for religious assemblies, for the elections of the bishops and clergy, for the sitting of councils, for catechetic schools, for conferences and collations about religion; but not be put to the use of common houses, to eat, or drink, or lodge in and therefore, though the law allowed men to take sanctuary in the church, as we shall see in the next chapter, yet it did not allow them to have their meat and lodging there. When some abused the catechumenia, which I have shewed before 82 to be places within the church for men and women to hear divine service in, and turned them into rooms to lodge in, the Emperor Leo made a decree 83, that all such should be expelled from their habitations in the church.' The case was different when men spent whole nights in the church in watching and prayer, as they did frequently both in their public and private vigils; such pernoctations in the church were allowed, because they were but necessary circumstances of divine service. Only women were forbidden by the Council of Eliberis 84 to keep private vigils in the church, because many times, under pretence of prayer, secret wickedness was committed. And for the like reason their agape, or feasts of charity, which were originally an apostolical practice, and kept in the church, were afterwards prohibited, or at least discouraged, for the excess and consequent profaneness that attended them. The Council of Laodicea 85 peremptorily forbids them under that name of charity-feasts, and commands that no one should eat, or prepare beds or tables for that purpose, in the house of God.' And the third Council of Carthage 86 forbids all feasting in the church in general to the clergy, except in case of necessity, when they were upon a journey, and could not otherwise be 82 Ch. 5. s. 7. of this Book, p. 73, preceding. 83 [Novel. 73. (ad calc. t. 2. Corp. Jur. Civ. Amstel. 1663. p. 264.) Περὶ τοῦ μηδένα ἐν τοῖς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ὑπερώοις συνοίκειν γυναιξίν. See before, ch. 5. s. 7. p. 73. n. 24. ED.] 84 C. 35. (t. I. P. 974 d.) Placuit prohiberi, ne fœminæ in comiterio pervigilent, eo quod sæpe sub obtentu religionis scelera latenter committant. 85 C. 28. (ibid. p. 15or b.) "Οτι οὐ δεῖ ἐν τοῖς κυριακοῖς, ἢ ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, τὰς λεγομένας ἀγάπας ποιεῖν, kai ev To Oikų Tоû Deοû éσbiew kaì ἀκούβιτα τρωννύειν. 86 C. 30. (t. 2. p. 1171 d.) Ut nulli episcopi vel clerici in ecclesia conviventur, nisi forte transeuntes hospitiorum necessitate illic refciantur. Populi etiam, quantum fieri potest, ab hujusmodi conviviis prohibeantur.-Vid. Cod. Afric. c. 42. (ibid. p. 1070 d.) "QOTE ÉTLOKÓTTOUS ἢ κληρικοὺς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ μὴ συμποσιάζεσθαι· εἰ μηδ' ἂν τυχὸν ἀνάγκῃ ξενίας διαβάντες ἐκεῖ καταλύσωσι· καὶ οἱ λαοὶ τῶν τοιουτοτρόπων συμποσίων, ὅσον δύνατόν ἐστι, κωλυθῶσιν. entertained; and orders, that the custom should be discountenanced as much as possible also in the laity. For though they were forced to tolerate it for some time, yet they did not approve of it, as St. Austin tells Faustus $7 the Manichee, but endeavoured to correct both the excess that many ran into upon such occasions, and the very custom itself of feasting in the church, or at the graves of the martyrs, because two errors crept into the Church by that means,-intolerable excess, and an heathenish superstition therewith. For men began,' as he complains, in these riots to worship pictures and tombstones, and reckoned their feasts a sort of sacrifice to the dead, placing even their voracities and drunkenness to the account of religion' so that it was high time to lay aside all manner of banquetings in the church, that the house of God might not be profaned with such excesses of riot as were not to be endured in private houses. And this was their general rule in all cases, to lay aside all customs that were not absolutely necessary, though innocent and useful in their original, rather than suffer the abuses and corruptions of them to end in the profanation of churches. served sacred vessels and 2. The like reverence and respect was also shewed to every The like sacred vessel and utensil belonging to the administration of the caution obsacraments and divine service: they might not be employed to about the any other use, but only what was sacred, and answerable to the designation and appointment of them. Upon this account utensils they were kept in the sceuophylacium of the church, and never church. removed thence but when the service of the altar required them. This custom was so nicely observed, that when Athanasius was accused for breaking the mystical cup, he clears himself of the accusation, by saying 89, 'that in the place where it was pretended 87 Cont. Faust. 