2. Further Development

In the Didache the ceremony in all its relations is called uniformly his thuaia (xiv. 1, 2)-a real "offering ," but it is not made plain whether anything more than prayers and alms is meant, unless, pos sibly, xiv. 3 gives a hint by citing Mal. i. 11. Justin applies this passage to the bread and the cup (Trypho, xxviii.-xxix., xli., cxvi.-cxvii.). If the Didache is by one writer, it must belong to the time when the agape and the Lord's Supper had been separated (see AGAPE). How early and where this first happened is not certain. The Epistle to the Hebrews may presuppose the separation. Jus tin attests it for Rome (1 APol. lxv.). It can hardly have been due to purely practical considerations; a tendency to idealization must have given the first impulse. Most probably, in course of time, perhaps under Paul's influence in the first instance, the ceremony in reference to the "body of Christ" and the "new covenant in his blood" took on such a character that "one bread" (I Cor. x. 17) and "one cup" were set apart and came to be regarded as so superior to all other bread and wine, which served merely to satisfy natural needs, that it was found necessary to separate the agape and the Supper. When the tendency to such a separation had once developed, a new conception of the "this do" (touts poieite) was made easy. Neither Jesus nor Paul thought of the words as a command to "offer" anything. But as early as the second century the pomte was interpreted as "offer." Of course "to do something" can acquire the meaning "to offer" only from the connection (as when the thought is to "do something to God," expressed or implied; cf. Ex. xii. 47 sqq., Septuagint, where poiein is used to render the Hebrew 'asah), and the use of " eat " before and after the " this do " may have suggested the idea of sacrifice. But the most effective impulse came from the effort to accommo date early Christian concepts to Greco-Roman thought. The "new covenant" was wholly un familiar to non-Jews. The Latins translated it novum testamentum, not novum feedus, and the Greeks too, for the most part, understood the diatheke as a last will and testament prescribing doctrines and ordinances, of which the chief was the Eucharist. The contents of the cup now come to the foreground. Neither Jesus nor Paul had spoken of the wine, and there is nothing to indicate that the former thought Of the wine as representing his blood. But the notion of sacrifice called up the thought of his blood, and it was an intelligible idea that he sealed the covenant by a holy drink. The blood thus came to take the place of the new cove nant in the second part of the Supper. The notion of the "wine-blood" brought with it that of the "bread-flesh." To be sure, people still said "body" (s&ma), but they thought "flesh." The twofold conception of Jesus that his followers would always have, and commemorate both his living presence among them and the new covenant with God, be came transformed into the thought that the Lord was present in twofold manner, viz., that one saw his flesh in the bread and his blood in the cup. It was then almost inevitable that the ancient mind should conceive of the Lord's Supper as a myste- rious sacrificial institution. It is possible that even in the second century the development had not gone beyond the conception of a sacrificial meal. But the association of ideas must soon have led farther. That in the second century and perhaps from the beginning the Eucharist had in a certain sense the character of a sacrificial act is not contested. It was called "Eucharist" because of the prayers of thanksgiving, and early Christianity designated prayer as "offering." Also the agape was held with gifts of the rich, which were brought as "offerings" (prosphorai) before God and consecrated to God. For a long time after the "Lord's Supper" was separated from the "common meal" (the agape), the "elements" were furnished by the congregation in such profusion that a considerable surplus remained for the poor and the clergy. Such gifts of the congregation were consecrated by prayer and passed as " offerings." Hdfling and others maintain that " offering " in connection with the Supper means no more than prayers and alma till the third century. But once the ideas of the " body and covenant " were displaced by the " flesh and blood," the thoughts that the Eucharist was a representation of the sacrifice on Calvary and was essentially a sacrifice must have entered. A time when sacrifice was everywhere a living institution of the cult, while it noted the symbolism and spirituality of all Christian worship in the eucharistic service, could not fail to discern also in it the thought of an offering of Christ beside the offerings of prayer and alms.

The important sources after the Didache are Justin,

Ignatius, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian.

