At an earlier date the Apologists (Justin, Melito, Tertullian himself) had already extolled her as such, but it was not till now that she really possessed this capacity. Among Christians, first the Encrat.i.tes and Marcionites, next the adherents of the new prophecy, and lastly the Novatians had by turns opposed the naturalisation of their religion in the world and the transformation of the Church into a political commonwealth. Their demands had progressively become less exacting, whence also their internal vigour had grown ever weaker. But, in view of the continuous secularising of Christendom, the Montanist demands at the beginning of the 3rd century already denoted no less than those of the Encrat.i.tes about the middle of the second, and no more than those of the Novatians about the middle of the third. The Church resolutely declared war on all these attempts to elevate evangelical perfection to an inflexible law for all, and overthrew her opponents. She pressed on in her world-wide mission and appeased her conscience by allowing a twofold morality within her bounds. Thus she created the conditions which enabled the ideal of evangelical perfection to be realised in her own midst, in the form of monasticism, without threatening her existence.

"What is monasticism but an ecclesiastical inst.i.tution that makes it possible to separate oneself from the world and to remain in the Church, to separate oneself from the outward Church without renouncing her, to set oneself apart for purposes of sanctification and yet to claim the highest rank among her members, to form a brotherhood and yet to further the interests of the Church?" In succeeding times great Church movements, such as the Montanist and Novatian, only succeeded in attaining local or provincial importance. See the movement at Rome at the beginning of the 4th century, of which we unfortunately know so little (Lipsius, Chronologie der romischen Bischofe, pp. 250-255), the Donatist Revolution, and the Audiani in the East.]

[Footnote 253: It is a characteristic circ.u.mstance that Tertullian's de ieiun. does _not_ a.s.sume that the great ma.s.s of Christians possess an actual knowledge of the Bible.]

[Footnote 254: The condition of the const.i.tution of the Church about the middle of the 3rd century (in accordance with Cyprian's epistles) is described by Otto Ritschl, l.c., pp. 142-237. Parallels to the provincial and communal const.i.tution of secular society are to be found throughout.]

[Footnote 255: To how great an extent the Church in Decius' time was already a state within the state is shown by a piece of information given in Cyprian's 55th epistle (c. 9.): "Cornelius sedit intrepidus Romae in sacerdotali cathedra eo tempore: c.u.m tyrannus infestus sacerdotibus dei fanda adque infanda comminaretur, c.u.m multo patientius et tolerabilius audiret levari adversus se aemulum principem quam const.i.tui Romae dei sacerdotem." On the other hand the legislation with regard to Christian flamens adopted by the Council of Elvira, which, as d.u.c.h.esne (Melanges Renier: Le Concile d'Elvire et les flamines chretiens, 1886) has demonstrated, most probably dates from before the Diocletian persecution of 300, shows how closely the discipline of the Church had already been adapted to the heathen regulations in the Empire. In addition to this there was no lack of syncretist systems within Christianity as early as the 3rd century (see the [Greek: Kestoi]

of Julius Africa.n.u.s, and other examples). Much information on this point is to be derived from Origen's works and also, in many respects, from the att.i.tude of this author himself. We may also refer to relic- and hero-worship, the foundation of which was already laid in the 3rd century, though the "religion of the second order" did not become a recognised power in the Church or force itself into the official religion till the 4th.]

[Footnote 256: See Tertullian's frightful accusations in de pudic. (10) and de ieiun. (fin) against the "Psychici", i.e., the Catholic Christians. He says that with them the saying had really come to signify "peccando promeremur," by which, however, he does not mean the Augustinian: "o felix culpa."]

[Footnote 257: The relation of this Church to theology, what theology she required and what she rejected, and, moreover, to what extent she rejected the kind that she accepted may be seen by reference to chap. 5 ff. We may here also direct attention to the peculiar position of Origen in the Church as well as to that of Lucian the Martyr, concerning whom Alexander of Alexandria (Theoderet, H. E. I. 3) remarks that he was a [Greek: aposunagogos] in Antioch for a long time, namely, during the rule of three successive bishops.]

