ostenditur, used in reference to the wine as the blood of Christ, is somewhat doubtful. But the comparison which Cyprian makes of the water with the people is rather for than against the symbolical interpretation, though in other places (like Tertullian) he calls the Lord's Supper outright the body and blood of Christ, Ep. 57, p. 117. The rhetoric, bordering on the dithyrambic, with which he speaks of the effects of the Lord's Supper (the blessed inebriation of the communicants contrasted with the drunkenness of Noah), and the miraculous stories he relates, should protect him from the charge of an excessively prosaic view. But in connection with the doctrine of the unity of the Church, he attaches great practical importance to the idea of a communio, which was afterwards abandoned by the Roman Church, but on which much stress was again laid by the Reformed Church, Ep. 63, p. 154: Quo et ipso sacramento populus noster ostenditur adunatus, ut quemadmodum grana multa in unum collecta et commolita et commixta panem unum faciunt, sic in Christo, qui est panis cœlestis, unum sciamus esse corpus, cui conjunctus sit noster numerus et adunatus. Comp. Rettberg, s. 332 ff. (7) In Clement the mystical view of the Lord's Supper preponderates, according to which it is heavenly meat and heavenly drink; but he looks for the mystical not so much in the elements (bread and wine), as in the spiritual union of the soul with the Logos; and thinks that effects are produced only upon the mind, not upon the body. Clement also considers the Lord's Supper as a σύμβολον, but a σύμβολον μυστικόν, Pæd. ii. 2, p. 184 (Sylb. 156); comp. Pæd. i. 6, p. 123: Ταύτας ἡμῖν οἰκείας τροφὰς ὁ Κύριος χορηγεῖ καὶ σάρκα ὀρέγει καὶ αἷμα ἐκχεῖ, καὶ οὐδὲν εἰς αὔξησιν τοῖς παιδίοις ἐνδεῖ· ὦ τοῦ παραδόξου μυστηρίου κ.τ.λ. The use of the terms ἀλληγορεῖν, δημιουργεῖν, αινίττεσθαι, clearly shows that he sought the mystery, not in the material elements, but in the spiritual and symbolical interpretation of the idea hidden in the elements. His interpretation of the symbols is peculiar: the Holy Spirit is represented by the σáp, the Logos by the alua, and the Lord, who unites in Himself the Logos and Spirit, by the mixture of the wine and the water. A distinction between the blood once shed on the cross and that represented in the Lord's Supper is found in Pæd. ii. 2, p. 177 (Sylb. 151): Διττόν τε τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Κυρίου· τὸ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν αὐτοῦ σαρκικὸν, ᾧ τῆς φθορᾶς λελυτρώμεθα· τὸ δὲ πνευματικὸν, τουτέστιν ᾧ κεχρίσμεθα. Καὶ τοῦτ ̓ ἐστὶ πιεῖν τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, τῆς κυριακῆς μεταλαβεῖν ἀφθαρσίας· ἰσχὺς δὲ τοῦ λόγου τὸ πνεῦμα, ὡς αἷμα σαρκός. Comp. Bahr, vom Tode Jesu, s. 80: "The meaning of Clement is, that what the blood is for the flesh and the body, its life and power, that is the πveûμa for the Logos. It is, as it were, the blood of the Logos. By the blood of Christ poured out upon the cross we are ransomed; by the blood of the Logos, through the veûμa, we are anointed and sanctified." In what follows, the mixture of the wine and water is again said to be a symbol of the union of the veûμa with the spirit of man. Lastly, Clement also finds in the Old Test. types of the Lord's Supper, e.g. in Melchisedec, Strom. iv. 25, p. 637 (Sylb. 539 B).-Among the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Origen is the only one who decidedly opposes those who take the external sign for the thing itself, as ȧkepaιoτépois in Hom. xi. on Matt. (Opp. iii. p. 498–500): "As common food does not defile, but rather unbelief and the impurity of the heart, so the food which is consecrated by the word of God and by prayer does not by itself (T idiw Xóyw) sanctify those who partake of it. The bread of the Lord profits only those who receive it with an undefiled heart and a pure conscience." In connection with such views, Origen (as afterwards Zwingli, and still more decidedly the Socinians) did not attach so much importance to the actual participation of the Lord's Supper as the other Fathers: OUTW Sè OŬTE ÈK τοῦ μὴ φαγεῖν παρ' αὐτὸ τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγιασθέντος λόγῳ θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξει ἄρτου ὑστερούμεθα ἀγαθοῦ τινος, οὔτε ἐκ τοῦ φαγεῖν περισσεύομεν ἀγαθῷ τινι τὸ γὰρ αἴτιον τῆς ὑστερήσεως ἡ κακία ἐστὶ καὶ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, καὶ τὸ αἴτιον τῆς περισσεύσεως ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἐστὶ καὶ τὰ καθορθώματα, ib. p. 898: Non enim panem illum visibilem, quem tenebat in manibus, corpus suum dicebat Deus Verbum, sed verbum, in cujus mysterio fuerat panis ille frangendus, etc. Comp. Hom. vii. 5, in Lev. (Opp. ii. p. 225): Agnoscite, quia figuræ sunt, quæ in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt, et ideo tamquam spiritales et non tamquam carnales examinate et intelligite, quæ dicuntur. Si enim quasi carnales ista suscipitis, lædunt vos et non alunt. Est enim et in evangeliis littera . . . quæ ... occidit eum, qui non spiritaliter, quæ dicuntur, adverterit. Si enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum, quod dictum est: Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam et biberitis sanguinem meum, occidit hæc littera. Comp. Redepenning's Origenes, ii. s. 438 ff. On other passages, in which Origen seems to incline to the conception of a real body (especially Cont. Celsum, viii. 33), see Rückert, s. 343. (8) Concerning the oblations, see the works on ecclesiastical history, and on antiquities.-The apostolical Fathers speak of sacrifices, by which, however, we are to understand either the sacrifices of the heart and life (Barn. c. 2), or of alms (Clem. of Rome, c. 40-44), which may also include the gifts (Sŵpa) offered at the Lord's Supper, and certainly the offerings of prayer; comp. also Ignat. ad Ephes. 5; ad Trall. 7; ad Magn. 7. Only in the passage ad Philad. 4, the evxapioría is mentioned in connection with the Ovolaoтýptov, but in such a inanner that no argument for the later theory of sacrifice can be inferred from it; see Höfling, die Lehre der apostolischen Väter vom Opfer im christlichen Cultus, 1841. More definite is the language of Justin M. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 117, who calls. the Lord's Supper Ovola and poopopá, and compares it with the sacrifices under the Old Testament dispensation.1 He connects with this the offering of prayers (evxapioría), which are also sacrifices. But Christians themselves are the sacrifices; there is not the slightest allusion to a repeated sacrifice of Himself on the part of Christ. Comp. Ebrard, 1.c. s. 236 ff. Irenæus, Adv. Hær. iv. 17, 5, p. 249 (Gr. 324), teaches, with equal clearness, that Christ had commanded, not for the sake of God, but of the disciples, to offer the first-fruits; and thus, breaking the bread and blessing the cup with thanksgiving, He instituted oblationem, quam ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis præstat, primitias suorum munerum, etc. The principal thing, too, is the disposition of the person who makes the offering. On the difficult passage, iv. 18, p. 251 (Gr. 326): Judæi autem jam non offerunt, manus enim eorum sanguine plenæ sunt: non enim ... 1 Namely, "as a thankoffering for the gifts of nature, to which was then added thanksgiving for all other divine blessings. The primitive Church had a distinct conception of this connection between the Lord's Supper and what might be called the natural aspect of the Passover.”—Baur, l.c. s. 137. (per quod ?) offertur Deo.1 Comp. Deylingii Obss. sacr. P. iv. p. 92 ss., 588, Dg. s. 251.2 Origen knows It is fitting, however, Ibid. p. receperunt verbum, quod Massuet, Diss. iii. in Iren. and Neander, Kg. i. 2, s. only the one sacrifice offered by Christ. for Christians to offer spiritual sacrifices (sacrificia spiritualia). Hom. xxiv. in Num. et Hom. v. in Lev. (Opp. ii. p. 209): Notandum est quod quæ offeruntur in holocaustum, interiora sunt; quod vero exterius est, Domino non offertur. 