" II I III J I11 11 !■' THE ■nnJku R GIBSON GISH PUBLISHING FUND. § i. Name. — The name of this fund shall be the Gish Publishing Fund. § 2. Fund.— This fund shall consist of the estate of James R. and Barbara Gish, estimated value, $50,000; with any other funds that may hereafter be added to it. § 3. Purpose— The purpose of this fund shall be to supply the ministers of the German Baptist Brethren Church with such books and other printed matter as may be helpful to them in advancing and maintain- ing the Truth. § 4. Supervision. — The General Missionary and Tract Committee shall appoint a committee of three, so arranged in term of office that the time of one member expires each year, whose duty it shall be (a) To examine and pass upon publications issued and distributed by this fund. (d) To arrange with the Publication Department for publication and distribution of publications se- lected. § 5. Surplus. — Any surplus on hand at the end of the fiscal year of the General Missionary and Tract Committee shall, after proper allowance has been made for selected books not yet published, be turned over to the fund for superannuated and disabled min- isters and missionaries: but should it not be needed in said fund, then it shall be given to the World-wide Mission Fund. §6. Terms.— The publications shall be distributed free or at greatly reduced rates, at no time the price asked being more than the cost of publication, includ- ing the expense for delivery. §7. Report. — The General Missionary and Tract Committee shall cause to be published an annual re- port of the fund, including the list of books published and the number of copies distributed each year. Class. Book L-.S COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. THE LORD'S SUPPER BY / Elder D. B. Gibson Elgin, III.: BRETHREN PUBLISHING HOUSE, 1903. THt LIBRARY ©F CONGRESS, Two Copies Received FEB 26 1903 CLASS OL*XXc. No. J COPY .B, Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1902, by BRETHREN PUBLISHING HOUSE, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C All Rights Reserved. OOiTTEiTTS- Introduction, . . . 5 CHAPTER I. Introductory, 7 CHAPTER II. Meaning of the Term " Lord's Supper," 11 CHAPTER III. Name of Cup and Loaf, 28 CHAPTER IV. General Teaching of the Eleventh Chapter of First Corinthians, . .33 CHAPTER V. The Meal Under Consideration was not the Jewish Passover, 39 CHAPTER VI. The Apostles Observed a Feast, 58 CHAPTER VII. Perpetuation of the Supper, . . .68 INTRODUCTION. On Mount Zion, in Jerusalem, there is a very ancient building, in which the traveler is shown a large upper room. Tradition points to this room as the place where the Lord's supper was instituted by Jesus on the even- ing of his betrayal. The original building that stood in the time of Christ was doubt- less destroyed, and the present one, contain- ing the large upper room referred to, may have been erected on the same site. The sur- roundings fit most admirably the New Tes- tament narrative given of the room, the sup- per, and what followed. To this upper room came Jesus and his chosen apostles. It was on Thursday even- ing, the day before the Jewish passover. A supper had been arranged, and around the table, containing the prepared supper, Jesus and his twelve took their places. This was the beginning of the first love feast ever held. The Master arose from the supper, laid aside his garments, girded himself with a towel, poured water into a basin, and washed his disciples' feet. Thus he instituted the rite of feet-washing, and told his disciples that they 6 THE LORD S SUPPER. should do to one another as he had done to them. Then followed the supper, known as the Lord's supper. After that we have the break- ing of the bread and the passing of the cup of the communion. Three ordinances were instituted on the same evening — feet-washing, the Lord's supper, and the communion. In this little volume Eld. D. B. Gibson, the au- thor, takes up the Lord's supper and discusses the question forcibly and clearly. His pur- pose is to show that the Lord's supper is an evening meal, to be eaten by the followers of Christ, in connection with feet-washing and the communion, and that it is the duty of the church to see that the supper is perpetuated. We commend this interesting treatise to those seeking information on the subject, believing that it will be the means of strengthening the faith of many and convincing others that the bread and cup do not constitute the Lord's supper, but that the supper is a meal that should precede the communion. J. H. Moore. THE LORD'S SUPPER. CHAPTER ONE. Introductory. Every ordinance of the church of our Sav- ior, Jesus Christ, must have for authority for its establishment or foundation the precept or example of the Son of God, who is the head of all things pertaining to the church, and the one to whom man must look in all mat- ters affecting spiritual law and authority. " Neither is there salvation in any other : for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4: 12. "The head of every man is Christ/' I Cor. 11: 3. Again, Paul is very clear and emphatic when he says, " And he is before all things and by him all things con- sist. And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might 8 THE LORD'S SUPPER. have pre-eminence; for it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.'' Col. i : 17-19. Jesus says of himself, " All pow- er (authority) is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Matt. 28: 18. Notice, Jesus says " all authority." This clearly establishes the fact that no man or set of men, in any ca- pacity whatsoever, has the authority to add to or diminish the ordinances, rites or cere- monies pertaining to the New Testament church, to suit the whim or convenience or to gratify man's ambition or love of novelty or power. " I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are writ- ten in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and out of the holy city." Rev. 22 : 18, 19. There is an Ordinance in the Nezv Testament Church Called the Lord's Supper. 1. The universal Christian church acknowl- edges that there is such an institution and in INTRODUCTORY. 9 some way professes to observe it. (The sole exception to this rule is the fraternity of Quakers who spiritualize everything pertain- ing to public worship.) 2. Paul said : " When ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's sup- per ; for in eating every one taketh before other his own supper, and one is hungry," etc. I Cor. n: 20, 21. Paul here recognizes an in- stitution called " Lord's supper." He did not coin the term nor make use of words of doubt- ful signification. He was too scholarly to be mistaken: had no disposition to mislead. Hence we have the following: 1. Paul used the term Lord's supper. 2. The Corinthians were partaking of a meal they called the Lord's supper. 3. The entire Christian world concedes that there is a Lord's supper. Again, whatever the words " Lord's supper " may have meant then, they mean the same now. Let us look back to the foundation upon which rests the apostolic knowledge of the fact that Christ instituted a supper. He ate with them in the upper chamber in Jerusalem : 10 THE LORD S SUPPER. " When the even was come he sat down with the twelve, and as they did eat he said, Ver- ily I say unto you, one of you shall betray me." Matt. 26: 20, 21. " In the evening he came with the twelve, and as they sat and did eat Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall be- tray me." Mark 14: 17, 18. "And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot to betray him, he riseth from supper and laid aside his gar- ments and took a towel and girded himself, and began to wash his disciples' feet." John 13: 4, 5. These Scriptures establish beyond doubt that Jesus ate a supper with his dis- ciples. This meal was undoubtedly the Lord's supper mentioned by Paul. And if there was no other proof we would have the Christly example as a guide to the divine mind on the subject under consideration. CHAPTER TWO. Meaning of the Term " Lord's Supper/ Having ascertained that there is a Lord's supper which Jesus ate with his disciples, the next step will be to ascertain the meaning of " supper/' as used in the New Testament. If a Lord's supper is a supper of which the Lord is the author and, secondly, a supper dedicated to the Lord (i Cor. n: 20, 21), what then is the usual and natural meaning of the word ? Is a small bit of bread and a small sip of wine a supper? Literally, no. And remem- ber that the Lord's supper is literal. How shall we best interpret the Scriptures? By taking them in their most obvious meaning. Baptism is immersion in water, not sprink- ling a few drops of water on the subject. If baptism means immersion, supper means a full evening meal or repast. Webster calls it "the evening meal;" German— Abendmahl, and is derived from the Greek deipnon. " In New Testament supper — the prin- 12 THE LORDS SUPPER. cipal meal of the Hebrews and taken by them in the evening — a feast — a banquet " (Green- field's Lexicon, p. 47). "Supper — afternoon or evening meal — a