THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
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 (De corona, iii.; De monogamia, x.; De exhortatione castitati*, xi.). It is uncertain just how they were carried out; but the thought here can not be merely that of giving thanks.
3. Patristic Teaching-s: By the time of Cyprian (d. 2oS) 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 many new 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 Cmeilium).
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 hicrarch 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's 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 (Horn, in Num., x. 2; Horn. 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. Horn, 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 Celsum, 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. Horn, 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
2. Ambrose former with the conception of the
and Church as the " body of Christ."
Augustine. 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