CHAPTER XIII. THE EUCHARIST.

Irenæus has expressed himself so much more fully on the subject of the holy Eucharist than any other writer near his time, that it is not wonderful that his opinions should be appealed to by those who have entered into the various discussions on the subject. And his language has just so much of ambiguity about it as to allow of hanging upon it a more exact and positive meaning than he ever thought of. Every sentence, and almost every word therefore, requires to be well weighed, that we may come at his real meaning. And we must bear in mind that he wrote hundreds of years before any controversy had arisen on the subject, and consequently is not to be judged of as though he had written since.

There are two or three important passages which bear directly on the subject, and I do not know how to do justice to it without giving them at length.

The first I shall take is that in the fifth book(404), where he is combating the Gnostic notion that the flesh is incapable of salvation. His words are as follows:—

“And altogether absurd are they who despise the whole of the divine arrangement, and deny the salvation of the flesh, and reject its regeneration, saying that it is not capable of immortality. But if it is not saved, then the Lord did not redeem us by his blood; nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of his blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of his body. For there is no blood, except from veins and flesh, and the rest of man’s substance, in which the Word of God was truly made. With his blood he redeemed us; as also his apostle saith: _in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the remission of sins_. And since we are his members, and are nourished by the creature, and he himself gives us the creature, making his sun to rise and sending rain as it pleaseth him, he has recognised the cup of the creature for his own blood, with which he tinges (δεύει) our blood, and the bread of the creature he has ordained to be his own body, by which he strengthens our body.

“Since, therefore, both the mingled cup and the created bread receive the word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the blood and body of Christ, and by these the substance of our flesh gains strength and subsists, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of the gift of God, which is eternal life, when it is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is his member? As St. Paul saith: _For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones_: not saying these things of some spiritual and invisible man (for the spirit has neither flesh nor bones); but concerning the divine work in the real man, consisting of flesh and veins and bones; which is also nourished from his cup, which is his blood, and is strengthened by the bread, which is his body. And as the wood of the vine, bent down into the earth, in its proper season bears fruit, and the grain of wheat, falling into the earth and becoming dissolved, rises manifold through the Spirit of God, which takes in all things; and then, through the wisdom of God, having come to the use of men, and having received the word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and being deposited in the earth and dissolved in it, will rise again in due season, the word of God granting to them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father.”

In the beginning of this passage we have an explicit acknowledgment that it is in some way or another in the real body and blood of Christ that we communicate in the Eucharist; and I am willing to grant that the whole passage, on a cursory reading, might be taken to imply that the bread and wine was _changed_ into the literal body and blood of Christ; for he appears to speak of our corporeal frames being literally sustained by the body and blood of our Lord. But when we find him speaking of the necessity of our bodily frames being sustained by himself, arising out of the fact that we, even our bodies, are his members, we see immediately that, as we cannot be literally and corporeally his members, so the change of the bread into his body, and that of the wine into his blood, in order to nourish our bodies with himself, cannot be a literal and corporeal change. And so he does not say that Jesus effected any such change, but simply that he _recognized_ the cup for his blood, and _ordained_ the bread to be his body(405).

Before I attempt to draw out any other of the opinions implied in this passage, I will go to another contained in the fourth book(406). It is this:—

“Since, therefore, the Church offers with singleness of heart, its sacrifice is rightly accounted pure with God. As also Paul saith to the Philippians: _For I am filled with those things which I have received from Epaphroditus, which were sent by you, a sweet savour, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God._ For it is our duty to make an offering to God, and in all things to be found grateful to God our Maker, offering to him the first fruits of his creatures with a pure mind and unfeigned faith, in hope unshaken, in fervent charity. And this oblation the Church alone offers pure to the Creator, offering to him of his own work with giving of thanks. But the Jews do not offer it; for their hands are full of blood; for they did not receive the Word, who is offered to God [or through whom the offering is made to God], neither indeed do all the assemblies of the heretics.... How, indeed, can they feel assured that the bread over which thanksgiving is made, is the body of their Lord, and the cup that of his blood, if they do not call himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, his Word, by whom the wood bears fruit, and the springs gush forth, and the earth affords first the blade, after that the ear, then the full corn in the ear?

