[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
William Robinson Essays on Christian Unity (1924) |
I
THE USE OF THE
WORDS OF INSTITUTION IN
THE
EUCHARIST.
WERE the words of institution used in New Testament times? Some think they were, and some think they were not. At the outset, it is necessary to note the scanty information in the New Testament itself concerning the actual rite of the Lord's Supper as practised in the Church. Apart from the accounts of institution in the Gospels, we have only two references in the Acts, which give no details, and two references in 1 Corinthians, which enter more into detail, besides a few in Hebrews which are more debatable, and, indeed, which do not help towards the solution of our problem. The negative reply to the question has therefore been built up almost entirely on the argument from silence, and one must confess that such argument is often very dangerous.
The earliest evidence for the use of the words of institution comes from Justin Martyr (c. 150), who, indeed, is the first to give us any detailed account of Christian worship. He speaks of thanks being given by the word of prayer that comes from Him.1 Some [280] think, again, that this refers to the Lord's Prayer, which was early used in Eucharistic service; but most allow that the words of institution are referred to. In all ancient liturgies the words of institution are embodied in a prayer, and are not declaratory. This would account for Justin's phrase, the word of prayer. It is claimed that Gregory I (590-605) states that it was customary for the Apostles to consecrate by the use of the Lord's Prayer alone, but the statement of Gregory is ambiguous in the original, and, moreover, he is too late evidence for what was the practice of the Apostles. The Liber Pontificanus, a document dating not earlier than the third century, states that Alexander, Bishop of Rome (c. 160), first ordered the use of the words of institution; but here again the evidence of the Liber is not entirely trustworthy, and it only shows that Alexander wished to correct slackness which had crept in, in days when set forms were being worked out.
The Didache gives us three prayers of thanksgiving--one for the cup, one for the bread, and a general prayer at the close. In none of these do the words of institution occur. It must be remembered, however, that the Didache represents a type of Christianity very Jewish, and out of the main current of development which is traceable through the Pauline and johannine writings. In fact, these prayers are very similar to what we know of Jewish thanksgiving prayers.2
As in the baptismal formula, there may have been variations in the earliest days, but it is clear that by the middle of the second century it was the almost [281] universal custom to use the words of institution. If the ancient liturgies are any guide, these words were included in a prayer of thanksgiving, and almost universally followed by the Lord's Prayer. The three Gospel accounts carefully preserve our Lord's words, and this in itself seems to reflect the practice of normal Christianity. Then St. Paul is clear in I Corinthians x. as to his custom, which undoubtedly he ordained in all his Churches. The cup was blessed, and became thus a cup of blessing. In Matthew and Mark our Lord blesses the bread and gives thanks for the cup. In 1 Corinthians xi. St. Paul speaks in both cases of giving thanks. It is clear that the two terms are interchangeable--that the giving of thanks included the blessing, and so blessing, with a few exceptions, has always been given in a prayer of thanksgiving. No doubt the words of our Lord would be highly valued and used from the first.
Sometimes one hears other words, sometimes our Lord's altered3; but would it not be far better, and certainly much more orderly and reverent, to use our Lord's own words? We cannot then be wrong.
[EOCU 28-282]
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] |
William Robinson Essays on Christian Unity (1924) |
Send Addenda, Corrigenda, and Sententiae to
the editor |