[Footnote 258: We have already referred to the pa.s.sage above. On account of its importance we may quote it here:

"According to Celsus Apollo required the Metapontines to regard Aristeas as a G.o.d; but in their eyes the latter was but a man and perhaps not a virtuous one ... They would therefore not obey Apollo, and thus it happened that no one believed in the divinity of Aristeas. But with regard to Jesus we may say that it proved a blessing to the human race to acknowledge him as the Son of G.o.d, as G.o.d who appeared on earth united with body and soul." Origen then says that the demons counterworked this belief, and continues: "But G.o.d who had sent Jesus on earth brought to nought all the snares and plots of the demons and aided in the victory of the Gospel of Jesus throughout the whole earth in order to promote the conversion and amelioration of men; and everywhere brought about the establishment of Churches which are ruled by other laws than those that regulate the Churches of the superst.i.tious, the dissolute and the unbelieving. For of such people the civil population ([Greek: politeuomena en tais ekklesiais ton poleon plethe]) of the towns almost everywhere consists." [Greek: Hai de tou Theou Christo matheteuthesai ekklesiai, sunezetazomenai tais on paroikousi demon ekklesiais, hos photeres eisin en kosmo. tis gar ouk an h.o.m.ologesai, kai tous cheirous ton apo tes ekklesias kai sugkrisei beltionon elattous pollo kreittous tugxhanein ton en tois demois ekklesion; ekklesia men gar tou theou, pher' eipein, he Athenaesi praeia tis kai eustathes, hate Theo areskein to epi pasi boulomene; he d' Athenaion ekklesia stasiodes kai oudamos paraballomene te ekei ekklesia tou Theou; to d' auto ereis, peri ekklesias tou Theou tes en Korintho kai tes ekklesias tou demon Korinthion; kai, pher' eipein, peri ekklesias tou Theou tes en Alexandreia, kai ekklesias tou Alexandreon demou, kai ean eugnomon he ho toutou akouon kai philalethos exetaze ta pragmata, thaumasetai ton kai bouleusamenon kai anousai dunethenta pantachou sustesasthai ekklesias tou Theou, paroikousas ekklesias ton kath' 'ekasten polin demon houto de kai boulen ekklesias Theou boule te kath' hekasten polin sunexetazon heurois an hoti tines men tes ekklesias bouleutai exioi eisi]--[Greek: ei tis estin en to panti polis tou Theou]--[Greek: en ekeine politeuesthai hoi de pantachou bouleutai ouden exion tes ek katataxeos huperoches, hen huperechein dokousi ton politon, pherousin en tois heauton ethesin; houto de kai archonta ekklesias hekastes poleos archonti ton en te polei sugkroteon; hina katanoesus, hoti kai epi ton sphodra apotugchanomenoo bouleton kai archonton ekklesias Theou, kai rhathumoteron para tous eutonoteros biountas ouden etton estin heurein hos epipan huperochen ten en te epi tas aretas prokope para ta ethe ton en tais polesi bouleuton kai archonton.]]

[Footnote 259: Ritschl, Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche pp. 362, 368, 394, 461, 555, 560, 576. Otto Ritschl, l.c., pp. 208, 218, 231.

Hatch "Organisation of the early Christian Church," Lectures 5 and 6; id., Art. "Ordination," "Priest," in the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. Hauck, Art. "Priester" in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie, 2nd ed. Voigt, l.c., p. 175 ff. Sohm, Kirchenrecht I. p. 205 ff. Louw, Het ontstaan van het Priesterschap in de christ. Kerk, Utrecht, 1892.]

