Churches for Christian Worship

IN THE FIRST CENTURIE.

T HIS being premised, I proceed now (as I promised) to show, that there were such places as I have described, appointed and set apart among Christians for their religious assemblies and solemn address unto the divine Majesty, through everyone of the first three Centuries particularly; and that therefore they assembled not promiscuously, and at hap hazard, but in appropriate places; unless necessity sometimes forced them to do otherwise.

For the times of the Apostles therefore, or first Century in particular, which ends with the death of S. John the Evangelist, I prove it, first, from the Text I premised, [ 1] where is a place mentioned by the name of ECCLESIA, not to be despised or profaned with common banquettings: at least from the authority of the Fathers, who by their so expounding it, give us to understand, they thought it not improbable, that there were such places in the Apostles times. For the further strengthening of this kind of argument, know also, that Eusebius, in that discourse of his, where he endeavors to prove, that the Essenes, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which Philo describes, were the first Christian Society of the Jewish nation at Alexandria, converted by S. Mark; amongst other Characteristical notes (as he calls them) or badges of Christianity (however he were mistaken in his conclusion or inference) alleges this for one of the first, that they had sacred Houses, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or worshipping places, that is, Churches. His words are these.

Afterwards reciting some other customs and particular observances of their discipline; as their frequent assemblies in their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to hear the Scriptures read & interpreted; the distinction of places for men and women; their manner of singing Hymns and Psalms by a Praecentor, the rest answering, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the extremes of the verses; the degrees of their Hierarchy, like those of Deacons and Bishops, and some other the like, he concludes; Quod 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : But whether that be so manifest or not, this I am sure is; that Eusebius believed the antiquity of Churches or Oratories of Christians to have been from the Apostles times; yea, to have been an Apostolical ordinance, or else he mightily forgot himself, to bring that for an argument or badge to prove Philo's Essenes to be S. Marks Christians: then which otherwise there could not be a stronger argument to evince the contrary to what he intended. Now who could know this better than Eusebius, who had searched into and perused all the writings and monuments of Christian antiquity then extant, for the compiling of his Ecclesiastical history, and his Commentaries of the Acts of Martyrs now perished?

Add to this, what I a little before observed out of Bede, de locis sanctis; of a tradition, that the Church of Zion was founded by the Apostles. And so I leave my first argument.

My next argument why may I not take [ 2] from that singular character given to some one above other in the Apostles salutatiōs, as their peculiar? Salute such a one, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the Church at his house.

See, he forgets it not after a parenthesis, neither attributes it to Archippus, but as proper to Philemon alone. The like he hath of Aquila and Priscilla two several times, once sending salutation to them, Again sending salutation from them, Which I understand not, to be spoken of their families as it is commonly expounded, but of the congregation of the Saints, there wont to assemble for the performance of divine duties; that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Whence (if it be granted) it will follow; First, that the Churches then, used to assemble, not in mutable and promiscuous, but in definite and appropriate places. Secondly, that those who are here saluted with that appendix, were such as, in their several Cities, had bestowed & dedicated some part, or some place within their dwellings, to be an Oratory for the Church to assemble in, for the performance of divine duties according to the rule of the Gospel; Nymphas at Colossae, Philemon at Laodicea (for there Archippus, who is saluted with him, was Bishop, saith Author constit. Apost. as Philemon himself was afterwards of the neighbouring City Colossae:) Aquila and Priscilla first at Rome, till Claudius banished thē with the rest of the Jews from thence, Acts 18. 2. afterwards at Ephesus, Ibid ver. 19. whence S. Paul wrote that first Epistle to the Corinthians.

I am not the first (I think) who have taken these words in such a sense. Oecumenius in two or three of these places (if I understand him) goes the same way, though he mention the other exposition also: As to that of Aquila and Priscilla, Rom. 16. his note is;

He mentions as I said both interpretations. So upon that of Nymphas, Col. 4. His words are, And unless this be the meaning, why should this appendant be so singularly mentioned in the salutations of some, and not of others? and that not once, but again, if the same names be again remembered, as of Aquila and Priscilla. Had none in those Catalogues of salutation, Christian families, but someone only who is thus remembered? It is very improbable, nay if we peruse them well, we shall find they had, but otherwise expressed; as in that prolix Catalogue, Rom. 16. we find 2 Tim. 4. 19. The household of Onesiphorus. This therefore so singular an Appendix must mean some singular thing, not common to them with the rest, but peculiar to them alone: And what should this be but what I have shown?

Now because this exposition concludes chiefly for a Coenaculum devoted to be an house of prayer: let us see, if out of a Pagan writer, who lived about the end of this Century, we can learn what manner of ones they were. For Lucian in his Dialogue Philopatris, by way of derision (sed ridentem dicere verum quid vetat?) brings in one Critias, telling, how some Christians went about to persuade him, to be of their religion; and that they brought him to the place of their assembly, being an Hyperôon, which he describes thus:

So he.

