendency seems to have been lest
the chief Sacrament of the Christian religion should be degraded
into a mechanical and camal rite, and the dread of their
opponents was evidently lest the value of the Sacrament as a
means of real union with Chiist Himself should be destroyed.
In this dread, parts of the legislative acts of the authorities of
the Church were marked by panic with the unsatisfactory results
which usually accompany such legislation. But it would be
very unfair to suppose that those who were active against
Berengar were always affected by panic or that they were un
mindful of the higher considerations which supplied the best
elements in his thought. The later councils avoided the na-
turalistic language which had been used in earlier stages of the
controversy ; and Lanfranc and others who acted with him were
explicit in affirming the spiritual character of the Eucharistic
realities. As so often in controversies there were dangers in two
directions ; and it is not surprising that at times individuals
failed to hold in their right relation two co-ordinate truths.
In the latter part of the eleventh century and in the twelfth,
consequences of the Berengarian controversy may be observed in
the care taken to maintain that the Eucharistic presence is
actually of the real body and blood of Christ, and at the same
time to emphasise the spiritual nature of the body and the
presence. One feature of the time was the use made of the
realistic philosophy, with its theory of an impalpable substance,
to protect Eucharistic doctrine from camal notions. Instances
of ways of regarding the problems of the subject different from
those usually accepted are found in the teaching of Rupert of
Deutz and Abelard. The same period is marked by the em
phasis laid by the liturgical writers on the aspects of the Euchar-

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 395
istic sacrifice in which it is viewed in union with the heavenly
offering of Christ.
The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries saw the great de
velopment of the subtleties of the scholastic theology. Dominican
and Franciscan theologians, in spite of the great differences of
their thoughts and aims, strove almost equally to present the
doctrine of the Eucharist so as to be in harmony with reason.
Their habit of raising every question and dealing with every
objection that acute and subtle minds knew of or could imagine
makes much in their voluminous writings wearisome and even
repulsive to a modern reader ; their use of reason, the problems
they devised, their lines of argument, are all apt to suggest that
they look on the phenomena of the Eucharist in a naturalistic
fashion ; their way of finding a solution of every difficulty may
often be repellent to those who have a keen sense of the mysteries
of God's working. These features of their works have led many
superficial readers to fail in appreciating what they really meant.
The patient student may find at the back of all their strange
arguments, all the limitations of their age, all their bondage to
philosophic theories, all their delight in gathering arguments from
every sphere, two great convictions about the Eucharistic pre
sence, which in the circumstances of their own time they success
fully maintained, — first, that the real body and blood of the
crucified and risen Lord, once slain and now living and glorious,
are present under the species of bread and wine to be the
spiritual food of those who worthily partake of the Sacrament ;
and, secondly, that this presence is of a spiritual kind, not effected
by any natural law, not of a body in any natural condition,
uniquely wonderful, without true parallels elsewhere, though in
harmony with the principles set up by the incarnate life of the
divine Redeemer. In the pains taken in developing their
doctrine of Transubstantiation, they failed to take equal care
about the doctrine of the sacrifice ; and, while some aspects were
discussed, there appears to have been little remembrance of the as
sociation with our Lord's heavenly life, which had been prominent
at some earlier times, and which might have helped to a better
understanding of the actually sacrificial character of the com
memoration of the sacrifice of the cross.
Side by side with the theological teaching of these centuries
came some development of ceremonial and devotional practice.

V

396 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
It was marked by the maintaining of the aspect of the prayers
and ceremonies of the Mass as being from one point of view a
dramatic representation of the highest and most mystic kind of
the life and death and resurrection of Christ, and the sense that
Christ, " the Creator," " the King of glory," being in His Sacra
ment, was to be adored.
It is impossible to estimate the effect on the ignorant multi
tude of the teaching and actions of the theologians and authorities
of the Church. In the absence of evidence it is easy to conjecture
that many of the ignorant may have utilised the power they
often possess of realising spiritual truths, and have had ideas
which, however imperfect, were not false ; and that many others,
on hearing of the presence of the body of Chiist, would be unable
to rise to any higher conception than that of an earthly and
camal body, just as to the ignorant to hear of the love and
care and actions of God often suggests anthropomorphic concep
tions of deity. In like manner, it is easy to interpret, according
as the mind of the interpreter is disposed, the legends of devout
persons sustained by the reception of the Eucharist without
other food as examples of a grossly superstitious view of a carnal
presence of the body of Chiist or as signs of an intensely spiritual
belief transcending the things of sense. But it is well to re
member that, whether in one direction or in the other, these are
conjectures and not ascertained facts.
In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there were question
ings of the more philosophic aspects of the received doctrine.
To some extent these led to questioning of parts of the doctrine
itself. Wyclif used the subtleties of a schoolman to attack the
subtleties of the schoolmen. The Lollards uniformly asserted
that the bread and wine remain after consecration ; and some of
them are said to have denied that the consecrated Sacrament is
anything besides bread and wine. Wessel pushed the truth of
the abiding spiritual communion of the Christian with Christ to the
denial of the specific gift of the Eucharist. In dealing with all
such movements the attitude of the authorities of the Church was
to maintain the traditional doctrine in the form in which they
had inherited it from the theologians of the thirteenth century.
Thomist and Scotiht theologians had their different- ways of
looking at the Eucharistic sacrifice. There may have been
elements in the teaching of both which paved the way for a

WESTERN THEOLOGY FROM THE SIXTH CENTURY 397
separation between the sacrifice of the altar and the sacrifice of
Calvary, and to mechanical notions of satisfaction for sin ; and
the Thomist idea of a sacrifice as that " in which something is
done " may have helped to cramp and limit the conception of
what sacrifice means. Yet it was fundamental to both Thomists
and Scotists that the personal work of Christ in His own re
demptive acts is of unique value, and that nothing must be said
to impair the conception of man as a moral being. Many ques
tions closely connected with these points will need consideration
in connection with the controversies of the sixteenth century.
As a student surveys the long course of writings — many of
them of large extent and full of elaborate detail — on the subject
of the Eucharist from the sixth century to the fifteenth in the
Western Church, the most impressive fact of all is a fact which
touches intimately the morality of the Christian religion and the
sacramental system. It is the constant emphasis on the doctrine
that, if Communion is to benefit the soul, the body of Christ
must be spiritually as well as sacramentally received ; and that
a reception which is spiritual as well as sacramental is possible
only for those who communicate worthily. Of scarcely less im
portance from the moral point of view is the insistence on the
possibility of Spiritual Communion for those who desire to
receive the body of Chiist sacramentally and are unable to do
i so. How far in practice these conceptions of the Eucharist were
cut across by lax administration of the Sacrament of Penance,
j or by the theory of Biel and others that the sacrifice of the Mass
1 might benefit those in mortal sin by helping to lead them to
I epentance, or by popular teaching that to behold the elevated
Sacrament was a means to spiritual and temporal benefit, is a
question difficult, if not impossible, to answer. However that
may be, they serve, like much else, to illustrate the truth that
a close study of the literature does not support the theory that
the Euchaiistic doctrine of the mediaeval Western Church was
wholly or mainly mechanical and carnal. Rather, the facts show
that it was part of the work of the greatest and most representa
tive and most influential teachers, while taking care that the
central points of their sacramental beliefs were not refined away,
to maintain the spiritual character of the Eucharistic presence
and gift. END OF VOL. I.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Accidents, i. 172, 174, 181-83, 185,
271, 277, 298, 299, 306, 310, 316,
318, 321, 329, 359, 362, 365, 366,
375, 389, ii. 10, 11, 12, 101, 160,
222, 368, 413-15, 441, 544-47, 592,
593, and passim.
Adoration, Eucharistic, i. 37, 38, 106-
109, 132, 173-75, 178, 182, 183,
249, 250, 262, 271, 345, 346, 351-
60, 382-88, ii. 18-21, 65, 77, 83,
90, 92, 160, 222, 223, 265, 307,
340, 353, 365, 526-32, 540-42, 553-
59, 583, 584, and passim.
Altar on high, in canon of Mass, i. 120.
Altar on high, in fathers, i. 51, 52, 116,
117, 118, 120, 153, 154.
Altar on high, in middle ages, i. 220-
22, 265, 266, 268, 272, 290, 295,
327.
Angel, in canon of Mass, i. 120.
Angel, in fathers, i. 120.
Angel, in middle ages, i. 220-22, 265,
266, 268, 272, 290, 309, 327.
Anticipations of Eucharist in Old Tes
tament, i. 3, 12.
Anticipations of Eucharist among Pa
gans, i. 2, 3, 12.
Ascension, i. 116-21, 132, 155, and
passim.
Church, body of Christ, i. 14, 15, 94-
96, and passim.
Concomitance, i. 140, 181, 184, 198,
269, 280, 281, 284, 287, 288, 305,
311, 316, 317, 320, 321, 329, 337,
ii. 77, 78, 83, 84, 90-92, 160, 533,
535, and passim.
Consecration, moment of, i. 41, 42, 84-
88, 131, 197, 198, 301, 308, 312,
313, and passim.
Corpus Christi, Institution of Eeast of,
i. 344-46.
Dominican theology, i. 319-34, and
passim.
Epiklesis : see Holy Ghost, Invocation
of.
Fktore, i. 29-33, 61-67, 131, 137, 142,
148-50, 226-33, 237, 245, 253-56,

