The recurrence of the same liturgical words in Acts xxvii, 35 makes it probable, though not certabi, that the food of which Paul thus partook was intended to have, for himself and his Christian companions, the character at once of the Agape and the Eucharist. The heathen soldiers and saUors, it may be noticed, are said to have followed his example, not to have partaken of the bread which he had broken. If we adopt this ex- planation, we have in this narrative another example of a celebration in the early hours between michiight and dawn (comp. v. 27, 39), at the same time, i. e. as we have met with in the meeting at Troas.
All the distinct references to the Lord's Supper which occur within the limits of the N. T. have, it is believed, been noticed. To find, as a recent writer has done (^Christian Rememhrancci-, April, 1860), quotations from the Liturgy of the Eastern Church in the PaiUine Epis- tles involves (ingeniously as the hypothesis is support- ed) assumptions too many and bold to justify our ac- ceptance of it. Extending the inquiri-, however, to the times as well as the writings of the N. T., we find reason to believe that we can trace in the later worship of the Clmrch some fragments of that which belonged to it from the beginning. The agTcement of the four great families of liturgies implies the substratum of a common order. To that order may well have belonged the He- brew words Hallelujah, Amen, Hosanna, Lord of Saba- oth ; the salutations " Peace to all," " Peace to thee ;" the Siursum Corda (civio axwi^uv tciq icapciac), the Tri- sagion, the Kyrie Eleison. 'VVe are justified in looking at these as having been portions of a liturgy that was really primitive ; guarded from change with the tenaci- ty with which the Christians of the 2d century clung to the traditions (the TrapaSurrdc of 2 Thess. ii, 15 ; iii, 6) of the first, forming part of the great deposit (TrapaKo- ra^!]Kt]) of faith and worship which they had received from the apostles and have transmitted to later ages (comp. Bingham, Eccles. Antiq. bk. xv, ch. vii; Augusti, Christ I. Archdol. b. viii; Stanley on 1 Cor. x and xi).
III. Ecclesiastical Representations. — The Christian Church attached from the first great and mysterious importance to the Lord's Supper. In accordance with the original institution, all Christians used wine and bread, with the exception of the Hydroparastates (Aqua- rii), who used water instead of wine, and the Artoty- rites, who are said to have used cheese along with bread. The wine was generally mixed with water (jcpapa'), and an allegorical signification was given to the mixture of these two elements. In the writings of the fathers of the. first three centuries we meet with some passages which speak distinctly of symbols, and, at the same time, with others which indicate belief in a real particijiation of the body and blood of Christ. Ignatius, Justin, and Irentcus laid great stress on the mysterious connection subsisting between the Logos and
LORD'S SUPPER
513
LORD'S SUPPER
the elements. Tertullian and Cyprian are representa- tives of the symbolical aspect, though both occasionally call the Lord's Supper simply the body and blood of Christ. The symbolical interpretation prevails in par- ticular among the Alexandrine school. Clement called it a mystic symbol which produces an effect onlj' upon the mind, and Origen decidedly opposed those who took the external sign for the thing itself. The idea of a sacrifice, though not yet of a daily propitiatory sacrifice, appears in the writings of Justin and Irenaeus. Cyprian says that the sacrifice is made by the priest, who acts instead of Christ, and imitates v/hat Christ did. It is not quite certain, but probable, that the Ebionites cele- brated the Lord's Supi^er as a commemorative feast ; the mystical meals of some Gnostics, on the contrary, bear but little resemblance to the Lord's Supper. The devel- opment of liturgies in and after the third century, and the introduction of many mystical ceremonies, showed that the fathers generally regarded the Lord's Supper, with Chrysostom, as a "dreadful sacrifice." They clear- ly speak of a real union of the communicants with Christ; some, also, of a real change from the visible el- ements into the body and blood of Christ, though most of their expressions can be imderstood both of consub- stantiality or of transubstantiation. Theodoret drew a clear distinction between the sign and the thing signi- fied, while Augustine sought to unite its more profound mystical significance with the symbolical. Gelasius, bisliop of liome, very decidedly denied " the ceasing of the substance and natiu'e of bread and wine." The no- tion of a daily repeated sacrifice is distinctly set forth in the writings of Gregory the Great. A violent con- troversy concerning the Lord's Supper arose in the 9th century. Paschasius Radbertus, a monk of Corvey, clearly propounded the doctrine of transubstantiation in liis Liher de corjjore et sanguine Domini, addressed to the emperor Charles the Bald, between 830 and 832. He was opposed by Ratramnus in his treatise I)e cor- pore et sanguine Domini, which was written at the re- quest of the emperor, who drew a distinction between the sign and the thing represented by it, between the internal and the external. The most eminent theolo- gians of the age, as Rabanus Maurus and Scotus Erige- na, took an active part in the controversy. Gerbert (af- terwards pope Sylvester II) endeavored to illustrate the doctrine of transubstantiation by the aid of geometrical diagrams. Toward the middle of the 11th century the doctrine of transubstantiation was rejected by Berengar, canon of Tours (q. v.), who principally condemned the doctrine of an entire change in such a manner as to make the bread to cease to be bread. Several synods in succession, between 1050 and 1079, condemned his views. At one of these synods cardinal Humbert im- posed upon Berengar an oath that he believed " corpus et sanguinem Domini non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi et fidelium dentibus atteri." Among the scholastics, Lanfranc de- veloped the distinction between the subject and the ac- cidents. The term Iransubstantiatio was first used by Hildebert of Tours, though similar phrases, as transitio, had previously been employed (by Hugo of St. Victor and others). IMost of the earlier scholastics, and, in par- ticular, the followers of Lanfranc, defended both the change of the bread into the b(xiy of Clirist and that of the " accidentia sine subjecto," both of which were in- serted in the Decrefum Gratiani (about 1150), and de- clared an article of faith by the fourth Council of Lateran. Later, the Scholastics discussed a great many subtle questions, such as, Do animals partake of the body of Christ when they happen to swallow a consecrated host V By the institution of the Corpus-Christi day by pope Urban IV (1204), the doctrine of transubstantiation re- ceived a liturgical expression. However, a considerable time before, it had become a custom in the Latin Church that the laity received the Lord's Su]iper only in the form of the host. Alexander Hales, Bonaventura, and Thomas Aquinas expresslv demanded that onlv the v.— K K