BV 825 . T95 Tyson, Stuart Lawrence, \ 1873 The eucharist in St. Paul THE EUCHARIST IN ST. PAUL THE MACMILLAN COMPANY NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO • DALLAS ATLANTA • SAN FRANCISCO MACMILLAN & CO., Limited LONDON • BOMBAY • CALCUTTA MELBOURNE THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd. TORONTO THE EUCHARIST IN ST. PAUL / BV STUART L. TYSON, M.A. (OXON.) HONORARY VICAR OF THE CATHEDRAL OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE, NEW YORK J12eto iotfe THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1923 All rights reserved PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Copyright, 1923, By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY Set up and printed. Published May, 1923. Press of J. J. Little & Ives Company New York, U. S. A. FOREWORD This monograph is the first publication of the Modern Churchmen’s Union. It will be appar¬ ent at once that it has been prepared primarily neither for scholars nor for the public at large. To have attempted a detailed and critical discus¬ sion of the central rite of Christianity, around which during the centuries have gathered discus¬ sions and controversies innumerable, was, within the limits of space imposed by the Committee, obviously impossible. And as the professed stu¬ dent will find within its pages but little to stimu¬ late his thought, so the members of the different Churches are likely to experience a sense of dis¬ appointment at the limitations of its argument. It has been written chiefly with a view to the problems of Anglicans; to meet some of the intellectual difficulties confronting the parochial clergyman and the educated layman of that Com¬ munion, and from this standpoint it should be estimated. (Signed) Stuart L. Tyson. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/eucharistinstpauOOtyso THE EUCHARIST IN ST. PAUL THE EUCHARIST IN ST. PAUL Importance of St. Paul’s Witness. St. Paul is the earliest writing witness to Christian teaching and practice, and on this ground alone his words have a unique value. It is not always realized by Christian people that our earliest Gospel was probably not written until after his death; or that his own extant letters were com¬ posed during a period of not more than twenty to thirty-five years after the crucifixion of our Lord, and that therefore what he has left us con¬ stitute very nearly “contemporary” witness. His References to the Eucharist Found Only in I Corinthians. Assuming for our pres¬ ent purpose that thirteen of the letters in the New Testament were written by him, it is surprising, to say the least, in view of the place occupied by the Eucharist in the history of the Church, that in only one is there any mention of it. To the possible reason for this we must return later: 2 The Eucharist in St. Paul merely stating here that I Cor. x, 14-22, xi, 17- 34, and (probably) xiv, 16 are the only refer¬ ences to the subject in any of the Epistles credited to him. In order properly to understand these passages, it becomes of great importance to gain a clear idea of the character of the Corinthian Church, and the circumstances under which the words were written. The Foundation of the Church in Cor¬ inth, A. D. 50-51. St. Paul had founded the Church in Corinth on the second of his three missionary journeys, 50-51 A. D.1 During his eighteen months’ stay in what was perhaps the worst of the Graeco-Roman cities, where moral life was at so low an ebb that the Greeks them¬ selves had coined the verb “Corinthiazomai” as a euphemism for all that is unspeakable in human nature, he had won to Christ a goodly number from among its inhabitants, the majority of the converts being Gentiles, with a not inconsiderable admixture of Jews. Among the upper classes, however, he had had but indifferent success. A few, but “not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many high born” had entered the new 1Acts xviii, iff. The Eucharist in St. Paul 3 Society.2 For the most part, in this city which so deeply prided itself on its culture and varied wis¬ dom, the Church was made up of members of the lowest social stratum. The general context of the letter makes it clear, however, that from whatever class they were drawn, on coming into the Church not a few had washed themselves from well-nigh unimaginable moral foulness.3 A.D. 55. The Occasion for Writing I Corinthians, i. To deal with disorders in the Church. Some four years have passed away since the founding of the Church, and with them the early fervour of conversion. To St. Paul, just finishing a three years’ stay at Ephesus,4 comes very disquieting news of this youthful par¬ ish. Some members of the household of a Cor¬ inthian (?) lady named Chloe bring him word,5 not only of a profound abatement of early zeal, but that the gravest moral disorders have broken out among the parishioners, and all was tending toward a return to the status quo ante. In par¬ ticular, there had arisen and developed a hideous party spirit:6 an unspeakable case of immorality * I Cor. i, 26. 6 i, 11. * vi, 11. ®i, nff. 4xvi, 8, with Acts xx, 31. 4 The Eucharist in St. Paul had not simply been condoned but was actually extolled as an illustration of Christian liberty:7 fierce quarrels which had broken out had been carried to heathen law courts.8 The unseemly conduct of women in their assemblies 9 was matched and exceeded by the gross excesses and profanation of the Lord’s Supper.10 The very gifts of the Spirit were employed, not with a view to the building up of character, but for purposes of vain-glorious ostentation.11 Many of the communicants, who had returned to attendance at the heathen religious festivals, saw no incongruity in coming afterwards to the Lord’s Table.12 2. To answer a letter from the Corinthians. A group of these Corinthians had sent the Apostle a letter,13 asking him to solve for them a number of difficult questions about which they were per¬ plexed. Thus they desired to know whether, in view of the near return of Christ, marriage was right; 14 and if so, whether mixed marriages were to be allowed.15 Was it right to eat meat of- Tv, iff. 8 vi, iff. 9xi, 2ff. 10 xi, iyff. uxiv, iff. 12 x, i4ff. 13vii, i. 14vii, iff. 15vii, I2ff. The Eucharist in St. Paul 5 fered to idols? 16 What was the proper dress of men and women at their meetings? 17 What was the relative value of spiritual gifts?18 What would be the nature of the resurrection body? 19 How were they to collect money for the needy “saints” at Jerusalem?20 Might Apollos come back to them ? 21 Summary of the Apostle’s Purpose in Writing. It was to meet these dual conditions that St. Paul wrote I Corinthians. His object was not only to recall the Church to a sense of its corporate unity and of its separateness from the heathen world, but also to show its members that the only criterion for deciding difficult ques¬ tions was “loving kindness” and that which had a tendency to build up the character of others. Throughout the letter, in one way or another, runs the thought, “Flee from idolatry.” St. Paul's Account of the Institution of the Eucharist. Before proceeding to exam¬ ine St. Paul’s teaching on the Eucharist in detail, it may be well to look briefly at his account of the Institution, as contained in chapter xi, 23-25. 