tial element in its right administration, as was the observance of the passover separately by Jewish families. In verse forty-six, "in the temple" is contrasted with "from house to house," public with private. While they went up to the temple and joined in public worship, they celebrated the eucharist in private houses. Robinson interprets κaт' olкov, KAT' OKOUS, "in private houses." In Acts v. 42, viii. 3, the words are translated, "in every house." On Acts xx. 20, where they again occur, Bloomfield comments: "It is plain from the foregoing term dnpoolą, which has reference to meetings of the whole congregation at once, that Kar' očkovs must mean not 'from house to house,' but 'in private houses' (the xará only denoting rotation), namely, those where separate parts of the whole number of Christians met." Professors Hackett and J. A. Alexander confirm the same interpretation (see also Olshausen, Bengel, Pool, Alford). Besides, it is not probable that Christians at Jerusalem who belonged to the poorer classes had houses large enough to accommodate, for the orderly administration of the holy supper, their whole number, which soon amounted to more than five thousand; and, before they were scattered by persecution, became much larger. And we have no reason to believe they would have been permitted to administer the holy supper, the memorial of Christ's death in any public room; as Dr. Hovey says: "It may be taken for granted that they could use neither temple nor synagogue for any service distinctly and visibly Christian." Neander, approved by Hackett, observes "that a single room would hardly have contained the present number of converts. He supposes that in addition to their daily resort to the temple, they met in smaller companies, at different places; that they here received instruction from their teachers or one another, and prayed and sang together; and, as the members of a common family, closed their interview with a repast, at which bread and wine were distributed in memory of the Saviour's last meal with his disciples." We have, therefore, no decisive evidence that the commemorative ordinance was celebrated

by the church as a body in one place at its first setting up; but was observed in private houses, where but a portion of the whole number of Christians could be accommodated.

b. The apostle speaks of the church in the house, or as belonging to the household (Rom. xvi. 5). This phrase unquestionably denotes either that the whole family were members of the church, or designates those who were in the habit of worshipping at the house of him who is named the head. The church in the house of Priscilla and Aquila were undeniably not the whole of the church at Rome. The apostle not only salutes others as members of the church, but two other companies belonging to households (vs. 10, 11; see Bloomfield, Stuart, Hodge, Barnes).

Now, as it is a well-attested fact, that the primitive Christians usually partook of the holy supper at the close of their seasons of social worship, if a part of the church met for worship at different houses, a part of the church observed the sacramental ordinance separately from the body. This conclusion is undeniable. But if this conclusion is established, the hypothesis we are considering is untenable.

4. History decides against the hypothesis (see Gieseler, Vol. i. p. 92; Neander's Planting and Training of the Christian Church, Vol. i. p. 23, also p. 151; Neander's History of the Christian Church, Vol. i. p. 152; Schaff's Apostolic Church, p. 549).

5. Certain facts militate inferentially against the hypothesis. The first fact is, that there were no church edifices forming public centres of the several churches until about the beginning of the third century. The second fact, that, persecuted and hunted by their enemies, the primitive Christians were often compelled to worship in obscure places, now here, and now there, where a few could safely collect together (see Schaff's History of the Christian Church, pp. 127, 370; Coleman, p. 306). These facts show that the members of different churches would be exceedingly liable to become temporarily or occasionally intermingled; many finding it convenient to worship, and therefore to commune with other

