IN THE FIRST CENTURIE.

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

For the times of the Apostles there­fore, [Page 17] or first Century in particular, which ends with the death of S. Iohn 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 prophaned 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 kinde of argument, know also, that Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 16. in that discourse of his, where he endeavours to prove, that the Essenes, or [...], which Philo describes, were the first Christian Society of the Iewish na­tion at Alexandria, converted by S. Mark; amongst other Characteristical notes (as he [...].cals them) or badges of Christianity (however he were mistaken in his con­clusion or inference) alledges this for one of the first, that they had sacred Houses, called [...], or worshipping places, that is, Churches. His words are these. ‘ Dein­ceps ubi eorum domicilia quaenam essent de­scripserat [Page 18] (nempe Philo) de Ecclesiis in vari­ [...]s locis extructis sic loquitur: Est in quo (que) agro aedes sacra, quae appellatur [...], vel [...], in quo illi ab aliis [...]. soli agentes, [...]. sanctae religiosae (que) vitae mysteria obeunt: N. B. nihil (que) eò vel cibi, vel potionis, vel aliarum rerum, quae ad corporis usum necessariae sunt, important, He meanes the Bookes of the Law, the Prophets, and Psalmes, and like things of sacred use. sed leges & oracula à prophetis divinitùs edi­ta, & hymnos, alia (que) quibus scientia & pie­tas erga Deum crescat & perficiatur.’After­wards reciting some other customes and particular observances of their discipline; as their frequent assemblies in their [...], to heare the Scriptures read & interpreted; the distinction of places for men and wo­men; their maner of singing Hymnes and Psalms by a Praecentor, the rest answering, Author Const. Ap. vocat [...] lib. 2. c. [...]. al. 61. Alius David hymnos cana & populus [...], idest, [...], extremi­tates versuum; non versuum ini­tia, ut malè In­tepres Bovius. [...], the extreams of the verses; the degrees of their Hierarchy, like those of Deacons and Bishops, and some other the like, he concludes; Quod [...]: ‘ That Phi­lo wrote these things, as one having knowledge of the customes at the beginning delivered by [Page 19] the Apostles, is manifest to any one.’ But whe­ther that be so manifest or not, this I am sure is; that Eusebius beleeved the antiqui­ty of Churches or Oratories of Christians to have been from the Apostles times; yea, to have been an Apostolicall 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 Eccle­siasticall history, and his Commentaries of the He mentions it Hist. Eccl. li. 5. cap. 1. Acts of Martyrs now perished?

Adde to this, what I a little before ob­served out of Bede, de locis sanctis; of a tra­dition, that the Church of Sion 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 [Page 20] one above other in the Apostles salutatiōs, as their peculiar? Salute such a one, [...], and the Church at his house. ‘As Colos. 4. 15. of Nymphas [...], Salute Nymphas and the Church at his house. To Philemon also; To Phile­mon our deare brother and fellow labourer (to Appia our beloved, and Archippus our fellow-souldier,) [...], and to the Church at thy 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 severall times, once sending salu­tation to them, ‘ Rom. 16. Salute Priscilla and Aquila, and the Church at their house▪’ Again sending salutation from them, ‘ 1 Cor. 16. 19. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the Church at their house.’ Which I understand not, to be spoken of their families as it is cōmonly expounded, but of the congregation of the Saints, there wont to assemble for the performance of divine duties; that is, [...]. [Page 21] 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 severall 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 Gospell; Nymphas at Colosse, Philemon at La­odicea (for there Archippus, who is saluted with him, was Bishop, saith Lib. 7. c. penul. Author constit. Apost. as Philemon himself was afterwards of the neighbouring City Colosse:) Aquila and Priscilla first at Rome, till Claudius ba­nished thē with the rest of the Iews 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 [Page 22] mention the other exposition also: As to that of Aquila and Priscilla, Rom. 16. his note is; ‘ Adeò virtute spectati erant, ut su­am etiam domum Ecclesiam fecerint. Vel di­citur hoc, Quia omnes domestici fideles erant, ut jam Domus esset Ecclesia.’ He mentions as I said both interpretations. So upon that of Nymphas, Col. 4. His words are, ‘ Magni nominis hic vir erat, nam domum suam fece­rat Ecclesiam.’ And unlesse 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 remembred, as of Aquila and Priscilla. Had none in those Catalogues of salutation, Christian families, but some one only who is thus remembred? It is very improbable, nay if we peruse them well, we shall finde they had, but otherwise expressed; as in that prolix Catalogue, Rom. 16. wee finde ‘ Aristobulus and Narcissus saluted with their houshold, Asyncritus, Phlegon, &c. with the brethren which are with them; others, with the Saints which are [Page 23] with them.’ 2 Tim. 4. 19. The houshold 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 shewed?