feast — an entertainment/ ' (Donegan's Lexicon, 345). Thus we see there is a Lord's supper — that Jesus ate a supper with his disciples — and that supper means a full meal, a plenteous repast. What, then, is the inevitable and logical con- clusion but that the Lord's supper spoken of by Paul (1 Cor. 11 : 20, 21) was a full even- ing meal? But strangely enough the Christian world has largely dropped the full meal — " plente- ous repast " — and is using the cup and loaf of communion for the Lord's supper. This we regard as erroneous and misleading; er- roneous because the cup and the loaf are not the Lord's supper; and misleading because they represent a different ordinance — different in name, different in purpose. That they are not the Lord's supper is shown from the fact that they were given after the supper and could not therefore be the supper. In proof of the above let me appeal to Holy MEANING OF THE TERM. I3 Writ, the sure word of testimony : " And as they were eating Jesus took bread and blessed it and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat ; this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it." Matt. 26: 26, 27. " And as they did eat, Jesus took bread and blessed and brake it, and gave to them and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it." Mark 14: 22, 23. " And he took bread and gave thanks and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new tes- tament in my blood, which is shed for you." Luke 22: 19, 20. " In like manner also the cup after sup- per, saying, This is the new covenant in my blood: this do as often as ye drink it in re- membrance of me." 1 Cor. 11 : 25, Rev. Ver. Therefore the cup and the loaf cannot with propriety be called " supper," because not a 14 THE LORD S SUPPER. supper. I offer as additional evidence on this phase of the subject the following authorities: " The word deipnon in the New Testament signifies a supper, which with the Hebrews was the principal meal of the day. It also signified feast, banquet. Luke 14: 12, et alibi .... Hence if we adhere strictly to the primitive meaning and general usage of the word, we shall arrive' at this conclusion, viz, that the Lord's supper is a sumptuous repast, a full meal, a feast, a banquet." — Hibbard on Baptism, Part 2, p. 94, Sec. 9. Hear J. V. Updyke, one of the greatest •evangelists of the Christian, (Campbellite) church. Speaking of the cup and the loaf he says : " It is sometimes called the Lord's sup- per, because it was instituted in the evening, but when we come to the Bible terms it is nowhere called the Lord's supper. Luke 22: 19, 20: 'And he took bread and gave thanks and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you ; this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in mv blood which is shed for MEANING OF THE TERM. IS you/ From this we learn that it was after supper that Christ instituted this ordinance." Christ did not eat two suppers before rising from the table. The word " deipnon" trans- lated " supper," signified a full meal. — " Up- dyke's Sermons and Songs/' pages 135, 136. In the preface of the work above quoted, A. Wilcox says of Updyke, " He has a good memory, is witty, eloquent, earnest, logical and a good debater." Of the many authorities of like character that might be given we select one more. This has been frequently referred to by writers oil the subject, but it is so clear and convincing withal that we do not feel justified in omit- ting it in a work of this nature. We refer to the argument drawn from Dr. Seiss. " We have another argument to present : an argument from analogy. We are about to submit to a mode of reasoning which has no need of demonstration ; which exempts us en- tirely from the necessity of replying at all to the teachings of the immersionists as to the scholastical and common meaning of the word in dispute. We may grant that the Greeks l6 THE LORD'S SUPPER. ordinarily used bapiizo to signify immersion and that all its meanings are properly resolv- able into this. We may entirely dispense with and wholly set aside the conclusions which we have thus far adduced; and yet there is a mode of reasoning to which no just ex- ception can possibly be taken, which entirely confounds the Baptist claim and establishes the bulwark of strength around our mode of baptism, which renders it forever invulner- able against all the immersionists' logic in the world. " It is agreed on all hands that under the present dispensation, Christ has established two corresponding ordinances or sacraments; the one is baptism, the other the Lord's sup- per. The one refers to the new birth, the other to the nurture and nourishment of this new creature. All the essentials of a positive ordinance or Christian sacrament pertain alike to both. Both have Christ's positive com- mand; both require the use of an external, material, and tangible element; both are of binding and continual obligation; both have the divine promise of grace to those who at- MEANING OF THE TERM. 17 tend properly upon them ; both are intended to exhibit and apply the Gospel to the souls of men; both are equally solemn, sacred and un- alterable. The one is denoted by the word deipnon, supper; the other by the word bap- tisma, baptism. Baptisma does not more de- scribe the nature or essential constituents of the one than deipnon does of the other. It is no more allowable, then, for us to depart from the strict meaning of the word deipnon in our cel- ebration of the holy supper, than to depart from the strict meaning of baptisma in bap- tizing. The stringency or laxity that is al- lowable must be the same in both cases, for they are exactly analogous. If it is not nec- essary to keep to the literal meaning of one, it is not necesary to keep to the literal mean- ing of the other. Liberty in the one case presupposes and implies the existence of the same right to exercise the same liberty in the other case. This cannot be successfully dis- puted. " Suppose, then, that the immersionists are right in their claiming that the mode is im- plied in baptisma, if they can also show that l8 THE LORD'S SUPPER. they, in common with the church generally, from the beginning until now, consider them- selves under no obligations to keep to the plain, literal import of the word deipnon in the holy supper, that fact alone, without any other argument, is a satisfactory and unan- swerable ground upon which to claim ex- emption from the rigid adherence to the lit- eral meaning of baptisma in baptizing. Sound authority in one case is sound authority in every parallel case. " What, then, is the meaning of deipnon ? There is little room for diversity as to the true answer. It denotes a full meal, and that an evening meal. All authorities agree that it stands for the principal meal of the Greeks and Romans. Three names of meals occur in the Homeric writings in the following or- der: ariston, deipnon, and doepon. The Greeks of a later age partook of three meals, called akratisma, ariston, and deipnon. The last, which corresponds to the doepon of the Homeric poems, was the evening meal or din- ner; the ariston was the lunch; and the akra- tisma was eaten immediately after rising in MEANING OF THE TERM. 19 the morning. Next followed the ariston, or lunch; but the time at which it was taken is uncertain; Snidas says it was taken about the third hour; that is, about nine o'clock in the morning; but this account does not agree with the statements of other ancient writers. We may conclude, from many cir- cumstances, that this meal was eaten about the middle of the day, and answered to the Roman prandium. The principal meal, how- ever, was the deipnon. It was usually eaten rather late in the day; frequently not before sunset." — Smith's Antiquities, pages 303, 304. Dr. Halley says : " Long before the apos- tolic age, deipnon had become regularly and constantly the evening meal. Nitzch says that it denoted the principal meal. French does the same. Hence all great entertainments were called deipna, and always came off in the latter part of the day or at night. The use of the word in the New Testament cor- responds exactly with these representations, as may be seen from the following passages : "Matt. 23 : 5, 6, 'They make broad their phy- lacteries, and enlarge the borders of their gar- 20 THE LORD S SUPPER. ments, and love the uppermost rooms at feasts ' (deipnons). "Luke 14: 12, 'When thou makest a din- ner (ariston) or a supper (deipnon), call not thy friends.' " Luke 14 : 16, 'A certain man made a great supper (deipnon), and bade many.' (See al- so verses 17 and 24, and chapter 20: 46.) " John 12:2,' There they made him a sup- per (deipnon), and Martha served.' "John 13: 20 and 21 : 20, the word occurs in the same sense. " We might further illustrate this meaning from, the Septuagint, in such passages as Dan- iel 5 : 1, - Belshazzar the king made a great feast (deipnon, supper) to a thousand of his lords/ but it is unnecessary. " Deipnon means a full meal, a banquet, a plentiful supper, an ample repast, the princi- pal and most abundant meal of the day ; which occurred in the evening between