THE PROPER TIME FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDINANCES.
By W. H. Littlejohn
HAVING considered those passages which favor the supposition that we are at liberty to consult our own interest or inclinations in deciding as to when this ordinance shall be participated in, it is proper that we should give our attention to several texts which are supposed to favor the opposite theory. The first of these is quoted above, and found in the twentieth chapter and seventh verse of the book of Acts. That this verse records an instance of the celebration of the Lord's supper, is generally conceded. That it was partaken of, also, in the night season, is highly probable. This being the case, it has been cited as an illustration of the fact that the apostle Paul selected that time because he desired to conform in his practice to the example of Christ. The passage in question, however, is very far from proving that for which it is quoted. In the first place it is submitted that it is not safe to infer an exemplary intention from a single instance where there is not one word in the context which even intimates that such an intention was entertained by the apostle. If there had been a long list of occurrences of this kind, all of which uniformly took place at the same time, there might be a bare presumption of design, unless other reasons should suggest themselves as furnishing a motive for the selection of such a time. But when the case is a single one, and when a sufficient reason may be found for the fact that the apostle attended to the matter in the night because it was his last meeting with them—since he designed to depart in the morning—then that fact, in and of itself, fully explains his object in attending to the matter when he did. It was very natural that in his last meeting with those whom he loved so dearly he should desire to commemorate an event which had brought salvation to all in common, and which furnished a pledge of future reunion which would never be broken up. In the second place we suggest that it was not the matter of the precise time at which the ordinance should be administered which actuated Paul in selecting the night season for that work, since if that had been the case, he would have chosen the first part instead of the latter portion of the night. That the apostle did, however, break bread in the morning, and not in the evening, is easily demonstrated by the context, wherein it is stated that he preached until midnight; the narrative showing that subsequently to that time, Eutychus, having fallen from the window, was restored by the apostle, and that after this last event, Paul returned to the chamber, broke bread, and continued to talk until break of day; but the events connected with the restoration of Eutychus, the allaying of the consequent confusion, and the delay which would have been required before quiet, and order, and calmness of thought could have been sufficiently restored to allow the resumption of the apostle's discourse, must necessarily have thrown the supper forward into the morning, even though we allow no time for preaching after the coming up and before the breaking of bread. Such being the case, the text before us, instead of antagonizing with our theory, furnishes a marked confirmation of the same, by giving us the example of Paul and the church at Troas on the side of the practice which we defend; for if the element of time was essential in Paul's day, he would have been particular to administer the ordinances in the forepart of the night, as Christ did, instead of attending to them in the morning hours. In the third place it might be well to call attention to the fact here that the meeting at Troas—occurring as it did too early in the season for the annual Passover feast—furnishes a confirmation of the hypothesis offered above, that the repeal of the Mosaic code resulted in the abolition of all the regulations respecting the annual celebration of the Passover, and, consequently, of the Lord's supper also. By this means we are enabled to see that the Christian ordinance, so far as its regulations were concerned, must necessarily have been governed by the sayings of Christ, instead of the provisions of the Pentateuch. The last text we shall mention—as it is the only one remaining unanswered, so far as we are aware of—is found in the eleventh chapter of first Corinthians, and the twentieth verse. The argument drawn from this passage is based upon the fact that the breaking of bread is there alluded to as the Lord's supper. From this it follows, say some, that the eucharist should be partaken of in the evening because it is styled a supper, which never could have been the case unless it was designed that it should be eaten in the evening exclusively. This argument seems to us to be weak in the extreme. Mark you, the apostle does not say that we should partake of the sacrament at supper time; but he simply gives to the meal of which we are to partake the name of “Lord's supper.” Now it by no means follows from that fact that we are necessarily restricted in the partaking of that meal to the precise time at which our Lord instituted the same. Were this the case, we should be unable to comply with the command, since—as already seen—the exact time at which the disciples partook of the emblems in the first instance cannot be ascertained. It is true, doubtless, that it was done in the forepart of the night; but it is not true that the Lord's supper, as such, could not be partaken of at any time except that at which the Lord partook of it at the first; for—as heretofore proved—the same apostle who wrote the passage quoted from Corinthians did, as shown from his own example