365, 367-69, 376, ii. 40, 41, 314,
and passim.
Franciscan theology, i. 314-17, 334-44,
and passim.
Great Entrance, Veneration at, i. 167,
168, 171-75.
Heavenly life of Christ, i. 50-52, 116-
21, 132, 152, 153, 159, 160, 161,
318, ii. 587-89, 595, 598-603, and
passim.
Heightened efficacy of elements, i. 67-
70, 131, 239.
Holy Ghost, Invooation of, i. 42, 85-87,
131, 138, 167, 171, and passim.
Iconoclastic controversy, i. 143-50.
Institution of Eucharist, i. 4-12.
Institution of Eucharist, state of our
Lord's body when given at, i. 271,
285, 306, 310, 311, 321, 330, 331.
Lutheranism, ii. 9-37, 105, 635-39.
Movement in sacramental presence, i.
331, ii. 422.
" Natural body," the phrase, ii. 37, 57,
111, 112, 117, 118, 135, 154, 162-
79, 190-95, 198, 205, 206, 318, 319,
609.
Nonjurors' doctrine, one form of, ii.
482-87, 514, 609-14, 617-24.
Nourishment, how effected by reception
of Sacrament, i. 310, 316, 318, 319,
330, 335, ii. 103, 541, 544, 547.
Original Sin, whether cross only for,
ii. 26, 69-75.
Passion of Christ, i. 50, 114-16, 132,
195, and passim.
Priesthood of Christian community, i.
16, 17, 21, 52-54, and passim.
Eeason, Eecognition of by schoolmen,
i. 303, 304, 314, 319, 323.
Keceptionism, ii. 43-61, 105, 249, 250,
355, 514, 559-62, and passim.

399

400

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Eesurrection of Christ, i. 50, 51, 116-
21, 132, 155, 156, and passim.
Sacrifice, i. 8-17, 21, 42-54, 109-124,
128, 132, 152-56, 306-308, 317, 318,
323-28, ii. 77-80, 93-100, 105, 106,
160, 161, 250, 355, 356-411, 514,
548, and passim.
Sacrifice, for whom offered, i. 326-28,
390, 391, ii. 405-11, 602.
Senses, use of in sacramental presence,
i. 338, ii. 411, 420.
Spiritual character of Eucharistic
union, i. 92-94, 286, 287, 311, and
passim.
Spiritual character of body of Christ in
Eucharist, i. 88-92, 96-98, 131,
188-91, 214-16, 217, 237, 251, 264,
271, 280, 281, 331, 332, ii. 90, 105,
170, 173, 420-25, 586-89, 593, 594,
598-600.
Spiritual Communion, i. 316, 320, 331,
372, 383, 397, ii. 91, 105, 138.
Symbol. See Figure.

Tbansubstantiation, i. 102-106, 132,
172, 174, 177-92, 260, 275, 280, 304,
305, 313, 315-33, 340, 361-68,
370, 371, ii. 10, 11, 65, 66, 90, 91,
160, 249, 250, 355, 412, 416, 417,
592, 593, and passim.
Trinity, Invocation of, i. 85, 87, 88, 131.
Ubiquity of manhood of Christ, Luthe
ran theory of, ii. 22, 23, 35, 638.
Virtualism, ii. 127-29, 249, 250, 355,
501-06, 514, 562-64, and passim.
Wicked, question as to reception by,
i. 83, 93, 94, 196, 197, 304, 305,
331, 350, ii. 140, 209-13, 221, 222,
524-28, 533, 534, 539, 540, and
passim.
Word, Invocation of, i. 84-87, 131.
Zwinolianism, ii. 37-43, 105, 250, 309,
315, 355, 488-95, 514, 515, and
passim.

INDEX OF PASSAGES IN HOLY SCRirTURE
REFERRED TO.

Genesis —
ii. 24. ii. 231.
iii. 19. i. 240.
xiv. 18. i. 3.
xvii. 10. ii. 300, 301.
xvii. 13. ii. 290.
xxxiii. 20. ii. 231.
xii. 26. i. 274.
xlix. 11, 12. i. 62.
Exodus —
vii. 12. ii. 108.
xii. i. 3.
xii. 9. i. 292.
xix. 13. i. 240.
xxiv. 1-11. i. 8.
xxiv. 8. i. 274.
xxix. 12. i. 12.
xxix. 21. i. 12.
xxix. 39. i. 9.
xxix. 43-46. i. 3.
xxx. 25. i. 45.
Leviticus —
iii. 11, 16. i. 3.
iv. 7, 18, 25, 30, 34. i. 12.
iv. 17. i. 12.
v. 9. i. 12.
vii. 15-21. i. 3.
viii. 11. i. 12.
viii. 15. i. 12.
ix. 7. i. 9.
ix. 9. i. 12.
xiv. 16, 27. i. 12.
xvi. 14, 15, 19. i. 12.
xxi. 6, 8, 17, 21, 22. i. 3.
xxii. 25. i. 3.
xxiv. 7. i. 10.
Numbers —
x. 10. i. 10.
xix. 4. i. 12.
xxviii. 2. i. 3.
1 Samuel —
vii. 6. i. 12.
Psalms —
xxii. 15. i. 292.
xxiii. 5. i. 110.
xxxiv. 1. i. 82.
xxxiv. 8. i. 26.
VOL. I.