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 Centurie, we can learn what maner of ones they were. For Or whosoe­ver else were the Author thereof under Trajan, whose then fresh suc­cesse in subdu­ing the Parthi­ans and Arabi­ans (contrary to the unlucky presages of some) his scope seemes to have been to gratu­late. See Iaco­bus Micyllus in Argumento. 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 perswade him, to be of their reli­gion; and that they brought him to the place of their assembly, being an Hyperôon, which he describes thus: ‘ Pertransivimus (saith he) ferreas portas, & aerea limina; multis (que) jam superatis scalis, in Domum aura­to fastigio insignem ascendimus, qualem Ho­merus Menalai fingit esse: at (que) ipse quidem omnia contemplabar,—video autem, non Helenam, sed mehercle viros in faciem incli­natos [Page 24] & pallescentes.’ So he.

3 My third proofe 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 Gospell 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 Episcopall Resi­dence. This tradition is derived out of the Recognitions of Clemens, where it is first found. Which, though it be an Apocry­phall 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 fained.

The like is reported of the house of Pu­dens, a Romane Senatour and Martyr, in the Acta Pudentis; That it was turned into a Church after his Martyrdome. This is that Pudens mentioned by the Apostle in [Page 25] the 2. Epist. to Timothy, and coupled with Linus: Pudens and ‘ Linus (saith he) salute you.’ All this comes not of nothing; but surely argues some such custome to have been in those times.

I will seale up all my proofes for this 4 Centurie of the Apostles with one passage of Clemens (a man of the Apostolicall age, in his genuine Pag. 52. Vid. Graec. Epistle ad Corinthios: ‘ Debemus omnia rite & ordine facere, quaecun (que) nos Do­minus peragere jussit: praestitutis temporibus oblationes & liturgias obire. Ne (que) enim teme­re vel inordinatè voluit ista fieri, sed statutis temporibus & horis. VBI etiam, & A QVI­BVS peragi vult, ipse excellissima sua volunta­te definivit; ut religiosè omnia, secundùm be­neplacitum ejus, adimpleta, voluntati ipsius accepta essent.’ Here Clemens saith expresly, That the Lord had ordained (even now in the Gospell) aswell appropriate places WHERE, as appropriate Times and Persons (that is Priests) When and WHEREBY he would be solemnly served, that so all things might bee done religiously and in order. Who then [Page 26] can beleeve, 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 maner, unlesse he had known it so to have been? The Co­rinthians, it seemes, in that their notorious sedition and discord, had violated this or­der; at the correction whereof this pas­sage aymeth.

This one passage therefore makes all my former proofes 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 Majestie it self is most sacred and incom­municable, (the reason why the worship and service given unto him must be com­municated [Page 27] 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. Ab An. 100. ad 200.

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: ‘ Omnes ad orandum in idem loci con­venite, una sit communis precatio, una mens, una spes in charitate & fide inculpata in Iesum Christū: quo nihil praestantius est. Omnes velut VNVS, ad TEM­PLVM Dei [ [...]] concurrite, quemadmodum ad VNVM Altare, ad VNVM Iesum Christum Pon­tificē ingeniti Dei.’ Loe here a Temple with an Altar in it, whither the Magnesians are exhorted to gather thēselves together to pray; To come to­gether in one place, that so they might all joyn together in one cōmon prayer, spirited with one intētion, with one & the same hope in the Cha­rity [Page 28] & 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 Mediatour be­tween them and the Father, Iesus 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 Mediatour Iesus Christ, & also of the unity the Church ought to have in it self: whence Ignatius, not only here, but also in his Epist to the Philadelphians urges the unity of the Altar for a monitive to the cōgregation to agree together in one. ‘For Vnum Altare (saith he) omni Ec­clesiae, & unus Episcopus cum Presbyterio & Dia­conis conservis meis.’ This custom of One Altar is stil 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 [...], or multiplying of Gods and Mediatours, instead of that ‘ One God, and One Mediatour between God and men, the man Christ Iesus.’