10 viii, iff. 19 xv, 35ff. 17 xi, 2ff. Mxvi, iff. 18xii, iff. “xvi, 12. 6 The Eucharist in St. Paul “I received as a trust from the Lord,” he says, “that which as a trust I also delivered unto you.” There can be little doubt that the twice repeated preposition 22 has a real significance. The Eu¬ charist is not something with which men may play fast and loose. The Corinthians, no less than St. Paul, are trustees; as, in recalling his original teaching to this Church some four years previously, he now reminds them. The content of this trust, he says, he received “from the Lord.” “Through what medium?” one asks at once ; for the term employed 23 simply tells us the “whence,” in a wide and general sense. Al¬ though St. Paul affirms, e.g.f in Gal. i, 1 1, 12, that the Gospel which he preached was not received by him from man, “neither was I taught it, but it came to me through a revelation of Jesus Christ,” this does not mean that he did not learn the facts of Christ’s life from those who were Christians before him. It was the significance of those facts, e.g.f that “Christ is the termina¬ tion of law unto righteousness to everyone that be- 23 “IIap4Xa/3ov, xapiStoxa. but uniform use in Paul.” 'napa>.a[x/3(5:vo). . . ‘to receive Burton on Gal. i, 12. something transmitted to one’ ** ITapd . . . is the uniform, or all The Eucharist in St. Paul 7 lieveth” : 24 that “in Christ Jesus neither circum¬ cision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith energizing through love”:25 that “the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” 26 which had come to him solely from his inner fellowship with the Lord. Hence there is no reason to suppose that he means here to ex¬ clude older Christians as the medium of his information. His Date for the Institution. It is inter¬ esting to note the way in which he dates the In¬ stitution. It was “in the night in which He was being betrayed.” 27 There is no reference to the Passover, as in the Synoptists; and its absence here, as well as the identification of Christ with the paschal lamb in v, 7, and the apparent syn¬ chronizing of a ceremony of Nisan 16 with the resurrection on the third day 28, seem to indicate that St. Paul, like the author of the Fourth Gos¬ pel 29 and the early Church, puts the date of the Last Supper on Nisan 14, or twenty four hours 34 Rom. x, 4. perfect. 35 Gal. v, 6. 28 xv, 20. 36 Gal. v, 14. 39 e.g., John xiii, 29, xviii, * 7capeB(BoTo, graphic im- 28. 8 The Eucharist in St. Paul earlier than the Synoptists. The latter bear indi¬ rect testimony themselves to the fact that our Lord really did hold the Supper a day prior to the eating of the paschal lamb. For the events which they describe as happening on the same (Jewish) day would have been impossible on Nisan 15. As Sanday well says:30 “The events of the night would involve sacrilege for a devout Jew. On such a holy day it was not allowed to bear arms; and yet Peter is armed, and the servants of the High Priest, if not them¬ selves armed, accompany an armed party. Then we have the hurried meeting of the Sanhedrin who, according to the Synoptic version, would have just risen from the paschal meal. Jesus is taken to the praetorium of the Roman Governor, to enter which would cause defilement, and that on the most sacred day of the feast. Simon of Cyrene is represented as coming in from the coun¬ try, which though perhaps not necessarily imply¬ ing a working day, looks more like it than a day treated as a sabbath. The haste with which the bodies were taken down from the cross is ac¬ counted for by the sanctity of a day that is about 80 The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 154. The Eucharist in St. Paul 9 to begin, not of one that is just ending (Mark xv, 42). If it had been the latter, Joseph of Arimathasa could not have ‘bought’ the linen cloth in which the body was laid.” Did Christ Use Leavened or Unleavened Bread? If this earlier date be accepted — and it would appear as though we must accept it — we have no way of knowing whether the ‘loaf’,31 which Jesus took was leavened or unleavened. This is a small enough matter in itself, yet the question shook the Church many centuries ago. Its consideration has by analogy an important bearing upon the contents of the cup, which is still a matter of much moment to many today. If the Synoptists are correct as to the dating of the Supper, the loaf was without question un¬ leavened, since by Jewish law no particle of panary ferment was allowed in one’s house after — at the latest — noon on the previous Jewish day. But, as is most probable, if the Eucharist was instituted twenty-four hours earlier, then it would depend wholly upon local circumstances in that particular house in Jerusalem whether it was fermented or unfermented. For while the search " (JfpTOS IO The Eucharist in St. Paul for panary ferment, with a view to its destruc¬ tion, had already begun, it was not required to be completed until noon on the following day. Hence it is quite possible that the host had some fermented loaves still in the house, which he might well have made use of for so many guests. It is equally possible that he might already have destroyed the old leaven, and finished his baking for the feast of unleavened bread. In early days the Church used leavened bread in accordance with the implications of St. Paul and the Fourth Gospel, a practice continued to this day in the East. In the West, however, after the influence of St. Matthew’s Gospel with its later day for the Institution had become supreme, the authorities began to employ unleavened bread, and still later abandoned the one loaf of the Last Supper, in favor of individual wafers. The Meaning of “Gave Thanks.” St. Paul goes on to say that Jesus having taken the loaf — according to St. Mark it was “as they were eating,” 32 i.e.y in the midst of the meal — “gave thanks” 33 over it, which, as may be seen from a comparison with I Cor. x, 16 and St. Mark xiv, 83 Mark xiv, 22. 88 eOxaptoT^oa?. The Eucharist in St. Paul II 22, is equivalent to “blessed” 34 or “consecrated.” That is, Jesus offered over the loaf a blessing which took the form of a thanksgiving. The original of these verbs supplied two of the earli¬ est names for the service, Eulogia and Eucharist, which are transliterations, respectively, of the Greek words for Blessing and Thanksgiving. The Words Used by Christ in Blessing the Loaf and Cup Are Unknown. It is im¬ portant to note that neither here nor in any Synoptic account, are the actual words given, by which the Lord “blessed” either the bread or the cup. The complete silence of the New Testa¬ ment as to this, coupled with the highly varied practice of the early Church, affords conclusive evidence that no one single “form” is necessary to the due observance of the rite. The Didache , or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” the earliest extant Church manual, which dates prob¬ ably not later than 125 A. D., provides a form to be said over the cup and the bread respectively, although “the prophets” are definitely allowed to use what form they will.35 That for the cup, which comes first, is as follows: “We give thee “Mark xiv, 22, eOXoYrjaa?. 