Psalms (continued) —
xxxviii. 1. i. 10.
xl. 6. ii. 257.
1. 5. ii. 260.
1. 14, 15. i. 110.
Ii. 16. i. 122, 123.
K. 17. i. 110, 122, 123, ii. 394.
Ii. 19. i. 43.
lxvi. 15. i. 9.
lxx. 1. i. 10.
xoix. 5. i. 108, 109.
cxii. 2. i. 110, 111.
cxlviii. 5. i. 80.
Proverbs —
ix. 1, 5. i. 3, 39, 197.
xxv. 27. i. 384.
Isaiah —
i. 11-13. i. 42.
vii. 14. ii. 257.
lvi. 7. ii. 327.
Ivii. 6. i. 12.
Jeremiah —
vii. 22, 23. i. 42.
xxxi. 31-34. i. 8.
Ezekiel —
xii. 22. i. 3.
xliv. 16. i. 3.
Zechariah— viii. 17. i. 42.
ix. 9. i. 62.
Malachi —
i. 7, 12. i. 3, ii. 263.
i. 8. ii. 317.
i. 11. i. 49, 110, ii. 75, 327.
iv. 5. ii. 620.
Wisdom —
xvi. 6. i. 10.
Ecclesiasticus —
xxiv. 19-21. i. 3.
1. 15. i. 12.
St. Matthew —
i. 23. ii. 257.
iii. 17. i. 265, 274.
vi. 21. i. 333.
vii. 6. i. 24, 60.
ix. 20-22. i. 106, 107.
xii. 32. i. 89.

401

26

402 INDEX OF PASSAGES IN HOLY SCRIPTURE

St. Matthew (continued) —
xiii. 39. i. 274.
xiv. 19, 20. i. 3.
xv. 17. i. 212.
xv. 36, 37. i. 3.
xvii. 12, 13. ii. 620.
xviii. 20. i. 292, ii. 129, 257, 636.
xix. 6. ii. 231.
xx. 28. ii. 18.
xxii. 40. i. 123.
xxvi. 11. i. 273.
xxvi. 26-29. i. 4-12, and passim.
xxviii. 20. i. 268, ii. 129, 636.
St. Mark—
iii. 29, 30. i. 89.
v. 25-34. i. 106, 107.
vi. 41, 42. i. 3.
vii. 18, 19. i. 212.
viii. 6-8. i. 3.
ix. 13. ii. 620.
x. 45. ii. 18.
xiv. 22-25. i. 4-12, and pass im.
St. Luke—
i. 17. ii. 620.
i. 35. i. 146, ii. 291.
ii. 12. ii. 257.
ii. 27. i. 9.
vii. 38. i. 107.
viii. 43-48. i. 106, 107.
ix. 16, 17. i. 3.
xii. 10. i. 89.
xii. 49. i. 53.
xxii. 14-20. i. 4-12, and passim.
xxiv. 30-35. i. 4.
St. John—
i. 13. ii. 191.
i. 14-16. ii. 557.
i. 32, 33. i. 18.
i. 34. i. 274.
iii. 5, 6, 8, 34. i. 18, 69.
iii. 13. ii. 23.
iii. 16. i. 391.
iv. 23, 24. i. 117, 118, ii. 33.
vi. 11, 12. i. 3.
vi. 26-63. i. 17, 18, 65, 73, 91-94,
210, 301, 379, ii. 66,
129, 557, and passim.
vi. 35. i. 18, 19.
vi. 41. i. 19.
vi. 48. i. 18, 19.
vi. 48-58. i. 3.
vi. 51. i. 18, 19, 89, 342, ii. 256.
vi. 55. i. 362.
vi. 61-63. i. 88, 90, 92, 230, 273, ii.
232, 333, 516.
vii. 39. i. 18.
viii. 12. i. 19.
ix. 5. i. 19.
x. 7, 8, 11, 14. i. 19, ii. 290.
xiv. 6. i. 19.
xiv. 17, 26. i. 18.
xiv. 27. ii. 124.

St. John (continued) —
xv. 1. i. 19, 62, ii. 290.
xv. 4. ii. 31.
xv. 5. i. 19.
xv. 26. i. 18.
xvi. 13. i. 18.
xvii. 23. ii. 31.
xx. 22. ii. 259.
xx. 23. i. 118.
Acts —
ii. 42, 46. i. 4.
iii. 21. ii. 299.
xx. 7, 11. i. 4.
xxvii. 35. i. 4.
Bomans — •
i. 4. i. 18.
i. 20. ii. 434.
v. 8. i. 162.
vi. 4. ii. 290, 379.
vi. 9, 10. i. 273, 392, ii. 326.
viii. 9. ii. 492.
viii. 11. ii. 492.
ix. 5. ii. 338.
xii. 1, 4, 5. i. 15.
xii. 16. i. 236.
xv. 16. i. 15, ii. 327.
1 Corinthians —
ii. 14. i. 240.
iii. 16. ii. 492.
v. 8. ii. 260, 261.
viii. 4. ii. 334.
x. 3, 4. ii. 259, 290.
x. 16-21. i. 4, 13, 95, ii. 27, 108,
109, 255, 259, 290, and
passim.
xi. 23-29. i. 4-15, and passim.
xi. 26. ii. 260, 465, and passim.
xi. 28, 29. ii. 27, 103, 212, 285.
xii. 12, 13, 27. i. 15, 95.
xii. 12-14. i. 15.
xv. 35-54. i. 98.
xv. 44. ii. 387.
xv. 45. i. 18.
2 Corinthians —
i. 3, 4. i. 391.
iii. 18. i. 18.
iv. 7. i. 183.
v. 16. i. 273, 299.
v. 17. i. 81.
xiii. 5. ii. 492.
Galatians —
iii. 27, 28. i. 78.
iv. 9. ii. 258.
v. 6. ii. 103.
v. 21. i. 121.
Ephesians —
iii. 17. ii. 51.
v. 2. i. 293.
Philippians —
ii. 6. i. 31.
ii. 7, 8. i. 115, 116, ii. 389.
ii. 9. i. 299, ii. 18.

INDEX OF PASSAGES IN HOLY SCRIPTURE 403

Philippians (continued)
ii. 17. ii. 327.
iii. 20. i. 333.
iv. 18. i. 15.
Colossians— i. 15, 18. ii. 388.
i. 19, 20. i. 267.
ii. 9. ii. 296.
1 Timothy— i. 3, 4. ii. 292.
ii. 1. ii. 348.
iv. 5. i. 72.
Hebrews —
i. 3, 4. i. 300.
ii. 14. ii. 255.
v. 6, vii. 17. i.

196, ii. 100, and

vii. 27. i. 162.
ix. 12. i. 288, ii. 384.
ix. 14. i. 293.
ix. 15-20. i. 8.
ix. 20. i. 274.
ix. 22. ii. 451, 452.
ix. 25, 28. i. 343, ii. 326, 471, 610.
x. 3. i. 11.
x. 5. ii. 257.
x. 10. i. 162, ii. 256, 471.
x. 12. ii. 194, 199, 326, 471.

Hebrews (continued) —
x. 14. i. 162, ii. 69, 80, 186, 341.
x. 18. ii. 71.
x. 26. ii. 72.
xi. 1. ii. 452, 454.
xii. 20. i. 240.
xii. 22-24. i. 16.
xii. 23. i. 112.
xiii. 8. i. 299.
xiii. 9, 11, 12. i. 16, 156, 157.
xiii. 10. i. 16, ii. 68, 261, 327, 348,
and passim.
xiii. 15, 16. i. 16, 123.
1 St. Peter—
ii. 5, 9. i. 16, 53, 112, and passim.
ii. 24. ii. 610.
2 St. Peter—
i. 4. i. 16, 103, ii. 255.
1 St. John—
ii. 1, 2. i. 17, ii. 100, 283.
iv. 13. ii. 492.
Eevelation —
i. 6. ii. 56.
v. 6, 8-10. i. 17, ii. 398, 548.
viii. 4. i. 327.
xiii. 8. ii. 79.
xxi. 2. i. 112.

26

INDEX OF AUTHORS, COUNCILS, AND BOOKS
REFERRED TO.

