The Ancient Church Part 20

From the very days of the apostles the reading of the Scriptures const.i.tuted an important part of public worship. This portion of the service was, at first perhaps, conducted by one of the elders, but, in some places, towards the close of the second century, it was committed to a new official, called the Reader. [468:4] The presiding minister seems to have been permitted originally to choose whatever pa.s.sages he considered most fitting for the occasion, as well as to determine the amount of time which was to be occupied in the exercise; but, at length, an order of lessons was prepared, and then the Reader was expected to confine himself to the Scriptures pointed out in his calendar. [468:5]

This arrangement, which was obviously designed to secure a more uniform attention to the several parts of the inspired canon, came only gradually into general operation; and it frequently happened that the order of lessons for one church was very different from that used in another. [468:6]

Whilst the constant reading, in the vernacular tongue, of considerable portions of Scripture at public worship, promoted the religious instruction of the people, the mode of preaching which now prevailed contributed to make them still more intimately acquainted with the sacred records. The custom of selecting a text as the basis of a discourse had not yet been introduced; but, when the reading closed, the minister proceeded to expatiate on that section of the Word which had just been brought under the notice of the congregation, and pointed out, as well the doctrines which it recognised, as the practical lessons which it inculcated. The entire presbytery was usually present in the congregation every Lord's day, and when one or other of the elders had made a few comments, [469:1] the president added some remarks of an expository and hortatory character; but, frequently, he received no a.s.sistance in this part of the service. The method of reading and elucidating Scripture, now pursued, was eminently salutary; for, whilst it stored the memory with a large share of biblical knowledge, the whole Word of G.o.d, in the way of earnest appeal, was brought into close contact with the heart and conscience of each individual.

So long as pristine piety flourished, the people listened with devout attention to the observations of the preacher; but, as a more secular spirit prevailed, he began to be treated, rather as an orator, than a herald from the King of kings. Before the end of the third century, the house of prayer occasionally resounded with the plaudits of the theatre.

Such exhibitions were, indeed, condemned at the time by the ecclesiastical authorities, but the very fact that in the princ.i.p.al church of one of the chief cities of the Empire, the bishop, as he proceeded with his sermon, was greeted with stamping of feet, clapping of hands, and waving of handkerchiefs, [469:2] supplied melancholy evidence of the progress of spiritual degeneracy. In the days of the Apostle Paul such demonstrations would have been universally denounced as unseemly and unseasonable.

During the first three centuries there was nothing in the ordinary costume of a Christian minister to distinguish him from any of his fellow-citizens; [470:1] but, it would appear, that when the pastor officiated in the congregation, he began, at an early date, to wear some peculiar piece of apparel. In an old doc.u.ment, purporting to have been written shortly after the middle of the second century, he is described, at the period of his advancement to the episcopal chair, as "clothed with the dress of the bishops." [470:2] As the third century advanced, there was a growing disposition to increase the pomp of public worship; in some places vessels of silver or of gold were used at the dispensation of the, Lord's Supper; [470:3] and it is highly probable that, about this time, some few decorations were a.s.sumed by those who took part in its administration. But still the habit used by ecclesiastics at divine service was distinguished by its comparative simplicity, and differed very little from the dress commonly worn by the ma.s.s of the population.

What a change must have pa.s.sed over the Church from the period before us to the dawn of the Reformation! Now, the making of images was forbidden, and no picture was permitted to appear even on the walls of the sacred edifice: [470:4] then, a church frequently suggested the idea of a studio, or a picture-gallery. Now, the whole congregation joined heartily in the psalmody: then, the mute crowd listened to the music of the organ accompanied by the shrill voices of a chorus of thoughtless boys. Now, prayers, in the vernacular tongue and suited to the occasion, were offered with simplicity and earnestness; then, pet.i.tions, long since antiquated, were muttered in a dead language. Now, the Word was read and expounded in a way intelligible to all: then, a few Latin extracts from it were mumbled over hastily; and, if a sermon followed, it was, perhaps, a eulogy on some wretched fanatic, or an attack on some true evangelist. There are writers who believe that the Church was meanwhile going on in a career of hopeful development; but facts too clearly testify that she was moving backwards in a path of cheerless declension. Now, the Church "holding forth the Word of life" was commending herself to philosophers and statesmen: then, she had sunk into premature dotage, and her very highest functionaries were lisping the language of infidelity.

