* But this is not conclusive; for the word may have been coined in contrast to σερνούσιος (Ex 18, Dt 76 142 9015): and io that way ὑπὸ, of the iss might be retained contrary © usa (Jannaris, Tholuck)
144 LORD'S SUPPER
line; Luther, Tholuck, Keil, Nésgen, Alford, M‘Clellan, follow Augustine in accepting the neuter. Canon Cook’s defence of this view in the Guardian, Sept. 1881, should be consulted.
That the doxology in St. Matthew is an inter- polation due to liturgical use is admitted by all competent critics on the authority of NBDZ, five cursives, Latt. Boh. Orig. Tert. Cypr. Aug. Those authorities which contain it vary as to the wording, and as to the addition or omission of ‘Amen’; while some have ‘Amen ’ without the doxology. Even Wordsworth surrenders it, although ‘with hesitation.’ Perhaps its original source is the Heb. of 1 Ch 29"; and not until Chrysostom does its wording become in general stereotyped. But as it is found in the Syr-Cur. and in the Sahidic, it must have been added to the Lord’s Prayer in some places as early as the 2nd cent. Comp. 2 Ti 418, where we have an ascription of glory to Christ, which is erroneously supposed to favour the genuineness of the doxology in Mt 6,
From Tertullian (adv. Marcion. tv. xxvi.), from Gregory of Nyssa (de Orat. Dom. p. 60, ed. Krabinger), and from the cursive 604 (Hoskier, 1890), we see that in Lk some texts had a petition for the gift of the Spirit instead of either ‘Thy kingdom come’ or ‘ Hallowed be Thy name.’ The fullest text of this petition reads thus: ᾿Ελθέτω τὸ πνεῦμά σου τὸ ἅγιον ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς. Comp. the ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς in D, which has ἁγιασθάτω ὄνομά σου é ἡμᾶς, ἐλθέτω cov ἡ βασιλεία, sanctificetur nomen tuum super nos, veniat regnum tuum. Against all reasonable probability Keim holds this petition for the Spirit to be ‘really original in Luke,’ and points to 118 as evidence (Jesus of Nazara, iii. p. 338 n.).
There is evidence also of an early Latin gloss on Ne nos inducas in temptationem which was sometimes admitted into the prayer. Both Cyprian (de Dom. Orat. xxv.) and Augustine (de Serm. Dom. ix. 30) have ne patiaris induct nos,—obviously in order to lessen the difficulty of supposing that God brings us into temptation. This difficulty produced another Latin gloss: ne inducas nos in temptationem quam ferre non possumus (Jerome, in Ezek. xlviii. 16). And these two glosses are sometimes found combined. Each of them is found in writers of different ages and countries, and of liturgies of different families ; they must therefore be of early origin. Comp. Hilary, in Ps. exviii.
LITERATURE.—This is very abundant. Among the most important: Origen, σερὶ εὐχῆς ; Chrysost. Hom. xiz. in Matt. and Hom. de inst. secundum Deum vita; Greg. Nyss. de Orat. u.; Tertul. de Orat.; Cypr. de Orat. Dom. ; August. de Serm. Dom. in Mon.; Jerome, Dial. c. Pelagianos, m1. xv.; Luther, Small Catechism, and other writings; Gebser, de Orat. Dom., Regiom. 1880; Tholuck, Lerypredigt, 1833, 1844 [translation by Brown, Edinburgh, 1869]; Kamphausen, Das Gebet des Herrn, 1866; Chase, Lord's Prayer in Early Church, 1891 ; Wunsche, Hriduterung der Evangg. p. 84 ff.
A. PLUMMER. LORD’S SUPPER.—
I. TERMINOLOGY.
11. OT Types. (a) The Manna. ()) Melchizedek’s gifts to Abraham. (c) The Shewbread.
NI. PARTIAL ANTICIPATIONS. (a) The Passover. (b) Sacrificial Feasts.
