Historical Appendix

The fundamental doctrines of the Christian system; the doctrines of Paul and Luther, the doctrines of the Reformation, and which have been held by our best divines — we have always maintained to be unchangeable, incapable of being shifted and accommodated to what is called the spirit of the age; — on the other hand, that the mere outer forms of Church Service are flexible, and may undergo modification or expansion so as to bring them more in harmony, not so much with the times, as with ancient and recognised usages. The jewel cannot (dare not) be cut or altered — the casket may be so without damage; it may even be w-ith advantage. Justification by faith -. — the vicarious sufferings and atonement of our divine Redeemer: — regeneration by the Spirit of God: — the inspiration of Holy Scripture and the supernatural element in that Revelation: the Holy Communion as a sign and memorial — never in the Popish and semi-Popish view of it, as a sacrifice for sin — these and other cognate truths are immutable as the stars of heaven. But the modes and methods in the celebration of worship are matters to be adjusted by Christian opinion: not stereotyped dogmas of the faith, they may be regulated and altered by the dictates of a wise Christian expediency!

* A portion of this Appendix contains what was spoken on the Sunday previous to an additional dispensation of the Sacrament.

Such variations and. deviations have perhaps been in nothing more remarkably illustrated than in the case of the solemn Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. The Ordinance itself we cannot too carefully guard and conserve; but from the date of its Institution downwards, there have been continual, and in many cases notable departures in the external form, including that of more frequent or less frequent celebration.

It may not be out of place to observe, that we have the same wide departure singularly illustrated in the case of the analogous typical rite of the Passover: in the outward observance of which our Blessed Lord (with reverence we say it,) sanctioned by His own Example several such alterations and modifications. The Passover which He and His disciples kept in the upper room * diifered in these respects very materially from the letter of the original That, it will be remembered, as described in previous pages, was to be eaten standing, “with the loins girded, the staff in the hand, and the shoes on the feet;” while, in the terminating era of the Jewish dispensation, the recipients, — a custom borrowed from the Romans — reclined on couches, f and the following observances, unknown at its earliest appointment, amounting almost to a new ritual, were introduced.

The Head of the family, or of a cluster of families, mingled for himself and his guests a cup (more accurately a bowl) of wine with water; which was drunk four times in the course of the evening, accompanied with the thanks-

* Though it be of no importance for our present purpose, let it be again noted that we assume, for reasons elsewhere stated, it was the actual Passover they celebrated, and not, as some suppose, an anticipatory private meal.

t “They reclined on pillows around a low table, each resting on his left hand, so as to leave the right free,... the feet stretching back toward the ground, and each guest occupying a separate divan or pillow.” — Dr. Edersheim’s Life and Times of MesAah, vol. ii. p. 492-3.

giving — “Blessed be Thou for this good day and for this Holy Convocation, Avhicli Thou hast given us for joy and rejoicing: Blessed be Thou, O Lord, who hast sanctiiied Israel and the times.” Then followed the washing of hands. The whole roasted Lamb was placed on the Table, with cakes of unleavened bread, bitter herbs, and “the dish” called “the charoseth,” compounded of various fruits mixed with vinegar. After supper followed the Discourse, or Liturgy (called “Haggadah”) delivered by the presiding member. Its theme, as spoken of in a preceding portion of this Volume, was the Exodus; rehearsing that grand story of olden miracle and power. Among other utterances were these — “We are bound to give thanks: to praise, to laud, to extol, — to honour, to magnify Him that hath done for our fathers and for us all these wonders: — who hath brought us from bondage to freedom — from mourning to a good day: therefore must we say before Him, Halleluia — Praise the Lord!” Over a second cup of mingled wine they sung the cxiii. and cxiv. Psalms, with a renewed invocation of thanks and thanksgiving. Then came the breaking of the thin round unleavened cake or biscuit, and the distribution among the guests, dipping it into the dish of charoscth, accompanied with the usual formula — “This is the bread of affliction which your fathers did eat in the land of Egj’pt.” A third cup of wine followed, — with the blessing after meat, — “the cup of blessing” which St. Paul refers to. Then, yet again, the final cup — the cup of the Hallel; — at which they stood and sang together what was called their great Hallel (Pa cxv. to cxviii. inclusive), and with this the sacred rite terminated.

I have gleaned, from reliable sources, these details, in order that it may at once be seen, by comparing the words of the original Institution, so circumstantially given in Exodus, how complete was the departure of the Jews, at the close of the old Testament dispensation and the commencement of the Christian era, from the details there specified. There was the sitting or reclining at table; the use of the wine; — the cliaroseth — the reiterated thanksgivings, — the employment of special Psalms — the lustrations, — all of which are unmentioned in the Pentateuch, and have no claim, in the strict sense of the term, for divine authority. Yet, these changes, Ave repeat, had the highest of all sanction in the example and following of the Redeemer Himself. “Whatever departure there might be, however, from ’ the rubric,’ the great truth they adumbrated was the same. The deliverance of their forefathers from the Land of Egypt was the type of a greater and mightier deliverance, which He, the true Paschal Lamb “sacrificed for us” was to effect; and whose Redemption was henceforth, by a new and expressive sacramental rite, to be kept before the eye of His Church until the end of time.