CHAPTER II.

BAPTISM.

When the venerable Polycarp was on the eve of martyrdom, he is reported to have said that he had served Christ "eighty and six years." [472:1]

By the ancient Church these words seem to have been regarded as tantamount to a declaration of the length of his life, and as implying that he had been a disciple of the Saviour from his infancy. [472:2] The account of his martyrdom indicates that he was still in the enjoyment of a green old age, [472:3] and as very few overpa.s.s the term of fourscore years and six, we are certainly not at liberty to infer, without any evidence, and in the face of probabilities, that he had now attained a greater longevity. A contemporary father, who wrote about the middle of the second century, informs us, that there were then many persons of both s.e.xes, some sixty, and some seventy years of age, who had been "disciples of Christ from childhood," [472:4] and the pastor of Smyrna is apparently included in the description. If he was eighty-six at the time of his death, he must have been about threescore and ten when Justin Martyr made this announcement.

No one could have been considered a disciple of Jesus who had not received baptism, and it thus appears that there were many aged persons, living about A.D. 150, to whom, when children, the ordinance had been administered. We may infer, also, that Polycarp, when an infant, had been in this way admitted within the pale of visible Christianity.

Infant baptism must, therefore, have been an inst.i.tution of the age of the apostles. This conclusion is corroborated by the fact that Justin Martyr speaks of baptism as supplying the place of circ.u.mcision. "We,"

says he, "who through Christ have access to G.o.d, have not received that circ.u.mcision which is in the flesh, but that spiritual circ.u.mcision which Enoch, and others like him, observed. And this, because we have been sinners, we do, through the mercy of G.o.d, receive _by baptism_."

[473:1] Justin would scarcely have represented the initiatory ordinance of the Christian Church as supplying so efficiently the place of the Jewish rite, had it not been of equally extensive application. The testimony of Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, throws additional light upon this argument. "Christ," says he, "came to save all persons by Himself; all, I say, who _by Him are regenerated unto G.o.d_--infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and aged persons: therefore He went through the several ages, being made an infant for infants, that He might _sanctify infants_; [473:2] and, for little ones, He was made a little one, to sanctify them of that age also." [473:3] Irenaeus elsewhere speaks of baptism as _our regeneration_ or _new birth unto G.o.d_, [473:4] so that his meaning in this pa.s.sage cannot well be disputed. He was born on the confines of the apostolic age, and when he mentions the _regeneration unto G.o.d_ of "infants, and little ones, and children," he alludes to their admission by baptism to the seal of salvation.

The celebrated Origen was born about A.D. 185, and we have as strong circ.u.mstantial evidence as we could well desire that he was baptized in infancy. [474:1] Both his parents were Christians, and as soon as he was capable of receiving instruction, he began to enjoy the advantages of a pious education. He affirms, not only that the practice of infant baptism prevailed in his own age, but that it had been handed down as an ecclesiastical ordinance from the first century. "None," says he, "is free from pollution, though his life upon the earth be but the length of one day, and for this reason even infants are baptized, because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is put away." [474:2]

"The Church has received the custom of baptizing little children _from the apostles_." [474:3]

