Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

114. Irenæus also defends the real presence of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper in opposition to the Docete and Gnostics, iv. 18, § 4: Quomodo 'constabit eis, cum panem, in quo gratiæ actæ sint, corpus esse Domini sui et calicem [esse calicem] sanguinis ejus, si non ipsum fabricatoris mundi filium dicunt? Comp. the Greek passage from Joh. Dam. Parall.: IIмç τǹv σápka λέγουσιν εἰς φθορὰν χωρεῖν καὶ μὴ μετέχειν τῆς ζωῆς, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ τρεφομένην ; ἢ τὴν γνώμην ἀλλαξάτωσαν, ἢ τὸ προσφέρειν τὰ εἰρημένα παραιτείσθωσαν· ἡμῶν δὲ σύμφωνος ἡ γνώμη τῇ εὐχαριστίᾳ, καὶ ἡ εὐχαριστία βεβαιοῖ τὴν γνώμην. Comp. 33, § 2 (Münscher, von Cölln, i. p. 496). But the reason which he urges in favor of his views, viz., that the Gnostics can not 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 not merely bread and wine. Comp. Thiersch, die Lehre des Irenæus von der Eucharistie, in Rudelbach and Guerickes Zeitschrift, 1841, p. 40, ss.; in reply, Ebrard, p. 261.

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), may have originated in a profound feeling of propriety, but it degenerated into superstitious dread. Thus, too, the fair faith in an inherent vital power in the elements (φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, ἀντίδοτον τοῦ μὴ άлоlavεiv) was gradually converted into the belief of miraculous cures being effected by them, which easily made the transition to gross superstition. The practice of administering the Lord's Supper to children may also be ascribed to the expectation of magical effects. Comp. the anecdotes of Cyprian, De Lapsis, p. 132. Rettberg, p. 337.-The separation of the Lord's Supper from the agape, which had become necessary, the custom of preserving the bread, the communion of the sick, etc., furthered such views.

It is remarkable that Tertullian, whose views, generally speaking, are so realistic, shows in this instance a leaning toward the sober symbolical interpretation according to which the Lord's Supper is figura corporis Christi, Adv. Marc. i. 14; iv. 40. In the latter place (see the connection), he urges the symbolical sense to refute Marcion: if Christ had not possessed a real body, it could not have been represented (vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non potest :-how near to saying, it is impossible to partake of a phantom as such) !* This sentiment accords with what is said as to its significancy as a memorial in 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 participation of the Lord's Supper as an opimitate dominici corporis vesci, as a-de Deo saginari; with these expressione, comp. De Orat. 6: Christus enim panis noster est [spoken in reference to the daily bread in the Lord's Prayer], quia vita Christus et vita panis.

* Respecting the manner in which Tertullian viewed the relation between the sign and the thing signified, comp. as a parallel passage, De Resurr. Carnis, p. 30. Rückert, (p. 307) correctly remards that Tertullian here follows the usus loquendi of the New Test., and that any one might just as well in all simplicity speak of the body of the Lord, as of the Good Shepherd, and the true vine, without being obliged always to say, in the way of caution, that it is meant figuratively.

Ego sum, inquit, panis vitæ. Et paulo supra: Panis est sermo Dei vivi, qui descendit de coelis. Tum quod et corpus ejus in pane censetur (not est) :* Hoc est corpus meum. Itaque petendo panem quotidianum perpetuitatem postulamus in Christo et individuitatem a corpore ejus. He also is not wanting in mystical allusions (e. g., Gen. xlix. 11: Lavabit in vino stolam suam, is in his opinion a type, etc.), and adopts the notions of his age concerning the magical effects of the Lord's Supper. But these do not prove that the doctrine of transubstantiation, or any of similar import, was known at that time, since the same expressions occur about the baptismal water. Comp. Neander, Antignosticus, p. 517, and Baur, F., Tertullian's Lehre vom Abendmahl (Tübing. Zeitschr. 1839, part 2, p. 36, ss.) in opposition to Rudelbach, who finds (as Luther had done before him) in Tertullian the Lutheran view of the point in question. On the other hand, Ecolampadius and Zuingle appealed to the same father in support of their opinions; comp. also Ebrard, p. 289, sq., and Rückert, p. 305, sq., against Rudelbach, Scheibel, and Kahnis. Cyprian's doctrine of the Lord's Supper is set forth in the sixty-third of his epistles, where he combats the irregularity of those who used water instead of wine (see note 1), and proves the necessity of employing the latter. The phrase 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 drunkenness of the communicants compared 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 afterward abandoned by the Romish 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, p. 332, ss.

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, Pad. ii. 2, p. 184 (156, Sylb.); comp. Pæd. 1, 6, p. 123: Taúτas ημiv oikɛías popàs ỏ Κύριος χορηγεῖ καὶ σάρκα ὀρέγει καὶ αἷμα ἐκχεῖ, καὶ οὐδὲν εἰς αὔξησιν τοῖς παιδίοις ἐνδει· ὦ τοῦ παραδόξου μυστηρίου κ. τ. λ. The use of the terms ἀλληγορεῖν, δημιουργεῖν, αἰνίττεσθαι, clearly shows that he sought the mys tery, not in the material elements, but in the spiritual and symbolical inter

* Comp., however, De Anima, 40 (above § 63, Note 6), and Rückert, p. 210-'12 (with reference to Döllinger, p. 52).