IV. History ΟΡ THE ΟἸΠΕΙΒΤΙΑΝ RITE. (a) The Institution. (Ὁ) The Recipients. (c) The Minister. (d) The Rite.
V. Tux Docrring or THe Lorp’s Suprer.
I. ‘TERMLNOLOGY.—A discussion of the language used in Scripture respecting the Lord’s Supper is of necessity confined to the NT. But only once in NT is the Lord’s Supper so called, Κυριακὸν δεῖπνον (1 Co xi. 30); for we may safely follow the con-
LORD'S SUPPER
sensus of ancient and modern commentators in interpreting this unique expression of the Eucharist (see, however, Maldonatus on Mt 26%), The emphasis is on Kupiaxéy: ‘it is not (possible) to eat a Lord's Supper,’ for the unseemly conduct turns it into ἰδιωτικὸν δεῖπνον (Chrys.). And we may possibly infer from the use of an adjective rather than a genitive that the name Κυριακὸν δεῖπνον was already in use when St. Paul wrote. Cf. Ἱυριακὴ ἡμέρα (Rev 110).
There are, however, other expressions in NT which certainly or possibly mean the Lord’s Supper. ‘The cup of blessing,’ τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας (1 Co 10"), i.e. the cup over which the blessing has been pronounced, unquestionably refers to the eucharistic cup, as the context shows. It is that 8 εὐλογοῦμεν, which we consecrate by εὐλογία, by the expression in words of our εὐχαριστία. We might tr. ‘the cup of thanksgiving over which we give thanks,’ or ‘which we give thanks for’ (Crem. Lex. p. 767). But the use of εὐλογία rather than εὐχαριστία is evidence that the latter word has not yet gained its special meaning. The ex- pression is borrowed from Judaism, being the name of the most sacred of the cups handed round at the paschal meal, of which cups it is commonly identified with the third (Edersh. Life and Times, li, 511). Nor is there any doubt that ποτήριον Κυρίου (1 Co 107!) and τράπεζα Kupiov (1 Co 10*, cf. Mal 17:13) refer to the eucharistic cup and the eucharistic table with the food thereon. Here we have the genitive and not an adjective; and the context shows that the dominant idea is union between the recipients and Christ, rather than union of the recipients with one another. About ἡ κλάσις τοῦ ἄρτου and κλᾷν ἄρτον there is more doubt. In Scripture ‘bread’ is a common name for any food, and includes drink also. ‘Eating bread (Mk 3%) and ‘breaking bread’ (Ac 2“) may be the same as ‘taking fad * (Ac 91° 2786), but ‘eating bread’ is the common general term, whereas ‘breaking bread’ is rare (Jer 167, La 44; οἵ, Ly 2°, Is 587, Xen. Anab. VII. 111. 22). St. Luke is the only writer who uses ἡ κλάσις Tod ἄρτου (24%, Ac 24), The former passage probably does not refer to the Eucharist ; for the meal at Emmaus (Lk 24°) most probably was not such. The context and the imperf. ἐπεδίδου are against it. Nowhere is the imperf. used of the distribution of the Eucharist (Mt 2676, Mk 14%, Lk 221%, 1 Co 1133; whereas it is used of the distribution of ordinary food, eg. at the feeding of the 5000 (Mk 6", Lk 918) and of the 4000 (Mk 85, Mt 15%). But in Ac 2” the context favours the eucharistic interpretation, which the Lat. version of Cod. Bez, followed by Vulg., en- forces with in communicatione fractionis panis (cf. Clem. Recog. vi. 15). The four elements of the com- mon Christian life are given in two pairs; and the combination τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου Kal ταῖς προσευχαῖς indicates that ‘the breaking of the bread’ means something more than an ordinary meal; and the context here and in 907: 4 27* forbids us to interpret it of distributing food to the poor (Is 587). Yet even here the explanation must not be confined to the Eucharist. In Scripture there is no trace of the Eucharist being separated from the joint evening meal or ἀγάπη ; and ‘the breaking of the bread’ covers the whole. We must not lose sight of the family character of the life of the frst Christians. ‘The breaking of the bread’ took place in their own homes ; ‘the prayers’ may refer to their constant devotions in the temple (Lk 24°, Ac 915 31). It is doubtful whether the Eucharist is included in κλῶντες κατ᾽ οἶκον ἄρτον (Ac 2%) * or in κλάσας ἤρξατο ἐσθίειν (27%). The latter is specially