If we look now to the Lord’s Supper, and compare its modern celebration with that of the Apostolic Church, we shall find, in many unimportant matters, similar divergencies. I pass over the mere attitude of reclining, instead of sitting or kneeling.* But look at some of the references, more to

* Speaking of the sitting posture, Dean Stanley (whose historical accuracy on this subject is undeniable) speaks of it as the attitude “which preserves the tradition of the primitive posture of the early Christians, who partook of the Holy Supper in the usual attitude of guests at a meal, recumbent, or sitting, as the case might be.” — Christian Institutions, page 202. I cannot omit, however, a more specific reference to yet another posture assumed in the early centuries, which seems, at first, a singular and almost violent alteration from Apostolic custom. But, in accordance with the testimony of the most reliable ancient writers, there is no doubt that on the Lord’s Day, the Sacred Rite was partaken of, neither sitting nor kneeling, but .tandimj. What seems thus strange, and almost irreverent, has neveitheless its own our present purpose, as to the times and occasions of dispensing the rite (though these may be rather in the shape of inference than of positive statement), contained in the Acts of the Apostles, the Inspired Epistles, and the works of early Christian writers.

It is evident (those would be unreasonable to gainsay it) that we make a step in advance and bring ourselves more in accordance with the Apostolic use and wont by advocating more frequent communions. “We only state an undoubted fact, that believers of the first century were in the habit of partaking of the Lord’s Supper, at all events, weekly; as we see was the case with the Christians at Troas (Acts xx.), and indeed, previous to that occasion, the observance, immediately following the Pentecostal effusion, seems to have been a daily one. St. Luke, in describing the earliest phase of the Christian Church (Acts ii. 42), thus writes — “And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers.” And yet again, giving a picture of their church life, daily public devotion is coupled with daily private communion, — “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaktJig bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people” (Acts ii. 46, 47).* This, while it describes probably in the first instance no more than the daily common meals of the Christian brotherhood — (the Aga2)e or Love feast, still retained in the Moravian and some other churches), such a

natural explanation. It is the same which our Presbyterian Church of Scotland had, and has, in the vast majority of her churches, for the standing attitude in prayer, viz., that while kneeling is most seemly and befitting on ordinary days; — standing, as the recognised posture of joy or triumph, was most in accordance alike with the jubilant day of the Resurrection, and the Eucharist or “Thanksgiving Feast.”

* See Dean Plumptre’s Art., “Lord’s Supper,” in Smith’s Bible Dictionary.

meeting began soon to be either preceded or followed by the celebration of the Sacred Memorial of their Lord’s death and love. Hence we may note, in Paul’s Epistles, the distinction between the ordinary cups used by the guests during the common meal, and the special cup in which the memorial wine was placed. This latter he calls (i Cor. x. 16) “The Cup of blessing:” and yet more definitely (i Cor. x. 21), “The Cup of the Lord.” The table, too, on which these cups were placed was “.The Lord’s Table.” Again, while rebuking the Corinthians for their fearful and shameful desecration of these Love feasts, he refers to the practice in connection with them, of receiving ‘^ The Lord’s Supper.” He evidently also intimates that though no longer were the daily meetings continued, the two Feasts, the secular and the sacred, were still combined; for he proceeds to give explicit directions as to how they might be co-ordinately kept, without any possible risk of indulgence and excess: (v. TiZi 34)» “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat,” (and that was probably now confined to the first day of the week) “tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home, — that ye come not together unto condemnation.” *

* At these primitive communions, the brotherhood and sisterhood were in the habit of bringing their contributions “in a basket” to the common meal. A still more interesting accompaniment was the use of fish. At the Agapse, or Suppers, preceding the dispensation of the Eucharist, fish was undoubtedly included. There is a catacomb painting mentioned by Dr. Mommsen, with bread and fish, in the ancient crypt of Domitilla.” The bread and fish occur again repeatedly in the Callixtine Catacomb, with a man in the act of blessing the bread. Seven, eight, or more baskets of bread are placed near a table where seven persons are sitting. The table is round, and the fishes are also placed upon it. ... A connection must always have existed in the Christian mind between the last Supper at Jerus.alem — the bread and wine, — and the last repast of the Lord with His disciples, the bread and fish

After the first century, the Agape, in connection with the Lord’s Supper, gradually dies away, until, indeed, owing to the abuses to which it was liable, it comes to be positively forbidden by the Councils of the Church,* And the last alteration of all is the substitution of the Morning as the irme of celebration, rather than the Evening.

From these, then, and other peculiarities,! (such as preceding the act in the first centuries by ablutions, the mixing the wine with water, the men and women sitting apart, &c.)J it will be observed, how, as regards mere outward form — the time, and place, and manner of receiving, — there have been manifold changes and departures from the original wont. There is no doubt the words of Institution, “as oft as ye eat this bread,” point (in contradistinction to baptism) to a repeated, if not frequent celebration. The early Christians felt that the death of their Lord was the great central doctrine of their faith, and that each time they assembled for public worship — as on that same Lord’s day at Troas, — it became them to recall this amazing thought; and that they could in no way do it so significantly as in His own appointed rite. §

by the sea of Galilee (John xxi.).” — Tynvliit in Smith’s Diet.: Art. Eucharist, with woodcuts; “The Catacombs of Borne” (Nelson & Sons), p. 75-80, with woodcuts. See also Dean iStanlcy’s Christian Institutions, p. 50“i’ “The fishes are sometimes placed on the cakes of bread, sometimes on a platter by themselves.”

* The only exception seems to have been Maundy Thursday, the anniversary of its Institution, the evening before the Crucifixion, when the Eucharist was celebrated throughout the entire Church after partaking of a meal,

t See a fuller reference in the next note.

J See note at end.

