VI

In the first half of the seventeenth century the Eastern Church was brought into contact with some of the results of the Western Reformation. Cyril Lucar, Patriarch first of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, had resided in Germany and Switzerland, and had there studied Western theology. He had been attracted by some elements in the teaching of the Reformers, was a correspondent of Archbishop Laud, and showed his interest in and appreciation of England by his gift of the Alexandrian MS. of the Old and New Testaments, which is now in the British Museum, to King Charles I. and by sending Metrophanes Kritopulos, afterwards Patriarch of Alexandria, to England, where he studied at Balliol College. He formed the project of a theological system which might preserve what he deemed to be the best features of the traditional theology of the East in combination with those parts of the teaching of the Western Reformers which appealed to him. In pursuance of this object he drew up a document entitled The Eastern Confession of the Orthodox Faith. This Confession was published in Latin in 1629; and a translation into Greek, dated 1631, was published in 1633. On the sacraments in general the fifteenth chapter of the Confession stated:—

“We believe that there are in the Church mysteries of the Gospel which the Lord delivered in the Gospel; and that these are two. For so many were delivered unto us; and He who instituted them delivered no more. And we firmly maintain that these consist of a word and an element; and that they are seals of the promises of God, and procure grace. But for the mystery to be perfect and entire, it is necessary that the earthly matter and the outward act concur with the use of that earthly thing which was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, united with sincere faith; for when faith is wanting in the receivers the entirety of the mystery is not preserved.”

So far as the Eucharist is concerned, this statement appears to mean that for a valid Sacrament there are needed, besides the consecration of bread and wine, the use in Communion and the faith of the communicants.

The sixteenth chapter of the Confession was on Baptism. In the seventeenth chapter Cyril Lucar wrote:—

“We believe the other mystery instituted by our Lord to be what we call the Eucharist. For in the night in which the Lord gave Himself up, He took bread and blessed and said to His Apostles, ‘Take, eat; this is My body’. And He took the cup of the Eucharist and said, ‘Drink ye all of it; this is My blood which is poured out for you; do this for My memorial’. And Paul adds ‘For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death’. This is the simple, true, and genuine tradition of this wonderful mystery, in the performance and administration of which we acknowledge and believe is the true and real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; nevertheless, such as our faith presents and offers to us, not such as Transubstantiation (μετουσίωσις) vainly invented teaches. For we believe that the faithful who partake of the Supper eat the body of our Lord Jesus Christ not by perceptibly pressing and dissolving the Communion with the teeth, but by the soul realising Communion. For the body of the Lord is not what is seen in the mystery with the eyes and received, but what faith spiritually apprehends and presents and bestows upon us. Wherefore it is true that we eat and partake and have Communion, if we believe. If we believe not, we are deprived of all benefit of the mystery. Consequently to drink the cup in the mystery is really to drink the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the same manner as is said of the body. For as He who instituted gave commandment concerning His own body, so also He did concerning His own blood, which commandment ought not to be mutilated according to the fancy of every one, but rather the tradition of the institution should be preserved entire. When, therefore, we worthily partake and entirely communicate in the mystery of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, we are already, we confess, reconciled to our Head, and united to Him, and made one body with Him, having also the certain hope of being co-heirs with Him in the kingdom.”

Here also the presence of Christ in the Sacrament is said to depend on the Sacrament being received in Communion, and on the faith of the communicants. Consequently, in denying “Transubstantiation,” Cyril appears to have intended to reject not only any Western technicalities of which he may have known but also the traditional Eastern doctrine that by means of the act of consecration the elements become the body and blood of Christ.

Cyril Lucar was strangled in 1638 by the order of the Sultan Murad IV. in consequence of accusations of treason brought against him. It is probable that these accusations were simply a device of theological opponents who resented Cyril’s acceptance of some of the opinions which had arisen among the Reformers in the West and his opposition to plans then being formed for the union of the East with Rome.

One result of the work of Cyril Lucar was the compilation of The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church in 1640. The object of this Confession was to re-assert the traditional doctrine of the East in those matters in which Cyril Lucar had denied or modified it. It was drawn up in Russian by Peter Mogila, the Metropolitan of Kieff, and other theologians. It was translated into Greek. It was approved by the Council of Jassy in 1642; by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem in 1643; and by the Council of Jerusalem in 1672. On the subject of the Eucharist the teaching of the Confession was as follows:—

“Christ is now in heaven only and not on earth after that manner of the flesh wherein He bore it and lived in it when He was on earth; but after the sacramental manner, whereby He is present in the holy Eucharist, the same Son of God, God and Man, is also on earth by way of Transubstantiation (κατὰ μετουσίωσιν). For the substance (οὐσία) of the bread is changed (μεταβάλλεται) into the substance (οὐσίαν) of His holy body, and the substance (οὐσία) of the wine into the substance (οὐσίαν) of His precious blood. Wherefore it is fitting to worship and adore the holy Eucharist even as our Saviour Jesus Himself.”

“The priest must know that at the moment when he consecrates the gifts the substance (οὐσία) itself of the bread and the substance (οὐσία) of the wine are changed (μεταβάλλεται) into the substance (οὐσίαν) of the real body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Ghost, whom the priest invokes at that time, consecrating this mystery by praying and saying, ‘Send down Thy Holy Ghost on us and on these gifts set before Thee, and make this bread the precious body of Thy Christ and that which is in this cup the precious blood of Thy Christ, changing (μεταβαλών) them by Thy Holy Ghost’. For immediately after these words the Transubstantiation (μετουσίωσις) takes place, and the bread is changed (ἀλλήσει) into the real body of Christ, and the wine into His real blood. Only the species (εἴδη) which are seen remain, and this by the ordinance of God, first, that we may not see the body of Christ, but may believe that it is there; … secondly, because human nature shrinks from the eating of raw flesh.… The honour which it is fitting to give to these awful mysteries is of such a kind as that which is given to Christ Himself.… This mystery is also offered as a sacrifice on behalf of all orthodox Christians, both the living and those who sleep in hope of a resurrection to eternal life; and this sacrifice shall never fail until the last Judgment. The fruits of this mystery are these: first, the commemoration of the sinless passion and death of Christ …; secondly, … this mystery is a propitiation and atonement with God for our sins both of the living and of the dead …; thirdly, … that each Christian who shall frequent this sacrifice and partake of this mystery may be delivered by means of it from the temptation and danger of the devil.”

This Confession thus followed the ordinary teaching of the East that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Ghost, invoked in the Liturgy; that the presence is such as to call for adoration; and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Further, it asserted that the substance of the bread and the wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, and accepted the word “Transubstantiation” which Cyril Lucar had repudiated, probably using it, as he had used it, simply to denote the change of the elements by consecration into Christ’s body and blood. As to the nature of the presence of the body and blood different statements in the Confession suggest different ideas. The reference to the natural shrinking from “the eating of raw flesh” as one of the reasons why the outward species remain looks as if the spiritual character of the Eucharistic presence of Christ’s risen and ascended body and blood had been forgotten. On the other hand, the distinction between the manner of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and that of His visible presence on earth and His presence in heaven is perhaps a stronger indication of belief in the spiritual character of His presence in the Eucharist.

In 1642, two years after the first drawing up of The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church, a council was held at Constantinople to condemn the opinions of Cyril Lucar. The decrees of the council contain the following statement concerning his teaching about the Eucharist:—

“He so destroys the Holy Eucharist as to leave to it nothing but an empty figure, as if our worship were still in the shadow of the ancient law. For he says that not the bread which is seen and eaten is, after it has been consecrated, the real body of Christ, but that which is spiritually perceived, or rather represented. Which opinion is full of all impiety. For Jesus did not say, ‘This is the figure of My body,’ but ‘This is My body,’ and ‘This is My blood’—this, that is, which is seen and taken and eaten and broken, when it has been consecrated and blessed.”

