In Ac 20^"^^ we read that the Christians of Troas met together on the first day of the week in the evening to 'break bread.' That is stated to be the purpose of the meeting. The writer of the Acts is himself present, and gives an account of the scene. There are many lights in the upper room. St. Paul, who is leaving Troas the next day, discourses until midnight. Then he breaks bread, and tastes it, and, after a further long con- versation, departs at dawn. There is no indica- tion here of a common meal ; for the inference drawn from the use of the word ' tasting ' {yevad- fxevoz), which is said by some§ to imply a meal, is surely unjustified. The ' breaking of bread ' here appears to denote a ceremonial action. The lan- guage employed does not indeed exclude the pos- sibility that this action, and the partaking by those present of the bread so broken, may have taken place during a meal which was held about midnight. But there is no hint of any such meal. It is noteworthy that this meeting takes place on a Sunday. There does not appear to have been a similar one daily during St. Paul's stay. And the whole narrative, with its mention of the ' many lights,' suggests a solemn gathering for worship. It must be remembered that in this passage we have to do with a Pauline church ; and therefore we cannot safely argue back to the passages in Ac 2. But there can be no question that the ' break- ing of bread' in tliis passage does denote a signifi- cant religious act ; and, in the light of the evi- dence which we possess in 1 Cor. about the customs of St. Paul's churches, we conclude that the ' break- ing of the bread ' derives its significance from the Last Supper, and is in some way a commemoration of the Lord's Death. Significant it certainly was ;
• Of. M. Gopruel, L'Eucharistie. Des originea d Justin, martyr, Paris, 1910. t L'Exicharigtie^, Paris, 1913. t See art. Love-Feast.
§ e.g. JI. Goguel, op. cit. p. 142.
and its significance is fixed by our evidence about the Church of Corinth.
3. St. Paul's doctrine. — "We owe to purely ac- cidental circumstances the preservation of an ac- count of St. Paul's doctrine of the Eucharist, and a description of the Eucharist in the Church of Corinth. Disorders had arisen in that Church in connexion with the attitude of Christians towards meals in idol- temples and in connexion with the Eucharist. St. Paul finds it necessary to deal with these matters in 1 Corinthians. Had it not been for this necessity, we might have supposed that the Pauline churches were without any sjjecial sacramental teaching, for in none of the other Pauline Epistles is there any allusion to the sub- ject. This, however, is accidental. For St. Paul's language to the Corinthians makes it certain that he must have given similar teaching to his con- verts elsewhere, and indeed the account of the ' breaking of bread ' at Troas, when read in the light of the passage in 1 Cor., makes it clear that there too the Eucharist was the central point of the Christian assembly.
It appears from 1 Co Ipo-s^ that from time to time — presumably on Sundays — the membei-s of the Church met together ' to eat the Lord's Supper.' This snipper was a real meal, and the food was provided by those who attended it. But, whereas it ought to have been a fraternal gathering, a bond of unity, the selfishness and greed of the rich made it most unsatisfactory ; for they insisted upon keeising for themselves the food they brought, whereas all the food brought ought to have been put together and divided among the whole number. The result of tiiis was that some who attended had not enough to eat and drink, and some had too much. There were even cases of drunkenness. This conduct of the rich naturally led to divisions. Groups were formed, and the general spirit of fraternity was bioken.
St. Paul reminds the Corinthians of the great solemnity of the Lord's Supper. He reminds them how he had told them before of the Last Supper itself, and how Jesus had instituted there a rite by which Christians were to proclaim His Death until He should come again. He reminds them that they came to enter into communion with the Body and Blood of Christ ; that this is a solemn matter ; that self-examination is necessary, and care to re- cognize the distinction between what is received and common bread ; that those who fail to come up to what is required of them in this matter, those who receive unworthily, have in many cases already received striking punishments from God, for the objects to be received are so holy, that not only does worthy reception bring great benefits, but un- Avorthy reception brings stern judgment.
In 1 Co 10 St. Paul warns the Corinthians of the dangers of idolatry. He holds up before them the example of the Israelites, who, though they were ' bajjtized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea,' and ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink, yet died in tlie wilderness because of their sins (vv.'"^). There is a clear analogy M'ith the case of Christians, who receive spiritual food and drink, and yet are liable to perish, in spite of their privileges, if they too sin. The particular sin of which he warns them is idolatry. He afiirms that those who partake of a meal in an idol's temple really enter into communion with the demons who are at the back of idolatrous worship. Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ is incompatible with communion with demons. ' You cannot drink the Lord's cup and the cup of demons. You cannot share the Lord's table and a table of demons' (v.''^'). In his conception the meat is oliered to the idol and be- comes the i)roperty of the demons, so that the