LORD'S SUPPER
512
LORD'S SUPPER
feast. Each was tli inking of his own supper, not of that to wliich \'.e now tind attached the distinguishing title of •■ the Lords Supper." When the time for that came, one wa>i hungry enough to be looking to it with physioal, not spiritual craving; another so overpowered with wine as to be incapable of receiving it with any reverence. It is quite conceivable that a life of excess and excitement, of overwrought emotion and unrestrain- ed indulgence, such as this epistle brings before us, may have i)roved destructive to the physical as well as the moral health of those who were affected by it, and so the sickness and the deaths of which Paul speaks (1 Cor. xi, 30), as the consequences of this disorder, may have been so, not by supernatural intliction, but by the working of those general laws of the divine government which make the punishment the traceable consequence of the sin. In any case, what the Corinthians needed Avas to be taught to come to the Lord's table Avith great- er reverence, to distinguish (^StctKph'Hif) the Lord's body from their common food. Unless they did so, they would bring upon themselves condemnation. What was to be the remedy for this terrible and growing evil he does not state explicitly. He reserves formal regula- tions for a later personal visit. In the mean time, he gives a rule which would make the union of the Agape and the Lord's Supper possible witljout the risk of profa- nation. They were not to come even to the former with the keen edge of appetite. They were to wait tiU all were met, instead of scrambling tumultuously to help themselves (1 Cor. xi, 33, 34). In one point, however, the custom of the Church of Corinth differed apparently from that of Jerusalem : the meeting for the Lord's Sup- per was no longer daily (1 Cor. xi, 20, 33). The direc- tions given in 1 Cor. xvi, 2 suggelt the constitution of a celebration on the first day of the week (compare Just. IMart. ApoL i, 07 ; Pliny, JJp. ad T>-aj.). The meeting at Troas was on the same day (Acts xx, 7).
The tendency of this language, and therefore, proba- bly, of the order subsequently established, was to sepa- rate what had hitherto been united. We stand, as it were, at the dividing point of the history of the two institutions, and henceforth each takes its own course. The Agape, as belonging to a transient phase of the Christian life, and varying in its effects with changes in national character or forms of civilization, passes through many stages; becomes more and more a merely local custom, is found to be productive of evil rather than of good, is discouraged by bishops and forbidden by coun- cils, and finally dies out. Traces of it linger in some of the traditional practices of the Western Church. There have been attempts to revive it among the Moravians and other religious communities, but in no considerable body does it survive in its original form. See Loate- Feast. On the other hand, the Lord's Supper also has its changes. The morning celebration takes the place of the evening. New names — Eucharist, Sacrifice, Altar, Mass, Holy Mysteries — gather round it. New epithets and new ceremonies express the growing reverence of the people. The mode of celebration at the high altar of a basilica in the 4th century differs so widely from the circumstances of the original institution that a care- less eye would have found it hard to recognise their identity. Speculations, controversies, superstitions, crys- tallize round this as their nucleus. Great disruptions and changes threaten to destroy the life and unity of the Church. Still, through all the changes, the Sup- per of the Lord vindicates its claim to universality, and bears a [jermanent tc'stimony to the truths with which it was associateii.
In Acts xx, 11 we have an example of the way in which the transition may have been effected. The dis- ciples at Troas meet together to break bread. The hour is not dctinitcly stated, but the f:ict that Paul's discourse was protracted till past midnight, and the mention of the many lamps, indicate a later time than that commonly fixed for the Greek cnrn'ov. If we are not to suppose a scene at variance with I'aul's rule
in 1 Cor. xi, 34, they must have had each his own sup- per before they assembled. Then came the teaching and the prayers, and then, towards early dawn, the breaking of bread, which constituted the Lord's Supper, and for M'hich they were gathered together. If this midnight meeting may be taken as indicating a common practice, originating in reverence for an ordinance which Christ had enjoined, we can easily understand ho^v the next step would be (as circumstances rendered the mid- night gatherings unnecessary' or inexpedient) to trans- fer the celebration of the Eucharist permanently to the morning hour, to which it had graduallj' been approxi- mating. Here also in later times there were traces of the original custom. Even when a later celebration was looked on as at variance with the general custom of the Church (Sozomen, sitpra) it was recognised as legitimate to hold an evening communion, as a special commemoration of the original institution, on the Thurs- day before Easter (Augustine, Ep. 118; ad Jan. c. 5-7); and again on Easter eve, the celebration in the latter case probably taking place " very early in the morning, while it was yet dark" (Tertullian, ad Uxor, ii, c. 4).