nearly allied to each other, and were both of them celebrated at one meeting. Without some such supposition as that, it was next to impossible to account for St. Paul's quick transition, in that chapter, from one to the other. Whether, therefore, Lord's Supper in that chapter signifies the lovefeast only, or the Eucharist only, or both together, one thing is clear and unquestionable, that they were both but different parts of the same solemnity, or different acts of the same meeting and there is no occasion to be scrupulously nice and critical in distinguishing to which of the parts the name. strictly belongs t.

Maldonate, the Jesuit, in his Contents upon Matt. xxvi. 26, took upon him to reproach the Protestants in an unhandsome manner, for speaking of the Eucharist under the name of a Supper; which he thought irreverent, and not warranted by Scripture, antiquity, or sound reason ". The learned Casaubon some time after appeared in behalf of the Protestants, and easily defended them, as to the main thing, against the injurious charge. Albertinus, long after, searched with all diligence into ancient precedents and authorities for the name, and produced them in great abundance, more than sufficient to confute the charge of novelty, rashness, or profaneness on that head. The truth of the matter seems to be, that though there is no clear proof that the name of Supper is a Scripture name, yet some Fathers (as high as the fourth century) thought that it was, so understanding I Cor. xi. 20. And many interpreters of good note have followed them in it. Indeed it does not appear that the text was so construed before the latter end of the fourth

tQuid rei sit coena haec, accuratius inquirere non est opus: sive enim Christianorum Agapae, sive ipsa Eucharistia significetur, nil interest, dummodo concedatur (quod nulla prorsus ratione negari potest) Eucharistiae celebrationem cum Agapis esse conjunctam.' Sam. Basnag. Annal. tom. ii. p. 296.

u Calvinistae sine Scripturae auctoritate, sine veterum auctorum exemplo, sine ratione, nullo judicio, coenam vocant.' Maldonat. P. 556.

Casaubon. Exercit. xvi. n. 32. p. 368, alias 513.

Albertinus de Eucharistia, lib. i. cap. I.

century, or that the name of Lord's Supper was much in use as a name for the Eucharist. Irenaeus once has the name of God's Supper, but means quite another thing by it. Tertullian has the same a for Lord's Table, referring to 1 Cor. x. 22, not to 1 Cor. xi. 20. He has also the phrase of Lord's Banquet b, [or Lord's Day Banquet,] and Banquet of God, meaning the love-feasts then in use, which he elsewhere styles the Supper of Christians d. But St. Basil very plainly interprets Lord's Supper in that text of the Euchariste which even Fronto Ducaeus, in his notes upon the place, confesses; endeavouring at the same time to bring off Maldonate as fairly as the matter would bear, while, in reality, he yields the main thing, with respect to the Fathers, at least. However, it must be owned that Basil is the first who directly so interprets the text, and that the Fathers were not all of a mind about it, and that the appellation of Supper was not very common till after the fourth century; and that even in the later centuries the name of Lord's Supper was a name for that supper which our Lord made previous to the Eucharist. The third Council of Carthage (A.D. 418) speaks of 'one day in the year in which the Lord's Supper was celebrated f:' where it is plain that Lord's Supper does not mean the Eucharist, but the supper proper to Maundy-Thursday, kept in imitation of our Lord's Paschal Supper, previous to the Eucharist. And the like. is mentioned in the Trullan Council (A.D. 683), in their

2 Coena Dei.' Iren. lib. iv. cap. 36. p. 279, ed. Bened.

Non possumus coenam Dei edere, et coenam daemoniorum.' Tertullian. de Spect. cap. xiii. p. 79:

bConvivium Dominicum.' Tertull. ad Uxor. cap. iv. p. 168.

Convivium Dei.' Tertull. de Virgin. Vel. cap. viii. p. 172. dCoena nostra de nomine rationem sui ostendit: id vocatur

quod dilectio apud Graecos.' Tertull. Apoll. cap. 39.

• Ωσπερ οὐδὲν κοινὸν σκεῦος ἐπιτρέποι ὁ λόγος εἰσφέρεσθαι εἰς τὰ ἅγια, οὕτως οὐδὲ τὰ ἅγια εἰς κοινὸν οἶκον ἐπιτελεῖσθαι. μήτε τὸν κοινὸν δεῖπνον ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν, μήτε τὸ κυριακὸν δεῖπνον ἐν οἰκίᾳ καθυβρίζειν. Basil. Regul. Brev. p. 310, p. 525. ed. Bened., alias 657. Conf. Theodorit. in 1 Cor. xi. 20.

1 Μιᾶς ἐτησίας ἡμέρας ἐν ᾗ τὸ κυριακὸν δεῖπνον ἐπιτελεῖται. Concil. Carthag. Can. xliv. p. 567. Bevereg. edit.

29th Canon 8. So that Lord's Supper was not then become a familiar name, as now, for the Eucharist, but rather eminently denoted the supper previous to it; either our Lord's own, or that which was afterwards observed by Christians as a memorial of it, being a kind of love-feast. I shall only add further, that Hilary the Deacon (A.D. 380, or nearly) in his comment upon 1 Cor. xi. seems to dislike the name of supper h, as applied to the Eucharist, and therefore could not interpret the text as Basil of that time did.

A.D. 96. Oblation. Пpoopopá.

The name of oblation may, I think, be fairly carried up as high as to Clemens of Rome, who upon the lowest computation wrote his famous Epistle as early as the year 96. The more common date is 70, or thereabout: but a learned and considerate writer, who very lately has re-examined the chronology of that Epistle, has with great appearance of probability brought it down to A.D. 96: and there I am willing to rest it.

