been habituated to these customs, so was the Lord Jesus well aware that they would still maintain them: for, as it has been already remarked, the apostles continued in the practice of parts of the Jewish ritual, long after the crucifixion of our Lord; and, although that ritual was in fact abolished by his death, the sudden disuse of it does not appear to have been enjoined upon them by their divine Master. Having these facts in our view, we may reasonably interpret the words of Jesus as commanding nothing more than that his apostles should call him to their recollection, when they met together to celebrate the supper of the Passover. "This cup," said Jesus, "is the New Testament in my blood." Now, it was not every cup of wine which represented the New Testament in the blood of Christ: it was the cup of wine drunk at the supper of the Passover-an institution which they were then celebrating, and which, in some of its circumstances, was expressly typical of the death of the Messiah. It appears, then, by no means very improbable that it was to the cup of the Passover exclusively that our Saviour's injunction applied-"This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me;" that is, as often as ye meet together to celebrate the supper of the Passover, and to drink of that cup, which represents the New Testament in my blood, take care that ye forget not the true purport of the ceremony-do it in remembrance of me.

Such appears to be an easy and natural interpretation of our Lord's words. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that they are capable of a sense somewhat more extensive. Although the breaking of the bread, the handing of the wine, &c., formed a part of the Jewish ceremonial order of the Passover supper, there is reason to believe that a very similar method was observed in the conduct of those more common meals,

of which the Jews were accustomed to partake in one another's company. Thus, when Jesus, on a subsequent occasion, "sat at meat" with the two disciples at Emmaus, we again find him blessing, breaking, and distributing, the bread, (Luke xxiv, 30); and when Paul had induced his companions, on the voyage, to unite with him in taking the needful food, we read that "he took bread, and gave thanks to God in the presence of them all and when he had broken it, he began to eat;" Acts xxvii, 35. Such being the common practice of the Jews, it is very probable that the apostles might understand our Lord's injunction as not confined to the Passover supper, but as extending to other more familiar occasions, when they might be gathered together to participate in a common meal. On these occasions, as well as at the Passover supper, they might consider it a duty, laid upon them by their beloved Master, to break their bread, and to drink of their cup, not only for the satisfaction of their natural appetites, but in commemoration of the body which was broken, and of the blood which was shed, for their sakes.

That the Lord Jesus was thus understood by some of his hearers, may be collected from the known practice of the church, at the very earliest period of its history. Of those numerous persons who were converted by means of the ministry of Peter, on the day of Pentecost, we read that "they continued stedfastly in the apostle's doctrine of fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers;" Acts ii, 42. Since the "breaking of bread" is here mentioned among other signs of religious communion, it probably signifies (according to the general opinion of biblical criticks) that breaking of bread which was introduced as a memorial of the death of Christ. Nevertheless, that the practice in question was observed as a part of the social meal, is evident from the immediate context.

"And all that believed," adds the historian, "were together, and had all things common..... and they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart;" ver. 46. On another occasion, when we are informed that, "on the first day of the week, "the disciples at Troas "came together to break bread," (Acts xx, 7); there is no reason to suppose that they met for the purpose of performing a religious ceremony. It appears, rather, that they came together to participate in a brotherly repast, of which, it is probable, that one particular object was the joint commemoration of the death of their Lord. After Paul had taken the opportunity, afforded him by this meeting, of preaching at length to the disciples, it is obvious that he brake bread with them in order to the refreshment of his body, and the satisfaction of the demands of nature. When he, therefore, was come up again," says Luke," and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed;" ver, 11.

Lastly, the same fact is evident from the description given by Paul of the abuses which had crept in among his Corinthian converts in their method of conducting these common repasts. "When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For, in eating, every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church (or assembly) of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not;" I Cor. xi, 20-22. After thus reproving them, and after explaining to them, in a passage already cited, the origin and true object of the observance which they had thus abused, the apostle, zealous as

he was for the right order of this Christian meal, concludes with the following exhortation: "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another; and if any man hunger,3 let him eat at home, that ye come not together unto condemnation."

The supper, which the apostle here describes as the Lord's Supper, which the Corinthians had so shamefully misconducted, and during the course of which the bread was broken, and the wine handed about in commemoration of the death of Christ, was probably the same as was otherwise denominated "love," or the

66

66 supper of love." "Their coming together," says Theophylact, on I Cor. xi, 20, (or rather Chrysostom, from whom his commentaries were borrowed,) was intended as a sign of love and fellowship; and he denominates this social banquet the Lord's Supper, because it was the imitation of that awful supper which the Lord ate with his disciples." These suppers of love, or "love-feasts," are alluded to by Peter, II Pet. ii, 13, and by Jude ver. 12; and are described by Pliny, Ep. lib. x, 97; as well as by Tertullian, Apol. adv. Gentes, cap. 39; and other early fathers, Clem. Alex. Pod. lib. ii, c. 1, Constit. Apostol. lib. ii, c. 28, &c.. It appears that they were publick repasts, of a decent and frugal character, in which the poor and the rich of the early Christian churches participated together, and which were considered as being both the symbols and pledges of mutual harmony and brotherly love. Such, then, was the "Lord's Supper" of the primitive Christians: such were the occasions on which they were accustomed to break their bread, and to drink

1

(

3 Vide Grotii Comm in loc. "Est xλevaouds (irrisio acerba). Loquitur enim tanquam pueris quiita solent esse ¿TEvol (famelici) ut quidvis arripiant, nec alios ad partem vocent, neque velint ouna Megile (ficus partiri).”

4 So Grotius, Estius, Justinian, and others,-see Poole's Synopsis.

their wine, as a memorial of the body and blood of Christ.5

To the simple practice which thus prevailed among these primitive Christians (if preserved within proper bounds) there appears to be nothing which can fairly be objected. It was a practice which might be classed rather under the head of pious customs, than under that of direct religious ceremonies. It was, perhaps, little more than giving to one of the common occasions of life a specifick direction of an edifying character; and, under the peculiar circumstances of these early disciples, it might be considered no inconsistent result of that general law, that, whether we eat or drink, or whatsoever we do, all is to be done to the glory of God, and in the name of the Lord Jesus. But, appropriate as these feasts of charity might be to the condition of the infant church, when the believers were comparatively few in number, and in a considerable degree possessed all things in common, they would evidently be much less adapted for the use of those vast multitudes of persons, very slightly connected with one another, who profess Christianity in modern

5 Vide Schleusner Lex. in loc. ȧyán, No. 7. "'Ayáraι, agapæ, (love-feasts,) fuerunt convivia publica in conventibus Christianōrum sacris institua, conjuncta in primitiva et apostolica ecclesia cum celebratione festiva cœnæ Dominicæ, ita dicta quod Christianæ charitatis symbola essent et tesseræ," &c. The celebration of the Eucharist, and that of the love-feast appear to be mentioned by Ignatius (A. D. 101) as identical. "Let that be considered," says the ancient father, “a valid Eucharist, which is under the care of a bishop, and in which he takes a part. Where the bishop appears, there let the people attend. It is unlawful either to baptize or to celebrate the love-feast without the bishop;" Ep. ad Smyrn, ch. 8. So we are informed by Tertullian (A. D. 200), that, even in his day, the Eucharist was received by Christians in connexion with their meals: "Eucharistiæ sacramentum et in tempore victus, et om nibus mandatum a Domino, etiam antelucanis cœtibus, nec de aliorum manu quam præsidentium sumimus;" De Coron. Milit. cap. 3, Ed. Semleri, iv, 341; See also Grotius and Whitby on I Cor. x & xi.