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. Clement of Alexandria recognizes only that baptism as valid which is administered in the catholic church: Τὸ βάπτισμα τὸ αἱρετικὸν οὐκ οἰκεῖον kai yvýolov dwp, Strom. i. 19, p. 375: so, too, Tert. De Bapt. c. 15: Unus omnino baptismus est nobis tam ex Domini evangelio, quam ex Apostoli litteris, 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 dubion on 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 ed. by von Cölln, i. p. 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 re-baptized; though according to him this was not a repetition of the act of baptism, but the true baptism; comp. Ep. 71, where he uses baptizari, but not re-baptizari, in reference to heretics. Concerning the subsequent controversy with Stephen, comp. Neander, Church Hist., i. 319, sq. Rettberg, p. 156, ss. The epistles 69–75 of Cyprian refer to this subject. Stephen recognized baptism administered by heretics as valid, and merely demanded the laying on of hands as significant of poenitentia (with oblique 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 afterwards fallen away and returned back again; and they appealed to the custom observed by the heretics themselves in confirmation of their view. Such lapsi could, of course, not be re-baptized. The 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 ed. by von Cölln, i. p. 472-75. Laurence, Lay Baptism invalid, 1712, sq. Anonymi Scriptoris de Rebaptismate liber, in Routh's Reliquiæ Sacræ, v. 283-328. Waterland's Letters on Lay Baptism, Works, vi. 73-235. Shepherd's Hist. of Church of Rome, 1852.]

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, Antignosticus, p. 193; Church Hist. ii. 476; Hist. Dogm. 229–31. Some of the objections to baptism were the following: it is below the dig nity of the Divine to be represented by any thing earthly: Abrahamn was justified by faith alone; the apostles themselves were not baptized, 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

*To the remark of some: Tunc apostolos baptismi vicem implesse, quum in navicula

that they laid great stress on the baptism of Jesus, see Baur, Gnosis, p. 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. p. 308.

10

Orig. Exh. ad Mart. i. p. 292, with reference to Mark x. 38: Luke xii. 50. Tert. 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, 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.*

§ 73.

THE LORD'S SUPPER.

Schulz, D., die christl. Lehre vom Abendmahl, nach dem Grundtexte des N. Test. Lpz. 1824, 31 (exegetical and dogmatic). Works on the History of this Doctrine: *Marheineke, Phil., Ss. Patrum de Præsentia Christi in Coena Domini sententia triplex, s. sacræ Eucharistia 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. *A. Ebrard, des Dogma vom h. Abendmahl und seine Geschichte. Frankf. 1845. Engelhardt, J. G. W., Bemerkungen über die Gesch. d. Lehre vom Abendmahl in den drei ersten Jahrh. in Illgen's Zeitschrift f. d. hist.

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.

*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.

Theol. 1842. Höfling, J. W. F., Die Lehre der ältesten Kirche vom Opfer im Leben und Cultus der Christen. Erlang. 1851. Kahnis, Lehre vom Abendmahl. Leipz. 1851. Rückert, L. J., Das Abendmahl, sein Wesen und seine Gesch. in der alten Kirche. Leipz. 1856.

[Rinck, W. F., 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 on 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 Lects. (3d ed. 1848), Lect. viii. Robert Halley, The Sacraments, Part II. (Cong. Lect. 1851). Robt. J. Wilberforce, Doctrine of Eucharist, 1853 (cf. Christ. Rembr. 1853. Church Review, New Haven, 1854). W. Goode, Nature of Christ's Presence in Euch. 2, 1856. E. B. Pusey, The Real Presence, 1853-7. Philip Freeman, Principles of Divine Service, Lond. 1855–7 (cf. Christ. Rembr. Jan. 1858). Turton (Bp.) on the Eucharist, and Wiseman's reply (rep. in his Essays), 1854.

4

The Christian church attached, from the beginning, a high and mysterious import' to the bread and wine used in the Lord's Supper,as the symbols of the body and blood of Christ (Eucharist),' to be received by the church with thanksgiving. It was not the tendency of the age to analyze 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." 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, 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. Tertullian and Cyprian, though somewhat favorable to the supernatural, are, nevertheless, representatives of the symbolical interpretation. 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. 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 Romish church), but a thank-offering to be presented by 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 commemmoration of the dead, and thus imperceptibly prepared the way for the later doctrine of masses for the deceased. It further led to the notion of a sacrifice

which is repeated by the priest (but only symbolically), an idea first found in 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."

"That the body and blood of Christ were given and received in the Lord's Supper, was from the beginning the general faith, and this, too, at a time when written documents were not yet extant or not widely diffused. And this faith remained in subsequent times; the Christian church has never had any other; no one opposed this in the ancient church, not even the arch-heretics." Rückert, Abendmahl, p. 297.

