Contents:

"The Eucharist of the Early Christians"—but why go back into the past? Is it nostalgia or fear that sends us there? Why lose ourselves in distant lands and let ourselves get bogged down in the sands of the desert? Why flee the present? We should be creating the future and struggling side by side with the men of our day!

But in a world in which technology is increasingly gaining the upper hand over man, we need space to refresh ourselves. Men need to draw breath and slake their thirst. They need a faith that is sure of itself. Far, then, from being a retreat into the past, this book is meant as a pilgrimage to the life-giving wellsprings; its aim is to make possible a vital grasp of the eucharist as expressed and experienced by the early Christians. It is good for us to acquire a sense of what life was like for the early Christians and to see what their hopes were. In so doing, we rediscover our true selves.

How, then, did the early Christians experience the eucharist? They experienced it, above all, as a time of happiness and a challenge to battle.

That is the eucharist of the early Christians.

If only our eucharists were like that today! The context has changed, but that does not matter. Our thirst for happiness is even greater, the struggle is just as pressing. In fact, now that I have come to understand a little better the eucharist of the early Christians, I feel more determined to live the adventure of the future, more united to my fellows, more sure of my faith in the risen Christ.

To study the eucharist of the early Christians is to open a fascinating page of the Church's life to the people of our day.

How did the idea for the book arise? In the latter part of 1970, the periodical Parole et pain devoted its No. 40 (September-October) to "The Eucharist in the Early Church." Later on No. 46 studied the eucharist in the third century, and No. 52 the eucharist in the fourth century.

Number 40 proved an unexpected success and was quickly out of print, so that we could not satisfy the many requests that reached us. I thought then of a collective study that would treat of the eucharist during the first five or six centuries and would appear as a volume in the Theologie historique published by Beauchesne in Paris. We actually started on such a book. It proved difficult, however, to find contributors who would handle such figures as Cyril of Alexandria. In addition, we came to realize that the work we were undertaking would be one more book for specialists and that, on the other hand, the first three centuries by themselves formed a unit of great interest to people today.

In this book, then, we publish a set of texts (often with revisions) that appeared originally in Parole et pain, Nos. 40 and 46. These include the essays on Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian of Carthage. For the remaining essays we secured new contributors the Didache, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria). Finally, we added a study of the Didascalia.

These essays form a united whole. Each author, of course, takes the approach congenial to him, but the whole seems coherent, even if a bit on the arid side. Could such dry ness by avoided? In any case, here the book stands, with its faults; it meets a need, for books of this kind on this subject are few. It is now up to the reader to profit by it.

ACW - Ancient Christian Writers. Westminster, Md., 1946

BAC - Biblioteca de autores cristianos. Madrid, 1945

CCL - Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina. Tournhout, 1953

CSEL - Corpus Scriptorum eclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vienna, 1966

DACL - Dictionnaire d'archeologie chretienne et de liturgie. Paris, 1914-37

DSp - Dictionnaire de spiritualite'. Paris, 1932

DTC - Dictionnaire de theologie catholique. Paris, 1903-50

GSC - Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte. Leipzig, 1897

PG - Patrologia Graeca, ed. J. P. Migne. Paris, 1857-66

PL - Patrologia Latina, ed. J. P. Migne. Paris, 1844-64

SC - Sources chretiennes. Paris, 1942

TU - Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. Leipzig-Berlin, 1882

Chapters 9 and 10 of the Didache, or "Teaching of the Lord, given to the nations through the Apostles," contain prayers to be said at community meals. Chapter 14 adds some notations on the Sunday liturgy as celebrated by the Christian community. These three chapters have been the subject of extensive discussion ever since Bryennios published the first printed edition of the Didache in 1883. In offering my own contribution to the discussion I have no intention of trying to take a completely novel approach, but would like simply to take our bearings amid all the countless studies. Where, then, do we stand today as far as the interpretation of these chapters is concerned? I suggest that these chapters represent a kind of transitional link between the Jewish tradition represented in the blessings pronounced at the table and the eucharistic anaphora as preserved in the later formularies for the Christian Mass. In the connecting link we can see the kinship of the two traditions, but we can also see what separates them.

Perhaps we should begin by taking a position on the date and place of origin of the Didache. Specialists are far from agreement on these two points. For some, the text is very ancient, dating perhaps even from the apostolic period; that is the view, for example, of J.P. Audet, who has written a very detailed commentary on the text. For others, the text dates from the beginning or from the end of the second century (or even the third).

Opinions on the place of origin are just as divided. Harnack believes the Didache was written in Egypt, while Audet, Knopf, Adam, and others think it originated in Palestine or Syria. My own opinion is that it was edited in Syria at the end of the first century or the beginning of the second. Unfortunately, the limits set upon this paper prevent me from spelling out my reasons for this opinion. In any event, the question of date and place does not directly concern us in dealing with the subject of the interpretation of chapters 9 and 10. Almost all scholars admit that the chapters antedated the final redaction and were introduced into the document by the editor.

Here is the text of these three chapters:

1. With regard to the prayer of thanksgiving [eucharistia], offer it in this fashion.

2. First, for the cup: "We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you have revealed to us through Jesus your servant. Glory be yours through all ages!"

3. Then for the bread broken: "We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge you have revealed to us through Jesus your servant. Glory be yours through all ages!

4. "Just as the bread broken was first scattered on the hills, then was gathered and became one, so let your Church be gathered from the ends of the earth into your kingdom, for yours is glory and power through Jesus Christ for all ages!"

5. Let no one eat or drink of your eucharist, except those baptized in the name of the Lord. For it is of this that the Lord was speaking when he said: "Do not give what is holy to dogs" Matthew 7.6).

1. When your hunger has been satisfied, give thanks thus:

2. "We thank you, holy Father, for your holy name which you have made to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality you have revealed to us through Jesus your servant. Glory be yours through all ages!

3. "All-powerful Master, you created all things for your name's sake, and you have given food and drink to the children of men for their enjoyment, so that they may thank you. On us, moreover, you have bestowed a spiritual food and drink that lead to eternal life, through Jesus your servant.

4. "Above all, we thank you because you are almighty. Glory be yours through all ages!

5. "Lord, remember your Church and deliver it from all evil; make it perfect in your love and gather it from the four winds, this sanctified Church, into your kingdom which you have prepared for it, for power and glory are yours through all ages!

6. "May grace come and this world pass away! Hosanna to the God of David! If anyone is holy, let him come! If anyone is not, let him repent! Maranatha. Amen."

7. Allow the prophets to give thanks as much as they wish.

Come together on the dominical day of the Lord, break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. Anyone who has a quarrel with his fellow should not gather with you until he has been reconciled, lest your sacrifice be profaned. For this is the sacrifice of which the Lord says: "In every place and at every time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is marvelous among the nations" (Malachi 1.11-14).

The interpretation of chapters 9 and 10 depends chiefly on the answer to one question: Are these prayers meant for the eucharist, in the proper sense of this latter term, or are they simply prayers spoken at table in connection with ordinary meals of the community? Not surprisingly, this question arose as soon as the Didache became known, since the beginning of chapter 9 explicitly speaks of a eucharistia. If the term is taken as referring to the Lord's Supper, new problems arise, since the words of institution occur nowhere in the prayers. Does this mean that the liturgical formulas given here are incomplete? Or do the prayers reflect a special form of the eucharist? Or do the prayers have nothing to do with the eucharist in the strict sense of this latter word? All these hypotheses have found defenders.

The problem becomes even more complicated if we take chapter 14 into consideration. How are we to interpret this chapter? Why should the same subject, the eucharistia, be discussed in two different sections? Are we to infer that chapter 14 is in fact dealing with a different subject than chapters 9 and 10?

It is certainly not easy to answer these question in a conclusive way. In fact, the variety of answers might suggest that there is no hope of ever reaching a satisfactory solution. In order to give some idea of how difficult the interpretation of these chapters is, I shall give the more important answers in chronological order.

The first scholars, to my knowledge, who offered an interpretation that solves many problems, were P. Drews and, following his lead, M. Goguel. They see chapters 9 and 10, on the one hand, and chapter 14, on the other, as referring to different subjects. Chapters 9 and 10 deal with communal meals for which a small group of the faithful gathered in a private home, perhaps during the week. Chapter 14 describes the eucharistic liturgy which was celebrated on Sunday by the bishop and his deacons, in the presence of the entire community. This interpretation seems quite attractive, especially since chapter 15 states that bishops and deacons are to be appointed who will preside over divine services in the place of the apostles and prophets. For Drews and Goguel, chapter 14 voices a criticism of the practice, reflected in chapters 9 and 10, of taking the eucharist privately and thus tending to split the community up into small independent groups (see St. Ignatius of Antioch, Smyrnaeans 8 and Philadelphians 3-4). Chapter 14 would thus be a later addition that is intended to offset chapters 9-10.

Drews and Goguel were certainly right in regarding chapter 14 as of later provenance than chapters 9 and 10 (in fact the whole section from chapter 11 to chapter 14 inclusive is later, for reasons we cannot analyze here10). It seems, however, that their hypothesis of an opposition between chapter 14 and chapters 9-10 has no solid basis in the text. Why would the Didache, without clarifying the distinction, address the laity at one point (chapters 9-10) and the clergy at another (chapter 14) and use the same second person plural ("you") in both cases? Why would chapter 14 give so little detail on the Sunday liturgy unless that same liturgy had been discussed earlier? It would seem rather that chapter 14 simply adds a few details, called for by circumstances, to a subject already discussed in chapters 9-10.

Such was Lietzmann's thesis in his book Messe und Herrenmahl. It was so revolutionary that it deserves examination here, especially since it has exercised a strong influence on liturgical studies right down to our own day.

Lietzmann sought to distinguish two types of eucharist in the early Church: in the one, the commemoration of Christ's death and redemptive work was to the fore; in the other, this element, along with the idea of sacrifice, was absent. The Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus contained an example of the first form of eucharist and became the prototype that influenced all later forms of the Mass in both the East and the West. The very existence, however, of the non-commemorative eucharist, which Lietzmann regards as originating in Egypt, is quite problematic. All the Egyptian formularies of the Mass show the commemorative aspect: not only the Liturgy of St. Mark but also the more ancient formularies in the Der Balyzeh Papyrus and the Euchologion of Serapion of Thmuis (Serapion's anaphora does not have an anamnesis but it does contain the words of institution). In dealing with these Egyptian formularies Lietzmann was therefore obliged to fall back on the hypothesis of a later insertion.

The definitive proof for Lietzmann is the Didache: He interprets this as preserving the Jerusalem tradition of communal meals characterized by an atmosphere of joy, at a time when the other form of the eucharist—the Mass with its commemorative aspect, as taught by St. Paul—was gaining the upper hand. The Didache evidently does play an important part in Lietzmann's hypothesis. The question is whether chapters 9 and 10 will support the interpretation here given of them. If this keystone is removed, the whole edifice built by Lietzmann falls to the ground.

