the bread be leavened or unleavened; whether the wine be red or white; is not of the least importance. These things are indifferent, and left to the liberty of the Church. It is certain however that the custom of the ancient Church was that every one should take the bread into his hand. And Christ said, "Divide it among yourselves." (0) History informs us, that leavened and common bread was used before the time of Alexander, bishop of Rome, who was the first advocate for unleavened bread; but for what reason I know not, unless it was to dazzle the eyes of the people with admiration of a new spectacle, rather than to instruct their minds in pure religion. I appeal to all who feel the least concern for piety, whether they do not clearly perceive, how much more conspicuously the glory of God appears in this use of the sacrament, and how much greater abundance of spiritual consolation and delight the faithful enjoy in it, than in those insignificant and theatrical fooleries which only tend to deceive the minds of the gazing multitude. This they call keeping the people in religion, when they lead them into any thing they please, under the stupefaction and infatuation of superstition. If any one be inclined to defend such inventions by the plea of antiquity, I am equally aware how early chrism and exorcism were used in baptism, and how soon after the ages of the apostles, corruptions were introduced into the Lord's Supper: but this is the confidence of human presumption, which can never restrain itself from trifling with the mysteries 'of God. But let us remember, that God holds the obedience of his word in such high estimation, that it is the standard by which he appoints us to judge even his angels and the whole world. Now leaving all this mass of ceremonies, let us remark, that the Lord's Supper might be most properly administered, if it were set before the Church very frequently, and at least once in every week in the following manner. The service should commence with public prayer; in the next place, a sermon should be delivered; then, the bread and wine being placed upon the table, the minister should recite the institution of the Supper, should declare the promises which are left to us in it, and at the same time should (0) Luke xxii. 17. . excommunicate all those who are excluded from it by the prohibition of the Lord; after this, prayer should be offered, that with the same benignity with which our Lord has given us this sacred food, he would also teach and enable us to receive it in faith and gratitude of heart, and that, as of ourselves we are not worthy, he would in his mercy make us worthy of such a feast; then either some psalms should be sung, or a portion of Scripture should be read, and the faithful in a becoming order should participate of the sacred banquet, the ministers breaking the bread and distributing it, and presenting the cup, to the people: after the conclusion of the Supper, an exhortation should be given to sincere faith, and a confession of the same; to charity, and a deportment worthy of Christians: finally, thanksgivings should be rendered, and praises sung to God: and to close the whole, the Church should be dismissed in peace. XLIV. The observations which we have already made respecting the sacrament, abundantly shew that it was not instituted for the purpose of being received once in a year, and that in a careless and formal manner, as is now the general practice; but in order to be frequently celebrated by all Christians, that they might often call to mind the sufferings of Christ; the recollection of which would sustain and strengthen their faith, would incite them to sing praises to God, and to confess and celebrate his goodness, and would also cherish in their hearts, and promote the mutal exercise of that charity, the bond of which they would see in the unity of the body of Christ. For whenever we communicate in the symbols of the Lord's body, it is like the interchange of a mutual pledge, by which we reciprocally bind ourselves to all the duties of charity, that no one among us will do any thing by which he may injure his brother, or will omit any thing by which he can assist him, when necessity requires and opportunity admits. That such was the practice of the apostolic Church, is mentioned by Luke, when he says that "the faithful continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." (p) The invariable custom (p) Acts ii. 42. 1 therefore was, that no assembly of the Church should be XLV. These decrees were evidently passed by the holy Fathers with a view to retain and perpetuate the frequent celebration of the communion, which had been transmitted by the apostles themselves, and which they perceived to be highly beneficial to the faithful, but by negligence to be gradually falling into general disuse. Augustine testifies respecting the age in which he lived, when he says, "The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the table of the Lord, in some places daily, in other places on appointed days, at stated intervals of time; and is thence received, by some to life, by others to destruction." And in his first epistle to Januarius; "Some receive the body and blood of the Lord every day, and others receive them on certain days: in some churches not a day passes without the administration of the sacraments; in others it is administered only on Saturday and Sunday; and in others only on Sunday." But the people in general being, as we have observed, sometimes too remiss, the holy Fathers stimulated them with severe reproofs, that they might not appear to connive at such negligence. Of this we have an example in a homily of Chrysostom, on the Epistle to the Ephesians: "To him who dishonoured the feast, it is not said, Wherefore didst thou sit down? but, How camest thou in hither? (q) Whoever is present here and is not a partaker of the mysteries, is wicked and impudent. I appeal to you, if any one be invited to a feast, and come, wash his hands, sit down, and apparently make every preparation for partaking of it, and after all taste nothing, will he not offer an insult both to the feast and to him who has provided it? So you, who appear among them who by prayer prepare themselves to receive the sacred food, who by the very circumstance of not departing, confess yourself to be one of their number, and after all do not participate with them, would it not have been better for you not to have made your appearance among them? You will tell me, you are unworthy. Neither then were you worthy of the communion of prayer, which is a preparation for the reception of the holy mystery." XLVI. Augustine and Ambrose unite in condemning the practice which in their time had already been adopted in the Eastern Churches, for the people to attend as spectators of the celebration of the sacrament, and not to partake of it. And that custom, which enjoins the faithful to communicate only once a year, is unquestionably an invention of the devil, whoever were the persons by whom it was introduced. It is said that Zepherinus, bishop of Rome, was the author of that decree; which there is not the least reason for believing to have been such as is now represented. It is probable that the regulation which he made was not ill calculated for the interest of the Church under the circumstances of those times. For there is no doubt that the sacred supper was then set before the faithful whenever they assembled for worship; nor is there any more doubt that the principal part of them used to communicate: but as it would scarcely ever happen that all could communicate together, and it was necessary that those who were mixed with unbelievers and idolaters, should testify their faith (9) Matt. xxii. 12. by some external sign; that holy man, for the sake of order and discipline, appointed that day for all the Christians at Rome to make a public confession of their faith by a participation of the Lord's supper. The regulation of Zepherinus was good in itself, but was grossly perverted by his successors, when they made a certain law that there should be one communion in a year; the consequence of which has been, that almost all men, when they have communicated once, resign themselves to lethargic repose, as if they had fairly excused themselves for all the rest of the year. A very different practice ought to have been pursued. At least once in every week the table of the Lord ought to have been spread before each congregation of Christians, and the promises to have been declared for their spiritual nourishment; no person ought to have been compelled to partake, but all ought to have been exhorted and stimulated, and those who were negligent, to have been reproved. Then all, like persons famished, would have assembled in crowds to such a banquet. I have sufficient reason for complaining that it was the artifice of the devil that introduced this custom, which, by prescribing one day in a year, renders men slothful and careless all the rest of the time. We see that this abuse had already begun to prevail in the time of Chrysostom, but we see at the same time how greatly it displeased him. For in the place which I have just quoted, he severely complains of a great inequality in this matter, that oftentimes people would not come to the sacrament all the rest of the year, notwithstanding they were prepared, but that they would come at Easter even without preparation. Then he exclaims: "O custom! O presumption! In vain then is the daily oblation; in vain do we stand at the altar. There is no one to partake with us." So far is such a practice from being sanctioned by the authority of Chrysostom. ' XLVII. From the same source proceeded another regulation, which has robbed or deprived the principal part of the people of God of one half of the sacred supper; I mean, the symbol of the blood, which has been interdicted to the laity and the profane, for by these titles they distinguish the Lord's heritage, and has become the peculiar privilege of the few who have received ecclesiastical unction and tonsure. The ordi |