[ 3] My third proof is from a tradition the Church hath had, of the houses of some devout and pious Christians, as afterwards; so even in the Apostles time, converted into Churches or Oratories; as the house of Theophilus, a potent man in Antioch (the same, as is supposed, to whom S. Luke (who was also an Antiochean) inscribes both his Gospel and Acts of the Apostles) who, being converted unto the Faith by S. Peter, converted his house into a Church, where S. Peter had his first See, or Episcopal Residence. This tradition is derived out of the Recognitions of Clemens, where it is first found. Which, though it be an Apocryphal writing, yet is of no small antiquity; and this passage is of such a nature, as it cannot be well imagined, to what end it should be devised or feigned.

The like is reported of the house of Pudens, a Roman Senator and Martyr, in the Acta Pudentis; That it was turned into a Church after his Martyrdom. This is that Pudens mentioned by the Apostle in the 2. Epist. to Timothy, and coupled with Linus: Pudens and

All this comes not of nothing; but surely argues some such custom to have been in those times.

I will seal up all my proofs for this [ 4] Century of the Apostles with one passage of Clemens (a man of the Apostolical age, in his genuine Epistle ad Corinthios:

Here Clemens saith expressly, That the Lord had ordained (even now in the Gospel) as well appropriate places WHERE, as appropriate Times and Persons (that is Priests) When and WHEREBY he would be solemnly served, that so all things might be done religiously and in order. Who then can believe, that in the Apostles times (when this Clemens lived) the places were not distinct for holy services, as well as the Times and Persons were; or that Clemens would have spoken in this manner, unless he had known it so to have been? The Corinthians, it seems, in that their notorious sedition and discord, had violated this order; at the correction whereof this passage aimeth.

This one passage therefore makes all my former proofs credible, and may supply their defect, where they are not enough convictive. And it is the more precious, in regard of the penury of written Monuments by any Disciples of the Apostles remaining unto us of that Primitive Age.

If any man shall ask, where this divine ordinance, which Clemens here mentioneth, is to be found? I answer, in the Analogy of the Old Testament; whence this principle is taught us: That, as the divine Majesty itself is most sacred and incommunicable, (the reason why the worship and service given unto him must be communicated with no other) so is it likewise a part of that honor we owe unto his most sacred, singular and incommunicable eminency, that the things wherewith he is served, should not be promiscuous and common, but appropriate and set apart to that end and purpose. And thus I conclude the first Seculum.

IN THE SECOND CENTURIE.

NOW for the second, & that too for the beginning thereof, we have a witness not to be rejected, the holy Martyr Ignatius who suffered [ 1] An. 107. & wrote the most of his Epistles in his bonds. He in his confessed Epistle ad Magnesios speaks thus:

Loe here a Temple with an Altar in it, whither the Magnesians are exhorted to gather thenselves together to pray; To come together in one place, that so they might all join together in one common prayer, spirited with one intētion, with one & the same hope in the Charity & Faith they have to Christ ward: Secondly, to come thither as one, that is, in unity of affection and brotherly love one towards another, as if all were but one & not many, even as the Altar, before which they presented themselves, was but one, and the high Priest and Mediator between them and the Father, Jesus Christ, but One.

For it is to be observed that in those primitive times they had but One Altar in a Church, as a Symbole, both that they worshipped but One God through One Mediator Jesus Christ, & also of the unity the Church ought to have in itself: whence Ignatius, not only here, but also in his Epist to the Philadelphians urges the unity of the Altar for a monitive to the congregation to agree together in one.

This custom of One Altar is still retained by the Greek Church. The contrary use is a transgression of the Latins, not only symbolically implying, but really introducing, (as they handle it) a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or multiplying of God's and Mediators, instead of that

Nay more than this: It should seem, that in those first times, before Dioceses were divided into those lesser & subordinate Churches, we now call Parishes, & Presbyters assigned to thē, they had not only One Altar in one Chur or Dominicū, but one Altar to a Church, taking Chu: for the Cōpany or Corporatiō of the Faithful, united under one Bishop or Pastor; and that was in the City and place where the Bishop had his See and Residence: like as the Jews had but one Altar & Tēple for the whole Nation, united under one high Priest. And yet, as the Jews had their Synagogues, so perhaps might they have more Oratories than one, though their Altar were but one, there namely where the Bishop was.

Namely, as he there tells us, to celebrate & participate the holy Eucharist. Why was this, but because they had not many places to celebrate in? And unless this were so, whence came it else, that a Schismatical Bishop was said cōstituere or collocare aliud Altare: & that a Bishop & an Altar are made correlatives. See S. Cyprian Ep 40, 72, 73. & de unitate Ecclesiae. And thus perhaps is Ignatius also to be understood in that fore-quoted passage of his: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Howsoever, I here determine nothing, but refer it to the judgment of those who are better skilled in Antiquity: only adding this, that if it were so, yet now that Parishes are divided into several Presbyteries as their proper Cures, everyone of them being as it were, a little Diocese, the reason and signification of unity is the same, to have but One Altar in a Parish Church.