I shall attempt to show that these chapters contain, not a eucharistic liturgy in the strict sense, but prayers spoken at table before the eucharist proper. This is indeed the most common view today. It enables us to let the text stand unchanged, whereas Lietzmann was obliged to postulate a disordered text in which 10,6 should follow upon 9,5.

The prayers of chapters 9 and 10 evidently contain turns of phrase that seem to be borrowed from the eucharistic liturgy: for example, "the bread broken" (9,4) and "a spiritual food and drink" (10,3). Two ways of explaining this fact have been excogitated. We may think, with E. Peterson, that the Bryennios codex, which dates from 1056, changed originally eucharistic prayers into prayers for more everyday use at table. Or we may think that the present text contains prayers originally used at table during communal meals, and that these prayers were given eucharistic overtones because the eucharist followed immediately on the communal meal.

The second of these two explanations seems to me more in keeping with the facts. Peterson can indeed appeal for support to the fact that chapters 9 and 10 of the Didache are reworked in the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions, where they have evidently been taken as being eucharistic prayers. The Constitutions add to chapter 10 of the Didache the famous prayer for the myron or baptismal oil, thereby bringing out even more strongly the eucharistic significance of chapters 9 and 10. But may we not think that this later use of the Didache prayers was inspired simply by the eucharistic overtones they had acquired through their context, and that the later use only carried these overtones a step further? For myself, I prefer to trust the text as published by Bryennios, especially since it is hard to see how texts originally eucharistic could be transformed, after the fourth century, into prayers for the table, at the very time when the practice of the agape was disappearing.

The decisive argument against Peterson, however, is the close link we shall see to exist between these prayers of the Didache and the Jewish tradition of blessings for meals. The link cannot be explained except as a direct and deliberate relationship. It seems to me that the link is so evident that it must unconditionally be accepted as the starting point for any interpretation of these chapters. Father Audet's commentary has the great merit of bringing out the importance of this criterion by showing how influential the tradition of thanking God was in Israel and Judaism.

The very name eucharistia was undoubtedly taken over from this Jewish tradition, although the latter did not use it as the Christian Church would to refer specifically to the supreme act of thanksgiving, which is the Mass or Lord's Supper. Among Christian writers, the word "eucharist" acquires this special meaning at an early date: probably in Ignatius of Antioch (Ad Smyrnaeos 7, 1), certainly in Justin Martyr (Apologia 7, 6, 6) and Irenaeus (Adversus haereses IV, 18). On the other hand, the Didache was probably written before the letter of Ignatius, and we cannot assume that "eucharist" is used here only in its specifically Christian sense. This is a point for which there is corroborating evidence, as we shall see.

In Father Audet's view, chapters 9 and 10 describe an agape or "ordinary breaking of bread," which is followed by "the major eucharist" (Father Audet's expression) as partially described in chapter 14. This seems to me to be an accurate view of the matter and especially of the relationship of chapters 9 and 10 to chapter 14. The prayers set down in chapters 9 and 10 are blessings used at a meal; this meal was followed by the eucharist, as is clear from Didache 10, 6 which serves as an introduction to it. Was the eucharist celebrated in another room? Father Audet thinks that it was, on the basis of archeological discoveries at Dura Europos. In any case, this point is of no concern to us here.

In his commentary, despite the great importance of the subject, Father Audet has not made a detailed examination of the parallelism between the Jewish and Christian traditions of prayers of blessing (specifically, the Christian tradition as attested in the Didache). On this point, we can make our own the very interesting conclusions which E. von der Goltz reached back in 1905. To begin with, Didache 9 and 10 reports prayers used at table in connection with a community meal, as 10, 1 makes clear. This means we need consider at this point only the Jewish tradition of blessings at meals.

There is, of course, a good deal of uncertainty when it comes to dating the various customs found in this tradition. It is possible, nonetheless, to reconstruct the general course of an ordinary Jewish meal (festive meals differed only in that the ritual was more extensive). I shall take into account here only the elements that are essential for our purpose. Whenever there was a sufficient number of guests (sometimes three, sometimes ten), prayers of blessing were used. Before the meal, there was a blessing of the bread and of the wine, if there was any; according to the tradition that stems from Shammai, the wine was blessed first, then the bread. After the meal, there was a lengthy prayer of blessing at which foreigners, women, slaves, and children could not be present.

This general framework of a Jewish ritual meal fits perfectly what is described in the Didache. Before the meal, Christians blessed the wine and the bread; then they ate and, at the end of the meal, blessed God once again. Non-baptized persons could not be present for this meal, or eucharistia, just as among the Jews those not admitted to the cultic rite had to absent themselves. Consequently, the prescription in 9, 5 does not prove that chapters 9 and 10 are describing the specifically Christian eucharist. This is corroborated by Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition, which prohibits catechumens from taking part in the agape (chapters 26-27).

I shall not embark on a word by word analysis of chapters 9 and 10 and of the correspondences with the Jewish tradition. It could be shown, for example, that Christians took the Jewish blessings over the bread and the wine and gave them a new meaning: the wine recalls the vine of David, the hidden meaning of which has now been revealed in the passion of Christ, and the bread is henceforth the bread that is broken, a sign of salvation and a pledge of life for the believers who eat of it.

I shall, however, offer some remarks on chapter 10, since it provides us with hints as to the origin of the Christian anaphora and, more specifically, of the praefatio (preface). 203 But on what grounds can the Didache be said to exemplify such a praefatio? Well, verse 6 speaks (very briefly indeed) of a preparation for participation in the eucharist (in the strict sense of this term). In order to proclaim the imminent coming of the Lord and to greet him as already present among his own (cf. the Coptic version), as well as to forbid access to communion to those who are unworthy, the Didache uses the same language as Paul (in 1 Corinthians 16:20-23). The same terminology will be taken over by most of the later eucharistic liturgies.

It follows from this that the prayers, which in chapter 10 precede the invitation to communion (10, 6) must be part of the "anaphora," if we may apply this technical term to so primitive a state of the tradition. In any case, since the content of these prayers corresponds so extensively to the content of the later prefaces of the Mass, we are justified in applying the name "preface" to Didache 10. The value of this chapter for liturgical studies is increased by the fact that the prayers are evidently inspired by the Jewish tradition.

The great Jewish blessing at the end of the meal was in fact a sequence of four blessings. This sequence is found, in another form and a different order, in Didache 10.

The Jewish prayer began by praising God as king of the universe who gives food to every creature but especially to men, who are his children. Didache 10, 3, is clearly a version of the same theme. Christian and Jew alike address the all-powerful master of the world, but the Christian attributes to the life-giving food and drink a new meaning unknown to the Jews: they are now a reminder to Christians of the spiritual food and drink revealed by Jesus Christ—a transparent allusion to the eucharistic food and drink which are a pledge of eternal life for the believer.

The second Jewish blessing was addressed to the God of Israel who had brought his people out of Egypt, entered into a covenant with them, given them the Law, and finally bestowed on them the promised land. In short, the prayer praised God for his great deeds in behalf of the chosen people, deeds that make up the history of salvation. The same intention is to be seen in Didache 10, 2, although the content of the blessing is now specifically Christian, as the faithful address the Father who, through Jesus, formed for himself a new people from among the nations and entered into a new covenant with them. "Your holy name . . . you have made to dwell in our hearts": these words are probably a reference to baptism, since in this rite the name of God is pronounced over the candidate and transforms him into a living temple of the Holy Spirit. But baptism is for the Christian tradition what the crossing of the Red Sea had been for the Jewish tradition, namely, a rescue from this world and the beginning of a new life. Finally, Christians bless God "for the knowledge and faith and immortality you have revealed to us through Jesus your servant." In these words we find the three aspects both of Christ's ministry and of the new history of salvation: the revelation of God's plan and the gift of immortality through the Holy Spirit who is present in the Church.

The third of the Jewish blessings asked God to have mercy on Jerusalem, on David's house, and on the temple (this third petition evidently dates from after 70 A.D.). God is asked to deliver his people from their enemies and afflictions. Here again, we find a close parallel in Didache 10, 5; Christians ask God for the deliverance and gathering of the Church, but the intention is the same.

This prayer for the Church is so important that we must dwell on it for a moment, especially since a similar petition occurs in chapter 9, 4. Unfortunately, we do not have the space here to go into the meaning of the Egyptian and North African tradition. On the other hand, we cannot pass over the problem of duplication in 9, 4, and 10, 5. The petition is almost identical in both passages: the faithful ask God to gather his Church from the ends of the earth into his kingdom. Now, we saw that the third of the Jewish blessings asked God to rebuild Jerusalem; such a petition is, however, equivalent to "Gather the dispersed children of Israel." We may conclude, then, that the prayer for the Church is found in its proper place in Didache 10, 5, as part of the great blessing after a meal. The Liturgy of St. Mark shows that the prayer for the Church was still part of the praefatio at a later period and in Egypt; in this prayer we read: "Lord, be mindful of your holy Church, one, catholic, and apostolic, which is spread abroad from one end of the earth to the other." Here we find the prayer of the Didache preserved almost verbatim, although the es-chatological perspective has completely disappeared (the disppearance is characteristic of the period).

But what of the duplication in Didache 9, 4? It seems that the prayer for the Church got itself attached to the symbol of the bread that is scattered and then gathered. I think that in the course of history this symbolism won out over another and earlier possibility, that of making the prayer for the Church a part of the preface. In my opinion we can see one moment or phase of this development in the Euchologion of Bishop Serapion of Thmuis (in Egypt), where Didache 9, 4, reappears, but this time in the setting of the prayers of consecration; more specifically, it appears between the consecration of the bread and the consecration of the wine. The prayer for the Church as symbolized in the gathered bread was thus retained into a period when the practice of having a community meal before the eucharist proper had long since disappeared. In this development, the symbol of the gathered bread, which had earlier been part of the blessing over the bread at the community meal, later became part of the consecration of the eucharistic bread. Later still, the prayer for the Church was removed from its place in the prayers of consecration and located after the epiclesis, where it is to be found today. The Didache thus shows us the first phase in the history of the prayer for the Church within the Christian anaphora.

We have still to consider the fourth Jewish blessing and its parallel in the Didache. This fourth blessing is the longest of all but it consists for the most part of individual petitions that probably originated at different periods. The pious Jew here addresses God as "kindly lover of men" (or "good and benevolent"), an expression that will occur frequently in Christian prefaces. Didache 10, 4 may reflect this part of the Jewish blessing, although the words in the Didache are very general. On the other hand, the very brevity of the petition in the Didache may mean that what we have here is simply a rubric for a more detailed prayer. This is all the more likely inasmuch as spontaneous prayer (or at least prayer whose precise content was not prescribed in advance) still played an important role at this period, if we may judge by Didache 10, 7.

