Part I Chapter I §2: The Real Presence — Proof from Tradition

§2: Proof from Tradition

SECTION 2 PROOF FROM TRADITION More conclusively perhaps than any other dogma of the Catholic faith can the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be demonstrated from Tradition. The Popes prove this sublime truth by clearly defining it against various heretics; the Fathers unanimously bear witness to it; the Church at large held it in uninterrupted possession from the Apostolic age down to the eleventh century. ARTICLE i HERETICAL ERRORS VS. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH It is a remarkable fact that, aside possibly from Docetism,1 no heresy denying the Real Presence was ever able to take root in the primitive Church. When Berengarius of Tours attacked this dogma, in the eleventh century, the Church at once condemned the innovation and took determined means to suppress it. The widely divergent errors of the Protestant Reformers on this subject were vigorously rejected by the Council of Trent. i. The Three Great Eucharistic Controversies.— Church history records three great l Cfr. St. Ignatius, Ep. ad Smym., c. 7, t (ed. Funk, I, 241). 45 46 THE REAL PRESENCE Eucharistic controversies. The first was begun by Paschasius Radbertus, in the ninth century ; 2 the second, by Berengarius of Tours, in the eleventh ; the third, by the Protestant Reformers. a) The controversy of the ninth century left the dogmatic teaching of the Church intact and concerned itself solely with a philosophical question. St. Paschasius Radbertus, abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Corbie,8 in a treatise De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, published in 831, affirmed the identity of the Eucharistic Body of Christ with the natural Body He had on earth and now has in Heaven. In defending this view it seems Radbertus neglected the true though only accidental distinction between the sacramental and the natural condition of our Saviour’s Body. Hence Ratramnus, Rhabanus Maurus, and other contemporary theologians were justified in censuring the numerical identity asserted by Radbertus as a “novel and unheard-of ” doctrine, and insisting on the distinction just mentioned. The Body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, they declared, while identical with His natural Body naturaliter seu secundum substantiam, is not identical with it specialiter seu secundum speciem (=statum)* In defending his position Paschasius was 2 This first controversy scarcely extended beyond the limits of a Scholastic altercation. Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, Vol. Ill, 5th ed., pp. 278 sqq., Freiburg 1896) unduly exaggerates its importance. 3 See a sketch of his life in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XI, p. 518. His treatise De Corpore et Sanguine Domini can be found in Martene, Vet. Script, et Monum. Ampl, Collectio, t. IX, and in Migne, P. L., CXX. 4 Cfr. Rhabanus Maurus, Ep. 3 ad Egilem (Migne, P. L,, CXII, 1513): ” Manifestissime cognoscetis, non quidem — quod absit — naturaliter, sed specialiter aliud esse corpus able to quote St. Chrysostom, who in teaching the Real Presence employed precisely the same language without ever having been suspected of theological inaccuracy. Neither St. Chrysostom nor St. Paschasius dreamed of asserting that the Body of Christ was nailed to the Cross in its sacramental state, i. e. in the form of a host, and Heriger, Ratherius, and other opponents of the Abbot of Corbie were plainly beating the air when they employed their learning to refute his alleged assertion that the sacramental species are identical with the Body of Christ. Lanfranc, writing in the eleventh century, effectively disposes of the matter thus : ” It can truly be said that we receive the very Body which was taken from the Virgin, and yet not the same. It is the same in essence and property of true nature; but it is not the same if you regard the species of bread and wine.” 5 b) The first occasion for an official procedure on the part of the Church arose when Berengarius of Tours (+ 1088), influenced by the writings of Scotus Eriugena,6 formally rejected both the docDomini, quod ex substantia pants et vini pro mundi vita quotidie per SpWitum Sanctum consecratur … et aliud specialiter esse corpus Christi, quod natum est de Maria virgine, in quod Mud transfertur.” z Adv. Berengar., c. 18: ” Vere posse dici et ipsum corpus, quod de Virgine sumptum est, nos sumere; et tamen non ipsum. Ipsum quidem quantum ad essentiam veraeque naturae proprietatem; non ipsum out em, si spectes pants vinique species.” Cfr. Bach, Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters, Vol. I, pp. 156 sqq., Vienna 1873; J« Hergenrother, Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II, 4th ed., pp. 159 sqq., Freiburg 1904* A thorough vindication of St. Paschasius was made by Gerbert, afterwards Pope Sylvester II (+ 1003), in a work bearing the same title, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini. Cfr. Ernst, Die Lehre des Paschasius Radbertus von der Eucharistie, Freiburg 1896; Choisy, Paschase Radbert, Geneva 1889. 6 Scotus Eriugena composed his treatise De Corpore et Sanguine Domini about the year 860; the text has been lost and no authentic information has come down to us re48 THE REAL PRESENCE trine of the Real Presence and that of Transubstantiation.7 In his treatise De Sacra Coena, discovered by Lessing in 1774 and made public by Vischer in 1834, Berengarius expressly asserts : ” If it is said, ’ The bread which is placed upon the altar after the consecration is the body of Christ/ this is just as much a figure of speech as if it is said, ’ Christ is a lion, a lamb, the main cornerstone.’ ” 8 This heretical teaching gave great scandal and was vigorously combatted by Durandus of Troarne, Guitmund, Lanfranc, Alger of Liege, and other learned theologians.9 c) The third and most momentous Eucharistic controversy was that opened by the Protestant Reformers in the first half of the sixteenth century. In the main there were three schools : the Lutheran, the Zwinglian, and the Calvinist. a) Luther seems at first to have clung to the traditional Catholic doctrine, though it did not garding it. — On John Scotus Eriugena (” Eriugena ” means ” a native of Ireland ”), see W. Turner in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, pp. 519 sqq.; Gardner, Studies in John the Scot, London 1900. T V. infra, Ch. Ill, Sect. a. 8 ” Non minus tropica oratione dicitur: Panis, qui ponitur in altari, post consecrationem est corpus Christi, quam dicitur: Christ us est leo, agnus, summus lapis angularis.” — Berengarius certainly denied Transubstantiation. As to his teaching on the Real Presence, which is rather obscure, ” there is much -divergence of opinion among historians and theologians.” Perhaps the difficulty for him was ” in the mode rather than in the fact; … yet his exposition of [the Real Presence], together with his principles of philosophy, endanger the fact itself of the Real Presence and sound very much like a negative of it.” (G. M. Sauvage in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 488). 9 Their writings are reproduced by Hurter in his Sanctorum Patrum Cpuscula Selecta, Series I, vols. 33, 38, 39- Cfr. J. Schnitzer, Berengar von Tours, 2nd ed., pp. 133 sqq., Stuttgart 1892. tally with his pet theory of justification by faith alone. In his pamphlet On the Babylonian Captivity he viciously attacked the Mass and denied Transubstantiation, without, however, questioning the Real Presence. To save the latter after having rejected the former, he found himself constrained to maintain that the substance of bread and the Body of Christ exist together in the Eucharist. This theory is called Consubstantiation. It was later brought into a system by the orthodox Lutheran theologians and reduced to the technical formula: ” Praesens in, cum et sub pane!9 10 Luther, however, undermined it when, urged on by Melanchthon and by his own ardent desire to abolish the * Deus in pyxide * and do away with Eucharistic adorations and theophoric processions, he declared in his scurrilous pamphlet ” Von der Winkelmesse” (A. D. 1533), that the Body of Christ is present in the Eucharist only at the moment of its reception in holy Communion (in usu, non ante vel post usum). This theory, carried to its logical conclusion, had to result in a denial of the dogma of the Real Presence. Melanchthon, who leaned to Calvinism, did not find it difficult to eliminate from the Augsburg Confession the orthodox proposition: “The Body and Blood of the Lord are truly present under the form of bread and wine,” and to substitute for it the ambiguous phrase : * In the Lord’s Supper, the Body and Blood of Christ is truly exhibited with the bread and the wine,* 11 which was acceptable to the Calvinists. The Lutheran and the Calvinistic 10 For further information on this point, v. infra, pp. 113, 117. 