midday and midnight. Dr. Fuller says that deipnon was among the ancients the most social and con- vivial of all their repasts, and the word means 'a banquet, a feast' (page 226). It is also MEANING OF THE TERM. 21 to be observed that the Lord's supper, or deipnon, was instituted and first celebrated at night. Xot only the meaning of the word which was chosen described it, but the very hour of its appointment and first observance connected the Lord's supper with the even- ing — the close of the day. " According to the plain, evident, and well- established meaning of words, therefore, and sustained by circumstances, two things would be assigned to the sacramental deipnon: first, it must be a full and plenteous meal; and, second, it must be eaten in the evening. A fragment of bread half an inch square, and a sip of wine that would scarcely fill a tea- spoon, is not a deipnon, as the Greeks used that word; any more than sprinkling a few drops of water on a man's head is an im- mersion of him. Neither do we eat our sup- pers in the morning. It is as great a contra- diction in terms and confusion of ideas to speak of supping in the morning as to speak of plunging a man by pouring water on him. " Suppose, then, we were to set ourselves to reasoning on the word deipnon as the immer- 22 THE LORD S SUPPER. sionists reason on the word baptisma; we might make out a case, and convict the Chris- tian world in all ages of disobedience to the plain command of Christ. They say that bap- tisma means a plain immersion and nothing else; we say, And still more certainly does deipnon mean an evening repast. If the one denotes mode, the other with more certainty denotes time. They insist that baptisma includes in itself a total cover- ing up of the whole body in water; we say, with far more reason and confidence, that deipnon includes in itself the provision and participation of the largest and fullest meal. If the one requires water enough to cover a man, the other, with greater certainty, requires food enough to fill the man and as many as are to partake of it. The words chosen in both are the words of God, and he knew what he meant by them. And if the common Greek usage of baptisma was to denote im- mersion, and we are to get God's meaning in that word from the common Greek usage, the common Greek usage of deipnon must al- MEANING OF THE TERM. 2$ so give us the idea attached to it by the Holy Ghost. " What, then, has been the universal prac- tice of the church with regard to the sacra- mental deipnon? Have there been any de- nominations of Christians who believed, or held it necessary to a right communion, that it should be celebrated in the evening, or that it should be made a full meal? All parties, Baptists with all others, are continually cel- ebrating the deipnon of the Savior in the morning; and none of them provide for it more than a bit of bread and a sip of wine for each communicant. We do not find fault with this. We believe that it adequately ful- fills the meaning and the spirit of the words of Jesus on this subject. But arguing as our modern immersionists do, we might say, with holy indignation, What right have men to trample upon and ignore the time selected by the Savior in the institution of the sacrament, and ingrained into the name given it by the spirit of inspiration? What authority have they to make a pitiable abortion of a break- fast or dinner, of what, according to the plain, 24 THE LORDS SUPPER. common import of God's Word, is to be an abundant and plenteous supper? If we can- not dispense with the mode in baptism, we cannot dispense with the time in its corre- sponding sacrament. If we cannot have bap- tism without immersion, for the same alleged reason we cannot have a supper in the morn- ing, or a deipnon for a hundred guests with- out a large supply of wine and bread. If time and quantity are nothing in the one sacra- ment, the name and circumstances of which call for it, mode and quantity are nothing in the other sacrament — the name and circum- stances of which demand it still less. " If they (Baptists) will insist that we per- vert and violate an ordinance of Christ by de- clining to be immersed or to immerse, we take the liberty of holding the mirror up to nature that their flagrant inconsistency may be seen. They have expunged the elements of time and quantity from the Lord's supper, and they think they have done no violence to the lit- eral exposition and the plain meaning of the words certainly containing them. And it will not answer for them now to turn about and MEANING OF THE TERM. 2$ condemn and excommunicate us for thinking it is nonessential as to how water is applied in baptism. Let them ponder first those searching words of Jesus, ' Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye/ " The immersionist attempts to defend the peculiarity of his procedure by asserting that mode is inseparable from baptisma, and there- fore belongs essentially to the ordinance. We say that is an argument incriminating him- self, and, by proving too much, recoils up- on his own head. Time and an abundance of provision are as necessarily included in deipnon as it is possible for mode to be in baptisma; and when he gives us the war- rant for his liberty to eject time from the Lord's supper, and for his substitution of a little fragment of bread and a little sip of wine for a full meal, we shall be prepared to establish our right to dispense with his fa- 26 THE LORD'S SUPPER. vorite mode in the administration of baptism. Until he does this, all his philological rea- sonings on the word baptisma are completely nullified, and in all justice, forever silenced. We need no other argument. This in itself sufficiently disposes of the whole question. It winds up the whole controversy in a nutshell. It puts the dispute in a light in- which there is no room for philological mystification, and which may be easily understood. It concedes the whole Baptist assumption, and yet com- pletely confounds the inference founded up- on it, and leaves the cause of immersionism in inextricable embarrassments. It is unan- swered and unanswerable." — Seiss' Baptist System Examined, pages 277-280. Dr. Seiss here clearly establishes that deip- non means a full meal and tries to justify the effusionists in their substitution of a few drops of water for immersion in baptism. He clear- ly concedes also that immersion is the pri- mary meaning of baptisma. But because, for- sooth, the great Christian world has deviated in practice from the confessed meaning of deipnon, therefore he feels justified in devi- MEANING OF THE TERM. 2.J ating from the clear and conceded meaning of baptisma. " The Christian world," he says, — (though he should have excepted the Breth- ren), "have substituted a bit of bread and a sip of wine for deipnon (which means a full meal), therefore he is entitled to sub- stitute a few drops of water for baptisma, which really means immersion! Absurd! Does one deviation from the plain meaning of the Sacred Word ever justify another? Does not the failure of the Christian world to adhere to the plain meaning of deipnon also convict him and his people of failure to adhere to the plain meaning of baptisma? One wrong or failure, or one deviation, nev- er can justify another. Instead of both be- ing wrong, as proven by Seiss, why not both be right? Why not adhere to the conceded literal meaning of both baptisma and deipnon — baptize by immersion and eat a full meal for the Lord's supper? Then we have not taken from the Sacred Word (Rev. 22: 19) ; we are justified of heaven, and our names are recorded in the great volume of life in the Holy City. CHAPTER THREE. Name of Cup and Loaf. In order to reach a correct solution as to the use and name of the cup and loaf, let us repeat a little. The Christian world has so long looked upon them as the Lord's sup- per that we wish carefully to distinguish be- tween the cup and loaf and the real supper. Paul said, " Be ye followers of me, as I al- so am of Chris t." For Paul to be a follow- er of Christ he must have had a Lord's sup- per; because, as has already been clearly shown, Christ had a supper. " Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto you." i Cor. n : I, 2. It is here evident that Paul speaks of ordinances in the plural number; that is, they have been keep- ing more than one of them and he commends them for it. But what ordinances have they been keeping? The ones the Lord gave in direct connection with feet-washing, the NAME OF CUP AND LOAF. 2$ Lord's supper and the ordinance requiring the cup and loaf. Thus, you see, Paul was par- ticular to deliver to the church only such things as he had received from the Lord. He bound them to the " all things " he had taught them. This is evident from the fact that Jesus said to his disciples in the night of ordinances, " If ye know these things, hap- py are ye if ye do them." John 13: 17. What things? The things last done, — feet- washing, the supper, the cup and loaf. That he designed their continuance is evident from the great commission — " teaching them to ob- serve all things whatsoever I have command- ed you." Matt. 28: 20. It is a fact that Jesus sat at a table : " Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake," etc. John 13: 18. " Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and the ta- ble of devils." 