W. Robertson Smith started the theory that the origin of all sacrifice lies in the idea of a sacra- mental communion between the members of a tribe and the tribal deity, which is realized by the common eating of the flesh of the sacrifice and the drinking of its blood. The theory as a complete explanation is inadequate, but we may admit sacra- mental communion in this sense as one of the ditterent views underlying the practice of sacrifice. In ancient Israel the so-called peace-ofiering may be taken as illustrating this view. In later Judaism, however, this rite held but asmall place, and Rabbi- nical transcendentalism would not allow any thought of sacramental communion with God the Must High. To adduce analogies taken from primitive culture is of no value. According to iJieterich, primitive man had the idea that, by partaking of the tiesh of any sacrificial animal ollered to a goil, he was partaking of the god himself, and thus entering into sacramental communion with him. This theory has not been proved, and in any case it is beside the point here. We find better analo- gies in the Hellenism of the Apostolic Age, where we may distinguish two sets of parallels, (a) In the Mysteries certain sacred foods and drinks were used to bring man into communion with the god ; (6) on the other hand, many clubs held an annual or monthly supper, which generally took place in a temple, and was at any rate accompanied by religious ceremonies which were to constitute a communion between the members and the god or hero (very often the founder of the club) in whose honour the supper -was given. So we have two conceptions of communion : one mj'stical, individ- ual, magical ; the other moral, social, spiritual. In the former, particular food is supposed to bring the partaker into communion with the god physic- ally (or rather hyper-physically), to transfer the essence and virtues of the god into the man and so to make him god (deify him) ; in the latter, it is the community of the meal which unites all par- takers to one another and to the hero in the same sense as marriage or friendship unites distinct per- sonalities.
The evidence of these parallels brings the early Christian conception of the Lord's Supper into close affinity with the communion of the club suppers, which had their analogy in suppers held in the Jewish synagogues of the Hellenistic Dis-
persion. The Mysteries did not influence Christian thought before the 2ud century. St. Paul, it is true, starts the idea of an unio mystica between the individual Christian and Christ (Gal 2-**) ; this idea is prevalent in his doctrine of baptism (Ro 6-*, Col 2^^) ; but his predominant line of thought is the other view, which regards the two personalities as apart from each other, and may be described as the idea of ' fellowship.' The same may be said about St. John's view, in spite of aU mystical appearances. .
Now, when we turn to 1 Co 10^® again, we see clearly that it is not the bread and the wine that constitute sacramental communion by themselves ; nor is communion the partaking of Christ's material body and blood. Bread and wine in relation to body and blood were given by tradition, but, as far as performing a sacramental commtinion is concerned, they represent only the common meal, which brings men into communion with the Lord, who through His death entered upon a heavenly existence. From this conception of the transfigured body it is easy to pass to the other one of a spiritual body whose members are the partakers (v.").
This interpretation is further supported by the comparison, made by St. Paul himself, of Jewish and Gentile sacrifices. When he says that the Jews by eating the sacrifices have communion with the altar, lie means spiritual communion with God whose representative is the altar (note that the phrase 'communion with God' is avoided — a true mark of Rabbinism) ; and when he says that to partake of a supper connected with a heathen sacri- fice brings men into communion with demons, he does not accept the popular idea that the food itself was quasi-infected by demonic influence (he declares formally that to eat sucii flesh unconsciously does not harm a Christian); but he says : 'ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils : ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils,' because partaking of the table constitutes a spiritual and moral communion which is exclusive in its efl'ect. See Euchakist.
Literature.— W. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, new ed., 1903, RS'-, lt94 ; A. Dieterich, Eine ilithraditurgie, 1903 ; E. Reuterskibld, Die EnUtehung der Spei^esacrameiite {Heligiotiswissenschaftliche Bibliothek, 1912) ; L. R. Farnell, ' Keligious and Social Aspects of the Cult of Ancestorsand Heroes,' in UJ vii. [1909]415-435. Formeniorial suppers, see inscriptions collected by H. Lietzmann, Ilandbuch zum NT, iii. [1907] 160 ff. ; E. Lucius, Lie Anjdnge des Heili- genkxilts, 1904. For Jewish suppers in synagogues, see E. Schiirer, GJV*'m. [1909] 143; O. Schmitz, ixe Opjeranschau- ungdesspaterenJudcntums,li)lO; W. Heitmiiller, Taujeund Abendmahl bet faidus, 1903 ; E. v. Dobschiitz, ' Sacrament und Symbol im Urchristentum,' in SK, lyOo, pp. 1-40 ; F. Dibelius, Das Abendmahl, 1911. Cf. the Commentaries on 1 Cor. by L. I. Ruckert (1&36), C. F. G. Heinrici (IfebO), T. C. Edwards (21885), P. W. Schmiedel (1891), H. Lietzmann (1907), P. Bachmann (1905, ^1910), J. Weiss (in ileyerS, 1910). E. VON DOBSCHUTZ.