11 Art 10 originally read: “Sub specie pants et vini corpus et sanguis Domini vere adsunU” For this Melanchthon substituted: In coena Domini cum pane et vino corpus et sanguis Christi vere exhibetur. The various Protestant confessional statements on the ” Lord’s Supper ” So THE REAL PRESENCE views continued to exist side by side, until King Frederick William III amalgamated the two sects in the so-called ” Evangelische Landeskirche,” the national Church of Prussia, which has since degenerated into almost complete infidelity. The original Lutheran teaching is today upheld only by a small coterie of “orthodox” Lutherans in Germany and the United States.12 P) Luther’s conception of the Eucharist was strongly opposed by Hulderic Zwingli of Zurich, who was supported by Carlstadt and Butzer, and especially by Oecolampadius. Zwingli, as stated above, discovered a figure or trope in the copula est and rendered it : ” This signifies my body,” thereby reducing the Eucharist to an empty symbol.18 Carlstadt claimed that when our Lord uttered the words “This is my body,” He pointed to Himself.14 Zwingli later on secured influential allies in the Arminians, the Mennonites, the Socinians, and the Anglicans,15 and even to-day the Rationalistic conception of the Lord’s Supper does not differ substantially from that of the Zwinglians. will be found in the New S chaff Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VII, pp. 35 sq. 12 Cfr. Herzog-Hauck, Realenzyklopadie fUr prot. Theologie, Vol. I, 3rd ed., pp. 65 8qq. (New SchaffHersog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VII, p. 37); J. T. Mfiller, Die symbolischen Bucket der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, 6th ed., Gutersloh 1886. 18 V. supra, Sect, x, Art. 2, No. 2. Zwingli’s teaching is succinctly stated in that writer’s Opera, Vol. Ill, pp. 240 sqq., Zurich 1832. 14 For Luther’s opinion of Carlstadt v. De Wette, Luth. Epist., II, 576 sqq. On the controversy between Luther and Zwingli regarding the Eucharist see Hergenrother, Kirchengeschichte, Vol. Ill, 4th ed., pp. 72 sqq., Freiburg 1909. 15 See the New Schaff -Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VII, p. 35. On more recent Protestant theories see W. Berning, Die Einsetzung der hi. Eucharistie in ihrer ursprUnglichen Form, pp. 1 sqq., Munster 1901. y) In the meantime Calvin, at Geneva, was seeking to bring about a compromise between the extremes of the Lutheran literal and the Zwinglian figurative interpretation of our Lord’s words, by suggesting instead of the substantial presence in one case or the merely symbolical presence in the other, a certain mean or ” dynamic” presence. This dynamic presence of Christ he explained as follows: At the moment of reception, the efficacy of Christ’s Body and Blood, though that Body and Blood are not really present (secundum substantias,), is communicated from Heaven to the souls of the predestined (secundum virtutem) and spiritually nourishes them.16 Owing to Melanchthon’s dishonest double-dealing, this intermediary position of Calvin made a strong impression in Lutheran circles, and it was only when the Formula of Concord was framed, in 1577, that the ” crypto-Calvinistic venom” was successfully expelled from the body of Lutheran doctrine.17 2. The Teaching of the Church. — It was not until the time of Berengarius that the Eucharistic dispute trenched on orthodoxy, thus comi6Cfr. Calvin, Instit., IV, 17. 17 Calvin’s views have been ultimately adopted by the great majority of the so-called ” Reformed ” churches. Loofs says there are ’ infinite gradations between the strict Calvinistic belief and the rationalyzing of the Zwinglian view into a mere observance in commemoration of Christ.” (New Schaff-Heraog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VII, p. 35). On modern Calvinism cfr. A. Ebrard, Das einhellige Bekenntnis der reformierten Kirche alter Lander, Barmen 1887; E. F. K. Muller, Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche, Leipzig 1903. — On the whole subject of this subdivision see WinerEwald, Komparative Darstellung des Lehrbegriffes der verschiedenen christlichen Kirchenparteien, n. $2 THE REAL PRESENCE pelling the Church to define her belief in the Real Presence. a) Berengarius view, together with Eriugena’s treatise De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, to which he had appealed in support of his teaching,18 were condemned by councils held in Vercelli (1050), Paris (about 1050), and Rome (1059). It was not until he had subscribed to an explicit profession of faith, at another council held in Rome, A. D. 1079, under the presidency of Gregory VII, that Berengarius gave up his heresy. He died reconciled to the Church. The quarrel concerning his Eucharistic teaching lasted altogether some thirty years. The profession of faith to which Berengarius was compelled to subscribe emphasized the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which virtually includes that of the Real Presence.19 Unlike the heresy of the Protestant Reformers, that of Berengarius never became popular.20 b) The CounciLof Trent met the widely divergent errors of the Protestant Reformers by XVI, 4th ed., Leipzig 1882; Mohler, Symbolism, § 35» 5 56* and § 68; J. B. Rohm, Konfessionelle Lehrgegensatne, Vol. IV, pp. 73 sqq., Hildesheim 1888. 18 It is a disputed question whether the treatise De Corpore et Sanguine Domini attributed to Ratramnus is identical with that of Scotus Eriugena. Cfr. on this point, Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogmatik, Vol. IV, 2, 561, Freiburg 1901. 10 ” Ego Berengarius corde credo et ore confiteor, panem et vinum, quae ponuntur in altari, per mysterium sacrae orationis et verba nostri Redemptoris substantia liter converti in veram et propriam ac vivificotricem carnem et sanguinem Jesu Christi Domini nostri et post consecrationem esse verum Christi corpus, quod natum est de Virgine et quod pro salute mundi oblatum in cruet pependit et quod sedet ad dexter am Patris, et verum sanguinem Christi, qui de latere eius effusus est, non tantum per signum et virtutem sacramenti, sed in proprietate naturae et veritate substantias… .” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 355)* 20 On the conciliary proceedings in the case of Berengarius see Mansi, Collect. Concil., Vol. XIX, pp. 757 sqq., 837 «qq.» 897 N.; Vol. XX, pp. 523 sqq. defining the Catholic teaching on the subject. The XHIth Session is devoted entirely to the Holy Eucharist, and no Catholic can peruse its decrees and canons without being deeply moved. The Council begins with a forthright profession of faith in the Real Presence : “In the first place the holy Synod teaches and openly and simply professes that, in the august Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained tinder the species of those sensible things.” 21 Calling upon Tradition as a witness, the Council points to the “proper and most manifest meaning” of the divine words of institution,22 and declares it “a most shameful crime” that these plain words should be “wrested by certain contentious and wicked men to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the Flesh and Blood of Christ is denied, against the universal sense of the Church.” 23 The three adverbs “truly, really, and substantially” were not arbi21 Cone. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 2a” Propriam illam et apertis1: ” Principio docet S. Synodus et simam signiHcationem.” apt tie ac simpliciter proHtetur, in 23 Ibid. : ” Indignissimum sane almo sanctae Eucharist iae sacra- fiagitium est, ea [verba] a quibusdam tnento post panis et vini consecra- contentiosis et pravis hominibus ad tionem Dominum nostrum Iesum fictitios et imaginarios tropos, quibus Christum, verum Deum atque ho- Veritas carnis et sanguinis Christi tninem, vere, realiter ac subs tan- negatur, contra universum Ecclesiae tialiter sub specie illarum rerum sensum detorqueri” sensibilium contineri,” (DenzingerBannwtrt, n. 874). 54 THE REAL PRESENCE trarily chosen, but with a view to oppose the three fictitious interpretations of the Reformers, already mentioned. The word “vere i. e. non significative tantum, was directed against the theory of Zwingli ; realiter i. e. non figurative, against the error of Oecolampadius ; substantialiter i. e. non virtualiter tantum, against Calvin’s contention of a purely *dynamic” presence. The teaching thus positively set forth is once more antithetically repeated in the First Canon of the same Session: “If anyone denieth that, in the Sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue, let him be anathema.” 24 This teaching of Trent has ever been and still is the unwavering belief of the whole of Catholic Christendom.25 24 Scss. XIII, can. i : ” Si quis negaverit, in ss. Eucharistiae Sacramento contineri vere, realiter et substantialiter corpus et sanguinem una cum anima et divinitate Pomini nostri Iesu Christi ac proinde to turn Christum, sed dixerit tantummodo esse in to ut in signo vel Hgura out virtute, anathema sit.” (DenzingerBannwart, n. 883). 25 A complete collection of all ecclesiastical definitions on the subject of the Eucharist will be found in Scheeben-Atzberger’s Dogmatik, Vol. IV, 2, pp. 561 sqq., Freiburg 1901. ARTICLE 2 THE TEACHING OF THE FATHERS The Catholic teaching on the Holy Eucharist can be abundantly proved from the Fathers. In order not to exceed the limits of this treatise we shall have to confine ourselves to the first five centuries. It is these early Fathers whom Calvin invoked in favor of his ” dynamic ” theory. The Patristic proofs for our dogma may be divided into direct 1 and indirect testimonies.2 Almost all extant Patristic passages bearing on the Real Presence are collected in the great five-volume work, La Perpetuite de la Foi de VEglise touchant I’Eucharistie, of which the first three volumes were published by Nicole and Arnauld between 1669 and 1674, and the last two by Renaudot, between 171 1 and 1713, at Paris.8 i. Direct Testimonies of the Fathers in Favor of the Dogma of the Real Presence. — As many Protestants admit that the Fathers who lived after the beginning of the fourth century held the Catholic view of the Eucharist, we will 1 Testimonies simplicia. 2 Testimonia argumentosa. 