1 Cor. 10: 21. Let us be particular, as the particulars of the scriptural statements show such dissimilarity to the mod- ern custom. There were dishes on the Lord's table : " He answered and said unto them, He it is that dippeth with me in the dish." Luke 30 THE LORD S SUPPER. 14: 20. Thus we have a table with dishes upon it containing food of which they ate. The Lord's supper was therefore the meal Je- sus ate with his disciples, and not the things which were given after the meal and for which institution we shall find a proper name given by the Holy Spirit in the Word of God, that ought forever to settle the question of the Lord's supper. We find that all the evan- gelists who wrote on this subject speak of the cup and the loaf as being given after supper : " As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it," etc. Matt. 26:26, 27. " And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper/' Luke 22: 20. What supper? The Jewish passover supper? No, as we will abundantly prove at the proper place. What supper, then, could it have been? Undoubt- edly the Lord's supper. Remember that the emblems were given after supper : " In like manner also the cup after supper." 1 Cor. 11: 25, R. V. NAME OF CUP AND LOAF. 3 1 Bible Names for Bible Things. We will show from divine record what the cup and loaf are called. They are not called deipnon, supper. In not one place in all the New Testament are the cup and loaf called the Lord's supper (knriakon deipnon). It was left for man in the apostasy so to des- ignate them, after discontinuing the original ordinance. The cup and loaf are called koi- nonia; that is, the communion, and not Lord's supper. And these terms (koinonia and deip- non) are not interchangeable. If they are, we are wrong. Further, if they are, it has never been shown. We venture the statement that it never will be shown. " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" An interrogative-declarative sentence, equiva- lent to affirming, " The cup of blessing which we bless is the communion of the body of Christ." i Cor. 10: 16. This is plain, unequivocal, without mystifi- cation, and need never be confounded with the Lord's supper. " Search the Scriptures ; 32 THE LORD S SUPPER. for in them ye are assured that ye have eternal life, and they are they that testify of me." The Scriptures never, even by intimation, re- fer to the cup and loaf under any other name than communion. Let us be satisfied with the Word of God. If man refers to it other- wise, man is mistaken. Greenfield's Lexicon, page 131, and Donegan's Lexicon, page 769, as already cited, establish the above conclu- sion as to the meaning of the words in con- troversy. Thus we have koinonia meaning commun- ion. Philology and theology exactly agree. It only remains for the teaching and prac- tice of Christendom to conform to the same law of agreement. Thus would primitive Christianity be restored in its pristine purity and God honored through obedience to his Son. CHAPTER FOUR. General Teaching of the Eleventh Chap- ter of First Corinthians. This chapter of Holy Writ ought to set- tle the question as to what constitutes the Lord's supper, as this is the only place where the term is used in New Testament Scripture. The question is, By the term kuriakon deip- non, did Paul mean a full meal, or did he refer to the cup and loaf of communion? This is certainly the whole question. Remem- ber that we proved conclusively that the word deipnon means a plenteous repast and that the cup and loaf are never designated by the word deipnon, but by koinonia. It is not at all like- ly that Paul referred to the cup and loaf when he used the words kuriakon deipnon, and we dismiss the probability that he would use the wrong word. He used the word deipnon in verse 20, " When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper." He used the same word in the next 34 THE LORD S SUPPER. verse, 21, " For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hun- gry and another is drunken/' In this verse he uses the term to designate a full meal, — a meal that is plenteous enough to satisfy hun- ger. Idiomatically it means they were filled. Does the word by any known process of interpretation, by any method of reasoning, mean the cup and loaf, a mere sip and a wafer in verse 20 and a full meal, — plenteous repast, a meal in which they ate to repletion, — fullness in verse 21 ? How utterly unfounded and improbable the conclusion ! Let us notice : It is a fact that they brought provisions there for an ample meal. They ate a meal, but they ate it disorderly. It is also a fact that Paul called the meal which composed those provisions " deipnon/' " idion deipnon" " own supper." If all admit — and it would be folly to deny — that he used the word " deip- non " in verse 21 to mean or express the idea of plenteous repast, is it not evident that he meant to express the same idea by the use of the same word in verse 20 ? Is any other con- clusion logical or reasonable? Again, it is a FIRST CORINTHIANS ELEVEN. 35 fact that he uses the same word in verse 25 : " After the same manner also he took the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me/' " M eta to deipnesai" " after supper/ 5 or, more strictly, " after the supper." This language, as will be seen by the connection, refers to the supper that we have frequently mentioned, that Jesus ate with his disciples. Matt. 26:20; Mark 14:17, 18; Luke 22:14, 15; John 13:2-4. 1. Paul uses the word to refer to the supper that Jesus ate. 2. He uses the word when he refers to their own supper. 3. He uses the same word when he says " Lord's supper." So no other conclusion is reasonable but that by the use of the word in verse 20 he had reference to the meal that Jesus ate with his disciples to which he refers in verse 25, which is the Lord's supper, and not the cup and loaf of communion. Any other conclusion is far-fetched, illogical and unreasonable. But it is claimed by some that the expres- 36 THE LORD'S SUPPER. sion, " This is not to eat the Lord's supper," entirely excludes the meal they brought. Let us examine the Scripture carefully : " But in giving you this charge I praise you not, that you come together not for better, but for the worse. For, first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you, and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you that they which are approved may be made mani- fest among you. When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's supper: for in eating each one taketh before other his own supper, and one is hungry and another is drunken. What, have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or despise ye the church of God and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you ? Shall I praise you in this ? I praise you not. For I received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was be- trayed took bread: and when he had given thanks he brake it and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you. This do FIRST CORINTHIANS ELEVEN. 2>7 in remembrance of me. After the same man- ner also he took the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remem- brance of me." (They were putting to shame the poor who were not able to add a portion to the meal.) Notice, Paul does not say a word against their bringing a meal to the church. Had that been the trouble he would have plainly said so. He was a plain-spoken man and never hard to understand. When he purposed rebuking he did it in language that left no doubt as to his meaning. If he had meant that they should not bring a meal to the church, Christendom would not have been left in doubt upon the matter. Why did Paul reprove them about this meal ? If it was their own — and so intended, simply a common meal — by what right should Paul, or anyone else, reprove them for eating one be- fore another, etc.? It was the Lord's supper, if properly kept, and so he was particular about it as he was particular that all other ordinances should be properly observed. The Corinthians were deflecting it from its 38 THE LORD'S SUPPER. true purpose by the way they ate. The rich were ignoring the poor — which is not Christ- like — and doubtless drinking too much wine — not new wine, but fermented, which was even worse. Hence it could not be the Lord's sup- per, eaten in this unseemly way, but simply their own supper, as all the benefits derived from it were physical and ended with the one who ate. Those who contend that the cup and loaf are the Lord's supper get no comfort from their position from this chapter, but directly the reverse. Hence we again say that the only legitimate conclusion is, that the Lord's sup- per is a meal, a repast, and not the cup and loaf of communion. The cup and the loaf are the communion of the body and blood of Christ. CHAPTER FIVE. The Meal Under Consideration Was Not The Jewish Passover. Around the