Abbaud, i. 297, 298.
Abelard, i. 295-97.
Abercius, Epitaph of, i. 22, 23, 38.
Acaoius of Constantinople, i. 128, 129.
Adamantius, i. 56, 62.
Adamson, E. M., ii. 642-45.
Adelman of Liege, i. 245.
jElfric, i. 236-38.
Albert the Great, i. 319-22.
Alcuin, i. 199-202.
Alexander of Hales, i. 314-17.
Alexandria, Council of (339), i. 59.
Alger of Liege, i. 269-73.
Amalarius of Metz, i. 203, 210-13.
Ambrose, i. 57, 79, 80, 86, 91, 105, 108,
113, 115, 119, 120, 122.
American Prayer Booh, ii. 608.
Anastasius of Sinai, i. 136-38, 153, 154.
Ancren Riwle, i. 356-58.
Andrewes, L., ii. 255-66.
Anselm, i. 261-63.
Antididagma, ii. 83-86.
Aphraates, i. 124, 125.
Apologetical Defence, An, ii. 494, 495.
Apostolic Constitutions, i. 56, 58, 64,
75, 85, 86, 112, 113, 115, 119, ii.
602.
Aquinas. See Thomas Aquinas.
Aristides, i. 43.
Aries, Council of, i. 57, 113.
Articles, Six, Law of, ii. 117, 118.
Articles, Ten, ii. 113, 114.
Articles, Thirteen, ii. 115, 116.
Articles, Forty-five, ii. 143, 144.
Articles, Forty-two, ii. 145, 146.
Articles, Eleven, ii. 207, 208.
Articles, Thirty-eight, ii. 208, 209.
Articles, Thirty-nine, i. 94, ii. 209-13.
Articles, Irish (1615), ii. 312, 313.
Arundel, T., i. 376, 377.
Athanasius, i. 56, 58, 59, 60, 70, 89, 90,
98, 111, 114.
Athanasius, Canons of, i. 134.
Athenagoras, i. 22, 23, 43, 44.
Atzberger, L., ii. 393.
Augsburg, Confession of, ii. 25-30.
Augsburg, Confession of, Reply to, ii.
68, 69.
Augustine, i. 57, 64, 65, 82-84, 91-96,
98, 108, 109, 113, 115, 116, 120,
121, 122-24, 372, ii. 209, 602.
Autun, Inscription at, i. 22, 35, 36.

Baker, J. F. Bethune, i. 99, 115.
Bangor, Antiphonary of, i. 208, 209.
Barnabas, Epistle of, i. 22, 23, 42, 43,44.
Basle, Council of (1434), i. 387.
Basle, First Confession of, ii. 48.
Basle, Second Confession of, ii. 48-50.
Batiffol, P., i. 102, 209, ii. 426.
Bayma, J., ii. 416, 417.
Bayne, Ealph, ii. 167.
Bayne, Eonald, ii. 244.
Becon, T., ii. 235-38.
Bede, Venerable, i. 198, 199.
Belgic Confession, ii. 57, 58.
Bellarmine, E., ii. 364-67, 374.
Benedict XIV. See Lambertini.
Bennett, W. J. E., ii. 553, 554.
Benson, E. M., ii. 586-89.
Berengar, i. 244-59.
Bernadakis, Catechism of, i. 188.
Bernard, i. 301, 302, 313.
Bethlehem, Synod of. See Jerusalem,
Council of.
Beveridge, W., ii. 450-55.
Biel, G., i. 388-91.
Birkbeck, W. J., i. 185.
Bishop, E., i. 205.
Bishops' Book, ii. 114, 115.
Bona, J., i. 203.
Bonaventura, i. 334-40, ii. 411.
Bonner, E., ii. 164-67.
Bordeaux, Council of (1080), i. 257.
Box, G. H., i. 9.
Bracciolini, Poggio, i. 370.
Bramhall, J., ii. 337-42.
Breton, G., ii. 405.
Brett, T., ii. 493, 494.
Bridgett, T. E., i. 312, 359.
Bright, W., i. 55, 56, 77, 194, 198, 199,
ii. 556-59.
Brightman, F. E., i. 151, 155.
Brionne, Council of (1050), i. 246.
Bucer, M., ii. 43-49, 81.
Buokeridge, J., ii. 266, 267.
Bull, G., ii. 443-50.
Burbidge, E., i. 203.
Burkitt, F. C, i. 126.
Burnet, G., ii. 319, 320.
Cabasilas, Nicholas, i. 166-70.
Csesarius of Heisterbach, i. 312, 353,
359.
Cajetan, ii. 65-68.

404

INDEX OF AUTHORS, COUNCILS, AND BOOKS 405

Calvin, J., ii. 50-61.
Campbell, A., ii. 253.
Cano, Melchior, ii. 71, 356-59, 405, 406.
Canon of Mass, i. 120, 203-205, ii. 602.
Canons of the Apostles, i. 28, 29, 39, 42.
Canons, English (1640), ii. 253, 254.
Cantelupe, Walter de, i. 354.
Canterbury, St. Augustine's, Cus
tomary of, i. 385.
Canterbury Convocation, ii. 113, 129,
136, 145, 159-63, 202, 253, 254.
Carson, W. E., ii. 651.
Carter, T. T., ii. 555.
Carthusians, Ancient Statutes of, i.
354.
Cassander, G., ii. 304, 466.
Catechism, Prayer Book, ii. 251, 252.
Catechism, A Short, ii. 146, 147.
Catechism of Trent, ii. 100-106.
Catechism, Scottish (1552), ii. 156-58.
Catharinus, A., ii. 70-75.
Cheetham, S., ii. 408.
Chalcedon, Council of (451), i. 55.
Chelsea, Council of (816), i. 250.
Cheke, J., ii. 146, 167, 168.
Cheyney, R., ii. 162, 210, 211.
Christian Letter of Certain English
Protestants, ii. 243.
Chrysostom, i. 56, 74, 75, 85, 87, 91, 96,
104, 107, 112, 114, 117-19, 122,
123.
Chrysostom, Pseudo, i. 101.
Cienfuegos, A., ii. 411.
Clement of Alexandria, i. 22, 23, 25,
26, 29, 30, 37, 38, 43, 44, 45, 53,
54.
Clement of Eome, i. 22, 23, 51.
Colet, J., ii. 2-7.
Collins, T., ii. 168.
Cologne, Counoilof (1280), i. 355, 356.
Cologne, Counoil of (1452), i. 387.
Cologne, Council of (1536), ii. 76, 77.
Communion Office (Nonjurors), ii. 479-
81.
Communicant Instructed, The, ii. 488.
Communicant, The Orthodox, ii. 487,
488.
Communicant, The Reasonable, ii. 487.
Condren, C. de, ii. 377-80.
Constance, Council of (1415), i. 377.
Constant, M., ii. 420.
Constantinople, Council of (381), i. 55.
Constantinople, Iconoclastic Council of
(754), i. 148-50, ii. 623.
Constantinople, Council of (1642) , i. 179.
Constantinople, Counoil of (1727), i.
184, 185.
Conti, Lothair. See Innocent III.
Conybeare, F. C, i. 129.
Cook, F. C, i. 11.
Corpus Christi, York Guild of, i. 391,
392.