8 Though Nicole and Arnauld were Jansenists, yet their monumental work on the Eucharist, Perpetuity de la Foi, has not yet lost its value {Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 593).— The student may also consult Franzelin, De Eucharistia, thes. 8-10, Rome 1887; Beguinot, La Tres Sainte Eucharistie, Exposition de la Foi des 12 Premiers Siecles, 2 vols., Paris 1903. — The most ancient Patristic texts bearing on the Eucharist are conveniently displayed by G. Rauschen, Florilegium Patristicum, Heft 7, Bonn 1909. See also the same author’s Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, pp. x sqq., St. Louis 1913. first examine the teaching of those Patristic writers who flourished in the first three centuries. a) Besides the Didache, which is of special importance in regard to the Mass, and which we shall quote in Part III of this treatise, the oldest Patristic witness that can be cited in support of the Church’s belief in the Real Presence is St. Ignatius of Antioch (+ about 117). a) Ignatius writes of the Docetists: “They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer,4 because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, [that Flesh] which suffered for our sins,5 and which the Father raised up by His goodness.6 … But it were better for them to love [dycwrav, i. e. dydirqv irovelv = to celebrate the Eucharist], in order that they also may attain to the resurrection.” 7 This ” realistic ” text, which could be matched by others from the same author,8 is not contradicted by the ” symbolic * reflection in his Epistle to the Trallians : * Be renewed in faith, which is the Flesh of the Lord, and in love, which is the Blood of Jesus Christ,” 9 — a passage that is as unmistakably figurative as the former is literal, since faith and love manifestly neither ” suffer ” nor ” attain to the resurrection.” This interpretation is confirmed by a close inspection of the original text, which reads as follows : ‘AvaKTiaaaOt eaurovs cv TTtorci, o [not rj] €

[not ri\ ioriv alfia ‘I-qaov Xpurrov, i. e., the renewal of faith and love is the Flesh and Blood of Christ, that is to say, the effect of His Flesh and Blood, in other words, a fruit of Holy Communion. The res sacramenti stands antonomastically for sacramentum.10 fi) Another ancient witness to the doctrine of the Real Presence is St. Justin Martyr (+ 167). Disregarding the Discipline of the Secret, that famous apologist says: ” And this food is with us called Eucharist, and no one is permitted to partake of the same, except he who believes that our teaching is true, and who has submitted to that ablution [Baptism] for the forgiveness of sins and unto regeneration, and who lives as Christ hath commanded. For we take this not as common bread,11 nor as common drink, 12 but as Jesus Christ, our Saviour, made Flesh by the Divine Logos,13 had Flesh and Blood for the sake of our salvation, so have we been taught that also the food consecrated by the word of prayer coming from Him, by which our blood and flesh are nourished through conversion [i. e. bread and wine], is the Flesh and Blood of that Jesus who was made Flesh.14 For the Apostles have handed it down in their memoirs, which are called Gospels, that it hath been commanded them as follows: Jesus took bread, gave thanks, and said, ’ Do this in commemoration of me, this is my Body’; and in the same manner He took the chalice, gave thanks, and said, ’ This is my Blood,’ and gave them all thereof.” 15 10 Cfr. Schanz, Die Lehre von den 14 rljw 6V etfx^f \6yov roD Tap* Sakramenten der kath. Kirche, p. avrov evx^P^TtjOeicrav TpapJjp 334, Freiburg 1893; J. Nirschl, Die (t. e. consecrated), l£ 1jt alfia al Theologii des hU Ignatius, pp. 76 c&pm xar& H€Tafio^p rpitpowrai •qq., Mayence 1880. ^pur. fre/rov row capKomfviBirrot ” koip6p &pTow» ‘lyavv xal cdpxa ical alfia that ikoi6v -6/a. UApoL, I, c 66 (Migne, P. G„ is ” Hie who overshadowed the LXVII, 426). Another important Virgin; ” cfr. ApoL, 1, c. 3a sq, text from Justin Martyr will be 58 THE REAL PRESENCE St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+ 203), a pupil of St. Polycarp of Smyrna who had personally known the Apostles, upholds the dogma of the Eucharist against the Gnostics as an argument for the resurrection of the flesh, and in so doing plainly teaches the Real Presence. Take this passage, for instance : ” He declared the chalice, which is taken from created things, to be His own Blood,16 wherewith He penetrates our blood, and the bread, which is also a created thing, to be His own Body,17 wherewith He nourishes our bodies… . Wine and bread are by the word of God changed into the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ. 18 In another place19 St. Irenaeus says : * How can these heretics [the Gnostics] be convinced that the cbnsecrated bread20 is the Body of their Lord, and the cup contains His Blood, if they do not regard Him as the Son of the Creator of the world, i. e., as His Logos, through whom the trees bear fruit, the fountains flow, and the earth produces first a blade of grass, then the ear, and finally, within the ear, the full wheat?“21 St. Hippolytus of Rome (+ 235) says: ” The Logos prepared His precious and immaculate Body22 and His Blood,28 which are daily prepared as a sacrifice 24 on the mysterious divine table, in commemoration of that eternally memorable first table of the mystic divine supper. Come and eat my Bread, and drink the wine which I have quoted infra, Part III, in con- 20 &prov €^xaPtff^vra = ^e nection with the Mass. On St. over which thanks have been given. Justin’s teaching, cfr. Rauschen, 21 Cfr. L. Hopfenmuller, S. IreEucharist and Penance, pp. 5 sq.t 30 naeus de Eucharistia, Bamberg aqq., and Bardenhewer, Geschichte 1867. For the teaching of Clement der altkirchlichen Literatur, Vol. I, of Alexandria and Origen see No. pp. 239 sq-» Freiburg 190a. 3, infra, pp. 69 sqq. ialfia totow. 22 aufia. irfoW a&fia. 28 clI/jlcl. ib Adv. Haer., V, 2, 2 sq. 24 tSrireXovrraft $v6fi€va* • Op Ciu, IV, 18, 4. mixed for you: He hath given us His own divine Flesh28 and His own precious Blood26 to eat and to drink.” 27 y) Though Tertullian (b. about 160) is not always clear, and some of his utterances are open to misinterpretation, he roundly declares his belief in the Real Presence in such passages as these: “The flesh [of Christian believers] is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ, in order that the soul, too, may be sated with God.* 28 In holy anger he exclaims against the makers and vendors of pagan idols : * The zeal of faith will plead, bewailing that a Christian should come from idols into the church, . . : should apply to the Lord’s Body those hands which give bodies to demons… . Idol-makers are chosen [even] into the ecclesiastical order. Oh, shame! Once did the Jews lay hands on Christ ; but these mangle His Body daily. Oh, hands to be cut off ! ” 29 Tertullian’s famous countryman, St. Cyprian (+ 258), interprets the fourth petition of the Lord’s Prayer with reference to the Holy Eucharist, and concludes his exposition as follows: “Therefore we beg for our bread, i. e. Christ, to be given to us every day, in order 25 r^r Beiap avrov ff&pica* 26 riftiop avrov alfia* 27 In Proverb., IX, 2 (Migne, P. C, LXXX, 593). Achelis (Hippolytstudien, p. 159, Leipzig 1897) denies that the fragment on Prov. IX, 1-5 was composed by St. Hippolytus; but it is undoubtedly genuine in the form in which it was received into the collection of Anastasius Sinaita. 28 De Resurrect. Cam., c. 8 (Migne, P. L., II, 806): * Caro iChristianoruni] corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo iQgtnetur* 29 De Idolol, c. 7 (Migne, P. L„ I, 669): ” Zelus iidei perorabit ingemens Christianum ab idolis in ecclesiam venire, … eas manus admovere corpori Domini, quae daemoniis corpora conferunt… . AUeguntur in ordinem ecclesiasticum artifices idolorum. Proh scelusl Seme I Iudaei Christo manus intulerunt, isti quotidie corpus eius lacessunt. 0 manus praecidendae I * Cfr. Dieringer, Die Abendmahlslehre Tertullians/’ in the Katholik, of Mayence, 1864, I, 277 sqq. 6o THE REAL PRESENCE that we who remain and live in Christ, may not recede from His sanctification and Body.” 80 St. Cyprian is opposed to giving holy Communion to sinners before they have performed their allotted penance,8.1 but allows that in time of persecution they may be forthwith admitted to the Holy Table.82 b) After the Nicene Council (A. D. 325) the number of Patristic witnesses grows larger and their testimony increasingly clear and positive. The Greek Fathers, in particular, attest their faith in the Real Presence in terms that sometimes smack of exaggeration. a) Macarius Magnes, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century,83 says : ” He spoke : ’ This is my Body.’ Not, therefore, an image of the Body,84 nor an image of the Blood, as some feeble-minded persons have foolishly asserted, but in truth the Body and Blood of Christ.85 30 De Or. Dom.t c. 18 (ed. Hartel, I, 280): * Et idea pattern nostrum, i. e. Christum, dart nobis quotidie petimus, ut qui in Christo manemus it vivimus, a sanctiHcatione eius et corpore non recedamus. 8iCfr. De Lap sis, 16 (/. c, I, 348): * Vis infertur corpori eius et sanguini et plus modo in Dominum manibus atque ore delinquunt, quam quum Domlnum negaverunt. 32 Cfr. Ep. 57 ad Cornel., 2 (/. c, II, 652): Nam quomodo docemus aut provocamus eos in confessione nominis sanguinem suum fundere, si its militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamust ” — Cfr. J. Dollinger, Die Eucharistie in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten, Mayence 1826; Ermoni, L’EucharuHe dons VEglit Primitive, 2nd ed., Paris 1904; A. Struckmann, Die Gegenwart Christi in der hi. Eucharistie nach den schriftlichen Quellen der v or uis anise hen Zeit, Vienna 1905. 