from different eras, in different parts of the Old Testament; as from the birth of the patriarchs; for instance, of Noah, Gen. vii. 11; viii. 13; afterward from their exit out of Egypt, Numb. xxxiii. 38; 1 Kings vi. 1; then from the building of Solomon's temple, 2 Chron. viii. 1; and from the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel. In later times the Babylonish captivity furnished them with a new epocha, from whence they computed their years: Ezek. xxxiii. 21; xl. 1. But since the times of the talmudical rabbies they have constantly used the era of the creation, which, according to their computation,* in this present year of the Christian era, 1762, is A. M. 5522. They usually in writing contract this by omitting the thousands, writing only pn, 522.† If to the Jewish year, thus expressed, you add 1240, it gives the year of the Christian era, as 522 with the addition of 1240 makes 1762.+

If it be inquired, why God appointed a new beginning of the year to the Israelites at the time of their deliverance out of Egypt, the answer may perhaps be,

1st. The more effectually to distinguish and separate his own people from the idolatrous nations, and detach them from their customs; to which end the beginning their days, their weeks, their months, and their years, at a different time from those of the idolaters, was undoubtedly subservient.

2dly. Because the month, in which they were delivered out of Egypt, and in which such a surprising series of miracles was wrought in their favour, might be well accounted a sort of mensis natalis of that nation, in which God as it were revived them from a state of death, and took them under his future special protection and providence; on which account, to set a particular mark upon that month, and to perpetuate the memory of so great a mercy, he ordered, that it should stand at the head of the months, and be reckoned the first of the year.

The Jews reckon only 3760 years from the creation to the birth of Christ. See Scalig. de Emendat. Tempor. lib. vii. p. 628, and Strauchius's Chronol. by Sault, book iv. chap. ii. p. 168–171.

†This is called the computus minor; when the thousands are expressed at length it is called computus major.

Reland. Antiq. Heb. part iv. cap. i. sect. viii. p. 428, 429, 3d edit.

CHAPTER II.

OF THEIR FEASTS.

"As, among the Jews, their ordinary meals," saith Godwin, "were not many in a day, so neither were they costly; and therefore they were called n aruchoth, which properly signifieth such fare as travellers use on their journeys; whereas the extraordinary and more liberal kind of entertainment was commonly called mishteh." There is no doubt, but the word aruchah, as it comes from the root П arach, iter fecit, properly and primarily signifies provisions on a journey, or such a meal as was common with travellers, which can hardly be supposed to have been either elegant or plentiful in those countries where there were no inns or houses of entertainment on the road, and where travellers used to carry their provisions with them; and though, as Godwin observes, the word is used for a mean and scanty meal in the book of Proverbs, chap. xv. 17, where p¬ ♫ aruchath jarak, a dinner of herbs, stands in opposition to a stalled or fatted ox; nevertheless, as the whole life of man is represented as a pilgrimage or journey, the word naruchah, in an allusive sense, is used for a meal in general, whether sumptuous or mean, whether plentiful or sparing. In the book of Jeremiah, chap. lii. 34, it is used for the daily provision which the king of Babylon allotted to Jehoiakim king of Judah, after he had brought him out of prison, and set his throne above the thrones of all the kings that were with him in Babylon, and admitted him to eat bread continually before him, ver. 31-33; and no doubt the provisions of his table were plentiful and elegant.

The word nnen mishteh, from n shathah, bibit, answers to the Greek avμπоotov, and primarily signifies compotatio; or perhaps, as we call it, a drinking bout. And as delicious

liquors were always supposed to make a considerable part of an elegant entertainment, the word nn mishteh is used, by a synecdoche, for a feast in general; such as Abraham made at the weaning of Isaac, Gen. xxi. 8; Pharaoh on his birth-day, chap. xl. 20; Samson at his wedding, Judges xiv. 10; and Isaac for Abimelech and his friends, who, it is expressly said, ate as well as drank; chap. xxvi. 30. "A feast of fat things" is called nnwn mishteh, as well as "a feast of wine;" Isa. xxv. 6. And as the Hebrews sometimes denominated their feasts from drinking, so likewise from eating: "Jacob offered sacrifice on the mount, and called his brethren to eat bread," &c.; Gen. xxxi. 54. Belshazzar made a great feast, Dr lechem (Dan. v. 1; see also Eccles. x. 19), which primarily signifies bread. At other times it was denominated from both: "Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled:" Prov. ix. 5; see also Eccles. ix. 7.

It is Godwin's opinion, that the agape, or love feasts, of the primitive Christians, were derived from the pan chiggim, or feasts upon the sacrifices, at which the Jews entertained their friends and fed the poor; Deut. xii. 18; xxvi. 12.