To this testimony of Ignatius of the use in his time, I will add another of his, in his Epistle ad Antiochenos, where, in his salutes he speaketh thus:

that is, the Doors the womē entered in at. For so we may learn frō the Compiler of the Apostolical Cōstitutiōs, Li. 2. c 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all. 61. describing a Ch: assembly: But if they had in Ignatius his time Holy doors, (or as some render it sacra vestibula) who can believe also but they had holy Houses?

This Epistle indeed is none of the confessed ones. The title is accepted against; as that Ignatius wrote no Epistle ad Antiochenos, because Eusebius, and after him S. Jerome, when they rehearse his Epistles, make no mention of any such. Yet were the Antiochians his flock, his pastoral charge. Who would not then think it unlikely, that, amongst so many Epistles written to other Churches in his going that long journey from Antioch to Rome, to receive the crown of Martyrdom (yea to Smyrna through which he had passed) he should not remember with one farewell Epistle that Church whereof he was Bishop & Pastor, as well as the rest? Thus much I dare say; that this is as strong an argument every whit, to persuade that he wrote such an Epistle (especially there being one extant under that Title) as Eusebius his silence (for S. Jerome did but follow his steps) is that he did not. For why should it be thought more necessary, that Eusebius should have met with all the Epistles of Ignatius in the Library of Aelia or Jerusalem (whence he professeth to have collected the whole matter of his History) then he did with all the works and Commentaries of some other Ecclesiastical men whom he mentioneth; many of whose writings, besides those he rehearseth, he confesseth not to have come to his hands, or knowledge, either what, or how many they were? See him Hist. Li. 5. c. 26. & Li. 6 c. 10. This will be yet more considerable, if we remember, that some Books, even of the Canon of the N. Test. were not known to some Churches at the same time with the rest, and therefore a while doubted of, after they had notice of them. Besides it is to be noted, that Eusebius in express terms undertakes only to recite those Epistles of Ignatius, which he wrote, as he passed thorough Asia: but after his coming into Europe (whence those Epistles are dated, which he mentions not) whether anything were written by him or not, he informs us nothing. Nay, which is yet more; Vedelius grants the words and sentences of this Epistle to be the most of them, by their style & character the words & sentences of Ignatius; but he would have them therefore to be taken out of some of his other Epistles; to wit, according to a new & strange conceit of his, that the genuine Epistles of Ignatius have been robbed & guelded of much of their contēts, to make up more Epistles under new Titles. he excepts only in this Epistle against the salutatiōs at the end thereof; because there were not so many, or no such Church-offices in Ignatius his time, as are there mentioned. But what is this else, but to beg the question? Till therefore somebody shall not only affirm, but prove, there were no such, no not in the Church of Antioch ( whence divers Ecclesiastical customs had their first beginning, which were afterwards imitated by the rest of the Churches) I can see no just cause hitherto, why I should not believe this passage, as well as the rest, & so the whole Epistle to have had Ignatius for its Author. And so I leave it.

For the middle of this Seculū, or thereabouts, [ 2] there are extant two short Epistles of PIUS the 1. Bishop of Rome to one Iustus Viennensis; none of the Decretals (for they are indeed counterfeit) but others diverse from thē, which no man hath yet, that I know of, proved to be suppositious. In the first whereof there is mention made of one Euprepia, a pious and devout Matron, who consigned the title of her house unto the Church for the use of sacred assemblies.

He seems by paupers, to note the Clergy, which in his other Epistle he calls Senatus pauperum, Salutat te Senatus pauperum: Otherwise the whole Christian flock might be so called; according to that in the Gospel, Pauperes Euangelizantur. (Mat. 11. 5. Luc. 7. 22.) and that of Esa. cap. 61. applied by our Savior & according to that in the Parable Luc. 14. 21. Perhaps in those perilous times, they were wont to make their donations of this kind under such covert names.

In his 2. Epistle to the same Iustus he mentions certain Martyrs, who had then newly (as he there speaks) triūphed over the world: Amōgst which he mentions one Pastor, by Office a Presbyter; who before his death, had erected or created a Titulus, that is, a Church, as that name is vulgarly known to signify:

Why the Roman Chu: called such places by the name of Tituli, whether because by their dedication the name of Christ our Lord was, as it were, inscribed upon them, (as the manner then was to set the names or titles of the owners upon their Houses and possessions;) and so it would concur in notion with those other names of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & Basilica, The Lord's and the Kings: or whether because they gave a title of Cure or denomination to the Presbyters, to whom they were committed (for the chief or Episcopal Church I doubt whether it were so called or not) let others determine.

I shall not do amiss, I think, if I add to this testimony a passage of Theophilus Antiochenus (who lived at the same time) which though, I grant to be indifferent to be otherwise understood; yet seems very prone to be construed for our purpose: It is to be found in his second Book ad Autolycum; where having compared the world to the Sea, he follows the Allegory thus;

It is ambiguous what he means here by Ecclesiae: but if it were probable, that Synagoga were here taken, as it is usually in the N. T. for a place; then might we determine, that Ecclesia were so taken also, and not for a Company or Assembly only.