38 This writer’s Apocriticus was first edited in full by C. Blondel, Paris 1876 (Maicaplov VLayvrirot ‘Airofrpirucos), but a Eucharistie fragment extracted therefrom had been previously published by Pitra (Spicil. Solesm., II, 548 b, Paris 1852). It is this fragment from which we quote in the text (ed. Blondel, p. 106). «* rfaot tov cufMaros8Sd\& /car’ &\1j$ciav ffw/ta teal alfia XpurroV’ On a similar expression employed by the Syrian Bishop Maruthas, v, supra, p, jfc PROOF FROM TRADITION 61 St. Gregory of Nyssa (b. about 331) speaks of the Real Presence in strongly “realistic” terms. He says: ” Rightly, therefore, I believe that even to-day the bread, being sanctified by the word of God, is converted into the Body of the Logos-God.8a … This bread, as the Apostle says, is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, becoming converted into the Body of the Logos, not by eating and drinking, but instantly changing into the Body of the Logos, as has been declared by the Logos Himself : ’ This is my Body.’ … Through an act of grace He implants Himself by the flesh into all the “faithful, commingled with the bodies of the faithful, … in order that man, by being united with the immortal [Body of Christ], be made to partake of incorruptibility. This gift He bestows in virtue of the power of consecration, by transforming the nature of that which is sensible into that [Body].“87 St. Gregory of Nazianzus (+ about 390) says: ” Doubt not when thou hearest of the Blood of God, but without taking scandal unhesitatingly eat the Body 88 and drink the Blood,89 if thou desirest to have life.” 40 St. Basil (+ 379) 41 and St. Athanasius (+373) 42 express themselves in similar terms. P) Our two principal witnesses among the Greek Fathers are St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. John Chrysostom. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) dwells on the Eucharist in the last two chapters of his famous Catecheses Mystagogicae. After quoting the words of institution, efc tr&fia tov Geov A6yov 89 VU rb al/ia. fteraiTQieiffOai. 40 Or., 45. n. 19. *7 Tfl Hit dXeylat dvva^ut wpbs *i Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogi/cetro (ffwpa) /ieraffTOtx^^OLt mat” VoI« VI» 3rd ed., pp. 2S2 sq. r&v atvofiivtt)p r^v Qvffty. Or. 42 His teaching is explained by Catech., c 37 (Migne, P. C, XLV, Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des 93 aq.). M. Athanasius, pp. 219 sqq., Mu90 a\ye t6 (T«m«- «»ch 1880.

according to the version given by St. Paul, he asks: ” Since He [Christ] Himself, therefore, said of the bread: 4 This is my Body,’ who will venture to waver ? And since He Himself assures us : ’ This is my Blood/ who should ever doubt that it is His Blood ? At Cana in Galilee He once converted 48 water into wine, which is akin to blood. Is He undeserving of belief when He converts wine into blood?44 … Therefore, let us receive it with full conviction as the Body and Blood of Christ. For under the appearance of bread 45 thou receivest the Body, and under the appearance of wine,46 the Blood, in order that through the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ thou mayest become of one body and blood with Him.47 In this way, too, we are made bearers of Christ,48 since His Body and Blood are received into our members… . Hence do not regard it as mere bread and wine; for according to the Lord’s assurance it is the Body and Blood of Christ. Though the senses 49 seem to tell thee otherwise, faith 50 gives thee certainty. Do not judge by the taste,51 but obtain from faith the indubitable certitude that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ… . Having been thus instructed and convinced that what appears to be bread is not bread,52 though it seem thus to the taste, but the Body of Christ, and what appears to be wine is not wine,58 though it seem thus to the taste, but the Blood of Christ, … strengthen thy heart by eating this bread as a spiritual food, and make glad the face of thy soul.” 54 «3 fUTapipXrjicev. 8<>^ ttuttij. 44 olvov (icrapaXwv els alfia> 81 arrb rijs yetiffewt* *8 ip rviry Aprou. 62 6 Qawdficvos dpros o$k ipros 46 iv TU1C6poi. iffTtv. 49^ atffOijffit’ *Catech. MysU, IV, n. 2 sqq. The ” Doctor of the Eucharist ” par excellence is St. Chrysostom. None of the Fathers has inculcated the Real Presence so frequently and in such ” realistic,” not to say exaggerated, language as he. Pointing to the altar he says : ” Thou approachest a fearful, a holy sacrifice. Christ lies there slain,65 to reconcile thee … to the Creator of the universe. 56 In another place he writes : *When you enter the church, do not believe that you receive the divine Body from a man, but you shall believe to receive the divine Body like the live coal from the tongs of the Seraphim [in the prophecy of Isaias] and you shall drink the salutary Blood as if you sucked it with your lips from the divine and immaculate side.” 57 And again : ” That which is in the chalice, is the same as that which flowed from the side of Christ, and of this we are made partakers… . What the Lord did not tolerate on the cross [i. e., the breaking of his limbs], He tolerates now in the sacrifice,58 for the love of thee; He permits Himself to be broken into pieces,59 so that all may be filled to satiety… . The wise men adored this Body when it lay in the manger ; they prostrated themselves before it in fear and trembling. Now you behold the same Body which the wise men adored in the manger, lying upon the altar ; you also know its virtue and salutary effect… . Already in the present life this mystery changes the earth for you into Heaven ; the sublimest thing that is there, — the Body of the Lord, — you can behold here on earth. Yea, you not only behold it, but you touch it and eat it.” 60 (Migne, P. G., XXXIII, 1098 sqq.). 57 Horn, de Poenit., IX, n. 1. On the terminology of St. Cyril, 68eV2 rijs irpoctpopat. see infra pp. 72 sq. 59 dv^xercu SiafcXayxevos. 55 i

One of the most forcible passages in the writings of St. Chrysostom — a veritable locus class^cus — is the following : ” How many now-a-days say : Would that I could gaze upon His form, His figure, His raiment, His shoes! Lo! thou seest Him, touchest Him, eatest Him. He gives Himself to thee, not merely to look upon, but even to touch, to eat, and to receive within thee.61 … Consider at whose table thou eatest ! For we are fed with that which the angels view with trepidation and which they cannot contemplate without fear because of its splendor. We become one mass with Him: we are become one body and one flesh with Christ.62 … What shepherd feeds His sheep with his own flesh? Some mothers entrust their new-born infants to nurses; this He did not wish to do, but He nourishes us with His own Blood, He unites Himself with us. These are not deeds of human power… . We take the place of servants ; it is He who consecrates and transmutes [the bread and wine].“68 y) St. Cyril of Alexandria (+ 444), because of his opposition to Nestorius, concerned himself with the ” lifegiving virtue of the flesh of Christ” mainly from the point of view of the Hypostatic Union.64 But there are two passages in his works where he teaches the Real Presence as well as Transubstantiation simply and without any controversial bias. The first of these reads as follows: “As a life-giving Sacrament we possess the sacred Flesh of Christ and His precious Blood under the appearances of bread and wine,65 in order that we may 61 avrbs 8k iavrbw dlSwai ovk Ifciv (jl6vqv, dWb, koI &i//aff$ai kclI

not be struck with terror if we see flesh and blood lying upon the holy altars of our churches, God [by the consecration] breathed living power into the proffered gifts and converted them into the energy of His own flesh.”6 The second passage runs thus : ” Pointing to the bread, the Lord spake : * This is my Body/ and to the wine : ’ This is my Blood/ in order that thou shouldst not imagine that what thou seest is merely an image,67 but that thou shouldst believe that the gifts are in a mysterious way truly converted into the Body and Blood of Christ.”8 The testimonies of the Syriac Fathers have been collected by Th. Lamy in his work De Syrorum Fide et Disciplina in Re Eucharistica.9 c) The Latin Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries are no less clear and emphatic than their Greek colleagues in asserting the Real Presence. a) St. Hilary (+ 366), the doughty champion of tKe faith against the Arians of the West, writes : ” He [Christ] Himself says: ’ My Flesh is truly meat, and my Blood is truly drink ; he that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood, abideth in me, and I in him/ Of the verity of the Flesh and Blood there is no room left for doubting. For now both by the declaration of the Lord Himself, and by our faith, it is truly Flesh and it is truly Blood ; and these, when eaten and drunk, effect that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not the truth ? ” 70 fic$laiv6fi€pa tristic texts bearing on this subject furavoielffBai cfr ctafxa koX see Franzelin, De Eucharistia, pp. alfia Xpiffrov KO.T&. rb &\rj6 it. 85 sqq. {In Matth., 26, 27). Cfr. Struck- 70 De Trinit., VIII, 14: “Ipse mann, Die Eucharistielehre des hi. ait: * Caro me a vere est esca et san66 THE REAL PRESENCE St. Ambrose (+ 397), in his famous treatise De Mysteriis, which forms such an admirable counterpart to the Catecheses Mystagogicae of St. Cyril, instructs his neophytes on the nature of the Eucharist. After pointing out its Old Testament types (the manna, the water that came forth from a rock at Moses command, etc.), he continues : ” This was done as a figure for us. You know the higher things ; for light is superior to darkness, truth to figure, the body of the Author to the manna from heaven/’ 71 To explain Transubstantiation the same writer recalls how the words of Moses turned a rod into a serpent, how Elias called down fire from heaven, how God created the universe out of nothing, and then asks : ” Shall not the words of Christ have power to change the appearances of the elements? … Cannot, therefore, the words of Christ, who was able to make something out of nothing, change that which already exists into something which it was not before? … What we effect [by consecration], is the Body taken from the virgin. Why dost thou here seek the order of nature, since the Lord Jesus, born of a virgin, is Himself above nature? Truly, therefore [is this] the Flesh of Christ, which was crucified and buried; truly, therefore, is it the Sacrament of His flesh.” 