85 Toe? SI xpo4pfl<;, not xotfis. 63 touto. 1 8 The Eucharist in St. Paul “Ye shall offer a burnt offering 63 for a sweet savour unto the Lord,” where the Hebrew term for “offer” is properly rendered by this Greek verb, because of the sacrificial meaning of its fol¬ lowing object: there are not, however, thirty such instances among the more than thirty-two hundred occurrences of the verb in the Septua- gint. No Greek Father, with the possible ex¬ ception of Justin Martyr,64 ever understood the word in the passage under discussion as meaning other than “perform this action”: that is, “thus take a loaf, bless it, break it,” etc. The witness of all the Liturgies, Eastern and Western, is to the same effect. They never employ either this verb or its Latin equivalent facere when the bread and wine are offered, but always the reg¬ ular Greek or Latin sacrificial term. In the Reformation period, however, two Roman Catho¬ lic writers, Clichtovius and Ambrosius Cath- arinus, imported into it the meaning of “offer this in sacrifice” ; and this thought of theirs reg¬ ularly reappears in Anglican literature.65 But the idea was born only of the exigencies of con- “ xocirjaeTe iXoxauTrco^ara. 85 e.g. Darv^ell Stone, “The w Try. XLI, LXX. Holy Communion,” p. 30. The Eucharist in St. Paul 19 troversy, in which Clichtovius and Ambrosius Catharinus were engaged, and was at once repu¬ diated by the best Roman Catholic scholars, such as Bellarmine,66 Maldonatus and Estius, the last of whom says 67 that so forced a meaning is “plainly beyond the mind of Scripture,” or as he adds a line or two lower down,68 “facere ( i.e . the Latin equivalent of the Greek word for ‘do’) can never, without forcing its meaning, be ren¬ dered by sacrificare.), The Meaning of “in Remembrance of Me.” Let us now consider the phrase “in re¬ membrance of me,”69 which is also recurrently affirmed to carry the meaning of an objective memorial. The Greek term translated “remem¬ brance” 70 is a passive (or reflexive) verbal noun, and denotes “a calling to mind,” “a recollection.” Both Plato and Aristotle distinguish between “memory” 71 and “recollection,” 72 the former being conceived as instinctive and common to beasts and men, while the latter is “the reviving 68 “Catholici non tarn, in- coacte per tsacrificare> potest eptiy exponi. 87 in Pauli Epp. Vol. I, p. 60 eiq rrjv e^v dvd^vYjacv. 618; “plane praeter mentem 70 dvdp,viqat<;. Scripturae.” n hvt)P.t]. 88 ‘ facere * nequaquam nisi ” dvdimjoi<;. 20 The Eucharist in St. Paul of faded impressions by a distinct act of the will, the reflex, at the bidding of the mind, of knowl¬ edge which has once ebbed,” and therefore proper to man only. Thus Plato 73 pictures the latter term as connoting “the inflow of perception which has faded,” and with him agree almost verbally both Aristotle 74 and the Alexandrian Jew Philo. A later Platonist75 defines it as “the new birth or recovery of knowledge,” and a writer of the fifth century B.C. 76 employs it to denote “a recollection of vows to pay sacri¬ fices.” 77 While the term occurs frequently in Jewish and classical treatises, the present writer has found no instances where it bears other than the above meaning. It is found five times in the Greek Old Testament, twice in the Pentateuch,78 twice in Psalm titles,79 and once in “Wisdom.” 80 In the New Testament, outside of its three 81 ( ?) occurrences in connection with the Eucharist, it is found only in Heb. x, 3, where its meaning is unmistakably clear. There the author is en- 73 de Legg. V, 732b. 78 Lev. xxiv, 7, Numb, x, 10. 74 e.g., de Hist. Anim. I, i, 79 Pss. 37, 69. 15- 80 xvi, 6. 78 Olympiodorus. 81 1 Cor. xi, 24, 25. There 78 Lycias. is some doubt as to the gen¬ n dcvap.vf;aei<; 0uacd>v. uineness of Luke xxii, 19, 20. The Eucharist in St. Paul 21 deavoring to show that the Jewish sacrifices, which by their very repetition revealed their inefficacy, had nevertheless served an important and indeed divinely appointed purpose. For they had kept alive the sense of sin. “In them,” he says, “there is a recollection of sins every year: 82 for,” as he immediately adds, “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin.” The Jewish sacrifices, in the opinion of the Alex¬ andrian author, were instituted with a view to a recollection of sin : for the purpose of keeping alive the sense of responsibility. The Eucharist was given, according to the tradition received by St. Paul, “for the purpose of recalling me 83 to mind”; with the object of continually bring¬ ing home to man’s heart the true significance of the life and death of Christ. But the term ap¬ parently is never used objectively, nor indeed does it appear that it could be. There is a Greek word which has this meaning,84 and it is found in the New Testament.85 An angel tells Cornelius that his “prayers and his alms are gone up for a memorial 86 before God,” i.e they “put God in 82 ’Ev auxaTq apuzp- 84 p.vr)p.6auvov. Titov xax’ Ivtauxdv. 85 Acts x, 5. 88 intensive. 88 e{<£pt.vT]pi.6auvov. 22 The Eucharist in St. Paul mind” of him who offered them. And this is the word regularly used in the Greek Old Testament — occurring seventy-one times — for that part of the sacrifice which was burned on the altar and went up to God to “put Him in mind” of His worshipper. When the Church had come to con¬ ceive of the Eucharist as a sacrifice it began to employ this term, which is of frequent occur¬ rence in the Liturgies, to express the sacrificial memorial before God. But it is not the word used by St. Paul. Two illustrations of Christian writers’ use of the term may be cited, one from Justin Martyr, the other from the last of the Greek Fathers). They are typical. Justin (c. 150 A.D.) explains 87 the word as that “whereby the Passion of the Son of God, which He under¬ went for men, is brought to mind.” 88 Euthemius Zigabenus (c.1115 A.D.) thus expands 89 St. Luke’s “Do this in remembrance of me.” “Do this, the new mystery, the Lord says, and not the old. For the latter offering was to call to mind the deliverance of the Hebrew first-born, even 8T Migne, Pair. Gr. VI, Col. 89 in Quatt Evang. Vol. I, 745f* P- 1019. Lipsiae, 1792. 88 1%* &va[i.YT]aei . . . iv fj . . . (X^IAVTJTOCC. The Eucharist in St. Paul 23 their freedom: but this is to recall the Master to mind. For through such a sacrifice as this we are reminded 90 that His body was delivered unto death for us, and His blood poured out, and thus our memory is ever kept fresh.” As a repre¬ sentative Latin author, Thomas Aquinas may be quoted. Commenting 91 upon “in meant com- memorationem’’ the Vulgate equivalent of “in remembrance of me,” he rightly expounds the phrase as “namely, in memory of my Passion.” 