The only writer of the first three centuries who questions the propriety of infant baptism is Tertullian. The pa.s.sage in which he expounds his views on this subject is a most transparent specimen of special pleading, and the extravagant recommendations it contains sufficiently attest that he had taken up a false position. "Considering," says he, "every one's condition and disposition, and also his age, the delay of baptism is more advantageous, but especially in the case of little children. For what necessity is there that the sponsors be brought into danger? Because they may fail to fulfil their promises by death, or may be deceived by the child's proving of a wicked disposition. Our Lord says indeed--'Do not forbid them to come unto me.' Let them come, therefore, whilst they are growing up, let them come whilst they are learning, whilst they are being taught where it is they are coming, let them be made Christians when they are capable of knowing Christ. Why should their innocent age make haste to the remission of sins? Men proceed more cautiously in worldly things; and he that is not trusted with earthly goods, why should he be trusted with divine? Let them know how to ask salvation, that you may appear to give it to one that asketh.

For no less reason unmarried persons ought to be delayed, because they are exposed to temptations, as well virgins that are come to maturity, as those that are in widowhood and have little occupation, until they either marry or be confirmed in continence. They who know the weight of baptism will rather dread its attainment than its postponement." [475:1]

In the apostolic age all adults, when admitted to baptism, answered for themselves. Had additional sponsors been required for the three thousand converts who joined the Church on the day of Pentecost, [475:2] they could not have been procured. The Ethiopian eunuch and the Philippian jailor [475:3] were their own sponsors. Until long after the time when Tertullian wrote, there were, in the case of adults, no other sponsors than the parties themselves. But when an infant was dedicated to G.o.d in baptism, the parents were required to make a profession of the faith, and to undertake to train up their little one in the way of righteousness. [476:1] It is to this arrangement that Tertullian refers when he says--"What necessity is there that _the sponsors_ be brought into danger? Because even they may fail to fulfil their promises by death, or may be deceived by the child's proving of a wicked disposition."

It is plain, from his own statements, that infant baptism was practised in the days of this father; and it is also obvious that it was then said to rest on the authority of the New Testament. Its advocates, he alleges, quoted in its defence the words of our Saviour--"Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not." [476:2] And how does Tertullian meet this argument? Does he venture to say that it is contradicted by any other Scripture testimony? Does he pretend to a.s.sert that the appearance of parents, as sponsors for their children, is an ecclesiastical innovation? Had this acute and learned controversialist been prepared to encounter infant baptism on such grounds, he would not have neglected his opportunity. But, instead of pursuing such a line of reasoning, he merely exhibits his weakness by resorting to a piece of miserable sophistry. When our Lord said--"Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not," He ill.u.s.trated His meaning as He "took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them;"

[476:3] so that the gloss of Tertullian--"Let them come _whilst they are growing up_, let them come whilst they are learning"--is a palpable misinterpretation. Nor is this all. The Carthaginian father must have known that there were frequent instances in the days of the apostles of the baptism of whole households; and yet he maintains that the unmarried, especially young widows, cannot with safety be admitted to the ordinance. Had he been with Paul and Silas at Philippi he would thus scarcely have consented to the baptism of Lydia; and he would certainly have protested against the administration of the rite to all the members of her family. [477:1]

Though Tertullian may not have formally separated from the Church when he wrote the tract in which this pa.s.sage occurs, it is evident that he had already adopted the principles of the Montanists. These errorists held that any one who had fallen into heinous sin after baptism could never again be admitted to ecclesiastical fellowship; and this little book itself supplies proof that its author now supported the same doctrine. He here declares that the man "who renews his sins after baptism" is "destined to fire;" and he intimates that martyrdom, or "the baptism of blood," can alone "restore" such an offender. [477:2] It was obviously the policy of the Montanists to discourage infant baptism, and to retain the ma.s.s of their adherents, as long as possible, in the condition of catechumens. Hence Tertullian here a.s.serts that "they who know the weight of baptism will rather _dread its attainment_ than its postponement." [477:3] But neither the apostles, nor the early Church, had any sympathy with such a sentiment. They represent baptism as a privilege--as a sign and seal of G.o.d's favour--which all should thankfully embrace. On the very day on which Peter denounced the Jews as having with wicked hands crucified his Master, he a.s.sisted in the baptism of three thousand of these transgressors. "Repent," says he, "and _be baptized every one of you_ in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, _for the promise is unto you and to your children_." [478:1] Tertullian would have given them no such encouragement. But the Montanists believed that their Phrygian Paraclete was commissioned to supersede the apostolic discipline. When the African father attacked infant baptism he obviously acted under this conviction; and whilst seeking to set aside the arrangements of the Church of his own age, he felt no scruple in venturing at the same time to subvert an inst.i.tute of primitive Christianity.

