is, to represent symbolically the permanent purifying power of the divine Logos, the purification of our fallen nature. Yet a special sanctifying operation is connected with outward baptism, which is obtained through the operation of the Trinity. Still he regarded it as essential to view everything in connexion with the disposition; the turning-point of salvation is the surrender of the soul to God, and without Repentance, baptism only leads to greater condemnation, because many do not come to baptism with a right disposition; they are not yet regenerated, and the agency of the Holy Spirit is not to be recognised in them. He opposes the operation of baptism to the μυστήριον τῆς γεννήσεως, inasmuch as every one, as a fallen spirit, brings sin with him into the world. Here, also, the vindication of Infant baptism finds a point of support. We find some expressions upon it in Origen's work, but only in Latin translations, which may have been modelled by a later orthodoxy. Yet, as we have them, not only through Rufinus, but also through Jerome, their authority is so much more to be depended upon. derives Infant baptism from the Apostles. He MANI,* also, referred to Infant baptism as a common practice among the Persians. It was therefore regarded, in the third century, in the North-African, Alexandrian, and SyroPersian Churches, as an Apostolic Institution. But yet we see that it was not the established practice before the fifth century. As to the question respecting the validity of baptism, differences arose as early as the second century; about the middle of the third a controversy upon it began in the Roman Churches, against the North-African and Asiatic Churches. From the standpoint of the latter, Cyprian maintained that an ecclesiastical rite could only be valid when performed within the pale of the Catholic Church; hence baptism administered in an heretical church was invalid; and, therefore, persons belonging to heretical sects must be re-baptized μαλακίας, οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ σωματικῶς γενομέναι ὤνησαν, εἰς πίστιν προσκαλεσάμεναι τους εὐεργετηθέντας· οὕτως καὶ τὸ διὰ τοῦ ὕδατος λουτρὸν, σύμβολον τυγχάνον καθαρσίου ψυχῆς πάντα ῥύπον ἀπὸ κακίας ἀποπλυνομένης, οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ κατ ̓ αὐτὸ τῷ ἐμπαρέχοντι ἑαυτὸν τῇ θειότητι τῆς ἐπικλήσεων ἐστιν ἡ χαρισμάτων θείων ἀρχὴ καὶ πηγὴ· “ διαιρέσεις γὰρ χαρισμάτων εἰσίν.” 66 *August. c. Julian, iii. 187. on passing over to the Catholic Church.* On the contrary, the view taken by Stephen, bishop of Rome, was, that the validity of baptism depended, not on the subjective character of the baptized, but on the objective character of the baptismal act. Hence baptism possessed an objective validity if it were performed in a right manner, with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, or in the name of Christ. In the Shepherd of Hermas, we find the formula-baptizari in nomine Domini; this expression seems to indicate that the baptismal form, in the name of Christ, was the one originally used, and that the other came into use at a later period, in which the reference to the two other divine personalities was developed. Stephen called his opponents rebaptista, a name which they refused to accept, because they did not acknowledge the baptism of heretics to be a baptism at all. In baptism we have to notice the germ of the sacrament of confirmation. The imposition of hands by the Bishop was originally a symbol of the communication of the Holy Spirit. Occasions presented themselves of separating from baptism this act, which was originally connected with it. When, for instance, heretics wished to be received into the Church, they were not rebaptized, only the bishop's hands. were laid upon them for the impartation of the Spirit. Added to this, there was a desire to distinguish the Bishop from the Presbyter, as the special successor of the Apostles, by this act, and hence the power was assigned to him of communicating the Spirit by the laying on of hands. Thus the doctrine of regarding this act as the seal of the impartation of the Holy Spirit (signaculum, opgayís). Cornelius, the bishop of Rome, says of Novatian, who had received baptism while on a sick bed, but without the rite of confirmation,-How could he have received the Holy Spirit since he had not obtained the opgayis from the bishop? To such lengths, even at that period, had the narrow-mindedness and arrogance of Rome advanced! * See Cyprian's Epistles, 69, &c., and the Epistle of Firmilianus of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia, 75, in Cyprian's Epistles. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 7, 2-9. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 43. 2. THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. A. EBRARD, Das Dogma v. Abendmahl u. s. Geschichte. K. F. A. KAHNIS, D. Lehre v. Ábendmahl. 1851. J. DÖLLINGER, D. Lehre v. d. Eucharistie in den ersten Jahrh. 1826. J. W. F. HOFLING, D. Lehre der ältesten Kirche v. Opfer im Leben u. Kultus der Christen. 1851. EVER since the Reformation, the examination of this subject has occasioned many violent and perplexing controversies; and in modern times it has again been made an instrument of party interest. For our part, we see no cause for such perplexity; nor can we proceed on the assumption that the correct view of it is that which is found in the earliest Church teachers. For we have already discerned causes which early brought confusion into the doctrine of the Church and of Baptism. If the water of baptism was regarded as a medium for spiritual and bodily fellowship with Christ, how much more readily would men regard as such the symbols which are used at the Lord's Supper. There was a mental tendency which naturally led them to attach too much importance to outward signs. At this period different representations of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper were held; the conflict with Docetism was the first occasion of their development. As from that standpoint no reality was attributed to the sensuous appearance of Christ, nothing could be said of a participation of his body; and the notion of the impartation of an unchangeable principle of life to the entire human nature could not be entertained by those who denied the resurrection of the Body. The arguments on the other side we find in passages of the Ignatian Epistles which bear the strongest marks of genuineness. They are directed against those who would not partake of the Lord's Supper because they did not believe that the εὐχαριστία was the body of the Redeemer.