“As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and having given thanks, blessed and brake it, and give it to His disciples, and said ‘ Take, eat; this is My Body which is being given for you. Do this for a memorial of Me.’ In the same manner also He took the cup after they had supped, and having given thanks, gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink ye all of this: for this is My Blood of the new covenant' —or ‘ the new covenant in My Blood ’—‘ which is being shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins. Do this as often as you drink, for a memorial of Me.’”

The first subject for remark is the connexion of the Eucharist with the Paschal celebration. In the Paschal Supper the flesh of a lamb was solemnly eaten in remembrance of the preservation of the Israelites, by means of the blood of a lamb, from the destruction brought upon tho Egyptians, and of the consequent emancipation of the nation from slavery to Pharaoh. In the Eucharist the same act, that of eating, assumes a similar commemorative force. The broken bread, declared by Christ to be a symbol of His crucified Body, taken and eaten, together with the drinking of the wine, declared to be a symbol of His shed Blood, becomes, in virtue of His institution, a memorial of His sacrifice as the Lamb of God who, by His death, has taken away the sin of the world, delivering man from the wrath of God, and setting him free from the slavery of evil. In this, however, the Eucharist transcends the passover which was its type, that the one was a bare commemoration, the other unites with it an actual participation jn the spiritual blessings thus commemorated. However much various sections of the church have differed as to the mode and the degree in which these blessings are conveyed, and the exact relation borne by the bread and wine to the Body and Blood of our Lord, there has been a substantial agreement as to the fact that the fruits of the sacrifice of Christ are in the Eucharist in a special manner imparted to the souls of worthy recipients. <

So much we may learn as to the nature of the rite from the occasion of its first institution. An examination of the mode of its institution by Christ will show what ceremonial actions may be regarded as essential to the truth of its symbolical character. These are—(1) the benediction and consecration, i.e., the setting apart from profane uses, by solemn prayer and thanksgiving, of bread and wine; (2) the fraction or breaking of the bread and the pouring out of the wine into the cup; (3) the delivery and distribution of the “elements”—as the bread and wine are termed—to the communicants; (4) the declaration accompanying this distribution, that these elements both symbolize the sacrifice of Christ’s death, and also convey to the faithful partaker the benefits of that sacrifice; and (5) the actual partaking of these elements by the acts of eating and drinking. These several actions are all included in Christ’s command, “Do this in remembrance of Me.”

The various names by which this holy rite has been designated, each expressing one view of its manifold nature, will help us towards a comprehension of its meaning and purpose.

1. The term Eucharist, though not found in this sense in Holy Scripture, came into use in the earliest times, and found such acceptance that it became the most frequent designation of the Lord’s Supper both in the Western and the Eastern Church. It first appears in the letters ascribed to Ignatius, 107 A.τ>. (Epist. ad Philad., c. iv.; ad Smym., c. vi.), and is used by Irenaeus, who says that after consecration “it is no longer common bread, but eucharist” (lib. iv. c. 18, § 5). Justin Martyr, 140 A.υ., after describing the sacred meal, says, “This partaking is called by us the Eucharist” (Apolog., i. c. 66). Origen also speaks of “the bread called Eucharist” (Contr. Cels., lib. viii. § 57). The term is also continually found in this sense in Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Cyprian. Eucharist, ∈υχαpι<rriα, signifies “thanksgiving,” and its use for the sacramental feast is derived from the thanksgiving of our Lord at the institution of the rite (εΰχαρισττ/σας ∈κλασev). The elements over which thanks had been offered readily assumed the name of the act of thanksgiving, and so the word eucharistia came to be simply equivalent to the sacramental bread and wine, and was sometimes restricted to the bread alone. “In the earliest liturgies thanksgiving was, next to the reception, the chief part of the celebration, a circumstance which without doubt served greatly to promote the general adoption of the name” (Scudamore, Notitia Eucharistica, p. 8). It is thus St Chrysostom explains the term: “The awful mysteries, laden with mighty salvation, which are celebrated at every communion, .... are called Eucharist, because they are the commemoration of many benefits, and by all means they work upon us to be thankful” (Homil. xxv. in Matt., §3).

