3rd Section, with a brief historical sketch of the several changes that took place in the Mediæval Western Church after the first departure from the primitive rule, to the period of the Reformation, before proceeding to treat of the question historically in connection with the doctrine and rule of the Reformed Church of England.]

SECT. 2.-TESTIMONY TO THE TEACHING AND PRACTICE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. By the Rev. Dr. Biber.*

I.-THE CANON LAW OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. II.-TESTIMONY TO THE SAME FROM GREEK CANONISTS. III.—AND FROM WRITERS OF THE ROMAN COMMUNION. IV.-PROOF FROM THE ANCIENT LITURGIES. V.-RETROSPECT AND PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS.

The next division of the present inquiry has for its object to ascertain what was the teaching and practice of the Primitive Church, as shown by her Canons, with regard to the presence of non-communicants at the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. This, indeed, scarcely deserves the name of an "inquiry," seeing the exclusion of non-communicants from the celebration of the Highest Mysteries of the Christian Worship is a fact so well known, and so generally acknowledged, that to adduce evidence in support of it would appear almost superfluous. That the Reformers, in the measures they took for putting an end to non-communicant attendance on the Eucharistic Service, and endeavouring to restore the custom of general communion by the whole congregation, except those not qualified to communicate, proceeded on the assumption that they were following the teaching and practice of the Primitive Church, will be shown in a subsequent extract; meanwhile we will here give the statement of a contemporaneous writer, whose information on liturgical questions is of no mean order. "It is so well known," observes Mr. Maskell, "that during the first five centuries at least, the universal practice was to allow no one to be present except communicants, and the last class of penitents" (a class of attendants on public worship which does not exist where discipline is in abeyance, as unhappily it is in the English Church)—" that it would be a waste of space and time to repeat authorities which have been cited over and over again." And elsewhere the

From "The Communion of the Faithful, essential to the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist." (J. Masters) Now out of print: revised by the Author for this Series.

7 Maskell, Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England, 2nd Ed. 1846, p. lxxix.

same writer says: "As a fact none is so undeniable, none rests upon greater authorities than this, that in the first ages all who were present at the Service, except those under discipline, partook of the Communion."8 Nevertheless, the singularly confident tone in which the contrary is asserted by the advocates of non-communicant attendance, seems at this time to require the reproduction of the evidence by which the fact thus concisely stated by Mr. Maskell is established, the more so as the proofs are drawn from sources not accessible to the general public, who are thus unable to decide on which side the truth lies.

Those proofs are altogether of three kindsthe law of the Primitive Church, as laid down in her Canons; her practice as illustrated by her Liturgies; lastly, the testimony of her most eminent Bishops and Divines, and the judgment formed by them of non-communicant attendance at the period when that "lewd and irreligious custom," as Bishop Cosin designates it, first grew up through the corruption of the times, and the waxing cold of the Church's first love.

9

I.-The Canon Law of the Primitive Church. The law of the primitive Church as laid down in her Canons is clear and express upon the above point. In the collection of Canons which goes by the name of "the Apostolical Canons," and which, though probably not compiled till the end of the second, or the beginning of the third century, may yet, in the judgment of Bishop Beveridge, be taken to embody the Canons or rules of the Primitive Church, the ninth Canon is to this effect:— "All the faithful who enter the Church, and listen to the Scriptures, but do not remain for the Prayer and the Holy Communion,"-literally, "the holy partaking,"-" are to be excommunicated, as causing disorder in the Church."10 That this is not to be understood of "disturbance to the congregation" caused by the departure of non-communicants, but of the disorder introduced into the Church by a hanging back from the common worship of the Church, of which the communion, the partaking of all the faithful in the Holy Eucharist, is an essential part, is not only evident from 8 Ibid. p. 129, note.

is

9 Beveregii Synodicon: Annott. in Cann. Apost. Ed. 1672 x., xiv.; T. II., P. II., pp. 4, 5.

10 Canones Apost. Can. 9, Beveregii Synodicon. Præf., s. Tom. I., p. 6.

the nature of the case, and from all that is known of the form of worship in the early Church, but is expressly affirmed by the Greek Canonist Theodore Balsamon, who terms it "a most severe enactment, which excommunicated all who attend Church, and do not remain to the end nor communicate." And lest it should be objected that the Canon would seem to constrain unworthy persons to communicate, he goes on to observe that "by other Canons it is decreed that all the faithful are to be both ready and worthy communicants, and that those who for three consecutive Sundays do not communicate, are to be excommunicated;" the practical result of which would be that persons not desirous of communicating, or not being fit to do so as "worthy receivers," had to absent themselves from the Church,―on pain of excommunication if they remained without communicating; and if they continued in that state for three Sundays together, they would be excommunicated on the ground of their absenting themselves from the Holy Communion.