1. 20. c. 21. (t. 8. p. 348 a.) Qui autem se in memoriis martyrum inebriant, quomodo a nobis approbari possunt, cum eos, etiam si in domibus suis id faciant, sana doctrina condemnet? Sed aliud est quod docemus, aliud quod sustinemus, aliud quod præcipere jubemur, aliud quod emendare præcipimur, et, donec emendemus, tolerare compellimur. 88 De Morib. Eccles. l. r. c. 34. (t. 1. p. 713 e.) Novi multos esse sepulchrorum et picturarum adora- 89 Apol. 2. t. 1. p. 732. (t. 1. part. I. of the 91 that he had broken it, there was neither church nor minister, nor was it in the time of celebrating the eucharist: therefore, since the cup was never in the custody of any but the ministers of the church, nor ever used but in the church in time of divine service, he could not be guilty of the crime laid against him, seeing there were none but private men, in whose keeping the cup could not be in that place.' The vessels were usually kept by the deacon; and the subdeacons and other inferior orders are by the Councils of Laodicea 9o and Agde 91 forbidden to touch them. There was but one case in which it was lawful to put these things to common use, and that was the case of absolute necessity, when no other method could be found out to redeem captives or relieve the poor, in times of extreme exigence: then it was thought that mercy was to be preferred before sacrifice, and that the living and spiritual temples of God were to be preserved at the expense of the material ones; and they never made any scruple to melt down their communion-plate or part with their ornaments upon such occasions; of which I have given full proof heretofore 92 from the examples of St. Ambrose, St. Austin, Cyril of Jerusalem, Acacius bishop of Amida, Exuperius of Toulouse, and the laws of Justinian, which need not be repeated in this place. But excepting this one extraordinary case, it was esteemed the highest profanation and sacrilege, to divert any thing to any other use, which was given to God's service. And there are some instances of very remarkable judgments that befell such profaners, one or two of which it may not be amiss to mention. Theodoret 93 tells us, Julian, the apostate, sent two of his officers, Felix and his uncle Julian, φασὶν, οὐκ ἦν κυριακή. Μήτε τοίνυν ἐκκλησίας οὔσης ἐκεῖ, μήτε τοῦ ἱερουργοῦντος, μήτε τῆς ἡμέρας ἀπαιτούσης, ποῖον ἢ ποῦ τὸ ποτήριον κέκλασται μυστικόν; ποτήρια μὲν γὰρ εἶναι πολλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὰς οἰκίας, καὶ ἐν ἀγορᾷ μέσῃ, δῆλον· καὶ τούτων οὐδὲν ὁ θραύων ἀσεβεῖ τὸ δὲ μυστικὸν ποτήριον, ὃ καν θραυσθῇ παρ' ἑκόντος, ἀσεβῆ ποιεῖ τὸν ἐπικεχειρηκότα, παρὰ μόνοις τοῖς νομίμως προεστῶσιν εὑρίσκεται οὗτος ὁ τρόπος τούτου τοῦ ποτηρίου μόνος, ἄλλος οὐδείς.......Καὶ ταῦτά φαμεν, οὐχ ὅτι καν σχισματικῶν που τήριον κέκλασται παρὰ Μακαρίου, ἀλλ' ὅτι μηδὲν ἦν ὅλως ἐκεῖ· πῶς γάρ ; ὅ που μήτε τόπος κυριακῆς, μήτε τις ἐκεῖ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἀλλὰ μήτε ὁ και ρὸς μυστηρίων ἦν. 90 C. 21. (t. 1. p. 1500 e.) "Orɩ où δεῖ ὑπηρέτας ἔχειν χώραν ἐν τῷ διακονικῷ, καὶ ἅπτεσθαι δεσποτικῶν σκευῶν. 91 C. 66. (t. 4. p. 1394 a.) Quoniam non oportet insacratos ministros licentiam habere in secretarium, quod Græci diaconicum appellant, ingredi, et contingere vasa dominica. 92 B. 5. ch. 6. s. 6. vol. 2. pp. 187 189. an. 1-17. 93 L. 3. cc. 13, 14. (v. I. p. 132.) to plunder the church of Antioch, called the Golden Church, and bring the rich vessels, which Constantine and Constantius had dedicated, into his own coffers. But they were not content barely to commit sacrilege, unless they could vent their spite also in some unmannerly and profane abuses: therefore Julian pissed upon the holy table, and Felix seeing the holy vessels broke out into this rude expression, Behold what fine vessels Mary's son is served in!' But the impious wretches did not long go unpunished; for Julian was immediately seized with an ulcer, which turned all his bowels into putrefaction, and he died voiding his own excrements at his blasphemous mouth; and Felix by the same divine vengeance voided blood at his mouth, without