Of the names of dais institution we may observe that it is called in Scripture the breaking of bread,' as well as the Lord's Supper (Acts ii. 42). If not Scriptural, y-et very early names of the service were, the Communion,' and the Eucharist.' The for mer may claim apostolic sanction. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ' (t Cor. x. 16)? The latter is appropriate, as it is especially a thanksgiving service. At the institu tion, Jesus gave thanks' over both the bread and the wine. Justin Martyr calls the bread and wine Eucharistic food,' and the early Christians named the whole service tbe Eucharist or thanksgiving, and occasionally- the Eulogia or blessing.
As to the time and frequency of the observance, it was daily observed by the first Christians, as it is now every' morning in the Catholic churches. Some Christians observe it regularly on the first day of the week, and contend that they follow the practice of the apostolic churches, who came together' on the first day of the week" to break bread.' This was the custom of Christians in the time of Pliny, when they assembled for the pur pose in the early morning of Sunday. Some scru pulously communicate on the great church festivals, especially at Christmas and Easter. No good Ca tholics, except in extrenzis, commune on Good Friday. Some foreign Protestants solemnise, by its observance, the most interesting events of do mestic and social life, as on coming of age, mar riage, and the birth of a child. Many assert that Christian churches are left to regulate, on con siderations of expediency and mutual improvement, the time and frequency of observing the commu nion, for as often,' whether it be once a week, or once a month, or once a year, as they eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, they shew the Lord's death tmtil lie come.' Some few Christians, generally, though not always, belonging to the Society of Friends, deny the obligation of the continued observance of the Lord's Supper. They do so, asserting that under the gospel all ritual observances are abolished, and that, without ceremonial or emblem, God is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth. To account for ` the breaking of bread' in the apostolic churches, it is sometimes said, that like the continued prac tice of circumcision for a time, and the distinction of certain meats, it was a temporary concession to Jewish prejudice. (See a pamphlet entitled, The
EucharzIrt not an Ordinance of the Christian Church). 13ut the reply is obvious. Circumcision and the distinction of meats belonged to Judaism, and therefore for some time were conceded to Jewish Christians, but the Lord's Supper was no part of the Jewish ritual, but a new institute pecu liarly Christian in its nature and design. Another explanation is offered by J. J. Gurney, in his Ob servations 071 the Peculiarities of the Society of Friends, p. 126, ` Our Lord's injunction may be understood as intended to give a religious direction to the more common social repasts of his disciples.' In reply, it is said, The Lord's Supper was not a common social repast : the disciples came together to break bread ; the hungry were to eat at home, lot they- had houses to eat and drink in ; they were tc tarry for one another.
With regard to the Christian profession and character of the communicants, we shall only say, Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cur of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of•he body and blood of the Lord' (1 Cor. xi. 29).
As Justin speaks of a contribution made on the occasion for the poor and destitute, so in many churches there is connected with the service an offertory or collection for the poor, the distribution of which is intrusted to the minister, elders, dea cons, or other officers of the church.—R. H.
LOT (ni, a covering ; Sept. AiLT), son of Haran and nephew of Abraham, vvho by the early death of his father had already come into posEes sion of his property when Abraham went into the land of Canaan (Gen. xi. 31). Their united sub stance, ccmsisting chiefly in cattle, was not then too large to prevent them from living together in one encampment. Eventually-, however, their pos sessions were so greatly increased, that they were obliged to separate ; and Abraham with rare gene rosity conceded the choice of pasture-grounds to his nephew. Lot availed himself of this liberality of his uncle, as he deemed most for his own advan tage, by fixing his abode at Sodom, that his flocks might pasture in and around that fertile and well watered neighbourhood (Gen. xiii. 5-13). He had sonn very great reason to regret this choice ; for although his flocks fed well, his soul was starved in that vile place, the inhabitants of whicb were sinners before the Lord exceedingly. There he vexed his righteous soul from day to day with the filthy conversation of the wicked' (2 Pet. ii. 7).