72 guts meus vere est potus; qui edit carnem meant et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet et ego in eo De veritate carnis et sanguinis non relictus est ambigendi locus. Nunc enim et ipsius Domini professione et fide nostra vere caro est et vere sanguis est; et haec accepta at que hausta id eMciunt, ut et nos in Christo et Christ us in nobis sit. Anne hoc Veritas non estt* 7i De Myst., c. 8, n. 49: Haec in Hgura facta sunt nostra. Cognovisti praestantiora: potior est enim lux quam umbra, Veritas quam figurat corpus auctoris quam manna de caelo.” 72 Op. cit., IX, si sq.: ” Non valebit Christi sermo, ut species mutet element orumt … Sermo ergo Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare, quod non erantf … Hoc quod conHcimus, corpus ex Virgine est; quid hie quaeris naturae or din em, quum praeter naturam sit ipse Dominus Iesus partus ex Virgine f Vera utique caro p) The writings of St. Augustine (+ 430) contain no such striking passages. The probable reason is that he found no Eucharistic heresy to combat and felt more strictly bound by the Discipline of the Secret.73 Addressing himself almost exclusively to persons already initiated into the Christian mysteries, the Bishop of Hippo dwelt chiefly on the necessity and value of holy Communion and had no occasion to discuss the dogma of the Real Presence. The enemies of the Church do not scruple to maintain that he was an out-and-out ” Symbolist.”74 In the opinion of Loofs,75 St. Augustine ” never gave a thought to the reception of the true Body and Blood of Christ.” Adolph Harnack76 declares that St. Augustine in this respect was undoubtedly of one mind with the so-called pre-Re formation and with Zwingli. Against this unwarranted contention Catholics set the undoubted fact that Augustine professed belief in Transubstantiation. ” That which is seen on the table of the Lord,” he says, ” is bread and wine ; but this bread and this wine, when the word is added, becomes the Body and Blood of the Logos.” 77 And again: ” This bread which you see upon the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ ; this chalice, or rather that which it contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. 78 St. Augustine furtherChristi, quae crucifixa est, quae sepulta est: vere ergo camis illius sacramentum est,* 73 V. infra, No. 3, p. 74. 74 See Schanz, ” Die Lehre des Augustinus Uber die Eucharistie,” in the Theol. Quartalschrift of Tubingen, 1896, pp. 79 sqq. T5 Dogmengeschichte, 4th ed., p. 409, Halle 1906. 76 Dogmengeschichte, 3rd ed., p. 148, Freiburg 1897. 77 Sertn., 5 (ed. Caillou, p. 12, Paris 1842) : ” Hoc quod videtur in mensa Domini, panis est et vinum; sed iste panis et hoc vinum accedente verbo fit corpus et sanguis Verbi.” nSemu, 227: “Panis tile, quern videtis in altari, sanctificatus per verbutn Dei corpus est Christi; calix We, imo quod habet calix, sanctificaturn per ierbum Dei sanguis est Christu” 68 THE REAL PRESENCE more declares that “Christ carried Himself in His own hands,” and that we owe divine worship to the Eucharist.79 Moreover, it is not fair to detach the great Doctor’s teaching on the Eucharist from his teaching on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where he clearly and unequivocally asserts that the true Body and Blood of Christ are offered on the altar.80 We may conclude the Patristic testimonies with a quotation from Pope St. Leo the Great (+ 461), who says: ” The Lord avers (John VI, 54) : ’ Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you/ Hence you should so partake of this sacred table that you have no doubt whatever concerning the truth of the Body of Christ. For that is consumed with the mouth which is believed by faith, and in vain do those respond ’ Amen 9 who dispute against that which is received.* 81 19Enarr. in Ps., 33, I. 10: * Et ferebatur in manibus suis (1 Reg. ai). Hoc vero, fr aires, quomodo possit fieri in homine, quis intelligatt Quis enim portatur in manibus suis? Manibus aliorum potest portari homo, manibus suis nemo portatur… . In Christo autem invenimus. Ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis, quando commendans ipsum corpus suum ait: Hoc est corpus meum. Ferebat enim Mud corpus in manibus suis.* — Enarr. in Ps., 98, n. 9: Quia carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit, nemo autem carnem Mam manducat nisi prius adoraverit, inventum est, quemadmodum adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domini (Ps. 98, 5), et non solum non peccemus adorando, sed peccemus non adorando. (Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 286 sq.) 80 Cfr. Serm., 3 (ed. Caillou, p. 9): A solis ortu usque ad occasum, sicuti a propketis praedictum est, immolatur… . Non adhuc de gregibus pecorum hostia cruenta conquiritur, non ovis aut hircus divinis altaribus admovetur, sed sacrificium iam nostri temporis corpus et sanguis est ipsius Sacerdotis. . • . Cum timore et tremore ad participationem huius altaris accedite. Hoc agnoscite in pane, quod pependit in cruce; hoc in calice, quod manavit ex latere.” — Cfr. O. Blank, Die Lehre des hi. Augustin vom Sakramente der Eucharistie, Paderborn 1907; K. Adam, Die Eucharistielehre des hi. Augustin, Paderborn 1908. 81 Serm., 91, c. 3: ” Dicente Domino: ‘Nisi manducaveritis,’ etc. (Ioa. vi, 54), sic sacrae mensae communicare debetis, ut nihil prorsus de veritate corporis Christi et sanguinis ambigatis. Hoc enim ore PROOF FROM TRADITION 69 2. Indirect Testimonies. — The Christological heresies of the early centuries naturally affected the doctrine of the Eucharist, though only in an indirect manner. Few heretics openly attacked the Real Presence. Some even dared to use this dogma to bolster their erroneous teaching on the Person of our Lord. The Patristic writers who defended the Catholic doctrine had little trouble to refute this class of opponents. They showed how those who admitted the Real Presence were inconsistent in their Christological teaching, while those who pretended to base their errors on the Eucharist, were unwilling witnesses to the truth of the dogma. a) The Church teaches that there are two natures in Christ, one divine, the other human, and that these two natures are hypostatically united in one Person. a) One of the first heretics to deny the Divinity of our Lord was Paul of Samosata, who tried to prove the corruptibility, and consequently the non-divinity, of the Eucharistic Blood from the fact that it is divided into parts when received in Holy Communion. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (+ 264) answered this specious objection as follows: “As little as the Holy Ghost is perishable because He is poured forth into our hearts, just so little is the Blood of Christ corruptible, which is not the blood of a mortal man, but of the true God, who sumitur, quod fide creditor, et fru- 452).— Other Latin Fathers arc costra ab ili.s ‘Amen’ respond etur, piously quoted by Franxelin, Da * quibus contra id, quod oceipitur, Eucharistic, pp. 2x4 sqq. disputatur.” (Migne, P. L., LIV, is a well-spring of joy for all who partake therefrom.” 82 The Arians argued that, as there is but a moral union between the Eucharistic Christ and the devout communicant, so the union between the Three Persons of the Trinity, which is the prototype of the former,88 must also be a purely moral one. St. Hilary refuted this erroneous contention by demonstrating the consubstantiality of Christ with His Father from the real union that exists between the Eucharistic Body and its recipient in Holy Communion.84 At the opposite extreme stood the Docetae, who denied the reality of Christ’s human body. They were refuted by St. Ignatius of Antioch85 and other ancient Fathers by simple reference to the Holy Eucharist. He who has a real body in the Blessed Sacrament, they argued, cannot have had a merely apparitional or phantom body during His sojourn on earth. Tertullian employed the same argument against the Gnostics.88 ft) The dogma of the Hypostatic Union of the two natures in Christ was attacked by the Nestorians and the Monophysites. The former maintained that there 82 Opera Dionys. Alexandr., p. 233, Rome 1796. 88Cfr. John VI, 57; XVII, 21 sqq. 84 St. Hilary, De Trinitate, VIII, 13: “Si vere Verbum caro factum est et vere nos Verbum carnem cibo do mini co sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est, qui et naturam carnis nostrae … assumpsit et naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub sacramento nobis communicandoe carnis admiscuitt … Si vere homo ille, qui ex Maria natus fuit, Christus est nosque vere sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus et per hoc unum erimus, quia Pattr in eo est et ille in nobis, quomodo voluntatis unitas asseritur, quum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum sit unitatts? * 8B Ep. ad Smyrn., 7. 