[Footnote 260: Clement of Rome was the first to compare the conductors of public worship in Christian Churches with the priests and Levites, and the author of the [Greek: Didache] was the first to liken the Christian prophets to the high priests. It cannot, however, be shown that there were any Christian circles where the leaders were directly styled "priests" before the last quarter of the 2nd century. We can by no means fall back on Ignatius, Philad. 9, nor on Iren., IV. 8. 3, which pa.s.sage is rather to be compared with [Greek: Did.] 13. 3. It is again different in Gnostic circles, which in this case, too, antic.i.p.ated the secularising process: read for example the description of Marcus in Iren., I. 13. Here, _mutatis mutandis_, we have the later Catholic bishop, who alone is able to perform a mysterious sacrifice to whose person powers of grace are attached--the formula of bestowal was: [Greek: metadounai soi thelo tes emes charitos ... lambane ap' emou kai di' emou charin], and through whose instrumentality union with G.o.d can alone be attained: the [Greek: apolutrosis] (I. 21.) is only conferred through the mystagogue. Much of a similar nature is to be found, and we can expressly say that the distinction between priestly mystagogues and laymen was of fundamental importance in many Gnostic societies (see also the writings of the Coptic Gnostics); it was different in the Marcionite Church. Tertullian (de bapt. 17) was the first to call the bishop "summus sacerdos," and the older opinion that he merely "played" with the idea is untenable, and refuted by Pseudo-Cyprian, de aleat. 2 ("sacerdotalis dignitas"). In his Antimontanist writings the former has repeatedly repudiated any distinction in principle of a particular priestly cla.s.s among Christians, as well as the application of certain injunctions to this order (de exhort. 7: "nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? ... adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offeis et tinguis et sacerdos es tibi solus, sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici."; de monog. 7). We may perhaps infer from his works that before about the year 200, the name "priest" was not yet universally applied to bishop and presbyters in Carthage (but see after this de praescr. 29, 41: sacerdotalia munera; de pud. 1, 21; de monog. 12: disciplina sacerd.; de exhort. 7: sacerdotalis ordo, ibid. 11 "et offeres pro duabus uxoribus, et commendabis illas duas per sacerdotem de monogamia ordinatum;" de virg. vel. 9: sacerdotale officium; Scorp. 7: sacerdos). The latest writings of Tertullian show us indeed that the name and the conception which it represents were already prevalent. Hippolytus (Philos. praef.: [Greek: hon hemeis diadochoi tugchanontes tes te autes charitos metechontes archierateias kai didaskalias], see also the Arabian canons) expressly claimed high priesthood for the bishops, and Origen thought he was justified in giving the name of "Priests and Levites" to those who conducted public worship among Christians. This he indeed did with reserve (see many pa.s.sages, e.g., Hom. II. in Num., Vol. II. p. 278; Hom. VI. in Lev., Vol. II. p. 211; Comment, in Joh., Vol. I. 3), but yet to a far greater extent than Clement (see Bigg, l.c., p. 214 f.). In Cyprian and the literature of the Greek Church in the immediately following period we find the designation "priest" as the regular and most customary name for the bishop and presbyters. Novatian (Jerome, de vir. inl. 70) wrote a treatise _de sacerdote_ and another _de ordinatione_. The notable and momentous change of conception expressed in the idea can be traced by us through its preparatory stages almost as little as the theory of the apostolic succession of the bishops. Irenaeus (IV. 8. 3, 17. 5, 18. 1) and Tertullian, when compared with Cyprian, appear here as representatives of primitive Christianity. They firmly a.s.sert the priesthood of the whole congregation. That the laity had as great a share as the leaders of the Churches in the transformation of the latter into Priests is moreover shown by the bitter saying of Tertullian (de monog. 12): "Sed c.u.m extollimur et inflamur adversus clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc omnes sacerdotes, quia 'sacerdotes nos deo et patri fecit'. c.u.m ad peraequationem disciplinae sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas."]

[Footnote 261: See Sohm, I. p. 207.]