We have the clearest evidence that, little more than twenty years after the death of Tertullian, the whole Church of Africa recognised the propriety of this practice. About the middle of the third century a bishop of that country, named Fidus, appears to have taken up the idea that, when administering the ordinance, he was bound to adhere to the very letter of the law relative to circ.u.mcision, [478:2] and that therefore he was not at liberty to baptize the child before the eighth day after its birth. When the case was submitted to Cyprian and an African Synod, consisting of sixty-six bishops, they _unanimously_ decided that these scruples were groundless; and, in an epistle addressed to the pastor who entertained them, the a.s.sembly thus communicated the result of its deliberations--"As regards the case of infants who, you say, should not be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that respect should be had to the law of the ancient circ.u.mcision, whence you think that one newly born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all in our council thought very differently.... If even to the most grievous offenders, ...

when they afterwards believe, remission of sins is granted, and no one is debarred from baptism and grace, how much more ought not an infant to be debarred who, being newly born, has in no way sinned, except that being born after Adam in the flesh, he has by his first birth contracted the contagion of the old death; who is on this very account more easily admitted to receive remission of sins, in that, not his own, but another's sins are remitted to him." [479:1]

Whilst it is thus apparent that the baptism of infants was the established order of the Church, it is equally clear that the particular mode of administration was not considered essential to the validity of the ordinance. It was usually dispensed by immersion or affusion, [479:2] but when the health of the candidate might have been injured by such an ordeal, sprinkling was deemed sufficient. Aspersion was commonly employed in the case of the sick, and was known by the designation of _clinic_ or _bed_ baptism. Cyprian points out to one of his correspondents the absurdity of the idea that the extent to which the water is applied can affect the character of the inst.i.tution. "In the saving sacrament," says he, "the contagion of sin is not washed away just in the same way as is the filth of the skin and body in the ordinary ablution of the flesh, so that there should be need of saltpetre and other appliances, and a bath and a pool in which the poor body may be washed and cleansed.... It is apparent that the _sprinkling_ of water has like force with the saving washing, and that when this is done in the Church, where the faith both of the giver and receiver is entire, [480:1] all holds good and is consummated and perfected by the power of the Lord, and the truth of faith." [480:2]

Cyprian is here perfectly right in maintaining that the essence of baptism does not consist in the way in which the water is administered; but much of the language he employs in speaking of this ordinance cannot be commended as sober and scriptural. He often confounds it with regeneration, and expresses himself as if the mere rite possessed a mystic virtue. "The birth of Christians," says he, "is in baptism."

[480:3] "The Church alone has the life-giving water." [480:4] "The water must first be cleansed and sanctified by the priest, that it may be able, by baptism therein, to wash away the sins of the baptized."