Clemens speaks of the oblations and sacred functions of the Church, referring, very probably, to the Eucharistical service k neither can be without some violence be interpreted to mean anything else. In another place, he still more plainly refers to the same, where he says: 'It would be no small sin in us, should we cast off those from the episcopal function, who holily and without blame offer the

« Μιᾶς ἐτησίου ἡμέρας, ἐν ᾗ τὸ κυριακὸν δεῖπνον ἐπιτελεῖται. Concil. Trull. Can. xxix. p. 188.

h 'Ostendit [Christus] illis mysterium Eucharistiae inter coenandum celebratum, non coenam esse: medicina enim spiritualis est, quae cum reverentia degustata, purificat sibi devotum.' Pseud. Ambros. in loc.

1 Lardner, Credibility of Gospel Hist. part ii. vol. i. pp. 50-62.

* Πάντα τάξει ποιεῖν ὀφείλομεν . . . τάς τε προσφορὰς καὶ λειτουρ

γείας ἐπιτελεῖσθαι . . . οἱ οὖν τοῖς προστεταγμένοις καιροῖς ποιοῦντες τὰς προσφορὰς αὐτῶν, εὐπρόσδεκτοί Eloi kai μakáρiot. Clem. Rom. Ep. c. xl. p. 164. edit. Cant.

Vitringa, upon these words, allows that they refer to the Eucharist. 'Preces haud dubie intelliguntur cum sacris Eucharistiae, quibus Clemens statas horas, ad exemplum sacrorum templi, definiri vult.' Vitring. de Vet. Synag.p. 1115. Conf. Basnag. Annal. vol. i. p. 371.

gifts. Here he expressly speaks of gifts offered, (that is, of oblation,) and by sacerdotal hands. The gifts were brought to the altar, or communion table, by the people, and were recommended to God's acceptance by the officiating bishop, or presbyter. So there was first a kind of lay oblation, and next a sacerdotal oblation of the same gifts to God. Those gifts consisted partly of alms to the poor, and partly of oblations, properly so called, to the Church; and out of these last was usually taken the matter of the Eucharist, the bread and wine m. The oblation, as I before hinted, was twofold; hence the whole service of the Eucharist came to be called the oblation: and to communicate, or to administer, in Church language, was to offer. There was a third kind of oblation which came up afterwards, in the third century: or, to speak more accurately, the commemoration, which was always a part of the Eucharistical service, came by degrees to be called an oblation, (but not within the two first centuries, so far as I can find,) and then commenced a kind of third oblation: not a new thing, but an old service under

a new name.

Justin Martyr, though he does not directly call the Eucharist by the name of oblation, yet he does obliquely, where he says that the oblation of fine flour, under the law, type of the bread of the Eucharist; and where he speaks of the Eucharistical elements as being offered to God P. Elsewhere he speaks plainly of the lay offering, brought by

was a

1 Αμαρτία γὰρ οὐ μικρὰ ἡμῖν ἔσται, ἐὰν τοὺς ἀμέμπτως καὶ ὁσίως προσενέγκοντας τὰ δῶρα, τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀποβάλωμεν. c. xliv. p. 178. Compare Johnson's Unbl. Sacrifice, part i. pp. 75, 78, &c.

See Bingham, Eccles. Antiq. b. xv. ch. 2. sect. 1, 2. Deylingius, Observ. Miscellan. p. 301. Constitut. Apostol. lib. viii. c. 27, 30. L'Arroque, Hist. of the Eucharist, part i. ch. iv. p. 30, &c.

"Of the third oblation, or

threefold oblation, see L'Arroque, Hist. of the Eucharist, part i. c. 8. Sam. Basnag. Annal. tom. i. p. 371. Pfaffius, Dissert. de Oblat. Vet. Eucharist. pp. 283, 293.

• Η τῆς σεμιδάλεως προσφορὰ ... τύπος ἦν τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς εὐχαριστίας. Just. Dial. p. 119 Jebb, 220 Thirlby.

• Προσφερομένων αὐτῷ θυσιῶν του τέστι τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς εὐχαριστίας, καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου ὁμοίως τῆς εὐχαριστίας. Just. Dial. p. 120 Jebb, alias 220.

the people to the administrator 4: and I presume he is to be understood of an offering to be presented to God, by the hands of the Minister, brought to the Minister in order to be recommended by him to the Divine acceptance.

Irenaeus, of the same century, makes frequent mention of the oblation of the Eucharist, understanding by it the whole service as performed by clergy and people, according to their respective parts or provinces г. He supposes the oblation made to God, made by the Church, in and by the proper officers and though the oblation strictly speaking, according to its primary signification, means only one part of the service, or two (viz. the people's bringing their offerings to the altar, and the administrator's presenting the same to God), yet from this part or parts of the service, the whole solemnity took the name of the oblation at that time, and such name became very common and familiar afterwards. For since the very matter of the Eucharist was taken out of the oblations received from the people, and solemnly offered up afterwards to God by the Ministers, it was very natural to give the name of oblation to the whole solemnity.

Tertullian speaking of the Devil, as imitating the mysteries of the Church, takes notice, among other things, of his instructing his votaries to baptize and to celebrate the oblation of bread: as much as to say, that they also had their Eucharist

9 Έπειτα προσφέρεται τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἄρτος καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος καὶ κράματος, καὶ οὗτος λαβών, αἶνον καὶ δόξαν τῷ πατρὶ &c.

*Αρτος προσφέρεται, καὶ οἶνος καὶ ὕδωρ. καὶ ὁ προεστὼς εὐχὰς ὁμοίως. καὶ εὐχαριστίας, ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ, ἀναπέμπει, καὶ λαὸς ἐπευφημεί, λέγων τὸ ̓Αμήν. Just. Mart. Apol. i. pp. 96, 98.

Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo, et qui alimenta nobis praestat, primitias suorum