1

This interpretation of the Canon receives a further, and not less remarkable, because indirect, confirmation from the commentary made upon it by the Canonist Zonaras, who explains the Canon in a similar sense. "The present Canon requires all, while the Holy Sacrifice is celebrated, to persevere to the end in the Prayer and the holy Communion (partaking); for at that time the Laics were required to communicate (partake) constantly." And then he refers to a Canon of the Council of Sardica (347), which, as he quotes it, inflicted excommunication on those who, for three consecutive Sundays, being present, should not communicate. The Sardican Canon, however (the 11th of that Council), does not say this in so many words. What it says is, that "of old the Fathers had decreed that any layman who, dwelling in a town" (where there were opportunities of worship), "did not attend public worship on three Sundays within three weeks, should be excommunicated."3 It appears,

1 Balsamon wrote towards the close of the 12th century, and was appointed to the Patriarchal See of Antioch. For his note to the 9th Apost. Canon, see Bevereg. 1. c.

? Zonaras wrote early in the 12th century. See for his Note to the 9th Apost. Canon, Bevereg. 1. c.

3 Conc. Sardic. Can. 11. Bevereg. Synod., T., I., p. 497, On this Canon, Balsamon observes that, as there was no Canon then extant containing this provision "it is probable that it was so observed in the Church from ancient times without any written rule, as was the case with regard to many other things." (Bevereg. Synod, T. I. p. 498).

therefore, that, in the opinion of Zonaras, not to attend public worship on the Lord's Day and not to communicate were synonymous terms; in other words, that attendance on public worship on the Lord's Day of necessity involved the act of Communion.

The Council held at Antioch in 341 embodied the same provision in its second Canon in the following terms :-"All that enter the Church, and listen to the Holy Scriptures, but do not join with the people in prayer, or turn away from the Holy Communion" (partaking) "of the Eucharist, through some unruliness, to be thrust away from the Church, until, having confessed and shown fruits of repentance, and sued for pardon, they may obtain forgiveness.' This Canon is in effect precisely the same as that in the Apostolic Canons; it is, however, more explicit, both as to the fact that noncommunicant presence is the ground of excommunication, and as to the course to be pursued with regard to persons excommunicated under this provision.

994

II.-Testimony to the same from Greek Canonists.

In commenting upon the Canon, Balsamon observes: "It has been explained in the 9th Apostolic Canon who they are that do not remain for the Prayer and the Holy Communion, and how they are punished.

......

In pursuance thereof the present Canon also decrees that those who enter the Church and do not remain for the Prayer, nor come to the Holy Communion, through some unruliness, shall be excommunicated, and thrust from the Church, until they show proper repentance with confession. And what is so written in the Apostolic Canons, and in like manner in the present Canon, is to be so understood, that by 'those who turn away from the Holy Communion' are not meant those who loathe it, or, as some have interpreted it, those who through piety and humility fly from it (for the former will not only be excommunicated, but cut off altogether as heretics, and the latter will be held worthy of pardon on the ground of their piety and reverence for holy things); but those who through contempt and pride leave the Church in a disorderly manner before the Holy Communion, and cannot endure to see the Divine Communion (partaking) of the Holy Mysteries." Zonaras, likewise, observes, that this Canon follows the rule of the 9th Apostolic 4 Conc. Antioch. Can. 2. Bevereg. Synod., T. L., p. 431.