Cosin, J., ii. 321-28, 470.
Crakanthorp, E., ii. 280-83.
Cranmer, T., ii. 112, 114, 125-29, 134,
135, 177-84.
Crede Michi, i. 387.
Cudworth, R., ii. 315, 316.
Cyprian, i. 22, 23, 31, 40, 41, 47, 48, 49,
50, 58.
Cyril of Alexandria, i. 56, 69, 75-77,
99, 105, 113, 161.
Cyril of Jerusalem, i. 56, 64, 66, 67, 68,
71, 85, 90, 91, 102, 103, 106, 112,
114.
Cyril Lucar, i. 175-80.
Dalgairns, J. B., i. 357, ii. 411, 420.
Damien. See Peter Damien.
Day, G., ii. 135.
De aleatoribus, i. 40.
De sacramentis, i. 57, 64, 66, 80-82, 86,
87, 105, 120.
De spectaculis, i. 40.
Deacon, T., ii. 481-83.
Declaration and Confession (1559), ii.
206, 207.
Defence of the Plain Account, ii. 494.
Delitzsch, Franz, i. 10.
Denison, G. A., ii. 526, 527, 555.
Didache. See Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles.
Didascalia of the Apostles, i. 28, 46.
Dimock, N., ii. 253, 319.
Diognetus, Epistle to, i. 22, 23, 43.
Dionysius of Alexandria, i. 22, 23, 39,
40.
Dionysius the Areopagite, Pseudo, i.
138-40.
Directory for the Public Worship of
God, ii. 308, 309, 311, 312.
Discourse against Transubstantiation,
ii. 465, 466.
Discourse concerning the Adoration of
the Host, ii. 465, 466.
Dixon, E. W., ii. 145, 207.
Doctrine of the Church of England, ii.
521.
Dorner, J. A., ii. 635-38.
Dositheus, i. 179-83.
Dowden, J., i. 183, ii. 506, 603, 605,
617, 618.
Driver, S. E., i. 11, 49.
Dudden, F. H., i. 194.
Duns Scotus, i. 340-44.
Durand of Mende, i. 359-60.
Durand of St. Pourcain, i. 362, 363.
Durand of Troarn, i. 250-52.
Durham, Council of (1220), i. 354.
Eok, John Maier von, ii. 68-70.
Egbert, Pontifical of, i. 250.
English Church Union, ii. 558, 559.
Ephesus, Council of (431), i. 55.

406 INDEX OF AUTHORS, COUNCILS, AND BOOKS

Ephraim of Antioch, i. 135, 136.
Ephraim the Syrian, i. 124-28.
Erasmus, ii. 61-65.
Eudes de Sully. See Odo of Paris.
Eugenius IV., Pope, i. 346, 379, 380, 387.
Eusebius of Alexandria, i. 136.
Eusebius Bruno, i. 258, 259.
Eusebius of Csesarea, i. 56, 62, 63, 88,
89, 109-111.
Eusebius of Emesa, i. 129-31.
Euthymius Zigabenus, i. 159-61.
Eutychius of Constantinople, i. 70, 140,
141, 153.
Exeter, Council of (1287), i. 354, 355.
Faeer, F. W., ii. 419.
Faber Stapulensis, ii. 7-9.
Faustus of Eiez, i. 129.
Feckenham, J., ii. 204, 205.
Field, E., ii. 302-305.
Fisher, J., ii. 109.
Florence, Council of (1439), i. 172, 379.
Florus of Lyons, i. 213-16.
Floss, H. J., i. 245.
Forbes, A. P., ii. 624-32, 651.
Forbes, G. H., ii. 623, 624.
Forbes, E., ii. 618-20.
Forbes, W., ii. 305-308.
Formula of Concord, ii. 34-36.
Frankland, W. B., i. 5.
Franzelin, J. B., ii. 388, 389, 411, 413,
414, 421.
Frazer, J. G., i. 3.
Frere, W. H., ii. 136, 506, 605.
Frith, J., ii. 109-12.
Fulbert of Chartres, i. 242-44.
Fuller, J., ii. 166.
Gabriel of Philadelphia, i. 173-75.
Gairdner, J., i. 376, ii. 145.
Qallican Confession, ii. 56, 57.
Gall Lean Masses, i. 205, 206.
Gardiner, S., ii. 114, 147-56, 163.
Gardner, Alice, i. 245.
Gauden, J., ii. 320, 459.
Gee, H., ii. 202.
Qelasian Sacramentary, i. 203-205, 207.
Gelasius, Pope, i. 57, 101, 102.
Gennadius, i. 172, 173.
Georgel, ii. 418.
Gerbert, i. 235, 236.
Germain of Paris, i. 198.
Germanus H. of Constantinople, i. 165,
166.
Gibson, E. C. S., ii. 145.
Gilpin, B., ii. 219, 220.
Giraldus Cambrensis, i. 312, 353.
Oodly Exhortation, A, ii. 203.
Goode, W., ii. 559-62.
Gore, C, i. 60, 134, 245, ii. 586, 589-98.
Gothic Missal, i. 206, 207.
Goudge, H. L., i. 20.

Grafton, C. C, ii. 601-603.
Gregory of Bergamo, i. 273-75.
Gregory of Nazianzus, i. 56, 64, 71, 106,
107, 112, 114, 116, 121, 123.
Gregory of Nyssa, i. 56, 68, 69, 71-73,
80, 103, 104.
Gregory the Great, i. 194-96, 203, 291.
Gregory IX., Pope, i. 354.
Grindal, E., ii. 230, 231.
Groepper, J., ii. 76-78, 83, 99, 100.
Guest, E., ii. 201, 202, 210-13.
Haddon, J., ii. 161, 162.
Hagenbach, K. E., i. 30.
Haldane, A. C, ii. 632-34.
Hales, J., ii. 313-15, 494.
Halifax, Lord, ii. 585, 586.
Hamilton, J. See Catechism, Scottish
(1552) and Godly Exhortation.
Hamilton, W. K, ii. 552, 553.
Hammond, H., ii. 297-302.
Harding, T., ii. 227, 228.
Harnack, A., i. 30, 104.
Harrison, J., ii. 564, 565.
Hatch, E., i. 3.
Haymo, i. 234, 235.
Headlam, A. C, i. 15.
Hebert, C, ii. 565, 566.
Hedley, J. C, ii. 391, 392, 414, 415,
424, 425.
Hefele, C. J., i. 144.
Heidelberg Catechism, ii. 58, 59.
Helvetic Confession, First, ii. 48-50.
Helvetic Confession, Second, ii. 60, 61.
Henry VIH., King, ii. 107-109.
Herbert, G., ii. 275-80.
Hereford Missal, i. 385.
Hermann von Wied, ii. 76-83.
Hewet, A., ii. 112, 113.
Hilary of Poitiers, i. 57, 77-79.
Hildebert of Tours, i. 275-78.
Hincmar of Eheims, i. 233, 234.
Hippolytus, i. 22, 38, 39.
Hippolytus, Canons of, i. 23, 39, 45, 58.
Hoadly, B., ii. 488-90, 514, 515.
Homilies, Elizabethan, ii. 213-15.
Honorius of Autun, i. 278-80.
Honorius IH., Pope, i. 353, 354.
Hooker, E., ii. 239-49.
Hooper, J., ii. 142, 143.
Horneok, A., ii. 460-62.
Horstius, J. M., ii. 378.
Hort, F. J. A., i. 30.
Hugh of Langres, i. 245.
Hugh of St. Victor, i. 283-87.
Humphrey, L., ii. 209, 210.
Hunt, W., i. 236.
Hurter, H., ii. 420.
Hus, J., i. 370, 371.
Ignatius, i. 22, 23, 24, 25, 33, 46, 47,
50.