86 Adv. Marcion., IV, 40: * Sic et in calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum substantiam corporis conHrmavit. Nullius enim corporis sanguis potest esse nisi carnis. Nam etsi qua corporis qualitas non carnea opponetur nobis, certe sanguinem nisi carnea non habebit. Ita consistit probatio corporis de testimonio carnis, probatio carnis de testimonio sanguinis,” PROOF FROM TRADITION 7i are two Persons in the God-man, while the latter asserted that He has but one nature. Against the Nestorians, St. Cyril of Alexandria argued as follows: “Who is He that said : ’ Whosoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood, abides in me and I in him ’ ? If it were a mere man who became like unto us, and not rather the GodLogos, that which happens [in Communion] would be anthropophagy,87 and participation therein were useless.” 88 The Monophysites, on the other hand, asserted that as bread and wine are converted into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, so humanity was converted into Divinity in the Hypostatic Union. They were met by Theodoret, St. Ephraem, Gelasius, and other orthodox writers with the statement that the human nature in the Hypostatic Union remains quite as unchanged as the physical accidents of bread and wine in the Eucharist after the consecration.8 b) Holy Communion was cited by the earliest Patristic authors as an argument for the resurrection of the flesh. Thus St. Irenaeus wrote against the Gnostics : ” How can they say that the flesh will decay and does not participate in the life, — [that flesh] which is nourished by the Body of the Lord and by His Blood?90 Let them, therefore, change their opinion or cease to offer up these things. Our faith, on the contrary, is consonant with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our faith.” 9X St. Cyril of Alexandria develops the same thought as follows : ” Although death, which has come upon us on account of sin, subjects the human body to the necessity of decay, nevertheless we shall surely rise again because Christ is in us through His Flesh; for it is incredible, 7 dvOpunrofpayla- 00 dirb rov ff&paros rod Kvplov SB Contra Nestor., IV, 5. jcal atfiaros atfrov. V. infra, Cb. V, Sect 1, 9iAdv. Hair., IV, j8, 4. nay impossible, that the Life should not vivify those in whom it is.” 92 3. Solution of Patristic Difficulties. — The difficulties that arise concerning the Eucharistic teaching of some of the Fathers may be accounted for on three general grounds: (1) these Fathers felt secure in the possession of the truth; (2) they had a distinct preference for the allegorical interpretation of Scripture; and (3) they were bound by the Discipline of the Secret. a) We will first consider these general reasons and then examine some of the doubtful texts. a) The doctrine of the Real Presence was not seriously impugned before the eleventh century; hence, for the first one thousand years of the Church’s history, the truth was in peaceful and secure possession of the field. During this period the faithful had a deep and unquestioning belief in the Real Presence. This feeling of security is probably responsible for some loose statements and a certain inaccuracy on the part of some early theologians. The obscure and ambiguous utterances that occur in their writings are more than counterbalanced, however, by a number of others that are perfectly clear and evident,08 and by every rule of sound hermeneutics the former should be explained by the latter.8 M7» Jm., tf, 55. lib. IV, J.— Similarly Tertullian (De Resurr. Camii, c 8) and many other Patristic writers.— On the subject of Ibis subdivision cfr, Hsinrich-Gut. berlet, Dogmai, Tkeol, Vol IX, I 530. ss V. supra, Nob. x and s. 94 It was sheer ignorance that die* tatcd Calvin’s remark; ” Contot PROOF FROM TRADITION 73 P) Some of the Fathers, especially those belonging to the so-called Alexandrian school (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyril), showed a marked preference for the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. This tendency found a salutary counterpoise in the way in which the literal interpretation was cultivated by the school of Antioch (Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret), whose methods were espoused by St. John Chrysostom.95 The allegorical sense which the Alexandrians emphasized, did not, of course, exclude the literal sense, but rather supposed it as a working basis (at least in the New Testament), and hence the realistic phraseology of Clement, Origen, and Cyril can be readily accounted for.00 Clement (+ 217), despite his allegoric tendencies, obviously professed the Real Presence, for he says : ” The Lord gives us this very appropriate food. He offers His flesh and pours out His Blood,97 and nothing is wanting for the growth of the children. O incomprehensible mystery!” 98 Origen ( + 254), who frequently speaks of the Eucharistic Bread as ” the sign of the Logos,” and describes meditation on the Logos as “a paschal feast,” did not allow the Discipline of the Secret to prevent him from publicly professing his belief in the Real Presence. He says : ” We eat loaves of bread which, through prayer, have become vetustos omnes scriptores, qui totis antiochenische Schule, Wurzburg quinque saeculis post Apostolos vi* 1866; Kihn, Bedeutung der antiverunt, uno ore nobis patrocinari.” ocheniscken Exegetenschule, Wurx95 Jn Is., V, 7: “Tlavraxov Tys burg 1866. ypa

a certain holy Body,” which purifies those who eat it with a clean heart.”100 Among the Latin Fathers St. Augustine is almost the only one whose attitude has given rise to controversy.101 y) Because of the strictness with which the Discipline of the Secret was maintained in the early centuries, some of the Fathers in their sermons and popular writings did not express themselves as clearly on the Holy Eucharist as might be expected. The Discipline of the Secret was enforced in the East until the end of the fifth, and in the West down to the middle of the sixth century. It concerned principally the Eucharist. Origen says : ” He who has been initiated into the mysteries knows the flesh of the LogosGod; let us therefore no longer dwell on that which is known to the initiate, but must not be revealed to the uninitiate.” 102 St. Epiphanius (+ 403), in a letter addressed to the clergy and magistrate of the city of Suedra, repeats our Saviour’s words of institution in this rather strange form: ‘EAa/fe rdSe #cai cvxapurripras dfff tovto fwv «m toSc.108 St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom often employ the expression: ” Norunt initiati — iaamv ol irurroi.10 b) Aside from these general considerations, we may reduce the Patristic difficulties regarding so ff&fia &yi6v Tt. 100 a Cels., VIII, 32. 101 V. supra, pp. 67 sq. Other Patristic texts, including such as favor an allegorical interpretation, in Rauschcn, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, pp. 7 sqq. 102 Horn, in Levit., IX, n. 10. 103 Ancorat., c. 57 (Migne, P. G%, XLIII, 117). 104 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 52 sqq. PROOF FROM TRADITION the dogma of the Real Presence to four distinct categories.105 o) The Fathers do not always draw a clear-cut distinction between the sacramental species (species panis et vini) on the one hand, and the Body and Blood of Christ (corpus et sanguis Christi) on the other. For want of a more accurate terminology, they often refer to the sacramental species as ” signs,” ” types,” ” symbols,” or ” figures.” However, they are far from employing these terms in the Protestant sense. They simply mean to say that the species of bread and wine are visible signs, types, or symbols of the invisible Body of Christ. The Tridentine Council itself declares that ” the most Holy Eucharist … is a symbol of a sacred thing and a visible form of an invisible grace.” 106 Carefully distinguishing these two factors, St. Cyril of Jerusalem opposes the ” type of bread ” 107 to the ” antitype of the body,” 108 thereby not denying but emphasizing the Real Presence.109 Tertullian is to be understood in the same sense when he says: ” Acceptum pattern et distribution discipulis corpus suutn ilium fecit ’ hoc est corpus meum 9 dicendo, i e., figura corporis mei; figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus” 110 Bardenhewer explains this passage as follows : ” In the sentence ’ hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei/ the 105 We here follow Cardinal 108 dprlrvtrov awfiaros. Franzelin (De Eucharistia, thea. 100 Catech. My stag., V, n. ao: 10). * Qui enim gustant, non pan em et 100 Sesa. XIII, cap. 3 : … vinum gust are iubentur, sed antitysymbolum ret sacrae et invisibilis pum corporis et sanguinis Christi gratiae fonnam visibilenu” (Den- (dprlrvirop a&fiaros Kal atfiaros)” zinger-Bannwart, n. 876). (Migne, P. G.