[Footnote 262: The "deservire altari et sacrificia divina celebrare"

(Cypr. ep. 67. 1) is the distinctive function of the _sacerdos dei_. It may further be said, however, that _all_ ceremonies of public worship properly belong to him, and Cyprian has moreover contrived to show that this function of the bishop as leader of the Church follows from his priestly attributes; for as priest the bishop is _antistes Christi_ (dei); see epp. 59. 18: 61. 2: 63. 14: 66. 5, and this is the basis of his right and duty to preserve the _lex evangelica_ and the _traditio dominica_ in every respect. As _antistes dei_ however, an attribute bestowed on the bishop by the apostolic succession and the laying on of hands, he has also received the power of the keys, which confers the right to judge in Christ's stead and to grant or refuse the divine grace. In Cyprian's conception of the episcopal office the _successio apostolica_ and the position of vicegerent of Christ (of G.o.d) counterbalance each other; he also tried to amalgamate both elements (ep. 55. 8: "cathedra sacerdotalis"). It is evident that as far as the inner life of each church was concerned, the latter and newer necessarily proved the more important feature. In the East, where the thought of the apostolical succession of the bishops never received such p.r.o.nounced expression as in Rome it was just this latter element that was almost exclusively emphasised from the end of the 3rd century.

Ignatius led the way when he compared the bishop, in his position towards the individual community, with G.o.d and Christ. He, however, is dealing in images, but at a later period the question is about realities based on a mysterious transference.]

[Footnote 263: Soon after the creation of a professional priesthood, there also arose a cla.s.s of inferior clergy. This was first the case in Rome. This development was not uninfluenced by the heathen priesthood, and the temple service (see my article in Texte und Untersuchungen II.

5). Yet Sohm, l.c., p. 128 ff., has disputed this, and proposed modifications, worth considering, in my view of the origin of the _ordines minores_.]

[Footnote 264: Along with the sacerdotal laws, strictly so called, which Cyprian already understood to apply in a frightful manner (see his appeal to Deut. XVII. 12; 1 Sam. VIII. 7; Luke X. 16; John XVIII. 22 f.; Acts XXIII. 4-5 in epp. 3. 43, 59. 66), other Old Testament commandments could not fail to be introduced. Thus the commandment of t.i.thes, which Irenaeus had still a.s.serted to be abolished, was now for the first time established (see Origen; Const.i.t. Apost. and _my_ remarks on [Greek: Did]. c. 13); and hence Mosaic regulations as to ceremonial cleanness were adopted (see Hippol. Canones arab. 17; Dionys. Alex., ep. canon.).

Constantine was the first to base the observance of Sunday on the commandment as to the Sabbath. Besides, the West was always more hesitating in this respect than the East. In Cyprian's time, however, the cla.s.sification and dignity of the clergy were everywhere upheld by an appeal to Old Testament commandments, though reservations still continued to be made here and there.]

[Footnote 265: Tertullian (de pud. I) sneeringly named the bishop of Rome "pontifex maximus," thereby proving that he clearly recognised the heathen colouring given to the episcopal office. With the picture of the bishop drawn by the Apostolic const.i.tutions may be compared the ill-natured descriptions of Paul of Samosata in Euseb., VII. 30.]

[Footnote 266: Yet this influence, in a direct form at least, can only be made out at a comparatively late period. But nevertheless, from the middle of the 3rd century the priests alone are possessed of knowledge.

As [Greek: mathesis] and [Greek: mystagogia] are inseparably connected in the mysteries and Gnostic societies, and the mystagogue was at once knowing one and priest, so also in the Catholic Church the priest is accounted the knowing one. Doctrine itself became a mystery to an increasing extent.]

[Footnote 267: Examples are found in epp. 1, 3, 4, 33, 43, 54, 57, 59, 65, 66. But see Iren., IV. 26. 2, who is little behind Cyprian here, especially when he threatens offenders with the fate of Dathan and Abiram. One of the immediate results of the formation of a priestly and spiritual cla.s.s was that the independent "teachers" now shared the fate of the old "prophets" and became extinct (see my edition of the [Greek: Didache], prolegg. pp. 131-137). It is an instructive fact that Theoktistus of Caesarea and Alexander of Jerusalem in order to prove in opposition to Demetrius that independent teachers were still tolerated, i.e., allowed to speak in public meetings of the Church, could only appeal to the practice of Phrygia and Lycaonia, that is, to the habit of outlying provinces where, besides, Montanism had its original seat.