2. Another familiar name is the Communion, or the Holy Communion. This is derived from the words of St Paul, 1 Cor. X. 16, 17. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion (κοινωνία) of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, the many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.” The general use of this term is not so early as of the word “eucharist,” but it is found in Irenaeus, 167 a.d., who speaks of slaves who have heard from their masters that “the divine communion is the body and blood of Christ” (Eragm., xiii.), and it is used by Hilary, Basil, and Chrysostom. St Paul’s words show that the leading idea contained in this name is, that by means of this sacrament all faithful recipients become partakers of the body ’and blood of Christ, and receive a communication of the blessings of His sacrifice. But they also express another fundamental truth, expressed in the Apostles’ Creed as “the communion of saints,” viz., the communion or fellowship which all Christians have with one another, as members of one body, sharers in one life, of which the joint participation of this sacrament is an outward symbol and pledge. “By this sacrament is signified and sealed that union which is among our Saviour’s true disciples communicating therein; their being together united in consent of mind and unity of faith, in mutual good will and affection, in hope and tendency to the same blessed end, in spiritual brotherhood and society; especially on account of this communion with Christ, which most closely ties them one to another; they, partaking of this one individual food, become translated, as it were, into one body and substance” (Barrow, Doctrine of the Sacraments, vol. v. p. 602, ed. 1818). To establish this union is declared by Christ to be one great purpose of His incarnation and death and high priestly intercession (John xvii, 22-23). And the Eucharist by its symbolism sets forth the truth that the only way of thus uniting men to each other is by first uniting them to Christ. They must be one with Him before they can be one with each other in Him. “The union of mankind, but a union begun and subsisting only in Christ, is what the Lord⅛ Supper sacramentally expresses” (Ecce Homo, p. 175). Participation in the Eucharist being thus the chief outward sign and pledge of communion and fellowship with the church, admission to this sacrament was practically identified with a recognition of a claim to membership in the church, while to be repelled from it amounted to exclusion from the Christian body, such exclusion receiving the name of excommunication.

3. Another designation of this sacrament, derived from Holy Scripture, is the Lord’s Supper. It is so called by St Paul himself, who when speaking of its unworthy reception, says, “When ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper,” 1 Cor. xi. 20. The special appropriateness of this name, taking us back to the time and place of its first institution by Christ, “the same night that He was betrayed,” secured for it an early and wide reception, and we find Chrysostom and Augustine employing it as a familiar term. “He gave the supper consecrated by His own hands to the disciples. We have not sat down at that feast, and yet by faith we daily eat the same supper” (August., Serm. cxii., c. 4). The name “supper” indicates also the original idea of the sacred rite as a common meal, “the most natural and universal way of expressing, maintaining, and, as it were, ratifying” corporate union. “The meal consists of bread and wine, the simplest and most universal elements of food; and when men of different nations or degrees sit and kneel together, and receive, as from the hand of God, this simple repast, they are reminded in the most forcible manner of their common human wants, and their common character as pensioners on the bounty of the universal Father” (Ecce Homo, pp. 173, 174). And thus this designation guards against a common but dangerous misconception of the sacrament. A “supper” is something tobe partaken of, not to be worshipped. Bread and wine are viands to be eaten and drunk, not to be adored. That on which they are placed is a table, round which the guests gather as for a common meal, not, except in a secondary and derived sense, an altar.

4. The term “oblation” or “offering” (προσφορά) was originally applied to each of the various offerings made by the faithful at the celebration of the Eucharist, e.g., the oblation of alms in kind or money for the poor, gifts for the support of the clergy, and the maintenance of the fabric of the church and its services; the special oblation of bread and wine for the purpose of the celebration; and the spiritual oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistie commemoration. Gradually its reference became narrowed. We notice the process of restriction in the writings of Cyprian, 250 a.t>., and find it established by the time of Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 a.d. Henceforward, “the oblation” signifies the commemoration of the self-oblation of Christ on the cross. “To attain to the oblation” or to “partake of the holy oblation” meant to receive, and to impart “the oblation” was to administer the blessed sacrament.” In the liturgy of the Church of England the word “oblation” is only used of the “alms” and other offerings of the congregation (with a special reference to the presentation of the elements of bread and wine), and of the actual death of Christ as “a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world,” while the idea is also extended to the spiritual oblation of themselves by the faithful communicants in the words—“Here we offer and present ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable sacrifice.”

5. From “oblation” we are naturally led to the consideration of the term Sacrifice, which from primitive times has been applied to the Eucharist. The original reference of this term, as of the term “oblation,” was to the bread and wine and other thank-offerings presented at the celebration. But its application was gradually extended so as to embrace the whole rite, and especially the central act, the presentation of the elements to God as a memorial of the sacrifice of the death of Christ. In this sense the Eucharist is spoken of from the time of Tertullian downwards, as “a commemorative sacrifice,” ∕.e., a rite, instituted by Christ himself, in which the church commemorates and pleads before the Father the one all-sufficient sacrifice made by His Son on the cross. This is no fresh immolation of the body of Christ, but a representation of that sacrifice which was once for all accomplished on Calvary, by which, according to St Paul’s words (1 Cor. xi. 26), we “do show” or “proclaim” (καταγγeλλeτe) “the Lord’s death till He come.” The true sense in which the Eucharist may be called a sacrifice is clearly set forth in the following passage from the learned and pious Bishop Beveridge :—

“The sacrifice that is most proper and peculiar to the gospel is the sacrament of our Lord’s Supper, instituted by our Lord himself, to succeed all the bloody sacrifices of the Mosaic law. For though we cannot say, as some absurdly do, that this is such a sacrifice whereby Christ is again offered up to God both for the living and the dead, yet it may as properly be called a sacrifice as any that was ever offered, except that which was offered by Christ himself,—for His, indeed, was the only true expiatory sacrifice that ever was offered. Those under the law were only types of His, and were called sacrifices only upon that account, because they typified and represented that which He was to offer for the sins of the world. And therefore the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood may as well be called by that name, as they were. They were typical, and this is a commemorative sacrifice. They foreshowed the death of Christ to come; this shows His death already past This is pro perly our Christian sacrifice, which neither Jew nor Gentile can have any share in (Heb. xiii. 10). We have an altar where we partake of the great sacrifice which the eternal Son of God offered up for the sins of the whole world, and ours among the rest.”— {Sermon viii. vol. i. p. 50; Libr. Aηgl. Cαlh. Theol.)