[480:5] Tertullian and other writers of the third century make use of phraseology equally unguarded. [480:6] When the true character of the inst.i.tute was so far misunderstood, it is not extraordinary that it began to be tricked out in the trappings of superst.i.tion. The candidate, as early as the third century, was exorcised before baptism, with a view to the expulsion of evil spirits; [480:7] and, in some places, after the application of the water, when the kiss of peace was given to him, a mixture of milk and honey was administered, [480:8] He was then anointed, and marked on the forehead with the sign of the cross. [480:9]

Finally, the presiding minister, by the laying on of hands, bestowed the benediction. [480:10] Tertullian endeavours to explain some of these ceremonies. "The flesh," says he, "is washed, that the soul may be freed from spots; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is marked (with the sign of the cross), that the soul may be guarded; the flesh is overshadowed by the imposition of hands, that the soul may be enlightened by the Spirit." [481:1]

It is not improbable that the baptismal service const.i.tuted the first germ of a Church liturgy. As the ordinance was so frequently celebrated, it was found convenient to adhere to the same form, not only in the words of administration, [481:2] but also in the accompanying prayers; and thus each pastor soon had his own baptismal office. But when heresies spread, and when, in consequence, measures were taken to preserve the unity of the Catholic faith, a uniform series of questions--prepared, perhaps, by councils and adopted by the several ministers--was addressed to all catechumens. Thus, the baptismal services were gradually a.s.similated; and, as the power of the hierarchy increased, one general office, in each district, superseded all the previously-existing formularies.

Baptism, as dispensed in apostolic simplicity, is a most significant ordinance; but the original rite was soon well-nigh hidden behind the rubbish of human inventions. The milk and honey, the unction, the crossing, the kiss of peace, and the imposition of hands, were all designed to render it more imposing; and, still farther to deepen the impression, it was already administered in the presence of none save those who had themselves been thus initiated. [481:3] But the foolishness of G.o.d is wiser than man. Nothing is more to be deprecated than any attempt to improve upon the inst.i.tutions of Christ. Baptism, as established by the Divine Founder of our religion, is a visible exhibition of the gospel; but, as known in the third century, it had much of the character of one of the heathen mysteries. It was intended to confirm faith: but it was now contributing to foster superst.i.tion.

How soon had the gold become dim, and the most fine gold been changed!

CHAPTER III.

THE LORD'S SUPPER.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper may be regarded as a typical or pictorial summary of the great salvation. In Baptism the gospel is exhibited subjectively--renewing the heart and cleansing from all iniquity: in the Lord's Supper it is exhibited objectively--providing a mighty Mediator, and a perfect atonement. Regeneration and Propitiation are central truths towards which all the other doctrines of Christianity converge, and in marking them out by corresponding symbols, the Head of the Church has been graciously pleased to signalize their importance.

The Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation and thoroughly furnished unto all good works; but we are not at liberty to adulterate these records either by addition or subtraction. If they should be preserved exactly as they issued from the pen of inspiration, it is clear that the visible ordinances in which they are epitomized should also be maintained in their integrity. He who tampers with a divinely-inst.i.tuted symbol is obviously to some extent obnoxious to the malediction [483:1] p.r.o.nounced upon the man who adds to, or takes away from, the words of the book of G.o.d's prophecy.

Had the original form of administering the Lord's Supper been rigidly maintained, the Church might have avoided a mult.i.tude of errors; but very soon the spirit of innovation began to disfigure this inst.i.tute.

The mode in which it was observed, and the views which were entertained respecting it by the Christians of Rome, about the middle of the second century, are minutely described by Justin Martyr. "There is brought,"

says he, "to that one of the brethren who is president, bread and a cup of wine mixed with water. And he, having received them, gives praise and glory to the Father of all things.... And when he has finished his praises and thanksgiving, all the people who are present express their a.s.sent saying _Amen_, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies _so be it_.