Nay more than this: It should seem, that in [Page 29] those first times, before Diocesses 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 Faithfull, 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 Iews had but one Al­tar & Tēple for the whole Nation, united under one high Priest. And yet, as the Iews had their Synagogues, so perhaps might they have more Oratories than one, though their Altar were but one, there namely where the Bishop was. ‘ Die Solis, saith Iust. Mart. omniū, qui vel in oppidis vel ruri degunt, in eundē locu conventus fit;’ Namely, as he there tels us, to celebrate & participate the ho­ly Eucharist. Why was this, but because they had not many places to celebrate in? And unlesse 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: [...], ‘ Vnū Altare omni Ecclesiae, & unus Episcopus [Page 30] cum Presbyterio & Diaconis.’ Howsoever, I here determine nothing, but refer it to the judgement of those who are better skilled in Antiquity: only adding this, that if it were so, yet now that Parishes are divided into severall Presbyteries as their proper Cures, every one of them being as it were, a little Diocess, 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 adde another of his, in his Epistle ad Antiochenos, where, in his salutes he speaketh thus: ‘ [...], I salute the keepers of the HOLY DOORES the Deaconisses w ^ch are in Christ:’ that is, the Doores the womē entred in at. For so we may learn frō the Compiler of the Apostoli­call Cōstitutiōs, Li. 2. c [...] al. 61. describing a Ch: assembly: ‘ Stent ostiarii, saith he, ad introitus vi­rorum, illos custodientes; Diaconissae ad introitus foe­minarum.’ But if they had in Ignatius his time Holy doores, (or as some render it sacra vestibula) who can beleeve 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 [Page 31] Eusebius, and after him S. Hierom, when they rehearse his Epistles, make no mention of any such. Yet were the Antiochians his flock, his pastorall 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 remēber 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 perswade that hee wrote such an Epistle (especially there being one extant under that Title) as Eusebius his si­lence (for S. Hierom 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 Ierusalem (whence he Lib. 6. c. 14 al. 21. Vid. Graec. professeth to have collected the whole matter of his Histo­ry) then he did with all the works and Com­mentaries of some other Ecclesiasticall men whom he mentioneth; many of whose wri­tings, besides those he rehearseth, he confesseth not to have come to his hands, or knowledge, [Page 32] either what, or how many they were? See him Hist. Li. 5. c. In Grae­co 27. 26. & Li. 6 c. In Grae­co 12. 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 expresse tearms undertakes only to recite those Epistles of Ignatius, which he wrote, as he passed tho­row Asia: but after his comming into Europe (whence those Epistles are dated, which he mentions not) whether any thing 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 cōceit 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 [...] Vid. Epiplaen. Exposit. Fi­dei cathol. c. 21. De duobus ul­timis, Const. Apost. l. 8. cap. 24, 26. Church-offices [Page 33] in Ignatius his time, as are there mentio­ned. But what is this else, but to beg the que­stion? Till therefore some body shall not only affirm, but prove, there were no such, no not in the Church of Antioch ( See Act. 11. 26. Socr. lib. 6. c. 8. Theod. lib. 2. c. 24. whence divers Eccle­siasticall customes 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 beleeve 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 In Tom. 1. Biblioth. Patris edit. Pariscens. ex Archivo Viennensi. extant two short Epistles of PIUS the 1. Bishop of Rome to one Iustus Viennensis; none of the Decretals (for they are indeed coūterfeit) but others diverse from thē, which no man hath yet, that I know of, proved to be suppositious. In the first whereof there is mē ­tion 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. ‘ Antequam Roma exiisses, saith he, soror nostra Euprepia (sicut benè recordaris) titulum do­mus suae pauperibus assignavit: ubi nunc cum pau­peribus nostris commorantes, The word Mis­sa seem [...]s to have been long used in I­taly be­fore it was elsewhere. Missas agimus.’ He seems by pauperes, to note the Clergy, which in [Page 34] his other Epistle he cals Senatus pauperum, Salu­tat te Senatus pauperum: Otherwise the whole Christian flock might be so called; according to that in the Gospell, Pauperes Euangelizantur. (Mat. 11. 5. Luc. 7. 22.) and that of Esa. cap. 61. applyed by our Saviour ‘ Luc. 4. The Lord hath annointed me to preach the Gospell to the poore:’ & according to that in the Parable Luc. 14. 21. ‘ Introduc pauperes, Bring in hither the poore.’ Per­haps in those perillous times, they were wont to make their donations of this kinde 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 mentiōs 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 signifie: ‘ Presbyter Pastor (saith he) Titulum condidit, & digne in Domino obiit.’ 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 maner then was to set the names or titles of the ow­ners upon their Houses and possessions;) [Page 35] and so it would concurre in notion with those other names of [...] & Basilica, The Lords 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 Episco­pall Church I doubt whether it were so called or not) let others determine.