I regard it as certain that chapter 10 of the Didache, like chapter 9, was influenced by the Jewish tradition. All the elements essential to the Jewish blessings are found in the prayer recorded in the Didache. Although the form has been Christianized and the order of the elements has been altered somewhat, we can once again see to what an extent Judaism was the cradle of Christianity.

We have also tried to show that the prayers of chapter 10 are to be located after the community meal and before eucharistic communion. This amounts to saying that what we have here is a kind of primitive praefatio. We justify this position by showing that the blessings and main petitions of the prefaces in the Christian anaphora are prefigured in the prayers of chapter 10. This thesis would be confirmed, I believe, if we took into account those resemblances between the prefaces and the Jewish blessings that have no parallel in the text of the Didache. I am thinking in particular of the short dialogue that begins with "Lift up your hearts"—"We have lifted them up to the Lord"; this is rather closely parallel to the dialogue between the father of the Jewish family (or the president of the assembly) and the fellow guests that introduces the great blessing. I am thinking, too, of the Christian custom of singing the Sanctus, which likewise is paralleled in the Jewish tradition. It is enough, however, for us to have shown that the Didache represents a kind of bridge between the Jewish tradition of blessings at table and the preface of the Christian anaphora. In the latter, the essential elements of the Jewish tradition live on, even while being profoundly transformed and enriched by the new liturgical heritage proper to the Christian faith.

Chapter 14, as we said earlier, refers to the meeting for "the breaking of bread" and "thanksgiving" that has already been described in chapters 9 and 10. It provides some further details, which we shall describe briefly.

1. The meeting takes place on "the dominical day of the Lord." Despite the pleonastic way of describing the day, the reference is doubtless to an ordinary Sunday, Sunday being the new day for specifically Christian worship. Didache 8, 1 attacks those "hypocrites" who fast on the second and fifth days of the week, instead of on the fourth and sixth. May we suppose that in emphasizing the fact that the meeting is on Sunday Didache 14, 1 is making a similar point against those who would make Saturday the preferred day for worship? We cannot say so with certainty, but the possibility is not to be excluded, since other texts from the same period show us that such a "temptation" existed. This would explain why the redactor of the Didache returns here to a subject already treated in chapters 9 and 10, and why he specifies that the community is to meet not simply on "the Lord's day" (which could mean the sabbath) but on "the dominical day of the Lord."

2. If the Sunday meeting described in Didache 14 is the same as the one of which chapters 9 and 10 speak, we must suppose that it too included a community meal. It follows that the assembly took place on Sunday evening, since the meal was evidently eaten in the evening. That is the situation reflected in the famous letter of Pliny the Younger on the Christians: they meet on Sunday evening "to eat their food which, whatever people may say of it, is ordinary and innocent. Acts 20.7, "On the first day of the week we met to break bread," is probably a confirmation that this was indeed the Christian custom. Didache 9-10 and 14 belong, therefore, to a period when eucharist and agape had not yet been separated.

3. We learn that the "breaking of bread" and the "thanksgiving" were accompanied by a confession of sins. Earlier, in Didache 4, 14, we read: "In the assembly you will confess your sins and you will not go to prayer with a bad conscience." This exhortation marks the end of the section on the "Way of Life" (chapters 1-4), which contains teaching that goes back to a Jewish source. The exhortation is found in a number of texts that are parallel to the Didache, and for this reason it is all the more interesting to see that only the Didache has the phrase "in the assembly." The addition brings the exhort tion closer to what we find in Didache 14, 1-2, and turns it into a kind of commentary on the latter.

4, 14a. In the assembly, you will confess your sins.

4, 14b. and you will not go a to prayer with a bad conscience.

14, 1. Come together on the dominical day of the Lord, break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.

14, 2. Anyone who has a quarrel with his fellow should not gather with you until he has been reconciled, lest your sacrifice be profaned.

From this we learn two things:

a) In the course of the eucharistic gathering, there was a public and communal confession of sins. We are not told at what point in the course of the liturgy the confession took place; the aorist participle ("having confessed" in 14, 1) indicates only that the confession came before communion, which would be obvious in any case. Neither are we told how the confession was made. We might think of a recitation of the Our Father which contains the petition: "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors," but the Our Father is mentioned in 8, 2, and in 8, 3 we are told that it is to be prayed thrice daily. This liturgical usage was evidently not reserved to the Sunday eucharist.

We might also think of a community prayer of the kind preserved in I Clement 60, 1-2: "Merciful and compassionate [God]. . . . forgive our sins and injustices, and failures and faults. Do not take account of every sin of your servants and handmaids, but purify us with your purifying truth. Direct our steps so that we may walk in holiness of heart and do what is good and pleasing to you."

b) But the confession of sins, even if sincere, was not always a sufficient preparation for communion. We are also told that there were cases of temporary "excommunication." If a person had a "bad conscience," he was not to take part in the community prayer. Didache 14, 2 now tells us what this "bad conscience" refers to: If there is a dispute between brother and brother, they must settle the dispute before coming to communion. The text makes it clear that this regulation affects both of the persons involved; neither should communicate before a reconciliation has been effected.

In reading this passage we think immediately of Matthew 5:23-24: "If you are bringing your offering to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar, go and be reconciled with your brother first, and then come back and your offering." This passage refers, of course, to worship in the temple at Jerusalem," but Didache 14, 2 shows that the words of Jesus were quickly adapted to the new situation of Christian worship. In this context we might also cite Mark 11:25: "And when you stand in prayer, forgive whatever you have against anybody, so that your Father in heaven may forgive your failings also." This text is confirmation of the fact that reconciliation among brothers was considered a prior condition for the forgiveness of God. We know, in fact, that Christians exchanged the kiss of peace before communion, as a sign of mutual forgiveness.41 Didache 14, 2 also reminds us of the situation described in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29: To communicate "worthily" is to communicate with respect for one's brothers and sisters.

4. I myself would not attach too much importance to the use of the word "sacrifice" as a designation of the eucharist; it occurs twice in Didache 14, but it is evidently suggested by the citation of Malachi 1.11, 14, which immediately follows. "Sacrifice" means here the sacrifice of thanksgiving of which the earliest Christian texts speak; these texts deliberately contrast this sacrifice with bloody sacrifices, whether Jewish or pagan. Nor can we prove differently by appealing to Didache 13, 3, where the prophets are called the "high priests" of community. Didache 13, 3-7 is a reassertion, in Christian form, of the Old Testament law on the tithe owed to the high priests; the passage thus has no direct relation to chapter 14. Still less can any appeal be made to chapter 15 (on the election of bishops and deacons) in order to prove that "sacrifice" in chapter 14 refers to the eucharist as a sacrifice in a specific, ministerial sense; chapter 15 is certainly a later addition.

If asked about the importance of the eucharistic texts in the Didache for the current renewal of the liturgy, I would Phasize two points:

1. The first Christian communities celebrated the eucharist in connection with a meal. Some small communities are today returning to this practice. It is clear that this implies a change of viewpoint: the eucharist is no longer being treated as a solemn ritual, a mysterious sacrifice that is to be celebrated with great pomp in a cathedral, but is becoming once again a sharing by friends of a simple daily food, and this in a familiar setting, around a table. The traditional eucharist has the advantage of giving visible manifestation to an entire local Church. The small-group eucharist has the advantage of intimacy. Could we not have both forms of the eucharist in our Churches?

2. The Didache contains this fine prayer: "Just as the bread broken was first scattered on the hills, then was gathered and became one, so let your Church be gathered from the ends of the earth into your kingdom" (9, 4). The image is a perfect one for the pilgrim Church. On the one hand, a local community, gathered around the one eucharistic bread and knowing that it is united in faith and reconciled through mutual forgiveness, realizes that it is in very truth the body of Christ. On the other hand, it is conscious that it is but a small fragment (a klasma; cf. 9, 3) of the entire body, and it prays fervently for the visible unity of all Christians. Is this not the authentic eschatological outlook Christians should have in the age of ecumenism?

In the year 95 or 96, toward the end of the reign of Domitian, "the Church of God sojourning at Rome" wrote a letter to "the Church of God sojourning at Corinth." A schism had just erupted at Corinth: one or two agitators (47, 6) were plotting against the presbyters, some of whom, despite their worthy lives, were removed from a ministry they had been exercising in a blameless manner (44, 6). The letter provides no detailed information of the occasion for such a plot.

The Roman Church, which sends the letter, knows itself to possess an authority to which the Church addressed must submit. The Roman Church issues orders and expects the Church at Corinth to obey them. It expects that the deputies sent to Corinth will soon return with news that peace and harmony have been re-established and order restored (65, I). And, as a matter of fact, Corinth does submit: Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in the time of Pope Soter (166-175), writes to the latter that the letter of Clement to the Church of Corinth is still read in the liturgical assembly. The respect thus given to the letter seems comparable to the respect given to the Scriptures, but we cannot conclude from this that Clement's letter was in fact put on a par with the Scriptures.

It is not known whether the Corinthian presbyters who had been deposed approached the Church of Rome as a court of appeals, told of their problem, and asked Rome's intervention, or whether the Church of Rome came to know of the situation at Corinth and took the initiative in intervening in the affairs of another Church. In either case, the conclusion seems inescapable that the present letter is, the words of P. Batiffol, "the epiphany of the Roman primacy" Far from excusing itself for interfering in the affairs of another Church, the Church of Rome asks pardon rather for not having intervened sooner, as a person asks pardon for having delayed in fulfilling an obligation. The reason for the delay, we are told, is "the sudden series of misfortunes and calamities that have struck" the Church of Rome (1, 1).

The letter from Rome does not tell us its author's name, but is presented as a message from one Church to another. Very ancient tradition claims, however, that the letter was the work of Pope St. Clement, fourth bishop of Rome; it is the only authentic work of his that has survived.

What testimony about the eucharist does Clement's letter to the Corinthians supply? To begin with, the noun eucharistia does not occur at all, while the verb eucharistein occurs twice (38, 2 and 4). The meaning of the verb would be simply "to give thanks (to God)," if we choose to treat it as an example of classical Greek. However, Clement's thinking is thoroughly biblical; he constantly cites the Old Testament in the Septuagint Greek translation in which eucharistein translates the Hebrew verb barak, "to bless." In all likelihood, then, Clement's eucharistein refers to the blessings addressed to God on account of his various gifts and of all that he himself is.

