CHAPTER XV. ON CEREMONIES, USAGES, AND FORMS OF WORDS.

The object of the Great Treatise of Irenæus, which is almost the whole that remains to us of his writings, being to refute _doctrinal_ error, things of a ceremonial and ritual nature can be introduced only incidentally. It is interesting however to trace those fragments of the external system of the Church which have dropped from the pen of the writer whilst thinking chiefly of other matters.

We find then that he alludes to the commandments of God as being ten in number, and as being divided into two tables(429): but he asserts, conformably to the opinion of Josephus(430) and Philo(431), that each table contained _five_ commandments. On the other hand Hesychius(432), Origen(433), Ambrose(434), and Procopius(435) reckon them as we do. The division into _three_ and _five_, followed by the Roman Church, does not appear earlier than Augustine(436). There is however sufficient diversity to prevent our insisting _much_ on our division. It must be observed, however, that Josephus(437) and (I believe) Philo reckon the commandments individually exactly as we do, and not as the Romanists.

We have several allusions to the form observed at the Holy Communion. We find that the cup contained water mixed with wine(438); that a form of invocation was used, which the heretics imitated(439); that the term εὐχαριστέω (_to give thanks_) had become technical, and signified _to consecrate_(440); that the expression _for ever and ever_ occurred in the Eucharistical form(441), which shows that a settled form had become customary in his time; and that Christians sounded _Amen_ all together(442). The Eucharist was sent from one bishop to another, in token of communion and amity(443).

We find, too, that the same pharisaical spirit, which now keeps many from communion, because others come to it in hypocrisy, had the selfsame effect in his time(444).

There seems, in some of the practices of the Gnostics, to have been an imitation of the _anointing_ at baptism or confirmation practised in the Church(445).

There are several allusions to the practice of public _confession and penance_, as a customary and established part of discipline. In some cases it was voluntary(446).

It was the established custom not to kneel in prayer on the Lord’s day, or during the whole season from Easter to Whitsuntide, which was called Pentecost(447).

A fast before Easter was generally observed, but was of unequal duration, according to the choice of those who observed it(448). The passage of Irenæus has been introduced into the great controversy between those who assert the apostolical antiquity of the forty days’ season of abstinence, and those who deny it. In this country our great divines have taken different sides; Beveridge(449), Patrick(450), and Hooper(451) upholding it, and Morton(452), Taylor(453), and Bingham(454) denying it. This passage might appear to be decisive, if we could be sure of the punctuation, but unhappily Ruffinus pointed it differently from all the MSS. of Eusebius and, I believe, Nicephorus: for he introduces a stop after τεσσαράκοντα, which makes Irenæus distinctly affirm that in his time some fasted forty _days_, whereas the common reading makes them fast only forty successive _hours_(455).

It would be impossible to do _justice_ to the subject without entering fully into the arguments on both sides; and therefore I will confine myself to an observation or two on the text of Irenæus. Let us then look at the passage according to the two methods of punctuation; and we shall find Irenæus affirming according to _one_ that those who fasted any number of days, from one to forty, reckoned the hours both of day and of night into their day; or according to _the other_ that some fasted one day, some two, some more; and that some reckoned forty hours of day and night into their day. Now that any persons could fast forty successive days, both day and night, abstaining from food all the time, cannot be imagined: and if they did not abstain from food all the time of their fast, the mention of its continuance day and night would be unmeaning.

To this argument the reply of Beveridge, as may be seen in note 3, is, that no fast was kept strictly throughout the twenty‐four hours by _total_ abstinence from food: and he quotes the 50th Canon of Laodicea to show that the Lent fast was nothing more than abstaining from flesh, &c. and living upon dry food. But, with deference to so great a name, this is but begging the question. The Canon of Laodicea only shows what _the Church required_, not what individuals practised. And Grabe(456) (on this passage) has proved that there were anciently two kinds of strict fasts observed in the last week of Lent; one of abstinence from all food till the evening, and then eating nothing but bread and salt accompanied with pure water; the other, practised by the more zealous, of _holding over_ one, two, three, four, or six days, till the cock‐crowing on Easterday. Both Grabe and Bingham(457) agree (what indeed appears self‐evident) that there is no meaning in words, if these persons did not remain in total abstinence during this whole time; for what extraordinary zeal could there be in their practice, if they broke their fast in the evening, as others did.

If, on the other hand, we suppose the fast to have been one of forty _hours_, commencing from the hour in which Jesus gave up the ghost, and terminating with that of his resurrection, there is then a sufficient reason for mentioning that the fast continued day and night; it becomes a thing within the reach of probability; and the period is a very natural one for those persons to choose who felt themselves equal to it. At the time in which the _Apostolical Constitutions_ were written, it was enjoined on Christians(458) to fast the Friday and Saturday, if possible; if not, at least on the Saturday: and in either case it appears that they were not to break their fast till the first cock‐crowing; i. e. in all probability, on Easter day.

Leaving, then, other sources of controversy on either side, the text itself appears to supply the strongest evidence in favour of the punctuation of the MSS. How that of Ruffinus arose, we are not absolutely concerned to say: but when the practice of the more lengthened fast had become established in the Church, it might easily lead to understanding the words of Irenæus in such a manner as to give it primitive authority.

But even supposing the fast of forty _days_ to have been kept by _some_ persons in the age of St. Ignatius, this does not prove that practice to have originated in the apostles, as Irenæus gives equally high authority for the shorter fasts of one, two, or several days. All, therefore, that would be proved by the language of Irenæus (taking it in this sense) is that in the time of Ignatius a fast was kept before Easter, and that Christians were left to their own discretion as to the length of it. Chrysostom indeed expressly says(459), that the fast of forty days was not ordained until the mass of Christians had come to communicate only on Easter day, and that without suitable devotion, and that the fast and other devotional exercises were appointed, to prepare them for the Communion on Easter day.

Very little more remains to be observed under this head.

Irenæus likewise is, I believe, the first writer who uses the term παροικία to signify the district under the superintendence of a bishop(460). And it is interesting that the selfsame term which we now use to distinguish ourselves from separatists was in use in his age, namely, that of _Churchmen_(461). And that was perfectly natural, for the _Church_ had a name from the beginning, but its attribute of _Catholicism_ or Universality, as distinguished from the confined locality of schisms and heresies, was not observed till afterwards; and therefore the name of _Catholic_ was posterior to that of _Churchman_.