Well, howsoever Ecclesia be taken in this passage (which I reckon not upon) yet thus much I am sure of, that toward the end of this Century, it was used for a place of sacred [ 3] assembly: witness Clemens Alexander. (who then lived) Lib. 7. Strom where speaking of the Church or

I call not now THE PLACE, but the congregation of the Elect, Ecclesia: whereby it appears, that in his time Ecclesia was used for the place of the assembly of the Elect, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as he calls them, that is, of the Saints, and not for the congregation only. For otherwise this caution needed not. And so himself uses it in that story of the young man, whō S. John committed to a Bishop of Asia to be instructed and trained up in the Christian piety and discipline, and who afterwards was by ill company withdrawn to lewd and debauched courses, and became Captain of a band of robbers in the Mountains. For there when S. John, after a time coming again to visit the Churches, demanded of the Bishop an account of the charge he had committed to him; The Bishop answers, To conclude, if the name were in Clemens his time, undoubtedly the thing was. And this is my proof for the latter end of this Century.

IN THE THIRD CENTURIE.

N OW are we arrived at the third Seculum, and the last under the Ethnic and persecuting Emperors: Wherein the Testimonies of the Christians Oratories do abound, and are such as will out-face any that shall dare contradict them.

For the beginning of this Century, Tertullian shall give in evidence. 1. In his Book De Idololatria. Where declaiming against some Christian Artificers, who, because it was their occupation and trade, thought it lawful to make Idols for the Gentiles, so themselves worshipped them not; he speaks thus:

Mark here, DOMVS DEI, & ECCLESIA expounded by it; In Ecclesiam venire, id est, In Domum Dei venire; and both of them set in opposition to an Idol-shop.

Of this DOMUS DEI or House of God, in his Book adversus Valentinianos, he describes unto us the form and posture, upon this occasion. He compares the Valentinian heresy, in respect of their affected secrecy, and reservednesse in hiding the mysteries of their doctrine, to the Eleusinian Holies, whose Temple had many Curtains and Doors, through which those, that were to be initiated, were 5. years in passing, before they could be admitted unto the Adytum or sacrarie, where the Deity was: Whereas contrariwise, he proveth out of Scripture, the badge and genius of the Religiō of Christ, to consist in a Dove-like simplicity and opennesse, and accordingly had its Oratories or Houses of worship, not like that of the Eleusinian Holies, concealed with multiplicity of walls, vails, turnings and windings, but agreeable to, and as it were figuring its disposition.

.i. Domus religions nostrae columbinae, or Catholici Christi gregis, qui Columba figuratur; namely, as he said a little before, Christum Columba demonstrare solitaest, serpens vero tentare; meaning, as I suppose, not so much Christ personal, as Christ mystical, that is, the Disciples, or Religion of Christ. For it is the conclusion of his proofs brought out of Scripture, to show, that simplicity was the livery of Christ's Disciples or Religion; In summa, saith he, Christum columba demonstrare solita est, &c. And otherwise, that solita est would scarcely be true; since Christ personal is but once pointed out by a Dove, namely, at his Baptism. This House, saith he, is simplex, that is, Sine tot portarum & sipariorum involucris: Also in editis & apertis, places which Doves delight in: Et ad lucem. i toward the place whence light springeth, or the Sun-rising: For Amat figuram Sp. sancti. i. the Dove, as also Orientem Christi, figuram: wherein he alludes to that Oriens exalto, or Day-spring from on high, in Zacharias' Benedictus, and hath reference to the word, Et ad lucem. i. ad locum vel plagam lucis. For, that the Churches of Christians anciently were turned toward the East, appears by the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, which surely are as ancient as Tertullian Domus sit oblonga, ad Orientem conversa, saith he; Besides it appears out of Tertullian himself, that Christians then worshipped towards the East, and therefore more than probable, their houses were sited and accommodated accordingly. Thus I have done my best to clear this passage, because the Author is crabbed and obscure.

There are two or three more places in the same Father, where the Christian Oratories are mentioned by the name of Ecclesia: but because the ambiguous and indifferent signification of this word, either for a Place or an Assembly, makes them not convictive, unless some circumstance be annexed, which determines it: I will only produce that De corona Militis, Chap. 3. where concerning the Sacrament of Baptism he speaks thus:

I say Ecclesia here signifies the Place. For the clearing whereof, know, that the Baptisteries, or places of water for Baptism, in those elder times, were not, as now our Fonts are, within the Church, but without, and often in places very remote from it. When therefore Tertullian here saith; That those, who were to be baptized, first made their abrenunciation in the Church sub manu Antistitis (that is, as I suppose, the Bishop or Priest laying hands upon them, either in the mean time, or as soon as they had done) and afterward again at the Water: He must needs by Ecclesia mean the Place; otherwise, if it were taken for the Assembly of the faithful, the Church in that sense was present also at the Water. But Ecclesia here and the Water are supposed to be two distinct places; in both of which (according to the rite of the African Churches) Abrenunciation was to be performed: And thus much for the testimony of Tertullian.