pretation of the idea hidden in the elements. His interpretation of the symbols is peculiar: the Holy Spirit is represented by the oáps, the Logos by the aiua, and the Lord, who unites in himself the Logos and the 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 (151, Sylb.) : Διττὸν 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 σaрkóç. Comp. Bühr, vom Tode Jesu, p. 80. [Bähr says: "The meaning of Clement is, that what the blood is for the flesh and the body, its life and power, that is the vevpa 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 veõua, 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 veμa 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 (539, B. Sylb.)-Among the Antenicene fathers Origen is the only one who decidedly opposes, as ȧkepaιoτépos, those who take the external sign for the thing itself; in the xi. Tom. on Matth. Opp. iii. p. 498-500. "As common meat does not defile, but rather unbelief and the impurity of the heart, so the meat which is consecrated by the word of God and by prayer, does not by itself (7 idi λóyw) 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 afterward Zuingle, 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: Οὕτω δὲ οὔτε ἐκ 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 τα 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 fragendus, 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 euim secundum litteram sequaris hoc ipsum, quod dictum est: Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam et biberitis sanguinem meum, occidit hæc littera. Comp. Redepenning's Origenes, ii. p. 438, sq. On other passages, in which Origen seems to incline to the conception of a real body (especially Cont. Celsum, viii. 33), see Rückert, p. 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 the sacrifices of prayer and alms (Clem. of Rome, c. 40-44), which may

also include the gifts (dpa) offered at the Lord's Supper; comp. also Ignat. ad Ephes. 5; ad Trall. 7; ad Magn. 7. Only in the passage ad Philad. 4, the εὐχαριστία is mentioned in connection with the θυσιαστήριον, but in such a manner 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 Ovoía and πроσдорȧ and compares it with the sacrifices under the Old Test. dispensation.* He connects with this the offering of prayers (evxapioría), which are also sacrifices. But the Christians themselves make the sacrifice; there is not the slightest allusion to a repeated sacrifice on the part of Christ! Comp. Ebrard, 1. c. p. 236, ss. Irenæus, Adv. Hær. iv. 17, 5, p. 249 (324 Gr.), 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 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 (326 Gr.): Judæi autem jam non offerunt, manus enim eorum sanguine plenæ sunt: non enim receperent verbum, quod [per quod?) offertur Deo. Comp. Massuet, Diss. iii. in Iren. Deylingii Obss. sacr. P. iv. p. 92, ss., and Neander, Torrey's transl., i. 330, Hist. Dogm. (Ryland), p. 238. Origen knows only the one sacrifice offered by Christ. It is fitting, however, for Christians to offer spiritual sacrifices (sacrificia spiritualia). Hom. xxiv. in Num et Hom. v. in Lev. (Opp. ii. p. 200) Notandum est quod quæ offeruntur in holocaustum, interiora sunt; quod vero exterius est, Domino non offertur. Ibid. p. 210: Ille obtulit sacrificium landis, pro cujus actibus, pro cujus doctrina, præceptis, verbo et moribus, et disciplina laudatur et benedicitur Deus (as in Matth. 5, 16). Comp. Höfling. Origenis Doctrina de Sacrificiis Christianorum in examen vocatur, Part 1 and 2 (Erl. 1840-41), especially Part 2, p. 24, ss. Redepenning, Origen. ii. 437, and Rückert, p. 383.

• Tert. De Cor. Mil. 3: Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis annua die facimus. De Exh. Cast. 11: Pro uxore defuncta oblationis 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 the Christians in general, called prayers "sacrifices" (even the whole Christian worship is called by Tertullian sacrificium, see Ebrard, p. 224); on the other hand, it should not be overlooked that in the above passage, De Monogamia, prayers

* Namely, "as a thank-offering 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. p. 137.

Just before, it is said: Offertur Deo ex creatura ejus; and, § 6: per Christum offert ecelesia.

Neander considers the reading per quod offertur as unquestionably correct.

and sacrifices are distinctly separated. Neander, Antignosticus, p. 155. Höfling, p. 207-15. Rückert, 376.

10

Cyprian, in accordance with his hierarchical tendency, first of all the fathers, gave to the idea of sacrifice such a turn, that it is no longer the congregation that brings the thank-offering, 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. Comp. Rettberg, p. 334, and Neander, 1. c. i. p. 331. Ebrard, p. 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. p. 308; on the Ophites, Epiph. Hær. 37, 5. Baur, Gnosis, p. 196.

If we compare the preceding statements with the doctrines afterward 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 hints pointing that way, as well as the beginnings of the theory of sacrifice. 2. The views of Ignatius, Justin, and Irenæus (which Rückert calls metabolism) can be compared with the Lutheran, only so far as they stand in the middle between strict transubstantia. tion 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 posi tive side of the Calvinistic doctrine may be best seen in Clement, the negative view of Zuingle 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.

The two ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper existed before a systematic definition of the term Sacrament had been formed, so as to include both.' The terms uvoτýpiov and sacramen-' tum are indeed already used to designate both; but they are quite as frequently applied to other religious symbols and usages, which implied a high religious idea, and also to the more profound doctrines of the church."

The New Testament does not contain the idea of sacrament, as such. Baptism and the Lord's Supper were not instituted by Christ as two connected rites; but each in its own place and time, without a hint of a relation of the one to the other. In the apostolical epistles, it has been thought that a connection of the two is indicated in 1 John, v. 6: that it does not

« PoprzedniaDalej »