I shall not do amisse, I think, if I adde 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; ‘ Quem­admodum (saith he) in Mari insulae quaedam prominent habitabiles, frugiferae, & quibus est aqua salubris, necnon navalia, & portus com­modi, quò se naufragi reciperent; Sic Deus dedit mundo, qui peccatorum tempestatibus & naufragiis jactatur, Synagogas, quas Ecclesias sanct as nominamus. [gr. [...]] in quibus veritatis [Page 36] doctrina fervet, ad quas confugiunt veritatis studiosi, quot quot salvari, Dei (que) judicium & iram evitare volunt.’ 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: witnesse Clemens Alexandr. (who then lived) Lib. 7. Strom where spea­king of the Church or ‘ [...], saith he, [...],’ I call not now THE PLACE, but the congregation of the E­lect, Ecclesia: whereby it appeares, that in his time Ecclesia was used for the place of the assembly of the Elect, [...], as he cals them, that is, of the Saints, and not for the congregation only. For otherwise this caution needed not. And so himself [Page 37] uses it in that story of the yong man, Clem, Alex in O­pere, Quis sit ille dives, qui salvetur, Apud Euseb. Hist. Ecc. lib. 3. cap. 17. [...] whō S. Iohn 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. Also in this Century un­doubtedly were extant those fabricks in the Coemi­teries of S. Pe­ter, in the vati­cane, and of S. Paul in via osti­ensi (which could be no o­ther then some Christian Ora­tories) whereof Gaius speakes, in Euseb. & cals Tropaea Apo­stolorum. lib. 2. cap. 24. For there when S. Iohn, after a time comming again to visit the Churches, de­manded of the Bishop an account of the charge he had committed to him; The Bishop answers, ‘ He is become a villain and a robber, [...], and now in­stead of the Church, he hath laid hold of a Mountain, with a company like himself.’ To conclude, if the name were in Clemens his time, undoubtedly the thing was. And this is my proofe for the latter end of this Centurie.

IN THE THIRD CENTURIE. Ab Anno 200. ad 300.

NOW are we arrived at the third Seculum, and the last under the Ethnick and persecuting Emperours: VVherein 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 Centurie, Ter­tullian shall give in evidence. 1. In his Book De Idololatria. VVhere declaiming against some Christian Artificers, who, because it was their occupation and trade, thought it lawfull to make Idols for the Gentiles, so themselves worshipped them not; he speaks thus: ‘ Tota die, ad hanc partem zelus fidei perorabit, ingemens Christianum ab I­dolis in ECCLESIAM venire, de adversaria officina in DOMVM DEI venire; attollere ad Deum patrem manus matres Idolorum, his [Page 39] manibus adorare, quae (nempe in operibus suis) foris (.i. in Templis Gentium) adversus De­um adorantur; eas manus admovere Corpori Domini, quae Daemoniis corpora conferunt.’ 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 heresie, in respect of their affected se­cresie, and reservednesse in hiding the my­steries of their doctrine, to the Eleusinian Holies, whose Temple had many Curtains and Doores, 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: VVhereas 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, [Page 40] 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. ‘For Nostrae Columbae domus (saith he) simplex, etiam in editis & apertis; & ad lucem. A­mat figuram Sp. sancti, Orientem Christi fi­guram: Nihil veritas erubescit, &c....No­strae Columbae domus’ .i. Domus religionis 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 personall, as Christ mysticall, that is, the Disciples, or Religion of Christ. For it is the conclusi­on of his proofes brought out of Scripture, to shew, that simplicity was the livery of Christs Disciples or Religion; In summa, saith he, Christum columba demonstrare solita est, &c. And otherwise, that solita est would scarcely be true; since Christ personall is but once pointed out by a Dove, namely, at his Baptisme. This House, saith he, is sim­plex, that is, Sine tot portarum & sipariorum [Page 41] involucris: Also in editis & apertis, places which Doves delight in: [...] Cyril. Hier. 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 Zacha­ries 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, ap­peares by the Author of the Lib. 2. cap. 57. al. 61. Apostolicall Constitutions, which surely are as ancient as Tertullian Domus sit oblonga, ad Orientem conversa, saith he; Besides it appeares out of Apol. cap. 16. 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 cleare this passage, because the Author is crabbed and obscure.