Euelpis in Laranda, Paulinus in Iconium, and Theodorus in Synnada, who flourished about 216, are in addition to Origen the last independent teachers (i.e., outside the ranks of the clergy) known to us in Christendom (Euseb., H. E. VI. 19 fin.).]

[Footnote 268: See Dollinger, Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 1826. Hofling, Die Lehre der altesten Kirche vom Opfer, p. 71 ff. Th. Harnack, Der christliche Gemeindegottesdienst im apostolischen und altkatholischen Zeitalter, p. 342 ff. Steitz, Art.

"Messe" in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie, 2nd ed. It is idle to enquire whether the conception of the "sacerdotium" or that of the "sacrificium"

was first altered, because they are correlative ideas.]

[Footnote 269: See the proof pa.s.sages in Hofling, l.c., who has also treated in detail Clement and Origen's idea of sacrifice, and cf. the beautiful saying of Irenaeus IV. 18. 3: "Non sacrificia sanctificant hominem; non enim indiget sacrificio deus; sed conscientia eius qui offert sanctificat sacrificium, pura exsistens, et praestat acceptare deum quasi ab amico" (on the offering in the Lord's Supper see Iren. IV.

17. 5, 18. 1); Tertull., Apolog. 30; de orat. 28; adv. Marc. III. 22; IV. 1, 35: adv. Jud. 5; de virg. vel. 13.]

[Footnote 270: Cf. specially the Montanist writings; the treatise _de ieiunio_ is the most important among them in this case; see cc. 7, 16; de resurr. 8. On the use of the word "satisfacere" and the new ideas on the point which arose in the West (cf. also the word "meritum") see below chap. 5. 2 and the 2nd chap. of the 5th Vol. Note that the 2nd Ep.

of Clement already contains the sayings: [Greek: kalon eleemoune hos metanoia hamartias kreisson nesteia proseuches, eleemosune de amphoteron ... eleemosune gar kouphisma hamartias ginetai] (16. 4; similar expressions occur in the "Shepherd"). But they only show how far back we find the origin of these injunctions borrowed from Jewish proverbial wisdom. One cannot say that they had no effect at all on Christian life in the 2nd century; but we do not yet find the idea that ascetic performances are a sacrifice offered to a wrathful G.o.d. Martyrdom seems to have been earliest viewed as a performance which expiated sins. In Tertullian's time the theory, that it was on a level with baptism (see Melito, 12. Fragment in Otto, Corp. Apol. IX. p. 418: [Greek: duo suneste ta aphesin amartemata parechomena, pathos dia Christon kai baptisma]), had long been universally diffused and was also exegetically grounded. In fact, men went a step further and a.s.serted that the merits of martyrs could also benefit others. This view had likewise become established long before Tertullian's day, but was opposed by him (de pudic 22), when martyrs abused the powers universally conceded to them.

Origen went furthest here; see exhort. ad mart. 50: [Greek: hosper timio haimati tou Iesou egorasthemen ... houtos to timio haimati ton marturon agorasthesontai tines]; Hom. X. in Num. c. II.: "ne forte, ex quo martyres non fiunt et hostiae sanctorum non offeruntur pro peccatis nostris, peccatorum nostrorum remissionem non mereamur." The origin of this thought is, on the one hand, to be sought for in the wide-spread notion that the sufferings of an innocent man benefit others, and, on the other, in the belief that Christ himself suffered in the martyrs (see, e.g., ep. Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. 1. 23, 41).]

[Footnote 271: In the East it was Origen who introduced into Christianity the rich treasure of ancient ideas that had become a.s.sociated with sacrifices. See Bigg's beautiful account in "The Christian Platonists of Alexandria," Lect. IV.-VI.]

[Footnote 272: Moreover, Tertullian (Scorp. 6) had already said: "Quomodo multae mansiones apud patrem, si non pro varietate meritorum."]