question as to whether or not Jesus ate the regular Jewish passover the night of his betrayal the controversy has raged since the early centuries of the Christian era. We readily concede that if it can be shown that he did eat the passover that night, our position on the Lord's supper it untenable, or at least be- comes much more difficult, as it deprives us of the Christly example. Furthermore, it would destroy the Lord's supper altogether, as the supper must be a meal, as shown, and leaves the Christian world groping in darkness and uncertainty upon this momentous subject. But if, upon the other hand, it can be shown that the meal Jesus ate the night of his be- trayal, — the evening before his death, — was not the Jewish passover, but a special meal for a special purpose, the fogs of uncertainty and confusion lift and clear away, the light of 40 THE LORD S SUPPER. day breaks over the entire field and we are left no longer in doubt. Such we claim is the case. There is no confusion when we " rightly divide the word of truth/' It was not the passover — the Word of God harmon- izes and our duty is plain. To prove that the meal Jesus ate was not the passover we offer the following arguments: I. John says it was before the passover: " Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Fa- ther, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. And supper being ended (or prepared) the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Is- cariot, Simon's son, to betray him, he riseth from (the) supper and laid aside his gar- ments, and took a towel and girded himself." John 13: 1, 2, 4. Remember, John was present and was a per- sonal witness, being one of the twelve, and his testimony must stand. Gospel harmony must also teach that whatever was written by others on this point must agree with him, NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 41 or we are led into inextricable confusion. John positively asserts that it was before the passover. It could not therefore have been the passover. 2. They went out that night from the sup- per room: " And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. And Jesus saith unto them," etc. Mark 14: 26. This was expressly against the law of the institution of the passover : " And dip a bunch of hyssop and sprinkle the transom of the door therewith, and both door cheeks : and let none of you go out of the house till morning." Ex. 12: 22. But it is said that the Jews in the time of Christ violated this express prohibition. This is possible. But Jesus, in partaking of the old ordinances of Judaism, would have kept them strictly to the letter. The fact that he and the disciples went out of the house that night is fatal to the claim that it was the pass- over that they had eaten. 3. They thought Judas had gone out to buy things for the feast. Another very important consideration is that, according to the best au- 42 THE LORDS SUPPER. thorities, the passover came that year on the Jewish Sabbath, so the disciples would not have thought that Judas " was gone out to buy " especially " those things they had need of for the feast." " Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake unto him. For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Je- sus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast ; or, that he should give something to the poor." John 13 : 28, 29. What feast was in the future, that they desired to make preparation for? The only answer that can be given, with a proper knowledge of time and events is, the feast of the passover, which was yet in the future about twenty-four hours. Thus it is clear that the supper they had just eaten was not the passover. 4. "■ Give something to the poor." Notice the last clause of verse 29 quoted in argument 3, " or give something to the poor." It was customary to help the poor buy the paschal lamb. The disciples thought that if Judas was not going out to buy the things that they NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 43 (themselves) needed for the feast he was go- ing out to help the poor buy the lamb that they might be ready to eat the passover when the proper time arrived. For proof of this custom see Farrar's " Life of Christ/' Vol. 2, p. 289. 5. The Jews went not into the judgment hall: " Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early: and they themselves went not into the judg- ment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover." John 18: 28. What does John here mean by the pass- over? If there were no controversy at all on any phase of this question there would be one answer to the query, and that the right one. It means, of course, the paschal lamb. Then is it not clearly evident that the Jewish passover had not yet been eaten? 6. He was buried on the preparation day: " And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher, and departed. Now 44 the lord's supper. the next day that followed the day of prepar- ation, the chief priests and the Pharisees came together unto Pilate/' Matt. 26 : 59. " And now when the even was come, be- cause it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, an honorable counselor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate and craved the body of Jesus. And Pilate marveled if he were already dead ; and calling unto him the centurion he asked him whether he had been any while dead. And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph." Mark 15: 42-45. This man went unto Pilate and begged the body of Jesus ; and he took it down, and laid it in a sepulcher that was hewn out of stone, wherein man never before was laid. And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on." Luke 22 : 52-54. "And it was the preparation of the pass- over, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King ! " John 19:14. " There laid they Jesus therefore because of NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 45 the Jews' preparation day: for the sepulchre was nigh at hand." John 19 : 42. Thus the evangelists are a unit that the Savior was buried on the day of preparation for the Jewish passover. John twice asserts it. Hence how evident to an unprejudiced mind that he did not celebrate the Jewish passover that year. This argument alone should be sufficient. But we proceed. 7. Would have broken the law. Thus we have clearly established that the meal that Je- sus ate was eaten twenty-four hours before the legal time for eating the passover. It be- ing eaten twenty-four hours before the legal time, would, if it were the passover, be a breaking of the passover law — a thing he ex- pressly said he would not do : " Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5 : 17, 18. 8. No feet-washing at the passover. It was not the custom to wash feet at the passover. 46 the lord's supper. Jesus washed his disciples' feet at the supper he ate (see John, thirteenth chapter), there- fore it could not have been the passover. For proof that they did not wash feet at the pass- over, see Farrar's " Life of Christ/' Lange's Commentaries. 9. They reclined at the table. We learn from the institution of the passover that they did not recline at table : " And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord's passover." Ex. 12:11. "The central cus- tom of the feast was the hasty eating of the paschal lamb, with unleavened bread and bit- ter herbs, in a standing attitude, with loins girt and shoes upon the feet, as they had eat- en hastily on the night of their deliverance. In this way the passover is still yearly eaten by the Samaritans at the summit of Gerizim." Farrar's " Life of Christ," Vol. 2, p. 290. He adds in a footnote : " I was present at this interesting celebration on Gerizim on April 15, 1870. They stood while eating the pass- over." Christ reclined while eating his last supper. It could not have been the passover. NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 47 10. Some prisoner must be released at the passover. There was to be some one released at the passover, not after it. Let us appeal once more to the Scriptures : " Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would." Matt. 27:15. " Now at the feast he released unto them one prisoner whomsoever they desired." Mark 15:6. "But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?" Mark 13:9. "I will there- fore chastise him and release him. (For of necessity he must release unto them one at the feast.)" Luke 23: 16, 17. But you ask, At what feast was it that Pilate must release one unto them? Let the evangelist John answer the question : " But ye have a custom that I should release unto you one at the passover. Will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews ? " This argument alone should settle the ques- tion finally. The passover had not yet been eaten when Jesus was condemned. Observe carefully what this argument develops, — how 48 the lord's supper. fully it contains the Brethren's position on this much-disputed question. It shows (a) that they would not go into the judgment hall, lest they be defiled, but that they might eat the passover. (See connection of Scripture given above.) That is, Jesus is being tried the next day after his last supper, and the Jews refuse to go into the judgment hall to the trial be- cause they desire to eat the passover. " Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early: and they them- selves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover." John 18:28. (b) Pilate said on the day of Jesus' trial, " Ye have a custom that I release unto you one at the pass- over" and desired them to call for the release of Jesus, (c) He was buried on the day of the preparation of the passover. Can evi- dence be clearer, more complete, more con- clusive than this? If this is not conclusive, will some one tell us what would be? Could any position by any possibility be more fully satisfied? But the resources of the subject are almost boundless, and we proceed. NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 49 11. The priests said, "We must not take him on a feast day." After two days was the feast of the passover and of unleavened bread, and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the peo- ple." Mark 14: 1, 2. If it had been the pass- over they ate it would have been the passover feast day when he was apprehended. They hurried the matter, no doubt, because of the approaching feast. 