§” The Bithynian Christians met on ’ a fixed day ’ for worship and communion (according to Pliny). The expression ‘state die’ shows plainly that communion at that time was not daily. Justin Martyr

We have dwelt on all this, simply in illustration of our opening statement, that much of the mere outward in a church may be left to he regulated by the prudence of Christian Societies. Many of these differences are in themselves insignificant; for “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” * To use the words of Augustine, although it must be conceded he himself deviated from the simplicity of the Ordinance, —” The Lord did not prescribe in what order it

distinctly mentions Sunday as the day of Christian communion — ‘the day on which God made the light, and on which Christ rose from the dead.’” — See Professor Cheetham, Avt. Bib. Die. with authorities. The duily celebration of the rite, however, became again universal at the establishment of Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire. This is attested by Chrysostom and Jerome; also from an injunction of one of the canons in the Spanish Council of Toledo (A.D. 39S). The main reason, moreover, being then at an end for Christians meeting as the upholders of an “illicit religion,” in secret and by stealth, at the hour when least attention was attracted to them (“convocationesnocturnse”), the usual and appointed time became “the third hour of the day” (nine o’clock), the same in which the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles. The only exception to the morning dispensation seems to have been on Christmas Eve (the night of the Nativity); Maundy Thursday, as already stated; also on Easter Eve. The faithful, on the latter occasion, were in the habit of remaining in church throughout Saturday, communicating at midnight. The Romish Church, with its invariable fascinating power of appealing to what may be called the romantic side of human nature, subsequently enjoined that on that same occasion, in monasteries, so soon as a star was seen in the sky, the bells were to be rung, a litany chanted, and “mass” celebrated. — See lb., passim. With regard to the time of celebration, we cannot resist adding, what may seem somewhat remarkable in regard to Presbyterian Scotland in a later age, that the Communion, according to Protestant rite, was first administered in St. Giles’ Cathedral, Edinburgh, in the morning with candle light. — Life and Worl; 18S2, p. II.

* See some excellent remarks in Principal Hill’s Lectures on Divinity, in lac.

should be received.” The Christian man or Christian woman who obeys the sacred injunction only once a year, if they come with pure faith and heart consecration, may be truer communicants and more really acceptable in the sight of the Great Master, than those, whose frequent repetitions can never atone for formalism of heart, lack of faith and love, or purity of life. It is not times, nor seasons, nor numerous approaches — that weigh with Him who says — “My son, my daughter, give Me thine heart.”

But while all this is true with reference to the externals and accompaniments of the Ordinance, it is very different regarding the object and design, the nature and significance, of the Sacred Kite itself. While churches may differ regarding the one, and still be faithful to the truth despite of such diversities, there may be, and there is, perilous error regarding the other. Were it not for the pretensions of the Church of Kome in these days, and her undoubted proselytising success within the British realms, more than once referred to; also, for the close assimilation in a large section of the Church of England to Romish tenets regarding the Communion, it would hardly be worth while alluding to the preposterous doctrine of Transubstantiation which now and for ages has been grafted on the simple ordinance.

What, then, is this doctrine of the Romish Church succinctly stated; and its equally dangerous modifications by others 1 Or, in case of these latter repudiating the charge by a mystification of words, let us give, in brief, the Roman Catholic theory or dogma.

The formula of Institution, “This is my body, this is my blood,” is taken by them in a literal sense; also when St. Paul speaks of “the Cup of blessing,” as the “Communion of the blood of Christ.” In other words, that when Jesus, at the first celebration, or when the so-called priest, in His stead, utters these expressions, the common elements of bread and wine are actually changed, or transmuted, or “transubstantiated “into the veritable flesh and blood of Christ. It is believed that the elements are not changed, as they express it, “in their sensible properties: in figure, taste, weight, or other accidents,” but that the substance of them is completely altered, and the substance of the body and blood of the Redeemer is truly present; the Communicant eating His flesh and drinking His blood: * that the priest, moreover, thereby 06*6 rs a real sacrifice to God (” the un bloody Sacrifice,” as it is called, *’ of the Mass “), but which they consider a true propitiatory off’ering for the sins of the dead and of the living. The doctrine seems to have been first propounded in the ninth century, by Paschasius Eadbertus — abbot of Corvei. It was vehemently opposed by a learned brother monk, and other distinguished men of the period. But superstition and credulity, aided by the selfish arts of an interested priesthood, who too readily recognised in the magical and supernatural dogma a fulcrum to raise their own position and enhance their spiritual influence, ultimately prevailed. After a struggle of a century and a half, the now

* It is well known that there has been a great amount of light thrown, in recent years, on the old mythology and religious rites of the Egyptians. Among these, not the least remarkable are the foreshadowings of “a more sure word of prophecy;” notably, dim gropings after the doctrine of the Trinity, and a belief in the Second divine Person of this Trinity. Osiris Horus, according to Philo, was known and worshipped in the land of the Pharaohs as “the Mediator;” “The Word;” “The Son of the Father;” “The only Begotten Son,” &c. But what claims a passing reference here is, that the modern dogma of Transubstautiation had its place and pedigree in these old Egyptian Mysteries, and is a development of them. The divine Incarnated Osiris Horus, who died, and rose again the third day to a new life, had a sacred cake eaten in his loemory; which cake “was supposed to pass into new qualities after receiving the priestly blessing of the Head of the Egyptian Church.” — See Mr. Crowther’s “Starry Cross” p. 32-37.