For Justin, taking all in all, the Eucharist was a "sacri fice" (Trypho, xxviii.-xxix., ALI exvi,-axvii.; I ApoL, lxv.

lxvi.). Ignatius speaks of the Eucharist 8. The and prayer (eacharietia and proaeucha) as two Sources. things (" Smyrnarang," vii. 1), and the former "is the flesh which suffered [aarx pathousal of our Savior Jesus Christ." He does not directly call the Eucharist a sacrifice. But he knows an altar of the congre gation (" Philadelphians," iv.; " Trallians," vii. 2), the con gregation itself is the temple and altar of God, and the true priest in it is Jesus (" Magnesians," vii. 2; " Philadelphians," ix. 1). His thought is that Jesus, in that he is present at the Eucharist as the "flesh which suffered," presents him self here in the name of the congregation, living, as a sacri fice to God. Irenæus in the passage which needs chiefly to be considered (Hwr., iv. 29-32) is writing from the apo logetic side and makes no attempt to set forth the real char acter of the Eucharist. But he applies the prophecy of

Mal. i. 10-11 to the Lord's Supper and oalla the "hWy"

and "blood of Christ" the "offering of the New Testament " and, later, the " pure sacrifice," Clement of, Alex andria and Tertullian had little occasion to speak of the

Lord's Supper except as a meal; in so far as they refer to it as sacrifice at all, they set forth no theory. Clement often speaks of the "offerings" of Christians, meaning prayer and alms. But he calls the Eucharist the "offering,,

(Proaphora; Strom., i. 19), meaning the entire ceremony col lectively. Tertullian, when he speaks of the "sacrifices"

or "offerings" of the Christians, generally means prayers.

But there are passages where he applies to the Supper as a whole the expressions " sacrifice," " offering," or " to offer "

(De cuttujeminarwm, ii. 11; Ad uxorem, ii. 8; and elsewhere).

Only De orations, xix., however, can be adduced as direct proof that he does not restrict "offering" to prayers, alms, and the like. This passage assumes that the ceremony of the Eucharist is a unit, and that it necessarily closes with the "reception" of the body of the Lord. Its significance lies in a distinction between the " prayers of the sacri fices " (plural) and " participation in the sacrifice " (singu lar). To be sure it proves in itself no more than that Ter tullian knew of the view of the Supper as a sacrificial meal.

But taking it with the expressions of earlier writers, it is

230

probable that he had also in mind a sacrificial offering of the body of the Lord. Tertullian is the first to speak of "offerings" or "sacrifices" for the dead (Ds corona, iii.; De monopamia. i.; De exhortations aastitatis, a). 7t is uncertain just how they were carried out; bur the thought here can not be merely that of giving thanks.

S. Patrlstio Tesohiags· By the time of Cyprian (d. 258) and Origen (d. 251) the apostolic congregation had been organized into a single Church, and the elaboration of "dogmas" was soon making rapid strides. Not manynew ideas were propounded, however; the chief characteristic was a fixing and systematizing process exercised upon concepts already at hand. It should be remembered that the history of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper is nowhere a logical progress of thought, but was conditioned by fixed rites and absolutely binding words, with which a multitude of individual opinions was interwoven. The ceremony early became a mystery. From about 200 also the notion of a privileged priesthood stood in the background. Furthermore, it must not be overlooked that till the end of the fourth century sacrifice was everywhere a vital institution of public life. Everybody knew what a " sacrifice " was. But when the " Christian sacrifice " was the only one remaining, there arose need of explanations and "doctrines." At this very time, however, other dogmatic problems claimed attention. Thus different factors worked together to' the detriment of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

It has been usual to date an epoch in the development of the doctrine of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist from Cyprian-probably because he has left a much fuller exposition of his views on the subject than earlier writers. The occasion was furnished by the spread of the custom of celebrating

the Supper with water instead of wine, 1. Cyprian which Cyprian treats at great length and Origen. in his sixty-third letter (Ad Ccec'ilium).

He sets forth here a theory of the Supper as sacrifice, with certain limitations, which was probably widely held. In the most varied terms he designates the transaction with the cup and the entire ceremony as a "sacrifice" and an "offering." When Jesus poured the wine into the cup he fulfilled a whole cycle of prophecies which all looked forward to his suffering and redemption through his blood (chaps. iii. sqq.). Jesus offered the Supper as "sacrifice" to God (chap. xiv.). The wine "expresses the blood of Christ" (chap. xi.), and the Supper is the "offering of the blood of Christ" (chaps. ix., xv.). The mixing of wine and water in the cup is interpreted mystically, the water representing the congregation (chaps. xii., xiii.). Cyprian is still able to define the import of the sacrifice as "thanks," but the thought prevails with him that the petition is promoted by the " memorial of the passion of Christ " (i. e., the Supper), although he nowhere speaks directly 'of a " propitiatory "effect of the eucharistic offering. Nor does he express the thought that the " offering of the body and blood of Christ " is a " sacrifice " in an independent sense; it is such only in relation to the " representative sacrifice" in the Lord's Supper. Origen was less of a hierarch than Cyprian. The latter apparently thought a "priest" necessary. Origen does not