12. Executed on the day of passover feast. They would not have executed him on the day of the passover feast. The polity and tra- ditions were averse to it. Again we say, they hurried the execution, as they hurried the ap- prehension, because of the approaching pass- over feast. By hastening the matter along they were enabled to time his death at about the exact time for slaying the paschal lamb, thus, though without any thought or inten- tion on their part, causing the great antitype to take the place of the type which is our next argument. 50 THE LORD S SUPPER. 13. Type and antitype meet in point of time. He must die at the proper legal time of kill- ing the paschal lamb to be the antitype in point of time. This is essential and convincing to his followers in all ages of the church. He taketh away the first that he might establish the second, and " Christ our passover was sacrificed for us." 1 Cor. 5 : 7. He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb. 9 : 26. The type and the antitype meet, so we con- clude that Christ was slain at the same hour that the lamb should have been slain. 14. Not descriptive of the passover. The evangelists in all their descriptions of the prep- aration for this meal say nothing about killing or preparing the paschal lamb. 15. There is nothing said by any of the writers that would indicate that they were eating food pertaining to the passover, but rather the reverse. 16. The Jewish passover had never been designated by the word deipnon, supper, but always by the use of the word pascha, ton pascha, the passover. 17. The day was spent in a scene of busy NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 5 1 work and turmoil unlike the day of the pass- over feast: (a) Joseph buys the linen cloth: " And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen.'' Mark 15: 46. (6) The women prepare spices, etc.: " And the women also which came with him from Galilee, followed after and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned and prepared spices and oint- ments." Luke 23:55, 56. (c) Simon the Cyrenian came home apparently from a day's work in the country : " And they compel one Simon, a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear the cross." This was not ad- missible according to the law : " And the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord. Seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation. Ye shall do no servile zvork therein" Lev. 23: 6, 7. While these prohibitive enactments may to a certain extent have been violated by the Jews, we have no evidence of it. Thus we show that with all the above transactions it is 52 THE LORD S SUPPER. evident that the Lord's supper, as given by the evangelists, was before the time to partake legally of the Jewish passover. 18. Did not mix Christian and Jewish ordi- nances. Christ did not sit down to the table, begin with a Jewish ordinance and end with a Christian ordinance. If that had been a Jewish feast, it would have Christ beginning with the Jewish passover and ending with the cup and loaf of communion, thus putting new wine into old bottles, — the old bottles of the law with the new wine of the Gospel, or a New Testament ordinance added to an Old Testament institution. 19. Many eminent scholars and historians, ancient and modern, agree that Jesus did not eat the passover. In the early ages of the church the belief predominated that the last supper of the Lord was not the Jewish pass- over, but was different from it. It was so held by Apollinaris of Hierapolis, Clement of Alexandria, Polycrates of Ephesus, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Calmet, Neander, Ide- ler, Liicke, Seiffers, De Wette, etc. See Far- rar's " Life of Christ," p. 479 ; Calmet's Bible NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 53 Dictionary, article, " Passover ;" Schaff's " Church History," vol. 2^ article, " Passover Controversy." 20. Chronology disproves the idea that the last supper was the passover. My last reason why the meal under consideration is the Lord's supper and not the Jewish passover is a chron- ological one and is based upon the fact that in the year of the Lord's crucifixion the day of Pentecost fell on Sunday — the memorable day that so many were converted and added to the church. We will submit the highest and best authorities obtainable to establish our position ; and if it is proven it will add one. more incontrovertible proof that Christ did not eat the Jewish passover at the last supper. Fifty days from the day following the pass- over came the day of the feast of Pentecost. " Pentecost, the fiftieth," because the feast of Pentecost was celebrated the fiftieth day after the sixteenth of Nisan, which was the second day of the feast of the passover. " And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering ; seven sabbaths 54 THE LORD S SUPPER. shall be complete : even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days." Lev. 23:15, 16. Thus we count from the Sabbath (Jewish time) forty-nine days and Sunday, our time, is the fiftieth day. So it is a fact that Pentecost fell on the first day of the week, our Sunday; counting back, then, we find that Christ was crucified on Fri- day at the going down of the sun of that day. The beginning of the fiftieth would be the legal time for the celebration of the Jewish pass- over. For additional proof see Schaff-Her- zog " Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge," vol. 3, p. 1801 ; Smith's Bible Dictionary, pp. 695, 6, which is too lengthy to be inserted in full in a brief work like this. I give only a sentence or two : " In the latter case the nat- ural conclusion is the meal (Lord's supper) was eaten before the passover. The time of the festival was calculated from the second day of the passover, the sixteenth day of Ni- san." These proofs are condensed, but are clear and plain. Thus Pentecost was on Sun- day, or the first day of the week. He ate the supper with his disciples on Thursday night, NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 55 our time, was tried and executed on Friday, was in the tomb part of Friday, Friday night, Saturday, Saturday night, and part of Sun- day morning, — the morning on which he rose from the dead. So fifty days after the second day of the feast was Sunday, the fiftieth day after Nisan sixteenth. All authorities that are regarded as reliable agree with this. Hence the conclusions are the same. Now let us carefully notice. Suppose Jesus to have eaten the Jewish passover that year. It is established that the eating is begun at the be- ginning of night — the beginning of the fif- teenth of Nisan, which because of Pentecost falling that year on Sunday as I have shown (our time) would establish that Nisan fifteenth that year fell on the Jewish Sabbath, Sat- urday. Remember he ate the meal the be- ginning of the fourteenth day, was arrested and brought before Pilate in the morning, tried, executed and buried during the four- teenth. This was Friday according to our time, or Pentecost did not fall on Sunday that year. I have repeated the argument to give it em- 56 THE LORD S wSUPPER. phasis. If this is not true Jesus would have lain in the tomb only a part of one night. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that Jesus did not eat that supper at the legal time of eating the Jewish passover. I cannot see how any child of God can believe that Jesus ate the passover that year, in the light of the facts above presented. We are impressed that the Jews did not eat the passover that year at all, nor did Jesus, as he died, as we have shown, before it could have been legally eaten. If this is not conclu- sive and convincing, I do not see how a con- clusion can be reached on the subject. Nei- ther do I see how any one could be convinced by evidence. I append below some references bearing out the arguments contained in this chapter that are worth examination. Calmet, article " Passover," " Dictionary Holy Bible," vol. 2. Clark's " Sermon on the Eucharist," sermon 33, vol. 3, p. 95, etc. Farrar's " Life of Christ — Excursus," 10, vol. 2, p. 474, etc. NOT THE JEWISH PASSOVER. 