of the blood on the door-posts, etc. Gregory, nevertheless, thought that healthy children might wait till the third year, or somewhere thereabout, because they would be able then to hear and to utter something of the words (UVOTIKOV TI) used at the performance of the rite, though they might not perfectly understand them, but have only a general impression about them (TUTоvueva). His judgment, however, was mild concerning those children who die before baptism, because he well distinguished between intentional and unintentional delay. Yet he did not grant that they would obtain perfect salvation. Comp. Ullmann, 1. c.

That Gregory did not, like Augustine, make an intimate connection between baptism and original sin, is evident from his assertion (Orat. 40, quoted by Ullmann, p. 476), that sins committed by children from ignorance could not be imputed to them on account of their tender age. Comp. what Chrysostom said on this subject according to the quotation of Julian given by Neander, Church Hist. ii. p. 666: Hac de causa etiam infantes baptizamus, cum non sint coinquinati peccato, ut eis addatur sanctitas, justitia, adoptio, hæreditas, fraternitas Christi, ut ejus membra sint; the opinions of Theodore of Mopsuestia are also stated there.* Augustine did not combat the Pelagians because they rejected baptism, but because they did not draw the same inferences from the rite in question, which he drew from it. The Pelagians admitted that the design of baptism was the remissio peccatorum, but they understood by it the remission of future sins. Julian went so far as to anathematize those who did not acknowledge the necessity of infantbaptism; Opus. imp. contra Jul. iii. 149. "Though the Pelagians might have been easily induced by their principles to ascribe a merely symbolical significance to baptism, as an external rite, yet in this, as well as in many other respects, they could not develop their system entirely independent of the ecclesiastical tradition of their age; they endeavored, therefore, to reconcile it in the best possible manner with their principles, which owed their origin to quite different causes." Neander, Church Hist. ii. p. 668. ["Baptism received a higher dogmatic importance from the Augustinian doctrine of original sin. The assertion of its necessity is one of the points of difference between Augustine and Pelagius." Baur, u. s. p. 193.]

6

Concerning infants that die without being baptized, Pelagius expressed himself in cautious terms (quo non eant, scio, quo eant, nescio). [Pelagius, that he might not be compelled to say that unbaptized children were lost, made a distinction between eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, or blessedness in general and the blessedness of Christians (Aug. de Pecc. Orig. c. 21; De Pecc. Mer. 1, 18). The Pelagians could not recognize in the case of children a baptism for the forgiveness of sins; they could only refer it to

* Neander traces the difference of opinion existing between the Eastern and Western church with regard to baptism to their different mode of viewing the doctrine of redemption; the former regarded rather the positive, the latter the negative aspect. [The positive aspect is the ennobling of human nature; the negative the relation to sin. "Accordingly, in the East, baptism was regarded chiefly as indicating exaltation to a higher stage, for which the original powers of man were not sufficient." Gregory of Nazianz. says, "It is a more divine creation, something higher than the original endowments of nature," etc.]

sanctification in Christ (August. c. duas Ep. Pelagii). Comp. Baur, loc. cit.] Ambrose de Abrah. ii. 11, had previously taught: Nemo ascendit in regnum cœlorum, nisi per sacramentum baptismatis. ... Nisi enim quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Utique nullum excipit, non infantem, non aliqua præventum necessitate. Habeant tamen illam opertam poenarum immunitatem, nescio an habeant regni honorem. Comp. Wiggers, i. p. 422. Augustine's views on this point were at first milder, De libero Arb. iii. c. 23; but afterwards he was compelled, by the logical consequences of his own system, to use harsher expressions. His line of argument is as follows: Every man is born in sin, and stands, therefore, in need of pardon. He obtains this by baptism; it cleanses children from original sin, and those who are baptized in later years, not only from original sin, but also from their actual transgressions before the baptism. (Enchir. ad Laurent. 43.) Since baptism is the only and necessary condition of salvation (comp. note 2), it follows that unbaptized children are condemned (this fully accorded with his views on predestination). He was, nevertheless, disposed to look upon this condemnation as mitissima and tolerabilior (Ep. 186. 27. [c. 8]; De Pecc. Mer. i. 28. [c. 20]), though he opposed the doctrine condemned by the synod of Carthage, in Canon ii. (A. D. 419), of an intermediate state, in which unbaptized infants were said to be; Comp. Sermo 294: Hoc novum in ecclesia, prius inauditum est, esse salutem æternam præter regnum cœlorum, esse salutem æternam præter regnum Dei. With regard to baptized children, Augustine, as well as the catholic church in general, supposed (the former in accordance with his idealistic doctrine of the church) that the church represents (by means of the godfathers and godmothers) the faith of the children. Ep. 98 ad Bonifacium, c. 10: Parvulum, etsi nondum fides illa, quæ in credentum voluntate consistit, jam tamen ipsius fidei sacramentum fidelem facit. Nam sicut credere respondetur, ita etiam fidelis vocatur, non rem ipsa mente annuendo, sed ipsius rei sacramentum percipiendo..... Parvulus, etiamsi fidem nondum habeat in cogitatione, non ei tamen obicem contrariæ cogitationis opponit, unde sacramentum ejus salubriter percipit. Consequently-a passive faith? "His view seems to have been somewhat as follows: As the child is nourished by the natural powers of his

her after the flesh, before his bodily, independent existence is fully developed, so is he nourished by the higher powers of his spiritual mother, the church, before he has attained unto independent spiritual development and self-consciousness. This idea would be true to a certain extent, if the visible church corresponded to its ideal." Neander, Church Hist. ii. p. 670.