Canon, which provided that "all who enter the Church and hear the Scriptures, and do not remain for Prayer and the Holy Communion, are to be excommunicated, as causing disorder in the Church. So now, he adds, the Fathers of the Council of Antioch also have decreed that "those who having come into the Church, do not remain for prayer, nor do communicate, through some unruliness, that is to say, without any reasonable cause, but wantonly and causelessly, should be thrust out of the Church, as excommunicate and aliens from the congregation of the Faithful. But by turning away' the Fathers here understood not the hating of the Divine partaking, and abstaining from the Communion on that ground, but the flying from it, perchance through piety and in some sort through humility; for any who as hating and loathing it should turn away from this holy partaking, would have to be punished not by excommunication, but by absolute expulsion and anathema.”5 From a comparison of these two commentaries it would appear that in dealing with the offence of withdrawing from the Holy Communion, and not communicating, as all the Faithful present were expected to do, a distinction was made between two classes of non-communicants, the scrupulous, and the worldly or careless;-that both alike were liable to the penalty of the Canon, but the former were regarded with greater leniency, and obtained pardon more easily than the latter, whose offence was of a more grievous nature. The case of persons hostile to the Holy Eucharist was evidently not contemplated in the Canon; which was, as has been already shown, a rule of discipline intended to secure the general communion of the Faithful.

In connexion with the English Church it may not be uninteresting to note that the substance of this Canon was embodied by Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, A.D. 668-693 (by whose judicious conduct the union between the British and Anglo-Saxon Churches was effected) in his Capitula, or collection of ecclesiastical statutes, in these words :-" All the faithful who enter the Church, but do not remain for the Holy Oblation, nor partake of the Sacrifice, are to be deprived of communion" -i.e., excommunicated; the wording of the provision again clearly confirming the inter

5 Bevereg. Synod., T. I,, p. 432.

Theodori Cant. Archiep. Capit. sel. c. 120; D'Achery Spicilegium, Tom. I., p. 490.

66

pretation before given of the Apostolical Canon, that the ground of excommunication was not 'disturbing the congregation" by walking out of the church, but refusal to partake of the Holy Communion.

III.-From Writers of the Roman Communion. To the testimony of the before-mentioned Greek Canonists to the fact that the duty of communicating, incumbent upon all that were present at the celebration of the Holy Eucharist -such celebration taking place, at least, every Lord's Day, and forming the central point of the public worship of the Church on that day -was understood to be the universal law of the Church, may be added that of writers of the Roman Communion. Micrologus, whose work on Church Observances was composed towards the close of the eleventh century, states that "according to the ancient Fathers none but communicants were wont to be present at the Divine Mysteries; for which reason, according to the Canons, Catechumens and Penitents, as having not yet prepared themselves to communicate, were bidden to go out of the church before the Oblation. And this," he continues, "the very structure of the Sacramental Office indicates, wherein the priest makes prayer not only for his own oblation and communion, but for that of others also; and more especially in the prayer after communion he seems to pray for communicants only. Nor can it properly be called a communion, unless several partake of the same sacrifice. And with the Greeks, likewise, the books say that whosoever for three successive Sundays does not communicate is to excommunicated."

Cardinal Bona, whose work on Liturgical matters was published at Rome in 1671-2, makes this statement :-"In the first age of the Church it is certain and well known that all the faithful, who were of one heart and one soul, continued daily in the communion of the breaking of Bread, as the Acts of the Apostles witness; nor was any one permitted to be present at the Holy Mysteries but such as were qualified to offer and to partake of the things offered; which custom it is evident continued a long time."8

The Roman Canonist Van Espen, writing in the middle of the last century, after quoting the 7 Micrologus, De Eccles. Observat., o. 51, La Bigne Max, Biblioth, Patrum. T. XVIII. p. 487.

8 Bona, Rer. Liturg. Libri, II., L. ii., c. xvii., s. 2, ed. 1672, d. 478.

foregoing statement from the work of Cardinal Bona, thus accounts for the change of custom in later ages: "The fervour of the Faithful waxing cold afterwards, the receiving of the Eucharist came to be less frequent, and the taste for this spiritual sustenance to decrease, so that the people who formerly crowded to this meat as hungering for it, had at length to be not only invited, but urged, nay even by penalties in a manner to be constrained, to receive it, like sick persons pressed to take medicine; and that not daily, but so that they might at least on the principal festivals be strengthened with this Divine food. " In treating of the obligation of the faithful to communicate, the same writer observes: "As regards the communicants, it is certain that the Mass was originally so appointed, and all the prayers so ordered, that not the priest alone, but all present were supposed to communicate; nay, in ancient times none (or scarcely any) but communicants were permitted to be present at the Sacrifice of the Mass." And further on he says, "the people ought to be instructed that the Communion or participation of the Sacrament in a manner constitutes part of the Sacrifice; and that therefore it is extremely (summopere) convenient that, while together with the Priest they offer the Sacrifice, they should also, by sacramentally communicating, partake together with him of the Sacrifice."10 In another part of this work he states: "This also is certain that in the first ages the practice was that those who were present at the Sacrifice of the Mass did also sacramentally communicate."1

IV.—Proof from the Ancient Liturgies.