deny the importance of the priest, but he bases it on the need of "order" and the priest's personal gifts. He believes that "everyone" can sacrifice. He has gone a step beyond any extant expression of Cyprian'a in that he attributes "atoning" efficacy to the Lord's Supper: As theologian he was dominated by the idea of a "higher" sense, the allegorical interpretation, which he sought in the Eucharist and sacrifice as everywhere else. All sacrifice has the aim of cleansing from sin (Ham. in Num., a. 2; Hom. xxiv. 1). What the Old-Testament sacrifices merely prefigured became truth in Christ's death. But Origen regarded Christ's sacrifice and high-priesthood, not as a thing of the past, but as continuing. Christ continually sacrifices and intercedes for the faithful in heaven, at the altar of heaven; and Origen inferred from the Old-Testament type that Christ sacrifices in heaven with the coals from our altar and with the incense from our hands (cf. Hom. in Lev., ix. 8). It is hardly credible that Origen did not have in mind here the " body and blood of Christ " in the Eucharist. Elsewhere (Contra Celmm, viii. 33) he says that the bread of the Eucharist is not mere bread, but also a"body . .

a holy thing which sanctifies those who use it with right intention." It is true that Origen nowhere actually sets forth a theory of the Lord's Supper as an offering of the body of Christ; but' he shows clearly enough that it had such significance for him (cf. Ham. in Lev., xiii. 3). He sometimes alludes to an offering of the blood of Christ in the Eucharist. According to his whole mode of thinking, Origen could have conceived only of a symbolic "offering" of Christ in the Eucharist. But there was nothing, to hinder his seeing in it a "commemorative" renewal of the atoning work of Christ.

Ambrose and Augustine brought together two ideas which before them had been current separately; that is, they connected the thought of the "body of Christ," which is sacrificed, with Christians themselves individually and collectively,

Augustine directly combining the !d. Ambrose former with the conception of the and Church as the "body of Christ." dn8-tine. Thereby the sense of the duty of

Christians to present themselves, their thoughts and works, and their whole life to God as the weightiest sacrifice, came into close connection with the idea of the Lord's Supper as sacrifice. What Origen was able to connect with the Supper only by the medium of allegory, these two Western Fathers regarded as the content and import of the sacred act. Thus they gave the church ceremony a practical significance which tended to counteract the superstitious notions of mere sacramental magic. Of course the thought of the "blood of Christ" received their attention. Ambrose says that the " flesh of the Savior " has its significance "for the welfare of the body," his blood was poured out "for our soul." Augustine interprets the pouring of the wine into the mouth of the communicant as a figure of the "shedding" of the blood. But the most important thing with each is that he brings closely together the two acts, of priest and of congregation, since this lessened the danger that the Supper as a sacrifice should be set apart and become

231

a purely hierurgic transaction. For Ambrose it will suffice to cite merely the Enarratio in Pad= axxuii., nor. 2$, 26. He says that the "priests" offer the "body of Christ," i. e., the elements with their true content perceived by faith, viz., "Christ himself." But the truth of the matter is for Ambrose this, that Christ continually offers to God in heaven the "perfect man," i. e., the Christian who has actually received Christ at the hands of the priest. Ambrose regards the eucharistic bread and wine as " medicine "; the conception of a " sacrificial meal " has quite disappeared. With Augustine (De civitate Dei, a. 4 sqq.) a sacrifice is something which is addressed to God that we may have close connection with God. Every "visible sacrifice" is only a "sacrament of an invisible sacrifice." The sacrifice of the death of Christ makes it possible that " the congregation of saints be presented a general sacrifice to God by the great high priest, who also in his passion sacrificed himself for us that we might be the body of so great a head." The thought that the " body of Christ "in the Lord's Supper is the Church-" in a sacrament "-and the question, whether merely bread and wine or a wonder in reference to tie real body of Christ constituted the sacrament, are discussed further in Sermon cclxxii. In Contra Faus tum Manichwum, xx. 15 sqq., all of Augustine's thoughts on the Christian sacrifices are summed up. The influence of both Ambrose and Augustine on the interpretation of the eucharistic sacrifice has always been great. And the rich subjective passionmysticism which Roman Catholicism connects with the sacrifice of the mass is derived chiefly from the Ambrosian-Augustinian tradition.