6. Finally, we have the names, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Sacrament of the Altar. This is not the place to speak of the origin and meaning of the word sacrament as an ecclesiastical term. Suffice it to say that the word “sacrament,” when applied to the Eucharist, is used in its derived sense as an outward and visible symbol of some inward and spiritual truth, or work of grace,—in the same sense in which Augustine says of the bread and cup that they are “therefore called sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, another understood” {Serm. cclxxi.).

M'e must not altogether pass over the word wms·i, “missa, by which the Eucharist is commonly known in the Roman church. Unlike the other designations of which we have been speaking, this has no essential connexion with the eucharistie rite,—“missa,” originally meaning nothing more than the dismissal of a congregation. “Ite, missa est, is the formula with which the Roman eucharistie service concludes. “By degrees,” writes Waterland, “it came to be used for an assembly and for church service. From signifying a church service in general, it came at length to denote the communion service in particular, and so that most emphatically came to be called the mass” {Of the Institution of the Holy Communion, ch. 1). This name is not found in Holy Scripture; it was unknown to the first ages of the church; the earliest known example of its use is in Ambrose {Epist. 20 [33], §4, ad Marcellin.) “missam facere coepi,” and it is unmeaning and inappropriate as a name of the sacrament to which it has accidentally attached itself, and it has been therefore wisely disused by the reformed church {cf. Scudamore, u.s., p. 3)

We now proceed to speak of the mode and time of the celebration of the Eucharist. It is evident from St Paul’s words and practice (1 Cor. xi. 17-34; Acts xx. 7) that in the apostolic church the administration took place, after our Lord’s pattern, in the evening, and in close connexion with an ordinary meal. The disorders referred to by the apostle, which indicated the danger of this connexion, before long caused a separation of the religious from the ordinary meal, and invested the Eucharist with a character of special sacredness. The time of celebration, we learn from the notices in the earlier fathers, was either after nightfall or before daybreak, these times being selected so as to avoid attracting the attention of their heathen neighbours. Pliny, in his well-known letter to Trajan, 104 a.d., speaks of the Christians in Bithynia coming together on a set day before it was light, “to sing to Christ as God, and bind themselves by a sacrament {sacramento) to commit no crime.” Tertullian also speaks of the reception of “the sacrament of the Eucharist in assemblies even before dawn.” {De Cor. Mil., c. iii.) The evening celebration lingered on for a while, but it was gradually given up, and entirely ceased by the 4th century, except on some special days, such as the eves of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. The earliest account of the celebration of the Eucharist, that of Justin Martyr, c. 140 -A.d., shows the extreme simplicity of the rite at that time. The day of administration was Sunday. It took place at the conclusion of the common prayer, and was preceded by the kiss of peace. The celebrant was “the president of the brethren” (ό προεστών των αδελφών). The materials of the sacrament were “bread and a cup of wine mixed with water.” After prayer and praise offered by the president, to which the congregation responded “amen,” the “deacons” gave to each one present, “to partake of the bread, and wine mixed with water, over which the thanksgiving had been pronounced” (∈υ^αpισ0evτos, “consecrated as an eucharist”), and carried away a portion to those who were absent from the rite. This food, he concludes, is “called by us the Eucharist” {Apoloy., i. c. 65-67). St Cyril of Jerusalem furnishes us with a detailed description of the eucharistie celebration in the middle of the 4th century {c. 347 a.d.). By this time the ritual had become fixed, and of a somewhat elaborate character. The ceremonial commenced with the celebrant and presbyters washing their hands. This was followed by the kiss of peace, the “Sursum Cordaf the “ Vere Dignum,” the “Ämrfws,” the “Epiclesisf or invocation to the Holy Spirit to sanctify the elements lying on the Holy Table, the Prayer for all conditions of men, and the Commemoration of the departed. These were succeeded —forming the point of transition to the more distinctly sacramental portion of the service—by the Lord’s Prayer, the ii Sancta Sanctis” (corresponding to the “fencing the table” of the Presbyterian Church), the Unus Sanctus, &c., and Communion. The minute directions Cyril gives as to the manual actions in communicating, and the application of the consecrated elements to the eyes and other organs of sense, indicate a wide departure from primitive simplicity, and a growing tendency to regard the eucharist as a religious charm {Catech., xxiii.; My-stagog., v.). The account of the ritual presented by St Chrysostom (2 Cor., Homil. χviii.) corresponds in all essential points with that given by Cyril, and we gather from the writings of St Augustine that the canon of the North African churches differed little from it. We may conclude, therefore, that by the middle of the 4th century the eucharistie ritual was established with an essential uniformity in all parts of the Catholic Church, and in a form corresponding in its chief outlines with the canon of the extant primitive liturgies. Of these liturgies the most...