departed (δυνάμενοι καὶ πρεσβεύειν ὑπὲρ τῶν μεταOTάVTWV). Being presbyters and deacons of Christ ye ought always to be sober (výpew) both among yourselves and among others, so that you may be able to warn the unruly. . . Nor do we say this only of those of the clergy (Tŵv ev kλýpw), but also of every Christian layman (λαϊκοῦ Χριστιανοῦ).” 1

1

2

The corresponding passage in the Canons of Hippolytus (169) runs as follows: "if memorials (avaμvýσes) take place (memorials do take place) on behalf of those who have departed, let them first partake of the mysteries before they sit down together, but not on the first day (of the week) (170). After the oblation let the bread of exorcism 3 be distributed among them."

There does not appear to be any mention of these feasts in the rest of the kindred documents. The mention of these memorials 4 in close con1 Cf. Tattam, Apost. Constit. Copt. p. 138; Pseudo-Hippol. diarážeis xxiii. iv. : Juris Antiqui Rell. p. 14.

2 Cf. 214. Die prima episcopus

oblationes omni populo.

3 The mention of the bread of exorcism connects the feast with the Agapé, See below, p. 156, n. 3.

4 For earlier references to these memorials cf. Martyr. Polycarp. xviii. 2; Tertull., de Monogam. 10; de Exhort. Cast. 11; de Cor. 3. And for their connection with the Eucharist, Cyprian, Ep. xii. 2; xxxix. 3; i. 2. See Achelis, C.H. p. 200-1 n., and Bingham, bk. xx. chap. vii. and bk. xxiii.

nection with the Agapé has great interest as confirming the view of the older writers such as Bingham, viz., that1 such meals were regarded as Agapæ. The particular mention of the celebration of the Eucharist at the beginning of them gives them a special character. Apropos of this Dr. Achelis 2 dwells on the contrast between the order of the Eucharist and the Agapé, as given here, and that of their early days, and emphasizes the distinction given to these memorials by this practice.

1 See below, p. 156, n. 3, for further reasons.

2 Die Canones Hippolyti, p. 200 ff.

CHAPTER V

THE AGAPÉ IN THE FOURTH CENTURY AND

R

AFTERWARDS

ESUMING now the previous order of the investigation, which has been interrupted by the consideration of the formal directions on the Agapé, I pass on to the more scattered

notices or allusions which are to be found in more undoubted writers of the fourth century.

The next statements of importance as to the Agapé come from St. Chrysostom,1 who says (Hom. xxvii. on 1 Cor.): "As in the case of the three thousand who believed in the beginning, all had eaten their meals in common, and had all things in common. Such was also the practice when the Apostle wrote this; not thus, indeed, exactly (οὐχ οὕτω μὲν μετὰ ἀκριβείας), but as it were a certain outflowing of the communion 2 (απόῤῥοια τῆς κοινωνίας) abiding among them, descended also to them that came after. And 1 See Appendix I. 2 See above, chap. i.

because it came to pass that some were poor and others rich, they laid not down all their goods in the midst, but made the tables open on stated days, as was natural (ws cikós); and when the meeting (Tŷs ovvá§ews) was over, after the communion of the mysteries, they all went to a common entertainment (evwxíav), the rich bringing their provisions with them, and the poor and destitute being invited by them and all feasting in common (kowy távтwv kσTiwμévwv).1 But afterwards this custom also became corrupt."

1

And in another homily (xxii. Oportet hæres— es esse) he says: "From this law and custom (of having all things common) there arose then another admirable custom in the churches. For when all the faithful met together, after hearing the instruction, and after the prayers, and communion of the mysteries, they did not immediately return home, upon the breaking up of the assembly, but the rich and wealthy brought meat from their own houses; and called the poor and made common tables, common dinners, common banquets in the church itself” (κοινὰς ἐποιοῦντο τραπέζας, κοινὰς ἑστιάσεις, κοινὰ συμπόσια ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ).

1 Cf. on eoríaois, supra, chap. iii.

"And so from this fellowship in eating and the reverence for the place (τῆς εὐλαβείας τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ TÓTOU), they were all strictly united in charity one with another, and much pleasure and profit arose thence to them all; for the poor were comforted and the rich reaped the fruits of their benevolence, both from those whom they fed and from God."

I have elsewhere criticised these statements and their claim to be regarded as a really historical account of apostolic and sub-apostolic practice. But, putting that aspect aside, they seem to give us a-perhaps somewhat idealised-picture of the Agapé in St. Chrysostom's time, or perhaps rather earlier.

This statement is reproduced in effect by the pseudo-Jerome (in 1 Cor. xi.), who says: "When they met in the church they made their oblations separately; and after the communion, whatever remained of the sacrifices they consumed these in the church, making a common supper together." And Theodoret1 speaks similarly (in I Cor. xi. 16).

It is clear then that in Chrysostom's day, and for some time previously, the Agapé had been 1 1 Cf. Theophylact in 1 Cor. xi. 17, etc.