accepted doctrine was approved officially by the Council of Rome in 1079, and rendered still more binding and obligatory by two subsequent Councils in the Papal City; specially that held by Pope Innocent III., the Fourth Lateran Council (a.d. 1 215.)* In this grievous departure from the simplicity of the Gospel, what appears saddest, and most repreheusible of all (or at least more pernicious to the receiver than all), is, that the partaking of that bread and wine (what is known as the ojms operatum) — the mere mechanical act of receiving these elements — independently altogether of the disposition of the recipient, has an intrinsic virtue to impart pardon, and procure salvation. Hence the avidity of members of that Church, whatever may have been their previous transgressions, to receive the last sacrament on their death-beds: passing into eternity with a lie in their right hands. For what is the impression — the delusion — sanctioned by their ‘Spiritual Advisers,’ but that a mere outward deed and observance has obliterated the sins of a lifetime, and opened to them, as to others, the gate of Heaven. f

* See Chanibers’s Encyclopedia, Art. “Lord’s Supper.” We may as well give in full the verj’ words of the accepted faith of the Roman Church, as contained in the authoritatis’e Creed of Pope Pius V. (a.d. 156S), Each member subscribes the following article of belief: — “I profess .... that in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ: and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the Wine into the Blood; which conversion the Catholic Church calleth Transubstantiation.”

t It is the frequent and sinful abuse of these holy elements at the last hour, which led Presbyterians to withhold the private dispensation of the Lord’s Supper: one of those extreme puritan safeguards, the necessity of which cannot be denied; but whose application in all cases cannot assuredly be vindicated, I believe I am only endorsing the experience of not a few ministers, that they would feel a hallowed

A dogma so revolting to reason and common sense, so unsupported by Scripture, so utterly removed from the Divine simplicity of the original Institution; vre may well add, so potent an auxiliary to Infidelity, — is unworthy of discussion or refutation. !N’evertheless, the credulity of the nineteenth century has been found equal to its acceptance, as the doctrine is now firmly received by Romanists; — alas! also, openly and avowedly preached and proclaimed within the limits of the Anglican Church; where, in many places, the frequency of so-called “Celebrations,” with their bowings, and genuflexions: the unscriptural exaltation of sacramental efficacy, and superstitious veneration of the elements, form little else than a travesty of the Divine original.

What then, if such be the abuse of this Sacred rite, do we deem its real signification and intention? and how do we explain the phrase on which the Roman Catholic has grafted his untenable interpretation, “This is my body: — This is my blood” 1

“We reply, that Jesus here employs a figure, such as is used often in ordinary parlance: by which the sign is put for the thing signified; similar, as has frequently been noted, to the phrase, “and they drank of that Rock which followed them;” which we never think of interpreting literally. An illustration more to the point may be taken from the words used regarding the Passover, and the slaying of the Lamb set apart by every Israelitish family, — “It is the Lord’s Passover.” Evidently, not that it was the Lord’s actual “passing over from house to house,” but the token and memorial of that action. Or again, when our Blessed Redeemer says in that particular verse, which Romanists

gratification in having a discretionary power at many a sick-bed and death-bed to relax the prohibition.

have specially appropriated, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood,” He never means that the cup is the covenant, but only the pledge or sign, or seal, of that covenant. So, therefore, when He makes the averment, now in question, “This is my body,” He undoubtedly means this is the sign of my body; this is the sigi of my blood.

In a word, the Lord’s Supper is a blessed commemorative Ordinance, designed to call into vivid remembrance, by the significant symbols of Christ’s appointment, His own dying love. When partaken of with a lively faith, the Great Master is really and spiritually present. “The body of Christ” — are the words of Article xxviii. of the Church of England — “is given, taken and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner: and the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is faith.” ...” Transubstantation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) ... is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture: overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.” Art. xxxi.: “The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual: and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifice of masses, in which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” In the most solemn and impressive part of the same Sacramentary Service, when the Communicants are about to partake of the Sacred Elements — the well-known words of the officiating minister are these: — “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and sold unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in thy heart, by faith with thanksgiving.”

And again, in giving the cup, “The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.” We have already, in a previous part of this Volume, given the testimony to the Bible doctrine as stated in the General Assembly’s Shorter Catechism. Here is the same in an amplified form — and repeating some of the very phrases just quoted, from the Westminster Confession: “That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called Transubstantiation) by consecration of a Priest or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, overthroweth the nature of Sacrament, and hath been and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea of gross idolatries. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this Sacrament, do then, also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally or corporeally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified and all the benefits of His death.... The Popish Sacrifice of the Mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.”

These strange and unaccountable misapprehensions and perversions of simple truth — irrational and preposterous materialistic theories, should be at once dismissed, by the acceptance of the obvious explanation, that our Blessed Lord, in the language used, accommodated Himself to the wont and habit of His hearers; employing parable — physical images, to inculcate and enforce spiritual realities. Farther, we are constrained to add, that if anything in connection with the subject is more unwarrantable than another, it is surely the wresting of other words of Scripture from their fair and legitimate meaning, and utilising them to bolster up a favourite but indefensible dogma, “What can be more glaring than the constant support which the “Sacramentarian party” claim from the well-known passage (John vi. 53), “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you” 1 This is an utterance which, it is notorious, was made by our Blessed Kedeemer a whole year antecedent to the Institution of the Supper (in one of His discourses in Northern Capernaum); and which could not, except by an utterly strained interpretation, have any connection with that Farewell Feast.*

