Eucharist

EUCHARIST, yfi'ca-riat.

Combination of the Evening Agapse and the Morning service (� 1).
The Early Liturgical Development (� 2).
The Service in Justin's Time and Later (� 3).
The Oblation (� 4).
The Prayers (� 5).
The Communion (� 6).
Frequency of Celebration (� 7).
The Elements (� 8).
Various Customs (� 9).
The Heretical sects (� 10).

Eucharist is a term employed for the celebration of the Lord's Supper, especially in the primitive Church, to which the present consideration is restricted. (For the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church see Mass, II.; of theChurchesof the R.eformation, Lord's Supper, IV. For the doctrine of the Lord's Supper see Lord's Supper, I.-III.; Mass, I.; Transubstantiation.) In early Christian literature, however, the word is also applied (1) to the prayer of thanksgiving spoken over the elements (in the East; only once in the Latin Went, Tertullian, De orations, xxiv.); (2) to the elements themselves; (3) by an extension of meaning, to any consecrated element or sacrnmentum-as in Cyprian, Epist. lxx. 2, to the consecrated oil. The application to the entire celebration of the Lord's Supper continued only so long as it was an actual meal (cf. especially Ignatius), and then reappeared only in the Middle Ages.

The eucharistic celebration of the primitive Church underwent a very important change about the middle of the second century. Originally, either as a common meal or in connection with one, it formed a separate observance which took place in the evening, while the congregation assembled in the morning to hear the Word. At the date mentioned these two were fused into one service, a change which made possible the development of the later mesa (see Mass, II., 1, � 1) and still exercises an influence even upon Protestant liturgical conceptions. The first witness for the combination of the Eucharist with the morning service is Justin (I Apd. lxv.-lxvii., written c. 150). Though the famous letter of Pliny (x. 96, c. 113) attests the prevalence of the older custom in Bithynia, the Didoche (ix., I. Combi- x.) at least for Egypt, and Clement nation of (I Cor. xliv.) for Rome, Justin shows the Even- the new as universally adopted, even ing Agapee if the old for a while existed alongand the side of it. The grounds for the Morning change have been sought in the accuService. sations of the pagans, who charged the Christians with the commission of hideous abominations at their agapte. But this is an improbable theory; both the evening agapae

196
and the pages calumnies still continued after this. It is more likely that both religious and practical reasons brought about the change. The earlier manner of celebrating the Eucharist endangered the unity of the local church, and did not accord with the growing importance of the priesthood. Where these meetings had often been held independently in private houses, the aphorism of Ignatius-" no lawful Eucharist without the bishop " (Smyrn. viii. I)-now prevailed. At the morning service the clergy were assembled, the Scriptures were solemnly read; a natural center of unity for the local church was here, and the religious development was met by the change, as well as the practical difficulty of assembling widely scattered members for both services.

In studying the liturgical development, the earliest stage is wrapped in obscurity. Exclusive of the Gospel narratives of the institution (see Lord's Supper, Introduction and I.), the only sources are I Cor. xi. 20 sqq. and the ninth, tenth, and fourteenth chapters of the Didache. The traditional interpretation of the Pauline passage (still upheld by Harna,ck, Zahn, and others) regards the Eucharist as the conclusion of a meal

x. The taken in common, or agape. A more Early modern view, held by Julicher, Spitta, Liturgical Haupt, and Hoffmann, holds that the Develop- reference of the passage is to one ain- meat. gle meal, designated as a whole by the name "Lord's Supper." This theory is borne out by the fact that Ignatius uses the terms agape and euchariatica indiscriminately for one and the same sacred feast (Smyrn. viii. 2, vii. 1; Rom. vii. 3; perhaps also Philad. iv.; Eph. xiii. 1 ). But this still leaves the question open as to the manner in which this feast was conducted. Since Christ had left no precise ritual directions, the first Christians were free to arrange their Eu charist as seemed beat to them. The moat natural thing was to follow the traditions of the sacred meals of Judaism. Of these the most natural choice would have been the Passover supper, if it is assumed that the institution took place on this occasion; but even with this assumption neither I Cor. xi. nor the Didache shows any relation between the two, and none is forced upon us by such passages as I Cor. x. 6, v. 7. It seems more prob able that a model was sought in the most common of these observances, the Sabbath meal as it was celebrated in every Jewish house at the beginning of the Sabbath on Friday night. We can get an idea of it from the Mishnah (especially Berd kot vi.-viii.), which shows that it was marked by unity and characterized by the partaking of a blessed cup and blessed bread. At the beginning of the meal the cup, blessed with prayer by one of the family, preferably the father, was handed round -though thin blessing might come later, and, in deed, the cup be dispensed with altogether. Then the bread was blessed which was broken and eaten during the meal; and a thanksgiving followed, to which the company responded with "Amen," and after the meal, in which no "stranger" might take part, there was another thanksgiving. The de pendence of the eucharistic form on this observance

