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 afterwards arisen, 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.

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. 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, it 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 tea-pot, and the wine was received from the vessel by suction. These spouts were called fistulae eucharistae, pagilares, arundines, cannae, canales, pipae. These pipes were used to

42

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.

CHAPTER XVII.

OF THE DISCIPLINE OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH.

1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

The discipline of the ancient church, although derived from the Mosaic economy, was an original and peculiar institution, growing out of the peculiar circumstances of the early Christians; and fully illustrates their views of the stern and awful sanctity of the christian character. It has an immediate relation to the rites of baptism, and the Lord's supper; and should be studied in connection with them. In establishing this discipline, the church had respect only to the benefit of the offending member. Like an affectionate parent, she sought not simply to punish, but to correct. Like a good physician, her design was not the infliction of pain, but restoration to health. This system of discipline is distinguished especially for that protracted and severe probation to which an offending member of the church was subjected, as the only condition of his re-admission to the communion and fellowship of the church. This disciplinary treatment, which was known by the general name of penance, exacted of the offender many acts of humiliation, self-denial, and personal mortification, indicative of sincere repentance, and promising amendment and a consistent life in future. The institution of pen

ance may, therefore, be regarded as the most important part of the discipline of the church.

The subject may, with propriety, be introduced by the following remarks.

1. Penance was required only of actual members of the church, who had become such by receiving baptism and the Lord's supper. No Jew or pagan could do penance; nor even a catechumen, because he was not strictly a member of the church.

2. Penance was not a civil, but an ecclesiastical penalty. It af fected, not his relations to the state, but to the church exclusively.

3. Penance was entirely a voluntary duty; instead of being an unwelcome requisition, it was granted as a favor, and cheerfully sought. In this, perhaps, it was distinguished from all other forms of punishment.

4. In the ancient church, public penance was usually allowed but once. If, at any time, a repetition of the same was permitted to the same individual, it was an exception to the general rule.

5. The nature and duration of the penance was varied according to the aggravations of the offence committed. Every general rule on this point was subject to many exceptions, according to cir

cumstances.

6. In many cases, the performance of penance was required through the whole term of the penitent's life; but the severity of this sentence was frequently mitigated.

7. The penitents were divided into several classes, differing according to time and place; but in the primitive church, they were carefully distinguished from each other.

8. The fulfilment of the prescribed penance, restored the offender to his former standing with the church; except in the case of the clergy, whose restoration was not complete and full.

9. The penance was often excessive, and injurious, in its tendency to the interests of the church; and, as exercised in the earliest centuries, was open to censure; but on the whole, it was productive of great good. In times of persecution and declension, especially, it was admirably instrumental in sustaining in the church, the spirit and power of religion.

A careful examination of this subject will require us to consider separately, the following points.

I. The origin and antiquity of penance.

II. Its subjects; or, the offences for which it was imposed.

III. The different classes of penitents.

IV. The duties of penitents, and the discipline imposed upon them, or the different kinds and degrees of penance.

V. The restoration or re-admission of penitents into the church.

2. THE ORIGIn of Penance.

Penance in the christian church is an imitation of the discipline of the Jewish synagogue; or rather, it is a continuation of the same institution. Excommunication in the christian church is essentially the same as expulsion from the synagogue of the Jews, and the pen. ances of the offender, required for his restoration to his former condition, were not materially different in the Jewish and christian churches. The principal point of distinction consisted in this, that the sentence of excommunication affected the civil relations of the offender under the Jewish economy; but in the christian church, it affected only his relations to that body. Neither the spirit of the primitive institutions of the church, nor its situation, or constitution in the first three centuries, was at all compatible with the intermingling or confounding of civil and religious privileges or penalties.

The act of excommunication was at first an exclusion of the offender from the Lord's supper, and from the agapae. The term itself implies separation from the communion. The practice was derived from the injunction of the apostle, 1 Cor. 5: 11. With such an one no not to eat.' From the context, and from 1 Cor. 10: 16— 18. 11: 20-34., it clearly appears that the apostle refers, not to common meals, and the ordinary intercourse of life, but to these religious festivals.

Examples of penitence or repentance occur in the Old Testament; neither are there wanting instances, not merely of individuals but of a whole city or people, performing certain acts of penance,fasting, mourning, etc., Nehem. ix. and Jonah iii. But these acts of humiliation were essentially different, in their relations to individuals, from christian penance.

We have, however, in the New Testament, an instance of the excommunication of an offending member, and of his restoration to the fellowship of the church by penance, agreeably to the authority of Paul, 1 Cor. 5: 1-8. 2 Cor. 2: 5-11. This sentence of exclusion from the church was pronounced by the assembled body, and in the

name of the Lord Jesus Christ. By this sentence, the offender was separated from the people of the Lord, with whom he had been joined by baptism, and was reduced to his former condition as a heathen man, subject to the power of Satan, and of evil spirits. This is perhaps the true import of delivering such an one up to Satan.

A similar act of excommunication is described briefly in 1 Cor. 16: 22. "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maranatha." The pagav åà corresponds, in sense, with the Hebrew, and denotes a thing devoted to utter destruction. It is only the Syro-Chaldaic expressed in the Greek character, and means, "The Lord cometh." The whole sentence implies that the church leaves the subject of it to the Lord, who cometh to execute judgment upon him. All that the apostle requires of the Corinthians is, that they should exclude him from their communion and fellowship; so that he should no longer be regarded as one of their body. He pronounces no further judgment upon the offender, but leaves him to the judgment of God. "What have I to do to judge them that are without ?" 5: 12, i. e. those who are not Christians, to which class the excommunicated person would belong. "Do not ye judge them that are within ?" i. e. full members of the church. But them that are without God judgeth; or rather will judge, novi, as the reading should be. It appears from 2 Cor. 2: 1-11, that the church had not restored such to the privileges of cornmunion, but were willing to do so; and that the apostle very gladly authorized the measure.

On these important passages it is worthy of remark :

1. That the excommunication of the offender is, by the authority of the apostle, the act of the whole church.

2. This exclusion is called a "punishment," ITμia, but it is carefully distinguished from a civil penalty, and from a judicial punishment by God.

3. No mention is made of any act of penance, either in kind or in duration, as the condition on which the excommunicated person was re-admitted to the church; but the silence of the apostle on this subject is not proof that such penance was not required. Especially is it worthy of remark that satisfactory evidence of sorrow, linn, on the part of the transgressor, for the sin committed, was the condition of his restoration to the church.