There are two or three De Spect. cap. 25. Ad Vxor: lib. 2. c. 9. De coron. milit. c. 3. De velandis vir­ginibus. cap. 3. & 13. more places in the same Father, where the Christian Ora­tories are mentioned by the name of Eccle­sia: [Page 42] but because the ambiguous and indif­ferent signification of this word, either for a Place or an Assembly, makes them not convictive, unlesse some circumstance bee annexed, which determines it: I will only produce that De corona Militis, Chap. 3. where concerning the Sacrament of Baptisme he speaks thus: ‘ Aquam adituri, ibidem, sed & aliquanto prius in ECCLESIA, sub Antisti­tis manu contestamur, nos renunciare Diabolo, & Pompae & Angelis ejus. Dehinc ter mer­gitamur.’ I say Ecclesia here signifies the Place. For the clearing whereof, know, that the Baptisteries, or places of water for Baptisme, 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 assoon as they had done) and afterward again at the Water: He must needs by Ecclesia mean [Page 43] the Place; otherwise, if it were taken for the Assembly of the faithfull, 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: ‘ Aquam adituri, IBIDEM (.i. apud aquam) sed & aliquando prius in ECCLESIA, conte­stamur, nos renunciare Diabolo, &c.’ And thus much for the testimony of Tertullian.

My next witnesse is Hippolytus, who flourished between the twentieth and thir­tieth yeare of this Century in the raign of Alexander Mammeae. He in his Treatise De consummatione mundi seu de Antichristo, de­scribing the signes and impieties which should precede the persecution of Anti­christ (as he conceived thereof,) hath this passage concerning the irreligion and pro­phanenesse which should then raign: [...], ‘ Templa Dei do­morum communium instar erunt, ubi (que) Eccle­siarum eversiones fient, scripturae contemnen­tur.’ And in his description of the persecu­tion [Page 44] it self, This: ‘ [...] IEPA [...] Ex Psal. 79. 2. & caeteris si­milibus juxta LXX. [...], &c. Sacrae Eccle­siarum aedes instar Pomorum custodiae erunt, pretiosum (que) corpus & sanguis non extabit in diebus illis, Liturgia extinguetur, Psalmorum decantio cessabit, scripturarum recitatio non audietur.’ No man of reason can beleeve, 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 marvellous conceit, to think he prophecied of them, having never seen them. Nay, a prophane Testimony will further confirm us, he needed not: For Lampridius reports of this Alexander Mam­meae (in whose time Hippolytus lived) ‘ Quòd cum Christiani, Cap. 49. quendam locum, qui publicus fuerat, occupassent; contra Popinarii dicerent sibi eum deberi: rescripsit Imperator, Melius esse, ut quomodocun (que) illic Deus colatur, quàm Popinariis dedatur.’

About the middle of this Century flou­rished that famous Gregorie of Neocaesarea, surnamed Thaumaturgus. He in his Epistola [Page 45] Canonica (as the Greeks call it) describing the 5. degrees or admissions of Poenitents, according to the discipline of his time (which he cals ‘ [...], & [...]) [...] (saith he) est extra portam [...], ORATORII, ubi peccatorem stantem oportet fideles ingredi­entes orare, ut pro se precentur. [...] (.i. Auditio) est intra portam in loco qui [...] dicitur, ubi oportet eum qui peccavit stare us (que) ad Catechumenos, & illinc egredi. [...] (.i. substratio) [...] N̄AOY [...], ut intra TEMPLI portam consistens cum Catechumenis egrediatur. [...] (.i. congregatio, seu consistentia) est ut cum fidelibus consistat, & cum catechumenis non egrediatur. Postremo est [...] participatio Sacramentorum.’ 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 finde in this Gregories life written by Gregorie Nissen, that he was himself a great Founder and erecter of [Page 46] these sacred Edifices; whereof the Church built by him at Neocaesarea in Pontus, (where he was Bishop) was still standing in Gregorie Nissens time. Heare his words, where he relates the speedy and wonder­full successe this Thaumaturgus had in the conversion of that City: ‘ Cum omnibus omnia fieret, saith he, tantum sibi auxilio spiritus repente populū adjunxit, ut ad TEM­PLI fabricationem animum adjiceret (gr. [...]) cum omnes offerendo, tam pecunias quam operas suas, stu­dium ejus adjuvarent. Hoc est, Templum, quod us (que) hodie ostenditur: quod magnus ille vir statim aggressus, quasi fundamentum atque [...] Sacerdotii sui (.i. Episcopatus) in ma­xime conspicuo urbis loco constituit.’ He addes besides, that, whereas in his own time there had happened a most grievous Earthquake; ‘ Quo omnia tàm publica quàm privata aedificia disjecta essent; solum illud Templum Gregorianum illaesum & inconcus­sum mansisse.’