* The writer was gifted, some years ago, by a clergyman in the Church of England, who claims his respect, with a printed Sermon on this Holy Sacrament, advocating the “extreme views.” On opening it, the usual misapplied verse was there as his text: words in which (the repetition may be forgiven) our Adorable Saviour (if we can be warranted for a moment employing human language), Himself an Oriental, addressing Orientals, employed expressions ambiguous to us, but which would present no such ambiguity to the hearers of that age and country — inculcating, through a material image and symbolism, the necessity of spiritually feeding on Him, imbibing His’ doctrine and spirit, — just as the food we are in the habit of taking assimilates with our material bodies for our daily sustenance. Besides, the reference in the passage is an entirely local and specific one. It was suggested, as He Himself tells us, by the poor carnal motives which induced some of the multitude who had been miraculously fed on five barley loaves the day before at Bethsaida- Julias, to follow Him to His own city, expecting a repetition of this Bread Feast. “Jesus answered them and said. Verily, verily, I say unto you. Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles; but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life” (John vi. 26, 27). Then follow the words to which we are referring, which are simply an expansion of this same thought in the sequel of the same discourse: — a discourse, in the close of which it is further noteworthy, that the Blessed Master seems careful to guard against any possible distortion of His metaphor, or misinterpretation of its meaning.” It is the siirit that quickeneth;

Unless accepting the purely metaphorical rendering thus claimed, I would renew the query, what can the literalist interpreters of “This is my body” (to be consistent with themselves) make of the statement regarding the Ordinance in St. Paul’s rehearsal of the words of Institution, “TJiis cup IS the new Covenant “? How could a cup be so, except figuratively 1 But to hold to the one case literally, they must do so in the other.*

the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life” (John vi. 63).

* It may not be out of place to give a few testimonies from the Reformers and old English Divines whose names and authority are most reverenced among us.

“With such Sacraments,” says Miles Coverdale, “through outward visible forms, for our infirmities’ sake, pleased it the Lord, to show and set before our eyes His heavenly and invisible grace.”

Bishop Jewel, the learned prelate of his age, thus discourses in his well-known “Challenge” — “‘This,’ saith Paul, ‘I received of the Lord, and the same I gave over unto you.’ But if he saw the disorder that we have seen, would he not be moved as much against us now as he was sometime against the Corinthians? Would he not pull us back to the Institution of Christ, as he did them? Would he not say to us,... Did I ever teach you to offer up the Son of God unto His Father? Did I ever teach you any other propitiatory offering for sin than that Christ once offered on the Cross? Did I ever teach you to lift the Sacrament over your head? ... Is this it, that Paul received of the Lord? Let us say but thus to ourselves, and no doubt God of His mercy will open our hearts: we shall see our errors and content ourselves to be ordered by the wisdom of God. ... So shall we have comfort of the Holy Mysteries.” Yet again, “That was not Christ’s meaning, that the wheaten bread should lay aside its own nature and receive a certain divinity.... By them (the Elements), Christ Himself being the true Bread of eternal life, is so presently given to us, that by faith we verily receive His Body and Blood.... Being spiritually understood, it will give you life.”

“If the Bread were turned into Christ,” says Archbishop Usher, “there would then be two Christs — one that giveth and another that is given.”

On the words” Ye shall show forth the Lord’s death till He come,’’

John Bradford quaintly but pungently remarks — “Till He come,” — whereby He doth us to wit, that corporeally He is not there in the form of the bread.”

“The change,” says Jeremy Taylor, “is not natural and proper, but figurative, sacramental, and spiritual.”

“What have we to do,” said Latimer, “but to feast in the Lord? Christ spake never a word of sacrificing, therefore sacrificing priests should now cease for ever.”

“That Christ’s body,” says Zwingle, “in its essence or really, is either present in the Supper, or by our mouth and teeth is eaten, we not only deny, but constantly affirm it to be an error opposed to the Word of God.”

“We must,” says Calvin, “take away every fancy of a local presence. Christ, as far as He is man, is nowhere else than in heaven.” [See specially Dr. Hebert’s “2’he Lord’s Supper,’” passim. A volume of patient research and scholarship recording the opinions of leading Christian teachers from the earliest ages of the Church, on to the present century, on the subject of the Holy Communion.]

The concluding portion of this note the Writer deems may be of interest in its references to the mode and method of celebration in the early and middle ages. Much of it is taken from various valuable treatises and articles, which are not likely to be accessible to the general reader.

The fullest of all the inspired authoritative statements regarding the Lord’s Supper, is the one already more than once commented on, given by the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Church of Corinth, written from Ephesus (i Cor. xi. 23-28) — a letter to which we may assign an approximate date from the year 53 to 57; and therefore a little more than twenty years after the original Institution of the Ordinance. It would appear, from references in the context of the same chapter, that at the “Agape “the guests, both wealthier and poorer members of the Christian society, were in the habit of contributing each a share of the provisions, — “a form of entertainment of frequent occurrence among the Greeks, and known by the name of ipavos.” (Howson and Conybeare’s St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 49.) The late Dean Stanley, in one of his graphic and realistic pictures, thus describes such a Corinthian Communion as that to which St. Paul adverts: “We see the banquet spread in the late evening, after the sun had set behind the western ridge of the hills of Achaia. We see the many torches blazing, as at Troas, to light up the darkness of the upper room, where, as was their wont, the Christian community assembled. We see the couches laid and the walls hung after the manner of the East as on the night of the Betrayal. We see the sacred loaf, representing in its compact unity, the harmony of the whole Society. We hear the blessing or thanksgiving on the cup, responded to by the joint ‘Amen,’ such as even three centuries later is described as ’ like a peal of thunder.’ We witness the complete realisation in outward form of the Apostle’s words, suggested, doubtless, by the sight of the meal and the Sacrament thus blended together, — “whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (St. Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians, vol. i. 248).