[Footnote 273: See c. 1: "Nam c.u.m dominus adveniens sana.s.set illa, quae Adam portaverit vulnera et venena serpentis antiqua cura.s.set, legem dedit sano et praecepit, ne ultra iam peccaret, ne quid peccanti gravius eveniret: coartati eramus et in augustum innocentiae praescriptione conclusi, nec haberet quid fragilitatis humanae infirmitas adque imbecillitas faceret, nisi iterum pietas divina subveniens iust.i.tiae et misericordiae operibus ostensis viam quandam tuendae salutis aperiret, ut sordes postmodum quasc.u.mque contrahimus eleemosynis abluamus." c. 2: "sicut lavacro aquae salutaris gehennae ignis extinguitur, ita eleemosynis adque operationibus iustus delictorum flamma sopitur, et quia semel in baptismo remissa peccatorum datur, adsidua et iugis operatic baptismi instar imitata dei rursus indulgentiam largiatur." 5, 6, 9. In c. 18 Cyprian already established an arithmetical relation between the number of alms-offerings and the blotting out of sins, and in c. 21, in accordance with an ancient idea which Tertullian and Minucius Felix, however, only applied to martyrdom, he describes the giving of alms as a spectacle for G.o.d and Christ. In Cyprian's epistles "satisfacere deo" is exceedingly frequent. It is almost still more important to note the frequent use of the expression "promereri deum (iudicem)" in Cyprian.

See de unitate 15: "iust.i.tia opus est, ut promereri quis possit deum iudicem: praeceptis eius et monitis obtemperandum est, ut accipiant merita nostra mercedem." 18; de lapsis 31; de orat. 8, 32, 36; de mortal. 10; de op. 11, 14, 15, 26; de bono pat. 18; ep. 62. 2: 73. 10.

Here it is everywhere a.s.sumed that Christians acquire G.o.d's favour by their works.]

[Footnote 274: Baptism with blood is not referred to here.]

[Footnote 275: With modifications, this has still continued to be the case beyond Augustine's time down to the Catholicism of the present day.

Cyprian is the father of the Romish doctrine of good works and sacrifice. Yet is it remarkable that he was not yet familiar with the theory according to which man _must_ acquire _merita_. In his mind "merits" and "blessedness" are not yet rigidly correlated ideas; but the rudiments of this view are also found in him; cf. de unit. 15 (see p.

134, note 3).]

[Footnote 276: "Sacrificare," "sacrificium celebrare," in all pa.s.sages where they are unaccompanied by any qualifying words, mean to celebrate the Lord's Supper. Cyprian has never called prayer a "sacrifice" without qualifying terms; on the contrary he collocates "preces" and "sacrificium," and sometimes also "oblatio" and "sacrificium." The former is then the offering of the laity and the latter of the priests.]

[Footnote 277: Cf. the whole 63rd epistle and above all c. 7: "Et quia pa.s.sionis eius mentionem in sacrificiis omnibus facimus, pa.s.sio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerrimus, nihil aliud quam quod ille fecit facere debemus;" c. 9.: "unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici." 13; de unit. 17: "dominicae hostiae veritatem per falsa sacrificia profanare;" ep. 63. 4: "sacramentum sacrificii dominici." The transference of the sacrificial idea to the consecrated elements, which, in all probability, Cyprian already found in existence, is ultimately based on the effort to include the element of mystery and magic in the specifically sacerdotal ceremony of sacrifice, and to make the Christian offering a.s.sume, though not visibly, the form of a b.l.o.o.d.y sacrifice, such as secularised Christianity desired. This transference, however, was the result of two causes. The first has been already rightly stated by Ernesti (Antimur. p. 94) in the words: "quia eucharistia habet [Greek: anamnesin] Christi mortui et sacrificii eius in cruce peracti, propter ea paullatim coepta est tota eucharistia sacrificium dici." In Cyprian's 63rd epistle it is still observable how the "calicem in commemorationem domini et pa.s.sionis eius offerre" pa.s.ses over into the "sanguinem Christi offerre," see also Euseb. demonstr. I.