at Troas, deem it admissible to partake of the same in the morning hours. The term supper—unfortunately for those who attach so much importance to it in the decision of the subject before us—is one which is not by any means limited in its application to an evening meal. Originally the meals of the ancients were two, the latter of which was called supper, and was eaten very frequently not only before the setting of the sun, but even as early as noon itself, or shortly thereafter. This being the case, so far as the signification of the name is concerned, any hour which should fall between noon and midnight might with perfect propriety be selected for the Lord's supper. And whenever the sacrament shall be partaken of at any hour between those points, it could with propriety be called, first, a supper, because of the time at which it was administered, and, secondly, the Lord's supper, because originally instituted by him. But this being true, then we have both the afternoon and the first part of the night from which to select an hour for the administration of the ordinances, which shall suit either our convenience or taste, even though we should concede the argument of our friends to be true, as they draw it from the appellation of supper which was originally used to designate the sacred meal. Hence the only portion of the day wherein it might not be legitimate for us to offer the emblems of the broken body and spilled blood of Christ to any of his disciples, must be found between sunrise and noon. The only reason, also, why any one could properly insist that such a period would not be suitable for the work in question, would be found in the fact that a meal partaken of during its hours could not properly be called a supper. In reply to such a view it will only be necessary to say that if Paul could administer the Lord's supper between midnight and daylight, then he might also have done it between daylight and twelve o'clock noon; as it would be just as improper, when governed by the consideration of time, to call a meal eaten between twelve o'clock midnight and six o'clock in the morning a supper, as it would be to give that title to one entered upon between the latter hour and twelve o'clock noon. The simple fact is that it utterly overturns all theories which rest upon the hypothesis that the title “supper,” as applied to the eucharist, does in any way affect or determine the time when it shall be administered. The truth, therefore, is by this time apparent to all that such an appellation was not used because of future limitation in point of time, and that the sole reason why it was selected is found in the fact that the sacred writer sought to discriminate between it and the Passover supper, in immediate connection with which it originated. Such an hypothesis is every way logical and consistent, and it harmonizes also with the words employed by our Lord in enforcing the ordinance, and with the construction which the apostle placed thereupon, as interpreted in the light of his individual practice. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, when alluding to the Passover which was eaten by the Lord and his disciples on the evening of his betrayal, speak of it as the “supper.” It was therefore needful, in order to prevent confusion, that some other title should be applied to the Christian sacrament. How natural that it should, for the purposes of distinction, take the name of Lord's supper. Thus much by way of argument. It only remains, now, that we present an epitome of the points made before leaving the subject. It would run as follows:— 1. The element of time is never to be regarded as essential unless it be made so by the very nature of the duty prescribed, or by explicit declarations found in the command imposing the same. Illustrations of this theory of interpretation which all have indorsed, are found in the fact that all persons pray, and that all ministers baptize, whenever occasion offers, simply because there is no limitation in the original injunctions on these subjects. 2. There is no restriction as to time in the command, as appears from the examination of the texts, since the words “as oft as ye do it” are not definitive in their character. 3. The Passover regulations do not affect the question, since the Passover was not the model of the Lord's supper. 4. If Acts 2:42–47 be treated as though the term “breaking bread,” which is employed twice in those verses, has reference in both instances to the eucharist—as it certainly does in one—then the disciples assuredly did partake of the Lord's supper in the daytime. 5. The record found in the twentieth chapter of Acts, which is quoted to prove that the Lord's supper must be partaken of in the evening, does not in fact disprove that proposition, since it is therein made to appear that—though they came together for that purpose in the evening—they did not in reality break bread until the morning hours. 6. The argument drawn from the fact that the eucharist was termed Lord's supper, really possesses no force whatever in the matter of limiting its celebration to the evening hours; since, at that time, it would have been proper to call any meal a supper which was eaten between twelve o'clock and midnight. 7. If Paul could have partaken of the Lord's supper in the morning hours between twelve and six o'clock, then he, as well as ourselves, might also do the same between six o'clock A. M. and twelve o'clock noon. 8. The appellation Lord's supper was given, not for the purpose of defining the time when that meal might be eaten thereafter, but simply to distinguish it from the Passover supper, in immediate connection with which it was instituted in the outset.