My next witness is Hippolytus, who flourished between the twentieth and thirtieth year of this Century in the reign of Alexander Mammeae. He in his Treatise De consummatione mundi seu de Antichristo, describing the signs and impieties which should precede the persecution of Antichrist (as he conceived thereof,) hath this passage concerning the irreligion and profaneness which should then reign: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,

And in his description of the persecution itself, This: No man of reason can believe, but that he that speaks thus, knew and was well acquainted with such Places in his own time; though his description be of that which was to be in time to come. For it would be a marvelous conceit, to think he prophesied of them, having never seen them. Nay, a profane Testimony will further confirm us, he needed not: For Lampridius reports of this Alexander Mammeae (in whose time Hippolytus lived)

About the middle of this Century flourished that famous Gregory of Neocaesarea, surnamed Thaumaturgus. He in his Epistola Canonica (as the Greeks call it) describing the 5. degrees or admissions of Poenitents, according to the discipline of his time (which he calls

Who sees not here, that Christians in his time had Oratories or sacred Houses to worship in, and those accommodated with distinct places of remoter and nearer admission?

Nay further we find in this Gregory's life written by Gregory Nissen, that he was himself a great Founder and erecter of these sacred Edifices; whereof the Church built by him at Neocaesarea in Pontus, (where he was Bishop) was still standing in Gregory Nissens time. Hear his words, where he relates the speedy and wonderful success this Thaumaturgus had in the conversion of that City:

He adds besides, that, whereas in his own time there had happened a most grievous Earthquake;

Nor is this all; He tells in the same place, how that a little before the persecution of Decius (which was Anno Christi 252.) this Thaumaturgus, having converted, not the City of Neocaesarea only, but the whole territory adjoining, to the faith of Christ,

stirred up the fury and indignation of the Emperor.

About the same time with this Gregory, lived S. Cyprian at Carthage. In him I observe the Christian Oratories twice remembered; once by the name of Domnicum .i. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; another time of Ecclesia. The first in his Book De opere & eleemosynis, speaking against communicating the holy Eucharist without an offering.

The other in his 55. Epist. or 3. ad Cornelium; where declaiming against some lapsed Christians, who having in time of persecution sacrificed unto Idols, would nevertheless, without due penance and satisfaction, be admitted again into the Church: If this be once permitted (saith he) Note, that Ecclesia here and Capitolium, Christ's House and Jupiter's Temple, stand in opposition one to the other; also that Capitolium by Antonomasia is put for a Gentile Temple in general; that in the one (to wit, Ecclesia) was Altare Domini nostri, & sacer venerandus{que} consessus Cleri; in the other, Idola & simulacra cum Aris Diaboli.

Contemporary with S. Cyprian was that famed Dionysius Alexandrinus, made Bishop somewhat before him, but out-lived him some 5. years, namely until 265. There is an Epistle of his extant (which is part of the Canon Law of the Greek Church) to one Basilides, resolving certain quaeres of his; Amongst the rest, whether a woman during the time of her separation might enter into the Church or not; To which, his answer is negative. This Quaere he expresseth thus;

By which, and his answer thereunto we learn not only, that the Christians had then Houses of worship, but a religious respect also to difference them from common places.

And here, because the time fitly presents it in our way, take notice, for some reason that we shall hear of ere we have done: That this of the Christians having such houses for their devotions, was a thing publicly known to the Gentiles themselves, together with the name whereby they called them: as appears by two Imperial Rescripts, the one of Galienus about the year 260. recorded by Eusebius. Hist. lib. 7. cap. 12. which calls them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Worshipping Places; which having been a little before, in the persecution of Valerianus his Father, taken from the Christians, and then in the hands of the Gentiles, Galienus graciously restored them unto them, with liberty freely to exercise their Religion. The words of the Rescript, so much of them as is needful to our purpose, are these:

The other is of Aurelianus, De libris Sibyllinis inspiciendis, when the Marcomanni invaded the Empire, Anno Ch. 271. recorded by Vopiscus, in these words:

that is, in the Capitol, where the Senate used sometimes to sit.

Add to this, if you please, that which Eusebius relates of this Emperor, to wit, that when Paulus Samosatenus, being deposed by the Council from his Bishopric, and Domnus chosen in his room, would not yield up the possession of the Church 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : The matter being brought before Aurelianus the Emperor, he decrees, that it should be given to those of the Sect, unto whom the Bishops of Rome and Italy should send Letters of communion:

For that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is here meant the Christians Oratory or house of sacred assembly at Antioch, (and not the Bishops house, as some would have it) appears, both because Eusebius elsewhere so uses it, as namely Lib. 8. cap. ult. & Lib. 9. cap. Θ. as also, because he expounds himself presently by Ecclesia, when he saith: For surely he meant not, that he was by the secular arm cast out of the Church, as Chu • ch is taken for the company of the Faithful, but as it signifies the Place of sacred assembly, where this Paulus kept possession, after he was deposed for heresy by the Council.

