THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
I. The New- Testament Doctrine.
Question of Christie Origin (§1).
Textual Basis for Denials (§ 2).
The Basal Accounts (§ 3).
Christ's Purpose in the Institution (§4).
Significance for Humanity (§ 5). II. The Church Doctrine. 1. In the East.
Difficulties of the Problem (§ 1).
The Didache and Ignatius (§ 2).
Justin Martyr (§ 3).
Early Designations of the Elements (§ 4).
Oriental Influences upon the Conception (§ 5).
Entrance of Sacrificial Conception (§6).
LORD'S SUPPER.
Doctrine of Irenaeus (§ 7).
The Origenistic Doctrine (§ 8).
The Symbolic-Sacrificial View (§ 9).
Cyril (§ 10).
Gregory of Nyssa and Chrysostom
(§11). Doctrine in Fifth and Sixth Centuries
(§ 12). . Development in the West. Tertullian and Cyprian (§ 1). Transition to Transubstantiation (§ 2). Augustine's Check upon Development
(§3). Transubstantiation (§4). Teaching of the Reformers (§5). Doctrine in the Lutheran Church (§ 6). The Reformed Doctrine (§ 7). The Anglican Doctrine (§8).
The Lord's Supper is one of the two sacraments generally recognized in the Christian Church, consisting in the blessing or consecration of bread and wine, the repetition of the words of institution (Matt. xxvi. 26-29; Mark xiv. 22-25; Luke xxii. 17-20; I Cor. xi. 23-26), and the eating and drinking of the consecrated elements. In connection with the treatment here given certain other articles should be consulted — for the liturgy of the early Church and the method of celebration, the article Eucharist; for doctrine and liturgy of the Roman Church, Mass and Transubstantiation; for the Greek Church, Eastern Church, III., 5; and the special articles like Epiklesis; Kiss of Peace; Mystagogical Theology; Symbolism, etc.
I. The New-Testament Doctrine: As to its origin, no one ever questioned that the Lord's Supper was instituted by the Lord himself for his Church before H. E. G. Paulus (Commentar iiber das Neue Testament, 4 vols., Liibeck, 1800-04; Leben Jesu, 2 vols., Heidelberg, 1828), followed by Kaiser in his BMische Theologie (2 vols., Erlangen, 1813- 1821). David Strauss apparently denied it in the first edition of his Lcben Jesu (1835) but admitted its possibility in the later popular form of this work (1864), only questioning how far the i. Question details, as given by the Evangelists, are of Christie to be accepted. According to him, Origin. Paul gave the tradition as he found it on his entrance into the Church, but how much of this is the original fact and how much comes from subsequent Christian practise is difficult to determine. Riickert is inclined to believe that Jesus said nothing of a repetition of the observance, but that it was daily repeated from the beginning in the belief that this would be at least acceptable to him, and that thus the idea of an express command grew up. According to Weiss, the apostles had no express command either for this repetition or for the performance of the baptismal rite, but carried out what they understood to be the Master's intention, finding in both a bond of union for the disciples. Weizsacker asserts positively that the sacrament rests on a distinct command; and Beyschlag calls the institution the most certain of all the facts recorded of Jesus. Recently Julicher and S pitta have vigorously denied it, while Harnack accepts it, though giving the rite another meaning than that expressed in the New-Testament accounts.
III. Confessional Statements.
IV. The Liturgy in the Churches of the Reformation.
1. Luther and the Lutheran Church. Luther's First Form (§ 1). Luther's Revised Form (§ 2). Variant Lutheran Forms (§ 3).
2. Zwingli.
3. The Reformed Services.
4. The Anglican Communion. V. Certain Points of Interest not Already Treated.
Infant Communion (§ 1).
Communion of the Sick (§ 2).
Requirements for Communicants (§3).
Practises Connected with Administration (§ 4).
The denial of the institutional character of Christ's action is based on the variation of the accounts— the words " This do in remembrance of me " being found only in two places (Luke xxii. 19 and I Cor. xi. 25). This variation is the more remarkable because in Codex D the text of the former passage omits altogether " which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me." The researches of Blass in the Acts render it very doubtful whether the text of Codex D can 2. Textual be accepted absolutely, and appear to Basis for indicate that what seems a reminiscence Denials, of Paul may be a correction accepted by Luke himself rather than a later accretion. The relation of Luke to Paul, and the value of the latter's testimony to the view of the institution taken by apostolic Christianity, makes it improbable that a tradition existed which did not contain a trace of the intention of Christ to have it repeated. There is no analogy for the account of Luke as found in D, and the text of D may perhaps best be regarded as defective, if it is not rather an ancient corruption. Nor can the point be pressed that Matthew and Mark fail to mention the injunction of repetition. In both of them (Matt. xxvi. 28; Mark xiv. 24) the contents of the cup are designated " my blood of the covenant "; and Christ could scarcely have given his " blood of the covenant " in such a way as to offer it alone to the disciples there present, to say nothing of the reinforcement of this thought by the " many " following. Thus the accounts would have to be deprived of the presumably original form of Christ's words in order to sustain the hypothesis of an intention which did not include repetition. To this Paul's account would offer a further obstacle. When he says (I Cor. xi. 23) " for I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you," he uses apo instead of para to express the idea that he has received this from the Church as from the Lord himself. The analogy of Acts ii. 42, 46 shows that this must have been at the time of his baptism, and the basis of his account is thus put twenty years further back than the date of I Corinthians, into the very earliest days of Christianity; it becomes an evidence that the Christian Church never had any thought but that the institution was meant for repetition. The only real difficulty may be found in the fact that the Gospel of John is entirely si-