sent, etiam sanguinem potarent. Hic est baptismus, qui lavacrum et non acceptum repræsentat, et perditum reddit. Comp. Scorp. c. 6, Cyprian Ep. 73, and especially de exh. martyr. p. 168, 69. According to him the baptism of blood is in comparison with the baptism of water in gratia majus, in potestate sublimius, in honore pretiosius; it is baptisma, in quo angeli baptizant, b. in quo Deus et Christus ejus exultant, b. post quod nemo jam peccat, b. quod fidei nostræ incrementa consummat, b. quod nos de mundo recedentes statim Deo copulat. In aquæ baptismo accipitur peccatorum remissa, in sanguinis corona virtutum. Heretics are profited neither by the baptism of blood, nor by that of water, but the former is of some service to the catechumens who are not yet baptized. Rettberg, p. 382. Comp. also Acta Martyr. Perpet. et Fel. ed. Oxon. p. 29, 30, and Dodwell, de secundo Martyrii baptismo in his Diss. Cypr. xiii.a § 73. THE LORD'S SUPPER. Schulz, D., die christl. Lehre vom Abendmahl, nach dem Grundtexte des N. Test. Lpz. 1824, 31, (exegetico-dogmatic.) Works bearing upon the history of this doctrine: Marheinecke, Phil., Ss. Patrum de præsentia Christi in cœna Domini sententia triplex s. sacræ Eucharistiæ historia tripartita. Heidelb. 1811, 4. Meyer, Karl, Versuch einer Geschichte der Transsubstantiationslehre mit Vorrede von Dr Paulus. Heidelb. 1832. †Döllinger, J. J. J. die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den 3 ersten Jahrhunderten. Mainz 1826. [Knapp, l. c. § 143–146.] A. Ebrard, des Dogma vom h. Abendmahl und seine Geschichte. Frankf. 1845. The Christian church attached from the first great and mysterious importance to the bread and wine used in the Lord's Supper, as the symbols of the body and • Though the parallel drawn between the baptism of blood and that of water, is founded upon the whole symbolical tendency of the age, yet in its connection with the doctrine of the Fathers it appears to be more than a mere rhetorical figure. Like the comparison instituted between the death of the martyrs and that of Jesus, as well as the notions concerning penance, it rests upon the equilibrium which the writers of that period were desirous to maintain between the free will of man, and the effects of the Divine grace. In the baptism of water man appears more passive, in the baptism of blood he acts as a free agent. blood of Christ (Eucharist.)(1) It was not the tendency of the age to dissect the symbolical in a critico-philosophical manner, and to draw metaphysical distinctions between its constituent parts, viz. the outward sign on the one hand, and the thing represented by it on the other. On the contrary, the real and the symbolical were so blended, as not to destroy each other.(2) Thus it happens that in the writings of the Fathers of this period we meet with passages which speak distinctly of symbols, and at the same time with others which indicate belief in a real participation of the body and blood of Christ. Yet we may already discern some leading tendencies. Ignatius, as well as Justin and Irenæus,() laid great stress on the mysterious connection subsisting between the Logos and the elements. The idea of such a connection, however, was sometimes misunderstood, and gave rise to superstitious views, or it was wilfully perverted, in the hope of producing supernatural effects.() Tertullian and Cyprian, though somewhat favourable to the supernatural, are nevertheless representatives of the symbolical aspect.(5) The Alexandrian school too espoused the latter, but the language of Clement on this subject is less definite than that of Origen.(6) Clement's notions are a mixture of symbolical interpretation and ideal mysticism. In the writings of Justin and Irenæus the idea occurs of a sacrifice, by which, however, they did not understand a daily repeated propitiatory sacrifice (in the sense of the Romish church), but a thank-offering presented by the Christians themselves. This idea, which may have had its origin in the custom of offering oblations, was brought into connection with the service for the commemoration of the dead, and thus prepared imperceptibly the way for the later doctrine of masses for the deceased.