Thirty years later, in 1672, under Dositheus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, a council, known as the Council or Synod of Jerusalem or of Bethlehem, was held at Bethlehem at which the Confession of Cyril Lucar was again considered. The holding of the council was partly due to the controversy in the West between Claude and Arnauld in which Claude had claimed the authority of the Eastern Church for his contention that Transubstantiation was a modern invention. At the council doubt was expressed whether the Confession ascribed to Cyril Lucar was really by him. Many passages from his Homilies were cited containing different teaching from that in the Confession. In those relating to the Eucharist were the expressions, “When you communicate, what do you see? Is it bread and wine? Do you not discern? If this is all you behold, you see an appearance; but, if you open the eyes of the soul, and see the Lord, you would recognise there the flesh of the Lord”; and “the infinite power of the Deity in the Transubstantiation of the bread”. It was further asserted at the council, that, if the Confession was the work of Cyril Lucar, it must have been simply an expression of his own opinions, and not an utterance of the Easterns in general or of the Church, so that, even on the supposition that he wrote it, it could not be taken as in any way committing the Eastern Church. As a positive statement of Eastern theology the council affirmed the Confession of Dositheus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem. The parts of this Confession which relate to the Eucharist are as follows:—

“We reject as alien to Christian doctrine the opinion that the integrity of the mysteries requires the use of the earthly thing. For this is contrary to the mystery of the offering, which, being instituted by the heavenly Word, and consecrated by the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is perfected by the presence of that which is signified, namely, the body and blood of Christ. And the perfecting of this necessarily goes before its use. For, if it were not perfect before its use, then he who uses it badly would not eat and drink judgment to himself, since he would partake of bare bread and wine. But, as it is, he who partakes unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself. Therefore the mystery of the Eucharist has its perfection not in the use but even before the use. Moreover, we reject as destructive and abominable the opinion that the integrity of the mystery is impaired by weakness of faith.”

“In the celebration of this we believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is present, not figuratively, or in an image, or by superabundant grace, as in the other mysteries, nor by a simple presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, nor by conjunction, as that the Deity of the Word is personally united to the bread of the Eucharist which is set forth, as the Lutherans most ignorantly and miserably think; but really and actually, so that after the consecration of the bread and the wine the bread is changed (μεταβάλλεσθαι), transubstantiated (μετουσιοῦσθαι), transmade (μεταποιεῖσθαι), and reordered (μεταρρυθμίζεσθαι), into the real body of the Lord itself, which was born in Bethlehem of the Ever-Virgin, was baptised in Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose, ascended, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, and will come on the clouds of heaven; and the wine is transmade (μεταποιεῖσθαι) and transubstantiated (μετουσιοῦσθαι) into the real blood of the Lord itself, which was poured forth for the life of the world when He hung on the cross. Further, we believe that after the consecration of the bread and the wine the substance (οὐσία) of the bread and the wine no longer remains, but there is the body itself and the blood of the Lord in the species (εἴδει) and form (τύπῳ) of the bread and the wine, that is to say, under the accidents (συμβεβηκόσιν) of the bread. Further, that the all-pure body itself and blood of the Lord are distributed and enter the mouth and stomach of the communicants, both pious and impious; only they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and eternal life, but they involve to the impious and unworthy condemnation and eternal punishment. Further, that the body and the blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and teeth by way of accident (κατὰ συμβεβηκός), that is, in the accidents (συμβεβηκότα) of the bread and the wine, in which they are acknowledged to be visible and tangible, while in themselves they remain altogether unsevered and undivided. Wherefore also the Catholic Church says, ‘He is separated and distributed who being separated is not divided, who is ever eaten and never consumed, but sanctifies those who partake,’ that is, worthily. Further, that in every part and the smallest fragment of the changed (μεταβληθέντος) bread and wine there is not a part of the body and blood of the Lord, for that would be blasphemous and wicked, but the whole Lord Christ wholly in substance (κατʼ οὐσίαν), that is, with His soul and Godhead, perfect God and perfect Man. Wherefore, though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs or many bodies of Christ, but one and the same Christ is present really and actually, and His body and His blood are one in all the several churches of the faithful; and this not because the body of the Lord which is in heaven descends on the altars but because the bread which is offered and set forth in all the several churches, being transmade (μεταποιούμενος) and transubstantiated (μετουσιούμενος), becomes and is after the consecration one and the same as that which is in heaven. For the body of the Lord is one in many places, and not many bodies.… Further, that the body itself and the blood of the Lord which are in the mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honoured in the highest way, and worshipped with divine adoration. For the worship of the Holy Trinity and of the body and blood of the Lord is one. Further, that it is a real and propitiatory sacrifice offered for all the orthodox, living and dead, and for the benefit of all.… Further, that before the use immediately after the consecration and after the use that which is kept in the holy pyxes for the reception of those who are about to depart is the real body of the Lord, and not in any respect different from it; so that before the use after the consecration, in the use, and after the use, it is altogether the real body of the Lord. Further, that by the word Transubstantiation (μετουσίωσις) the manner in which the bread and the wine are transmade (μεταποιοῦνται) into the body and blood of the Lord is not explained; for this is altogether incomprehensible and is impossible except for God Himself; and attempts at explanation bring Christians to folly and error. But the word denotes that the bread and the wine after the consecration are changed (μεταβάλλεται) into the body and blood of the Lord not figuratively or by way of image or by superabundant grace or by the communication or presence of the Deity alone of the Only Begotten. Neither is any accident (συμβεβηκός τι) of the bread and of the wine transmade (μεταποιεῖται) in any way or by any change into any accident (συμβεβηκός τι) of the body and blood of Christ; but really and actually and substantially (οὐσιωδῶς) the bread becomes the real body of the Lord itself, and the wine the blood of the Lord itself, as has been said above.”

