Century the Fourth. In the year 305 (some say, 300, or 303, or 313, or 324) was held a council of nineteen Bishops, at Eliberis, or Elvira, in Andalusia, a province of Spain. Among many other Canons, a rule was then made, not to accept of an offering from one who did not communicatee. We may judge from hence, that Christians now began to be remiss, with respect to Communion, and that such Canon was intended for a gentle rebuke to them; a mark of public disfavour, in order to excite and quicken them, first to prepare, and then to receive. Many perhaps might now grow cold and careless as to coming to the Lord's table; either because they had not a just sense of the use and benefit of it, and of the obligations they were under to it; or they loved the world too well, and were willing to put off their repentance from day to day, and so of course to stave off that solemn profession which the holy Sacrament required. The like coldness and backwardness appeared in many of that age, even with respect to Baptism: for, while they were well-wishers to it, and stood candidates for it, they yet loved to procrastinate and to feign excuses; because delaying Baptism was delaying repentance, which depraved nature was prone enough to do. The case, very probably, was much the same with respect to this other Sacrament: and hence arose that coldness towards it, which the Church guides of those times were much concerned at, and endeavoured gently to remove. When those milder applications did not sufficiently answer, some brisker methods were thought on for the compassing the same good end. In the year 341, a Council of Antioch decreed, "That all they who came to Church, Episcopos, placuit, ab eo qui non communicat, munera accipere non debere. Concil. Illiberit. Can. xxviii. Harduin. 153. f Vid. Basil. Homil. in Sanct. Bapt. p. 114, &c. edit. Bened. tom. ii. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. xl. p. 647, &c. Constit. Apostol. lib. vi. cap. 15. Gregor. Nyssen. de Baptism. Opp. tom. iii. p. 216, &c. Compare Bingham. xi. 6. 2, 3, &c. " and heard the holy Scriptures read, and afterwards joined "not in prayer with the people, or turned their backs on "the holy Communion, after a disorderly way, should be "cast out of the Church, till such time as they should "make public confession of their fault, and give proofs of "their repentance, and humbly sue to be reconciled &." This rule may seem to be a severe rule, on more accounts than one. 1. As it appears to run in general terms, making no express exceptions for those who, for just causes, best known to themselves, might sometimes decline receiving. 2. Supposing any person to absent from the Lord's table, out of reverence to it, (being conscious to himself of some secret offences,) as it was a rule of the Church to excommunicate no man but for open and scandalous sins, it might look hard to excommunicate merely for not receiving constantly; because it was, in effect, extending discipline even to the most private and concealed offences, or to other impediments. 3. Since no one ought to receive but he that sincerely repents; and since repentance must be free, or it is really no repentance; it appears not right to excommunicate a man, in order to oblige him to receive, unless it were right also to excommunicate every one who should delay repentance, or who would not instantly be persuaded to reform, so far as to be capable of receiving worthily the holy Communion. This appears not to have been the rule of the earlier centuries: for they left men at liberty to judge (except in cases of open scandal) how far they were worthy or otherwise, and thereupon to choose either to receive or forbear. These or the like reasons, I presume, have put learned men upon softening explications, to mitigate the rigour of the Canon. Emanuel Schelstrate has suggested, that the order then 5 Πάντας τοὺς, εἰσιόντας εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν γραφῶν ἀκούοντας, μὴ · κοινωνοῦντας δὲ εὐχῆς ἅμα τῷ λαῷ, ἢ ἀποτρεφομένους τὴν ἁγίαν μετάληψιν τῆς · εὐχαριστίας, κατά τινα ἀταξίαν, τούτους ἀποβλήτους γίνεσθαι τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἕως ἂν ἐξομολογησάμενοι καὶ δείξαντες καρποὺς μετανοίας, καὶ παρακαλέσαντες τυχεῖν δυναDãos ovyzváμns. Concil. Antioch, Can. ii. Bevereg. Pand. p. 431. made pointed chiefly at the Audians, or Quarto-decimansh, who held private conventicles, but came occasionally to Church, to hear the Scriptures read, and sermons preached, and then departed, in a disorderly and scornful manner, upon some erroneous principles of their sect, to the great scandal and offence of the more serious and sober part of the congregation. Schelstrate's account is favoured by two circumstances: one, that the Canon immediately preceding most plainly strikes at the Quartodecimans, though without naming them; and the other, that the Canon does not simply and absolutely censure all non-communicants, but some only, with this restriction, as doing it κατά τινα ἀταξίαν, which Dionysius Exiguus renders pro quadam intemperantia, with a certain rudeness; and Isidorus Mercator renders secundum aliquam propriam disciplinam, according to the principles of their own sect. Now, if such was the case, then the rigour of the Canon affected not the main body of the faithful, adhering to the Church, who might be still left to the same discretionary conscientious liberty