5/ SchafFs " History of the Christian Church," vol. 2, " Paschal Controversy/' It is only by careful study of the historical setting and a proper understanding of the Book of God that we can settle rightly this controversy. And now, after establishing the great truth of the existence of the Lord's sup- per, and having shown finally that it was be- fore the passover, and that Jesus died at the legal time of eating the paschal lamb, and therefore did not eat the passover, we will now show that the apostles and early Chris- tians observed this meal. CHAPTER SIX. The Apostles Observed a Feast. If there is a Lord's supper in the New Tes- tament church, established by the Savior, can it be shown that such a meal was ever ob- served by the early church? If it can be so shown, it will strengthen our position by showing apostolic observance. That such can be established is clearly evidenced by the following : " These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots." Jude 12. " And shall receive the reward of unright- eousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you" 2 Peter 2 : 13. APOSTLES OBSERVED A FEAST. 59 Paul says, " I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem : but I will return again unto you if God will." Acts 18 : 21. These love feasts will now engage our at- tention. Wilson's " Emphatic Diaglott " and the Vatican Manuscript speak of the above feasts as " Agapce" or " love feasts." We will now try to prove that these " agapce " and " love feasts " mean the same feasts or repasts. We have the term deipnon meaning feast, and agape also meaning feast. I believe, therefore, we are justified in the conclusion that in the scriptural use of the word agape in Jude and Peter we have the generic use of the term, and that it is used to include both the Lord's supper and the cup and loaf of communion because they were united and formed one whole agape or love feast, as shown in Matt. 26 : 26, " As they were eat- ing, Jesus took bread/' etc.; that is, the bread of communion in direct connection with the supper " koinonia/' " communion." 1 Cor. 10:16 is specific and means the rite or 60 THE LORD'S SUPPEft. ceremony represented by the cup and loaf. " Kuriakon deipnon " is specific, meaning " Lord's supper/' Agape is generic and rep- resents both the meal, or Lord's supper and the cup and loaf or communion, though doubt- less the term was soon applied to the meal only. If this position is sustained, it follows without cavil that agapce — love feasts — in Jude and Peter included both the meal and the com- munion. " After the model of the Jewish passover and the first institution of this rite, the celebration of the Lord's supper (he means the loaf and cup) originally was always joined with the general meal, and both to- gether formed one whole: and because the communion of believers with the Lord, and their brotherly communion with each other was represented by it, the two together were called the supper of the Lord or deipnon ku- riakon of the love feast, agape. It was the rite of Christian communion in the first church at Jerusalem. In Acts 2 : 46 we are most probably to understand both together. We find both connected in the first Corinthian church, and one is inclined to suppose that this APOSTLES OBSERVED A FEAST. 6l was also the innocent, simple meal of the Christians, of which Pliny speaks in his re- port to the Emperor Trajan." Neander's " History First Three Centuries of the Chris- tian Church," p. 208. Waddington, quoting Pliny to Trajan, says: " When these things were performed it was their custom to separate and then come togeth- er again to a meal which they ate in common without any disorder; but this they had for- borne since the publication of my edict by which according to your commands, I prohib- ited assemblies." Remember, this was written in the apostolic age, during the first century, when some of the apostles were yet living. The Christians had a meal in common then. The church was largely prevailing over idolatry in the Roman empire, so that the temples were being de- stroyed, as shown in Pliny's letter from which we have quoted the foregoing. Again, M. Waddington says, page 46 of the work above quoted : " The celebration of the eucharist (he means the cup and loaf) with meetings which somewhat partook of a hos- 62 THE LORD'S SUPPER. pitable or at least a charitable character and was called agape, or feast of love. Every Christian, according to his circumstances, gave to the assembly a portion of bread and wine and other things as gifts or oblations to the Lord. Of the bread and wine such as was required for the administration of the sacra- ment was separated from the rest and con- secrated by the bishop alone. Its distribu- tion was followed by a frugal and serious re- past." It is here evident that in the earlier days of the church the two were joined together and formed " one whole " and were characterized as " agape'' " love feast," " Lord's supper." The title of the cup of blessing (i Cor. 10: 16) had been imported into the Greek church. The synonym of " the cup of the Lord" (i Cor. 10:21) "distinguishes it from the other cups that belonged to the agapce. . . . The table on which the bread was placed was the Lord's table." — Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible" p. 488. Here the two ordinances were joined to- gether. We will now introduce a descrip- APOSTLES OBSERVED A FEAST. 63 tion of the agapce by Tertullian, included in Neander's talk on the same subject: " We now speak first of the meals of broth- erly love, as they were afterwards called (agapce) when separated from the supper of the Lord. Here all differences of earthly con- sideration and rank were laid aside, were to disappear in Christ. All were here to be one in the Lord, rich and poor, high and low, mas- ter and servants, were all to eat at the same table with one another. Tertullian paints the celebration of such a feast in the following manner: Our supper shows its nature by its name. It is called agape, which in Greek means love. Whatsoever it may cost it is a gain to be put to cost in the cause of piety, since we delight all the poor by the refresh- ment. As the cause of the supper is honora- ble, judge ye with what regard to religion all besides is conducted in it. It admits of no vulgarity; it admits of no indecency; we do not lie down to table before a prayer has been offered to God; we eat only that which hunger requires, we drink only what becomes men of sobriety and modesty to drink; we do 64 the lord's supper. not forget, while we are satisfying our wants, that God is to be adored by us through the night. The conversation is that of men who know that God hears them. After the meal is over, after we have washed our hands and the lights have been brought, each person is required to sing something to the praise of God for the instruction of us all, just as he may be able from Scripture or from his own resources. The feast is concluded with prayer. " These agapce gradually lost their true orig- inal meaning which could only be maintained in the simple habits of the early churches, and they often became nothing but a dead form, which was no longer animated by the spirit of that brotherly love which removes all dis- tinction between man and man, and unites all hearts together. Many abuses crept into them which gave an opportunity to the evil-minded to represent the whole festival in a hateful light. As it usually happens in cases of this kind, some attributed too much importance to the mere form as an ' opus operatum/ a mere outward work, and others unjustly con- APOSTLES OBSERVED A FEAST. 65 demned the whole thing, without distinguish- ing between the proper use and the abuse ; and the errors of both parties arose from their no longer understanding the simple, childlike spir- it from which this rule has derived its origin. Certain rich members of the community gave these agapce, and fancied that they had done something particularly meritorious. Here, where all should be on equal terms, a distinc- tion of rank was made, and the clergy, who ought to set an example of humility to all, al- lowed themselves to be particularly distin- guished by undue exercise of the outward preference to their order. An unkindly, gloomy, ascetic spirit wholly condemned the agapce and eagerly caught at all the abuses which, ever attended their celebration in any place whatever, in order to paint them in ex- aggerated colors, and so to render the whole thing odious. " — Meander's " Church History,' p. 209. Here again we see the two joined together in one general institution called agapce, I next introduce Calmet's Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, article "Agapce:" "These festivals were 66 the lord's supper. kept in the assembly of the church toward evening after prayer and worship were over. The faithful ate together in great simplicity and union what each had brought, so that rich and poor were no way distinguished. After a supper thus frugal and modest they partook of the sacramental signs of the Lord's body and blood and gave each other the kiss of peace/' How accurately does he thus describe the original supper of our Lord! What more need we on the argument for the conclusion at which we have arrived, that the supper and the communion were both included in the aga- pe or love feast? Now let us sum up in brief so the reader may be readily enabled to grasp what has been proven in this chapter. i. Christ ate a meal. 2. The apostolic churches had a meal. 3. The early churches had such meals, " and a gloomy, ascetic spirit condemned them." 4. They were set aside, and the reason therefor : " These meals particularly attract- ed the jealousy of the heathen and gave occa- LoFC. APOSTLES OBSERVED A FEAST. 