Nor is this all; He tels in the same place, how that a little before the persecution of [Page 47] Decius (which was Anno Christi 252.) this Thaumaturgus, having converted, not the City of Neocaesarea only, but the whole territory adjoyning, to the faith of Christ, ‘[ [...], the converts pulling down their Idol-Altars, and Idol-Temples, and in every place erecting [...], Oratorias in nomine Christi Aedes,’ stir­red up the fury and indignation of the Emperour.

About the same time with this Gregory, lived S. Cyprian at Carthage. In him I ob­serve the Christian Oratories twice re­membred; once by the name of Domni­cum .i. [...]; another time of Ecclesia. The first in his Book De opere & eleemosy­nis, speaking against communicating the holy Eucharist without an offering. ‘ Ma­trona, saith he, quae in Ecclesia Christi locu­ples & dives es, Dominicum (sacrificium) ce­lebrare te credis, quae corbonam omnino non re­spicis? quae in DOMINICVM sine sacrificio venis, quae partem de sacrificio quod pauper obtulit, sumis?’ The other in his 55. Epist. [Page 48] or 3. ad Cornelium; where declaiming a­gainst some lapsed Christians, who having in time of persecution sacrificed unto Idols, would neverthelesse, without due penance and satisfaction, be admitted again into the Church: If this be once permitted (saith he) ‘ Quid superest quàm ut ECCLESIA Ca­pitolio cedat; & recedentibus sacerdotibus ac Domini nostri ALTARE removentibus, in Cleri nostri sacrum venerandum (que) consessum (.i. in Presbyterium, seu [...]) si­mulacra at (que) Idola cum Aris suis transeant?’ Note, that Ecclesia here and Capitolium, Christs House and Iupiters Temple, stand in opposition one to the other; also that Capitolium by Antonomasia is put for a Gen­tile Temple in generall; 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, He was made Bishop, Anno 249. lived un­till 260. viz. Cypr. made Bishop somewhat before him, but out-lived him some 5. yeares, namely untill 265. There is an Epistle of his extant (which is part of [Page 49] 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; ‘ De mulieribus quae sunt in absces­su, an eas sic affectas oporteat DOMVM DEI ingredi, gr. [...].’ 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 heare of ere wee have done: That this of the Christians having such houses for their devotions, was a thing publiquely known to the Gentiles them­selves, together with the name whereby they called them: as appears by two Impe­riall Rescripts, the one of Galienus about the yeare 260. recorded by Eusebius. Hist. lib. 7. cap. 12. which cals them [...], Worshipping Places; which [Page 50] 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 need­full to our purpose, are these: ‘ Imperator Cae­sar, Publius Licinius, Galienus, &c. Dionysio, Puniae, Demetrio, & caeteris Episcopis, salu­tem. Meae munificentiae beneficium per uni­versum divulgari Orbem praecepi: Vt [...] .i. à locis religionis cul­tui dicatis discedatur. Et propterea vos mea­rum literarum exemplari uti poteritis, quo ne­mo deinceps vobis quicquam facessat mole­stiae, &c.’

The other is of Aurelianus, De libris Sibyl­linis inspiciendis, when the Marcomanni inva­ded the Empire, Anno Ch. 271. recorded by Vopiscus, in these words: ‘Miror vos, Pa­tres sancti (he writes to the Senate) tamdiu de aperiendis Sibyllinis dubitasse libris; per­inde quasi in Christianorum ECCLESIA non in TEMPLO Deorum omnium tractaretis;’ [Page 51] that is, in the Capitol, where the Senate used sometimes to sit.

