By Ministers regularly ordained. Bread and of evidence that even this rule was commenced so early as the age The remarks already made on the institution of a ministerial order, and the evidence that the primitive Church well understood its design, and maintained its appropriate character, render it unnecessary to enter specifically into the question of the persons charged with the performance of the baptismal rite. It was confined, doubtless, as it has been in after times, among all sober Christians, to the ordained ministry, (under the authority of the bishop,97) although cases may have occurred in which it was permitted, by the same authority, that it should be performed by a layman. But though David ate of the show-bread, yet the rule which forbade its use by any but the priests, was not thereby abolished; and, such necessary deviations from the fixed course can never rationally be mistaken for the course itself. THE LORD'S SUPPER. The essential part of the Eucharist is the symbolical use of always used. bread and wine, according to the recorded institution. A corruption in the celebration of this sacrament might take place in two ways; either by omitting any of that essential part, or by appending to it circumstances inconsistent with its true character. Of both species of corruption we are bound to acquit the primitive uninspired Church. The primitive Christians were guiltless, too, of 96 The list of the interdicted may be found in the "Apostolical Constitutions," (Lib. VIII. C. 32,) which, although confessedly written at a period very much later than that on which we are now engaged, may be considered as conveying an account of established customs; which, in the absence of contrary evidence, have some claim to be assigned to the earliest age. The notes in Cotelerius's edition of the apostolical Fathers deserve to be consulted. As the authority of the "Apostolical Constitutions" will depend much on the date which we assign to their composition, it may be proper to add, that the earliest author who mentions the work is Eusebius, in his " History," Lib. III. C. 25, (unless, indeed, we suppose the "Apostolical Canons" to have been written before;) but, as Eusebius mentions them among spurious works in circulation, the fact seems to imply that they must have been long in existence. For, had they been a forgery of Eusebius's day, the author of them would probably have been known to him, and therefore have been exposed. Their continued interpolation, even to a subsequent period, is possible and likely. 97 Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. C. 8. 98 The addition of water to the sacramental elements, of which occasional mention is made, might have been in the conversion of this peculiar mean of grace into a rite common to the Jewish and the Pagan religions. Towards this it was that the current of prejudice ran strongest. In this most solemn act of the new religion there must have been a perpetual craving, both in Jewish and Gentile converts, to recognise a substitute for the altar and the repeated sacrifice. It was a diseased appetite for a forbidden object, which idolatrous habits had created in the one, and real piety perhaps in the other, and which could only be corrected gradually. Looking back upon the scene, with our experience of the actual corruptions which thence arose, we may be disposed to censure even the concessions (trifling as they were) which these primitive rulers and preachers made; we may be disposed to wish, Figurative that they had never ventured to call the Lord's table an altar, or language the bread and wine a sacrifice. But that they did it innocently, no it. one can doubt, who merely reads the few remains of those writers who have employed this language, and finds so little fondness, so plain an aversion, to dwell on any circumstance of pomp connected with the Christian ceremonies. They could hardly be expected to foresee the extent of mischief, which afterwards connected itself with these innocent, inadvertent attempts, "to be all things to all men. The original use of those terms was certainly not as appropriate names, but as figurative expressions, to illustrate their subject. respecting Christians. The principles of the Church's establishment, as recorded in AdminisScripture, and the practical application of those principles, as dis- tered to all played in the ministry of their inspired predecessors, were all too recent and fresh on their minds, for any question to arise concerning the persons who were entitled to this great Christian privilege-the communion of the body and blood of Christ. Among the essential distinctions between the old and the new dispensations of God, no one was more prominent than that the former admitted of different classes among those whom it embraced, and of different degrees of privilege and communion, for the Jew, for the proselyte of righteousness, and for the devout Gentile: while in the latter, the partition wall had been thrown down, the veil had been rent. Against this act of uniformity, then, which had been so carefully preserved by the apostles, in their preaching and their practice, they were not likely to offend. To have reserved any participation of the Eucharist for the ministers alone, or for any one privileged class of believers, would have been too manifest a violation of this great principle; whatever temptation might present itself in the prejudice of Jew the same circumstance, perhaps, his words in his first Epistle may refer: "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water alone, but by water and blood." (Chap. v. 6.) St. John is the only evangelist who has recorded the flowing of water and blood from our Lord's side; and it is somewhat remarkable, that he is also the By ordained Communion and Gentile in favour of an officiating minister, who should remind them of a priest. All were not only admitted equally, but all were invited, to partake of this act of communion; and, indeed, it was long thought to be inconsistent with a Christian's profession to be otherwise than a regular communicant.100 The administration of this sacrament, as well as of baptism, was limited to the ordained ministry, who officiated by authority derived from their bishop.10 101 That any difference of administration, such as now obtains, between the priests' and deacons' office, had its origin so early, cannot be asserted. Justin Martyr 102 speaks of the distribution of the bread and wine as belonging to the deacons' office; and in the Apostolical Constitutions, the direction given is, that the bread be delivered by the bishop, and the wine by the deacon.103 Whether the custom of sending a portion of the consecrated of the sick. elements to the absent and sick, or that which is still preserved in our own Church, of performing the service in the chambers of the sick, was so early established, is likewise uncertain. With respect to this latter custom, that it is of great antiquity at least, is undoubted; nor can any objection be urged against its lawfulness. Still, it deserves to be considered, whether erroneous notions and superstitious feelings have not been very generally fostered through this practice. The Eucharist celebrated in private, and amongst a few attendants on a sick bed, ceases to be looked on in its true light, as an act of the