In the Roman Catacombs there are a few interesting memories of the rite, associated with the primitive’ ages of Christianity. In some of the arched tombs in the wall recesses, the flat lid of the tombs seems to have served as a Communion Table. (See Scott’s History of the Fine Arts.) Justin Martyr, the great Christian philosopher of the second century, mentions that in the administration of the Communion at his time, the presiding minister, with the bread, and a cup of wine mixed with water before him (this mixture continued for the first seven centuries), offered a prayer of thanksgiving to the Father of all, through the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit, — “the Lord’s prayer” forming an invariable portion; at the close of which there was the responsive Amen just referred to, from the people present. The deacons received the consecrated elements from the hands of the “Celebrant,” distributing them among those that were present. This, however, applies more to the Wine than the Bread. After the jDublic administration, a farther duty M’as to take the remainder of the sacred elements into the Sacristy. “The meal,” adds the same Father of the Church, “is called by us £ucharistia.” He undoubtedly, however, connects with the Eucharist the idea of sacrifice; so soon was there to be a divergence from the apostolic simplicity of the rite, — a divergence from his day, perpetuated for centuries, Cyprian, a father of the African Church of the third century, after similar statements, mentions that the bread was received by the communicants in the right hand; as Cyril of Jerusalem afterwards expressed it, “making the left hand a throne for the right, and hollowing the palm.” Some of the sacred elements were carried home in caskets. These caskets were called Area, or Arcula, and have been supposed to contain portions of the Eucharist reserved for the sick.

As one among many illustrations of the superstitious veneration accorded to the elements, it is stated by an interesting writer, that St. Basil, while engaged in the act of celebrating the Holy Communion, had a vision presented to him. The vision led him to separate the sacred bread (or wafer) into three portions. Of one of these he himself reverently partook. He gave instructions that the second portion was to be buried with him. The third he had enclosed in the body of a golden dove suspended over the altar.

In the Second Book of the ‘Apostolic Constitutions,’ the women were directed to draw near veiled; and during the dispensation of the rite the doors were to be guarded, the deacons calling out, “The doors! the doors!” lest any unbelieving or uninstructed person might enter. Before the end of the sixth century the females were farther compelled to receive the Eucharist in a napkin. The Antiphon seems very generally to have been sung immediately before partaking — “O taste and see how gracious the Lord is.” In the Byzantine Liturgy (Chrysostom’s), among other peculiarities in celebrating the Ordinance, is the remarkable one of pouring some drops of boiling water into the chalice. Then the holy bread (as is the custom in nearly all the Eastern churches to this day), being broken, or pounded down, or dipped into the wine, was administered by means of a spoon (Xa/Si’s). To those imacquainted with the peculiarities and necessities of Oriental life, owing to the climate, a very singular custom must appear to be the use of the flabellum or feathered fan. All who have travelled in Eastern countries know how speedily anything odorous or edible is covered over with swarms of insects. The correspondent of the Daily News, detailing the interview between Admiral Hewett and the King of Abyssinia (May 26th, 1S84), specially describes a royal servant standing at the right of the throne, — its pillows of violet satin, with the cross of Solomon worked in gold upon them, holding “a silver-handled horse-hair fiy switch.” This he continued swaying to and fro, to keep flies from the monarch’s head, which was copiously covered with unguents. The same necessity of a light fan was deemed indispensable to keep the sacred elements intact. But a habit thus necessary in Eastern sanctuaries, was, in due time, without any reason, transferred to the West, where in the dispensation of the Eucharist it came, by use and wont, to take its place among the sacred customs, and to form a portion of the ceremonial. In the Liturgies of Chrysostom and Basil the deacons are enjoined to fan the holy elements during the prayer of consecration. Hence the presentation of the flabellum constitutes an integral part at the ordination of deacons. It is used still by the Armenians and Maronites. The flabellum seems to have ceased being employed in the Western Church by the fourteenth century. The only relic of it is the well-known sumptuous peacock’s feathers, associated with the person and proceseion of the head of the Papacy, borne in the sdla gestatoria at its greatest festivals. A friend and competent authority on these matters, however, informs me, that the fan made of feathers of the peacock cannot be assigned to an early age. [The reader is referred to an able article, J/oly Communion, by Professor Cheetham in Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. Also to a description of the Flabdlum by Canon Venables, 76.]

I observe, singularly enough, incidentally noticed in a current letter in the Times (in connection with what is said above regarding the Xais), that, “in the communion plate belonging to St. Peter’s, Cornhill, London, known to be at once the most valuable and curious in the country, is a spoon of pure gold, the bowl of which is drilled, and has many small holes; and is said to have been used by the officiating clergyman in times gone by, to remove flies or other insects which obtrude into the consecrated wine, during the administration of the communion.”

Nothing, perhaps, so illustrates the diversity of custom in the use of the Sacrament, as the extraordinary’ practice, not of child — but of infant communion, in the early centuries. It seems strange that even Augustine deemed the reception of the sacred rite necessary for the salvation of infants. A writer on this subject (Rev. W. E. Scudamore) supplies the following statements : — “They are infants: but they are made partakers of His Table, that they may have life in themselves” (Aug. Serm. 174, § 7). “Let them be admitted,” says Gennadius of Marseilles (a.d. 495), “to the mysteries of the Eucharist.” In 585 the Council of Macon, in France, gave orders that on Wednesdays and Fridays “innocent children” should be brought to the church; and after fasting (!) receive the sacrament. So in the earliest Ordo Romanus (a.d. 730), ‘Little ones’ (‘parvuli’) baptized on Easter Eve, are “to take no food, nor be suckled after baptism, till they communicate of the Sacrament.”