INDEX OF AUTHORS, COUNCILS, AND BOOKS 407

Illingworth, J. E., i. 3.
Innooent III., i. 308-13.
IrentBUS, i. 6, 7, 22, 23, 34, 35, 42, 43,
47, 49, 51.
Irish Catechism, ii. 615.
Irish Constitutions and Canons, ii. 615,
616.
Irish Form of Consecration of Churches,
ii. 614, 615.
Irish Prayer Book, ii. 616, 617.
Isidore of Pelusium, i. 57, 77, 105.
Isidore of Seville, i. 196-98.
Ivo of Chartres, i. 266-69.
Jackson, J., ii. 515
Jackson, T., ii. 293-97.
Jacobson, W., ii. 354.
Jerome, i. 57, 96-98.
Jerome of Prague, i. 370, 371.
Jerusalem, Council of (1672), i. 179-83.
Jevons, F. B., i. 3.
Jewel, J., ii. 70, 210, 211, 225-30.
John, Acts of, i. 24.
John of Cornouailles, i. 290, 291.
John of Damascus, i. 144-47, 150, 152,
154.
John the Scot. See Scotus Erigena.
John of Paris, i. 361, 362.
John of Eouen, i. 250.
Johnson, J., ii. 474-77.
Jolly, A., ii. 620-23.
Juliana of Norwich, i. 380, 381.
Julius I., Pope, i. 59.
Justin Martyr, i. 6, 7, 22, 23, 34, 43, 44,
47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 58.
Kay, W., i. 11.
Keble, J., ii. 248, 519, 520, 526-34.
Kempis. See Thomas a Kempis.
Ken, T., ii. 455-57, 514, 515.
Khomiakoff, i. 191, 192.
Kidd, B. J., ii. 75, 145.
King's Book, ii. 118-20.
Kirkpatrick, A. F., i. 10.
Knox, A., ii. 253, 515-19.
Knox, E. A., ii. 570.
Kyriakos, Catechism of, i. 188.
Lambert, J. 0., ii. 641, 642.
Lambert, J. See Nicholson.
Lambertini, P. L., i. 203, ii. 420.
Lanfranc, i. 248-50.
Langforde, i. 384.
Lapide, C. a, ii. 418, 419.
Lateran Council, Fourth (1215), i. 313.
Latimer, H., ii. 114, 195-99.
Laud, W., ii. 267-74.
Law, W., ii. 495-501, 514.
Lay Folks Mass Book, i. 356.
Leclercq, H., i. 36.
Leibnitz, G. W., ii. 635.
Leo I., Pope, i. 57, 61, 113.

Leo XIII., Pope, ii. 418.
Leonine Sacramentary, i. 205.
Leontius of Byzantium, i. 134, 135.
Lepin, M., ii. 401-405.
Leray, E. P. A., ii. 420.
Lessius, L., ii. 371-73.
Letter to a Lord in answer to his late
Book, ii. 491, 492.
Liber Pontificalis, i. 203.
Liddon, H. P., ii. 555.
Lightfoot, J. B., ii. 219.
Littledale, E. F., ii. 555, 556.
Liturgy of St. Basil, i. 151, 152, 155,
156, 161.
Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, i. 151, 152,
155, 161.
Liturgy of St. James, i. 154.
Liturgy of the Presanctified, i. 152, 168.
Look, W., ii. 520.
Lockhart, W., ii. 418.
Loisy, A., ii. 427-33, 438-40.
Lollards, Conclusions of, i. 368, 369.
Lombard. See Peter Lombard.
London, Council of (1382), i. 374.
Lords, House of, Discussion in (1548),
ii. 134, 135.
Lothair Conti. See Innocent III.
Loserth, J., i. 370, 374, 375.
Lugo, J. de, ii. 373-77, 407, 408.
Luther, M., i. 9-24.
Macarius Magnes, i. 56, 65, 67, 73, 74.
Macarius of Egypt, i. 56, 60, 64.
Maclear, G. F., ii. 649.
Macmillan, M., i. 9.
Maignan, E., ii. 413.
Makarios, i. 190, 191.
Manning, H. E., ii. 421.
Marcion, i. 32.
Marburg, Conference at (1529), ii. 43.
Martene, E., i. 250, 387.
Martensen, H., ii. 638, 639.
Martin V., Pope, i. 346, 387.
Matthew, F. D., i. 365, 374, 375.
Matthew Paris, i. 352.
Maurice, F. D., ii. 570-75.
Maximus the Confessor, i. 141, 142.
Mayor, J. B., i. 26, 30.
Med.6 J ii. 447.
Melanchthon, P., ii. 24, 25, 27, 30, 34,
35, 43, 46, 81.
Melchior, Cano. See Cano.
Merlo, J. See Horstius.
Meyrick, F., ii. 566, 567.
Milligan, W., ii. 646.
Mirror of the Mysteries of the Church,
i. 287, 288.
Monod, A., ii. 649.
Morando, G., ii. 418.
Morton, T., ii. 283-89.
Moschakis, Catechism of, i. 188.
Moule, H., ii. 584, 585.

408 INDEX OF AUTHORS, COUNCILS, AND BOOKS

Mountague, E., ii. 275.
Mozarabic Liturgy, i. 208.
Mozley, J. B., ii. 575-80.
Myrc, J., i. 381, 382.
Neale, J. M., i. 185.
Necessity of Reformation, ii. 465, 466.
Nektarios, Catechism of, i. 189.
Nelson, E., ii. 477, 478.
Nestorius, i. 98, 99, 115.
Netter. See Thomas Waldensis.
Newman, J. H., ii. 420, 422.
Nicasa, Council of (325), i. 55, 58, 59,
109.
Nicasa, Council of (787), i. 148-50, 154,
ii. 623.
Nicetas of Chonee, i. 162-64.
Nicephorus of Constantinople, i. 150,
151, 154.
Nicholson, J., ii. 116.
Nicolas I., Pope, i. 238, 239.
Nicholas of Methone, i. 164, 165.
Nonjurors' Communion Office. See
Communion Office.
Nonjurors, Correspondence of with
Easterns, i. 183, 184, ii. 478, 479.
Noort, G. van, ii. 390, 391, 409-11, 414,
422-24.
Notter. See Thomas Waldensis.
Nowell, A., ii. 215-19.
Ockham. See William of Ockham.
Odo of Cambrai, i. 263-66.
Odo of Paris, i. 352.
Oecolampadius, ii. 40, 48.
Oecumenius, i. 156, 157.
Oldcastle, Sir J., i. 369.
Olier, J. J., ii. 380, 381.
Optatus, i. 57, 79, 113.
Order of Communion, ii. 132-34.
Origen, i. 22, 23, 26-28, 30, 38, 42, 45,
46, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54.
Orthodox Confession, i. 177-79.
Oswald, H., ii. 419, 420.
Othlon of St. Emmeran, i. 244.
Otto of Bamberg, i. 283.
Overall, J., ii. 252, 253.
Oxenham, H. N., i. 20, ii. 501.
Oxford, Council of (1222), i. 354.
Oxford, University of (1381), i. 373,
374.
Oxford, University of (1406), i. 376.
Oxford, University of (1412), i. 376.
Paget, F., ii. 245, 248.
Palladius of Helenopolis, i. 142, 143.
Palmer, W. (Magdalen College), i. 185.
Palmer, W. (Worcester College), i. 185,
ii. 522-26.
Paris, Council of (1050), i. 246.
Paris, Matthew. See Matthew Paris.

