and here, where all should be on a level, attention began to be paid to distinction of ranks, and the clergy, who should have set an example of humility to all, allowed themselves to be distinguished by outward preferences unworthy of their calling. An ungentle, morose, ascetic spirit condemned these agapæ altogether, and eagerly caught at every particular instance of abuse on these occasions, which was set out in exaggerated colours, for the purpose of bringing into discredit the whole custom. Such was the course of Tertullian after he became a Montanist. Clement of Alexandria expresses himself with greater moderation; although he declares his opposition to those who imagined they could purchase with banquets the promises of God, and who seemed to degrade the heavenly name of love, by such a particular appropriation of it to these banquets.

The celebration of the agape was frequently made a subject of calumny and misrepresentation by the enemies of the Christian faith, even during the earliest and best ages of the church. In reply to these groundless attacks, the conduct of the Christians of those times was successfully vindicated by Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Origen, and others. But real disorders having afterward arisen, similar to those which are rebuked in the Corinthian church, 1 Cor. xi. 21, 22, and having proceeded to considerable lengths, it became necessary to abolish the practice altogether; and this task was eventually effected, but not without the application of various means, and only after a considerable lapse of time. The Council of Laodicea, A. D. 320, (372) c. 28, forbade the use of the church for such festivities and excesses. Chrysostom and Augustin, a few years later, severely censured these excesses. At the suggestion of the latter, the third Council of Carthage, A. D. 397, c. 30, renewed the prohibition of the Council of Laodicea, which was repeated in the sixth century by the Council of Orleans of the Western church, and again in the seventh century by that of the Eastern church at Constantinople.

§ 14. SACRAMENTAL UTENSILS.

OUR Lord, at the institution of the sacrament, without doubt used the cup which was in common use among the Jews on festive occasions-simple and plain like the rude vessels of those days. But a large silver goblet was in use at Jerusalem in the seventh century, which was said to be the identical cup that our Lord used

on that occasion. At a period still later, the inhabitants of Valencia in Spain, also claimed, with equal probability, to be in possession of the identical cup which was presented by Christ to his disciples at that time.

The cup which was used by the primitive church was of no prescribed form, nor of any uniform material. It was made of wood, horn, glass, or marble, according to circumstances. But, at a very early period the sacramental cup began to be wrought with great care, and to be made of the most costly materials, such as silver and gold, set with precious stones. In the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, the use of vessels made of horn, wood, glass, lead, tin, etc., was forbidden, and each church was required to have, at least, one cup and plate of silver.

Two cups were generally used, one exclusively by the clergy, the other, of larger dimensions, by the laity. These had handles attached to their sides. The sacramental cup of the Armenian church is said to contain two separate apartments, in one of which the wine is contained, and in the other the bread. And similar vessels seem to have been in use in the Christian church previous to the eighth century. They then began to be made with a pipe attached to them, like the spout of a teapot, and the wine was received from the vessel by suction. These spouts were called fistulæ eucharista, pagilares, arundines, cannæ, canales, pipa. These pipes were used to prevent the waste of any drop of the consecrated wine in the distribution of it. Such cups are still in use in some Lutheran churches.

The cup was at an early period ornamented with inscriptions and pictorial representations.

The platter for the distribution of the bread was, at first, a basket made of osier. Like the cup, it has from time to time been made of glass, marble, silver, and gold, varying in form, size, and style of execution, corresponding with that of the cup.

The pomp and superstition of Catholic worship have added many other articles to the sacramental vessels, which are enumerated by Siegel, from whom the above is extracted.

From this survey, it appears that the ordinance of the Lord's supper continued until the third century to be administered in the expressive simplicity of its original institution. Common bread and wine were set apart for this purpose, a prayer was offered, and the elements were received in remembrance of our Lord's death. mutual salutation and a song concluded the solemnity.

