i. In the Eucharist. — (1) From the first the com- mon usage in administiation no doubt gave the cup after the bread, in accordance with the order observed in Mark, Mattliew, and I'aul. St. Luke in his shorter (and better supported) account (22""'*) exhibits a noticeable divergence in placing the cup first in order. This may be due, as Wright sug- gests (Si/nopsis of the Gospels, p. 140), to some ' local Eucharistic use.' The Diclaclie (ch. 9) also puts tlie cup first ; but the fact as to the general estab- lished usage remains unaffected.
(2) As to the cup used in tlie communion there would at first be no difference between it and such vessels as were in ordinary use, and the materials of which the Eucharistic vessels were made were by no means of one kind. Zephyrinus of Rome, a contemporary of Tertullian, speaks of ' patens of glass,' and Jerome (c. 398 A.D.) speaks of ' a wicker basket ' and ' a glass ' as in use for communion purposes. Cups of wood and of horn also appear to have been u.sed in some cases. We find certain provincial councils in the 8th and 9th cents, pro- hibiting the use of such, and also of leaden vessels. Cups were sometimes made of pewter ; and bronze, again, was commonly used by the Irish monks, St. Gall preferring vessels of this material to those of silver. At the same time the natural tendency to differentiate in regard to vessels devoted to such a special service must have begun soon to manifest itself. Where it was possible, at an early period the cup was made of rich materials, such as gold and silver. Similarly as regards form and orna- mentation. Tertullian (dc Piidicitia, 10) speaks of the cup as being adorned with the figure of the Good Shepherd. In the course of time we get chalices of great price and wonderful workman- ship, corresponding to the rare and costly Passover and other festal cups which Jews similarly cherish as art treasures.
It is needless to mention particularly the several kinds ot chalices which came to be distinguished as the Eucharistic rites were made more elaborate. Our own times, again, it may just be noticed, have given us the 'individual coiiimunion cup,' wliich, on hygienic grounds, finds favour in some quarters. Though in some respects a modern institution, perhaps it may claim a precedent in the most primitive usage. The u.^ie of separate cups miglit be inferred from 1 Co 11'"'^ Nor is the hygienic objection to the common chalice wholly new. The difficulty was felt in mediaeval times when the plague was so rife. In the 14th cent, special ' pest- chalices' were in use for sick cases.
(3) The custom of mixing water with the wine m the chalice, to which Justin Martyr makes a v-ell-known reference {Apnl. i. 67), accords with Jewish precedent. Speaking of the Jewish use, I.ightfoot {Hot: Heb. on Mt 26=') says, ' Hence in the rubric of the feasts, when mention is made of the wme they always use the word mizgu, they mix
vol.. I.— 26
for him the cup.' Maimonides (Jltimcz uiiiaz. 7, 8) assumes the use of water. If the cup our Lord gave to His disciples were one of the ceremonial Paschal cups, we may take it that it contained a mixture of water and wine. And if it were not, nothing is more likely than that the Apostles, in observing the rite, would follow the Jewish custom of mixture. A passage in the Talmud (Bab. Bcrakhoth, 50, 2) suggests that water was thus added to the wine for the sake of wholesomeness and in the interests of sobriety.
In the course of time various fanciful suggestions came to be made as to a symbolic purpose in connexion with the mixed chalice in the Eucharist, ignoring its simple origin in an earlier Jewish custom. Thus it was variously held that in this way the union of Christ and the faithful was signified ; that the water from the rock was represented ; that the water and the blood from the pierced side of the Crucified were com- memorated. At last It was affirmed that the water was added to the cup 'solely for significance': and so the addition of a very small quantity of water (a small spoonful) came to be con- sidered sufficient. ' One drop is as significant as a thousand ' (Bona, Rer. Liturg. 11. ix. note 3— 'Cum vero aqua mysterii causa apponatur vel minima guttasufflciensest').
(4) Was wine from the first invariably used and regarded as obligatory in the Eucharist ? Harnack ('Brod u. Wasser,' TU vii. [1892]) holds that it was not so up to the 3rd cent., and traces the use of bread and water (but see, in reply, Zahn, ' Brod u. VVein,' ib. ; Jiilicher's es.say in thcol. Ah- handlungen ; and Grafe, ZThK v. 2). It would be difficult to maintain that the genius of tlie sacrament vitally depended on the use of wine ; but in its favour we have the great preponder- ance of custom and sentiment. In modern times there are those who, for one reason and another, feel a difficulty regarding communion wine, and are disposed to use substitutes of some kind. Such might be disposed to welcome a sort of jjrecedent in the use permitted by Jewish regula- tions in certain cases as regards their festival cups. In northern countries, e.g., where wine was not accessible as a daily beverage for the mass of the Jews, syrup, juice of fruits, beer or mead, etc., are named as instances of allowable substitutes. Such substitutes are curiously included under the com- mon appellation 'the wine of the country.' (See Shidhrni'Arukh, 0 rah Hag. 182. 1, 2).