THE RELIGIOUS USE OF BREAD.
Of the many breads that are not in common use, that used in the
celebration of the Communion should be placed first. There seems no
room for doubt that, at the Last Supper, our Lord broke unleavened
bread—St Luke xxii. is, apparently, conclusive on this point; and,
to this day, the whole Latin, Armenian, and Maronite Churches use
unleavened bread, and it is also used in many churches of the Anglican
communion. Dr. Lee[16] says: ‘The Ethiopic Christians also use
unleavened bread at their Mass on Maundy Thursday, but leavened bread
on other occasions. The Greek and other Oriental Churches use leavened
bread, which is especially made for the purpose, with scrupulous care
and attention. The Christians of St. Thomas likewise make use of
leavened bread, composed of fine flour, which, by an ancient rule of
theirs, ought to be prepared on the same day upon which it is to be
consecrated. It is circular in shape, stamped with a large cross, the
border being edged with smaller crosses, so that, when it is broken
up, each fragment may contain the holy symbol. In the Roman Catholic
Church the bread is made thin and circular, and bears upon it either
the impressed figure
of the crucifix, or the letters I.H.S. Pope St. Zephyrinus, who lived
in the third century, terms the Sacramental bread, _Corona sive oblata,
sphericæ, figuræ_, “a crown, or oblation, of a spherical figure,” the
circle being indicative of the Divine presence after consecration. The
Orientals, occasionally, make their altar breads square, on which is
stamped a cross, with an inscription. The square form of the bread is
a mystical indication that, by the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross,
salvation is purchased for the four comers of the earth.’ And Dr. Lee
gives illustrations of the altar bread, or wafers, in use in the Latin,
Armenian, Coptic, and Greek Churches.
It seems certain that, in the Primitive Church, neither unleavened
bread nor wafers were used. Ancient writers say that the bread used
was common bread, such as was made for their own use. It was also a
charge against the Ebionites that they celebrated in unleavened bread
and water only. The bread generally used was called _fermentum_, and
though this is explained by the schoolmen, who claimed primitive custom
for unleavened bread, as the _eulogia_, or _panis benedictus_, which
was blessed for such as did not communicate, Pope Innocent I. plainly
says that it refers to the Sacrament itself. Moreover, no Greek writer
before Michael Cerularius, who lived A.D. 1051, objected to the use of
unleavened bread in the Roman Church, which would seem to show that
it was not extensively used before that time. Even some Roman writers
speak of the custom as erroneous.
How the change in this matter was made, and the exact time when,
is not easily determined. Cardinal Bona’s conjecture seems probable
enough: that it crept in when the people began to leave off making
their oblations in common bread. This occasioned the clergy to provide
it themselves, and they, under pretence of decency and respect, brought
it from leaven to unleaven, and from a loaf of common bread, that might
be broken, to a nice and delicate wafer, formed in the figure of a
_denarius_, or penny, to represent the pence for which our Saviour was
betrayed; and then, also, the people, instead of offering a loaf of
bread, as formerly, were ordered to offer a penny, which was either to
be given to the poor, or to be expended upon something pertaining to
the sacrifice of the altar.
The alteration in the Communion bread occasioned great disputes between
the Eastern and Western Churches.
The first Common Prayer Book of Edward VI. enjoins unleavened bread
to be used throughout the whole kingdom for the celebration of the
Eucharist. It was ordered to be _round_, in imitation of the wafers
used in the Greek and Roman Churches; but it was to be _without all
manner of print_, the wafers usually having the impression either of
a crucifix or the Holy Lamb; and _something more large and thicker_
than the wafers, which were the size of a penny. This rubric, affording
matter for scruple, was set aside at the review of the Liturgy, in the
fifth year of King Edward; and another inserted in its room, which
still exists, by which it is declared sufficient that _the bread be
such as is usually eaten_.
It was the custom in Westminster Abbey, and in the Royal chapels,
and the practice of such men as Bishop Andrewes, to use wafers, but
‘for peace sake,’ where wafers were objected to, plain and pure
wheaten bread was allowed. It has been decided by the Privy Council
that it not only may, but must, be common bread; the Injunctions,
according to them, being of no validity against the rubric; while the
Advertisements, having been made under Act of Parliament, and not
contrary to the rubric, are an indication of its meaning—_i.e._, of the
word ‘retained in the Ornaments rubric.’
The bread now used is common wheaten bread in most Protestant Churches.
In some Presbyterian Churches a special kind of wafer is prepared for
the purpose. In the Roman Church thin wafers are used. In the Eastern
Churches they are of different sizes and thicknesses.
They are thus classified by the Rev. F. E. Brightman in _Liturgies
Eastern_:
1. Byzantine; a round leavened cake 5 × 2 in., stamped with a square
(2 in.); itself divided by a cross into four squares in which are
severally inscribed IC, XC, NI, KA.
2. The Syrian Jacobite and Syrian Uniat; a round cake, leavened with
the holy leaven, 3 × 3/4, stamped like a wheel with four diameters (the
alternate radii being cut off half way from the circumference by a
concentric circle).
3. The Marionite; the Latin unleavened wafer.
4. The Coptic; a round leavened cake, 3-1/2 × 3/4, stamped round the
edge with the legend, Αγιος ο θεος, αγιος ισχυρος, αγιος αθανατος,
and within with a cross consisting of twelve little squares, each of
which and the remaining spandrels are marked with a little cross placed
diagonally.
5. The Abyssinian; a flat round leavened cake, 4 × 3/4, stamped with
a cross of nine squares with four squares added in the angles of the
cross.
6. The Nestorian; a round leavened cake, 2 × 1/2, stamped with a
cross-crosslet and four small crosses.