Even if Clement does not use the terms that later became technical designations for the eucharist, the reality is present m the letter as far as the sacrificial aspect of the eucharist is concerned. It is spoken of as having replaced the various sacrifices of the Old Testament and thus as being itself a sacrifice. It has been instituted by the Lord and is closely connected with the hierarchy, whose essential function it is to offer sacrifices. These statements are found in chapters 40, 1-5, and 41, 1-2. To appreciate their full meaning, we must situate them in their context. A rapid sketch of this context will not be out of place here.

Since its foundation by Paul the Apostle, the Church of Corinth had provided magnificent examples of the Christian virtues and had been a model for other Christian Churches (1-2). Then jealousy (zelos) entered the picture and has caused "worthless men to rise up against the worthy" (3, 3). The jealousy that we see to be the cause of rivalries and hatreds in the Old Testament from Cain to Saul (3-4) is also at work now, as the story of "the athletes in the days closest to us" shows (5, 1). Clement then goes on to give an extremely valuable testimony (5-6) concerning the apostolic origins of the Church of Rome, the martyrdom of Peter, the apostolate and martyrdom of Paul, and the persecution which is raging "among us" (6, I).

In order to fight against jealousy, we must obey "the renowned and holy rule given us by our tradition"(7, 2). This rule teaches repentance and conversion16 in accordance with the Scriptures (7-8). It also prescribes obedience and humility (9-15), for humility begets peace, gentleness, obedience, and sincerity. The example of Christ, who came in humility and was wounded for our sins, was prefigured long before by the prophets and many others whose lives are an invitation to us to return to the peace ordained in the beginning by "the Father and Creator of the entire universe" (16-20). The harmony that rules in the heavens, the seas, and the bowels of the earth is a further lesson in harmonious unity. Clement seems here to be echoing one or other Stoic philosopher; the Stoics, as is well known, taught that the world is harmoniously ordered.

Christians must therefore live in a manner worthy of God, respect the authorities, honor the presbyters, and apply themselves to virtue by keeping ever before them their faith in Christ and cultivating sincerity and a reverential fear of God, the sovereign judge and author of that resurrection "Of which he gave the first fruits when he raised the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead" (24, 1). Clement sees an intimation of the resurrection in the succession of the seasons, in the coming of day after night, and even in the legend of the phoenix which arises from its own ashes (Clement does not seem to have seriously doubted the truth of this story).

God is faithful to his promises. He sees and hears everything; this divine power becomes a ceaseless invitation to holiness (26-30). So does the example of the patriarchs (31-34) and the magnificent blessings God has prepared for those who love him. "Such is the path, beloved, by which we shall find our savior, Jesus Christ, the high priest of our offerings (ton archihierea ton prosphoron hemon), the protector and helper of our weakness" (36,1). Such a use of sacrificial language is important in view of what will be said later.

Chapter 37, 1-4, alludes to the discipline of the Roman armies, a discipline that made a strong impression on Clement; he sees it as a model for the order that should reign in the Church. The order within the human body, in which the members are subordinate to the head leads him to make the same point (37, 5). It is necessary that "the body which we form in Christ Jesus be preserved in its integrity" and that "each person be subject to his neighbor, according to the gift assigned him" (38, 1). Order should be seen everywhere.

The conclusion is that order is indispensable to the Church of God: not any order but the order willed by God. Human beings "who live in houses made only of clay" (39, 5) and who nonetheless arrogate to themselves a power that is not from God, are evidently insane. Clement has no soft feelings toward those who incited the revolt against the presbyters of Corinth.

It is at this point that Clement speaks of sacrifices and the hierarchy. Here is what he says:

40, 1. All this is evident to us. We have studied the depths of the divine knowledge and must therefore do in proper order (taxei) all that the Master bids us do at determined moments. 2. He has bidden us celebrate the offerings (prosphoras) and the services (leitourgias) not randomly or without order but at determined times and hours. 3. He himself has determined by his supreme will where and by whom he wants them celebrated, so that everything may be done in a holy manner, according to his good pleasure, and in a way acceptable to his will. 4. Those, therefore, who present their offerings (prosphoras) at the appointed time are acceptable and blessed, for in obeying the prescriptions of the Master they do not go astray. 5. The high priest has been given functions proper to him (idiai leitourgiai); the priests have special places (idios topos) assigned to them; the Levites have their special services (idiai diakoniai); and the layman is bound by the prescriptions for the laity.

41, 1. Brothers, let each of us please God in the rank proper to him; let him have a good conscience and not violate the rule (kanona) established for his ministry (leitourgias), but act with dignity (en semnoteti). 2. Not everywhere, brothers, are sacrifices (thusiai) offered—be they perpetual (endelechismou) or votive (euchon) or for sin and negligence— but only at Jerusalem. Even at Jerusalem, they are not offered (prospheretai) in every place, but only on the altar (thusiasterion) before the sanctuary, after the offering has been carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers mentioned above. 3. Those, therefore, who act contrary to the order that is according to God's will are punished by death. 4. As you can see, brothers, the higher the knowledge of which we have been judged worthy, the greater the danger to which we are exposed.

Clement goes on to explain the origin of the hierarchy and to show the close connection between the hierarchy and the exercise of cultic functions:

42, 1. Jesus Christ was sent from God, and the apostles were evangelized for our sake by the Lord Jesus Christ. 2. Christ, then, came from God, and the apostles from Christ; in both ways, the apostles were in proper order in accordance with God's will. 3. Having received their instructions and having been fully convinced by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. ... 4. They proclaimed the good news from place to place and village to village. They tested their first fruits [i.e., converts] and appointed them to be overseers (episkopous) and ministers (diakonous) of the future believers.

After some words on the rivalries that arose within the Jewish priesthood in the time of Moses and Aaron (43), Clement adds:

44, 2. [The apostles] established the rule that when they [the overseers and ministers the apostles had appointed] should die, other tested (dedokimasmenoi) men should succeed them in their cultic ministry (leitourgian). 3. We regard it as unjust, therefore, to remove from their cultic functions (leitourgias) those who were put in charge by the apostles or by other eminent men (ellogimon andron) with the approbation of the entire Church. ... 4. It is no small sin for us to take the functions of overseership (episkopes) fromjnen who have presented the offerings (prosenegkotas ta dora) in a blameless and holy manner.

We note, first of all, the parallelism Clement sets up between Old Testament cultic acts and those of the New Testament; the same terms are used to describe both. The principal act of the Mosaic cultus was the offering of sacrifices in accordance with a minutely detailed set of ritual prescriptions; it follows that the principal act of New Testament worship is likewise a sacrifice. Clement does not use the word "eucharist," but he evidently knows the reality to which we point when we use this word. There is no doubt that in his eyes the eucharist corresponds to, while also bringing to perfection, the sacrifices of the old law, and that it is a sacrifice.

The offering of sacrifices in the Old Testament and indeed everything involved in the public exercise of worship required the intervention of the Levitic priesthood. So too do the rites of the New Testament require the intervention of a priesthood which is the specific attribute of a hierarchy. The rites are the main function of overseers who have been appointed either by the apostles, who themselves received their powers from Christ, or by other eminent men whom the apostles appointed as their successors. The overseers are also called presbyters, for in Clement's day the two terms had not yet everywhere acquired the different meanings with which we are familiar and which are exemplified in the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch about a decade later.

This priesthood (hierosune: 43, 2) is a special reality not possessed by those who have not received it by transmission from the apostles or their successors; such non-possessors are laymen. Under the old law the various members of the Levitic priesthood had their special functions. So too, under the new law, there are differing functions for the overseer-presbyters and for the ministers. It is unthinkable for Clement that the members of the hierarchy and the faithful should have equal roles in the celebration of the liturgical sacrifice. No, it is for the overseers and presbyters alone to "present the gifts," and they must do it in a manner beyond reproach. Clement thus gives the eucharist a clearly ecclesiastical character.

The cultic service of the members of the hierarchy is not carried out according to the whim of the individual or the creativity of a more or less fruitful imagination or the more or less successful innovations of the celebrants. Everything must be done in order (taxei), because there is a rule (canon), established by Christ and handed on by the apostles, which each one must follow if he is to remain faithful to the will of Christ. Here again the parallel with the Old Testament holds.

We should remember this appeal to tradition, which was issued before the end of the first century. The tradition goes back to the apostles and, via the apostles, to Christ, and is a rule, which no one may legitimately violate.

In describing the liturgical and sacrifical institutions of the Church Clement uses, as we have seen, the terminology of the Greek Bible, which translated as best it could the Hebrew words for the various categories of sacrifice. He speaks of thusiai, leitourgiai, prosphorai, euchai, and sacrifices for sin that were offered on the altar (40-41). In 44.4, he grieves that men who had presented the gifts (ta dora) in a holy manner were deposed from their overseership. In 35, 12, and 52, 3, he speaks of the sacrifice of praise (thusia aineseos) with explicit reference to Psalm 49 (50): 19. We may be tempted to see in this last phrase a simple reference to the public prayer that had the psalms for its center. But the Septuagint uses the phrase to translate the Hebrew todah, which, according to 2 Chronicles 29:31; 33:16, and Leviticus 7:14; 22:29, meant an offering of victims, accompanied by a presentation of unleavened bread (cf. Leviticus 7:11; Amos 4:5).

In Clement's view, then, the various types of Old Testament sacrifice are summed up in the unique sacrificial act that is the celebration of the eucharist. This celebration was established and regulated by Christ, while the apostles added further details. In it, the overseers and presbyters act as high priests (archihiereus) and present the prosphorai and dora to God. In point of fact, the action of the overseers and presbyters is ministerial, since it is Jesus Christ who is "the high priest of our offerings" (36, 1). Clement nowhere sets down a theory of the Christian sacrifice; he uses ideas well known in the Roman Church in whose name he speaks, and in the Church of Corinth, which he is addressing. His readers were familiar with the teaching on sacrifice of the author of the Letter to the Hebrews and by St. Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians (11:23-29).

Clement continues his exhoration by asking his readers not to "rend and tear the members of Christ" (46, 7). The Corinthian schism "has led many astray, discouraged many, plunged many into doubt, and brought grief upon us all" (46, 9). Yet the state of tension is unrelaxed. Everyone, therefore, should read once again the exhortations and advice Paul once gave in his letter to the Corinthian community as he urged them to put an end to factions. The present schism is more serious than the divisions Paul experienced. Any and every division must be eliminated so that men may live in love (47-50).

The authors of the schism are urged to acknowledge their sin and repent (51-52). Long ago, Moses interceded with God for his guilty people and offered himself in their stead (53); so too, those who have caused the schism should go into exile so that peace and harmony between Christians and their presbyters may be restored (54-56). The community must pray for these guilty individuals whom Clement urgently exhorts to submit to the presbyters and cease usurping a place that does not belong to them (57-58). If the schismatics prove stubborn they are putting themselves in serious danger (59, 1).