There is an incidental statement on the reality of the presence in, and the honour due to, the reserved Sacrament.

“It is a ridiculous charge that, because some Eastern priests keep the holy bread in wooden vessels within the Church but outside the sanctuary hanging on one of the pillars, they do not acknowledge the actual and real change (μεταβολήν) of the bread into the body of the Lord. For that certain poor priests keep the Lord’s body in wooden vessels we do not deny; for Christ is not honoured by stones and marbles, but He asks from us a sound purpose and a pure heart. And this is as it is put by Paul. For he says, ‘We have the treasure in earthen vessels’. But where particular Churches are able, as with us in Jerusalem, within the sanctuary of each Church the Lord’s body is honoured and has a lamp with seven lights always burning before it.”

These declarations of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 reassert the main lines of the traditional Eastern doctrine. It is of interest to observe the marks made by Western controversies in the repudiation of any theory of “conjunction” such as that ascribed to Luther, any of and view that the presence of Christ is vouchsafed only during the use of the sacrament in Communion such as that held by the later Lutherans, and in the assertions about the “accidents”.

During the years from 1716 to 1725 a lengthy correspondence took place between the English and Scottish Nonjurors and the Bishops of the Greek Church in hope that some plan for re-union might be agreed upon. The Eucharist was one of the subjects discussed. Throughout, the Easterns adopted the theological position and terminology of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672, and affirmed that the elements are consecrated by the operation of the Holy Ghost; that by consecration they are changed and transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ; that the accidents remain; that the whole Christ, perfect God and perfect Man, is substantially in every part of the consecrated bread and wine; and that the body of Christ, present in the consecrated elements, is to be adored. They were careful to quote a synodical declaration of the year 1691 in which it was explained that in using the word Transubstantiation (μετουσίωσις) the Easterns had not borrowed from the West but had followed their own tradition, and that by it they intended no further definition than that in the Sacrament there is a change (μεταβολή) of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

The decrees of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 have remained ever since that time the authorised statements of the doctrine of the Greek Church. As a short summary made in the eighteenth century of the teaching contained in them it may be convenient to quote the article concerning the Eucharist in an exposition of the faith put out by a council held at Constantinople in 1727.