There were also feasts of much the same kind in use

among the Greeks and Romans. The former were wont to offer certain sacrifices to their gods, which were afterward given to the poor. They had likewise public feasts for certain districts, suppose for a town or city, toward which all who could afford it, contributed, in proportion to their different abilities, and all partook of it in common. Of this sort were the Zvooria of the Cretans; and the Piduria of the Lacedemonians, instituted by Lycurgus, and so called wapa rns pidias (the λ being changed into & according to their usual orthography), as denoting that love and friendship which they were intended to promote among neighbours and fellow-citizens.*

The Romans likewise had a feast of the same kind, called charistia; which was a meeting only of those who were akin to each other; and the design of it was, that if any quarrel or misunderstanding had happened among any of them, they

* Vid. Cragium de Republ. Lacedæm. lib. i. cap. ix.; apud Gronov. Thesaur. Græc. Antiq. vol. v. p. 2541; et Stuckii Antiquitat. Convivial. lib. i. cap. xxxi.

might there be reconciled.* To this Ovid alludes in the second book of his Fasti:

Proxima cognati dixere charistia chari,

Et venit ad socios turba propinqua deos.

V. 617.

In imitation either of these Jewish or Gentile love feasts, or probably of both, the primitive Christians, in each particular church, had likewise their love feasts, which were supplied by the contribution of the members, according to their several abilities, and partaken of by all in common. And whether they were converts from among the Jews or Gentiles, they retained their old custom with very little alteration, and as their αγαπαι had been commonly annexed to their sacrifices, so they were now annexed to the commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ at the Lord's supper; and were therefore held on the Lord's day before or after the celebration of that ordinance. It should seem at Corinth, in the apostle's days, they were ordinarily held before; for when the Corinthians are blamed for unworthily receiving the Lord's supper, it is partly charged upon this, that some of them came drunk to that ordinance, having indulged to excess at the preceding love feast: Every one taketh before, poλaußave, his own supper, and one is hungry and another is drunken;" 1 Cor. xi. 21. This shows, saith Dr. Whitby, that this banquet, namely the love feast, was celebrated before the Lord's supper. But Chrysostom gives an account of it, as being in his time kept after it.‡

"

It is commonly supposed, that when St. Jude mentions certain persons, who were spots in the feasts of charity, EV TAIÇ AYATTAιç, ver 12, he means in the Christian love feasts; though Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Whitby apprehend the reference in this passage is rather to a custom of the Jews, who on the evening of their sabbath had their kovovia, or com

* Valer. Maxim. lib. ii. cap. i. sect. viii. p. 136, edit. Thysii. Lugd. Bat. 1655.

+ See Whitby in loc.

Vid. Suiceri Thesaur. in verb ayann. This opinion is maintained by Mr. Hallet in his Notes and Discourses, vol. iii. disc. vi., and by Dr. Chandler in his account of the Conference in Nicholas-Lane, Feb. 13, 1734-5, between two Romish priests and some Protestant divines, p. 55--62..

66

munion, when the inhabitants of the same city met in a common place to eat together. However that be, all antiquity bears testimony to the reality of the Christian ayawaι, or love feasts. Indeed, Suicer conceives they are referred to in the following passage of the Acts: "They," that is, the apostles, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart;" chap. ii. 46. And when it is said, that the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables," chap. vi. 2, he supposes the tables mean these love feasts: which expression, I think, primarily refers to the tables of the poor of the church, or to the making a proper provision for them; as appears from its having been mentioned as the ground of complaint of "the Grecians against the Hebrews, that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration," ver. 1. To the love feasts he likewise refers the following passage concerning St. Paul: "When he had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, he departed ;" chap. xx. 11. But this may very naturally and properly be understood of the Lord's supper. Indeed, how far St. Paul might join in these love feasts with other Christians, before they were abused, does not appear. But when he blamed the scandalous irregularities of the Corinthians, in their participation of the Lord's supper, which were very much occasioned by their preceding love feasts, and in order to bring them back to its original simplicity and purity, gives them a very particular account of the primitive institution, 1 Cor. xi. 23, et seq., in which there is not one word of these agape; he evidently condemns the addition they had made to this ordinance, which had occasioned so much sin, and so many disorders and confusions.

However, the agape were not wholly laid aside till some ages after. For they are mentioned by Ignatius,+ by Clemens of Alexandria,‡ by Tertullian,§ and even by St.

* Whitby in loc. and Lightfoot, Hora Hebraic. 1 Cor. x. 16.

+ Epist. ad Smyrn. sect. viii. apud Coteler. Patres Apostol. p. 37, vol. ii. edit. Clerici 2, 1724.

Pædag. lib. ii. p. 141, B, et Strom. lib. iii. p. 430, C, D, ed. Paris, 1641. § Apolog. cap. xxxix. p. 32, edit. Rigalt. Paris, 1675.