Harnack’s theory, that until the 3rd cent. the use of wine in ἘΠΕ ΠΕ ΤΙ ἢ was neither obligatory nor universal, has been opposed by Zahn (Brot und Wein im Abendmahl der alten Kirche, Erlangen, 1892) and Jiilicher (Theolog. Abhandlungen, Frei- burg, 1892, pp. 217-231), and need not be discussed here. Christ took the two simplest and most uni- versal representatives of sustaining food, bread that strengtheneth man’s heart, and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and employed them as the universal representatives of spiritual food, of His body broken and His blood poured out. His loyal followers have from the first re- tained these.
V. THE DocrrIN= OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.— There are few things more tragic in the history of Christ’s Church than the fact that its central act of worship has for centuries been, and still continues to be, a subject for the keenest con- troversy, and that Christians have cruelly perse- cuted, and even put to cruel deaths, other Chris- tians, for not holding doctrines respecting the Lord’s Supper which cannot be proved, and which are possibly not true. The Sacrament of Love and of Life has been made an instrument of hate and of destruction, because men have insisted upon possessing knowledge which cannot be possessed, and upon explaining what cannot be explained. In the first centuries the Church was content to enjoy and to use without explaining, and it would be our wisdom to do the same.
1. The chief point of controversy has been th: meaning of the ‘is’ in ‘This is my body’ (Mt, Mk, Lk, 1Co) and ‘This is my blood of the covenant’ (Mt, Mk), or ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood’ ({Lk] 1 Co). The suggestion that at the institution our Lord spoke in Aramaic, and that
* Orationem dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus, quia mos apostolorum fuit, ut ad ipsam solumimodo orationem, oblationis hostiam consecrarent. Cf. Amalarius, de Eccles. OFF. a 19; Migne, ον. 1210. What is the exact meaning of ths
LORD’S SUPPER
tn Aramaic the ‘is’ would not be expressed, renders uo help. It is not quite certain that He spoke in Aramaic then, or that it was in Aramaic that He made the special revelation to St. Paul. But we may assume that He did so. Neverthefess, the ‘is’ must be supplied ; and, as soon as it is there, inquiry will arise as to its meaning. Moreover, not in Aramaic, but in Greek, has Christ handed
down these words of His to His Church. All four |
accounts have the ἐστιν of the bread; and, exwept- ing the disputed words in Lk, all have the ἐστιν of the cup. The fact that Christ probably used a language in which the copula was not expressed is no good reason for giving the minimum of mean- ing to the ἐστιν, which is conspicuous in the Scrip- tures given to us by Him.
Perhaps the nearest approach to an explanation that can be found in Scripture is that given by St. Paul: ‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not κοινωνία of tue blood of Christ? which we break, is it not κοινωνία of the body of Christ?’ Here κοινωνία is more than ‘a partaking of,’ which would be μετοχή or μετάλημψις rather than κοινωνία. The latter is ‘fellowship with.’ Just as the bread is made up of many particles, gathered together in one loaf, so those τὴς partake of the bread that is broken are gathered together in one aay B ‘The bread which we break is fellowship with the body of Christ.’ [See COMMUNION}. What, then, is the meaning of the ‘is’? Probably that common use of the copula which identifies cause and effect is part of the meaning (Hooker, Ec. Pol. ν. \xvii. 5, 6). J. H. Newman once warned a friend who was visiting Rome for the first time, and in the summer, ‘ Beware of a chill in Rome. A chill is a fever; and a fever is a shattered con- stitution for life,’ which meant that a chill causes a ferer, and that a fever causes a shattered con- stitution. By the same usage St. Paul may mean that the cup, when drunk, is a cause of fellowship with Christ’s blood, and the bread, when eaten, is a cause of fellowship with Christ’s body ; or (as in the words of institution) this bread is a cause of the body. ‘The bread and wine after their bene- diction or consecration are not indeed changed in their nature, but become, in their use and in their effects, the very body and blood of Christ’ (T. 5. Evans on 1 Co 10"). This meaning is in harmony with the context. The union with the Lord Him- self, which those who partake of the Lord’s Supper have, is compared with the union which those who partake of a sacrifice have with the deity to whom
the altar is devoted ;—in the case of the Israelites —
with God, of the heathen with demons. ‘This idea, that to partake of a sacrifice is to devote
one’s self to the deity, lies at the root of the ancient |
ilea of worship, whether Jewish or heathen ; and St. Paul uses it as being readily understood. In
this connexion the symbol is never a mere symbol,
but a means of real union; and in the Lord’s Supper the symbol is very significant. It is a