It is at this point that Clement launches into a prayer the lyric quality of which will be obvious to everyone. The prayer has become justly famous; in style it reminds us of the eastern eucharistic anaphoras, especially that of Serapion of Thmuis.

2. In continual prayer and supplication we will ask the Creator of all things that through his beloved child Jesus Christ he would preserve intact throughout the world the counted number of the chosen. It is through Jesus that he has called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the full knowledge of the glory of his name,

3. In order that we might hope in your name which is the original source of every creature. You opened the eyes of our heart so that we might know you who alone are the Most High in the heights of heaven, the Holy One who rests among the holy ones. You cast down the arrogance of the proud; you reduce to nothingness the designs of the heathen; you exalt the humble, you cast down the proud; you enrich and impoverish; you take life and you save and give life; you alone are the benefactor of the spirits and the God of all flesh. You look into the abysses and inspect the works of men. You help men in their perils, you save the despairing. You are the Creator and overseer (episkopos) of every spirit. You multiply the nations on the earth. You have chosen from all of them those who love you through your beloved child Jesus Christ, through whom you have instructed, sanctified, and honored us.

4. We pray you, sovereign Master, to be our helper and protector. Save those of us who are afflicted; have pity on the lowly, lift up those who have fallen; show yourself to the needy, heal the sick, bring back those of your people who have gone astray; feed the hungry, free our prisoners, raise up the strengthless. Let all the nations acknowledge that you alone are God, that Jesus Christ is your child, and that we are your people and the sheep of your pasture.

1. For you have manifested the everlasting constitution of the world through your deeds. Lord, you created the world, you who are faithful through all generations, marvelous in power and magnificence, wise in creating and prudent in establishing what exists, good in all that we see, and faithful, merciful, and compassionate to those who trust in you. Forgive our sins and injustices and failures and faults.

2. Do not take account of every sin of your servants and handmaids, but purify us with your purifying truth. Direct our steps so that we may walk in holiness of heart and do what is good and pleasing to you and to our princes.

3. Yes, sovereign Master, make your face shine on us so that we may enjoy happiness in peace, protected by your hand and freed from all sin by your upraised arm; and free us from those who hate us unjustly.

4. Grant harmony and peace to us and all the inhabitants of the earth, as you gave harmony and peace to our fathers when they called upon you in a holy manner with faith and truth. Make us obedient to your omnipotent and glorious name, and to our princes and rulers on earth.

1. It is you, sovereign Master, who gave them kingly power by your magnificent, indescribable might, so that we might acknowledge the glory and honor you have given them, and might be subject to them and not oppose your will. To them, Lord, grant health, peace, harmony, and stability, that they may without stumbling exercise the authority you have given them.

2. It is you, sovereign Master, heavenly king of the ages, who give the sons of men glory, honor and power over earthly things. Lord, direct their purpose according to what is good and pleasing in your sight, so that they may exercise in peace, gentleness, and piety the power you have given them, and may find you propitious to them.

3. You alone have the power to bestow all blessings and to do even greater things with us. We praise you through Jesus Christ the high priest and protector of our souls. Through him be given to you glory and majesty, now and in generation after generation and through age upon age. Amen.

Clement has not forgotten the concerns that made him address to the Corinthians his exhortations regarding peace and unity. They continue to appear throughout this prayer from the beginning. The prayer is thus an integral part of the letter.

Clement urgently asks the sovereign Master and Creator of the universe to "preserve intact throughout the world the counted number of the chosen" (59, 2). A few lines earlier, he had said: "He who carries out the commandments and orders of God will be enrolled and included in the number of those who are saved by Jesus Christ" (58, 2). The rebels at Corinth risk placing themselves outside that number by their sin and their stubborn refusal to change; it is important, therefore, to win their conversion from God, so that they may profit to the full by the salvation Jesus Christ has brought. Is Clement invoking here the doctrine of predestination? The language he uses emphasizes only the divine foreknowledge, by which God knows in advance everything that will happen, even before man begins to use his free will.

Clement emphasizes the eminent part played by the Lord Jesus in the execution of God's loving plan for men. Jesus is the child of God, his beloved child, and it is through him that the Father has called us from the darkness to light, from ignorance to the full knowledge of his name, so that we may hope in that name. It is through Jesus, his beloved child, that the Father has "instructed, sanctified, and honored us" (59, 3). Redemption is explained as bringing us the true knowledge of God our Father, a holiness that consists first and foremost in liberation from sin, and honor. The "honor" undoubtedly is the honor of being a child of God, and living the life of God while still on earth, as we look forward to living that same life in heaven where we will see God as he is. Instead of "honored" we might perhaps say "glorified," although "glorified" would be doxazein rather than timan.

The movement and pattern of the prayer are to be noted. First, God's power and prerogatives are recalled. Petitions are then made to him in behalf of the afflicted, the lowly, the fallen, the needy, the sick, the straying, the hungry, the faint-hearted. The impression given is of a kind of litany or at least of a series of intentions such as we find in the Good Friday liturgy. The prayer thus resembles the prayer of the faithful or general intercessions which the reform initiated by Vatican II has now made part of the Mass and the Office. It will be worth our while to look more closely at Clement's prayer.

The first part, in which there is a shift from the third person to the second, begins with praise of the greatness and omnipotence of God (59, 3). From him comes everything that exists and to him men owe all the blessings they have. His will is to cast down the proud and exalt the lowly; he is the benefactor of spirits and the helper of men in their dangers; he sees everything and nothing escapes him. All nations owe their existence to him, and out of these many and varied peoples he has chosen those who are to love him through Jesus Christ and by means of the grace which Christ has merited.

The prayer, which follows (59, 4) asks the Master for help in favor of the afflicted and the lowly. God is asked to bring back those of his people who have gone astray, to heal the weak, to free the prisoner, to feed the hungry. May all peoples acknowledge God as the only true God and Jesus Christ as his child; may they acknowledge that we are his people. In this first part, praise of God is in the foreground; prayer of petition follows as a consequence, and whatever blessings that prayer may win will contribute in turn to the glory of God. The structure and style are evidently those of the biblical "blessing."

The second part again begins with praise of God (60, 1). It offers homage to God as Creator of the world and as the God who remains faithful through all generations. He is infinitely wise and good, merciful and compassionate. The prayer then moves on to petition (end of 60, 1; 60, 2) that asks God to forgive our sins. Clement is a good psychologist and does not see evil only in the Church of Corinth; he himself and the Church of Rome, in whose name he speaks, have committed sins that require God's pardon; everyone needs to trust in God's mercy. Since God is indeed merciful, let him deign not to keep an exact count of the sins of his servants and handmaids. Let him purify his people by means of his truth and direct our steps so that we may walk in holiness of heart and do only what is pleasing to him and to our princes.

The mention of the princes (archontes) is unexpected. It points to a fact that the Letter to Diognetus will emphasize later on, namely, that Christians intend to obey the laws of the country in which they live, and not in any way to disturb the functioning of civic institutions; they mean to be first rate citizens.

Clement now asks God to make his face shine on us, to give us peace, protect us with his hand, and free us with his mighty arm; these formulas recall the wonders God worked in behalf of his people at their exodus from Egypt (60, 3-4). Clement begs God for harmony and peace "for us" and for all the inhabitants of the earth, the kind of harmony and peace God once gave to "our fathers" when they were faithful to him.

The third part of the prayer (end of 60,4 and 61) asks God that we be obedient not only to his name (our evident duty) but also "to our princes and rulers on earth." In Clement's mind, there isn't the slightest doubt about the origin of their power: it is from God. The power of princes and rulers is given them by a wise and good God for the sake of the peoples over whom these rulers have authority. In their leaders, even their temporal leaders, subjects must see a participation in God's authority; that is what legitimates the religious submission they give such rulers. Evidently, temporal rulers should likewise have the wisdom and good sense to know that their power is limited by divine law and that they have no right to command anything contrary to that law.

It may seem strange that Clement should urge upon his readers submission to the orders of princes, at the very time when his Roman Church has just endured tribulations and interference from the imperial authorities and when it was being forced to think back to the persecution it had endured in Nero's time. Christian writers have not shown any excessive affection for Rome, the Babylon of the Apocalypse (16:19; chapters 17-18); they sometimes thought of the Empire as the devil's tool, even though the peace the Empire established helped in the spread of the gospel. Yet Clement's thought is in a direct line with that of St. Paul who says that all authority is from God and to resist it is to resist God (Romans 13:1-7), and with that of St. Peter who says that we must be subject to established authority for the sake of God (1 Peter 2:13).

In the days of St. Peter and St. Paul the emperor was Nero, a man whose cruelty knew no bounds, as Tacitus and the Christian writers tell us. Yet Christians never failed to pray for the civil authorities. We all remember what St. Paul says in his First Letter to Timothy: "My advice is that, first of all, there should be prayers offered for everyone— petitions, intercessions and thanksgiving—and especially for kings and others in authority, so that we may be able to live religious and reverent lives in peace and quiet" (2:1-2). Later, the Apologists reminded their readers that while Christians refused to offer sacrifices to the divine emperor, since their religion forbade them to give a human being the honor due to God alone, they nonetheless prayed constantly to God for the health of the emperor, the prosperity of the empire, its victory over its enemies, and peace in the world.

Clement reminds his own readers that kingly power, which is supreme power in the temporal order, comes from God as a gift from his power and generosity. Subjects must bear in mind "the glory and honor you have given them" in giving their temporal rulers a share in the divine power over men. For these leaders Clement asks "health, peace, harmony, and stability" (61, 1), all of these being necessary if rulers are to exercise their authority with wisdom and moderation, and not turn into tyrants. After a brief repetition in which he addresses God as "heavenly king of the ages" and attributes to him "glory, honor, and power over earthly things," Clement utters a special prayer for these men in authority: "Direct their purpose according to what is good and pleasing in your sight, so that they may exercise in peace, gentleness, and piety the power you have given them, and may find you propitious to them" (61, 2).

The ending of the entire prayer (61, 3) is a restatement of God's power and goodness: he is able to bestow all the favors asked of him, and even greater blessings than these. Clement addresses his own praise and that of the Church (exhomologein, "to praise," is a liturgical term designating the praise and blessing offered to God) "through Jesus Christ, the high priest and protector of our souls." The praise finds expression in a somewhat fully developed doxology; there are a number of these doxologies scattered throughout the letter. From them we may easily infer that Clement was a Jew and almost incapable of writing the divine name without immediately adding a formula of praise and blessing; at the same time, we infer that he was a Hellenistic Jew, because he used the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament.