67 sion to the wildest and most abominable re- ports, and this might easily cause their abolition." — Neander. 5. The churches that observe them are therefore apostolic. CHAPTER SEVEN. Perpetuation of the Supper. Thus far we have established that there is a Lord's supper, and that it is not the cup and loaf ; that Jesus ate a special meal with his dis- ciples, and that the Christian church in the •early ages, before popery and bishops, clothed with ecclesiastical power, began to invade the fair realms of the church of the Redeemer, faithfully and humbly partook of this meal in memory of the last supper of the Lord. The concluding question, therefore, is, Can there be gospel evidence adduced to prove that this sacred meal should be perpetuated? This proven, our task is done. Does it be- long to this dispensation? We answer em- phatically that it does. Let us once more go to the Book, from which all authority and evi- dence pertaining to sacred things should be drawn. This supper is recorded in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and John 13. " And when the hour was come he sat down, PERPETUATION OF SUPPER. 69 and his twelve apostles with him; and he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God/' Luke 22 : 14-16. This language assuredly binds this meal upon the dispensation reaching to the kingdom of God. There are, however, some of our fraternal neighbors who teach that it was ful- filled in the death of Christ, and that, there- fore, it must have been the Jewish passover. Let us examine the claim and show its fallacy. We have already proven that it was not the passover. Again, it cannot mean the death of Christ that was alluded to, for practically the same language is used concerning the cup of communion : " And he took the cup and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall come!' Luke 22 : 17, 18. " And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for JO THE LORD S SUPPER. many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." Mark 14: 24, 25. Thus it is evident that where the cup of communion reaches the supper reaches, where the one ends the other ends also ; that is, when the kingdom of God comes. Christ taught his disciples to pray, " Thy kingdom come." This is the everlasting kingdom. For he must reign until he shall put down all rule, authority and power. Then he will deliver up the king- dom to God, who will then be all in all. Mark says, " Drink it new in the kingdom of God." He did not drink it with them after the resurrection. There is no account of it in the Word, and we therefore conclude that he did not. There was to be such a time, but when it was to come is now the important ques- tion for solution. Like the ordinances of the communion, it is to last from the time of its institution by the Savior until " he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Fa- ther; when he shall put down all rule and all authority and power." 1 Cor. 15:24. PERPETUATION OF SUPPER. J I Daniel the prophet foresaw the events con- cerning the kingdom and reign of Christ which would precede the final consummation of his mission, the marriage supper of the Lamb, and broke forth in this language : " And after this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceed- ingly ; and it had great iron teeth : it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it : and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it ; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and * a mouth speaking great things. I be- held till the thrones were cast down and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery 7 flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him : thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood be- 72 THE LORD'S SUPPER. fore him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened." Daniel 7:7-10. What is this but the judgment of the great day? Again, " I saw in the night visions, and, be- hold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there w r as given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him : his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." Daniel 7:13, 14. Who was it coming in the clouds of glory but Jesus ? Who was the Ancient of days but God to whom Jesus is transferring the kingdom ? " And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron ; and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne." Rev. 12 : 5. " And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their PERPETUATION OF SUPPER. 73 ungodly deeds which they have ungodly com- mitted, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." Jude 14, 15. " Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him : for the marriage of the Lamb is come and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God." Rev. 19 : 7-9. The holy prophets all prophesied of this time, foretelling by the influence of the Holy Spirit things to come, the consummation of the divine plan. They stood on the mountain top with the telescope of prophetic power. They faithfully swept the horizon of all ages, gathering in even the fragments of time until their vision was fixed upon the limitless heav- enly world. They prophesied of the ushering in of God's kingdom. Jesus reiterates it and leaves us something tangible to remain in his 74 THE LORD S SUPPER. church in the ordinances which he gave to his disciples and left with them until the great work for which they were introduced into the church should be fulfilled. They are not mer- itorious in or of themselves to produce salva- tion, but are to keep the church united and are a sign of our faith in and love for Christ our Redeemer. They are a test of our loyalty to him, an evidence to the world of our fealty to his cause and the outward manifestation of our discipleship. " By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments." I John John tells the future ages all that human mind can grasp, from his place of banishment in the closing years of his long and eventful life. On that grand morning that lone isle of Patmos became the watchtower of the church of God ; and John, her son of keenest vision, as well as tenderest love, standing on its heights, pierced the farthest clouds and be- held the glories of the celestial city, the shin- ing arches, jasper walls, dazzling foundations, and endlessly beautiful vistas of the New PERPETUATION OF SUPPER. 75 Jerusalem. He tells us of the coming of the Son of man, of the church militant merging into the church triumphant, of the great won- der sweeping triumphantly through the gates into the everlasting city. The church life in its primitive simplicity is beautiful here, more beautiful hereafter. The night of ordinances is beautiful in their significance. i. Feet- washing, — emblematic of frequent cleansing from the defilements contracted on this wilderness journey to the heavenly Ca- naan. 2. The Lord's supper, — looking forward to the time when all redeemed by the blood shall sit down to the marriage supper of the Lamb, with Jesus present once more to instruct and serve. 3. The communion, — pointing us back to Gethsemane and Calvary, to the great con- flict of all the ages, where was met and van- quished the combined hate and malice of the opposition of the church of the firstborn. Adherence to these ordinances, as obedient children to the Father, insures us an entrance j6 THE LORD'S SUPPER. into all the glories of the beautiful life beyond. May we not hope to meet with the reader ^n that land that is fairer than day, where no storm clouds enter to mar the beauty and peace of a home on the banks of the river of life ? " And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes ; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Rev. 21 : 4. " The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." FES. 26 1S03 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proce Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 PreservationTechnoiogii A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATI 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066 (724)779-211*1 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS I Mill I 014 665 471 A