The president having given thanks, and the people having expressed their a.s.sent, those whom we call deacons give to each of those who are present a portion of the bread which has been blessed, and of the wine mixed with water; and carry away some for those who are absent. And this food is called by us the Eucharist, of which no one may partake unless he believes that which we teach is true, and is baptized, ... and lives in such a manner as Christ commanded. For we receive not these elements as common bread or common drink. But even as Jesus Christ our Saviour ...

had both flesh and blood for our salvation, even so we are taught that the food which is blessed ... by the digestion of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospels, have related that Jesus thus commanded them, that having taken bread and given thanks He said--'Do this in remembrance of me, this is my body;' and that, in like manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, 'This is my blood;' and that He distributed them to these alone." [484:1]

The writer does not here mention the posture of the disciples when communicating, but it is highly probable that they still continued to _sit_ [485:1] in accordance with the primitive pattern. As they received the ordinance in the same att.i.tude as that in which they partook of their common meals, the story that their religious a.s.semblies were the scenes of unnatural feasting, may have thus originated. [485:2] For the first three centuries, _kneeling_ at the Lord's Supper was unknown; and it is not until about a hundred years after the death of the Apostle John, that we read of the communicants _standing._ [485:3] Throughout the whole of the third century, this appears to have been the position in which they partook of the elements. [485:4]

The bread and wine of the Eucharist were now supplied by the worshippers, who made "oblations" according to their ability, [485:5]

as well for the support of the ministers of the Church, as for the celebration of its ordinances. There is no reason to believe that the bread, used at this period in the holy Supper, was unfermented; for, though our Lord distributed a loaf, or cake, of that quality when the rite was inst.i.tuted, the early Christians seem to have considered the circ.u.mstance accidental; as unleavened bread was in ordinary use among the Jews at the time of the Pa.s.sover. The disciples appear to have had less reason for mixing the wine with water, and they could have produced no good evidence that such was the beverage used by Christ when He appointed this commemoration. In the third century superst.i.tion already recognized a mystery in the mixture. "We see," says Cyprian, "that in the water _the people_ are represented, but that in the wine is exhibited the blood of Christ. When, however, in the cup water is mingled with wine, the people are united to Christ, and the mult.i.tude of the faithful are coupled and conjoined to Him on whom they believe."

[486:1] The bread was not put into the mouth of the communicant by the administrator, but was handed to him by a deacon; and it is said that, the better to shew forth the unity of the Church, all partook of one loaf made of a size sufficient to supply the whole congregation. [486:2]

The wine was administered separately, and was drunk out of a cup or chalice. As early as the third century an idea began to be entertained that the Eucharist was necessary to salvation, and it was, in consequence, given to infants. [486:3] None were now suffered to be present at its celebration but those who were _communicants_; [486:4]

for even the catechumens, or candidates for baptism, were obliged to withdraw before the elements were consecrated.

The Pa.s.sover was kept only once a year, but the Eucharist, which was the corresponding ordinance of the Christian dispensation, was observed much more frequently. Justin intimates that it was administered every Lord's day, and other fathers of this period bear similar testimony. Cyprian speaks even of its daily celebration. [486:5] The New Testament has promulgated no precise law upon the subject, and it is probable that only the more zealous disciples communicated weekly. On the Paschal week it was observed with peculiar solemnity, and by the greatest concourse of worshippers.

The term _sacrament_ was now applied to both Baptism and the Lord's Supper; but it was not confined to these two symbolic ordinances.

[487:1] The word _transubstantiation_ was not introduced until upwards of a thousand years after the death of our Saviour; [487:2] and the doctrine which it indicates was not known to any of the fathers of the first three centuries. They all concur in describing the elements, after consecration, as bread and wine; they all represent them as pa.s.sing through the usual process of digestion; and they all speak of them as symbols of the body and blood of Christ. In this strain Justin Martyr discourses of "that _bread_ which our Christ has commanded us to offer _in remembrance of His being made flesh_, ... and of that _cup_ which He commanded those that celebrate the Eucharist to offer _in remembrance of His blood._" [487:3] According to Clement of Alexandria the Scripture designates wine "a mystic symbol of the holy blood." [487:4] Origen, as if antic.i.p.ating the darkness which was to overspread the Church, expresses himself very much in the style of a zealous Protestant. He denounces as "simpletons" [487:5] those who attributed a supernatural power to the Eucharistic elements, and repeatedly affirms that the words used at the inst.i.tution of the Lord's Supper are to be interpreted spiritually. "The meat," says he, "which is sanctified by the Word of G.o.d and prayer, as it is material, goes into the stomach, ... but, by reason of prayer made over it, _it is profitable according to the proportion of faith_, and is the cause that the understanding is enlightened and attentive to what is profitable; and _it is not the substance of bread, but the word p.r.o.nounced upon it_, which is profitable to him who eats it in a way not unworthy of the Lord."

