$7. Lefs than a week after, even the very day of our Lord's refurrection, being the first day of the week, and the Chriftian Sabbath, the Lord's Supper is again difpenfed by Jefus himself (b). For that day, while two of the difciples are walking together to Emmaus, Jefus comes up with them, and takes occafion, beginning at Mofes and all the prophets, to expound to them in all the fcriptures the things concerning himself. But tho' this heavenly preacher speaks to them as never man spoke, ftill they were ignorant it was he: fond, however, of his company, they constrained him. to abide with them, as the day was far fpent. And it came to pass, fays Luke (i), as he fat at meat with them, he took bread and bleed it, and brake, and gave to them: and their eyes were opened, and they knew him. Jefus could have difcovered himfelf to them how and when he pleafed. Sure then, he who does nothing in vain had fome wife reason for chufing to do it in these, rather than in other circumftances. And what reason fo probable, as to put a distinguishing respect on the facrament of the fupper, by making it the first means of manifefting himself to thefe difciples? Why elfe were the difciples fo careful to report this circumftance? And why was the evangelift (j) fo punctual to record, that they reported not only the thing, but the manner, in what manner be was known to them by the breaking of the bread? Muft then our Lord's chufing this manner of manifefting himself to them preferably to all others; muft the care of the difciples in reporting this manner; and must the care of the (b) Luke xxiv. 13. compared with ver. 1. (i) Luke xxiv. 30, 31. (j) Ibid. ver. 35. evangelift in recording both the one and the other: muft all this, I fay, be imputed to mere chance? Did they account this an infignificant circumftance, tho' they appear to lay particular stress upon it? And tho' they feem to honour it, did they intend that we should pafs it by without the least regard? I know not how a rational answer can be given thefe questions by fuch who interpret the paffage of common bread. Cartwright betakes himself to a strange shift. It was not, fays he, the breaking of bread itself, by which Jefus was known to his difciples, but fomething peculiar in his manner of asking a bleffing before meat. Is not this commentary a plainly contradicting the text? And can that caufe be a good one, which reduces so able a critic to fo poor an evasion? The expreffions used by Luke in this paffage (k,) feem fo parallel to his expreffions when recording the original inftitution of the facrament (1), that I am perfuaded few would have miftaken his meaning, had not the church of Rome misapplied this paffage, to prove from the example of our Lord, that it is fufficient to diftribute the bread in the facrament without the wine.-But would it not have been easy to have confuted that fophifm, by obferving, that eating of bread, is a phrase for the whole of a feaft, and therefore the mention of it does not exclude other ingredients of a feaft. Befides, the papists themselves allow, that tho' the bread may be distributed without the wine, it is never to be confecrated apart. But here is no mention even of the confecration of the wine. If then the evangelift's filence is no proof that the wine was not confe (k) Luke xxiv. ver. 30. (1) Ibid. xxii. 19. crated, erated, it is as little proof that it was not diftributed. From this paffage I remark, (1.) That the Lord's Supper was the firft religious inftitution, in which our Lord, after his refurrection, manifefted himself to his difciples. (2.) That this ordinance was twice difpenfed by Jefus himself in the space of a week. (3.) The evangelift's remarking, that it was difpenfed to the two difciples the first day of the week, feems an intimation, that our Lord intended it should be a principal part of the fanctification of the Chriftian Sabbath. § 8. Acts ii 42. we are told of Peter's converts, thet they continued fedfaftly in the apostle's doctrine, and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer. The words ησαν προσκαρτεράντες, which we render continued fledfaftly, properly denote confancy, or perfeverance in an exercise, or waiting continually upon any thing, as appears from the ufe of the fame word, Acts i. 14. vi. 4. viii. 13. and x. 7. Rom. xii. 12. and xiii. 6. And therefore whatever is meant by breaking of bread, it is plain they were as conftant in that, as in attending on the apoftle's doctrine, and public prayer. All then we have to inquire is, if the expreffion relates to the Lord's Supper, or to a common meal. Dr. Whitby explains it of the latter, in his notes on this paffage. "I fee, fays he, no ne"ceffity to think these words relate to the re"ceiving of the facrament, for the phrafe of the "breaking of bread is ufed by the evangelifts, "Matth. xv. 36. and Mark viii. 19, 20. when they relate Chrift's miraculous feeding the "multitude." But But in answer to this, I would obferve, (1.) That the argument does not require us to maintain, that breaking of bread must always relate to the sacrament. It is enough to our purpose, if the expreffion is capable of that fenfe, and if the scope of this paffage makes it necessary here. (2.) That the phrafe is capable of being underftood of the facrament, is univerfally allowed; and Dr. Whitby himself explains it of the sacrament, Acts xx. 7, 1. It is used by Luke eight times (m), and by Paul thrice (n); and in all these paffages, except Acts xxvii. 35. it is almost certain it relates to the Lord's Supper : and even that paffage is applied by Tertullian (0) to that ordinance. Ignatius, a writer in the apostolic times, ufes the fame phrafe of breaking of bread, where he is plainly fpeaking of the Lord's Supper (p). (3.) The other exercises mentioned here, in conjunction with breaking of bread, are all of them religious exercifes, attendance on the apostle's doctrine, fellowship, prayer. What then hath breaking of common bread to do in fuch company? It adds ftrength to this argument, that Juftin Martyr (q) and Tertullian (r) mention the Lord's Supper, and the other exercises of which Luke here fpeaks, as ftated exercises of the worfhipping affemblies of christians. (4.) The Syriac verfion of the New Testament, which is the best and oldest extant, and probably was compofed in the apoftolic times, if not by the apostles themselves, as Mr. Jones has ftrongly fhewn, in (m) Luke xxii. 19. and xxiv. 30, 35. A&ts ii. 42, 46. Acts xx. 7, 11. and xxvii. 35, (n) 1 Cor. x. 16. and (0) Tertul. de Orat. cap. xxiv. (p) Ad (9) Juftin Martyr Apol. ii. (r) Tertullian Apol. cap. xxxix. xi. 24. his excellent book on the canon; that verfion, I fay, interprets breaking of bread, of the eucharift: and most of the fathers were of the same opinion (s). From all this we may infer, that in the public affemblies of the primitive chriftians, breaking of bread in remembrance of Christ, was as ftated an exercise as attending on the apoftle's doctrine, joining in prayer together, or communicating to the neceffities of their poor brethren. 9. It is faid of the same perfons, Acts ii. 46. And they continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread in a houfe, did participate the food with gladnefs and fingleness of heart. Suppofe we were to retain the common tranflation, breaking of bread from house to houfe, that would be no conclufive argument, that the Lord's fupper is not intended for the multitude of the faithful might render it inconvenient for all to partake of the facrament in one house, and on that account, it might have been difpenfed fucceffively, in different houfes. καθ ̓ But our tranflation is plainly faulty, and the cause of the miftake is eafily traced out: na nusear, in the first clause of the verse, fignifies daily, or from day to day and hence it was imagined, na ono muft fignify, in every house, or from house to houfe: whereas it is evident, from the ufe of the prepofition nava, when applied to place, that it denotes fome precife determinate place. See Luke viii. 39. x. 32, 33. XV. 14. and xxiii. 5. Acts ix. 42. xi. 1. xiii. 1. and xvi. 7. 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Col. iv. 15. Philem. ver. 2. (s) Vide Suiceri Thef. tom. ii. p. 105. And Obf. Sacr. p. 130. and |