What is thus clearly established, both from the ancient Canons, and from the interpretation put upon them by Canonists and Divines of both the Eastern and the Western Churches, viz, that from the beginning the communion of the faithful was inseparable from the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, -that by the law of the Church all present were required to communicate, and none but communicants were suffered to remain during the celebration of the Holy Mysteries,-is, by the structure of the

9 Van Espen, Jus Eccl. Univ., P. II., S. i., Tit. iv., c. 3 § 2, Vol. I., p. 401.

10 Van Espen, J, E. U.. P. II., S. i., Tit. v., c. 3, §§ 4, 10, Vol. I., pp. 416, 7.

1 Van Espen, Observ, in Tertiam Partem Gratiani, Dist. JI, Vol. III., p. 654.

ancient liturgies, not less clearly proved to have been the custom of the Primitive Church. The most ancient account of the Christian worship, more ancient than any of the Liturgies, in the form in which they are still extant, is that given by Justin Martyr, who distinctly states that "the consecrated elements are distributed to, and partaken of, by every one;" the Sunday, as the day of our Lord's resurrection, being the day on which all were gathered together for this Celebration.2

The form of Celebration set forth in the Apostolical Constitutions, which, whatever may be their precise date, certainly represent the practice of the primitive Church, is to the same effect. The part of Divine Service appropriated to the Eucharistic Celebration commences with this proclamation to be made by the deacon :— "Let none of the catechumens, none of the hearers, none of the unbelievers, none of the heterodox remain. You that have prayed the first prayer, go forth; mothers take charge of your children."3 After the consecration the order for the administration of the Communion stands thus :-"Then let the bishop communicate, afterwards the presbyters, and the deacons, and the subdeacons, and the readers, and the singers, and the ascetics; and among the women, the deaconesses, and the virgins, and the widows; afterwards the children; and then the whole

2 Justin Martyr, Apolog. I., c. 67, ed. Bened., p. 83.

3 Constit. Apost., L. viii, c. 12. Ed. Cotel., T. I., p. 402; see Brett's Liturgies, ed. 1720, p. 1; and Neale's Liturgies translated, p. 76.

4 The question has been asked, not without a good deal of point, whether the exclusion of children from the Church during the administration of the Holy Eucharist is justifiable. So far as it is attempted to make a point of this in favour of non-communicant attendance, it is wholly beside the question. The children that were allowed to be present during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist were communicants; and if any fault is to be found with our present discipline, the question to be raised is, not whether children are to be retained in the church as spectators during the Eucharistic Office, but whether they ought not to be admitted to Holy Communion at an earlier age than that which is called "years of discretion." But in connexion with this question too, it should not be lost sight of how careful the Primitive Church was to guard those little ones from profanation. In the preceding part of the Service the children were placed under the charge of a deacon, who was to see to their orderly conduct (Constit. Apost. L. VIII., c 11, ed Cotel., T. I., p. 402); but when the celebration of the Holy Mysteries began, the mothers were commanded to take charge of their children. They were the children of communicate mothers that were permitted to remain and' to communicate. Would to God that the piety of the present age could come up in this as in other respects to the primitive pattern! The pious mother lealing her child to Communion, even at a much more tender age than the discipline of these later and colder times will permit, must indeed have been a sweet spectacle in the sight,

people in order, with reverence and godly fear, without disturbance. And let the Bishop give the Offering, saying, 'the Body of Christ;' and let him that receives it " say, Amen'; and let the deacon hold the cup, and giving it, let him say, 'the Blood of Christ, the Cup of Life,' and let him that drinks say, 'Amen.' And let the thirty-third Psalm be said while all the rest communicate. And when all the men and all the women have communicated, then let the deacons take what remains," &c.5