210 Ille obtulit sacrificium laudis, pro cujus actibus, pro cujus doctrina, præceptis, verbo, et moribus, et disciplina laudatur et benedicitur Deus (as in Matt. v. 16). Comp. Höfling, Origenis Doctrina de Sacrificiis Christianorum in examen vocatur, parts 1 and 2 (Erl. 1840, 1841), especially part 2, p. 24 ss. Redepenning, Origen. ii. 437, and Rückert, s. 383. (9) Tert. De Cor. Mil. 3: Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis annua die facimus. De Exh. Cast. 11: Pro uxore defuncta oblationes annuas reddis, etc., where he also uses the term sacrificium. De Monog. 10, he even speaks of a refrigerium, which hence accrues to the dead, comp. de Orat. 14 (19). Here also we might be reminded that Tertullian, as Christians in general, called prayers "sacrifices" (even the whole Christian worship is called by Tertullian sacrificium, see Ebrard, s. 224); on the other hand, it should not be overlooked that in the above passage, De Monogamia, prayers and sacrifices are distinctly separated. Neander, Antignostikus, s. 155. Höfling, s. 207-215. Rückert, s. 376 ff. (10) Cyprian is the first of all the Fathers who, in accordance with his hierarchical tendency, gave to the idea of sacrifice such a turn, that it is no longer the congregation that brings the thankoffering, but the priest taking the place of Christ who offered Himself a sacrifice: vice Christi fungitur, id quod Christus fecit, imitatur, et sacrificium verum et plenum tunc offert in ecclesia Deo Patri. But even Cyprian does not go beyond the idea of the sacrifice being imitated, which is very different from that of its actual repetition. 1 Just before, it is said: Offertur Deo ex creatura ejus; and § 6: per Christum offert ecclesia. 2 Neander considers the reading per quod offertur as unquestionably the correct one. Comp. Rettberg, s. 334, and Neander, l.c. i. 2, s. 588. Ebrard, 1.c. s. 249, directs attention to the obliquities in Cyprian's modes of statement. [Comp. Marheineke, Symbolik, iii. 420.] (11) Concerning the Ebionites, see Credner, 1.c. iii. s. 308; on the Ophites, Epiph. Hær. 37, 5. Baur, Gnosis, s. 196. As the result of more recent examinations, it may be stated that generally" the idea of a real presence, and of a real participation of the actual body and blood of Christ, is entirely foreign to the Greek Fathers of this period" (Steitz, 1.c. x. 3, s. 401). Even when they speak of eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ, they are thinking not of a corporeal, but of a spiritual food. "Beside the glory of the Logos, the corporeal and human in Christ stepped into the background, in order that His Godhead might be made more manifest," ibid. If we compare the preceding statements with the doctrines afterwards set forth in the confessions of faith, we arrive at the following conclusions :—1. The Roman Catholic notion of transubstantiation is as yet altogether unknown; yet there are tendencies that way, as well as to the theory of sacrifice. 2. The views of Ignatius, Justin, and Irenæus (which last Rückert calls metabolism) can be compared with the Lutheran, only so far as they stand in the middle between strict transubstantiation and the merely symbolical view, and hold fast to an objective union of the sensible with the supersensible. 3. The theologians of North Africa and Alexandria represent the type of doctrine in the Reformed Church, in such a way that the positive side of the Calvinistic doctrine may be best seen in Clement, the negative view of Zwingli in Origen; and both the positive and the negative aspects of the Reformed doctrine are united in Tertullian and Cyprian. The Ebionites might then be considered as the forerunners of the Socinians, the Gnostics of the Quakers. Yet caution is needed in instituting such comparisons, for no phase of history is entirely identical with any other, and partisan prejudices have always disturbed the historical point of view. § 74. Idea of the Sacrament. Steitz, Article "Sacramente," in Herzog's Realencyklopädie, xiii. s. 226 ff. G. L. Hahn, Die Lehre v. den Sacramenten in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung innerhalb der abendl. Kirche. See below, § 136. The two ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper |