The holy sacrament, from the eleventh century, became the ordeal for proving the guilt or innocence of persons suspected or accused of crimes; and, throughout the nations of Europe, was also employed as the means of ratifying an oath, asseveration, or execration. The names of the holy sacrament are familiar in the dialect of the profane in every language. Even a celebrated Christian queen, in her paroxysms of rage, was accustomed to swear by

the blood of God!

§ 2. OF THE SCRIPTURAL ACCOUNT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.1

THE evangelists who record the institution of the Lord's supper give it no peculiar name or title. St. Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, styles it the Lord's supper, the table of the Lord, and the communion, xi. 20; x. 21; x. 16. No other distinctive appellation appears to have been given to it in the Scriptures.

Our Saviour instituted this ordinance in connection with the passover, and authorized his disciples to celebrate it in this connection. But it was evidently observed as a separate and independent ordinance in the times of the apostles and with their sanction. The apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. xi., makes no mention of the Passover, but speaks of the communion as a customary rite: "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do show the Lord's death until he come."

2

This sacrament, however, was probably celebrated annually in connection with the passover by the converts from the Jews, who, as appears from Epiphanius, continued for many years to observe this Jewish festival; and, even in the Christian church generally, it was celebrated with peculiar solemnity at the festival of Easter, which corresponded to this passover.

From the circumstance that it was instituted as a separate and distinct ordinance, though in connection with the passover, appears to have been derived the custom of celebrating it, not as a separate and independent religious ordinance, but as one of the common rites of public worship, and as the conclusion of the service.

It may appear, at first thought, singular that John, the beloved disciple, the bosom friend of our Lord, who with Peter made ready the passover, entirely omits to mention the Lord's supper. It should, however, be recollected that John's gospel was evidently intended to be supplementary to the others, and that his own narrative clearly shows that it was intentionally omitted, because al

ready sufficiently explained. "Is it possible to pass over such an affecting and important event with more evident appearance of design? Could he more distinctly signify that he regarded it as already sufficiently reported, and left on imperishable record ?"

The account given by St. Paul is of special importance to us; for it not only harmonizes with the narrations of the apostles and confirms them, but it shows that the Lord's supper is an established ordinance in the church, and designed for perpetual observance. He severely rebukes the disorders and abuses which the Corinthians had introduced, relates the original institution in conformity with the narrative given by Luke, and assures them that he shall set the whole in order when he comes.

The question has been raised whether Christ himself partook of the sacrament? To this the narrative offers no satisfactory reply. The opinions of the church have been greatly divided on this point. Chrysostom and Augustin" maintain the affirmative. This opinion is rendered highly probable from the circumstance that he carefully observed all the Mosaic ordinances, and received baptism at the hands of John, because thus it became him to fulfil all righteousness. In conformity with the same spirit, it is hardly credible that he would have omitted a rite so significant as the one under consideration. The advocates of the doctrine of transubstantiation strenuously maintain the contrary opinion.

Another inquiry, which has divided the opinions of ecclesiastical writers, has been raised respecting the presence of Judas the traitor. Did he partake of the sacrament? The Apostolical Constitutions affirm that he was not present at the celebration of the Lord's supper. The advocates of this opinion rely chiefly on John xiii. 30: "He then, having received the sop, went immediately out." They of the contrary opinion appeal to Luke xxii. 14-21: "And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him." In delivering the cup, our Lord said also, "Drink ye all of it." The prevailing sentiment in the church has been that the traitor did partake of the sacred elements in company with the other disciples.

The bread used on this occasion was doubtless the unleavened bread which was provided for the passover. No stress, however, is laid on the nature or kind of bread; but on the breaking of the bread, in token of the body of Christ broken for us.

The wine was, with equal probability, the common wine of the country, of a dark red colour, and was received without mixture with

water. The significancy of the distribution of the cup, however, consisted not in the quality or colour of the wine, but in its being poured out in token of the blood of Christ shed for the remission of sins.

The eucharist appears to have been celebrated at first in the evening, with reference, no doubt, to the time of its original institution. But no directions are given on this head, See 1 Cor. x. 23; Acts xx. vii.

§ 3. OF THE TESTIMONY OF PAGAN WRITERS.

NOTWITHSTANDING all the care of the primitive Christians to conceal this sacred ordinance from their enemies, it was known, and the celebration of it was prohibited' by Roman magistrates, as appears from Pliny's letter. Lucian of Samosata speaks of our Lord as the great magician who instituted new mysteries. Celsus, with reference to this sacred festival, as appears from Origen, also severely censures the Christians against whom he wrote, for holding certain secret assemblies and celebrating unauthorized rites. The frequent charges alleged against them of sensuality and incest, of offering human sacrifices and of celebrating horrible orgies in secret, evidently relate to the same ordinance. See references3 for a fuller view of this subject.

§ 4. OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS.