But what need we trouble ourselves thus to gather up Testimonies for the latter half of this Seculum? I have one Testimony behind, which will dispatch it all at once, yea, and if need be, depose for the whole also. It is that of Eusebius in his eighth Book Hist. Eccl. in the beginning: where describing those peaceful and halcyonian days, which the Church enjoyed for many years, from the time of the Martyrdom of S. Cyprian unto that most direful persecution of Diocletian, and how wonderfully the number of Christians was advanced during that time, he speaketh on this manner:

Loe here, how in those Halcyonian days, Christians had not only Churches or Houses of worship, but such as might then be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ancient aedifices; which how far it may reach, let others judge: Secondly, that the number of Christians being grown so great, that those ancient Fabrics were no longer sufficient to contain them, they erected new and more spacious ones in every City from the foundations: And all this testified by one that himself lived and saw part of those times. These sacred Aedifices, Diocletian, and those other surrogated Emperors, (which contained that direful ten years persecution begun by him) commanded by their Edicts to be every where demolished, as we may read in the same Eusebius at large. The like whereunto seems never to have happened in any of the former persecutions; in which they were only taken from the Christians; but again, when the persecution ceased, for the most part restored unto them: as in the former persecution they were by Galienus, under the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

And thus I think I have proved, by good and sufficient Testimonies, that Christians had Oratories or Churches, that is, appropriate Places for Christian worship in every of the first 300. years: I am well assured (whosoever be Judge) long before the days of Constantine. I will add to these authorities two or three reasons, why they must, in all likelihood, have had such Places; First, because it is certain, that in their sacred assemblies they used then to worship and pray towards the East: which how it could be done with any order and conveniency, is not easy to be conceived; unless we suppose the Places wherein they worshipped to have been situated and accommodated accordingly; that is, chosen and appointed to that end. Secondly, because of their discipline, which required distinct and regular Places in their assemblies, for the Poenitentes, Auditores, Catechumen, & Fideles, and therefore argueth they met not in every place promiscuously, but in Places already fitted & accommodated for that purpose. Lastly, because they had before their eyes an example and pattern in the Proseuchais and Synagogues of the Jews, from whom their Religion had its beginning; which though as contrary to the Religion of the Empire as theirs, yet had places appropriate for the exercise thereof, wheresoever they lived dispersed among the Gentiles. Who can believe, that such a pattern should not invite the Christians to an imitation of the same, though we should suppose, there were no other reasons to induce them, but that of ordinary conveniency.

ANSWER TO THE OBIECTIONS.

I Come now to answer the Objections brought by such as maintain the contrary opinion, which are two. First, say they, It is not likely, no not possible, they should have any such places living under a Pagan and persecuting State and Empire. I answer: this Objection is already confuted by matter of fact. For it is to be noted, that the greatest and most cruel Persecutions, and the 5. last of the ten, fall with in the third or last Century. In which, that Christians had Oratories or Houses of Christian worship, we have before proved by most indubitate and irrefragable testimonies: But if in this, why not as well in the former Ages, wherein the persecutions were, as no more in number, so far less bitter? For it is to be taken notice of, that these Persecutions were not continual, but as it were by fits, and those of the 2. first Centuries of no long durance: so as the Churches enjoyed long times of peace and quietness between them.

Besides, why should it seem to any one less credible, that Christians should have their Oratories or Houses of worship under the Roman Empire, whilst the State thereof was yet Gentile and opposite to the faith of Christ; then that they had them in the Kingdom of Persia, which never was Christian? For, that they had them there as old as the days of Constantine, Sozomen testifieth, Lib. 2. c. 8. The occasion of the demolishing whereof by K. Isdigerdes, and of that most barbarous persecution of the Christians of those Countries for 30. years together, about the year 400. Theodoret relates Lib. 5. cap. 38. namely, that one Audas, out of an indiscreet and unseasonable zeal, (though otherwise a virtuous and godly Bishop) having demolished the Persians Pyraeum, or Temple where the Fire was worshipped, and refusing to build it up again, as was enjoined him; the King thereupon mightily enraged, caused all the Christians Oratories or Churches in his Dominions to be demolished likewise, and that horrible persecution before mentioned, to storm against them. Could the Christians find means and opportunity to erect Churches, that is, houses for their Religion under a Pagan government in Persia, and could they not under the Roman Empire?

The other Objection is from the Authors of Apologies against the Gentiles, Origen against Celsus, Minutius Felix, Arnobius, and Lactantius, who when the Gentiles object Atheism to the Christians, as having no Templa, no Arae, no Simulacra; these Authors are so far from pleading they had any such, that they answer by way of concession, not only granting they had none, but (which is more) affirming, they ought not to have, and condemning the Gentiles which had. Celsus, saith Origen, ait nos Ararū, & statuarū, Templorū{que} fundationes fugere: Origen denies it not, but gives the reason: Templorum fundationes fugimus, quia ubi per Jesus doctrinam comperimus, quemadmodum colendus sit Deus; ea nos evitamus, quae sub pietatis praetextu & opinione quadam impios reddant, qui à vero per Iesum cultu aberrando falluntur, qui uti{que} solus est vericultus via, vereque illud profatur, Ego sum via, veritas, & vita.