is supported by the Didache, where (ix., x.) is found the same sequence of customs: after the act of reconciliation, the so-called exomologeais (xiv.), the blessing of cup and bread by a short prayer (ix.), common participation (Gk. emplesthenai, x. I), and a final thanksgiving (x.). The formulas of blessing are indeed purely Christian, but the double blessing of cup and bread, and the placing of the cup first, point clearly to a Jewish origin. Like the Sabbath meal, again, the whole ceremony is one; the contention of Zahn, Weizskcker, and Haupt that the prayers for the agape are found in chapter ix. and those for the Eucharist in x. can not be upheld. The partaking of the consecrated elements was nut (as has been supposed from a misunderstanding of I Cor. xi.) the final but the initial act; it was the blessing of the bread and wine that made the meal "the Lord's Supper." Inquiring how the unity was dissolved, it appears that the reception of the consecrated elements at the beginning became more and more the principal thing, while, on the other hand, the subsequent meal became more and more an agape, or set of charity on the part of the rich believers toward their poorer brethren. This, deprived of its most significant accompaniment, for which the later eulogia (q.v.) offered an insufficient equivalent, gradually decayed and perished, while the Eucharist. lived on with power in its new form, took precedence of the service of Scripture-reading and preaching, and finally, as the mass, became the supreme act of worship.

But meanwhile, when it was united with the other service, of Scripture-reading and prayer, it naturally took with it the essential forms which had up to that time constituted it. Some notable changes took place; the two prayers of blessing on the elements were fused into one, and the offering of the bread and wine, by members of the church, now took on the dignity of a liturgical function. What the order of the various parts was at this period we learn from Justin to have been as follows: (1) the kiss of peace;. (2) the

3. The oblation (Gk. proaphora); (3) the euService in charistic prayer of the "president"

Justin's (Gk. proestos), i.e., the bishop, with Time and intercessions, and the response

Later. " Amen "; (4) the communion; (5) the payment of the congregation's contribution (sops), and distribution to the poor. The last was dropped in later times, and a respon sory (preface) added, which may, indeed, have been in use as early as Justin, though he does not men tion it. But the same groundwork continues to show itself, e.g., in Tertullian and Cyprian. Thus, too, about 348, Cyril of Jerusalem describes sub stantially the same order: (1) the washing of the hands of the bishop and presbyters; (2) the kiss of peace; (3) preface with Trisagion and Epiklesis, or invocation of the Holy Spirit; (4) intercessions; (5) Lord's Prayer; (8) communion; (7) final prayer. As to the later detailed development, see Mass, II.

We must now consider more definitely the individual parts of this primitive service. After the kiss of peace (q.v.) came the oblation, which was

197

performed by the deacons receiving the offerings and carrying them to the bishop. When they were numerous, special tables were necessary to hold them, which stood on each aide of the altar. Besides bread and wine there were present other kinds of food, such as milk, oil, honey, etc., which were used for the support of the poor. These gifts were bleared, and the givers commemorated by name. As the first spontaneous generosity languished and the Old Testament was increasingly taken as a

model, the offering of all kinds of first 4. The fruits was insisted on. The disturb-

Oblation. ante to the service caused by the

bringing of these various offerings gave rise to attempts to limit them, at the beginning of the fourth century, to bread and wine, or other things used in ecclesiastical functions, such as oil for the holy unction, mills and honey for the reception of neophytes, and the like. In the time of Chrysostom scarcely anything but bread and wine was brought (cf. Augustine, Sean. lxxxii. 3, b), and the offering was not made every Sunday by all the members, but on special festivals and in honor of the departed. The church provided the bread and wine from its own resources.