Christian congregation, celebrating its union, as such, with Christ, and within itself. Its celebration under circumstances which thus obscure its most prominent characteristics, may cause weak minds to attach, almost unconsciously, the notion of a charm, to the ceremony. It may, accordingly, be often desired and demanded, as if it possessed a talismanic influence on the dying, and was indispensable to the safe exit of the Christian. It is not so much on habitual communicants that this feeling can operate mischievously; it is on those who either never communicating, or not being in habitual communion, reserve this one act of conformity, for the season of sickness or of death. To persons under such circumstances, a visiting minister's exhortation to receive the Eucharist is surely misplaced. It might be better, perhaps, even to dissuade such an one from his purpose, if he desired it. It is scarcely a time for the stricken sinner in this manner to attempt reparation of his former neglect. For that neglect, he should be instructed to pray to God for forgiveness, among the sins which he shall then specifically confess to him; and to resolve, that if it shall please God to restore him to the assemblies of his saints on earth, 99 Ιερεύς. 100 The Apostolical Canons, Can. 10, direct that absentees from communion shall be amenable for their neglect. So, too, the council of Antioch, A.D. 340. 101 Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. C. 8. 103 Constitut. Ap. Lib. VIII. C. 13. there, where alone it is strictly appropriate, to begin and to continue the observance of the special rite of Christian communion.104 AGAPE, OR LOVE FEASTS. Among the acts of communion which Christians celebrated as members, not of particular Christian societies, but of the whole Christian body, the Agapo, or Feasts of Love, require some mention. Agreeing so far in their character with the Lord's Supper, they seem to have had some further connexion with the celebration of this sacrament; and, accordingly, to have been held, either immediately before, or immediately after, the communion service. As this primitive custom is less familiar to us now than those which have been perpetuated to our own age, some fuller consideration of it may not be unacceptable. after the It was usual for Christians to add to the celebration of the Lord's Celebrated Supper a frugal meal, of which all the communicants partook. 's This Love Feast, as it was named, was furnished out of oblations, Supper, and supplied which it was customary, as now, for the congregation to make; from the part being set aside for the clergy fund, the remainder was employed in providing this common table. 66 oblations, That this remarkable custom was not merely a charitable pro- in the House vision for the poor, supplying them with an occasional meal at the of Prayer. expense of their more affluent brethren, nor any display of ordinary social feeling, may be inferred from the circumstance, that it was celebrated in the house of prayer, and connected with the most solemn portion of Divine service. For meetings, the object of which was the relief of hunger, or social relaxation, some other time and place would more properly have been chosen. What! have 1 Cor. xi. 22, ye not houses to eat and drink in?" (writes St. Paul to the Corin- and 34. thians,) or despise ye the Church of God, and shame them that have not?" "If any man hunger, let him eat at home.' The union, indeed, of charity and social feeling with its religious object, (whatever that object was,) may be admitted, and would be by no means inconsistent with it. It would rather remind us of that similar union of miracle and mercy, which was conspicuous throughout the Saviour's dealings with mankind. But the exercise of charity or social feeling could not have been the only or the principal thing designed. The early Fathers speak of it as an aposto 66 104 Bishop Burnet represents the introduction of the custom into the Church of England, as an innocent substitute for the superstitious practice of sending portions of the Eucharist to the chambers of the sick. "It was also appointed, that the sacrament should be given to the sick, and not to be sent from the Church, but consecrated by their bed-sides; since Christ had said, that where two or three were assembled in his name, he would be in the midst of them. But," adds he, Antiquity of lical rite; 105 and the same may be inferred from some allusions in this custom. St. Paul's Epistles,106 and still more certainly from a passage in the Epistle of Jude. It is enough, however, to know that the rite was generally observed by the immediate successors of the apostles, and on the alleged authority of apostolical precedent. Jude 12. connexion of Scriptural Remarkable Its most remarkable feature, was its apparent connexion with an these Feasts important object of faith. It will readily occur to all, that the with certain terms in which the Holy Ghost and its operations are described in Phraseology. Scripture, are all figurative-" Light," "Life, ""the Spirit," and "the Holy Spirit. So, too, the change effected thereby in the Christian's condition is called " regeneration,' or a new birth." Eph. iv. 24. He is termed " a new man after God, which is created in righteous2 Cor. v. 17. ness, a new creature, and the like. The reason of this is obvious. The ideas to be conveyed were altogether new, and new or borrowed terms were, therefore, required to express them. 66 66 At the same time, the ideas so conveyed are intelligible enough for our purpose. We are taught by all these various expressions, (and the variety of expression seems designed to prevent a literal interpretation of any one,) that the effect of the Holy Ghost's descent has been, not merely increased assistance from God, but, as it were, a constitutional change in man; the addition of some abiding principle which belonged not to his original nature;—as far as it is connected with the fruits of righteousness, having a common object with conscience, but more certain and effectual; even "God Phil. ii. 13. working within us to will and to do of his good pleasure." It is 105 See Bingham's Eccl. Antiq. Book 106 In the passage particularly referred and exercises which the members share as members of that society, and no further. And, besides, the social intercourse of the table would hardly be characterised as the least of all ordinary intercourse; although it may very well be considered as the slightest act of Christian communion. Another passage may be quoted from St. Paul's writings, as apparently containing an allusion to the existence of this rite in the very earliest stage of the Christian establishment. It is his account of St. Peter's behaviour at Antioch, during the attempt of the Judaizing faction there, to enforce on the Gentile converts the observance of the Mosaic law. (Epistle to the Galatians, chap. ii.) "Before," says he, "that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision." certainly possible that St. Paul may be here speaking only of the ordinary intercourse of hospitality; but, as this act is specified, as the main token by which St. Peter was supposed to have sanctioned the notion, that an uncircumcised Christian was no complete Christian; it is more reasonable to interpret it of some religious intercourse. It is |