“It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy liturgy and bloodless sacrifice, which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy cup, and they are supernaturally changed (μεταβάλλεσθαι), the bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words of the Lord. Not that the consecration is effected by the words ‘Take, eat,’ etc., or by the words ‘Drink ye all of it,’ etc., as the Latins think; for we have been taught that the consecration takes place at the prayer of the priest and at the words which he utters, namely, ‘Make this bread the precious body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this cup the precious blood of Thy Christ, changing (μεταβαλών) them by Thy Holy Ghost,’ as the glorious Apostles and fathers filled with the Spirit who compiled the holy liturgies explained and handed down, and as this tradition of their divine teaching has come to us and to the Holy Church of Christ, and as also is clearly shown by the example of the Lord Himself, who first prayed and then commanded His Apostles, ‘Do this for My memorial’. Therefore we acknowledge that at the invocation of the priest that ineffable mystery is consecrated, and the living and with-God-united body itself of our Saviour and His blood itself are really and substantially (σὐσιωδῶς) present, and that the whole without being in any way impaired is eaten by those who partake and is bloodlessly sacrificed. And we believe without any doubt that in the reception and communion of this, even though it be in one kind only, the whole and complete Christ is present; nevertheless according to the ancient tradition which has prevailed in the Catholic Church we have received that Communion is made by all the faithful, both clergy and laity, individually in both kinds, and not the laity in one kind and the priests in both, as is done in the innovation which the Latins have wrongly made. As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change (μεταβολῆς) of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word Transubstantiation (μετουσιώσεως), which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this mystery. Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in leavened bread, as has been the custom from the first in the Catholic Church of Christ.”

In 1838 the decrees of the Council of Jerusalem, which had now been for over 150 years the authorised formularies of the Greek Church, were accepted by the Holy Synod of the Russian Church with certain modifications. In the decree relating to the Eucharist the phrase “the substance of the bread and wine no longer remain,” was altered to “the very bread and wine no longer remain” and the words “under the accidents of the bread” were omitted. The reason for these alterations appears to have been a desire on the part of the Russian divines to avoid some of the technicalities which had become current in the West.

The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, based on earlier catechisms, was drawn up in its present form by Philaret, the Metropolitan of Moscow, and was adopted after revision be the Russian Holy Synod in 1839. It was subsequently translated into Greek and received the approval of all the Eastern Patriarchs. It contains the following questions and answers on the subject of the Eucharist:—

“Q.—What is the Communion?

A.—The Communion is a Sacrament in which the believer, under the forms of bread and wine, partakes of the very body and blood of Christ, to everlasting life.…

Q.—What is the most essential act in this part of the Liturgy?

A.—The utterance of the words which Jesus Christ spake in instituting the Sacrament, ‘Take, eat, this is My body; drink ye all of it, for this is My blood of the New Testament’; Matt. 26:26, 27, 28; and after this the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing the gifts, that is, the bread and wine which have been offered.

Q.—Why is this so essential?

A.—Because at the moment of this act the bread and wine are changed or transubstantiated into the very body of Christ, and into the very blood of Christ.

Q.—How are we to understand the word Transubstantiation?

A.—In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs it is said that the word Transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only this much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true body of the Lord, and the wine the very blood of the Lord.…

Q.—What benefit does he receive who communicates in the body and blood of Christ?

A.—He is in the closest manner united to Jesus Christ Himself, and in Him is made partaker of everlasting life.…

Q.—What part can they have in the Divine Liturgy who only hear it without approaching the Holy Communion?

A.—They may and should take part in the Liturgy by prayer and faith and especially by a continual remembrance of our Lord Jesus Christ, who expressly has commanded us to ‘do this in remembrance of Him’ (Luke 22:19).

Q.—What should we remember at that time in the Liturgy when they make the procession with the Gospel?

A.—Jesus Christ appearing to preach the Gospel. So also when the Gospel is reading we should have the same attention and reverence as if we saw and heard Jesus Christ Himself.

Q.—What should we remember at that time in the Liturgy when they make the procession with the gifts from the table of preparation to the altar?

A.—Jesus Christ going to suffer voluntarily as a victim to the slaughter, while more than twelve legions of angels were ready around to guard Him as their King.…

Q.—What should we remember at the moment of the consecration of the Sacrament, and while the clergy are communicating within the altar?

A.—The mystical supper of Jesus Christ Himself with His Apostles, His suffering, death, and burial.

Q.—What is set forth after this by the drawing back of the veil, the opening of the royal doors, and the appearance of the holy gifts?

A.—The appearance of Jesus Christ Himself after His resurrection.

Q.—What is figured by the last showing of the holy gifts to the people, after which they are hid from view?

A.—The ascension of Jesus Christ into heaven.”