(8) It led further to the notion of a sacrifice which is repeated by the priest, (but only symbolically); an idea which seems to have been first enter tained by Cyprian.It is not quite certain, but probable, that the Ebionites celebrated the Lord's Supper as a commemorative feast; the mystical meals of some Gnostics, on the contrary, bear but little resemblance to the Lord's Supper.(0) Respecting the terms zagoria, oúvağış, εbhoyía, see Suicer and the lexicons. [Knapp, 1. c. p. 437.] With the exception of the Hydroparastates (Aquarii, Epiph. hær. 46. 2), all Christians, in accordance with its original institution, used wine and bread; the wine was generally mixed with water (zgãņa), and an allegorical signification was given to the mixture of these two elements, (Justin M. Apol. i. 65. Iren. v. 2, 3. Cypr. Epist. 63) [Knapp, 1. c. p. 441.] The Artotyrites are said to have used cheese along with bread. (Epiph. hær. 49, 2.) Comp. the acts of Perpetua and Felicitas in Schwegler, Montanismus, p. 122. Olshausen, monumenta, p. 101: Et clamavit me (Christus) et de caseo, quod mulgebat, dedit mihi quasi buccellam, et ego accepi junctis manibus et manducavi, et universi circumstantes dixerunt Amen. Et ad sonum vocis experrecta sum, commanducans adhuc dulcis nescio quid. Concerning the celebration of the Lord's Supper in the age of the Antonines, and the custom of administering it to the sick, &c. see Justin M. Apol. i. 65: [Προσφέρεται τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἄρτος, καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος καὶ κράτ ματος· καὶ οὗτος λαβὼν, αἶνον καὶ δόξαν τῷ Πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ ̔Αγίου ἀναπέμπει, καὶ εὐχαριστίαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατηξιώσθαι τούτων τας αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ ποιεῖται.. εὐχαριστήσαντος δὲ τοῦ προεστῶτος, και ἐπευφημήσαντος παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, οἱ καλούμενοι παρ' ἡμῖν διάκονοι διδόασιν ἑκάστῳ τῶν παρόντων μεταλαβεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐ χαριστηθέντος ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος, καὶ τοῖς οὐ παροῦσιν ἀποτέρουσι. 66. Καὶ ἡ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεῖται παρ' ἡμῖν Εὐχαριστία.......] [Neander, Hist of the Ch. transl. i. 386.] On the liturgical part of this ordinance in general, see Augusti, vol. viii. (2) It is only in consequence of the abstract and speculative tendency of the West and of modern times, that so many different significations have been assigned to what the early eastern church understood by the phrase roro iori. If we would fully enter into its cri,inal meaning, we should not separate these significations at all. To say that the words in question denote iransubstantiation, would be to take them in too definite and too comprehensive a sense; the interpretation according to which they would teach an existence cum et sub specie, is too artificial; the rendering : this signifies, says too little, and is without force. In the view of the writers of the gospels, (and after their example in that of the earliest Fathers) THE BREAD IN THE LORD'S SUPPER WAS THE BODY OF CHRIST. But if they had been asked whether the bread was changed? they would have replied in the negative; if they had been told, that the communicants partook of the body with and under the form of the bread, they would not have understood it; if it had been asserted that the bread only signified the body, they would not have been satisfied.” Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1st edit. vol. ii. p. 437. Comp. Baumgarten-Cru sius, ii. p. 1211, ss., and 1185, ss. (3) Ignat. ad Smyrn. 7, reproaches the Docet : Εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσευχῆς ἀπέχονται διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ· τὴν ὑπὲς ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν πεθοῦσαν, ἣν τῇ χρη στότητι ὁ πατὴς ἔγειρεν, comp. ad. Trall. 8. ad Philad. 