is worthy of notice, that in the first of the above passages he calls infant baptism a usage derived from the apostles: Ecclesia ab apostolis traditionem accepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare. Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum, quod essent in omnibus genuinæ sordes peccati, quæ per aquam et spiritum ablui deberent. And so

it was held to be, in the third century, in the North African, Alexandrian, and Syro-Persian Church; Mani among the Persians appealed to infant baptism as customary (August. c. Julian, iii. 187); comp. Neander, Dg. s. 247. [On Origen's views, compare Bunsen's Hippolytus, vol. iii.]

(6) See Cypr. Ep. 59 (written in the name of 66 occidental bishops; Ep. 64, edit. Fell, Oxon.). Cyprian maintains that infants should be baptized as soon as is possible: it is, however, remarkable that his argument in favour of infant baptism is not founded upon the guilt of original sin, but upon the innocence of infants. Tertullian, on the other hand, urges this very reason in opposition to infant baptism. But Cyprian looks more at the beneficial effects it is designed to produce, than at the responsibility which is attached to it. As we do not hesitate to salute the new-born yet innocent babe with the kiss of peace, "since we still see in him the fresh handiwork of God," so we should not raise any objection to his being baptized. Comp. Rettb. s. 331. Neander, Kg. i. 2, s. 554. The reproach of Stephen against Cyprian for re-baptizing, was regarded by the latter as quite inapplicable, since, in his view, heretical baptism was no baptism. Cf. Ep. 71 (Eus. vii. 5).

(7) On this custom, comp. the works on ecclesiastical history and antiquities; Cyprian, Ep. 76 (Fell, 69, p. 185), where some very thorny questions are raised respecting sprinkling. Münscher, l.c. i. s. 464. Against the delay: Const. Apost. vi. 15, so far as it proceeds from depreciation or levity. Tertullian allows even laymen, but not women, to administer the rite of baptism in cases of emergency; de Bapt. c. 17. Comp. Const. Apost. iii. c. 9–11.

(8) Clement of Alexandria recognises only that baptism as valid which is administered in the Catholic Church: Tò βάπτισμα τὸ αἱρετικὸν οὐκ οἰκεῖον καὶ γνήσιον ὕδωρ, Strom. i. 19, p. 375; so, too, Tert. De Bapt. c. 15: Unus omnino baptismus est nobis tam ex Domini evangelio, quam ex

Apostoli literis, quoniam unus Deus et unum baptisma et una ecclesia in cœlis. . . . Hæretici autem nullum habent consortium nostræ disciplinæ, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est præceptum, quia non idem Deus est nobis et illis, nec unus Christus, i.e. idem: ideoque nec baptismus unus, quia non idem. Quem quum rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent. Comp. De Pud. 19; De Præscr. 12.— The Phrygian synods of Iconium and Synnada (about the year 235) pronounced the baptism of heretics invalid, see the letter of Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea, to Cyprian (Ep. 75), Eus. vii. 7. [Münscher, von Cölln, i. s. 473.] A synod held at Carthage (about the year 200), under Agrippinus, had used similar language; see Cypr. Ep. 73 (ad Jubianum, p. 129, 130, Bal.). Cyprian adopted the custom of the Asiatic and African Churches, and insisted that heretics should be rebaptized; though according to him this was not a repetition of the act of baptism, but the true baptism; comp. Ep. 71, where he requires non re-baptizari, sed baptizari of heretics. Concerning the subsequent controversy with Stephen, comp. Neander, Church Hist. i. 563, 577. Rettberg, s. 156 ff. The Epistles 69-75 of Cyprian refer to this subject. Stephen recognised baptism administered by heretics as valid, and merely demanded the laying on of hands as significant of pœnitentia (with indirect reference to Acts viii. 17). The African bishops, on the other hand, restricted this latter rite to those who had once been baptized in the Catholic Church, but had afterwards fallen away and returned again; and they appealed to the custom observed by the heretics themselves in confirmation of their view. Such lapsi could not, of course, be re-baptized. The old African usage was confirmed by the synods of Carthage (held in the years 255 and 256). Comp. Sententiæ Episcoporum lxxxii. de baptizandis hæreticis, in Cypr. Opp. p. 229 (Fell). [On the whole controversy, comp. Münscher (von Cölln), i. s. 472–475. Hefele, Hist. of Councils, u. s. Lawrence, Lay Baptism invalid, 1712 ff. Anonymi Scriptoris de Rebaptismate liber, in Routh's Reliquiæ Sacræ, v. 283-328. Waterland's Letters on Lay Baptism, Works,

vi. 73-235.]

(9) Theod. Fab. Hær. i. c. 10. On the question whether

the sect of the Cainians (vipera venenatissima, Tert.), to which Quintilla of Carthage, an opponent of baptism, belonged, was identical with the Gnostic Cainites, see Neander, Antignostikus, s. 193, Dg. 241. Some of the objections to baptism were the following: It is below the dignity of the divine to be represented by anything earthly: Abraham was justified by faith alone; the apostles themselves were not baptized,1 and Paul attaches little importance to the rite (1 Cor. i. 17).

That the majority of the Gnostics held baptism in high esteem, is evident from the circumstance that they laid great stress on the baptism of Jesus, see Baur, Gnosis, s. 224; but they advocated it on very different grounds from those of the orthodox Church. On the threefold baptism of the Marcionites, and further particulars, comp. the works treating on this subject respecting the Clementine Homilies, see Credner, iii. s. 308.

