regarded as the altar from which we draw our sustenance, and on (in) which (to go on to a later idea) we offer ourselves.
There is no confusion therefore when Thomas Aquinas says: Istud altare vel est crux Christi in qua Christus pro nobis immolatus est, vel ipse Christus in quo et per quem preces nostras offerimus; et hoc est altare aureum de quo dicitur Apoc. 8.
The latter thought is recognised also in the Glossa Ordinaria which is enlarged by Lanfranc: quod [corpus Christi] et in aliis divinarum locis Scripturarum altare vocatur, pro eo videlicet quod in ipso, id est, in fide ipsius, quasi in quodam altari oblatae preces et operationes nostrae acceptabiles fiunt Deo (Migne, P. L. cl. p. 405).
Compare Rupert of Deutz
in Amos
iv. c. ix. (Migne,
P. L.
clxviii. 366):
Vidi
, inquit,
Dominum stantem super altare
...Quaerentibus autem in toto Christi Evangelio ... nihil tam magnum, nihil tam evidens secundum hujus visionis proprietatem nobis occurrit quam schema vel habitus Domini nostri Jesu Christi crucifixi. Crucifixus namque et sacrificium pro nobis factus super altare crucis stetit, statione difficili, statione laboriosa sibi.... Taliter stans ipse
hostia, crux vero altare erat.
The universality of this altar is finely expressed by Leo the Great with a reference to this passage: extra castra crucifixus est ut, veterum victimarum cessante mysterio, nova hostia novo imponeretur altari, et crux Christi non templi esset ara sed mundi ( Serm. lx. (lvii.) § 5).
For the history of the word
qusiasthvrion
see Additional Note. The sacrifice is one, the altar is one. But, just as in the discourse at Capernaum, the absolute idea points towards or even passes into the outward form in which it was embodied. The fact of that Death was visibly set forth, and the reality of that participation pledged, in the Eucharist. The Table of the Lord (1 Cor. 10:21), the Bread and the Wine, enabled the believer to shew forth Christ's Death, to realise the sacrifice upon the Cross and to appropriate Christ's flesh and blood. In this sacrament then, where Christ gives Himself as the support of His faithful and rejoicing people, the Christian has that which more than fulfils the types of the Jewish ritual.
ejx ou| fagei'n
]
whereof
, as denoting the class of sacrifice and not the particular sacrifice,
they have no right to eat
.... Vulg.
de quo edere
.... The
phrase occurs again in the common text of 1 Cor. 9:13, but the true reading is
ta; ejk tou' iJerou' ejsqivousin
and not
ejk tou' iJ. ejsq.
oiJ th'/ sk. latr.
] Vulg.
qui tabernaculo deserviunt
, the priests whose office it is to fulfil the duties of the legal ritual (Heb. 8:5; comp. Clem. 1
ad Cor.
32
oiJ leitourgou'nte" tw'/ qusiasthrivw/ tou' qeou'
), rather than the whole assembly of Israel (Heb. 10:2). These, the most highly privileged of the people of Israel, who were allowed to eat of sacrifices of which none other could partake (Lev. 6:26; 7:6; 10:17), were not allowed to partake of that sacrifice which represented the sacrifice of Christ under the aspect of an atonement for sin.
The superiority which the Christian enjoyed over the Jew became most conspicuous when the highest point in each order was reached. The great sacrifice for sin on the Day of Atonement was wholly consumed. Though they who served the tabernacle were partakers with the altar, even those who were most privileged had no right to eat of this offering. But Christ who is our sacrifice for sin, the perfect antitype of that symbol, is our food also. He is our