MINUTIUS FELIX when Caecilius objects, Cur occultare & abscondere, quicquid illud quod colunt magnopere nituntur....Cur nullas aras habent? Templa nulla? nulla not a Simulacra?.....nisi illud quod colunt & interprimunt aut puniendum est, aut pudendum; brings in his Octavius answering thus: Putatis autem nos occultare quod colimus, si Delubra & Aras non habemus? Quod enim simulacrum Deo fingam, cum sirecte existimes, sit Dei homo ipse simulacrum? Templum quod ei extruam, cum totus hic mundus, ejus operâ fabricatus, eum capere non possit? & cum homo laxiùs maneam, intra unam Aediculam vim tantae Majestatis includam? nonne melius in nostra dedicandus est mente? in nostro imo consecrandus est pectore?

ARNOBIUS In hâc consuestis parte crimen nobis maximum impietatis affigere, quod ne{que} Aedes sacras venerationis ad officia extruamus, non Deorum alicujus Simulacrum constituamus aut formam, non altaria fabricemus, non Aras. He denies none of this, but answers: Templa quaerimus in Deorum quos usus? aut in cujus rei necessitatem, aut dicitis esse constructa, aut esse rursus aedificanda censetis? &c.....

LACTANTIUS condemns the Gentiles for having them: Cur, inquit, oculos in coelum non tollitis? &, advocatis Deorum nominibus, in aperto sacrificia celebratis? Cur ad parietes & ligna & lapides potissimum, quàm illo spectatis, ubi Deos esse creditis? Quid sibi Templa? Quid Arae volunt? quid deniq, ipsa simulacra? Who would now think, that Christians had any Churches or Houses of worship in these Authors days?

This Objection indeed looks very big at the first sight, but it is no more but a show, and we shall deal well enough with it. For we are to take notice, that these Authors all four of them lived and wrote within, and after the third Seculum was begun, and the eldest of them Minutius Felix after Tertullian; Origin after him: yea, why do I say, after the third Seculum was begun, or within it? when as 2. of them, Arnobius and Lactantius, lived and wrote rather after it was ended, and in the beginning of the fourth; Arnobius in the time of the Persecution of Diocletian, Lactantius somewhat after him: for he was his Scholar and dedicates his Institutions adversus Gentes, to Constantine the Great.

Now then remember, what authorities and testimonies were even now produced for the Christians Oratories all that Seculū throughout, not probabilities only, but such as are altogether irrefragable and past contradiction. This they seem not to have considered, unless they dissembled it, who so securely urge these passages, to infer a Conclusion point-blank against evidence of Fact. As for example (I will allege no more, but what is out of possibility to be denied or eluded.) Had the Christians no Oratories or Churches in Gregory Thaumaturgus his time? Had they none in S. Cyprians? Had they none in the days of Dionysius Alexandrinus? Had they none, when Galienus released their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? Had they none in those halcyonian days whereof Eusebius speaks, when the multitude of Christians was grown so great, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the ancient Aedifices were no longer able to contain their Assemblies; but that they were fain to build new and spacious Churches in every City from the foundations? Had they none, when the Edict of Diocletian came forth for demolishing them? For all these were before, that either Arnobius or Lactantius wrote. Let those therefore, who put so much confidence in these passages, tell us, before they conclude, how to untie this knott, and then they shall say something.

What then, will you say, is the meaning of these passages, and how may they be satisfied, and this scruple taken off? I answer: The Gentiles in these Objections had a peculiar notion of what they called a Temple, and these Fathers and Authors, in their disputes with them, answer them according unto it. For they defined a Temple by an Idol and the inclosure of a Deity; not of the statue or Image only, but of the Daemon himself: that is, they supposed their gods by the power of spells and magical consecrations, to be retained and shut up in their Temples, as birds in a Cage, or the devil within a circle; that so their suppliants might know where to have them, when they had occasion to seek unto them; and that, for such retaining or circumscribing of them in a certain Place, an Idol was necessary, as the center of their collocation. Thus much Origen himself will inform us in those his disputes against Celsus, as in his 3. Book pag. 135. Editionis Graecolat; where he describes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Temples and Idols to be places where Daemons are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , enthroned or seated, either having praeoccupied such places of themselves,

I shall not need to produce the rest of his sayings to the same purpose; let him that will, consult him further in the end of that 7. Book pag. 389. and a little before p. 387. in fine. To this confining of gods in Temples (that so those that had occasion to use their help might not be to seek, but know where to find them;) that also of Menander cited by Justin Martyr, in his De Monarchia Dei, hath reference.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

According to this notion of a Temple, these Authors alleged grant, that Christians, neither had any Temples, no nor ought to have; Forasmuch as the God whom they worshipped, was such a one as filled the heaven & the earth, and dwelt not in Temples made with hands. And because the Gentiles appropriated the name of a Temple to this notion of encloistering a Deity by an Idol; therefore the Christians of those first Ages, for the most part, abstained therefrom, especially when they had to deal with Gentiles; calling their houses of Worship Ecclesiae, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (whence is the Dutch and our English Kurk and Church) in Latin Dominica; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, Oratories, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the like: seldom 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Templa; that appellation being grown, by the use of both sides, into a name of distinction of the houses of Gentile superstition from those of Christian Worship. Which that I affirm, not upon bare conjecture, these examples will make manifest. First that of Aurelian the Emperor, before alleged, in his Epistle to the Senate,

(He speaks of a Christian woman married to a Gentile.) That also of S. Jerome in his Epistle ad Riparium, saying of Julian the Apostate, Thus they spake, when they would distinguish: Otherwise, now and then, the Christian Fathers use the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Templum, for Ecclesia; but respecting the Temple of the true God at Jerusalem, not the notion of the Gentiles.