92 With this agree the Greek Liturgies,93 the Roman Canon Missae ,94 and our own Book of Common Prayer. A Comparison of Prayer Book Teaching with the Foregoing. It may be of advantage at this point to turn from the Epistle for a brief space, and endeavor to bring together the pass¬ ages in the Prayer Book which have a bearing upon the subject, so as to compare its teaching with that of St. Paul. The italics in the follow- 80 dtvatxt[xvtoy.6pLs0a. Note the ” scilicet, in memoriam passive. is a passive meae passionis. verbal noun, formed from M tocvCiv ^.e^v^evot, this verb. “We therefore, recalling to 81 in Pauli Epp., Vol. I, p. mind.” 84 Unde et memores. 457- 24 The Eucharist in St. Paul ing citations are, needless to say, our own. In the Longer Exhortation 95 we are told that “to the end that we should always remember the exceeding great love of our Master, and only Saviour, Jesus Christ, thus dying for us, and the innumerable benefits which by his precious blood- shedding he hath obtained for us; he hath insti¬ tuted and ordained holy mysteries, as pledges of his love, and for a continual remembrance of his death, to our great and endless comfort.” If to anyone there be the slightest uncertainty as to whether the latter italicized phrase is to be taken objectively or subjectively, all possible doubt is removed by comparing it with the former. In the Canon 96 we are told that our Lord on the cross “made there (by his one oblation of him¬ self once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.” We should note how the compilers of the Prayer Book have almost gone out of their way here, in their effort to heap term upon term, and so to emphasize what they con¬ ceive to be the finality of Christ’s offering. Why, in their judgment, was the Eucharist instituted? 95 P. 230. Mp. 235. The Eucharist in St. Paul 25 At once they proceed to tell us. Our Lord, they affirm, “did institute, and in his holy Gospel com¬ mand us to continue [here is brought out the force of the present tense of the Greek equiva¬ lent for ‘do’], a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again: for in the night in which he was betrayed, he took Bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is my Body, which is given for you; Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise, after supper, he took the Cup; and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins : Do this , as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me.” We note, first, that this section of the Canon is purely recitative. It is at once the solemn read¬ ing of our charter to God in the presence of the assembly, and the giving glory to Him for so great a legacy of His Son, which declares our right to do what we are about to do. Then it should be observed that the account of the Insti¬ tution is based upon I Cor. xi, with which are 26 The Eucharist in St. Paul “conflated” various phrases from the Synoptists. Third, that “memory,” as the connective particle “for” unambiguously reveals, is defined as mean¬ ing “in remembrance of me.” The Anamnesis. Catching up the thought of this last phrase, as in the Unde et memores of the West, and the “Wherefore calling to mind” of the East, the priest continues: “Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we, thy humble servants, do cele¬ brate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death,” etc. Here again “memorial” is made clear by the phrase “ having in remembrance,” and not “putting in remem¬ brance.” Meaning of “These Thy Holy Gifts.” But what is the meaning of “these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee?” The words — save for the insertion of “which we now offer unto thee” in the Scottish Book, from which our Canon is taken — come ultimately, in their Eng- The Eucharist in St. Paul 27 lish form, from the Canon of 1549, which reads simply “we . . . make . . . with these thy holy gifts, the memorial. . . .” And the source of the last is the traditional Latin rite according to the Use of Sarum. In the Latin Canon the passage reads: “We offer unto thy most excel¬ lent Majesty, of thy gifts and favors,91 a pure Sacrifice,98 a holy Sacrifice, an immaculate Sacri¬ fice, the holy Bread of eternal life, and the Cup of everlasting salvation.” Here quite clearly the thought is of the offering up of Christ; for mere bread could hardly be described as Hostiam im- maculatam, and in any case the “words of institu¬ tion,” which by Latin teaching constitute the “form” of consecration, have already been said. How entirely different is the thought in our own Book! Here is no hint of offering an “immacu¬ late Sacrifice,” which in the “Supplices Te}> of the Latin rite that almost immediately follows, is asked “to be carried by the hands of thy holy angel to thy altar on high.” The whole point of view is other. No prayer whatever has as yet been said over the gifts. The bread and wine are here solemnly set aside and offered to God eT de tuis donis ac datis. 98 Hostiam. 28 The Eucharist in St. Paul for the prayer which in a moment is to be made over them. The “memorial” which we are mak¬ ing — the term is obviously intended as the equiva¬ lent of St. Paul’s anamnesis, the meaning of which, as we have seen, is “recollection” — is quite clearly explained in the next clause as “hav¬ ing in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death.” The Invocation then follows, that God will “vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word" and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine” — surely an otiose proceeding, if they have been already con¬ secrated ! Then once more is affirmed the pur¬ pose of the Eucharist: “that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion } may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.” In the same way, when the communicant is given the hallowed bread and wine, he is told to take them “in remembrance that Christ died for thee” : “in remembrance that Christ’s blood was shed for thee.” So in the two Exhortations on p. 240ft. we are told 89 For the Invocation of the Prayer Book,” ed. by Words- Logos, cf. “Bishop Serapion’s worth, p. 45f. The Eucharist in St. Paul 29 that “the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ” is “to be . . . re¬ ceived in remembrance of his meritorious Cross and Passion”: that it is our “duty to receive the Communion in remembrance of the sacrifice of his death, as he himself hath commanded.” The Catechism, which in this section is probably the work of Bishop Overall,100 carries on the same thought when it asks: “Why was the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper ordained?” and answers: “For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby.” In the lighter type of dog¬ matic manual it is often affirmed that “remem¬ brance” has here an objective sense, as though it signified “putting God in mind” of the sacrifice of the death of Christ. Such writers should recall that on this hypothesis, the Eucharist is also offered, according to the text, to put Him in mind “of the benefits which we receive thereby” : which is absurd. In What Sense the Prayer Book Teaches a Eucharistic Sacrifice. It is thus clear that 100 Cf. Procter and Frere, of Common