5. Chrysostom
works. He is more occupied with the
thought of a "mystery" in general and
with that of a "meal"
(trophe)
than
with that of sacrifice. His language is baldly realis
tia-the blood "reddens" the altar or the tongue
(cf.
Hom. xxiv., in 1 Cor.,
no. 1,
MPG, ba. 2oo;
Hom.
tzzxai.,
in Matt.,
no. 5,
MPG, lviii.
743;
De
socerdotio, iii. 4, MPG, xlviii.
642;
Ad alluminandm
catecheses, ii. 2, MPG, xlix.
234)-and he uses the
epithets " awful" and " fearful " much more often
than his predecessors. He feels
fully the horror of
the thought that a real body and real blood are
present instead of the apparent bread and wine.
Reflection on the" horror of the blood "appears first
in the East in the pseudo-Ambrosian
De sacramentis
(vi. 3) belonging to the early fifth century (see be
low, II., 2, ยง 2). But while here emphasis is put on
the supposed benefit to us when the blood is offered
in a "similitude," Chrysostom remarks that Christ
was the first to drink his blood
(Ham. lzxxii., in
Matt.,
no. 1,
MPG
1. The First Three Centuries
"sacrificial act" has only spiritual reference
to Calvary. Chrysostom, furthermore, is the
distinct witness to the custom
which ultimately
led almost to a separation of the "mass" and the
"communion." He makes .it plain that many came
to the service, but went away before the communion,
and he condemns the practise in strong terms
(Hom.
iii., in Eph.,
no. 4,
MPG, lxii. 29;
De
incomprehen
stZilitate Dei natures, iii.
6,
MPG, xlviii.
725-726).
That he regarded the "sacrifice" and the com
munion
(metalepais)
as two separable acts and the
former as a purely "priestly" function is clear.