(10) Orig. Exh. ad Mart. i. p. 292, with reference to Mark x. 38; Luke xii. 50. Tertull. De Bapt. 16: Est quidem nobis etiam secundum lavacrum, unum et ipsum, sanguinis scilicet.... Hos duos baptismos de vulnere perfossi lateris emisit: quatenus qui in sanguinem ejus crederent, aqua lavarentur; qui aqua lavissent, 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, 169. 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, baptisma in quo Deus et Christus ejus exultant, bap. 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 remissio, 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, s. 382. Comp. also Acta Martyr. Perpet. et Fel., ed. Oxon. p. 29, 30,

1 To the remark of some: Tunc apostolos baptismi vicem implesse, quum in navicula fluctibus adspersi operti sunt, ipsum quoque Petrum per mare ingredientem satis mersum, Tertullian replies (De Bapt. 12): aliud est adspergi vel intercipi violentia maris, aliud tingui disciplina religionis.

and Dodwell, De secundo Martyrii Baptismo, in his Diss. Cypr. XIII,1

§ 73.

The Lord's Supper.

D. Schulz, die christl. Lehre vom Abendmahl, nach dem Grundtexte des N. Test., Leipz. 1824, 1831 (exegetical and dogmatic). Works on the History of this Doctrine: *Phil. Marheineke, Ss. Patrum de Præsentia Christi in Cœna Domini sententia triplex, s. sacræ Eucharistiæ Historia tripartita, Heidelb. 1811, 4to. Karl Meyer, Versuch einer Geschichte der Transsubstantiationslehre, mit Vorrede von Dr. Paulus, Heidelb. 1832. †J. J. v. Döllinger, die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den 3 ersten Jahrhunderten, Mainz 1826. F. C. Baur, Abhandlung in der Tüb. Ztschr. 1839, ii. 2, s. 56 ff. *A. Ebrard, das Dogma vom h. Abendmahl und seine Geschichte, Frankf. 1845. J. G. W. Engelhardt, Bemerkungen über die Gesch. d. Lehre vom Abendmahl in den drei ersten Jahrh. in Illgen's Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1842. *J. W. F. Höfling, Die Lehre der ältesten Kirche vom Opfer im Leben und Cultus der Christen, Erlang. 1851. Kahnis, Lehre vom Abendmahl, Leipz. 1851. L. J. Rückert, Das Abendmahl, sein Wesen und seine Gesch. in der alten Kirche, Leipz. 1856. H. J. Holtzmann, De corpore et sanguine Christi quæ statuta fuerint in ecclesia examinantur, Heidelb. 1858. *Steitz, die Abendmahlzlehre in der griech. Kirche (theol. Jahrb. ix. 3 and x. 1-3). [W. F. Rinck, Lehrbegriff vom heilig. Abendmahl in den ersten Jahrh., in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1853, p. 331-334. Julius Müller, article Abendmahl in Herzog's Realencyclop., cf. Ströbel in the Zeitschrift f. luth. Theol. 1854. Jeremy Taylor on the Real Presence. Waterland on the Eucharist, Works, iv. 476-798, v. 125-292. Hampden's Bampton Lectures (3d ed. 1848), Lect. viii. Robert Halley, The Sacraments, Part II. (Cong. Lect. 1851). Robt. J. Wilberforce, Doctrine of Eucharist, 1853 (cf. Christian Rembr. 1853). W. Goode, Nature of Christ's Presence in Euch. 2, 1856. E. B. Pusey, The Real Presence, 1853-1857. Philip Freeman, Principles of Divine Service, Lond. 1855-1857 (cf. Christ. Rembr. Jan. 1858). Turton (Bp.) on the Eucharist, and Wiseman's reply (rep. in his Essays), 1854. Vogan, True Doctrine of the Eucharist, Lond. 1871. Dimock, Eucharistic Worship, Lond. 1876.]

1 Though the parallel drawn between the baptism of blood and that of water has a basis in 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 influence of divine grace. In the baptism of water man appears as a passive recipient, in the baptism of blood he acts with spontaneity.

The Christian Church attached from the beginning a high and mysterious import (1) to the bread and wine used in the Lord's Supper, as the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, to be received by the Church with thanksgiving (Eucharist) (2). It was not the tendency of the age to analyse the symbolical in a critical and 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 that the symbol did not supplant the fact, nor did the fact dislodge the symbol (3). Thus it happens that in the writings of the Fathers of this period we meet with passages which speak distinctly of signs, and at the same time with others which speak openly of a real participation in the body and blood of Christ. Yet we may already discern some leading tendencies. Ignatius, as well as Justin and Irenæus (4), laid great stress on the mysterious connection subsisting between the Logos and the elements; though this union was sometimes misunderstood in a superstitious sense, or perverted in the hope of producing magical effects (5). Tertullian and Cyprian, though somewhat favourable to the supernatural, are nevertheless representatives of the symbolical interpretation (6). The Alexandrian school, too, espoused the latter view, though the language of Clement on this subject (intermingling an ideal mysticism) is less definite than that of Origen (7). In the apostolical Fathers, and, with more definite reference to the Lord's Supper, in the writings of Justin and Irenæus, the idea of a sacrifice already occurs; by which, however, they did not understand a daily repeated propitiatory sacrifice of Christ (in the sense of the later Roman Church), but a thankoffering to be presented by Christians themselves (8). 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 imperceptibly prepared the way for the later doctrine of masses for the deceased (9). It further led to the notion of