In the office for the consecration of a bishop in the Russian Church, which has been in use since 1725, the bishop-elect makes a profession which includes the following statement:—

“I do believe and understand that the Transubstantiation of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper is made, as the Eastern and ancient Russian doctors teach, by the influence and operation of the Holy Ghost at the invocation, when the bishop or priest prays to God the Father in these words, ‘Make therefore this bread the most honourable body of Thy Christ’.”

Four of the best known of the Greek Catechisms in ordinary use at the present time are the Holy Catechism of M. Bernadakis, the Orthodox Christian Catechism of M. Moschakis, the Christian Catechism of M. Kyriakos, and the Orthodox Holy Catechism of Bishop Nektarios. Of these that by M. Bernadakis is the shortest and simplest, that by Bishop Nektarios is the longest and most complete, the other two are intermediate. Each of the four contains teaching about the Eucharist. That in the Holy Catechism of M. Bernadakis is as follows:—

“The third mystery is the Eucharist, which is also called Reception and Communion.… The priest takes bread and wine with water, which with the prayers of the priest and the prayers and supplications of the Church are changed (μεταβάλλονται) by the Holy Ghost; and the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine His blood. In this way the Christian partakes of the actual (ἴδιον) body and blood of Christ, although the Holy Communion has the taste not of flesh and blood but of bread and wine. The Christian by partaking of the holy body and blood of the Saviour Christ becomes one with Him, and thus gains possession of the strongest weapon against the devil and sin, and is sanctified and strengthened for works that are good and well-pleasing to God.”

In the Orthodox Christian Catechism of M. Moschakis it is said:—

“The Eucharist is a mystery in which by partaking of the bread and the wine we believe that we have communion in the body and blood of Christ.… Great is the mystery of the Eucharist because it represents (ἀναπαριστᾷ) the death of Jesus and His sacrifice on the cross on our behalf, and because by it we are made one with Jesus.… Baptism is our spiritual regeneration, and the Eucharist is our spiritual food and sustenance.”

The following is the explanation given in the Christian Catechism of M. Kyriakos:—

“The Eucharist is that holy rite in which we believe that by partaking of the bread and the wine we have communion in the body itself and the blood of the Lord, and are united with Him, and also make remembrance of His death on our behalf.… The Eucharist … represents to us (ἀναπαρίστησιν ἡμῖν) actually and really the death itself and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. Therefore the Protestants err when they deny the notion of sacrifice in the Eucharist, and that it stands in the closest possible relation to the death of the Lord on the cross.”

In the explanation of the High Priesthood of Christ given in the Orthodox Holy Catechism of Bishop Nektarios the following passage occurs:—

“For ever does He offer Himself a sacrifice on behalf of the life and salvation of the world through His holy mysteries, which He has appointed in His Church, because in the rite of the mystic sacrifice it is He who offers and is offered, who receives the sacrifice and is distributed.”

Farther on in the same Catechism, in the explanation of the Eucharist Bishop Nektarios writes:—

“The Eucharist is the spiritual food of the Christian, which gives life to the soul and leads man to immediate communion with the Saviour Christ, because he who communicates, receives under the species (εἶδος) of the bread and the wine the precious body itself and the precious blood itself of our Lord Jesus Christ, and is united mystically with Him. The Eucharist is for the healthful joy of soul and body, for remission of sins, and for eternal life.… In this mystery the priest gives and the faithful partake of and communicate in the body and blood of our Saviour Christ.… The Christian … under the species (εἴδη) of the bread and the wine receives the body itself and the blood of the Lord.… The words ‘Do this for My memorial’ signify the continual memory of the Incarnation of the Son of God, our Saviour Jesus Christ, and His saving sufferings, the great benefit which we received through the redemption, and the eternal good things of which we have been counted worthy in the kingdom of God.… Those who receive worthily become partakers of the body and blood of the Lord … and receiving the remission of their sins are declared to be heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and receive eternal life.”

These Catechisms represent in simple ways the theology about the Eucharist which has been seen to be traditional in the East. Naturally they express it in a less technical manner than the decrees of the Council of Jerusalem. Like the Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Church of the East they do not refer to the “accidents”; unlike it they make no mention of “Transubstantiation”. But it is evident that the doctrine which they are intended to convey is the same as that taught by the Council of Jerusalem and in the Longer Catechism.