churches than those to which they specifically belonged. But since this, on the hypothesis we are contemplating, would have been the violation of an essential law of the eucharist, we might reasonably expect to find some instruction of the apostles guarding against the sin; some caution, some intimation that in the circumstances of the times they were in peculiar danger of thus offending their master. But no such instruction, caution, or intimation appears in the apostolic history. Not even in the Epistle to the Galatians, in which several approximate churches are addressed. He addresses them all as one; for he declares them to be one in Christ, all standing on a perfect equality in him (Gal. iii. 28; iv. 6, 7). He taught them that they were free from bondage to forms and ceremonies (iv. 22-31); that by love they must "serve one another"; that they were to walk in the spirit, which, working in them fraternal affection, drew them together in one indissoluble union with Christ. Such instruction would have led them to conclude that not only as individual members, but as churches, they were one; grouped together as a band of sisters; and that as such they might occasionally, at least, mingle together in partaking of the emblems of that body of which they all were mystical members. In connection with the enforcement of such sentiments, on the supposition that the hypothesis we are considering is true, we might anticipate some caution or admonition of this kind: "Now remember, dear brethren, that, while as individuals and as churches you are all one in Christ, and while you may freely mingle in both capacities in worship and social intercourse, yet you may not partake of the Lord's supper, which specially indicates your oneness in this free, unrestrained, manner; because it would denote that membership in one church gives right to the sacra mental ordinance in another. This would be a violation of a fundamental law of the eucharist, which was designed simply as a symbol of communion with the individual church celebrating it, and not with other Christians or other churches. Hence, I wish you, as churches, to be particularly careful to

-emblem of your

exclude each other from this feast of love eternal fellowship with Christ and all that are his in the eternal world."

We find, however, nothing of this sort; indicating that the churches in all their intercourse were to act on the high principle of their entire equality, of their oneness as adopted children, crying Abba, Father.

This is the decisive point. Sure are we that the warm gushings of Christian unity, untaught, could never have thought of the discrimination of welcoming members of other churches to seasons of social worship, and of excluding them from sacramental fellowship at their close, according to the practice of modern exclusionists. Partizan zeal may have done it, but conscious Christian oneness, never.

99.66

Rev. Cornelius Winter, that most exemplary Christian and devoted minister, of whom a contemporary "very remote from adulation, and of very discriminating judgment," said: "I have long thought he is more like Jesus Christ than any man on earth," "was once desired by a Baptist minister to preach for him. The sermon immediately preceded the Lord's supper, to which his discourse was preparatory. When the public service was over, he was informed that he must excuse their asking him to communicate, as it was contrary to the law of the house."1 Did the apostles know of any such "law of the house?"

6. The supporters of this hypothesis make concessions which really undermine it. One of them, speaking of occasional communion, says: "It is the custom of the Baptists to invite members of other churches of the same denomination to participate with them in the Lord's supper. This might, at first view, be thought a deviation from the principle we have laid down, that the Lord's supper is designed to express the communion subsisting between the members of a particular church as a church. As, however, the individuals so invited are such persons as we should be willing to admit to our permanent church fellowship if they were permanently 1 Memoir of Rev. Cornelius Winter, by Rev. Wm. Jay

located amongst us, and may therefore, for the time being, be considered as members of the churches with which they unite in worship, they may with perfect propriety be invited to partake of the Lord's supper" (Curtis p. 96).

This concession virtually overthrows the principle endeavored to be established.

a. All Christians for the two or three first centuries belonged to one denomination. Then, during all that period the members of different particular churches permanently located near any other particular church might be considered, for the time being, as belonging to it, and might be invited to partake of the Lord's supper. If they might be considered as members of the church and invited, it was a duty to invite them. The supper was not therefore in apostolic times considered a church ordinance, in which there might be no mingling of other churches, in the same sense as the passover was a family feast. For all worshippers in the several primitive churches might be invited to the table, because they might be considered as members." Consequently, this concession forbids the establishment of the theory, that "membership in one church does not imply membership in others on scriptural authority in the sense of our opponents, and sanctions all that is really contended for in free communion. They who might and ought to be invited to the table might and ought to be united in divinest fellowship. Sacramental communion, therefore, as practised in the times of the apostles, was identical with Christian communion. It was as broad as professed Christianity. If the principle of our ⚫ opponents was then included in Christ's instructions, it was a hidden principle. But to suppose that an essential element in the administration of the crowning ordinance of the gospel church was concealed or unknown during the apostolic age is an absurdity.

b. By the concession, here is an exception to the principle equally essential to the right administration of the holy supper (neither known nor suspected) till sectarian divisions arose in the body of Christ; in fact, not dreamed of for cen