supernatural effects of the Lord's Supper. But the existence of such notions is no proof that the doctrine of transubstantiation, or another of similar import, was known at that time, since the same efficacy was ascribed to 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 asserts (as Luther had done before him) that Tertullian took the Lutheran view of the point in question. On the other hand, Ecolampadius and Zuinglius appealed to the same Father in support of their opinions. Cyprian's doctrine of the Lord's Supper is set forth in the 63rd of his epistles, where he combats the error of those who used water instead of wine (see note 1), and proves the obligation resting upon us 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 draws between water and people, rather intimates that he was in favour of the symbolical interpretation, though he calls in other places (like Tertullian) the Lord's Supper simply the body and blood of Christ, Ep. 57, p. 117. What he says concerning the effects of the Lord's Supper, (the blessed drunkenness of the communicants compared with the drunkenness of Noah), and the miracles related by him, are a sufficient answer to the charge of insipidity. 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 Romish church, but on which again much stress was laid by the reformers, Ep. 63, p. 154: Quo et ipso sacramento populus noster ostenditur adanatus, 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. 6 Clement adopts the mystical view of the Lord's Supper, 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 believer with Christ, and thinks that effects are produced only upon the mind, not upon the body. Clement also considers the Lord's Supper not only as σύμβολον, but as σύμβολον μυστικόν, Pæd. ii. 2, p. 184, (156, Sylb.) Comp. Pæd. 1, 6, p. 123: Ταύτας ἡμῖν οἰκείας τροφὰς ὁ 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 intimates that in his view the visible elements themselves are not that mystery, but the idea represented by them. His interpretation of the symbol is somewhat peculiar: the Holy Spirit is represented by the σαρξ, the Logos by the αἷμα, and the Lord himself, who unites in him 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 Paed. ii. 2, p. 177, (151, Sylb.): Διττὸν δὲ 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. Bähr, vom Tode Jesu, p. 80). In the part which follows, the mixture of the wine and water is said to be a symbol of the union of the πveûμa 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 those as ἀκεραιοτέρους, 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 (τῷ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ) 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 Zuinglius, and still less 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 221 littera......quæ occidit eum, qui non spiritaliter, quæ dicuntur, adverterit. Si enim secundum litteram sequaris hoc ipsum, quod dictum est: nisi manducaveritis carnem meam et biberitis sanmeum, occidit hæc littera. 7 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 conduct (Barn. c. 2), or the sacrifices of prayer and alms (Clem. of Rome, c. 40-44), which may also include the gifts (Sŵpa) 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 evxapioría is mentioned in connection with the Ovolaorńpiov, but in such a manner that no argument for the later theory of sacrifice can be inferred from it; see Höflinger, 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 poσpopά, and compares it with the sacrifices under the Old. Test. dispensation. He connects with this the offering of But the Chrisprayers (exaρioría), which are also sacrifices. tians themselves make the sacrifice; there is not the slightest Comp. allusion to a repeated sacrifice on the part of Christ! Irenæus, adv. hær. iv. 17. 5, p. 249 Ebrard, 1. c. p. 236, ss. (324 Gr.), teaches, with equal clearness, that Christ had commanded, not on account of God, but because 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 is the disposition of the person who offers. On the difficult passage, iv. 18, p. 251 (326 Gr.): Judæi autem jam non offerunt, manus enim eorum sanguine plenæ sunt: non enim receperunt verbum, quod [per quod?] offertur Deo. Comp. Massuet. diss. iii. in Iren. Deylingii Obss. sacr. P. iv. p. 92, ss., and Neander, Kirchengesch. i. 2, p. 588 [transl. i. p. 385.] For the views of Origen concerning the sacrifice, comp. Höfling. Origenis doctrina a Namely, "as a thank-offering for the gifts of nature, which was followed by 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, 1. c. p. 137. de sacrificiis Christianorum in examen vocatur, Part 1 and 2 (Erl. 1840-41), especially Part 2, p. 24, ss. 8 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). It might here also be mentioned, that Tertullian, as the Christians in general, called prayers sacrifices; on the other hand, it should not be overlooked, that in the above passage de monogamia, prayers and sacrifices are distinctly separated. Neander, Antignosticus, p. 155. 9 Cyprian, in accordance with his whole hierarchical tendency, first of all the Fathers maintained that the sacrifice does not consist in the thank-offering of the congregation, but in the sacrifice made by the priest, in the stead of Christ: 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. 2, p. 588 [transl. i. p. 385. On the other side, see Marheinecke. Symbolik, iii. 420.] 10 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 observations 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; nevertheless, the first traces of it, as well as of the theory of a sacrifice, may be found in the writings of some of the Fathers of this period. 2. The views of (Ignatius), Justin and Irenæus can be compared to those of Luther only in so far as they are alike remote from transubstantiation properly speaking, and from symbolical interpretation, and connect the real with the ideal. 3. The theologians of North Africa and Alexandria are the representatives of the reformed church. The positive tendency of the Calvinistic doctrine may be best seen in Clement, the negative view of Zuinglius is represented by Origen; and both the positive and the negative aspects of the reformed doctrine are united in Tertullian and Cyprian. The Ebionites (if anything more were known respecting their sentiments) might probably be considered as the forerunners of the Socinians, the Gnostics as those of the Quakers. § 74. DEFINITION OF THE TERM SACRAMENT. [Halley, R., Lectures on the Sacraments, P. I. Lect. i. p. 1-14.] The two ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper existed before such a systematic definition of the term Sacrament had been formed as to include both.1 The phrases voτngov and sacramentum are indeed used in reference to either,2 but they are quite as frequently applied to other religious symbols and usages founded upon some higher religious notion, and lastly, to certain more profound doctrines of the church.3 1 The word Sacrament is not used in the New Test. in the sense in which we understand it, inasmuch as baptism and the Lord's Supper are nowhere described as two associated rites which distinctly differ from other symbolical usages. But shortly afterwards greater importance was attached to the former than to the latter, notwithstanding the prevailing symbolizing tendency of the church. It therefore became necessary that the church itself should determine the idea of a sacrament, as nothing could be decided from Scripture. 2 As Tertullian, generally speaking, is the author of the later dogmatic terminology (comp. the phrases: novum Testamentum, trinitas, peccatum originale, satisfactio) so he is the first writer who uses the phrase sacramentum baptismatis et eucharistiæ, adv. Marc. iv. 30. Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius ii. p. 1188, and the works quoted by him. The corresponding Greek term μvorŃplov occurs in Justin, Apol. i. 66, and Clem. Pæd. i. p. 123, comp. Suicer, sub voce). 3 Tertullian also uses the word sacramentum in a more general sense, adv. Marc. v. 18, and adv. Prax. 30, where he calls the Christian religion a sacrament. Comp. the Index latinitatis Tertullianeæ, by Semler, p. 500. [Halley, 1. c. p. 9, 10.] The same may be said respecting the use of the term μυστήριον. Cyprian employs the word sacramentum with the same latitude as Tertul |