What is the character of this prayer, which comes almost at the end of Clement's letter to the Corinthians? It is surely not a eucharistic prayer in the sense we normally give the term, for it does not contain the account of institution or the words of consecration. At the same time, however, by its lyricism and its stylistic likeness to prayers for the broad intentions of the Church it reminds us of those prayers which, according to St. Justin, the president of the assembly of brothers used to give thanks epi polu: "according to his ability," or "abundantly." In other words, Clement's prayer gives every indication of being an example of the eucharistic prayer as organized at Rome, a eucharistic prayer that may have provided inspiration for the Church of Corinth at its liturgical gatherings. The account of institution and the anamnesis would fit in quite naturally immediately after chapter 59.

In any event, everything in the letter of Clement to the Corinthians — the sections on sacrifices and on the origin of the hierarchy, as well as the final prayer which we have been discussing—focuses our attention on the mystery of the eucharist, as the sacrifice prefigured in the Old Testament sacrifices, and on its celebration.

The testimony of Ignatius of Antioch is extremely important for the life of the Church, even in our day. He gave his witness at a turning point of history, a time when intense activity was being devoted to organizing communities, fostering the liturgical life, and developing Christian thought. It was a time when the first Christians, those who had known Christ, were disappearing from the scene.

It was also a difficult time. Tensions had arisen under the influence of doctrines which, in some circles, were even undermining the authentic faith. These difficulties and threats, however, did not stop the forward thrust of the Church but, on the contrary, enabled communities to strengthen their sense of identity and to break through various constraining limits in order to bring the gospel to the nations of the known world. This is the context in which we must see Ignatius of Antioch.

Ignatius, born a pagan, was bishop of the community at Antioch at the beginning of the second century. Antioch was a city in which East and West met, and it exercised influence over the Churches of Asia Minor and Macedonia. About the year 110 a short-lived but violent persecution broke out against the Church of Antioch, and Ignatius was one of its first victims. In the reign of Emperor Trajan (85-117) this bishop of Antioch, according to tradition, was arrested, tried, and condemned to the beasts; then, "chained to ten leopards" (Rom. 5:1), he was sent to Rome in a convoy of prisoners. It was probably at Rome that he underwent his martyrdom.

Along the route from Syria to Rome the Christian communities assembled to offer comfort and courage to their brothers in chains. Ignatius stopped at Philadelphia (7, 1), then at Smyrna where he was welcomed by Bishop Polycarp and greeted by delegations from the Christian communities of Ephesus, Magnesia (near the mouth of the Meander River), and Tralles (Eph. 1:2; Rom. 9:3). From Smyrna he wrote a letter of thanks to the communities of the three cities just named, as well as a letter to the Church of Rome. In this most beautiful of all his letters he asks the faithful of that Church not to take any steps that would deprive him of the joy of martyrdom. Ignatius was taken next to Troas, where he wrote to the Christians of Philadelphia and Smyrna and to Bishop Polycarp. These seven letters have survived.

The letters, written on the journey to exile and martyrdom, are "earnest pleas for unity of faith and of sacrifice." They were to be read over and over again in the Churches of the first centuries, for there are "none more vehement or more poignant Ignatius' letters are full of short and highly compact phrases; the style is rough, for he had to write swiftly as circumstances might allow. But their value as witness is immense, for they are an outpouring of enthusiasm and passionate love; they bring us the words of a mystic, in the fullest sense of the word, whose desire is to reach his goal as quickly as possible: to meet Christ, to be united to him in his sacrifice, to possess him forever:

"I beg you ... let me be the food of beasts, that through them I may find God. . . . Then I will truly be a disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world does not see even my body. ... It is good for me to die so that I may be united to Jesus Christ. ... It is he whom I seek, the one who died for us. It is he whom I seek, the one who rose for us. ... Allow me to be an imitator of the suffering of my God. . . . My earthly desire has been crucified, and there is no fire left in me for loving matter; there is rather a living water in me that murmurs and says within me: 'Come to the Father'" (Rom. 4-7).

Most importantly, the letters of Ignatius provide us with very valuable information about life in the Christian communities at the beginning of the second century. This life was built closely around the bishop; its chief points of reference were baptism and the eucharist; it flowered in faith and love and in works of mercy, even while it resisted the gnostic threat and the various doctrinal errors that were abroad in the Church of Asia. Ignatius exhorts these young Christian communities to remain closely united to Christ and the Church, to maintain the bonds of faith and love, under the leadership of the bishop and around the one altar whereon the one bread, which is the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, is broken in the eucharist, the sacrament of unity par excellence.

What place does the eucharist hold in the thinking of Ignatius? We shall begin our answer by analyzing the texts in which the term eucharistia is used. It occurs four times: once in the letter to the Ephesians (13, 1), once in the letter to the Philadelphians (4), and twice in the letter to the Smyrnaeans (7, 1; 8, 1). But what does the word mean? Is the meaning the same in all four texts? This is what we must determine. We shall begin with the passage from the letter to the Ephesians, which presents some difficulty.

Ignatius urges the faithful to assemble more frequently: "Make every effort to assemble more frequently eis eucharistian theou kai eis doxan. For when you assemble frequently the powers of Satan are overcome, and his work of destruction is itself destroyed by your concordant faith" (Eph. 13, 1).

How are we to understand the Greek phrase? The translators and commentators do not seem quite sure. A. Lelong translates: "to offer God your eucharist and your praise," but he is careful to note: "Eucharistian seems to have both the general meaning of 'thanksgiving' and the narrower meaning of 'eucharist'; the eucharist, after all, is the supreme act of thanksgiving and the principal rite celebrated by the Christian assemblies."

T. Camelot likewise seems unsure. He translates eis eucharistian theou kai eis doxan as "to offer God thanksgiving and praise," but he says in a note: "Eucharistia here means a prayer of thanksgiving to the glory of God, but it also means the eucharist, the memorial and repetition of the Last Supper where Jesus gave thanks over the bread and the cup (Luke 22:19-20 and parallels). This is the first example of the technical use of eucharistia; it occurs again in Phil 4 and Smyrn. 7, 1, and 8, I." Here, then, Camelot connects thanksgiving and eucharist to the point of giving eucharistia its technical meaning. Elsewhere, however, he says that the meaning of the term is not always quite the same. In Eph. 13, 1, eucharistia should be translated as "thanksgiving," whereas "in other passages the meaning is more precise and the word has become a technical term (Smyrn 7, 1; 8, 1), referring to the liturgical commemoration of the Lord's Supper."

J. de Watteville, following the lead of A. Hamman, prefers to translate eucharistia as "eucharist" and not as "thanksgiving."

What conclusion shall we draw? It can be said that if the word eucharistia is not fully clear in Eph. 13, 1, in the other texts we shall be analyzing (Smyrn. 7, 1; 8, 1; Phil 4) it does have a technical meaning and refers to the liturgical commemoration of the Supper during which the offerings are changed into the body and blood of the Lord and received as food at communion. We need not be surprised that the meaning of eucharistia should vary at a time when the later technical meaning was just being established. We should also realize, however, that variation does not mean opposition; after all, the supreme act of thanksgiving is the memorial of the Lord's Supper, that is, the eucharist in the technical sense.

In Eph. 13, 1, Ignatius associates eucharistia and praise, just as in Smyrn. 7, 1, he associates eucharistia and prayer. Moreover, he urges the Ephesians to assemble more frequently because "when you assemble frequently the powers of Satan are overcome, and his work of destruction is itself destroyed by your concordant faith." According to Eph. 13, 1, then, the powers of Satan are overcome when the community gathers. But does not Eph. 20, 2 tell us that when "all of you together" assemble "in one faith" and "undivided harmony" it is in order to "break one bread which is a remedy bestowing immortality, an antidote preventing death and giving life in Jesus Christ forever"? In the latter text the eucharist is a remedy and an antidote; it purifies. The two texts together yield an important conclusion: it seems at the very least that the more frequent gatherings which Ignatius urges upon the Ephesians must have included the celebration of the eucharist in an atmosphere of faith, prayer, and thanksgiving. That, certainly, is the atmosphere we find in the next three texts we shall examine.

Ignatius urges the Philadelphians to see unity in the eucharist:

"Be careful then to participate in only the one eucharist, for there is only one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup to unite us in his blood, one altar just as there is one bishop with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow servants, so that whatever you do you do according to God" (Phil. 4).

This text is very important. It shows that the eucharist, as the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, is a sacrament of unity. It also brings out Ignatius' passionate longing for the unity of all in Christ. This unity in faith and love is effected by the eucharist. The reasoning is solid.

Ignatius is putting the community on guard against those who are pushing to schism; they follow a line of thinking that is alien to Christianity and are out of harmony with the passion of Christ. Being out of harmony with the passion of Christ, they are at odds with God and the bishop and do harm to the Church. Ignatius urges his correspondents that if they want to preserve unity and to live in Jesus Christ, they should participate in only the one eucharist. The reason for so acting is simple: "There is only one flesh (sarx) of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup to unite us in his blood, one altar just as there is one bishop with the presbytery and deacons." The unity of the eucharist is grounded in the unity of the flesh of Christ. Because there is but one flesh of Christ, there can be but one eucharist, and that is the one eucharist in which the Philadelphians can participate. This eucharist is the flesh of Christ.

Sarx ("flesh") is the biblical word St. John uses in his Prologue when he wishes to tell us that the Word became "flesh" (John 1.14), and again in chapter 6 when he says that the "flesh" of Christ is truly food (6.55-56). His flesh is the source of eternal life: "The bread that I shall give is my flesh (sarx), for the life of the world" (6.51). Sarx is used to bring out the reality, the authenticity of Christ's human nature in its concrete reality, and that same authenticity must be attributed both to the Word's becoming flesh in the incarnation and to Christ's giving up his flesh to eat in the eucharist. At every point there is the same flesh, the one sarx, of Christ. The reality of Christ's human flesh in his incarnation and the reality of his eucharistic flesh are the objects of one and the same faith.

Ignatius will make the same point in his letter to the Smyrnaeans. For the moment, we may say that as Ignatius sees it, the eucharist gives us the authentic, historical flesh of Christ. That is why there can be no doubt about the meaning of eucharistia in this passage from the letter to the Philadelphians. "Here, it is the technical term for the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, and for the sacrifice which Christians offer."

This meaning is pinpointed and confirmed by the words cup and altar. There is only "one cup to unite us in his blood." How can this cup be anything but the cup from which Christians drink the blood of Christ at the moment of communion, thus rendering their union even closer because now they have all drunk from the one cup containing the blood of the one Christ? But even more is being said: Communion in the blood of Christ is eis henosin ton haimatos autou. The prepositional phrase expresses the movement or finality of something in the process of being fully realized: specifically, communion in the blood of Christ looks to a union that is constantly being effected and that is as perfect as the act leading to it.