Nor was this singular custom peculiar to the earlier ages alone. I find in the biography of that devoted man Mr. Lowder of St. Peter’s, London Docks, the following in a journal letter from Belgrade, describing the cathedral service : — “After the Liturgy, a good many communicated, even children. They came up to the gates of the Inconostasis — a large screen, highly ornamented — which divides the nave and choir from the Sanctuary, and received both species, standing, from a spoon which the priest put in their mouth, the deacon wiping their mouths afterwards with a napkin.” — Life, p. 213,

Another custom, still more strange — need we say revolting — seems to have been common in the earlier centuries, — the administration of the

Holy Eucharist to the dead. The consecrated bread was laid on the breast of the corpse, and the wine was either placed within the silent lips, or the bread, dipped in the wine, was inserted in the mouth of the departed. Sometimes small phials, filled with wine, were deposited in the grave or loculi. The so-called glass “tuar-bottles,” seen by the writer in Rome and elsewhere, and which derive their name from the popular idea that they literally contained the tears of bereaved mourners, — were in most instances the sacred phials in which some portion of the Sacramental Wine was put after death, or at the time of the funeral obsequies. In the words of a writer already quoted, “as if every communicant had provided his own Chalice, and it had been buried with him as his most sacred possession” (Scott’s History of the Fine Arts, p. 17). But the custom, in its more repulsive features, came in due time to be rigidly prohibited by Church Councils.

This reference further suggests that it was doubtless these high Sacramentarian views which led to special provision being made for the dispensation of the sacred elements in the case of lepers. We all know the horror entertained in the middle ages for this frightful malady, and its unhappy victims: how stern decrees of banishment and confiscation were pronounced against the sufferers by the secular arm: so that all possibility of contact might be prevented. It was under Gregory II. they seem first to have been made the recipients of the holiest Ordinance of the Church. In a letter to St. Boniface he gives ecclesiastical sanction to these otherwise miserable outcasts receiving communion. And this was revived, and more formally ratified in a canon of the Council of Worms more than a century later (868). Although in both cases it was accompanied with the rigid proviso, that the Holy Sacrament was to be partaken of by the lepers alone, and apart from others free of the scourge. [Dupin, and other authorities quoted in Art. ‘Nineteenth Century,’ September 1884, p. 468.]

Room must here be found for one other insertion regarding the administration of the Ordinance, though of an entirely different kind: but which we cannot help considering of singular contemporary interest. It will recall, in its outward features, the Passover celebration as described in the opening of this Appendix. Most of our readers are doubtless aware of a remarkable Christian movement at present going on among the Jews in South Russia. Among the new Articles of their faith, contained in what is called the” Haggadah of the Sons of the

New Covenant who believe in Jesus the Messiah,” I find the following regarding ‘The Lord’s Supper as administered on Passover Eve’: — “The Lord’s Supper is intended to convey, by the emblems of bread and wine, a solemn realisation of those blessings which are bestowed on us, the seed of Abraham, through the body and blood of the righteous Priest of the Most High, the King of Salem, Jesus our Messiah, la partaking of the sacrament we unite ourselves with Christ, who was sacrificed for our salvation, and are bnund together in the bundle of life at the right hand of our Heavenly Father for ever.” After the Lord’s prayer has been said, a dish containing three fine passover cakes is placed on the table, and a flagon of wine, with a cup for each communicant. The Pastor fills the first cujd, which is called, “The Cup OP Abraham, the Chief of the Patriarchs,” and says: — “This is the night of consecration unto the Lord, to be kept by all the children of Israel through this and succeeding generations.” After a lengthened ‘Antiphon,’ or responsive sentences between Pastor and Congregation (which need not here be given), each takes a cup and says a blessing over it: and each tastes the wine. The cups are refilled, and a second cup is called, “The Cup of Moses, the Chief op the Prophets,” followed by similar responsive utterances. After each again takes a cup and says a special blessing, the wine is tasted, and then a third cup is filled, which is called, “The Cup of David, the Chief of THE Kings,” followed by appropriate antiphonal sentences between Pastor and worshippers. Each, in a similar way as before, tastes the wine, and the Pastor fills the fourth cup, which is called, “The Cup op Salvation op Jesus Christ.” The closing part of the Antiphon is this: — Pastor: “Thine eyes shall see the King in His beauty: they shall behold the land that is very far off” (Isaiah xxxiii. 17). Congregation: “But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep are gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all “(Isaiah liii. 5, 6). The Pastor, standing at the table, puts the bread and wine in order, that he may readily and quickly hand to each one the bread, and then, each taking the cup says: —” I now take The Cup of Salvation! Blessed art Thou, O Lord God of Israel, our Father for ever and ever, who hast kept and fulfilled Thy holy word given to our father Abraham, to Moses our prophet, to David the son of Jesse our king; and hast given us in Thy great mercy, Jesus our Messiah, the Saviour of the world from everlasting. Thou hast anointed Him to bring glad tidings to the afflicted.

to open the e’es of the blind, to proclaim liberty to the captives; to pour out His soul unto death, to bear the sins of many, to finish all evil, and to bring in for us eternal righteousness; and who has commanded us in His holy Gospel to commemorate His precious death till He come. May it please Thee, O heavenly Father, that we now, partaking cf this bread and wine in remembrance of the sufifering and death of Jesus our Messiah, may be cleansed and purified in body and soul; that we may be refreshed from Thy blessed fountain and be united with Christ in the bundle of life at Thy right hand for ever. May we and our children evermore dwell in Him, and He in us. Amen.” The Pastor then takes the plate with the sacred elements, and distributes them, using the Saviour’s own words of Institution, followed by those employed in the Anglican Service. The authority from which these details are taken adds — “This sacred and solemn service is closed and crowned with the Lord’s prayer.” — Jewish Herald, p. 1-3, January 1885.