* Respecting the terms εὐχαριστία, σύναξις, εὐλογία, see Suicer, and the lexicons. With the exception of the Hydroparasṭates (Aquarii, Epiph. Hær. 46, 2), all Christians, in accordance with the original institution, used wine and bread; the wine was mixed with water (кpaua), and dogmatical significancy was attributed to the mingling of these two elements (Justin M., Apol. i. 65; Iren. v. 2, 3; Cypr. Epist. 63). 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, etc., see Justin M. Apol. i. 65 : [Προσφέρεται τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἄρτος, καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος καὶ κράματος· καὶ οὗτος λαβὼν, αἶνον καὶ δόξαν τῷ Πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Πνεῦματος τοῦ ̔Αγίου ἀναπέμπει, καὶ εὐχαριστίαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατηξιῶσθαι τούτων παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ ποιεῖται . . . . εὐχαριστήσαντος δὲ τοῦ προεστῶτος, καὶ ἐπευφημήσαντος παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, οἱ καλούμενοι παρ' ἡμῖν διάκονοι διδόασιν ἑκάστῳ τῶν παρόντων μεταλαβεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐχαριστηθέντος ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος, καὶ τοῖς οὐ παροῦσιν ἀποφέρουσι. 66. Καὶ ἡ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεῖται παρ' ἡμῖν Evxapioría. . . . . Neander, Hist. of the Ch. transl. i. 332.] On the Εὐχαριστία. liturgical part of this ordinance in general, see Augusti, vol. viii. On the communion of children, Neander, Hist. Dogm. 242.

....

3 "It is only in consequence of the more abstract tendency of the West and of modern times that so many different significations are assigned to what the early eastern church understood by the phrase TOUTO EσTí. If we would fully enter into its original meaning, we ought not to separate these possible significations. To say that the words in question denote transubstantiation, is too definite and too much said; to interpret them by the phrase, cum et sub specie, is too artificial, it says too little; the rendering: this signifies, says too little, and is too jejune. In the view of the writers of the gospels (and after them 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 then the bread only signifies the body, they would not have been satisfied." Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1st edit. vol. ii. p. 437. Comp. BaumgartenCrusius, ii. p. 1211, ss., and 1185, ss. It is also noteworthy, that in this period there is not as yet any proper dogma about the Lord's Supper. “There had not been any controversy; no council had spoken ;” Rückert, s. 8. Yet the germs of later opinions were certainly there.

4

• Ignat. ad Rom. 7 : "Αρτον Θεοῦ θέλω, κ. τ. λ. ; this is incorrectly referred to the Lord's Supper; it can only be understood of that internal and vital union with Christ, after which the Martyr longed; comp. Rückert, p. 302. But here is pertinent, ad Smyrn. 7, where Ignatius objects to the Docet: Εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσευχῆς ἀπέχονται διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὴν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθοῦσαν, ἣν τῇ χρηστότητι ὁ πατὴρ ἤγειρεν (comp. ad. Trall. 8. ad Philad. 5. ad Rom. 5). Some understand the word είναι itself as symbolical. Comp. Münscher ed. by Cölln., i. p. 495, and, on the other side, Ebrard, 1. c. 254: and Engelhardt, in Illgen's Hist. Theol. Zeitschrift. "Ignatius teaches that flesh and blood are present in the Lord's Supper; but he does not teach how they came to be there, nor in what relation they stand to the bread and the wine;" Rückert, p. 303. Justin, Apol. i. 66, first makes a strict distinction between the bread and wine used in the Lord's Supper and common bread and wine: Οὐ γὰρ ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον, οὐδε κοινὸν πόμα ταῦτα λαμβάνομεν, ἀλλ' δν τρόπον διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεῖς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἔσχεν, οὕτως καὶ τὴν δι' εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ' αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφὴν, ἐξ ἧς αἷμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος Ἰησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν είναι. He does not speak of a change of the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ, see Ebrard, p. 257 (against Engelhardt). In Ebrard's view, the phrase κατὰ μεταβολήν is the opposite of κατὰ κτίσιν, and denotes that natural food is accompanied by that provided by our Saviour for our new life, comp., also, Semisch, ii. p. 439, ss., and Rückert, p. 401. The passage is obscure, and it is remarkable that all the three (later) confessions, the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran, and the Reformed, find their doctrine expressed in Justin, while his doctrine is fully expressed by none of them. "That he teaches a change is not to be denied, but yet only a change into flesh that belongs to Christ, not into the flesh born of Mary; there is not to be found in him a word about what the church afterward added to the doctrine;" Rückert, p. 401. Irenæus, iv. 18 (33), p. 250 (324, Grabe) also thinks that the change consists in this, that common bread becomes bread of a higher order, the earthly 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 πραγμάτων συνεστηκυῖα, ἐπιγείου τε καὶ οὐρανίου, οὕτως καὶ τὰ σώματα ἡμῶν μεταλαμβάνοντα τῆς εὐχαριστίας μηκέτι εἶναι φθαρτὰ, τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς εἰς αἰῶνας ἀναστάσεως ἔχοντα. Comp. v. 2, p. 293, '4 (396, '97), and Massueti Diss. iii. art. 7 .