“And how, again, can they say that the flesh, which is sustained by the body of the Lord and by his blood, turns to corruption, and partakes not of life? Either let them alter their view, or let them decline to offer the before‐mentioned gifts. But our view harmonizes with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist again confirms our view: and we offer to him his own, making a corresponding profession of communion and union, and acknowledging the resurrection of flesh and spirit. For as the bread which comes from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but Eucharist, consisting 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. For we offer to him, not as though he needed, but giving thanks to his Divine Majesty, and sanctifying the work of his hands.”

To understand this passage more completely, it will be necessary to go back a little. Irenæus is showing, contrary to the Gnostic doctrine, that the Old and New Covenants emanate from one and the same God, adopting different methods at different periods of the world. He points out, therefore, that the offerings of the law of Moses were not intended to be permanent, and that, even under the law, God undervalued sacrifice as compared with obedience. He then goes on to affirm(407) that the prophecy of Malachi that sacrifices should cease, and that notwithstanding a pure offering should throughout the world be offered to the name of God, was fulfilled in the Eucharist; for he informs us that Jesus, “instructing his disciples to offer to God the first fruits of his creatures (not as though he needed, but that they might not be unfruitful or ungrateful), took the created thing, bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body;’ and likewise the cup of the earthly creature he acknowledged as his blood, and taught them the new offering of the New Testament; which the Church, receiving from the Apostles, offers throughout the world to God,—to him who affords us our sustenance, the first fruits of his gifts.”

Here we see very distinctly what is the offering which the Church offers in the Lord’s Supper, viz. the creatures or elements of bread and wine, presented as the first fruits of his gifts, and as a thank‐offering to him for the rest(408).

The same idea appears again in a fragment edited by Pfaff(409):—

“For we offer to God the bread and the cup of blessing, giving thanks to him, because he hath commanded the earth to bring forth fruits for our use; and then having performed the offering, we invoke the Holy Spirit that he would render this sacrifice, even the bread, the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ; so that those who partake of these figures may obtain remission of sins and eternal life. Those, therefore, who bring these offerings with remembrance of the Lord, make no approach to the opinions of the Jews, but, performing a spiritual service, shall be called children of wisdom.”

There is something more definite in this passage than in the allusions in the Treatise against the Heresies, but the spirit is precisely similar; and it is remarkable,—more remarkable than where he is not professing to give details, that there is no mention of more than one offering, namely, that of the elements, which, _and which alone_, are called by the name of θυσία.

When, however, we come back to the second passage I have translated, we find one clause(410) in which there is a various reading, where those which are acknowledged to be the best MSS. speak of the Word (i. e. the personal Word, Jesus Christ regarded especially in his divine nature,) as _offered to God_ in the Eucharist, and the Jews are affirmed to be incapable of offering the oblation in it because they did not receive him. Now it is no doubt possible that Irenæus may have intended to speak of a spiritual offering up of our Lord with the oblation, i. e. of an offering of it in and through him; but that is all that can be implied, for there is no hint whatever of the repetition of the sacrifice of atonement for the remission of sins. The _only_ offering is before the invocation of the Holy Ghost; and it is only after that invocation that the elements are to be regarded as the body and blood of Christ, capable of communicating remission of sins. If, therefore, according to him, there is any offering up of our Lord, it must be _with_ the oblation of the material elements, to render that thank‐offering acceptable.

But there is another reading(411) which is more consonant with other passages, and therefore probably to be preferred; viz. that which represents “the Word” as the Mediator or Propitiation _through_ whom the oblation is made. We have that idea distinctly expressed in a former passage(412), in which he speaks, in reference to this very text of Malachi, of the Church as offering _through_ Jesus Christ; and it is implied in the Fragment, in which he speaks of our offering these things “_with remembrance_ (ἐν τῇ ἀναμνήσει) of the Lord(413).”