The central prayer (originally prayers), as is seen from the Didache (ix.), at first contained thanksgiving for both bodily and spiritual nourishment, in free adaptation of the ordinary Jewish formulariea referred to above. Later this prayer was broken by the Trisagion (from Isa. vi. 3), sung by the congregation. Tertullian is the first evidence for this; Origen seems to have known it; in the time of Athauasius it was in general though not universal use, in both East and Went. It arose

probably in Syria, where the liturgies g. The show a really organic connection be-

Prayers. tween it and the prayer which it

follows. This prayer usually contains a thanksgiving for the benefits of redemption, leading up to a recitation of the words of institution. That these formed a part of the earliest Christian liturgy can not be safely concluded from I Cor. xi. 23 sqq.; but it is possible that the custom was known to Justin, as it certainly was to Origen, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Chrysostom; and no ancient liturgy has been preserved which does not contain these words. Under the influence of I Cor. xi. 26, there followed what was called the anamnesis or commemoration, and then the anaphora, in which the consecrated elements were offered up to God; and next came the e;ufklesis (q.v.). The actual consecration was never considered to take place through the words of institution alone before Augustine and Ambrose, but was attributed to the entire eucharistic prayerthough the view is also found that the epiklesis has this power. Whether the exomologesis or acknowledgment of sin originally preceded or followed the eucharistic prayer can not be determined; later it came after, and was usually connected with the epiklesis. From the third or fourth century on, a great intercession for the whole church followed. It is found in Cyril of Jerusalem and elsewhere, but not in Tertullian or Cyprian. It also had its origin probably in Syria, as it is not found in the

oldest Egyptian liturgy known. The use of the Lord's Prayer as a part of the liturgy seems to have been known to Tertullian and Cyprian, but is first certainly attested by Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Augustine, and Jerome. It is not mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions.

The actual communion, as long as the Eucharist had the form of a:cal meal, was accomplished by the passing of the consecrated elements from hard to hand. When it became a formal act, it was prefaced (demonstrably as early as the end of the second century) by the bishop saying, "Holy things to holy persona" (from the Septuagint version of Lev. xxiv. 9; cf. Matt. vii. 6). The congregation answered, "One alone is holy," etc., and then approached the altar, where they received the elements in their hands, standing. Great care was exercised to prevent a cram of the hallowed bread or a drop of the consecrated wine falling to the ground; in the reception of the for

6. The mer it was usual to place the left hand Comma- under the right in the form of a cross. nion. The careful washing of the hands be fore communion was prescribed; and Cyril of Jerusalem instructs his catechumens to re ceive the chalice bowing low. The distribution of the elements was performed in Justin's time by the deacons; but this function was withdrawn from them with the gradual growth of reverence for the elements and belief in priestly dignity and power. As s transitional stage, the deacons are found in some places entrusted with the administration of the chalice, as the less important. When a definite formula of administration came in is uncertain, though there are no traces of one in the apostolic age. The oldest was the simple statement; the for mula is Hoc est corpus Christi, Hit est sanguis Christi. In the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII., xiii. 4) " body of Christ " for the bread, and " blood of Christ, cup of life " for the cup. In Mark the Hermit (c. 410) a longer formula occurs: " the holy blood of Jesus Christ for life eternal"; and in seventh-century Gaul a still further expansion, "May the Body and Blood of our Lord bring to thee remission of sin and eternal life" (Council of Rouen, can. ii.). Each communicant answered "Amen," as an expression of faith. That the earliest use was to give first the cup and then the bread is shown by the Didache, and possibly by Luke xxii. 17 and I Cor. x. 16.

Only baptised Christians could receive the communion; this was a universal principle from the beginning. Heretics, schismatics, and unreconciled penitents were also excluded, though it was sometimes given to the lapsed when dying. It was the general practise to give it to children. The custom of placing it in the mouth of dead persons must have been deeply rooted, to judge from the number of councils which found it necessary to prohibit it (see Communion of The Dead). Fasting communion is an old and quite universal practise, in fact, a church law, which was referred to apostolic command by Augustine; an exception was made on Maundy Thursday, when the Eucharist was celebrated in the evening. Much emphasis was laid, following Lev. vii. 20 and I Cor. xi.

198

27, upon purity of body and soul as a preparation for communion. Chrysostom, who is specially strong on this point, requires a particular preparation by penance, prayer, almsgiving, and spiritual exercises, lasting for days.

As to frequency of celebration, the most which can be said for the primitive age with any certainty is that it occurred at least every Sunday, and there is plenty of proof for this in the second century. The tendency was toward greater frequency, and days of religious observance (Saturdays, fast-days, the anniversaries of martyrs) were thus marked. Daily celebration became customary in the West, by the beginning of the third century in Africa, as evidenced by Cyprian; in Rome at