7. The Armenian; a round unleavened wafer, 3 × 1/8, stamped with an
ornamental border, the crucifix and the sacred name and sometimes with
two diameters at right angles to the back.
In regard to the Protestant Non-Episcopal Churches, it is stated in
Herzog’s _Religious Encyclopædia_ that the administration follows
one of two types. These are the Lutheran and the Calvinistic. In the
Lutheran, the elements are consecrated with the sign of the cross, a
wafer of unleavened bread is given whole to the communicant, and white
wine, instead of red, is used. The communicants kneel and receive the
elements into their mouths instead of their hands. The Calvinistic
type simplifies the service as much as possible, and assimilates it
to a common meal. ‘In the French Reformed Church the elements are
placed—the bread in two silver dishes, and the wine in two silver
cups—on a table spread with a white linen cloth. From twenty-five to
thirty communicants approach the table at a time. The officiating
minister makes a free prayer, and then, while repeating the words of
institution, presents the elements to his neighbours on the left and
on the right, after which the dish and the cup pass from hand to
hand. With various modifications this type has been adopted by all the
Reformed (Non-Episcopal) Churches.’
This is practically the method adopted in most of the British
Non-Episcopal Churches; instead, however, of the communicants coming
forward to the table, they remain in their pews, the bread and wine
being handed round by elders or deacons. In the American Non-Episcopal
Churches the same plan is usually adopted.
These divergencies of method illustrate the strange fact in the
Christian life, that around the simple and beautiful institution of
the Lord’s Supper there have raged the fiercest controversies in
religious history. So divergent are the views held about it, that the
Roman Catholic Church asserts that in every celebration of the Mass
our Saviour is again actually offered as a sacrifice, and the bread
and wine become the actual body and blood of the Lord, this miracle of
transformation being wrought through the consecrating prayer of the
priest. The Quakers, at the other extreme, do not observe the service
at all, and do not consider it to be a binding ordinance. Here, as so
often in life, the truth lies between the extremes. The bread and the
wine are the symbols of our Lord’s body and blood. We do not feed on
Him by the mere physical eating of the consecrated elements, but we
partake of Him through faith as we remember that His body was broken
for us, and His blood shed for the remission of our sins. His own
loving command as He sat at the table with His disciples was, ‘This
do in remembrance of Me,’ and it is through fellowship with Him in
spirit—in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross at Calvary—that ‘we
feed on Him in our hearts by faith with thanksgiving.’
There is a semi-sacred bread eaten by the English race, and by no one
else—the hot-cross bun—millions of which are devoured in England on
Good Friday. Its origin is obscure, as is also that of the word ‘bun.’
Most dictionaries derive it from the old French _bigne_, or _bugne_—a
swelling; but it certainly occurs in an early _Promptorium Parvulorum_,
as ‘bunne-brede.’ Anent ‘Eating Buns on Good Friday,’ a correspondent
in the _Athenæum_ of April 4, 1857, p. 144, wrote:
‘In the _Museo Lapidario_ of the Vatican, on the Christian side of
it, and not far off from the door leading into the library, there
is a tablet representing in a rude manner the miracle of the five
barley loaves. Every visitor must have seen it, for it has been there
for years. The loaves are round, like cakes, and have a cross upon
them, such as our cakes bear, which are broken and eaten on Good
Friday morning, symbolical of the sacrifice of the body of our Lord.
Five of these cakes, explanatory of the scene, are ranged beneath
an arch-shaped table, at which recline five people, while another,
with a basket full, is occupied in serving them. The cakes are so
significant of the Bread of Life that one might almost regard the
repast as intended to prefigure the sacrifice that was to follow, and
the institution connected with it. Having, from the earliest period of
memory, cherished a particular regard for hot-cross buns and all their
pleasing associations, it was a source of gratifying reflection to
see my old favourites thus brought into intimate association with the
pious thoughts of the primitive Christians, and to know that at home
we cherished an ancient usage on Good Friday which the more Catholic
nations of Europe no longer observed. But, alas! there is always some
drawback to our full satisfaction in this world, and knowledge is often
a cruel dissipation of favourite convictions; my faith in the Christian
biography of these buns has recently received a very rude shock.
‘It would appear that they have descended to us, not from any Popish
practice, as some _pious_ souls affirm, but from one which was
actually, and, like the word which we use to signify the great festival
of the Church, _Easter_, to a paganism as ancient as the worship of
_Astarte_, in honour of whom, about the time of the Passover, our pagan
ancestors, the Saxons, baked and offered up a particular kind of cake.
We read in Jeremiah (vii. 17, 18): “Seest thou not what they do in the
cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather
wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough,
to make cakes to the Queen of Heaven.” [See also Jeremiah xliv. 18,
19.] Dr. Stukeley, in his _Medallic History of Valerius Carausius_,
remarks that they were “assiduous to knead the Easter cakes for her
service.” The worship of a Queen of Heaven, under some significant name
or other, was an almost universal practice, and exists still in various
parts of the globe. She is usually represented, like the Madonna,
bearing her son in her lap, or like Isis, with the infant Horus. We
may see such images in the Louvre, and in the great Ethnographical
Museum at Copenhagen, where the Queen of Heaven of the Chinese,
_Tien-how_, figures in white porcelain, side by side with _Schling-mu_,
the Holy Mother. Certain metaphysical ideas are apt to flow in a common
channel, and get clothed in the same symbolical dress. Hence we find
a Queen of Heaven, no less in Mexico than in China, in Egypt, Greece,
Italy, and England; and, under the pagan title of a Christian festival,
preserve, along with our buns, the memorial of her ancient reign.’