‘the clergy, whether missionary (as apostles, pro-
148 LORD’S SUPPER
phets, and evangelists) or stationary (as bishops or oresby ters, and deacons), discharge spiritual duties. hey deal with men’s souls rather than their bodies ;
and they have to do with religious service. It is reasonable to suppose that one of the first things that was reserved to the clergy was the right of
residing at the Eucharist. This reservation is ἐρυ clearly enough in the first half of the 2nd cent. (Ign. Smyrn. 8, οἵ, Trall. 2.7, Philad. 7; Tert. de Bapt. 17; Apost. Const. ii. 27).
(αὐ The Rite is nowhere described in Scripture with so much detail as in the accounts of the in- stitution; and the small amount of detail given there is strong evidence of the authenticity of the accounts. A fiction of a later age would have represented Christ as using the ceremonial which was customary in that age, as is seen clearly in the Apost. Const. ii. 57, viii. 12. The taking a loaf or cake, giving thanks, breaking and dis- tributing, and then the taking a cup, giving thanks, and distributing, are the external acts of the Founder, accompanied by the words, ‘This is my body,’ ‘This is my blood.” We know too little about the ritual of the Passover at this time to say how much, if any, of the new Eucharistic rite was part of the paschal meal. Later Jewish writers have described how the Passover was cele- brated in their time, with four (and sometimes five) cups circulating at intervals, one of which may have been the Eucharistic cup.* But we do not know that this ritual was in existence in the time of Christ. And if it was, we do not know that Christ, in this highly exceptional celebration, —which anticipated(?) that year’s Passover in order to supersede it for ever,—followed the existing ritual. In none of the reports is there any men- tion of the lamb, or of the ‘passing over’ of the destroying angel, or of a deliverance from bondage ; whereas ihe idea of a covenant, which of necessity is a new covenant, is very conspicuous. It need not be doubted that ‘my blood of the covenant’ (Mt, Mk) is essentially identical with ‘the new covenant in my blood’ (1 Co). In either case the blood is treated as the vehicle of the covenant, which the disciples appropriate by partaking of the cup. And this idea of a covenant is not con- spicuous in the ritual of the Passover.t The three fundamental acts seem to be, (1) the breaking and pouring, (2) the distribution to the disciples, (3) their eating and drinking ; which represent (1) the death of Christ, (2) for the disciples’ salvation, (3) which they must appropriate.
As regards subsequent Christian usage, we know that in the apostolic age the breaking of the bread was preserved (see above); and we may feel sure that most of the other external acts of the Lord were preserved also. Moreover, the Eucharist, which at the institution was part of the paschal supper, is in the apostolic age always part of the common meal or ἀγάπη (1 Co 1127, Ac 2071), a prac- tice which continued down to the time of Ignatius (see Lightfoot on Smyrn. 8). But whether there was as yet any fixed form of words either for the thanksgiving or blessing, or to accompany the dis- tribution, is uncertain. The differences in the four reports of Christ’s words seem to show that exactness of wording was not regarded as essen- tial. In the Didaché 9, 10 we find three forms of thanksgiving : one for the cup, one for the broken bread, and a third which apparently is to be used after both ἀγάπη and Eucharist are over (μετὰ τὸ ἐμπλησθῆναι). But it is expressly stated that ‘the prophets’ are not tied to these torms (τοῖς δὲ προ- φήταις ἐπιτρέπετε εὐχαριστεῖν ὅσα θέλουσιν). A similar
* Those who assume that the disputed passage at Lk 2219. 20 is genuine, commonly regard the two cups (vy.!7. 29) as two of the four or five Jewish cups.
¢t But see Trumbull, Threshold Covenant, p. 208 ff. ἱ
=
LORD'S SUPPER
feature is found in Justin Martyr, who states that the presiding minister (ὁ προεστώς), after genera! prayer is ended, and bread and wine mixed with water have been brought, offers prayers and thanks- givings according to his ability (ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ), to which the congregation respond with the Amen (Apol. i. 67). It would seem, then, that this is the second stage in the development of liturgies. Virst there was no form, but the minister used what words he pleased. He would, however, be influenced by the words of institution as well as ἐν Jewish forms; and perhaps he commonly in- eluded the Lord’s Prayer. Basil asks, ‘Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying (ἀνάδειξις) of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not content with what the Apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words’ (de Spuritu, 27). And Gregory the Great seems to have believed that the apostles used the Lord’s Prayer, and that only* (ix. Bp. 12; Migne, Ixxvii. 956). But the meaning of the pas- sage is not clear; and Gregory is very late authority for apostolic usage (Maskel , The Ancient Liturgy of the Ch. o England, 3rd ed. p. xviii). At the next stage forms were drawn up, but some minis- ters were allowed discretion as to the use of them. Finally, all ministers were restricted to prescribed forms. In NT we seem to be at the first stage. In the Didaché the omissions are remarkable, and power to supplement would seem to be almost necessary. Among the gifts for which thanks are given (ζωή, γνῶσις, πίστις, ἀθανασία, ζωὴ αἰώνιος) there is no mention οἱ ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν. And although these gifts come διὰ ᾿Τησοῦ τοῦ παιδός cov, there is no mention of the death of Christ.