The treatise on Dogmatic Theology by Dr. Makarios, who was Bishop of Vinnitza and Rector of the Seminary in St. Petersburg in the middle of the nineteenth century, is of high repute as representing the doctrine ordinarily held and taught in the Russian Church. In this treatise the doctrine of the Eucharist is explained and defended at length. The general lines adopted are identical with those which have already been observed in many quarters; and a few short extracts may sufficiently show the teaching contained in the book.

“At the moment when the minister who celebrates the Sacrament of the Eucharist, following the commandment of the Saviour, invokes the Holy Ghost on the oblations and blesses and consecrates them … the bread and the wine are really changed by the descent of the Holy Ghost to the real body and real blood of Jesus Christ.”

“The bread and the wine cannot become the real body and the real blood of Jesus Christ except by the translation or change of the substance itself of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and the blood of Jesus Christ, that is, by Transubstantiation.”

“Under the species of the bread and wine … the body and the blood of Jesus Christ … are complete and inseparable; for Jesus Christ is always one and inseparable; … His body and His blood remain inseparable and always complete, inasmuch as His body is a living body which ‘being raised from the dead dieth no more’ (Rom. 6:9), a glorified body, a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:43, 44), and immortal.”

“In the Eucharist the body and the blood of the Saviour, which are offered to us as food, are offered also as a sacrifice to God for men.”

“The sacrifice offered to God in the Eucharist is in its nature exactly the same as that of the cross; for to-day we still offer on the altars of the Church the same Lamb of God who offered Himself of old on the cross for the sins of the world, the same flesh infinitely pure which suffered then, the same blood infinitely precious which was then poured out. To-day also this mysterious oblation is invisibly accomplished by the same eternal High Priest who offered Himself on the cross.”

“In the method and circumstances of the oblation the Eucharistic sacrifice differs from the sacrifice of the cross. On the cross the Lord Jesus offered visibly in sacrifice to God His body infinitely pure and His blood of infinite value; in the Eucharist He offers them under the species of the bread and the wine. There He Himself, immediately, as High Priest celebrated the sacrifice of expiation; here, though He also Himself celebrates it, He does so invisibly through the agency of the pastors of the Church. There the sacrifice was offered by the actual immolation of the Lamb, it was a bloody sacrifice, for the Lord Jesus really suffered, poured out His blood, tasted death in His flesh; to-day, in that ‘being raised from the dead He dieth no more,’ and that ‘death hath no more dominion over Him’ (Rom. 6:9), the sacrifice is offered in the Eucharist by means of mysterious transformation by the Holy Spirit or Transubstantiation of the bread and the wine into the body and the blood of Jesus Christ without sufferings, without shedding of blood, without death.… The two sacrifices are inseparably united, properly speaking forming only one sacrifice, and yet at the same time different the one from the other.”

This treatment of the doctrine of the Eucharist by Bishop Makarios follows so closely the ordinary Eastern teaching since the Council of Jerusalem that one point only in it calls for comment. The entire absence of any allusion to the work of our Lord in heaven in connection with the Eucharistic sacrifice is in marked contrast to the way in which Eastern theologians in patristic and later times lay stress on the unity of the one sacrifice offered on the cross, in heaven, and in the Eucharist.

In further illustration of the teaching of the Russian Church the following passage from M. Khomiakoff’s Essay on the Unity of the Church is of great interest:—

“Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist the holy Church teaches that in it the change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is verily accomplished. She does not reject the word Transubstantiation; but she does not assign to it that material meaning which is assigned to it by the teachers of the churches which have fallen away. The change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is accomplished in the Church and for the Church. If a man receive the consecrated gifts, or worship them, or think on them with faith, he verily receives, adores, and thinks on, the body and blood of Christ. If he receive unworthily, he verily rejects the body and blood of Christ; in any case, in faith or in unbelief he is sanctified or condemned by the body and blood of Christ.… Not in spirit alone was Christ pleased to unite Himself with the faithful, but also in body and in blood; in order that the union might be complete, and not only spiritual but also corporal.… We shall not rise again without the body, and no spirit except the Spirit of God can be said to be entirely incorporeal. He that despises the body sins through pride of spirit.”