Prayer,” pp. ‘‘A New History of the Book 600 n, 602 n. 30 The Eucharist in St. Paul in the Prayer Book there is neither hint nor sug¬ gestion of offering to God the body and blood of Christ. On the other hand, we find in connec¬ tion with the Eucharist much sacrificial language. The officiant is again and again referred to as “priest,” and in the Office of Institution the place of celebration becomes an “altar.” What is offered by the priest at this altar? According to the Prayer Book he presents at this service, as representative of the people, more than one obla¬ tion. Thus after offering to God the alms, in accordance with the rubric, he prays as follows : “We humbly beseech thee most mercifully to accept our alms and oblations, and to receive these our prayers, which we offer unto thy Divine Majesty.” Probably “oblations” here means the people’s offerings of whatever kind, other than money.101 In former times, e.g., the parishioners brought and presented the bread and wine for the service, a custom which has long since become obsolete. But the term, like others elsewhere, has survived. Besides the alms and prayers, the priest, as we saw above, later on solemnly offers the “gifts” of bread and wine, ere making over 101 Cf. Brightman, “The English Rite,” Vol. I, p. civf. The Eucharist in St. Paul 31 them the prayer of blessing. Before concluding the Prayer of Consecration, he beseeches God “mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” The Prayer Book here teaches, that is, that in this service we do offer a sacrifice, the content of which is praise and thanksgiving. Compare e.g.y Heb. xiii, 10, 15: “We have an altar. . . . Through Him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise [/. The Eucharist in St. Paul 35 in Palestine. Therefore the Jerusalem host could not have secured “unfermented” grape juice from the current year’s harvest, and hence he must have used grape juice from the crop of the pre¬ vious Autumn at least. But fermentation is a bacteriological process, which in exposed juices begins almost immediately, and we know that the Palestinian Jew had no knowledge of antisepsis. There was but one way for him to prevent the fresh grape juice from becoming vinegar. And that was to seal it hermetically, the result being that ere long it became a true intoxicating wine. One recalls a brief parable of our Lord 108 which is germane to the subject. “No man putteth fresh ‘wine’ into old wine skins : if otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine perisheth, and the skins. But fresh ‘wine’ must be put into new wine skins.” May Unfermented Grape Juice Be Used in THE Cup? But is it indeed the case, as the guardians of Christian tradition affirm, that a minimum alcoholic content is a sine qua non to the ‘validity’ of the sacrament? If so, is this not another way of saying that the reality of the 103 Mark ii, 22. 36 The Eucharist in St. Paul sacrament is conditioned upon the degree of bacteriological reproduction in the grape juice? And does anyone, however wedded to what he conceives to be the “tradition of the Church,” really believe this to be the case? It is a singular anomaly that an exception to a Constitutional Amendment must be made, not to satisfy what many think are the just claims of the grape farmer, but out of consideration for what in reality are no more than the prejudices of Chris¬ tians. Let us recall what has happened in regard to the bread, and then consider whether, pari passu, the same may not lawfully be done with the cup. It is obvious that Christ Himself used either a fermented or an unfermented loaf, and that at some period in the past it was definitely known which of the two it was. But it is also certain that, at an unknown date, individual clergymen began to set aside His example, and that their practice was ultimately followed by all others in their half of the Church. Either the East, which uses fermented loaves, or the West, which for centuries has ordinarily employed un¬ fermented bread, has broken with His example. And does anyone think the worse of either, or The Eucharist in St. Paul 37 suppose that on either hypothesis the “validity” of the sacrament is a whit impaired thereby? May not the same be done today with “the fruit of the vine” ? Let those who fear that the use of “unfermented” grape juice (if, outside of a biological laboratory, there be such a thing) will cause a break in the “tradition of the Church,” recall the fact that Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the scholastics, says 109 that the sacrament may lawfully be celebrated with mustum, and that in cases of necessity a bunch of grapes may be squeezed into the cup immediately before Mass, a practice which he affirms to be ordinarily pro¬ hibited, not because such grape juice is “unfer¬ mented” (a point which he does not raise here), but on account of foreign matter also entering thereby,110 and so making such a custom normally indecens. Again, many states prohibit by law the use of the common cup; so that, if living in such a state, every time we use the single cup at the Eucharist we set at naught the law. If on other grounds the use of individual cups be thought desirable, on what theological basis can we object 109 Summa T heologica, Pars 110 Propter impuritatem Tertia, Quaes. LXXIV, Art. rnusti. 5- 38 The Eucharist in St. Paul to the practice? Surely not on the ground that we are violating the example of Christ; for it is certain that He used a single loaf, yet most of us in the West employ individual pieces of bread. Pari passu , may we not do the same in the matter of the cup? An Added Comment on St. Paul as to the Purpose of the Eucharist. St. Paul having finished his recital of the Institution of the Eucharist, and recorded its purpose as handed down to him from Christ, goes on to add a comment of his own. “For as oft as ye eat this loaf and drink the cup, ye do proclaim the Lord’s death,111 until He come.” This expresses the active side of the Lord’s Supper. The very service itself, the Apostle says, is a verhum visi- bile, a “preaching” of the Lord’s death in silent ministry by the whole Church.112 Meaning of “Show the Lord’s Death.” Here again, however, acute discussion not infre¬ quently arises. It is often affirmed that the verb employed by St. Paul means to “show forth” to 111 t6v O&voctov tou Kupfou Scripturarum omnium sacra - arayyiXkz’ze. mento ac testimonio effusus 112 Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 63 ad praedicatur. Caecil: “qui \_Christi sanguis ] The Eucharist in St. Paul 39 God the Lord’s death, in the sense expressed, for instance, in the well known hymn : We here present, we here spread forth to Thee That only Offering perfect in Thine eyes, The one, true, pure, immortal Sacrifice. Does this verb 113 admit of such a meaning? Certainly the Biblical usage of the term is clear. In the Greek Old Testament it occurs only twice,114 in both instances in its proper sense “to proclaim throughout.’’ Thus, “he . . . published abroad 115 that the Jews had One who fought for them’’: “he would become a Jew . . . publishing abroad 116 the might of God.” In the New Testament it is found eighteen times, eleven in the Acts and seven in St. Paul’s Epistles. In sev¬ enteen of the eighteen instances no one would have any doubt whatever as to its meaning. Two illus¬ trations will perhaps be sufficient. “These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, and set forth 117 customs which it is not lawful for us to receive.” 118 “This Jesus, whom I proclaim 119 113 y.axayy6Xkete. - 110 xaTayy^XXovra. 114 2 Macc. viii, 36, ix, 17 — 117 xaTaYYeXXouatv. in Prov. xvi, 5 it is a "variant. lwActs xvi, 20, 21. 115 Yt jg (9pov([xoc<;: ‘wise men’ would 130 v jg require 0090 eg.) I speak; be yourselves the judges of what I affirm.” The Eucharist in St. Paul 45 priated the covenant blessings of Jehovah, they partook of all the gifts for which that Jewish altar stood. But this fact of Communion, in the judgment of St. Paul, is also true of idol feasts, to which truth all along he has been leading up. Demons, he affirms, are in reality worshipped at these festivals, and with demons the com¬ municants are brought into relation. Not in¬ deed, that an h/o/-sacrifice has reality, or that an idol is anything in the world. This latter he has expressly denied already. “No, but what the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I would not that you should be communicants of the demons.” 131 In fact, the position of those Christians who do communicate at such feasts is utterly untenable. “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons : ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” 132 To attempt to do both is to “provoke the Lord to jealousy.” Such double dealing, such dallying with idolatry on the part of Christian men, is to dare the Lord’s displeasure, to suppose themselves stronger than He.” 133 131 V. 20. 132 y. 21. 133 v. 22. 46 The Eucharist in St. Paul Now it is noticeable that St. Paul does not say, “Ye cannot offer sacrifice a f. the altar of the Lord and the altar of demons.” But why does he not phrase his sentence in some such way? After considering attentively the whole trend of his argument in this section, must we not answer that it is because it is the question of Communion, of fellowship, and not of sacrifice or non-sacrifice which he is comparing? There is a quality com¬ mon to all three services which he selects and isolates from any other attribute they may share. On this common quality he bases his argument. That the thoughtful and impartial reader, as he follows step by step the Apostle’s reasoning, will affirm this quality to be that of sacrifice and not communion, or of communion plus sacrifice, we do not believe. St. Paul has quite obviously received information that the Corinthians had been attendants and communicants at the heathen religious festivals. He desires to break this off absolutely. Therefore he proceeds to show that to partake of a religious meal, whether heathen, Jewish, or Christian, really brings the partaker into relation with the being who is worshipped. In the Jewish feast, the recipient through com- The Eucharist in St. Paul 47 municating appropriates the sacredness of the Jewish altar: in the heathen feast, likewise through communicating, he comes into union with the demons : in the Eucharist, through communi¬ cating, he has “communion with the body and the blood of the Christ.” Is it not plain that the characteristic which the Apostle isolates and compares is solely that of communion? Whether one, or two, or all were also sacrificial is for his present purpose indifferent: it lies outside the object of his argument. It would seem, there¬ fore, that to assume from this section, either that he taught directly, or implied indirectly, that be¬ cause two services of communion happened at the same time to be sacrificial, therefore the third service was sacrificial also, is entirely gratuitous. That point is not raised in the section under dis¬ cussion. So far as his words here tell us anything one way or another, the Eucharist might be a propitiatory sacrifice either in the medieval or Tridentine sense, or it might be no sacrifice at all. To show that it is a fellowship or communion with our Lord, and that therefore Christian men are absolutely debarred from that other service which he believes to be a communion with 48 The Eucharist in St. Paul demons, is his one and only purpose. The truth is, the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist was an alien thought to St. Paul as to other New Testa¬ ment writers. The only kind of altar which Christians of this period deemed themselves to possess, was that referred to in Heb. xiii, io; and it is upon such an altar that the writer exhorts “through Him let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to his name.”134 Summary of Purpose of Eucharist. We have seen that the purpose of the Eucharist, ac¬ cording to St. Paul, is that we may ever keep alive in our hearts by partaking of the loaf and cup the meaning of Christ’s life and death: and also, that the action itself constitutes a veritable “preaching” of His death. Can we hope to gain some meaning of the words “this is my body: this cup is the New Covenant in my blood”? Meaning of “This Is My Body”; “This Is My Blood.” Let us first be sure what they do not mean. When Christ uttered them, He was reclining in His physical body in the upper room at Jerusalem, with every physiological function 134 Heb. x, 15; cf. for a similar altar Rom. xv, 16, I Pet. ii 5. The Eucharist in St. Paul 49 of his human organism in esse. Has any thought¬ ful Christian ever seriously imagined, either that He gave to the Apostles a portion of His very flesh and blood, or that then and there He trans¬ muted His body into “Spirit,” restoring it to flesh again at the conclusion of the meal? And is another hypothesis possible, if the words are to be understood literally? Discarding, then, such Western literalism, as unthinkable: and stating frankly that as yet we do not know enough either of Palestinian or of Graeco-Roman background to affirm with certainty the exact origin of the metaphor, and therefore precisely what Christ intended to convey by the words, or exactly what meaning they would have to St. Paul : it is yet possible from this letter to gain at least some idea of their general significance. Passing by, as in a brief essay such as this one must do, a discussion of the obvious reference to “the blood of the covenant,” 135 we can see from St. Paul’s words in x, 16-17 the essential meaning of the language. To partake of the Eucharist is to revive fellow¬ ship with Christ; and, in Him, with one another. “The cup of the blessing which we bless, is it not 135 Ex. xxiv, 8. 