But whichever reading we take, there is no foundation for the idea of a propitiatory sacrifice of Christ under the figure and appearance of the consecrated elements.

Both this latter quotation from the “_Heresies_” and the Fragment are opposed to the notion of any substantial change in the elements. The former speaks of the bread after consecration as “not common bread,” implying that it is still bread, although adapted to a sacred and mysterious use; and as “consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly(414)” (meaning probably the elements themselves and the body and blood of Christ), whereas the notion of transubstantiation requires that there should be nothing of the earthly really left after the consecration. The fragment still more explicitly calls them _figures_ at the very time that we partake of them. It is true that the view of Irenæus differs equally from ordinary Protestant notions, and indeed is more positive than that of the English Church; but we are to bear in mind that the Fathers did not always speak with logical accuracy. Their language has been brought forward in support of the theory of transubstantiation, and therefore it has become necessary to show that they did not write on that theory. It is not equally requisite that we should be able to construct a theory which shall explain all the figurative and imaginative language in which they expressed their faith in the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Irenæus certainly taught this doctrine, and that is enough for us of the Church of England, who do not concern ourselves to explain the _manner_ of his presence. Some of us may agree with his manner of expressing it, but we do not require of others that they should agree with him.

We cannot complete our view of the opinions of Irenæus in regard to the Eucharist without adverting to his ideas on the _consecration_ of the elements. This he describes in various ways, sometimes attributing it to _the word of God_(415), sometimes to _the invocation of God_(416), sometimes to _the invocation of the Holy Ghost_(417). But all these may be reconciled, if we consider them to be allusions to various portions of the consecration prayer. There is such a form left in the _Apostolical Constitutions_, with which all the four ancient liturgies exhibited by Brett and Palmer coincide, viz. the Roman, the Oriental, the Egyptian, and the Gallican. Now all these forms contain a recital of the words of institution, which may not unfitly be called _the word of God_, and an invocation of God to send down his Holy Spirit upon the gifts, to consecrate them to be the body and blood of Christ, which may be called either _an invocation of God_ or _an invocation of the Holy Ghost_. Is it not therefore most probable that Irenæus alludes to this prayer, which must have been used in very early ages, for its leading features to be found thus spread throughout the world? The expressions, therefore, which he uses, though various and distinct, are not contrary or contradictory: they allude to various portions of the same form.

It is worthy of observation, however, that this attributing of the consecration to these different things is contrary to the modern doctrine of transubstantiation, which attributes it to one and one only, viz. the recital of the words of institution: _This is my body, This is my blood_.

There is another passage which proves that no transubstantiation was then thought of; viz. the fragment(418), which appears likely to have been a part of the account of the persecutions at Lyons. We there read that the heathen tortured the slaves of some Christians, in order to extort from them something which might serve as a colour for the severities they exercised upon them; and that the slaves, “not knowing what to say to please their tormentors, except what they had heard from their masters, that the Holy Communion was the blood and body of Christ, and _thinking_ that it was really flesh and blood, told this to those who were questioning them.” Now it appears very clear that language such as this could scarcely have been used by a person who thought that the sacred elements had become really flesh and blood, which is the doctrine of transubstantiation; although it might be employed with perfect consistency by those who believed in a real mysterious presence of them in the Holy Communion, without any change in the nature of the elements.

Massuet(419) brings forward, in support of the doctrine of transubstantiation, the fact that the Marcosians pretended, by magical rites, to effect a change of the wine into blood. As they professed to produce a substantial change, he infers that the Church must have really produced such a change. But the inference is far from being a sound one; for as magical rites are invented to pander to the appetite of the ignorant for something supernatural, so it is most probable that a pretender of this description, who wished to set up for something superior to the clergy, should profess to do something _more_ wonderful than they; that whereas they effected none but a mystical change, he should pretend to a literal one. And this no doubt is the history of transubstantiation. It is the attempt of unspiritual minds to raise the wonder of the sacred mysteries to the highest pitch, forgetful meanwhile of the spiritual objects of them. The doctrine is eminently a carnal doctrine.