Parliament, Aots of, ii. 129-31, 135,
136, 139, 203, 204, 318.
Paschasius Eadbert, i. 216-22.
Paululus. See Eobert Paululus.
Peckham, J., i. 354.
Pecock, E., i. 370.
Pelargus, A., ii. 100.
Perrone, J., ii. 389, 390.
Perry, G. G., ii. 116.
Peter Abelard. See Abelard.
Peter d'Ailly, i. 371, ii. 10.
Peter Damien, i. 259-61.
Peter Lombard, i. 303-307.
Peter Mogila, i. 177.
Peter Mongus, i. 128, 129.
Peter of Poitiers, i. 307, 308, 312.
Peter the Chanter, i. 312.
Peter the Eater, i. 312.
Peter the Venerable, i. 302, 303.
Philips, W., ii. 161.
Phillpotts, H., ii. 547, 548.
Philpot, J., ii. 162.
Pighi, A., ii. 70.
Pistoia, Council of (1786), ii. 408, 409,
412.
Pius VI., Pope, ii. 409, 412.
Pius X., Pope, ii. 437, 438.
Plain Account, A. See Hoadly.
Poggio Bracciolini. See Bracciolini.
Poitiers, Council of (1075), i. 257.
Pole, E., ii. 163, 164.
Politi, L. See Catharinus.
Poore, E., i. 353.
Pope, W. B., ii. 640.
Pore Help, A, ii. 132.
Pourrat, P., ii. 426.
Poynet, J. See Catechism, A Short.
Prayer Book (1549), ii. 136-39.
„ (1552), ii. 139-42.
„ (1559), ii. 203, 204.
„ (1662), ii. 318-21.
„ Scottish (1637), ii. 270-73.
See also Scottish Communion
Office.
Proclamation of Edward VI. (1547), ii.
131, 132.
Proper Answer to a Late Abusive Pam
phlet, ii. 494.
Pullan, L., ii. 319.
Pulleyn. See Eobert Pulleyn.
Pusey, E. B., ii. 520, 521, 524, 527,
534-47, 555, 651.
Qumstiones veteris et novi testamenti,
i. 60, 203.
Quello che Vogliamo. See What we
Want.

Eabanus Maurus, i. 222-26.
Rashdall, H., i. 304, ii. 2.
Eatherius, i. 239-41.
Rationale, ii. 120-25.

INDEX OF AUTHORS, COUNCILS, AND BOOKS 409

Eatramn, i. 226-33.
Eattray, T., ii. 617, 618.
Eegkmann, H., ii. 75.
Remarks on a Book lately published,
ii. 491.
Eemi of Auxerre, i. 235.
Eiokaby, J., ii. 417.
Eidley, N., ii. 125, 135, 184-95.
Eobert Paululus, i. 288-90.
Eobert Pulleyn, i. 302.
Eobertson, J. N. W. B., i. 176.
Roman Order, First, i. 203, 209.
Soman Missal, i. 203, ii. 602.
Eome, Council of (370), i. 31.
„ „ (1050), i. 246.
„ (1059), i. 246, 247.
„ (1078), i. 257.
„ „ (1079), i. 257.
Eosmini, A., ii. 417, 418.
Eouen, Council of (1063), i. 247.
Eoy, E. le, ii. 434-36.
Eoyal Commission on Ecclesiastical
Discipline, Eeport of (1906), ii.
596, 597.
Eupert of Deutz, i. 291-95.
Russian Holy Synod (1838), i. 185.
Russian Longer Catechism, i. 185-87.
Russian Office for Consecration of a
Bishop, i. 187.
Sacrament of the Altar, The, ii. 493.
Saint Maixent, Council of (1076), i. 257.
St. Albans, Acts of the Abbots of, i. 352.
Salmeron, A., ii. 359-61.
Salmon, G., i. 39.
Sampson, E., ii. 135.
Sampson, T., ii. 209, 210.
Sanday, W., i. 5, 15.
Sandys, E., ii. 232-35.
Sanderson, R., ii. 354.
Saphir, A., ii. 649.
Saravia, A., ii. 220-25.
Sarum Consuetudinary, i. 250, 353,
388.
Sarum Manual, i. 372.
Sarum Missal, i. 385-88.
Sarum Processional, i. 386, 387.
Savoy Conference, ii. 316-18.
Sawtry, W., i. 374.
Saxon Confession, ii. 30-33.
Saxon Visitation Articles, ii. 36, 37.
Scannell, T., ii. 393-97, 414.
Schanz, P., ii. 393.
Scheeben, J., ii. 393.
Schmalkalden, Articles of, ii. 27.
Scott, C, ii. 204, 205.
Scottish Provincial Council (1559), ii.
202, 203.
Scottish Communion Office, ii. 603-08.
Scottish Pastoral Letter (1858), ii. 626-
27.
Scotus, Duns. See Duns Scotus.

Scotus Erigena, i. 245, 246.
Seabury, S., ii. 608-14.
Second Letter to the Author of a Book,
ii. 491.
Seneca, i. 31.
Serapion of Thmuis, i. 56, 63, 66, 70,
84, 85, 111, 112, 114.
Serbati. See Eosmini.
Severus, Gabriel. See Gabriel of
Philadelphia.
Shakespeare, W., i. 9.
Simpson, D. C, 128.
Somnius, F., ii. 99.
Soterichus Panteugenus, i. 161-64.
Spurdance, T., ii. 199.
Srawley, J. H., i. 104.
Staley, V., ii. 244.
Statutes of the Apostles, i. 28, 29, 39,
42, 48, 49.
Steinly, M., ii. 75, 76.
Stentrup, F., ii. 400, 401.
Stephen of Autun, i. 280-83.
Stone, D., i. 3, 4, 9, 283, ii. 602.
Storoh, A. See Pelargus.
Stowe Missal, i. 209.
Strauss, D. F., i. 30.
Stubbs, W., i. 199.
Suarez, F., ii. 71, 367-71, 407, 411.
Sutton, C, ii. 289-93.
Sylvester II. See Gerbert.
Symeon of Thessalonica, i. 171, 172.
Taylor, J., ii. 328-37, 381.
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, i. 22,
23, 24, 46, 49.
Temple, F., ii. 581-84.
TertuUian, i. 22, 23, 25, 29-33, 36, 37,
41, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53.
Testament of our Lord, i. 87, 88.
Thalhofer, V., ii. 397-400.
Theodoret, i. 56, 57, 64, 67, 96, 99-101,
107, 108.
Theodulf of Orleans, i. 202.
Theophilus of Alexandria, i. 85.
Theophylact, i. 157-59.
Thiel, A., i. 102.
Thirlby, T., ii. 135.
Thomas, W. H. G., ii. 567-69.
Thomas a Kempis, i. 382-84.
Thomas Aquinas, i. 322-34, 336, 337,
346-52, ii. 602.
Thomas Waldensis, i. 377-79.
Thomassin, L., ii. 382-87.
Thorndike, H., ii. 342-53.
Thurston, H., i. 312, 353, 359, 382.
Tillotson, J., ii. 462-65.
Tixeront, J., ii. 426.
Tomlinson, J. T., ii. 319.
Tours, Council of (1054), i. 246.
Trent, Council of (1545-1563), ii. 86-
100, 105, 106, 441, 442.
Trott, T., ii. 488.

410 INDEX OF AUTHORS, COUNCILS, AND BOOKS

Tunstall, C, ii. 114, 134, 169-71.
Turner, C. H., i. 31.
Two-penny Faith. See Godly Exhorta
tion.
Tyrrell, G., ii. 440, 441.
Urban IV., Pope, i. 344-46.
Vasquez, G., ii. 71, 361-64, 406, 407.
Vega, C. de, ii. 419.
Velde, Francis van den. See Somnius.
Vercelli, Council of (1050), i. 246.
Vernet, F., i. 246.
Vindication of the Bull " Apostolicce
Cures," ii. 392, 393.
Vogan, T. S. L., ii. 562-64.
Waggett, P. N., ii. 598-601.
Wake, W., ii. 467-73.
Walafrid Strabo, i. 222.
Waldensis. See Thomas Waldensis.
Waterland, D., ii. 501-506, 515.
Watson, T., ii. 171-77.
Week's Preparation (Old), ii. 457-59,
514, 515.
Week's Preparation, New, ii. 506-09.
Wesley, C, ii. 510-14.
Wesley, J., ii. 510-14.
Wessel, J., i. 371-73.
Westcott, B. F., i. 9, 11, 17, 138, ii. 649.
Westminster Confession of Faith, ii.
308-10.
Westminster Larger Catechism, ii. 308,
310, 311.
Westminster Shorter Catechism, ii.
308, 310.