13: [Greek: mnemen tes thysias Christou prospherein] and [Greek: ten ensarkon tou Christou parousian kai to katartisthen autou soma prospherein]. The other cause has been specially pointed out by Theodore Harnack (l.c., p. 409 f.). In ep. 63. 2 and in many other pa.s.sages Cyprian expresses the thought "that in the Lord's Supper nothing else is done _by_ us but what the Lord has first done _for_ us." But he says that at the inst.i.tution of the Supper the Lord first offered himself as a sacrifice to G.o.d the Father. Consequently the priest officiating in Christ's stead only presents a true and perfect offering when he imitates what Christ has done (c. 14: "si Christus Jesus dominus et deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos dei patris et sacrificiam patri se ipsum obtulit et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit, utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur et sacrificium verum et plenum tunc offert in ecclesia deo patri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse"). This brings us to the conception of the repet.i.tion of Christ's sacrifice by the priest. But in Cyprian's case it was still, so to speak, only a notion verging on that idea, that is, he only leads up to it, abstains from formulating it with precision, or drawing any further conclusions from it, and even threatens the idea itself inasmuch as he still appears to conceive the "calicem in commemorationem domini et pa.s.sionis eius offerre" as identical with it. As far as the East is concerned we find in Origen no trace of the a.s.sumption of a repeated sacrifice of Christ.

But in the original of the first 6 books of the Apostolic Const.i.tutions this conception is also wanting, although the Supper ceremonial has a.s.sumed an exclusively sacerdotal character (see II. 25: [Greek: hai tote] (in the old covenant) [Greek: thusiai, nun euchai kai deeseis kai eucharistiai]. II. 53). The pa.s.sage VI. 23: [Greek: anti thusias tes di'

haimaton ten logiken kai anaimakton kai ten mustiken, hetis eis ton thanaton tou kuriou symbolon charin epiteleitai tou somatos autou kai tou haimatos] does not belong to the original doc.u.ment, but to the interpolator. With the exception therefore of one pa.s.sage in the Apostolic Church order (printed in my edition of the Didache prolegg. p.

236) viz.: [Greek: he prosphora tou somatos kai tou haimatos], we possess no proofs that there was any mention in the East before Eusebius' time of a sacrifice of Christ's body in the Lord's Supper.

From this, however, we must by no means conclude that the mystic feature in the celebration of the sacrifice had been less emphasised there.]

[Footnote 278: In ep. 63. 13 Cyprian has ill.u.s.trated the incorporation of the community with Christ by the mixture of wine and water in the Supper, because the special aim of the epistle required this: "Videmus in aqua populum intellegi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem Christi; quando autem in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur et credentium plebs ei in quem credidit copulatur et iungitur etc." The special mention of the offerers (see already Tertullian's works: de corona 3, de exhort. cast. II, and de monog. 10) therefore means that the latter commend themselves to Christ as his own people, or are recommended to him as such. On the Praxis see Cyprian ep. I. 2 "... si quis hoc fecisset. non offerretur pro eo nee sacrificium pro dormitione eius celebraretur;" 62. 5: "ut fratres nostros in mente habeatis orationibus vestris et eis vicem boni operis in sacrificiis et precibus repraesentetis, subdidi nomina singulorum."]

[Footnote 279: Much as the use of the word "sacramentum" in the Western Church from Tertullian to Augustine (Hahn, Die Lehre von den Sacramenten, 1864, p. 5 ff.) differs from that in the cla.s.sic Romish use it is of small interest in the history of dogma to trace its various details. In the old Latin Bible [Greek: mysterion] was translated "sacramentum" and thus the new signification "mysterious, holy ordinance or thing" was added to the meaning "oath," "sacred obligation."

Accordingly Tertullian already used the word to denote sacred facts, mysterious and salutary signs and vehicles, and also holy acts.