$ XXXIII, 1123). lOTrtfirof dprov no Contr. Marcion., IV, 40. words ’ figura corporis met9 are not meant to elucidate the subject ‘hoc9 (per hyperbaton), but the predicate ’ corpus meum 9 ; the true body is present under the image of bread.”111 In the light of this interpretation St. Augustine, too, can be understood in a perfectly orthodox sense when he writes : * Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere: ‘Hoc est corpus meum/ quum signum daret corporis sui112 He means that the “signum99 contains Christ Himself, because the point he wishes to make, according to the context, is that the Holy Eucharist is a sign or symbol of the Body of Christ in the same sense in which the presence of blood in an animal is a sign of the brute soul.118 Other obscure or ambiguous Patristic texts can be satisfactorily explained if we remember that the Eucharistic elements (bread and wine) were sometimes called “types” or “antitypes” of the Body and Blood of Christ even before the consecration,114 and that not infrequently the sacramental Body is represented as a “type” or “antitype” of our Saviour’s natural body in Heaven.115 P) The Fathers often regard the Body of Christ according to its threefold mode of being: the status connaturalis mor talis, in which it appeared during His earthly career in Palestine; 111 Geschichte der altkircklichen Literatur, Vol. II, p. 39 » Freiburg 1903. — A different interpretation of the passage is given by Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance, p. 12. — Cfr. C. L. Leimbach, Beitrage cur Abendmahlslehre Tertullians, p. 83, Gotha 1874. 112 Contr. Adimant. Manich., c. la, 3 (Migne, P. L., XLII, 144). lis Cfr. Chr. Pesch, PraelecU Dogmat., Vol. VI, 3rd ed., p. 393. 114 See the proceedings of the Second Council of Nicaea, A. D. 787 (Hardouin, Coll. Concil., IV, 37o). us Cfr. St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, IV, 13 (Migne, P. C, XCIV, 1146 sqq.). PROOF FROM TRADITION 77 the status connaturalis gloriosus, which is its transfigured state in Heaven; and the status sacramentalis, in which it exists in the Holy Eucharist. In the first of these states they call it the true Body of Christ, in the second and third, His “typical,” “antitypical,” or “symbolic” Body.”6 Such language easily gives rise to misunderstanding. Instead of emphasizing the numerical identity of the Body in all three states, the ancient Fathers, never fearing to be misunderstood, often speak of the true Body of Christ in the Eucharist as the ” type ” or ” symbol ” of the same true Body in its natural state, both on earth and in Heaven, and with this relation in mind, characterize it as a “spiritual Body.” 117 In employing this phraseology they no more wish to deny the reality of the sacramental Body than did St. Paul when he said in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, that our own natural body ” shall rise a spiritual body ” in the resurrection of the dead.118 St. Augustine is quite plain on this point; he puts into the mouth of our Saviour the following interpretation of the words of institution : ” Understand the words I have spoken in a spiritual sense; it is not this body you see, which you are about to eat, nor are you about to drink that blood which those shall shed who will crucify me. It is a sacrament that I have given to you; understood spiritually, it will give you life; though it is necessary to celebrate this [sacrament] visibly, yet it must be understood in an invisible manner.” 119 lie V. Art 1, No. i, supra. 117 Corpus spirituale, trapa irvev fiariicSv. lis x Cor. XV, 44. 119 Enarr. in Ps., 98, n. 9 (Migne, P. L., XXXVII, 1265) : w Spiritualiter intelligite, quod locutus sum; non hoc corpus, quod videtis, manducaturi est is, et bibituri ilium sanguine m, quern fusuri sunt qui y) A further source of misunderstanding is the habit which some of the Fathers have of representing the Holy Eucharist as a “sign of the mystical Christ/’ i. e. the effective symbol of our spiritual union with His mystic body, the Church. In this union there are two factors: sacramental communion as the cause, and the mystic union of the recipient with the Church, as the effect. Where both are duly emphasized, there is no room for misunderstanding. But certain of the Fathers, especially St. Augustine, often dwell on the latter alone, without mentioning the former. It should be noted that when he speaks of the nature of the Eucharist, St. Augustine is invariably addressing initiated Christians, who are familiar with the dogma of the Real Presence. To such he could say without danger of being misinterpreted: “Therefore, if thou wilt understand the Body of Christ, listen to the Apostle who says : ’ But you are the Body of Christ and His members/ Your sacrament is placed on the Lord’s table, you will receive your sacrament… . For you hear the words, ‘The Body of Christ/ and you answer ’ Amen/ Be a member of the Body of Christ, in order that your ’ Amen ’ may be a true one.” 120 me crucifigent: sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualiter intelle ctum vivificabit vos; etsi necesse est Mud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligu” — Cfr. M. M. Wilden, Die Lehre des hi. Augustinus vom Opfer der Eucharistie, Schaffhausen 1864. 120 St. Augustine, Scrm., 272: ” Corpus ergo Christi si vis intelligere, Apostolum audi dicentemr * Vos autem estis corpus Christi et membra/ Mysterium vestrum in mensa dominica positum est, mysterium vestrum accipietis … Audis enim: ‘Corpus Christi’ et respondes: ‘Amen.’ Esto membrum corporis Christi, ut verum sit Amen.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVIII, 1246).— Cfr. O. Blank, Die Lehre des hU Augustin vom Sakramente der Eucharistie, pp. 42 tqq., Paderborn 1907 PROOF FROM TRADITION 79 8) Another important point to be noted in interpreting obscure and ambiguous Patristic passages on the Real Presence is this : Besides the three modes of being, peculiar to Christ’s Body, as we have explained, the Fathers distinguish three ways in which that Body may be consumed: (1) “capharnaitically,” as human flesh is eaten by cannibals; (2) “merely sacramentally,” when the recipient is in the state of mortal sin and therefore derives no spiritual profit from communion; (3) “worthily,” i. e. with full spiritual benefit. The first of these ways of receiving Communion was rejected by our Lord Himself.121 St. Augustine does not hesitate to brand it as a ” crime.” Christ, he says, could not possibly have meant that we should eat His Body in this grossly literal fashion. The Saviour’s words : * Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you, he explains as follows: “This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice. It is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His Flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” 122 That St. Augustine, in writing thus, did not mean to deny the Real Presence is evident from his declaration that only he who receives Communion worthily “eats the 121 V. supra, pp. 19 sq. et suaviter atque u Hitter reconden122 De Doctrina Christ., Ill, 24: dum memorid, quod pro nobis caro * F acinus vel flagitium videtur iu- eius crucifixa et vulnerata sit.* bere. Figura est ergo, praecipiens (Migne, P. L., XXXIV, 74), passioni dominicae communicandum 8o THE REAL PRESENCE Body of Christ,* whereas he who approaches the Holy Table in the state of mortal sin, does not 44 eat * it, *. e., unto salvation.128 ARTICLE 3 THE ARGUMENT FROM PRESCRIPTION By means of the Patristic texts above quoted and other available data it is possible to trace the constant belief of the faithful in the dogma of. the Real Presence through the Middle Ages back to the Apostolic period. This is called the argument from prescription. Every such reasoning rests on the following syllogism : A doctrine which has always, everywhere, and by all {semper, ubique et ab omnibus) been held to be of faith, must be divinely revealed. Now, in the Catholic Church such and such a doctrine has been held as an article of faith always, everywhere, and by all the faithful. Consequently, it is a divinely revealed truth. We proceed to demonstrate the minor premise of this syllogism with reference to the dogma of the Real Presence. i. The Period From a. d. 1900 to 800. — The interval that has elapsed since the Reformation receives its entire character from the Council of 128 Cfr. Tr. in loa., 27, n. 11: “Hoc ergo totum ad hoc nobis valeat, ut carnem Christi et sanguine m Christi non edamus tantum in Sacramento, quod et multi mali, sed usque ad spiritus participationem manducemus et bibamus, ut in Domini cor pore tamquam membra maneamus.” (Migne, P. L., XXXV, 1 631). — On a fourth method of communicating, vis. : purely spiritual communion, see Cone. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 8 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 881). — On the main topic of this subdivision cfr. Schwane, Dogmengeschichte der patristischen Zeit, Vol. II, 2nd ed., pp. 773 sqq., Freiburg 1895; Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmat ische Theologie, Vol. IX, 8 531. PROOF FROM TRADITION 8f Trent, and hence we may here pass it over. For the time of the Reformation we h&ve the testimony of Luther,1 that the whole of Western Christendom, down to the appearance of Carlstadt, Zwingli, and Calvin, firmly believed in the Real Presence. This firm and universal belief, — omitting the temporary vagaries of Wiclif, the Albigenses, and the adherents of Pierre de Bruis, — was in uninterrupted possession since Berengarins of Tours (d. 1088), in fact, if we except one solitary writer (Scotus Eriugena), since Paschasius Radbertus (831). Berengarius died repentant in the pale of the Church, and Paschasius Radbertus never attacked the substance of the dogma. We may, therefore, maintain that the entire Western Church has believed in the Real Presence for fully eleven centuries. But how about the Orient? Photius, when he inaugurated the Greek schism in 869, took over the inalienable treasure of the Catholic Eucharist. This treasure the Greek Church had preserved intact when the negotiations for reunion were conducted at Lyons, in 1274,” and at Florence, in 1439. The Greeks vigorously defended it against the machinations of the Calvinisticminded Patriarch Cyril Lucaris of Constantinople (1629). A schismatic council held at Jerusalem under Dositheus, in 1672, vigorously professed its faith in the Real Presence 8 and added that the Greek Church, without being in any way influenced by the Latin, also be1 Wider etliche Rottengeister, 3 *AXi70wf Kal wpayparucws Kal 1532. ov