NEITHER Barnabas, nor Polycarp, nor Clement of Rome, make any mention of the Lord's supper. This omission is the more remarkable in the latter, inasmuch as he wrote a long epistle to the Corinthians, whom the apostle so severely censures for their abuse of this ordinance. Ignatius, whose authority is of no value, is the only one of the apostolical fathers whose writings have any reference to the subject before us; but these passages from his epistles, even if their genuineness be admitted, are of little importance. In his epistle to the Ephesians, c. iv., he speaks of the breaking of one bread, the medicine of immortality. In his epistle to the Philadelphians, c. v., with evident allusion to Eph. iv. 2-7, he speaks of one faith, one preaching, one eucharist-one loaf, or bread, broken for all. There is another passage, in his epistle to the Smyrneans, c. viii., which is of a more doubtful authority than either of the foregoing, and which is evidently an interpolation from the Apostolical Constitutions, lib. ii. c. 26, 27.

It is even more remarkable that most of the early apologists for Christianity, such as Minucius Felix, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, and Arnobius, do not make any mention of the sacrament, the most sacred ordinance of the Christian religion. Justin Martyr, happily for us, has given two descriptions of this ordinance, in nearly the same words, Apol. i. c. 61-67, the one probably relating to the celebration immediately after baptism— the other, to the ordinary administration of the sacrament, on the Lord's day, in connection with the agapæ. "On Sunday we all assemble in one place," he says again, "both those who live in the city and they who dwell in the country, and the writings of apostles and prophets are read so long as the time permits. After the reading, the president of the assembly makes an address, in which he recapitulates the glorious things that have been read, and exhorts the people to follow them. Then we all stand up together and pray. After prayer, bread, wine, and water are brought in. The president of the meeting again prays according to his ability, and gives thanks, to which the people respond, Amen. After this, the bread, wine, and water are distributed to those present, and the deacons carry portions to such as are necessarily detained from the meeting. Those who are able and willing contribute what they please in money, which is given to the president of the meeting, and is appropriated to the support of widows and orphans, the sick, the poor, and whomsoever is necessitous." In the other account, the bread is brought to the president of the brethren, and a cup of water and a mixture, i. e. of wine mingled with water, which he takes and gives thanks at length that we are permitted to partake of these things. To which all at the conclusion respond, Amen. The bread, wine, and water, are then distributed as before.

It appears from an examination of both passages, that the consecration of the elements was made in the name of the three persons of the Godhead. He speaks of a "thanksgiving to the Father of the universe, through or in the name of his Son, and the Holy Ghost."

The dialogue with Trypho the Jew, usually ascribed to Justin, speaks of the "offering of the bread of thanksgiving, and of the cup of thanksgiving;" and of the "eucharistic meal of bread and wine;" of the "dry and liquid food with which Christians commemorate the sufferings once endured by the Son of God;" but gives no additional information respecting the celebration of the ordinance.

Irenæus, in his controversial writings, brought into use the words лроopoрa, and Svoia, which Justin Martyr had introduced; his writings, however, are chiefly of a controversial character, and accordingly have little reference to the ritual of the church: he contends that the eucharist should be regarded as a sacrifice, in opposition to the Gnostics, who contended that all sacrifices had ceased. Irenæus, however, distinguished this from the Jewish sacrifices, as of a higher and nobler character;1 he appears to have some idea of the symbolical presence in the elements; the bread is exchanged into bread of a higher order, the earthly into the heavenly, but is still bread.2

Clement of Alexandria and Origen offer much important matter in regard to the doctrine of the eucharist, but very little relating to the rites of its celebration. The former speaks of the twofold nature of the blood of Christ, corporeal and spiritual, as typified in the mixing of the wine with water.3 The latter is the first to commend the reverential custom of the church, which is still superstitiously observed by the Roman Catholics, in guarding every particle of the consecrated bread from falling to the ground. "You who frequent our sacred mysteries know that when you receive the body of the Lord, you take care with all due caution and veneration that not even the smallest particle of the consecrated gift should fall to the ground and be wasted. If, through inattention, any part thus fall, you justly account yourselves guilty. If then, with good reason, you use so much caution in preserving his body, how can you esteem it a lighter sin to slight the word of God than to neglect his body?"

From Tertullian we learn that this ordinance was celebrated before daylight in the morning, "antelucanis cœtibus," and received only at the hands of the presiding minister, "nec de aliorum manu quam præsidentium sumimus." He also intimates that the sacred elements were strictly guarded from waste and accident; but expressly declares that all these usages are observed from tradition and the force of custom, without any scriptural authority whatever.5

Cyprian treats at length of the types of the Lord's supper in the Old Testament, and of the elements; and censures severely the practice of administering water instead of wine. Certain sects at that time maintained that the use of wine, even at the sacrament, was sinful. It further appears from his writings, that the eucharist was administered daily—that it was offered to children, and, on one occasion, was administered by a female enthusiast-that the sacred