intermission, day and night, till he died. Victor Uticensis 94 gives us a like account of one Proculus, an agent of one of the kings of the Vandals, who having ravaged and plundered the Catholic churches, made himself a shirt and breeches of the palls or coverings of the altar. But not long after he fell into a phrensy, which made him eat off his own tongue, piece by piece, and so he breathed out his last in a most ignominious death. It is no less remarkable, what Optatus 95 reports of some Donatist bishops, who in their mad. zeal against the Catholics, ordered the eucharist, which the Catholics had consecrated, to be thrown to their dogs; but not without an immediate sign of divine vengeance upon them: for the dogs, instead of devouring the elements, fell upon their masters, as if they had never known them, and tore them to pieces, as robbers and profaners of the holy body of Christ. Which makes Optatus put them in mind of that admonition of our Saviour, (Matth. 7, 6,) "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they 94 De Persecut. Vandal. 1. 1. ap. Bibl. Patr. t. 7. P. 593. (ap. Bibl. Max. t. 8. p. 678 f. 1.) [Geisericus] mittit Proculum quendam in provinciam Zeugitanam, qui coarctaret, ad tradendum mysteria divina vel libros, cunctos Domini sacerdotes; ut primo armis nudaret, et ita facilius inermes hostis callidus captivasset. Quibus se non posse tradere clamantibus, ipse rapaci manu cuncta depopulabatur, atque de pallis altaris (proh nefas!) camisias sibi et fe moralia faciebat. Qui tamen Proculus, hujus rei executor, frustatim sibi comedens linguam, in brevi turpissima consumptus est morte. 95 L. 2. p. 55. (p. 49.) Ut omnia sacrosancta supra memorati vestri episcopi violarent, jusserunt eucharistiam canibus fundi: non sine signo divini judicii; nam iidem canes, accensi rabie, ipsos dominos suos, quasi latrones, sancti corporis reos, dente vindice, tanquam ignotos et inimicos, laniaverunt. What dif ference made between and private houses. trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Other instances might be added of the same nature, but I choose rather to go on with the account of their reverence, than to dwell any longer upon the punishments of the profaners. 3. Let us next, then, observe the difference that was made between churches and private houses. Some heretics made very light of this distinction, as the Eustathians, Massalians, churches and others. Against the Eustathians we have two canons made in the Council of Gangra, from which we may learn their errors, and what were the Catholic tenets in opposition to them. The first is 96, If any one teach, that the house of God, and the assemblies held therein are to be despised, let him be anathema.' And the other 97, . If 6 any one hold assemblies privately out of the church, and despising the church chooses to perform ecclesiastical offices, where there is no presbyter appointed by the bishop, let him be anathema.' These heretics seem to have contemned both a regular ministry and the public churches, and to have made no difference between the house of God, and other houses, but to have taught that ecclesiastical offices might as well be performed at home as in the church. Against which errors this Council rising up so severely, gives us to understand, that according to the sentiments of the Catholic Church, the public offices of the church were to be performed in public, and not in private houses, and that it was a contempt of the house of God to perform them otherwise. At present I do not remember any one allowed instance of the contrary practice in all ancient history, except in cases of necessity, which are above all laws. And therefore I could not but reckon this difference, which was so universally put between the house of God and private houses, among the instances of respect and reverence, which the Ancients paid to their churches. How some chose ra 4. It will deserve here also to be remembered, particularly to the praise of St. Ambrose, how he acted with the courage than deliver and resolution of a martyr in defence of the churches, that ther to die 96 C. 5. (t. 2. p. 419 a.) Εἴ τις διδάσκοι τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ εὐκατα ἐκκλησίαν ἰδίᾳ ἐκκλησιάζοι, καὶ, καταφρονῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας, τὰ τῆς ἐκ φρόνητον εἶναι, καὶ τὰς ἐν αὐτῷ συν-κλησίας ἐθέλοι πράττειν, μὴ συνόντος 97 Ibid. c. 6. (a.) Εἴ τις παρὰ τὴν |