Heved in ” Transubstantiation,” 4 a doctrine already inculcated by the Second Council of Nicaea (A. D. 787),» It follows that the Greek Church must have received its faith in the Real Presence and in Transubstantiation from a very ancient source, — a source which it had in common with the Latin Church long before the time of Photius, and that consequently this belief must be much older than the great schism.6 2. The Period From a, d. 8oo to 400. — Going still farther back we find that the Nestorians and Monophysites, who broke away from Rome in the fifth century, together with their various offshoots (Chaldaeans, Melchites, Syrian Jacobites, Copts, Armenians, Maronites) preserved their faith in the Real Presence as unwaveringly as the Greeks, Bulgarians, and Russians. This proves that the dogma of the Real Presence was the common property of the undivided ancient Church. It was expressly asserted and defended by the General Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, and by the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, A. D. John Darugensis, a Monophysitic writer of the eighth century, says : ” He who exercises the priestly office, * fteroveltaaiS’ Paris 1670. On Cyril Lucaris and 5 Cfr. E. J. Kimmel, Mo num. his sad end, see Pohle-Preuss, The Fidei Eccles. Orient., Vol. I, pp. Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 39 sq. 180, 457, Jena 1850; Schelstrate, 6 Cfr. Billuart, De Eucharistio, Acta Orient. Eccles., Vol. I, pp. diss, x, art. 3, 8 6. 200 sqq., Rome 1739; PerpetuitS de f V. supra, pp. 21 sq. la Foi, Vol. I, book 12, and ed., PROOF FROM TRADITION 83 begins and repeats the divine words which bring forth the Body and Blood of Christ: ‘This is my Body/“8 Xenajas, another Monophysite, of the sixth century, after vigorously denying that there are two persons in Christ, avers : ” We receive the living body of the living God, and not the body of a mortal man, with every holy draught we drink the living blood of the Living One, and it is not the blood of a corruptible man, like unto ourselves.” 0 Even Harnack is constrained to admit that “Monophysites and Orthodox have always held the same faith with regard to the Lord’s Supper.” 10 The Nestorians, it is true, regarded the man Jesus as a person separate and distinct from the divine hypostasis of the Logos; but they believed in the Real Presence of Christ, as a moral person, in the Eucharist. Elias of Damascus says that all Oriental Christians *agree in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ.11 3. The Apostolic Age. — We have seen that the dogma of the Real Presence is at least as old as Nestorianism. In matter of fact it is still older, and traces of it can be found in the Apostolic age. This is evident from ancient liturgies, from representations of the Eucharist found in the Roman catacombs, and from other vestiges of its celebration in the primitive Church. SAf>ud Franzelin, De Eucharistia, 10 Dogmengeschichte, Vol. in, p. iiq. and cd„ p. 436. 0 Quoted by Aasemani, Bibl. 11 Aasemani, Bibl. Orient, VoL Ori:n.t Vol. II, p. 39. HI. P. 391. 84 • THE REAL PRESENCE The ancient liturgies of the Mass will be duly considered in Part III of this treatise.12 Among the symbols employed by the early Christians in decorating their tombs, those which relate to the Eucharist hold an important place. There is, first of all, the famous fish symbol.18 In one of the oldest chambers of the Catacomb of St. Lucina, for instance, a floating fish, which symbolizes “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, our Saviour,” 14 carries on his back the Eucharistic elements — a basket full of bread and a glass of red wine. A commentary on this picture is furnished by the famous inscription on the Stele of Abercius, composed towards the close of the second century, when the Discipline of the Secret was still in force. The student will find this inscription reproduced in the original, together with an English translation, in the Catholic Encyclopedia.15 We will quote but one sentence : ” Faith everywhere led me forward, and everywhere provided as my food a fish of exceeding great size, and perfect, which a holy virgin drew with her hands from a fountain — and this it [faith] ever gives to its friends to eat, it having wine of great virtue, and giving it mingled with bread.” In the so-called Greek Chapel of the cemetery of St. Priscilla, at Rome, Msgr. Wilpert recently discovered the most ancient of the known representations of the Eucharist in the Catacombs. It is a fresco known as ” Ft actio Panis” attributed to the early part of the second century. ” The scene represents seven persons at table, reclining on a semi-circular divan, and is depicted 12 Infra, pp. 272 sqq. 15 Vol. I, p. 40. Cfr. C. M. Kauf18 *lx$vt. mann, Handbuch der christl. Archaol. u’lriaovs Xptffrdt Beov Tidf p. 230, Paderborn 1905; A. S. XotHip = IX9T2. On the fish Barnes, The Early Church in the symbol v. the Catholic Encyclopedia, Light of the Monuments, pp. 94 sqq., 4. v. 133 »qq>> London 19x3. on the wall above the apse of this little underground chapel, consequently in close proximity to the place where once stood the altar. One of the banqueters is a woman. The place of honor, to the right (in cornu dextro), is occupied by the ‘president of the Brethren (described about 150-155 by Justin Martyr in his account of the Christian worship), i. e. the bishop, or a priest deputed in his place for the occasion (ApoL, I, xlvi). The ‘president’ (irpotarm), a venerable, bearded personage, is depicted performing the function described in the Acts of the Apostles (II, 42, 46; XX, 7) as ‘breaking bread;’ hence the name ‘Fractio Partis’ (ij #cAa

lest they “be made partakers with devils.”19 “The chalice of benediction, which we bless,” 20 he says among other things, “is it not fellowship in the Blood of Christ?21 And the bread which we break,22 is it not fellowship in the Body of the Lord?“28 Clearly, in St Paul’s opinion, to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ (in contradistinction to partaking of the meat sacrificed to idols) is more than a purely ideal participation in Christ, such as might be effected by faith or love; — it is a real reception of His Body and Blood in Holy Communion, which is the Christian sacrificial banquet. Only by interpreting the Apostle’s words in this sense are we able to understand the mystical conclusion which he draws in the following verse : ” For we many are one bread, one body, for we all partake of the one bread;“24 that is to say: the unity of the mystic body is founded on the numerical identity of the Eucharistic bread with the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.25 Thus the argument from prescription carries us back to the New Testament, where the written word of God commingles with oral Tradition as in a common wellspring.2* Readings : — M. Hausher, Der hi Paschasius Radbertus, Mayence 1862.— Jos. Ernst, Die Lehre des hi Paschasius Radbertus i» 1 Cor. X, 16-jx. o riXoyov/iert «• e. consecrate. i Kotpupla rov atparos rov Xptorov. 22 jcX£pcr, ft. e., break liturgically. ssjcouwr/a rov adtfiaros rov Xpterov. (x Cor. X, x6). ^tVe rov Ms &prov (1 Cor. X, 17). SB St. Paul’s teaching is more full? expounded by Al. Schafer, Erklarung der beiden Brief e an die Korinther, pp. 195 sqq., Munster 1903; cfr. also J. MacRory, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, pp. 144 sqq., Dublin 1915. 20 On the whole argument of this Article cfr. H. Bruders, S. J., Die Verfassung der Kirch von den ersten Jahrsehnten der apostolischen Wirksamkeit bis sum Jahre 175 n. Chr., pp. 53 sqq., Mayence 1904. von der Eucharistie, mit besonderer Rucksicht auf die Stellung des hi. Rhabanus Maurus und des Ratramnus zu derselben, Freiburg 1896.— Aug. Nagle, Ratramnus und die hi. Eucharistie; sugleich eine dogmatisch-historische IVurdigung des erst en Abendmahlstreites, Vienna 1903.— Jos. Schnitzer, Berengar von Tours, sein Leben und seine Lehre, 2nd ed., Stuttgart 1892. — Pohle, ” Paschasius Radbertus, Saint,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia. On the teaching of the Fathers : *J. Dollinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten Jahrhunderten, Mayence 1826. — H. Loretz, Die kath. Abendmahlslehre im Lichte der vier ersten Jahrhunderte der christlichen Kirche, Chur 1879. — I. Marquardt, S. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus Baptismi, Chrismatis, Eucharistiae Mysteriorum Inter pres, Leipsic 1882. — J. Corblet, Histoire Dogmatique, Liturgique et Archiologique du Sacrement de VEucharistie, Paris 1885. — Aug. Nagle, Die Eucharistielehre des hi. Johannes Chrysostomus, Freiburg 1900. — A. Struckmann, Die Cegenwart Christi in der hi. Eucharistie nach den schriftlichen Quellen der vorniz&nischen Zeit, Vienna 1905. — D. Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, 2 vols., London 1909. — G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, St. Louis 1913. — The New York Review, art. The Real Presence in the Fathers Vol. II (1907), Nos. 1 and 2. — P. Pourrat, The Teaching of the Fathers on the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, New York 1908.