6

The oldest liturgy extant, though evidently not preserved in its original form, that of the mother Church of Jerusalem, the composition of which is attributed to St. James our Lord's brother, and the first Bishop of Jerusalem, has a similar form for bidding those depart who are not admissible to Holy Communion. At the point where the proper Eucharistic Service begins, the Deacon makes proclamation: "Let there be none of the catechumens, none of the uninitiated, none of them that cannot pray with us. Recognize one another. Attend to the doors." After which the Service proceeds evidently on the supposition that all who remain will communicate, the prayer offered on their behalf being that "this Bread may be made "the sacred Body" and this Cup the precious Blood, of Christ, so that they may be to all that partake thereof unto forgiveness of sins and life eternal, unto sanctification of their souls and bodies, unto fruitfulness in good works, and unto the establishment of the Holy Catholic Church."8

Similar in substance and effect, though with occasional variations in the language, is the structure of several ancient Liturgies, handed down under the names of Apostles both of men and angels. But to adduce the fact that children were under these circumstances present as communicants, as a precedent for keeping the mixed muititude of our school children, under the charge of a master and mistress, together with the rest of the mixed multitude composing the congre. gation, in church, "as gazers and lookers on," seems a strange mode of reasoning, and an odd way of showing deference for the customs of the primitive Church.

5 Constit. Apost, L. VIII., c. 13, ed. Cotel. T. I., p. 409. Bee Brett, p. 13; Neale, pp. 89, 90.

6 This Liturgy was in use also throughout the Patriarchate of Antioch. It thus presents the ritual customs of the two great sections of the Apostolic Church, the Jewish section, of which Jerusalem, and the Gentile section, of which Antioch, was the Mother Church.

Liturgia 8. Jacobi. Fabric. Cod. Apocr. N. T., P. III., ed. 1719, p. 52. Assemani Cod. Liturg., T. V., pp. 15, 72; see Neale, p. 39,

8 Lit. S. Jac. Fabr. C. A., pp. 85. 86. Asemaui, T, V., pp. 40, 41. Brett, p. 18; Neale, pp. 52, 53.

and Evangelists; which, although manifestly interpolated with additions of a later date, yet exhibit the general order of Eucharist Celebration.9 A number of these documents, edited by Fabricius, give only that part of the Office which belongs to the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and do not therefore contain the form of dismissal of the non-communicants; their evidence being valuable chiefly as showing that the whole Service was intended for commu. cants, and communicants only. In one of them, however, a Liturgy handed down under the name of St. Matthew in the Ethiopian Church, there is this form of the order to depart pronounced by the Deacon after the reading of the Gospel: "Depart hence, ye that will not receive the Sacrament (or the Eucharist); catechumens go away." The same order to depart, in almost the same words, is to be found in the Liturgies the use of which was established at a later date in the several Patriarchates; as for example in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom: "As many as are catechumens, depart; ye catechumens, depart; as many as are catechumens, depart; let none of the catechumens remain ;" and the very same words are used in the Liturgy of St. Basil.3 In the Liturgy of Malabar, translated by Mr. Neale, the form of "expulsion of the catechumens runs thus :-Deacon: Amen. He that hath not received baptism, let him depart. Choir: Amen. Deacon: He that hath not received the seal of life, let him depart. Choir: Amen. Deacon: He that hath not received it, let him depart. Priest: Go, auditors, and see [to] the doors."4

Not to accumulate quotations which, from the nature of the case, can be no other than reiterations of substantially the same fact, in very nearly the same words, it may suffice to state in conclusion as far as this part of the inquiry is concerned, that a careful and laborious research among ancient liturgical forms has failed to bring to light a single instance of a liturgy comprehending the entire Service-for many, as has been already noted, give the latter part only, constituting the form of Celebration and Communion subsequent to the dismissal of

9 Fabricius, Codex Apocryphus N. T. Tom III. He gives Liturgies of S. Peter, S. John, S. Matthew, S. Mark, and a Liturgy of the Twelve Apostles.

1 Lit. S. Matth., Fabr. C. A., T. III., p. 232.

2 Liturgia 8. Johannis Chrysostomi; ap. Goar, p. 70; Neale, pp. 104, 105.

3 Liturgia S. Basilii; ap Goar, pp. 162, 182.

4 Neale, p. 139.