Passing over the theologians of the neat two centuries, at the boundary between the patristic and the medieval time stands Gregory the Great, theologically without originality, yet by his position one of the greatest of teachers, and even more so be- cause of the popular, pastoral manner 8. Gregory in which, with citation of many eathe Great. ampler preferably from his own knowl- what seemed him of ed and ~ practical importance. The official dogmas are not prominent in his works. But questions of the cult and of the spiritual dis. cipline interested him both as preacher and writer. He considers it fully settled how one should think about sacrifice. In the Hom. in Evangelia (II., xxxvii. 7) he treats of the significance of the sac rifice of the mass for "absolution," for release from the effects of any fault. A "legation" must be sent to God and works of mercy shown to him, but before all " let us offer on his altar the sac rifices [hoetiaa] of propitiation; for the sacrifice of the sacred altar, offered with tears and benevo lence of mind, pleads especially for our absolution, because he who, having risen from the dead, now no longer dies, still in this dies again for us in his mya tery. For as often as we offer to him the sacrifice of his passion, so often do we renew for ourselves his passion for our absolution." Especially celebrated in the Middle Ages were certain remarks of Greg ory's in the "Dialogues" (iv. 58, 59). He has been speaking of the efficacy of the sacrifice of the mass for departed souls, prisoners, etc., and says it is better " to die free than to seek freedom after chains." So he commends " the daily sacrifice of tears to God and to offer daily the sacrifice of his flesh and blood. For that victim especially saves the soul from everlasting death which by a mystery renews for us that death of the only begotten, who . . . in himself living immortal and incorruptible is sacrificed again for us in this mystery of the sacred offering. For his body is taken there, his flesh is broken for the salvation of the people, his blood is poured not on the hands of unbelievers but in the mouths of the faithful. So let us appreciate what this sacrifice for us is, which imitates for our absolution the passion of the only begotten son. For who of the faithful can doubt that in the very hour of the sacrifice the heavens are opened to the voice of the priest, that a choir of -angels attends that mystery of Jesus Christ, that the lowest are joined with the highest, the earth with the heavens, and that one thing is done by those visible and invisible?"

The ideas of the East do not differ essentially from those of the West between 300 and 600. Eusebius of Cæsarea (Demwnatratio evuangelica, i. 10) conceives of the Eucharist as self-evidently a propitiatory sacrificial act. If Christ on the cross was

,the predicted atoning sacrifice for Jews 4. The and Gentiles, then both as Christians

East. attain forgiveness of their sins " by daily making mention of his body and blood." Christ's sacrifice was made once for all, but he has commanded us to " offer a memorial of it to God perpetually:" Eusebius's idea of the ceremony as a sacrifice was purely representative. He considers the ritual part as exclusively hierurgie and interprets only the incensing as a saErifice of Christians. In the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 25) the "gifts" are fixed requirements for the Eucharist and the support of clergy and widows. The "offering of the Eucharist" (ii. 57) depends on the "gifts," since the "sacrifice" follows after they have been made. Book viii. 12 gives the first complete liturgy. As in Justin, the entire ceremony is thought of as " sacrifice," in which the " offering " has a special place. The offering of the body and blood signifies also "thanks." Cyril of Jerusalem. calls the elements a " spiritual sacrifice " and a " sacrifice of propitiation " (" Catechetical Mysteries," v. 8). When" the holy and most awful sacrifice has been made," we offer to God, in prayers for the de. parted, " Christ slain for our sins, propitiating the benevolent God for them and for us), (v. 9). A definite theory of the manner of the sacrifice is sought in vain in Cyril, Eusebius, and the other Fathers of the time. Evidently the thought of the Supper as a meal counted for more in the speculation of the East than of the West, but perhaps not in popular interest. The recollection of the sacrificial meal seems to have lasted longer than in the West. Little attempt was made to explain what a sacrifice is or what there is sacrificial in the Lord's Supper. The Alexandrian and Antiochian schools are in accord when they come to treat of the doctrine of sacrifice as an act.

Apart from sermons and the productions of the mystagogical literature (see MYBTAflOaIC TaMorr

232

oGy) neither East nor West produced a special treatise on the Eucharist. Even Chrysostom, who is called doctor eucharistice,