[488:1] Cyprian uses language scarcely less equivocal, for he speaks of "_that wine_ whereby the blood of Christ is set forth," [488:2] and a.s.serts that it "was wine which He called His blood." [488:3]

Christ has said--"Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them;" [488:4] and, true to His promises, He is really present with His people in every act of devotion. Even when they draw near to Him in secret, or when they read His word, or when they meditate on His mercy, as well as when they listen to His gospel preached in the great congregation, He manifests Himself to them not as He does unto the world. But in the Eucharist He reveals His character more significantly than in any of His other ordinances; for He here addresses Himself to all the senses, as well as to the soul. In the words of inst.i.tution they "hear His voice;" when the elements are presented to them, they perceive as it were "the smell of His garments;"

with their hands they "handle of the Word of Life;" and they "taste and see that the Lord is good." But some of the early Christian writers were by no means satisfied with such representations. They appear to have entertained an idea that Christ was in the Eucharist, not only in richer manifestations of His grace, but also in a way altogether different from that in which He vouchsafes His presence in prayer, or praise, or any other divine observance. They conceived that, as the soul of man is united to his body, the Logos, or Divine nature of Christ, pervades the consecrated bread and wine, so that they may be called His flesh and blood; and they imagined that, in consequence, the sacred elements imparted to the material frame of the believer the germ of immortality.

[489:1] Irenaeus declares that "our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possessed of the hope of eternal life."

[489:2] This misconception of the ordinance was the fruitful source of superst.i.tion. The mere elements began to be regarded with awful reverence; the loss of a particle of the bread, or of a drop of the wine, was considered a tremendous desecration; and it was probably the growth of such feelings which initiated the custom of _standing_ at the time of partic.i.p.ation. But still there were fathers who were not carried away with the delusion, and who knew that the disposition of the worshipper was of far more consequence than the care with which he handled the holy symbols. "You who frequent our sacred mysteries," says Origen, "know that when you receive the body of the Lord, you take care with all due caution and veneration, that not even the smallest particle of the consecrated gift shall fall to the ground and be wasted. [489:3]

If, through inattention, any part thus falls, you justly account yourselves guilty. If then, with good reason, you use so much caution in preserving His body, how can you esteem it a _lighter sin to slight the Word of G.o.d_ than to neglect His body?" [489:4]

"The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth purified seven times." [489:5] The history of Baptism and the Lord's Supper demonstrates that, when speaking of the ordinances of religion, it is exceedingly dangerous to depart, even from the phraseology, which the Holy Spirit has dictated. In the second century Baptism was called "regeneration" and the Eucharistic bread was known by the compendious designation of "the Lord's body." Such language, if typically understood, could create no perplexity; but all by whom it was used could scarcely be expected to give it a right interpretation, and thus many misconceptions were speedily generated. In a short time names, for which there is no warrant in the Word of G.o.d, were applied to the Lord's Supper; and false doctrines were eventually deduced from these ill-chosen and unauthorised designations. Thus, before the close of the second century, it was called an _offering_, and a _sacrifice_, [490:1]

and the table at which it was administered was styled the _altar_.

[490:2] Though these terms were now used rhetorically, in after-ages they were literally interpreted; and in this way the most astounding errors gradually gained currency. Meanwhile other topics led to keen discussion; but there was a growing disposition to shroud the Eucharist in mystery; and hence, for many centuries, the question as to the manner of Christ's presence in the ordinance awakened no controversy.