Everything in any way connected with the Deity and his revelation, and therefore, for example, the content of revelation as doctrine, is designated "sacrament;" and the word is also applied to the symbolical which is always something mysterious and holy. Alongside of this the old meaning "sacred obligation" still remains in force. If, because of this comprehensive use, further discussion of the word is unnecessary, the fact that revelation itself as well as everything connected with it was expressly designated as a "mystery" is nevertheless of importance in the history of dogma. This usage of the word is indeed not removed from the original one so long as it was merely meant to denote the supernatural origin and supernatural nature of the objects in question; but more than this was now intended; "sacramentum" ([Greek: mysterion]) was rather intended to represent the holy thing that was revealed as something relatively concealed. This conception, however, is opposed to the Judaeo-Christian idea of revelation, and is thus to be regarded as an introduction of the Greek notion. Probst (Sacramente und Sacramentalia, 1872) thinks differently. That which is mysterious and dark appears to be such an essential attribute of the divine, that even the obscurities of the New Testament Scriptures were now justified because these writings were regarded as altogether "spiritual." See Iren. II. 28. 1-3.

Tert. de bapt. 2: "deus in stult.i.tia et impossibilitate materias operationis suae inst.i.tuit."]

[Footnote 280: We have explained above that the Church already possessed this means of grace, in so far as she had occasionally absolved mortal sinners, even at an earlier period; but this possession was quite uncertain and, strictly speaking, was not a possession at all, for in such cases the early Church merely followed extraordinary directions of the Spirit.]

[Footnote 281: Hofling, Das Sacrament der Taufe, 2 Vols., 1846. Steitz, Art. "Taufe" in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie. Walch, Hist. paedobaptismi quattuor priorum saeculorum, 1739.]

[Footnote 282: In de bono pudic. 2: "renati ex aqua et pudicitia,"

Pseudo-Cyprian expresses an idea, which, though remarkable, is not confined to himself.]

[Footnote 283: But Tertullian says (de bapt. 6): "Non quod in aquis spiritum sanctum consequamur, sed in aqua emundati sub angelo spiritui sancto praeparamur."]

[Footnote 284: The disquisitions of Clement of Alexandria in Paedag. I, 6 (baptism and sonship) are very important, but he did not follow them up.

It is deserving of note that the positive effects of baptism were more strongly emphasised in the East than in the West. But, on the other hand, the conception is more uncertain in the former region.]

[Footnote 285: See Tertullian, de bapt. 7 ff.; Cypr., ep. 70. 2 ("ungi quoque necesse est eum qui baptizatus est, ut accepto chrismate, i.e., unctione esse unctus dei et habere in se gratiam Christi possit"), 74. 5 etc. "Chrism" is already found in Tertullian as well as the laying on of hands. The Roman Catholic bishop Cornelius in the notorious epistle to Fabius (Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 15), already traces the rites which accompany baptism to an ecclesiastical canon (perhaps one from Hippolytus' collection: see can. arab. 19). After relating that Novatian in his illness had only received clinical baptism he writes: [Greek: ou men oude ton loipon etuche, diaphugon ten noson, hon chre metalambanein kata ton tes ekklesias kanona, tou te sphragisthenai hupo tou episkopou.] It is also remarkable that one of the bishops who voted about heretic baptism (Sentent. episcop., Cypr., opp. ed. Hartel I. p.

439) calls the laying on of hands a sacrament like baptism: "neque enim spiritus sine aqua separatim operari potest nec aqua sine spiritu male ergo sibi quidem interpretantur ut dicant, quod per ma.n.u.s impositionem spiritum sanctum accipiant et sic recipiantur, c.u.m manifestum sit _utroque sacramento_ debere eos renasci in ecclesia catholica." Among other particulars found in Tertullian's work on baptism (cc. I. 12 seq.) it may moreover be seen that there were Christians about the year 200, who questioned the indispensability of baptism to salvation (baptismus non est necessarius, quibus fides satis est). The a.s.sumption that martyrdom replaces baptism (Tertull., de bapt. 16; Origen), is in itself a sufficient proof that the ideas of the "sacrament" were still uncertain. As to the objection that Jesus himself had not baptised and that the Apostles had not received Christian baptism see Tert., de bapt.

11, 12.]