as before. Perhaps the like account may serve for the Apostolical Canons also, so far as concerns this article: Schelstrate was of that mind, and applied the same solution to both. One of the Apostolical Canons orders, "That if any Bishop, "Priest, or Deacon, or any of the sacerdotal college, does "not communicate when there is a Communion, [oblation,] " he shall be obliged to assign a reason; and if it be a just 66 one, he shall be excused: otherwise he shall be sus"pended, as giving offence to the people, and as raising a "suspicion upon the administrator, as if he did not salu"tarily execute his office k." The last words put me in h Vid. Schelstrate de Concil. Antiochen. p. 179, 222. i Schelstrate, ibid. p. 222. * Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ πρεσβύτερος, ἢ διάκονος, ἢ ἐκ τοῦ καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ, προσφορᾶς γενομένης, μὴ μεταλάβοι, τὴν αἰτίαν εἰπάτω· καὶ ἐὰν εὔλογος ᾖ, συγγνώμης τυγχανέτω· εἰ δὲ μὴ λίγῃ, ἀφοριζέσθω, ὡς αἴτιος βλάβης γενηθεὶς τῷ λαῷ, καὶ ὑπόνοιαν ἐμποιήσας κατὰ τοῦ προσενέγκαντος, ὡς μὴ ὑγιῶς ἀνενέγκοντος. Can. Apostol. vi, alias viii. mind of the fourth Canon of the Council of Gangra, held a few years before the Antiochian: some place it in 324, some in 330; all agree, that it was not later than 340. That Canon decrees, "That if any one takes exception to a "married Presbyter, as such, thinking it not lawful to re-, "ceive the Communion at his hands, let him be anathe"mal." Whether the Antiochian and Apostolical Canons might not have some view to that case, in what they decreed against any one's turning his back on the Communion, I leave to the learned to consider. The next Canon called Apostolical makes a like order with respect to the laity, as the former had done with regard to the clergy: viz. "That as many of the faithful as 66 came to Church, and did not abide all the time of the prayer and Communion, should be excommunicated, as 66 guilty of raising disturbance in the Church m." It is hard to judge certainly of the particular drift or purport of such Canons, without a more explicit knowledge of the then present circumstances: but it is not likely that they were ever intended to oblige all the faithful to com-. municate as often as they came to Divine Service, or to abridge them of the reasonable liberty of judging how far they were prepared for it, and whether they might not sometimes (provided it were not customary, so as to amount to contempt) abstain from it. Balsamon, in his Notes upon the Apostolical Canon last cited, calls it a very harsh decreen: and so indeed it is, if interpreted with utmost rigour. But he intimates elsewhere, that the Greek Church in his time received it with a softening explication. Schelstrate, as before noted, has suggested 1 Εἴ τις διακρίνοιτο περὶ πρεσβυτέρου γεγαμηκότος, ὡς μὴ χρῆναι, λειτουργήσαντος αὐτοῦ, προσφορᾶς μεταλαμβάνειν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. Concil. Gangrens. Can. iv. Hard. p. 530. Bevereg. Pand. tom. i. 419. - Πάντας τοὺς εἰσιόντας πιστοὺς εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν γραφῶν ἀκούοντας, μή παραμένοντας δὲ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ ἁγίᾳ μεταλήψει, ὡς ἀταξίαν ἐμποιοῦντας τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἀφορίζεσθαι χρή. Can. Apostol. vii. alias ix. Διορισμὸς δριμύτατός ἐστιν. Balsam. in loc. another; and to both I have taken the liberty to subjoin a third. It is not reasonable to think, that a modest and sober departure, before Communion began, (a practice now common, and, I believe, always in use, more or less,) could be looked upon as a disturbance: but if it was done out of dislike, or contempt, and upon factious principles, then indeed it would be apt to make great disturbance; and that, very probably, was what the compilers of those Canons were solicitous to prevent or remedy. But I re turn. I proceed in reciting the principles of the fourth century, with regard to frequent Communion. Basil (about the year 372.) being consulted on this head, declares it good and profitable to communicate every day; testifying withal, of the practice of the church of Cæsarea, where he was, that they celebrated the Sacrament four times a week, (on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday,) besides the saints days, [festivals of martyrs,] as often as they occurred P: but he does not say how diligent or how constant the people were in attending upon it. Chrysostom, of the same century, somewhat later, will give us the best light, both with respect to the practice of that age, and the rules whereby it was conducted. In one place of his works, he speaks thus: "Many partake of "this sacrifice once a year, some twice, some oftener."Which of them should we most approve of? Those "that communicate once, or those that do it often, or "those that seldom do it? Neither the once-comers, nor "the often, nor the seldom, but those that come with a ❝ clean conscience, a pure heart, and a life unblumeable, 66 they that are so qualified should come constantly: but 66 as to them that are not, once is too much for them. And why so? Because they will only receive to themselves "judgment and condemnation, pains and penalties ¶." p Basil. Epist. xciii. (alias cclxxxix.) p. 186. ed. Bened. tom. iii. Conf. Socrat. Eccles. Histor. lib. v. cap. 22. 4 Chrysostom. in Hebr. hom. xvii. p. 856. edit. Paris, |