50 The Eucharist in St. Paul a fellowship 136 with the blood of the Christ? The loaf which we break, is it not a fellowship with the body of the Christ? seeing that one body, one loaf we the many are : for we all par¬ take of the one loaf.” 137 “Blood” and “body” are obviously used symbolically for Christ Him¬ self. “Flesh and blood,” according to this Apostle, “cannot inherit the Kingdom of God,” 138 where Christ is. And let us not employ such terms as “spiritual flesh” or “spiritual blood,” which have absolutely no meaning to anyone who pauses to think. “The Lord is the Spirit,” 139 writes St. Paul to this same Church a few months later, and it is His Spirit with whom our spirit comes into fellowship at this solemn meal. “He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.” 140 Was St. Paul a Sacramentalist? To the present writer it is difficult to understand why St. 130 Kocvwvfa, the same word as in the phrase, “The fel¬ lowship of the Holy Spirit,” in the familiar words of the Grace. It is found 19 times in the New Testament, of which 13 are in St. Paul. Its 4 occurrences in I John i, 3-7, will repay study. No single word, perhaps, so perfectly expresses the early Christians’ relation to each other and to God and Christ. 137 x, 16, 17. 138 1 Cor. xv, 50. 139 II Cor. iii, 16. 140 1 Cor, vi, 16. The Eucharist in St. Paul 51 Paul should be called “a sacramentalist,” whose religious center of gravity was the Eucharist. The evidence for such a statement in reading through his extant letters seems wholly lacking. He was above all things a mystic, who, conscious of the immediate and continuous presence of Christ in his spirit, tended to be impatient of any external media designed to secure this end. “I live; yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in flesh, I live in faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” 141 Such a saying, which in essence is characteristic of all his writings, expresses the very soul of his inner life. As Burton, commenting on the words, admirably says:142 “It is of course the heavenly Christ of whom he speaks, who in religious experience is not distinguishable from the Spirit of God. With this spiritual being Paul feels himself to be living in such intimate fellowship, by him his whole life is so controlled, that he conceives him to be resident in him, imparting to him impulse and power, transforming him morally and work- 141 Gal. ii, 20. 142 Gal. in loc. (Interna¬ tional Critical Commentary). 52 The Eucharist in St. Paul ing through him for and upon other men.” But nowhere does he make the consciousness of this presence dependent upon the reception of the Eucharist. That the Apostle week by week took part in the great meal of fellowship which held so high a place in the lives of early Christians we may be sure. But it is equally certain that he conceived this service simply as one way of realizing the presence of the Spirit of Christ. The Lord whom he worshipped, who was “re¬ vealed” 143 in him at his conversion, he has ex¬ perienced continuously as a living presence in his soul. Of many later conceptions of the Eucharist he would inevitably have said, with his great successor,144 “it is the Spirit that maketh alive, the flesh profiteth nothing.” The Early Eucharistic Meal. It remains now to endeavor to outline the general character of the Eucharistic Meal, as celebrated at this time. It was probably held on every “first day of the week,” 145 and in the evening.146 The latter is indeed certain, both from Acts xx, 7-1 1, as well as from the use of the Greek word mean- « 143 Gal. i, 15. 145 Cf. Acts xx, 7. 144 John vi, 63. 146 Ibid. The Eucharist in St. Paul 53 ing “supper” 147 in I Cor. xi, 20. Christ had instituted it in the evening, when in the “acted parable” of the broken bread and the outpoured cup He had shown them that His coming death was to be for them a blessing, and it was in¬ evitable that they should follow His example. The place would naturally be a house, probably the drawing-room of a well-to-do Christian, where adequate space for so many guests could be secured. The central portion of the service was a religious meal at which their Elder Brother 148 would be conceived as the invisible host, and they themselves met together as broth¬ ers to realize more deeply the new truth of fel¬ lowship with Him and with one another. For this meal, it would seem, those who were able brought contributions of food and drink: and inasmuch as most of the Corinthian Christians were very poor,149 the well-to-do brought por¬ tions for these as well as themselves.150 Perhaps for the very poor, many of whom were slaves,151 it was the only real meal of the day. While it 147 Betxvov. 149 1 Cor. i, 26. 148 Cf. Rom. viii, 29, “The 150 xi, 22. First-begotten among many 151 vii, 21. brothers.” 54 The Eucharist in St. Paul was a true supper, to satisfy hunger,152 and not a mere ceremonial partaking of food, its purpose was vastly more than this. It served, as has been intimated, to bring together on the plane of equality “high and low, rich and poor, one with another,” in the spirit of Christian brotherhood. When all were assembled and the meal begun, some one, probably one of the older members of the community, taking into his hands a loaf and offering over it a prayer of thanksgiving, broke it into sufficient fragments for all present to par¬ take. And each, as he received his fragment, ate it not only with vivid recollection of the sufferings and death of Jesus, but with renewed conscious¬ ness of His abiding presence. We should like to know with certainty whether any Christian man, or only certain officers, was empowered to bless the loaf and the cup, but unfortunately with the evidence at hand, we cannot.153 And it is futile to read back into this letter the practice of the later Church. One can but say that the proba¬ bilities, taking into account the general context of the epistle, favor the former, rather than the 152 xi, 34. bless . . . The loaf which 153 “'phg CUp # # . which we we break.” t The Eucharist in St. Paul 55 latter conjecture. At the conclusion of the meal 154 “the cup of the blessing which we bless” was similarly partaken of by all. This was per¬ haps followed by a discourse,155 or “sermon,” by brief addresses by different members who felt a “call” to speak, and concluded with prayer.156 The “brothers” had renewed their fellowship with Christ and with each other, and had gained fresh strength wherewith to endure the burden and heat of the day. The Corinthian Profanation of the Eucharist. But the actual situation outlined in the Church of Corinth of A.D. 55 reveals a sad falling away from this ideal. The early zeal of these emotional Christians had abated; fac¬ tiousness, the inveterate curse of later Greece, had fiercely flamed up, and the sense of brother¬ hood had all but departed. The Eucharist, with the common meal of which it formed a part, was indeed still observed. But its religious signifi¬ cance had disappeared, and it had become so far reduced as to be little more than a club supper, at which profanation, drunkenness and general disorder prevailed. 154 “After the supping/’ xi, 1155 Acts xx, 7. 156 Cf. I Cor. xiv, passim. 25. 