7

Basil Ep. Can. 1, declared the baptism at least of heretics void when the baptismal formula differed from that of the catholic church, or even when a different meaning was attached to it; thus he rejected the baptism of the Montanists, because they understood Montanus to be the Paraclete. But he was disposed to admit schismatics without baptism, and as a general rule (milder than Cyprian) advised compliance with the custom of each separate church.- Gregory of Nazianzum rejected the baptism of notorious heretics (TV рodńλwę kateyvwouέvov). Generally speaking, he did not make the efficacy of baptism depend on the external ecclesiastical, nor on the inherent moral worth (džioлioría) of the person who administered the

baptism. He illustrated this by the case of two rings, the one made of gold, the other of brass, bearing the same royal stamp; Orat. 40, in Ullmann, p. 473-475.

De Baptismo contra Donatistas lib. vii. (in Opp. Ben. Tom. ix.). It is interesting to see how Augustine seeks to justify Cyprian, from whom he differs; the passages are given in Münscher ed. by von Cölln, p. 477.-The limitation spoken of was, that the rite of baptism, if performed out of the catholic church, might be considered valid, but that so far from proving a blessing to the baptized, it would increase their guilt if they did not afterwards join the catholic church. Thus "the exclusiveness of the catholic church, objected to on the one side, was carried to its extreme length on the other;" Rothe, Anfänge der christlichen Kirche, p. 685.-The ceremony of the laying on of hands, as a sign of consecration, was also employed in the case of those who came over to the church. Leo the Great insisted upon this point, Ep. 159, 7. 166, 2. 167, 18. (Griesbach, p. 155.)

Thus the Donatist, Petilianus, maintained that whoever received baptism from an unbeliever, did not receive faith, but guilt. Augustine argued against him (Contra Epistol. Parmeniani; see Neander, Hist. Dogm. 400). The Donatist doctrine was condemed by the Conc. Arel. 314, can. 8. Optatus Mil. De Schism. Donat. v. c. 3.... Quid vobis (Donatistis) visum est, non post nos, sed post Trinitatem baptisma geminare? Cujus de sacramento non leve certamen innatum est, et dubitatur, an post Trinitatem in eadem Triniate hoc iterum liceat facere. Vos dicitis: Licet; nos dicimus; Non licet. Inter Licet vestrum et Non licet nostrum natant et remigant animæ populorum.

10 Concerning the baptism of the Manicheans, on which we have but "scanty information," comp. Baur, Manich. Religionssystem, p. 273.

11

Socrat. v. 24, blamed the Eunomians, because ....τὸ βάπτισμα παρεχάραξαν· οὐ γὰρ εἰς τριάδα, ἀλλ ̓ εἰς τὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ βαπτίζουσι Oávarov. They probably avoided the use of the common formula, which Eunomius elsewhere adduces as a proof that the Spirit is the third, in order to avoid a possible misunderstanding, in the orthodox sense, among the unlearned. Comp. Klose, Eunomius, p. 32. Rudelbach, über die Sacramentsworte, p. 25. According to Sozom, vi. 26, the Eunomians are said to have rebaptized all who joined their party. Eunomius (on anti-Trinitarian. grounds) was opposed to the trine immersion in baptism (see Höfling, Die Taufe, i. 55).

§ 138.

THE LORD'S SUPPER.

Ebrard ($73), p. 278 sq.

Marheineke (comp. § 73), p. 32-65. K. Meyer, p. 18-38. Kahnis, ubi supra. Rückert, 350 sq., 403 sq. [Cardinal Wiseman, attempts (Essays, vol. 3) to show that Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, in the fourth century, taught a real change (on the basis of new accounts of the Constantinople Council of 1166). Syriac Ch. on the Eucharist, by Prof. Lamy, of Louvain; see Journal of Sacred Lit.

Jan. 1860, p. 374 sq. Philip Freeman, Principles of Divine Service. 2 Parts. Lond. 1855-7. Christian Remembrancer, Oct. 1853. Engelhardt in Zeitschrift f. d. luth. Theol. 1842. D. Rock, Hierurgia; Transubst. and Mass Expounded from Inscriptions in the Catacombs, etc., 2d ed. 1855. J. Kreusser, d. heilige Messopfer. Paderborn, 1854. Julius Müller, Abendmahl, in Herzog's Encyclopädie.]

Corresponding to the mysterious union between the two natures of Christ in one and the same person, was the idea of a mystical connection subsisting between the body of Christ and the bread in the Lord's Supper, and between his blood and the wine.' This idea, which had taken its rise in the preceding period, was now farther carried out by means of the more fully developed terminology of the church, and by the introduction of liturgical formulas, which substituted mystical ceremonies for the simple apostolical rite.' The mysterious and often bombastic rhetoric of the fathers, especially Gregory of Nyssa, the two Cyrils, and Chrysostom, in the Greek church, and Hilary and Ambrose in the Latin, makes it uncommonly difficult to decide what dogmatic notions are to be attached to their expressions. By their changing imagery we are sometimes led to think of an ideal, sometimes of a substantial change; now of a subjective change on the part of the participant, and again of an objective change in what is received; sometimes it is a wonderful conjunction of the head and the body of Christ (consubstantiality); sometimes a total change of the elements of the Lord's Supper into this body (transubstantiation, real transformation). Yet still the symbolic view appears, alongside of the metabolic, in some teachers of the Greek church, as in Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, and Theodoretus. But it is most unambiguous in the Western theologian, Augustine. Although the latter appears to have faith in the wonderful healing virtues of the sacrament," yet he decidedly opposed the superstitious reverence of it.' Gelasius, bishop of Rome, still spoke decidedly against a formal transubstantiation. In respect to the idea of sacrifice as connected with it, this was further developed in this period, especially by Gregory the Great, in the form that the sacrificial death of Christ was truly repeated in the daily sacrifice of the mass."

8

1 Compare Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 408. The idea which lies at the basis of most of the statements about the Lord's Supper may be said to be thisthat as the Logos was once united with the flesh, so in the Supper he is now united with the bread and wine; and thus the controversy about the natures of Christ is in some degree repeated in the sacramental sphere. [Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 408 sq., argues that the fathers, with all their strong expressions, could not have meant to teach transubstantiation, for the following chief reasons: 1. That the change is so often compared with that of water in baptism, and of chrism in consecration. 2. That it is likened to the union of the Logos with the flesh-where there was no transformation of the flesh.

3. The church fathers (many of them) argue against the Monophysites, on the ground that as there was in the Lord's Supper no change, so none in the incarnation. 4. They frequently call the elements Túños, ávτítvña, figura, signum, etc. Baur, Dogmengesch. p. 194, says that the majority of the fathers of this period often speak of the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, in such terms as seem to involve the doctrine of a real change; but yet, comparing these with their other statements, and seeing how fluctuating is the form of their conceptions, we can really find in them only an obscure and exaggerated identification of figure and fact.-Neander, Hist. Dogm. p. 406 sq., gives the different modifications of opinions thus: 1. The sensuous realistic view of Justin and Irenæus, adopted by Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Hilary, teaching an actual interpenetration of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ. 2. A more spiritual view, though with a realistic element at its basis, in Augustine. 3. The school of Origen (excepting Gregory of Nyssa) separated more distinctly the symbol and the divine reality, e. g., Eusebius of Cæsarea, Greg. Nazianz., etc.] • On such names as λατρεία αναίμακτος, θυσία τοῦ ἱλασμού (Cyril Myet. V.), ἱερουργία, μετάληψις τῶν ἁγιασμάτων, ἁγία (μυστική) τράπεζα, μυστικὴ εὐλογία, ἐφόδιον (in reference to the administration of the Lord's Supper to the sick), as well as on the formulas commonly used in connection with the rite of consecration, comp. Suicer, Thesaurus sub vocib.; Touttée in Diss. ad Cyr. Hier. 3, p. cexxxiii. ss. Marheineke, 1. c. p. 33, ss. Augusti, Archæologie, vol. viii. p. 32, ss. The sacrament is frequently described as a tremendum (as φοβερόν, φρικτόν, φρικωδέστατον). It is also characteristic that the fourth petition in the Lord's Prayer is almost uniformly referred, in a mystical way, to the Lord's Supper.

2

3

Gregory of Nyssa* draws a parallel, in a most adventurous style, between the process of physical nutrition and the subsistence of the spiritual body of the believer upon the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist. Like the earlier fathers, he sees in this holy food a φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, an antidote to the mortality wrought by sin; comp. Oratio Catech. 37. As by the divine Logos the bread, in the eating thereof, is transformed into the essence of the body united with divinity, so, in the Lord's Supper, the bread and the wine are transformed into the body united with the Logos (7ò dè owμa TÔ ἐνοικήσει τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὴν θεϊκὴν μετεποιήθη); compare the whole passage in Münscher, edited by v. Cölln, i. 490 sq. Rupp, 238 sq. Rückert (ubi supra, 403 sq.) investigates this at length, and comes to the conclusion, perhaps too unfavorable: "Gregory shattered the Supper of the Lord; he cast away all that is glorious in its nature, and in its place left only a magical instrumentality, which, without any influence on the spiritual life, is only (?) designed to nourish the body for immortality." On Cyril of Jerusalem, see ibid. 410; among other things, he infers from John vi., which

*The difficulty of describing and classifying the different opinions of the fathers of this period about the Lord's Supper, is seen in the contradictory views of the most recent writers in this matter-Ebrard, Kalinis, Rückert. The categories, too, proposed by the latter, viz., symbolical and metabolical, are not sufficient; for the idea of usтaßoń is nowhere definitely settled, and, in the same writer, the metabolical and the symbolical views cross one another.