* The writer calls the Lord's Supper the medicine of Immortality, an antidote to death, a means of everlasting life in communion with Christ.† As Irenæus represented the effect of baptism to be, that it made the participation in the body of Christ immortal, so here the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper is regarded as a means by which the seed of Immortality is deposited in the * Ad Smyrn. 7. + Ad Ephes. c. 20.—ἕνα ἄρτον κλῶντες, ὅς ἐστι φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, ἀντίδοτος τοῦ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν, ἀλλὰ ζῆν ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ διὰ παντός human body. Irenæus* charged the Gnostics with a twofold inconsequence when they celebrated the Lord's Supper, since they did not acknowledge the identity of the God who revealed himself in Christ, with the Creator of Nature; and yet the Lord's Supper was certainly taken from the gifts of Nature. How illogical, he says, is it to consecrate bread and wine to God, if Nature be not acknowledged as the work of God; and then, secondly, the body of believers is supposed to receive at the Lord's Supper the body of Christ, and yet is not destined to eternal life. On the other hand the doctrine of the Catholic Church is perfectly logical; for it takes these gifts from nature which belongs to God-the God who has revealed himself in Christ and confesses the union of the Body and the principle of an unchangeable life." The meaning of these words is rendered plainer, and the view we have taken of them is confirmed, by the following passage: "As the earthly bread after consecration is no longer common bread, but consists of earthly and heavenly bread, so also the bodies which partake of the Eucharist are no longer transitory, but are nourished by the body and blood of the Lord." He expresses in a previous passage the same thought, "How should the body of the believer not receive the gift of God, eternal life, since he has been nourished by the body of the Lord and is his member ?" The conception of this Church teacher is, therefore, that the bread and wine by virtue of the consecrating Prayer is pervaded by the body and blood of Christ, and by actual communication of the latter, unchangeable life is imparted to those who partake of it. The origin of the conception of the Lord's Supper as a * H. Thiersch. D. Lehre des Irenäus v. d. Eucharistie aufs neue untersucht in Guericke u. Rudelbach Zeitschrf. f. Luth. Theol. 1841. + Ibid. iv. 18, 4, 5.-The Greek text has here eyepois, but this is a gloss. Vεvμa denotes in this Church teacher, the divine essence and principle of life. Compare, also, the edition of Irenæus by Stieren, who regards as spurious, and it seems on good grounds, the whole clause, kai oμodoγοῦντες σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος ἔγερσιν, which is wanting in the Latin version. † Ibid. § 5.—ὡς γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς ἄρτος προσλαμβανόμενος τὴν ἔκκλησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκέτι κοινὸς ἄρτος ἐστὶν ἀλλ ̓ εὐχαριστία ἐκ δύο πραγμάτων συνεστηκυῖα, ἐπιγείου τε καὶ οὐρανίου, οὕτως καὶ τὰ σώματα ἡμων μεταλαμβάνοντα τῆς εὐχαριστίας, μηκέτι εἶναι φθαρτὰ, τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς εἰς αἰῶνας ἀναστάσεως ἔχοντα. Sacrifice is deserving of notice, as it contains the germ of the later doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass. At first this idea had no relation to the body and blood of Christ, but to the natural productions of the earth that were used at the Lord's Supper. As the President of the assembly of believers commonly received the bread and wine as gifts, he elevated them and presented them to God with a thanksgiving prayer, thus testifying that the congregation thanked God for whatever they had, and were ready to employ it for his service. Thus in the sense of a spiritual thank-offering and an act of the universal Christian priesthood, the Lord's Supper was called a Sacrifice. Thus IRENEUS, who contrasts it as a thank-offering with the sacrifices of the Jews and Gentiles, says,* * Christ gave his disciples an intimation to present to God the first fruits of his creatures as signs of their thankfulness, and as the Church received this from the Apostles it consecrates to God the first fruits of his gifts." The Jews,† who regarded God as their Lord, presented him with tithes, a definite proportion; but Christians, his children, present him with all. Instead of any reference to a particular priesthood, we only find the mention of the universal Priesthood. On that account, ‡ he says, it is not the sacrifice that sanctifies the Man, but the disposition of the offerer is the cause of God's being well pleased with the Sacrifice. There is only one passage which favours the view of the later Catholic Theologians, and which has been made special use of by them, where according to one reading, § it is said, Verbum quod offertur Deo, which must mean the Logos which is presented to God; therefore, the sacrifice would refer to the presentation of Christ himself. Yet we can hardly make up our minds to accept this as the opinion of Irenæus, who always says, that Christians must consecrate all to God in Christ's name; for example, Ecclesia offert per Jesum Christum. We cannot doubt, that the other reading is the correct one, Verbum per quod effertur Deo. We find also in JUSTIN, this spiritual view in the descripCh. iv. 17, 5. § Et hanc oblationem ecclesia sola puram offert fabricatori, offerens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura ejus. Judæi autem non offerunt, manus enim eorum sanguine plenæ sunt ; non enim receperunt verbum, per quod offertur Deo. Stieren has admitted the various reading verbum quod, yet with much hesitation, and explains verbum as referring not to the Logos, but to the prayers offered up at the Supper. + Ch. iv. 18, 2. Ibid. § 3. |