poured out prayers and praises to God, there is a diftribution and communication made of the facramental elements. Laft of all, thofe that are willing and able contribute what they think fit for the relief of the indigent.-How exactly does this account of the worship of the primitive church tally with that of St. Luke, Acts ii. 42? Tertullian, who lived about A. D. 200 (d), takes notice of fome, who declined receiving the facrament on the ftationary days (Wednesdays and Fridays) for fear of breaking their faft; and blames them for this as a foolish fcruple.-This paffage not only proves that he thought it a duty incumbent on the faithful to communicate as often as poffible, but that it was then a common practice, to communicate on other days as well as Sundays. Minutius Felix, who flourished A. D. 230. speaks of the chriftians affembling to eat on a folemn day (e). Cyprian (A. D. 250.) tells us, that daily communions were the common practice of his time (f). And Fortunatus, his cotemporary, made ufe of the fourth petition of the Lord's prayer as an argument for communicating daily. Victorinus Petavionenfis (A. D. 290.) tells us, that it was ufual on the Lord's day to receive the facrament (g). (d) Tertullian de Orat. cap. xiv. p. 136. Jas die Solenni coeunt. Min. Fel. p. 30. (e) Epu(f) Cyprian de Orat. Domin. p. 209, 210. ed. Bened. Euchariftian quotidie ad cibum falutis accipimus, &c. (g) Vict. Petav. de Fabric. Mundi ap. Cave, p. 103. Die dominico cum gratiarum actione ad panem exeamus. Bafil, about the year 372, recommends communicating every day; and informs us, that it was the practice of the church of Caefarea, where he was, to celebrate the facrament four times a week, viz. on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday (h). Ambrofe, bishop of Milan, who was cotemporary with Bafil, or whoever is author of the tract, in his works, de Sacramentis, juftly blames the infrequent ufe of the facrament among the Greeks, where fome communicated only once a year; and feems to intimate that daily communions were in use at Milan (i). St. Hierom tells us, that they were likewife kept up in his time, (i. e. about the year 390.) in the churches of Spain, and at Rome (j). Auguftin (about the year 410.) tells us, that the eucharift was received by many on Saturday, as well as the Lord's day, every week; and by fome even daily (k). § 3. Thefe paffages are more than fufficient to prove, that during the firft four centuries, the facrament of the Lord's fupper was difpenfed even oftner than once a week, and that it was a conftant branch of the fanctification of the fabbath. Let us next fhew how it came to be otherwise, and what was the confequence. The learned Dr. Waterland obferves, that during the first three centuries, we meet with no canons made to inforce frequent communion; fcarce fo much as exhortations to it, or any complaints of neglect in that article, which is an ar (b) Bafil, ep. 289. cap. 4. p. 449. (i) Ambrof. de facram. lib. v. (j) Hieronym. ep. 52. ad Lucin. ad Januar. gument gument, that Chriftians in those times were not tardy in that refpect, but rather forward and prefing, under a high notion of the privilege and comfort of partaking of the holy communion. (1). Tertullian, who lived in the clofe of the fecond century, obferves, as I remarked in the former Paragraph, that there were fome who fcrupled to communicate Wednesdays and Fridays. But even that fhews, they had no fcruple at communicating every Lord's day. But in the fourth century, defection from the primitive purity of the church began more and more to appear. The most probable caufe, I can affign for this, is, that till then the religion of Chrift being perfecuted, few profeffed it who had not felt the power of it on their hearts. But foon after, Chriftianity becoming the established religion of the Roman empire, a greater number of hypocrites, from views of worldly intereft, intermingled themfelves with the true difciples of Chrift: and in a century or two more, this little leaven leavened the whole lump. Such nominal Chriftians could have no juft fense of the use and benefit of the Lord's fupper, and the obligations to frequent it. Having only a form of godlinefs, without the power of it, it is no wonder that the frequent return of religious exercises should be uneafy and disagreeable to them. Their example would foon be followed by lukewarm Chriftians, who had fallen from their first love. About the year 324, it was decreed at a council held at Elibiris in Spain, that no offerings fhould be received from fuch as did not receive (1) Waterland on the eucharift, chap. xiv. the the Lord's fupper (m): which fhews, that fome who called themfelves Chriftians, were beginning to neglect the dying command of their profefled Lord. About the year 341, a council at Antioch decreed, that all who came to church and heard the fcriptures read, but afterwards joined not in prayer and receiving the facrament, fhould be caft out of the church, till fuch time as they gave public proof of their repentance (n). Towards the clofe of the fourth century, men grew more and more cold and indifferent about the Lord's fupper; fo that the eloquent Chryfoftom complains, "In vain ftand we at the altar, 66 none care to receive (o)." And in another place, after he had reprefented the danger of unworthy receiving, he adds, "I speak not this to deter you from coming, but from coming carelefly; for as there is danger in coming carelefly, fo there is famine and death in the "not partaking at all. This table is, as it were, "the finews of our foul, the girding up of the "mind, the fupport of our confidence, our "hope, our health, our light, our life (p). The firft council of Toledo, in the year 400, enacted, that those who were obferved never to come to the communion, fhould be admonished; and if they did not reform, obliged to fubmit to penance and that fuch of the clergy as came not to the daily prayers and communion fhould be depofed, if they did not reform after admonition (g). (2) Concil. Illiberit. can. xxviii. tioch. can. ii. (0) Chryfoft. (p) Chryfoft. in 1 Cor. x. Hom. xxv. i. can. v. xiii. (1) Concil. AnHom. iii. in Ephef. (9) Concil. Tol. From A From this decree it is plain, that tho' the facrament was daily difpenfed to fuch as were willing to receive, yet, that the neglect of that ordinance had begun to infect the clergy as well as the people. Yet hitherto this was a fault, with which only particular perfons were chargeable, and warmly teftified againft, not only by the most eminent fathers, but by the public canons of the church. But about the year 410, St. Auguftine being confulted, whether it was beft to communicate daily, or on fuch particular days when we were best prepared, gave this answer, "Neither he "who communicates daily, nor he who does not, really difhonours the Lord's body and "blood, while both contend only in a different way, who fhall do most honour to the bleffed "facrament. For neither did Zaccheus and the "centurion ftrive together, or one prefer him 66 felf before the other, when the former gladly "received our Lord into his house, and the lat"ter faid, I am not worthy that thou shouldst come "under my roof. Both did honour to our Savi66 our, tho' in contrary ways, and both found 66 mercy. So here, one out of reverence dares "not partake every day; another from the fame "reverence dares not omit it a single day. All "is well, fo long as in either cafe the ordinance "is not contemned (r)." It is probable this decifion gave the firft rife to the notion, that men might pay their reverence to the facrament by turning their back upon it; and that our Lord's command, Do this in remembrance of me, was as much honoured by forbearing his table as by fre (r) Auguftin. ep. cxviii. ad Januar. N 3 quent |