he Messiah of the Gospels, p. 123).
In what sense is the tradition represented by Mk and Mt ‘the earliest’? That given by St. Paul was written earlier, and is the earliest written record of any words of Christ. It had been pre- viously communicated to the Corinthians. nd St. Paul had derived it direct from the Lord Him- self (1 Co 11%). His words can mean no less. Had he merely been told by apostles, he would have had no stronger claim to be heard than hundreds of other Christians. The silence of Mt and Mk does not warrant us in contradicting such explicit testimony, which would be suflicient, even if it were unsupported, for the unvarying belief of the Church from the earliest ages, that it was on the night in which He was betrayed that Christ insti- tuted the Eucharist and gave the command ‘con- tinue to do this (pres. imperat.) in remembrance of me.’ The proposal to place the institution of the Eucharist as a permanent rite later than the last supper, is as unnecessary as the proposal to place it earlier. The Pauline account fully explains the connexion of the new rite with the Passover and the Passion. If the command, τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, x.7.d., was given on some other occasion, how did the new rite become so universally connected with these two facts? Any internal or doctrinal connexion between the Lord’s Supper and the Passover is denied by Haupt, Hoffmann, Jiilicher, Spitta, and others. Their reasons differ; but the fact that the Passover was celebrated only once a year, and the Lord’s Supper frequently, is no argument. The Passover celebrated a deliverance effected with blood ; and the Lord’s Supper celebrated a deliver- unce effected with blood. This is a real and natural connexion.
But it is possible that there were sources for the conviction that Jesus gave this command on the night of His betrayal which were independent of
*Gardner argues, moreover, that the whole account in 1 Co 1125". js the record of an ecstatic revelation experienced by St. Paul, and has no historical objective foundation. He supposes an influence to have been exerted on St. Paul during his stay at Corinth by the proximity of the Eleusinian mysteries,
+ The view that Christ gave no command, but merely per- mission, to continue the ordinance, is found in Luther, who regards ὁσάκις ἴαν πίνητε a8 making τοῦτο weirs purely per- missive (De capt. Bab. eccles. praludium, ed. Pfizer, p. 195). Strauss, Kaiser, and Stephani have urged that Jesus was too humble to give such a command, and ve been answered by ΠΕΡῚ (Geach. Jesu, p. 691).
LORD’S SUPPER 147
St. Paul. Justin Martyr states that ‘the apostles, in the memoirs produced by them which are called Gospels, related that Jesus, having taken bread and Εἰσϑα thanks, thus commanded them and said, Do this for a remembrance of Me, this is My body ; and that in like manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, V’his is My blood; and dis- tributed to them alone’ (Apol. i. 66). Although Justin omits the reference to the covenant, yet he regards the τοῦτο ποιεῖτε as part of the evangelistic record,
(6) The Recipients of the Lord’s Supper were required to ‘prove themselves,’ lest they should ‘eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord un- worthily,’ and thus ‘be guilty of (profaning) the body and the blood of the Lord. . . . For he that eateth and drinketh without rightly judging (δια- κρίνων) the body, eateth and drinketh judgment (κρίμα) to himself,’—a judgment which involves the gravest consequences, as the experience of many in
orinth proved. ‘But if we were in the habit of rightly judging ourselves (διεκρίνομεν) we should not be judged (οὐκ ἂν ἐκρινόμεθα). Throughout the passage (1 Co 117781) the repeated contrast between διακρίνειν and κρίνειν is to be noted; also the use of κρινόμενοι and κατακριθῶμεν immediately after- wards.
No definition of ἀναξίως is given. The context shows that what is primarily meant is disorderly irreverence in receiving either the bread or the cup (#, not καί). This external irreverence is proof of internal contempt. It could not occur, if the nature of the body were rightly judged ; 7.e. if the partaker devoutly realized that to which his eating and drinking reterred, viz. the death of Christ: just as a loyal subject could not insult the king’s effigy, if he knew that it was the king’s. The context also shows that selfishness and greediness are included in ἀναξίως. Surfeiting at the common meal, while others are made to wait famished, renders a worthy partaking of the Lord’s Supper impossible ; for nse of the brethren is indispens- able. This irreverence and selfishness spring from a wrong estimate of one’s own condition. There- fore a man must prove himself and acquire a right judgment as to his spiritual state. Reverence towards God, His Church, and His sacraments ; charity towards the brethren; a humble esti- mate of self,—these are among the requirements for a worthy reception of the Lord’s Supper. Fasting could not be required so long as the Encharist was united with the agape, which it often followed, as at the last supper, although it some- times preceded it.
(c) The Minister in the Eucharist is not deter- mined by Scripture any more than the minister in baptism. The primary charge to continue the rite (1 Co 1155 35) was made to the apostles, and, on the only occasion when the minister is named, the celebrant is the apostle St. Paul (Ac 20"). Yet, assuming that ‘the breaking of the bread,’ which habitually took place among the first Christians (Ac 953), includes the Lord’s Supper, we need not suppose that the celebrant was invariably one of the Twelve. But this much may be asserted with confidence. The NT tells us that from the first there was a distinction between clergy and laity, i.e. the Church had officers who discharged spiritual functions which were not discharged by ordinary Christians. This distinction rf pay in various writings from the earliest to the latest (1 Th 5! ™, 1 Co 12%, Eph 4", Ph 1’, Past. Epp. passim, He 13", 3 Jn®), and is abundantly confirmed by evidence outside the NT which is almost if not quite con- temporaneous with the last of these (Clem. Rom. and the Didaché). These witnesses do not define the functions of the ministers whom they name. But