56 The Eucharist in St. Paul Let us endeavor to reconstruct the situation. It would seem that with the loss of the sense of brotherhood, came a reluctance on the part of the prominent and well-to-do to share a common meal with the outcast and the slave. Suppose we imagine that on a given day a service has been advertised for the following Sunday at 8 P.M., in such and such a man’s drawing room. To the appointed place come the leisured and prominent members, in ample time, since their time is their own. And with them they bring, not only food and drink for themselves, but enough of both for the poorer members as well, for “those who have not.” 157 The table is made ready, the hour arrives, yet perhaps more than half the congre¬ gation, composed of those whose time is not their own, have not yet appeared. “It is not our fault,” say these ostensible Christians: “the hour was fully advertised; let us begin.” And they do begin, begin with a vengeance; eating and drink¬ ing all that is before them, making a restaurant meal of the Lord’s Supper, which ends in a drunken debauch.158 The poor late comers find the board swept, and the “service” over. To say 157 XI, 22. 158 XI, 21. The Eucharist in St. Paul 57 that St. Paul was indignant over the profanation at so sacred a service is to put it mildly. “In giv¬ ing you the following charge I praise you not, seeing that ye come together not for the better but for the worse.” 159 That underlying selfishness was the cause of such factiousness he regards as probably only too true.160 Under such circum¬ stances, “as oft as ye come together to the same place, it is not possible 161 to eat a Lord1 s Supper, for each one is in a hurry to get 162 his own 163 supper in the eating, and (the result is that) one is hungry and the other drunk.” 164 If the only purpose of coming together be to satisfy physical hunger, surely that can be done, and without profanation, in your own homes.165 “Or is it,” he scornfully asks, “that you treat the assembly of God as of no account whatever, and put to shame those that have not?” 166 After showing clearly the true significance of their actions, and the grave moral dangers involved, a subject which we shall immediately take up for discussion, he 159 v. 17. placed here in sharpest con- 160 v. 18. trast. 181 For this sense of oijx 164 vv. 20, 21. eanv cf. Heb. ix, 5. 180 v. 22. 163 xpoXoc[x@avei. 186 Ibid. 188 Kupca/cov and i'Scov are 58 The Eucharist in St. Paul concludes with an earnest exhortation. “Where¬ fore, my brothers, when ye come together to eat, wait for one another” \ and forestalling a possible objection to the indefinite postponement of the evening meal he adds: “and if any be hungry, let him eat at home (i.e.} before he starts out for ‘church’), that yet come not together to judg¬ ment.” 167 Three Possible Stages in a Communi¬ cant’s Life. In this section St. Paul enumerates three possible stages in the life of a communicant, characterized respectively by Diakrisis, Krisis, and Katakrisis. In the first, which is the normal, he is to “put himself to the proof,” 168 ere he partakes. The verb is one frequently used of scrutinizing or of assaying metals, to determine whether they are genuine. The prospective recipient is to test himself as to his purpose and motives ere he partake. Failure to do this had been at least one cause of the gross profanation of the sacrament by the Corinthians. But if he does this, he will be thereby enabled both to judge rightly and clearly as to himself,169 and 167 w. 34, 35. 169 v. 31. st’ Se eauToO? 5csxp(v- 188 . . . !aux6v. opiev. The Eucharist in St. Paul 59 when he partakes to take a right attitude to¬ ward “the body,” 170 and so “discriminate” be¬ tween this service and all other meals, which was exactly what the Corinthians had failed to do. While St. Paul is perhaps thinking primarily of the Lord when using the term “the body” 171 here, he seems clearly also to include the cor¬ porate assembly of Christians, the unity and brotherhood of which it was one great purpose of the meal to keep alive.172 The Corinthians, mak¬ ing no discrimination between this food and any other, had all but lost their sense of corporate responsibility. Failure to follow the normal, St. Paul affirms, will bring upon the lax communicant “a judg¬ ment,” 173 a sharp stroke designed to recall him to a realization of his serious shortcomings. To eat and drink unworthily, is to “be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,” 174 i.e.y “to outrage the emblem is to outrage its original — as if one should mock at the Queen’s picture or at his 170 v. 29. (jl'J) oiay.p(vG>v rb aa)[a.a. one body, we the many are, 171 Omit ‘of the Lord,’ with for we all partake of the the best MSS. one loaf.” 173 — 172 Cf. for the thought, I. Cor. v* 29- x, 17, “seeing that one loaf, 174 v, 27. 6o The Eucharist in St. Paul country’s flag.” 175 A serious epidemic of sick¬ ness had broken out in Corinth, from which many members of the Church were suffering: to the Apostle this was a portion of “the judgment.” 176 But it cannot be too clearly stated that in St. Paul’s mind these “judgments” were not final, but purely remedial.111 The deplorable transla¬ tion of verse 29 in the Authorized Version, “eateth and drinketh damnation to himself,” has # probably done more than all other causes com¬ bined to keep people away from the Eucharist. The third stage, of “condemnation with the world,” 178 is the final judgment, should all else have failed to reform the character. And so his great subject is brought to a close. sj\ jJj Underlying Unity Among All Christians as to the Purpose of the Eucharist. In spite of all theoretical differences between Chris¬ tians, is there not an underlying unity of belief as to the essential significance of the Eucharist? Do not all alike believe that its real power lies in 175 Findlay in loc. 178 v. 31, Yva jjlt) ciiv Ttp x6ap.(|> 178 v. 30. xaTaxptOw^ev. 177 Cf. the clear language of v. 32. The Eucharist in St. Paul 61 bringing us into contact with a personal Christ? This does not mean that we fail to realize that the Spirit of God is everywhere in His Universe. Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, And thy right hand shall hold me.179 Nor do we forget the promise of Christ, that “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” 180 But at certain times, in certain places, and under certain psychological conditions, we do mean that there is apt to be greater recognition of that pres¬ ence. “Why then,” asks Mr. Emmett, in a penetrating essay on “The Psychology of Grace,” 181 “is there a special presence of Christ, or a special recognition of His universal pres¬ ence, in the Holy Communion? Simply because 178 Ps. cxxxix, 7-10. 181 In “The Spirit,” edited 180 Mt. xviii, 20. by Canon Streeter. 62 The Eucharist in St. Paul the whole rite is charged with the associations of His Personality. The words, the elements, the acts, carry us back directly to the supreme crisis of His life. No one can be present at the rite with a serious purpose without thinking vividly of Him. . . . To think earnestly and lovingly of Him is to realize His presence, to be with Him, to open the heart to all the influence which comes from contact with His Spirit, to be in Him and He in us.” Date Due Nil 41 20 * 42 *0 *■* Hf&r „’4S w <5 . '4 -T‘ & * 'T* ' k/l ^ « f) *’ .« ton:#**