I have spoken, now and in previous pages, of the diversity in the mode and manner of celebrating the Holy Communion. This is farther illustrated in another way, in the form and material of the Cups, or Chalices, containing the Sacramental Wine. Wooden cups seem to have been partially used in the Apostolic age. Glass cups have been found in the Catacombs, of the third and fourth centuries. Tertullian, A.D. 150-220, specially speaks of a chalice on which was carved the figure of the Good Shepherd. The earliest extant gold cup is of the sixth century, ornamented with precious stones. The Calix Major (Great Chalice) of Leo III. is richly adorned, along with many others in subsequent times, of the same costly material. We have, too, cups of bronze, and pewter, and ivory. Some with, some without handles: some plain, some with carvings and inscriptions; down to our ovra conventional, and apparently now universally accepted cups of unchased silver. In the use of these we believe, after all, we are only reverting to the frequent material, if not shape, employed in the earliest ages; surmised, where they existed, to be the gifts of the wealthiest members. A similar diversity may be ti’aced in regard to the Salver, or Paten, used for the Communion Bread. Of these some were oblong, circular, hexagonal, octagonal, some gold and silver, some of coloured and uncnloured glass: alabaster, bronze. Sometimes plain, sometimes ornamented with gems, or carved with religious symbols. While these pages are preparing for the press, an interesting article has appeared in the public papers from the pen of M. Ganneau, one of the most distinguished and reliable of Christian archaeologists. His paper consists of a detailed account of all the more important results of the Palestine Exploration Society, in which from the first he has taken a deep personal interest. The following, with reference to “a Votive Paten discovered on the Mount of Olives,” is given in his own words: —” On the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives there has been found an interesting specimen of Christian archaeology. The Archimandrite of the Russian mission at Jerusalem, into the possession of which it has entered, has kindly sent me si ’ squeeze ’ and a copy, which have enabled me to interpret it. It is a disc of greenish bronze thirteen centimetres in diameter, mounted on a kind of little foot. In the middle a large cross is cut vidth equal branches, on which are engraved five characters, thus arranged: —

Zfi H
C

which I read #wy, Zwij, ’ life, light,’ those two sacred words, denoting the two essential qualities of Christ. All round there is engraved a long Greek inscription. ... I believe that this little object represents to us a paten — the diskos of the Greek Church, on which were placed the portions of the eucharistic bread, the ’ living coal ’ (compare ’ life, light ‘) to which the Oriental liturgies liken this symbol of the body of Jesus.”

The occasional magnificent costly ornamentation of “the Communion Plate” above described, was doubtless connected with the superstitious transmutation and deification of the elements: and the loist canon of the Trullan Council (a.d. 692) reprehends the practice (though not on Protestant grounds). At the same time it may be added, that this lavish wealth in precious metals and jewels may have had, with some, a more reasonable explanation: — viz., the principle, in regard to the vessels of the sanctuary, of honouring God by giving to Him the choicest and costliest. Just, as in a very much smaller, but equally significant form, which occurs to the writer. In one or more parishes in the south-west of Scotland the practice has long lingered, of administering the Bread of the Sacrament, not with ordinary, but with what is familiarly known as “short-bread;” arising doubtless from the same impelling motive of giving the Master of the Feast the best. — It shows the power of traditional ’ use and wont ’ in holy things; that when, some years ago, in the case just mentioned, the attempt was made to assimilate with the ordinary usage elsewhere, the alteration was resented and opposed; and we believe the immemorial habit — though singular — remains in use to this day.

This somewhat long Appendix may be appropriately closed with the remark, that despite of all the diversities — the painful diversities — in the method of observance, as well as in the sacramental theory itself, unfolded in the immediately preceding pages, — surely one singular and noteworthy fact is, the continuity, for more than 1800 years, in the celebration of the Sacred Ordinance: indeed ever since the memorable night of its Institution by the Divine Founder, “The Roman Empire,” says an eloquent writer, “over which Augustus ruled supreme, has passed away. The era of the irruption of the new races upon its ruins has come and gone. The vast dominions of Chai’lemagne have been broken up. The darkness of the middle ages has been dispelled. The epoch of the Renaissance has gone by. The era of the Reformation is over. Political systems have been established and overthrown. New worlds have been discovered. The very languages which were spoken throughout the Roman Empire in the days of Augustus have given place to others. Habits, manners, modes of thought, theories, opinions, philosophies, have changed. But this Rite still survives.” [Dr. MacLear, ‘Evidential Value of the Holy Eucharist,’ p. 46, 7. The Boyle Lectures for 1S79.]

The same sentiment is enshrined in Dean Stanley’s “Hymn on the Lord’s Supper:” —

“Years have past: in every clime.
Changing with the change of time,
Varying through a thousand forms,
Torn by factions, rocked by storms;
Still the Sacred Table spread.
Flowing cup and broken bread.
With that parting word agree,
Drink and eat, Remember Lie!”