5. ad Rom. 5. Some understood the word ta itself as symbolical. Comp. Münscher ed. by Cöln, i. p. 495, and on the other side, Ebrard, 1. c. 254. Justin, Apol. i. 66, after having made a strict distinction between the bread and wine used in the Lord's Supper, and common bread and wine: Οὐ γὰς ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον, οὐδὲ κοινὸν πόμα ταῦτα λαμβάνομεν, ἀλλ ̓ ὃν τρόπον διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεῖς Ἰησοῦς Χρι στὸς ὁ σωτὴς ἡμῶν καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἔσχεν, οὕτως καὶ τὴν δι' εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ σας ̓ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν σειρήν, ἐξ ἧς αἷμα καὶ σάρκες κατά μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος Ἰησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι. He does not speak of a change of the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ, see Ebrard, p. 257. In the opinion of this writer, the phrase κατὰ μεταβολήν is the opposite of κατὰ κτίσι», and denotes that natural food is accompanied by that provided by our Saviour for our new life, comp. also Semisch, ii. p. 439, ss. The passage is by no means clear. Irenæus, iv. 18, (33.) p. 250, (324, Grabe) also thinks that the common bread is changed into bread of a higher order, the earthly into the heavenly; but it does not therefore cease to be bread. He draws a parallel between this change and the transformation of the mortal body into the immortal, p. 251 : Ως γὰρ ἀπὸ γῆς ἄρτος προσλαμβανόμενος τὴν ἔκκλησιν [ἐπίκλησιν] τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐκέτι κοινὸς ἄρτος ἐστὶν, ἀλλ' εὐχαριστία, ἐκ δύο πραγ μάτων συνεστηκυία, ἐπιγείου τε καὶ οὐρανίου, οὕτως καὶ τὰ σώματα ἡμῶν μεταλαμβάνοντα τῆς εὐχαριστίας, μηκέτι εἶναι φθαρτά, τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς εἰς αἰῶνας ἀναστάσεως ἔχοντα. Comp. v. 2, p. 292, 94, (396, 97,) and Mas sueti Diss. iii. art. 7, p. 114. Irenæus also defends the real presence of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper in opposition to the Docetæ and Gnostics, iv. 18, § 4. 33, § 2, (Münscher, von Cölln, i. p. 496.) But the reason which he argues in favour of his views, viz. that the Gnostics cannot partake of the bread and wine with thanksgiving because they despise matter, shows that he regarded the elements as more than merely accidental things, though they are only bread and wine. Comp. Thiersch die Lehre des Irenæus von der Eucharistie, in Rudelbach and Guerikes Zeitschrift, 1841, p 40, ss. (4) The fear of spilling any part of the wine (Tert. de corona mil. 3: Calicis aut panis nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxie patimur, and Orig. in Exod. Hom. xiii. 3), was perhaps founded on a right feeling of propriety, but it degenerated into superstitious dread. Thus the belief in an inherent vital power in the elements (φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, ἀντίδοτον τοῦ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν) was gradually converted into the belief of miraculous cures being effected by them, which would easily form the transition to gross superstition. The practice of administering the Lord's Supper to children may also be ascribed to the expectation of supernatural effects. Comp. the anecdotes of Cyprian, de lapsis, p. 132. Rettberg, p. 337.-The separation of the Lord's Supper from the agapæ, which had become necessary, the custom of preserving the bread, the communion of the sick, etc. furthered such views. (5) It is remarkable that Tertullian, whose views, generally speaking, are realistic, shows in this instance a leaning towards the allegorical interpretation, according to which the Lord's Supper is figura corporis Christi, adv. Marc. i. 14. iv. 40. In the latter place he makes use of the symbolical to refute the notions of Marcion: if Christ had not possessed a real body, it could not have been represented: (vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non potest.-He might as well have said: it is impossible to partake of a phantom as such!) This sentiment accords with what is said de anima, c. 17: vinum in sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit. Nevertheless, Tertullian speaks in other places, de resurr. c. 8. de pud. c. 9. of the partici 8 Respecting the manner in which Tertullian viewed the relation between the sign and the thing signified, comp. as a parallel-passage de resurr. carnis, c. 30. |