Various writers have sought to bring out this fullness of meaning in Ignatius' words. Lelong, for example, explains the words "to unite us in his blood" as meaning: "'So that the union of all the faithful may result from their common participation in the one cup that contains the blood of Jesus Christ.' In the earliest Fathers, the eucharist is the principal symbol of and indeed the principal factor in the unity of the Church." P. Batiffol sees in the words of Ignatius a reference to St. Paul (1 Corinthians 10:16): "We should have but a single eucharist because there is a single cup showing that his blood is one; Ignatius is alluding to the First Letter to the Corinthians: 'The cup ... is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?"

According to O. Perler, we do not bring out the full meaning if we translate: "There is but a single cup to unite us in his blood." Ignatius has in mind the accounts of institution in Paul and Luke: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Corinthians 11:25) "which will be poured out for you" (Luke 22:20). He wants to convey to us "the unifying outpouring of blood on the cross which becomes mysteriously present on the altar so as to unite us by the blood of the Lamb slain and in him: a single cup for union by his blood and in him, a single altar."

Eis henosin ton haimatos autou is here found in an eminently sacrificial context, for it is related to the passion of Christ (3, 3) and has in view the union of all with the one sacrifice of Christ; this union is accomplished through communion with his flesh and blood at the celebration of the eucharist, which is the sacrament of the covenant.

There is a single altar just as there is a single bishop with the presbytery and deacons. The altar is called the place of sacrifice or thusiasterion. It is one, just as Christ (cf. Hebrews 13.10) and the eucharist and the Church are each one. For Ignatius the thusiasterion is the altar as symbol of the Church's unity. It is from the altar, the place of sacrifice, that the believer receives the bread of life.

As symbol of the Church's unity and as place of sacrifice, the altar is the holiest of all places; there, gathered around the bishop and his presbytery, the community celebrates the eucharist in unity. This union is written in the hearts of the faithful, for it is proportioned to their union with Christ and therefore to their faith and love; it is deepened through the sharing of the same bread and the same cup.

As for the bishop, it can be said that in Ignatius' view the entire cultic life of the Church has him for its center and focus. He holds the place of God (Magn. 6, 1; Tral 3, 1); he is the visible image of the invisible Christ (Eph. 1, 3). "Apart from him it is not permitted to baptize or hold an agape; whereas everything that he approves is also pleasing to God. Consequently, everything done with him is safe and valid" (Smyrn. 8, 2). Everything done with him will be in accordance with God.

Ignatius's thinking evidently rests at every point on a keen sense of unity: one flesh of Christ, one cup of his blood, one altar, one bishop. These various expressions explain and justify the existence of the one eucharist, while at the same time they tell us the meaning of the eucharist. The eucharist is a communion in the body and blood of Christ, in his flesh that he took in the incarnation and in which he suffered his passion. The eucharist is the sacrament of covenant, and it is a sacrifice. Since it unites all in Christ and among themselves, it cannot be celebrated except under the leadership of the bishop and his presbytery.

In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius takes up the cudgels against the heretics we know as the docetists. "They abstain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, the flesh that suffered for our sins, and that the Father in his goodness raised this flesh up again. Those who thus reject the gift of God die amid their disputes. They will profit by practicing charity, so that they too may rise" (Smyrn. 1, 1).

This text is very beautiful and very important. After criticizing those who refuse to admit that Christ took flesh and who end by rejecting him entirely (5, 2), Ignatius here attacks others who deny that the flesh of Christ was real in his passion and resurrection and who are thus led to deny the reality of that same flesh in the eucharist. Evidently, these various groups were dealing with the same problem and applying the same kind of reasoning.

In the view of the docetists, Christ is by nature divine and therefore could not sully himself by contact with flesh; any bodily life he might have could only be an outward appearance, an illusion. Since he was not born of a woman and did not have a real body, he could not die on the cross or rise from the dead. Having thus done away with the scandal of a God taking flesh, that is, with the scandal of the incarnation, the docetists logically proceeded to empty the eucharist of its meaning: Christ did not take flesh, and therefore his flesh could not be present in the eucharist.

Such is the reasoning Ignatius reconstructs, and it holds together. The eucharist is the real flesh of Christ; eucharistic flesh and historical flesh are one and the same. The reality of Christ's flesh in the incarnation and the reality of his flesh in the eucharist are inseparable (one and the same flesh in both mysteries), so that errors in Christology inevitably affect our understanding of the eucharist. J. Lebreton makes this point very clearly with regard to both St. John and St. Ignatius: "For John, as for Ignatius, the doctrine of the Christ and the doctrine of the eucharist are linked to the point of being inseparable. ... In Ignatius' thinking, belief in the reality of Christ's life-giving flesh has immediate consequences for eucharistic theology."

Ignatius' thinking is eminently Christological; he sees all aspects of the Christian life as forming an interlocking whole, so that if one denies any aspect of the mystery of Christ, one will ultimately be led to a denial of the reality of Christ himself in his fullness. This is surely the thinking that lies behind Ignatius' statement in Smyrn. 7, 1: hose who abstained from the eucharist and prayer reject the gift of God and die amid their disputes.

What is meant by this "gift of God"? P. Batiffol takes it to mean "the incarnation, the flesh of Christ that suffered and was raised up, the reality of Christ's humanity." For F.X. Funk, it refers to the eucharist, while J. B. Lightfoot interprets it to refer to the redemption which embraces the incarnation and passion of Christ. We believe, however, that if the text is taken in its entirety and in its context, the gift of God" must be understood as a comprehensive whole, but with the accent on the eucharist. To abstain from the eucharist because one does not admit it to be the real flesh of Christ is, by way of consequence, to reject God's gift and condemn oneself to death. The "gift of God" thus refers to the eucharist insofar as the latter is bound up with the incarnation and is an actualization of the redemptive mystery (Christ's death and resurrection). These various aspects of the mystery are so closely connected in Ignatius' thinking as to constitute a single mystery of Christ. Therefore those who reject God's gift, that is, who do not acknowledge the real flesh of Christ in the eucharist because they deny the reality of the incarnation and the redemption, will die amid their disputes.

Ignatius goes on to say that these people will profit by practicing charity (literally, "by loving": agapan), for then they too will rise from the dead. In other words, they will profit by living in accordance with the sacrament of love; agapan must here be understood in its pregnant sense of receiving the eucharist and then living out its social implications. The eucharist and love are inseparable. This is why Ignatius points out that not only do the docetists abstain from the eucharist, but "they have no concern for charity, either toward the widow or the orphan, the oppressed ... or the thirsty" (Smyrn. 6, 2).

Ignatius' thought is clear and solid. The eucharist, which is the sacrament of Christ's body and blood and is in continuity with the incarnation, contains the real flesh of Christ that suffered on the cross in a sacrifice of expiation for our sins. It contains his flesh that was not only sacrificed but was raised up again as well, for the death and the resurrection of Christ cannot be separated. Through love the Church must live out this entire paschal mystery. The second text that we shall examine from the letter to the Smyrnaeans speaks in even more detail of this ecclesial aspect of the eucharist.

A little further on in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius writes: "Let no one do anything relating to the Church, except in dependence on the bishop. Let only that eucharist be regarded as legitimate that is celebrated under the presidency of the bishop or someone the bishop appoints. Wherever the bishop is, there let the community be, just as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic Church. Only in dependence on the bishop is it permitted for anyone to baptize or celebrate the agape; whatever he approves is also pleasing to God" (Smyrn. 8, 1-2).

Ignatius is here recalling the teaching he has given to the Ephesians. There can be no authentic eucharist that is not celebrated under the presidency of the bishop. Because he represents Christ, he creates unity, and the community must be organized around him. Without him it is impossible to baptize or to celebrate the agape, that is, the eucharist (agapen is parallel to baptizein, showing that the agape in this case is the eucharist). Baptism and the eucharist are the two basic cultic actions that generate the life and unity of the Church, the katholike ekklesia.

One flesh of Christ, one eucharist, one Church: there we have Ignatius' foundational thoughts. All peoples are called to come together in the universal Church, which is the body of Christ, "the one body of his Church" (Smyrn. 1, 2). It is likewise in the Church that the eucharist is celebrated; it is in the assembly (epi to auto) that the eucharist is experienced and gives life. The eucharist makes it manifest that the Church is the body of Christ, and at the same time the eucharist forms or "makes" the body of Christ by making us members of that body. Ignatius plunges deeply into this mystery of unity. He writes to the Magnesians:

"Make every effort to do all things with a unanimity that has God for its source, and under the presidency of the bishop who holds the place of God. . . . Just as the Lord did nothing, by himself or by the agency of his apostles, except in dependence on the Father with whom he was one, so you should do nothing except in dependence on the bishop and the presbyters. . . . Do everything in common: one prayer, one supplication, one outlook, one hope in love and irreproachable joy: such is Jesus Christ, to whom nothing is preferable. Let all of you hasten to gather, as in a single temple of God and as around a single altar, around the one Jesus Christ who came forth from the one Father, remained one with him, and went back to him" (6, 1; 7, 1-2).

In this rich description of the liturgical worship of the Christian community, Ignatius brings out the profound unity of God's people among themselves and with Christ, as they gather around the one altar, namely, Christ. The eucharistic assembly generates unity: unity with the bishop, unity with the entire Church, and unity with Christ who is inseparably one with the Father. This union of Christ with the Father is, in fact, the source and cause of the union of all others with Christ and with each other. The unity was won in principle by the shedding of Christ's blood; it becomes a present reality and grows ever more authentic by means of the Eucharist, for all who participate in it.

The eucharist, being the memorial of the passion and resurrection of Christ, binds the members together and unites them to Christ so that they may share in his freedom from corruption, for "the head cannot be engendered apart from the members" (Tral. 11, 2). There we have the reason why we can share in but a single eucharist: because there is only one flesh of Christ and one cup of his blood. By giving to each person the selfsame flesh of Christ, the eucharist unites them all and builds Christ's body, the Church.

Our analysis of the four texts in which the word eucharistia appears has brought out some fundamental orientations of lenatius' thought on the eucharist: the eucharist is in continuity with the incarnation and is a participation in the passion and resurrection of Christ. When celebrated in faith and love, under the presidency of the bishop, it is a source of unity. In the remainder of this essay we shall turn to certain further aspects of the eucharist that will enable us to grasp more fully its dynamic power.

For Ignatius of Antioch, the eucharist is a remedy that bestows immortality. The economy, that is, the divine plan of salvation, involves, says Ignatius,

"faith in him [Jesus] and love for him in his suffering and resurrection. . . . especially if the Lord reveals to me that each of you individually and all of you together, by the grace that comes from his name, gather in one faith and in Jesus Christ who was of David's line according to the flesh (Romans 1.3), Son of man and Son of God, in order to obey the bishop and the presbytery, breaking one bread which is a remedy bestowing immortality (pharmakon athanasias), an antidote preventing death (antidotes ton me apothanein) and giving life in Jesus Christ forever (alla zen en Iesou Christo dia pantos)" (Eph. 20, 1-2).