That this answer is true and genuine, I [ 1] prove, first, because the Gentiles themselves, who objected this want to the Christians, neither were, nor could be ignorant, that they had Oratories where they performed their Christian service, when they were so notoriously known (as we saw before) to the Emperors Galienus and Aurelian; and a controversy about one of them referred unto the latter; when also the Emperors Edicts flew about in every City for demolishing them. Why therefore do they object in this manner, but because, for the defect of something they thought thereto necessary, they esteemed not those Oratories for Temples?

Secondly, because in that dispute between [ 2] Origen & Celsus, it is supposed by both, that the Persians and Jews were, as concerning this matter, in like condition with the Christians; neither of both enduring to worship their God's in Temples. Hear Origen speak,

Loe here, it is all one with Origen to have Templa, as it was to worship other gods: as it was a little before with Minutius Felix his Octavius (if you mark it) to have Delubra & Simulacra.

Yet certain, neither Celsus nor Origen, whatsoever they here say of the Persians and Jews, were ignorant, that the Persians had their Pyraea or Pyrathaea (Houses where the Fire was worshipped) though without Images or Statues: also, that the Jews had both then, & also formerly, their Synagogues and Proseuchae, in the places and Countries where they were dispersed; and once a most glorious & magnificent Tēple or Sanctuary: Ergo, by Temples they understand not houses of prayer & religious rites in the general; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , places where Daemons were incloistered by the position of an Idol, or consecrated Statue. And here let me add (because it is not impertinent) what I have observed in reading the Itinerarium of Benjamin Tudelensis the Jew; namely, that he expresses constantly after this manner, the Oratories of Jews, Turks, & Christians by differing names: those of the Jews he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .i. Houses of assembly, or Synagogues: The Turkish Mosquees 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Houses of prayer; but the Christian Churches, because of Images (yea that renowned Church of S. Sophie itself) he called always 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 BAMOTH, the name of the Idol-Temples in the Old Testament, which we translate High Places. This I note for an example of that proneness in Religions of a contrary Rite, thus to distinguish, as other things, so their Places of worship by diversity of names, though they communicate in the same common nature and use.

[ 3] Thirdly, that the answer I have given to these objected passages is genuine, I prove; because some of these Authors acknowledge elsewhere, that Christians had houses of sacred worship in their time: As namely Arnobius (whose words were as pressing as any of the rest, yet) in the self same Books acknowledges the Christians Oratories by the name of CONVENTICULA, or Meeting places; by that name endeavoring I suppose, to express the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The place is about the end of his 4. Book adversùs Gentes:

(he means the Poets absurd & blasphemous fictions & tales of their gods) (of this their scurrilous dishonoring of their gods upō the Stage he had spoken much before) He alludes unto the burning of the Books of Scripture and demolition of the Christians Oratories by Diocletian; of which see Eusebius, Lib. 8. cap. 3. And know from hence when Arnobius wrote.

Nay Origen himself, one of the first brought to depose against us, (if Rufinus his Translator, deserve any credit) will in his Homily upon the 9. chap. of Joshua testify both for Churches and Altars among Christians in his time. For, thus he allegorizeth there the story of the Gibeonites, whose lives Joshua & the flders spared, but gave them no better entertainmēt, than to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the Congregation, and for the Altar of the Lord.

Thus Origen by his Interpreter. And if any where Rufinus may be trusted, sure he may in this, forasmuch as in his Peroration in Epist. ad Romanos, he hath given us his word, that in his translation of this and the next Book, he took not his wonted liberty, to insert or alter any thing, but simply expressed everything, as he found it. Hear his words.

Vide locum & Erasmi Censuram. Lib. Origen. Besides, he that but considers the matter, together with the brevity of this Homily, cannot see a possibility, how these passages can be an addition or supplement of the Translators, unless he made the whole Homily: because the contents of them are the only argument thereof, and being taken from it, nothing would be remaining.

Lastly, because the fore-alleged words of Lactantius are so usually brought against us, though they be nothing urgent, and his time be altogether repugnant to any such inference: yet absolutely to take away all scruple, let us hear him also, Instit. Lib. 5. c. 2. expressly giving evidence for us, and that even by the name of

See the rest which follows. This was when the Edict of Diocletian came forth for the demolishing of the Christians Churches.

And thus, having removed that stumbling stone, which hath been the main inducement to the contrary opinion, so prejudicial to those works of religious bounty and piety: I hope my proofs will find the freer passage with those of understanding and judgment; to whose pious consideration I have devoted this my Discourse.