What we Want, ii. 433, 434.
Whole Duty of a Communicant, ii. 459,
460.
Wied, Hermann von. See Hermann.
Wilberforce, E. I., ii. 549-51.
Wilhelm, J., ii. 393-97, 414.
William of Auvergne, i. 317-19.
William of Champeaux, i. 269.
WiUiam of Ockham, i. 363, 364.
WiUiam of Paris, i. 353.
WiUiam of St. Thierry, i. 298-301.
Wilson, T., ii. 483-87.
Wilson, H. A., i. 205.
Winchester Converts, The, ii. 492, 493.
Wittenburg, Convention at, ii. 46, 47.
Witmund of Averea, i. 252-54.
Wobbermin, G., i. 30.
Wolphem, i. 261.
Woodhead, A., ii. 466, 467.
Woodman, E., ii. 199.
Wordsworth, Christopher, i. 11.
Wordsworth, J., ii. 73, 602.
Wren, M., ii. 353, 354.
Wurtemberg Confession, ii. 33, 34.
Wyche, R., i. 374-76.
WycUf, J., i. 364-68.
York Convocation, ii. 253, 254.
York Manual, i. 372.
York Processional, i. 388.
Young, E., ii. 199, 200.
Zanchi, H., ii. 304.
ZwingU, H., ii. 37-43.

ABERDEEN : THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

MESSRS. LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.'S
NEW BOOKS.

THE NEW BOOK FOR LENT READING.
Recommended by the Bishop of London.
LAW AND LOVE :
A Stady of Quomodo Dilexi (Psalm cxix. 97-104).
By FRANCIS LEITH BOYD,
VICAR OF ST. PAUL'S, KNIGHTSBRIDGE.
Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. net.

ECCLESIA DISCENS: The Church's Lesson from the Age. By the
Rev. James H. F. Peile, M.A., Vicar of All Saints', Ennismore Gardens, S.W.,
Author of " The Reproach of the Gospel". Crown 8vo. 5s. net.
THE DIVINE FRIENDSHIP. By the Rev. Jesse Brett, Chaplain
of All Saints' Hospital, Eastbourne. Crown 8vo. 3*. net.
THE GOSPEL AND HUMAN NEEDS: being the Hulsean Lectures
for 1908-9. With Additions. By John Neville Figgis, Litt.D., of the Com
munity of the Resurrection, Mirneld.
A HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST.
By Darwell Stone, M.A., Librarian of the Pusey House, Oxford, formerly
Principal of Dorchester Missionary College. 2 vols. 8vo.
THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST IN COMMON LIFE. Addresses and
Sermons by Charles Bigg, D. D. , Sometime Canon of Christ Church, and Regius
Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford. Selected and
Edited by the Dean of Christ Church. With an Introduction by the Bishop
of Oxford. 8vo. 6s. net.
ABBA, FATHER: A Comment on the Lord's Prayer. By Walter
Lowrie, M.A., Rector of St. Paul's American Church, Rome. Crown 8vo.
4J. 6d. net.
THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST: Being Thoughts on the
Doctrine of the Atonement. By the Rev. B. W. Randolph, D.D., Principal of
the Theological College, Ely. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. net.
PASTOR OVIUM : The Day-Book of a Country Parson. By John
Huntley Skrine, M.A., Authorof " Pastor Agnorum," etc. Crown 8vo. 5*. net.
ANSELM'S THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT: The Bohlen Lec
tures. By the Rev. George C. Foley. Crown 8vo. $s. net.
STUDIES IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. By Charles H. Robin
son, M.A., Honorary Canon of Ripon. Crown8vo. Paper cover, 6d. net. Cloth,
is. net.
STUDIES IN THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST: An Argument.
By Charles H. Robinson, M.A., Honorary Canon of Ripon. Crown 8vo.
3^. 6d. net. THE OXFORD LIBRARY.— New Volume.
IMMORTALITY. By the Rev. E. E. Holmes, Hon. Canon of Christ
Church, Author of " In Watchings Often"- Crown 8vo. 5*.

Messrs. Longmans, Green, & Co.'s New Books.
SOCIAL SERVICE : A Handbook for Workers and Visitors in London
and other Large Towns. With Appendix of Local Charitable Agencies. Edited
by the Rev. G. M. Bell, M.A., Hon. Secretary of the Stepney Council of Public
Welfare. With a Preface by the Archbishop of York. Crown 8vo. is. 6d. net.
THE WITNESS OF THE WILDERNESS: The Bedawin of the
Desert. Their Origin, History, Home Life, Strife, Religion, and Superstitions, in
their relation to the Bible. By the Rev. G. Robinson Lees, B.A., F.R.G.S.,
Author of "Village Life in Palestine". With 28 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 3*. 6rf.
net.
CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS: Three Short Sermons.
By S. R. Driver, D.D., and W. Sanday, D.D., Canons of Christ Church.
Crown 8vo. is. 6d. net.
THE MESSAGE OF THE CHURCH: In Collect, Epistle, and
Gospel. A Series of Notes for Preachers and Teachers and for the private study of
the intelligent communicant. By Henry Martyn Sanders, M.A., Sometime
Scholar of Queens' College, Cambridge ; Vicar of St. John's, Highbury, N. 2 vols.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. net each.
Vol. I.— Advent to Whit Sunday, including the Holy Days. 256 pages. Each Sunday
or Holy Day receives independent treatment, but the relationship of each to the Season's
course of teaching is clearly worked out. The Collects are analysed and expounded in the
light of their originals, and the Epistles and Gospels are treated exegetically with the aid
of the best modern Greek Testament scholarship.
Although harmonization of Collect, Epistle and Gospel is attempted throughout, there is
no artificiality about the method employed.
Vol. II.— Trinity Sunday to All Saints' Day. 256 pages. The treatment is similar to
that of the first volume, a special feature being the attention devoted to the Saints' Days
which have been usually neglected in studies of this kind.

•THE ANGLICAN CHURCH HANDBOOKS.
EDITED BY
The Rev. W. H. GRIFFITH THOMAS, D.D.,
principal of wycliffe hall, oxford.
Price ONE SHILLING net each volume.

THE FOLLOWING VOLUMES ARE NOW READY :—
CHRISTIANITY AND THE SUPERNATURAL. The Right Rev.
C. F. D'Arcy, D.D., Bishop of Ossory.
SOCIAL WORK. The Rev. W. E. Chadwick, D.D., Vicar of St.
Giles', Northampton.
PASTORAL WORK. The Rev. R. C. Joynt, M.A., Vicar of Gipsy
Hill.
THE JOY OF BIBLE STUDY. The Rev. Harrington C. Lees,
M.A., Vicar of Christ Church, Beckenham.
READY SHORTLY :—
OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY AND MODERN IDEAS. The
Rev. R. B. Girdlestone, M.A., Hon. Canon of Christ Church.
THE CHURCH. The Very Rev. The Dean of Canterbury.
OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. The Rev. F. E. Spencer, M.A.
COMPARATIVE RELIGION. The Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall, D.D.
Several other volumes are in active preparation.

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C.
New York, Bombay, and Calcutta.

YALE UNIVERSITY

a39002 003016160b