In this passage the eucharistic bread is called a "remedy bestowing immortality" and an "antidote preventing death." Pharmakon athanasias was a technical term in the medical profession, the name for an ointment invented by the goddess Isis and capable of curing all kinds of illnesses. Ignatius applies the term to the eucharist, and the Greek Fathers would frequently repeat it later on. What Ignatius is trying to bring out is the great power of the eucharist, which does become a wellspring of immortality. The eucharist exerts a healing action, the action of Christ, our "only physician" (Eph. 7, 2) who came to heal our wounds and give us life. The eucharist is an antidote capable of counteracting the deadly poison (Tral. 6, 2) of sin and uniting us forever to Christ.

The two expressions — remedy bestowing immortality, and antidote preventing death — are positive and negative ways of expressing the saving power of the eucharist to free us from sin, purify us, and establish us firmly in the life of the risen Christ, by uniting us all in the one Lord who is "our common hope" (Eph. 21, 2).

But the eucharist purifies, nourishes, and creates the unity of the Church only if it is received and lived in faith and love and "undivided harmony." It is precisely because the heretics do not belong to the community of faith, because they do not confess the true flesh of Christ, and because they reject the gift of God, that they abstain from the eucharist and die amid their disputes (Smyrn. 7, 1). Ignatius is bold in stating the requirements of the eucharist and the need for faith and love. He even goes so far as to identify faith with the flesh of Christ and love with the blood of Christ: "Arm yourselves, then, with gentle patience, and recreate yourselves in faith, which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, which is the blood of Jesus Christ" (Tral. 8, 1). The same thought recurs in the letter to the Romans:

"My earthly desire has been crucified, and there is no fire left in me for loving matter; there is rather a living water in me that murmurs and says within me: 'Come to the Father1 take pleasure no longer in corruptible food or the delights of this life. My desire is for the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, and for drink I desire his blood, which is incorruptible love" (7, 2-3).

Is all this simply symbolism, or a mystic's way of speaking? How are we to take these statements?

The Johannine inspiration of these texts is evident. In the sixth chapter of his Gospel, St. John expresses the idea of eternal life by means of symbols drawn from the eucharis-tic liturgy: bread of God, bread of life, flesh of Christ, blood of Christ. Ignatius in turn endeavors to express the incorruptible love which is eternal life, by means of similar language. He does so in a eucharistic perspective or with a eucharistic outlook. In the final analysis, however, it is not very important to determine "whether or not such passages have a strictly eucharistic meaning. Their aim is simply to remind us, in images drawn from the eucharistic liturgy, that the primary object of a Christian's faith and love is the reality of Christ's body and blood, and that in this faith the Christian will find life."

Faith and love have as their object the flesh and blood of Christ who was born of David's line. This flesh and blood become the Christian's food in the eucharist, our source of immortality. They also feed him in the sense that they must be perceived and lived in and by faith and love. The two aspects are inseparable: faith and love are necessary for receiving the eucharist, but they are also the fruit of the eucharist. Faith and love are thus always concerned with the reality of Christ's flesh. The one Christ is our living bread that has come down from heaven; he it is who gives life; he it is who enables the martyr to become a "bread of Christ" (Rom. 4, 2), thanks to the bread (the eucharist) which Christians break together and offer as a memorial.

For Ignatius, faith and love are a participation in the "incorruptible love" of which the eucharistic celebration is the pledge. Here we have the full dynamism of the eucharist coming into view. When lived in faith and love, the eucharist leads the Christian to an ever more perfect union with Christ and, through Christ, with the Father, with the help of a strict regime of asceticism and renunciation ("my earthly desire has been crucified") and under the impulse of the Spirit ("living water").

What Ignatius says, then, in the letters to the Romans (7, 2-3) and the Trallians (8, 1) in no way detracts from the utter realism of Christ's flesh and of our faith in the flesh of Christ (his historical flesh, his eucharistic flesh). Far from contradicting the realism voiced in the letters to the Smyrnaeans (8, 1) and the Philadelphians (4), these other passages actually confirm it. Faith and love can be called the flesh and blood of Christ only because they presuppose the reality of that flesh and blood, and are founded upon it.

In Ignatius' thinking, the reality of Christ's flesh makes martyrdom a necessity. This martyrdom should be approached and experienced as a eucharist, a participation in the death and resurrection of Christ.

When the Bishop of Antioch thinks of martyrdom in cultic terms, that is, as an act of worship, he thinks of it as a eucharist. It is a sacrifice offered to God; it is the supreme act of complete and definitive union with Christ and therefore becomes the perfect way of imitating him. This is why Ignatius cries out as he does in the letter to the Romans and begs his readers to "let me be the food of beasts, that through them I may find God. I am God's wheat, and the teeth of beasts shall grind me so that I will be a pure bread of Christ" (Rom. 4, 1).

We can sense the energy, the strong feeling that pervades these lines. But how are we to take them? As the exaggerations of a mystic with a strong imagination? By no means. They are the logical conclusion of a process that begins with the eucharist. There can be no doubt that in Ignatius' mind his desire for martyrdom is the logical result of a movement toward God, a thirst for God, that urges him on to perfect imitation of and identification with Christ. Martyrdom is simply the imitation of Christ in his passion and sacrifice. Ignatius offers himself "to be poured out as a libation to God, for the altar stands ready" (Rom. 2, 2). As "God's wheat," he will become "a pure bread of Christ" (Rom. 4, 1) and "a sacrifice to God" (Rom. 4, 2). When he thus truly becomes a disciple of Christ and "an imitator of the passion of my God" (Rom. 6, 3), he will become "a freedman of Jesus Christ" and will be reborn, in him, into freedom (Rom. 4, 3).

The entire thinking of Ignatius in this matter is a dynamic prolongation of the eucharist. Like the eucharist, and on the basis of it, martyrdom derives its value from the passion of Christ and leads to the resurrection. Through identification with Christ and through the complete gift of self that martyrdom entails, Ignatius will fulfill in himself the radical meaning of the eucharistic sacrifice; as far as possible, he will make real in himself the eucharistic mystery that is celebrated in the sacrifice of the altar.

Need we go so far as to say that "it is the martyr himself who is to become the eucharist"? Hardly. In fact, these words of Father Bouyer seem to clash with the quite valid explanation he gives of it. He says that in Ignatius' view "the eucharist, in nourishing us with the risen Christ, associates us with his passion and, very particularly, with the agape which is its soul; and reciprocally, martyrdom, as realizing in our lives the perfection of agape, gives its whole realism to the union with the Christus passus brought about by the eucharist and finally reveals in us the presence of the risen Christ. In the eucharist, he has given us the seed of what he is, he has set in motion in us the process that brought him to his risen life. In martyrdom, this process unfolds and this seed bears its fruit: in suffering with Christ, not only do we rise with Him, but we become in some way the Risen One."

All this seems quite reasonable and true. By any accounting, the link between eucharist and martyrdom is a matter of Christian experience and quite capable of stirring our admiration, even today. For Ignatius of Antioch, the eucharist is essentially a living and life-giving reality, a source of energy and power. In fact, it is the reality of Christ himself in the plenitude of that redemptive mystery which requires constantly to be made present and active in us and to be experienced so that it may produce its fruit of love and holiness. That is the message conveyed to us in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch.

The importance of Justin's testimony is well known. At Rome, around the year 150, this layman taught a "philosophy" which was, in fact, a form of Christian wisdom. He taught it in his own name and not by any mandate from the Church, but a few years later his teaching was confirmed by martyrdom. He is one of those witnesses who can be believed because his death set a seal upon his life.

One of Justin's writings contains two descriptions of the eucharist, addressed to people who did not share the Christian faith, and especially to the emperors. Another work explains and justifies the eucharist, but this time to a Jewish readership. These two much-quoted statements will be the focus of our attention here. First, then, we turn to the First Apology, chapters 65-67, l.

1. After we have thus cleansed the person who believes and has joined our ranks, we lead him in to where those we call "brothers" are assembled to offer prayers in common for ourselves, for him who has just been enlightened, and for all men everywhere. It is our desire, now that we have come to know the truth, to be found worthy of doing good deeds and obeying the commandments, and thus to obtain eternal salvation.

2. When we finish praying, we greet one another with a kiss.

3. Then bread and a cup containing water and wine mixed with water are brought to him who presides over the brethren; he takes them and offers prayers, glorifying the Father of all things through the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit; and he utters a lengthy thanksgiving because the Father has judged us worthy of these gifts. When the prayer of thanksgiving is ended, all the pople present give their assent with an "Amen!"

4. ("Amen" in Hebrew means "So be it.").

5. When the president has given thanks and the people have all signified their assent, those whom we call "deacons" distribute the bread and the wine and water, over which the thanksgiving has been spoken, to each of those present; they also carry them to those who are absent.

1. This food we call "eucharist," and no one may share it unless he believes that our teaching is true, and has been cleansed in the bath of forgiveness for sin and rebirth, and lives as Christ taught.

2. For we do not receive these things as though they were ordinary food and drink. Just as Jesus Christ our Savior was made flesh through the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so too (we have been taught) through the word of prayer that comes from him the food over which the thanksgiving has been spoken becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus, in order to nourish and transform our flesh and blood.

3. For, in the memoirs which the apostles composed and which we call "gospels," they have told us that they were commissioned thus: Jesus took bread and, having given thanks, said: "Do this in memory of me; this is my body"; and in a like manner he took the cup and, having given thanks, said: "This is my blood," and he gave these to them alone.

4. Wicked demons have taught men to imitate all this in the mysteries of Mithras. For, as you know or can find out, there too bread and a cup of water are presented when someone is being initiated in the sacred rites, and meanwhile certain words are spoken.

1. Since that time, we constantly recall these events among ourselves; if we have anything, we help all who are in need, and we are constantly united with one another.

2. And for all that we eat we thank the Maker of all through his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

3. And on the day named after the sun, all who live in city or countryside assemble, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read for as long as time allows.

4. When the lector has finished, the president addresses us, admonishing us and exhorting us to imitate the splendid things we have heard.

5. Then we all stand and pray, and, as we said earlier, when we have finished praying, bread, wine, and water are brought up. The president offers prayers of thanksgiving, according to his ability, and the people give their assent with an "Amen!" Next, the gifts over which the thanksgiving has been spoken are distributed, and each one shares in them, while they are also sent via the deacons to the absent brethren.

6. The wealthy who are willing make contributions, each as he pleases, and the collection is deposited with the president who aids orphans and widows, those who are in want because of sickness or