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 [pg 201] 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 [pg 202] 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 [pg 204] it, and Morton[452], Taylor[453], and Bingham[454] denying it. This passage might appear to be decisive, [pg 205] 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 [pg 207] 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. [pg 208] 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 [pg 209] 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.