A

From the third century this ordinance, like that of baptism, began to be encumbered with other rites, which, accumulating from age to age, overlaid it with endless ceremonials and superstitions. These had their origin essentially in the false notion advanced by the hierarchy, that their's was a levitical priesthood, the medium appointed of God for the communication of his grace to man, together with the efficacy of the sacerdotal consecration, and the doctrine of the Divine presence in the eucharist. The consecration becomes now a liturgical service, prescribed with great minuteness, and performed with manifold solemnities. The office becomes an awful mystery, assayed by the consecrated priest; the bread becomes the body, and the wine the blood of Christ, imparting grace unto salvation and eternal life. The consecration now gives this significant importance to the elements. The eulogia, bread that has been duly blest by the bishop, is reverently reserved in store for sacramental use. It is preserved in families for private use. It is taken to sea for the mariner in his absence, and becomes an essential provision for the traveller on his journey, and at times is even deposited in the coffins of the dead previous to interment. Hence the reasons also for administering the eucharist to the unconscious infant and to the lifeless body of the deceased; hence the adoration of the host, and cumbersome ritual of high mass, investing with adventitious solemnity these sacred mysteries.

CHAPTER XXII.

OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE AND PENANCE.

§ 1. OF THE DISCIPLINE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.

THIS subject of ecclesiastical discipline, like almost every thing relating to the ancient church, is first to be contemplated as it existed in the apostolical and primitive church; and then, as modified and almost totally changed under the episcopal hierarchy. In the one instance, discipline was administered by the church collectively; in the other, by the priesthood. At first it was a simple and efficient process with an offending member, consisting in a public exclusion of him by the vote of the church, after suitable admonition, from their fellowship and communion. Then it became a long and complicated system of penance, public or private, administered by the priesthood. Under the apostles, and in the first two centuries of the Christian æra, the authority of the church and its disciplinary power was vested in its own body collectively; under the hierarchy, it was an usurpation of the priesthood. These positions have been discussed in another place.1

It is worthy of remark, that a mutual covenant, involving the right of discipline by the church, appears to have been originally a condition of church-membership. This is a consideration of great importance, because it affects almost the entire organization of the church; and yet it has generally been passed in silence by archæologists. It becomes therefore pertinent and important to consider what relations one assumed originally on making a public profession of the religion of Christ and uniting with a Christian church. Our position is that his union with the church was solemnized, not only by a declaration of his faith, but by a mutual covenant between himself and the church, which involved the right and the duty, on the part of that body, of excluding him from their fellowship and communion whenever he became chargeable with a continued disregard and violation of these covenant vows.

A mutual covenant was the basis of ecclesiastical discipline in the primitive church.

1. Such a covenant is implied as a necessary condition of churchmembership. A church is a voluntary association of believers, united together for their mutual edification in the enjoyment of religious privileges. Such an association involves mutual obligations on the part of the several members of the fraternity. On connecting himself with the church, one assumes new obligations to that body, and they in turn assume new relations and obligations toward him, so that the act of uniting with the church of necessity implies a mutual covenant, whether publicly expressed or not, between the members of the church and the individual whom they receive into their fellowship and communion. Both pledge themselves, by the relations which they assume, to a faithful discharge of the responsibilities mutually required of them by the relations into which they now enter one with another. They pledge themselves to each other by a mutual covenant, expressed or implied.

2. The jurisdiction of the apostolical churches over their members implies the existence of a mutual covenant between the members of these churches respectively. The apostles declined official jurisdiction over the churches which they organized. They submitted to the church the choice of the seven deacons, and even of an apostle in the place of the apostate Judas. Acts i. 15 et. seq.; vi. 1-6. Cyprian, an early and earnest defender of episcopal prerogative, distinctly recognises in both these instances the jurisdiction of the church over the ministry, and the importance of it as a means of guarding the sacred office from the intrusion of bad men.* The apostle Paul earnestly enjoins the church at Corinth to exercise their authority in excommunicating a scandalous member of their communion. He, in connection with Barnabas and others, was delegated by the church at Antioch to go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about a question which had arisen among them respecting a certain rule of discipline. When this delegation came

* Quod postea secundum divina magisteria observatur in Actis Apostolorum, quando de ordinando in locum Judæ apostolo, Petrus ad plebem loquitur: Surrexit, inquit, Petrus in medio discentium; fuit autem turba in uno. Nec hoc in episcoporum ordinationibus observasse apostolos animadvertimus; de quo et ipso in Actis eorum scriptum est. Et convocaverunt, inquit, duodecim, totam plebem discipulorum et dixerunt eis. Quod utique idcirco, tamen diligenter et caute convocata plebe tota, gerebatur, ne quis ad altaris ministerium, vel ad sacerdotalem locum indignus obreperet.-Epist. 67.