Adde to this, if you please, that which Eusebius relates of this Emperour, to wit, that when Paulus Samosatenus, being depo­sed by the Councell from his Bishoprick, and Domnus chosen in his room, would not yeeld up the possession of the Church [...]: The matter being brought before Aurelianus the Emperour, 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: ‘ Sic demum Paulus (saith Eu­sebius) à seculari potestate, summo cum dede­core, ex ECCLESIA expellitur.’ For that by [...] is here meant the Christi­ans Oratorie or house of sacred assembly at Antioch, (and not the Bishops house, as some would have it) appeares, 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: ‘ Sic Paulus summo cum de­decore à potestate seculari, ex Ecclesia exigi­tur.’ [Page 52] For surely he meant not, that he was by the secular arme cast out of the Church, as Chu [...]ch is taken for the company of the Faithfull, but as it signifies the Place of sa­cred assembly, where this Paulus kept pos­session, after he was deposed for heresie by the Councell.

But what need we trouble our selves thus to gather up Testimonies for the latter half of this Seculum? I have one Testimony behinde, 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 peacefull and halcyonian dayes, which the Church enjoyed for many yeares, from the time of the Martyrdome of S. Cyprian unto that most direfull perse­cution of Diocletian, and how wonderful­ly the number of Christians was advanced during that time, he speaketh on this man­ner: ‘ Quomodo quisquam infinita illos ho­minum turbâ frequentatos conventus coetuū (que) in singulis urbibus congregatorum multitudi­nem, illustres (que) in [...]. ORATORIIS concursus [Page 53] describere valeat? Quorum causa, quum in [...]. ANTIQVIS illis AEDIFICIIS satis am­plius loci non haberent (vel antiquis illis aedi­ficiis haudquaquam amplius contenti) [...].... amplas spatiosas (que) in omnibus urbibus ex fundamen­tis erexerunt ECCLESIAS.’ Loe here, how in those Halcyonian dayes, Christians had not only Churches or Houses of worship, but such as might then be called [...], ancient aedifices; which how far it may reach, let others judge: Second­ly, that the number of Christians being grown so great, that those ancient Fabricks 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 Emperours, (which contained that direfull ten yeares persecution begun by him) commanded by their Edicts to be e­very where demolished, as we may reade in the same Eusebius at large. The like whereunto seems never to have happened [Page 54] 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 [...].

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. yeares: I am well as­sured (whosoever be Iudge) long before the dayes of Constantine. I will adde 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 conveniencie, is not easie to be conceived; unlesse 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 [Page 55] distinct and regular Places in their assem­blies, for the Poenitentes, Auditores, Catechu­meni, & 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 Iews, from whom their Religion had its beginning; which though as contrary to the Religion of the Empire as theirs, Wheresoever ten men of Is­rael were, there ought to be built a Syna­gogue. Maimon. in Tephilla. cap. 11. §. 1. yet had places appropriate for the exercise ther­of, wheresoever they lived dispersed amōg the Gentiles. Who can beleeve, 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 conveniencie.

ANSVVER TO THE OBIECTIONS.

I Come now to answer the Objections brought by such as maintain the contrary opi­nion, Object. 1. 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 cruell Persecutions, and the 5. last of the ten, fall with in the third or last Centurie. 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 aswell in the former Ages, wherein the persecutions were, as no more in number, so far lesse bitter? For it is to be taken no­tice of, that these Persecutions were not [Page 57] continuall, 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 quietnesse between them.

Besides, why should it seem to any one lesse credible, that Christians should have their Oratories or Houses of worship un­der the Romane Empire, whilest the State thereof was yet Gentile and opposite to the faith of Christ; then that they had them in the Kingdome of Persia, which never was Christian? For, that they had them there as old as the dayes 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. yeares together, about the yeare 400. The­odoret relates Lib. 5. cap. 38. namely, that one Audas, out of an indiscreet and unseasona­ble zeale, (though otherwise a vertuous and godly Bishop) having demolished the Persians Pyraeum, or Temple where the Fire was worshipped, and refusing to [Page 58] build it up again, as was enjoyned 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 finde means and opportunity to erect Churches, that is, houses for their Re­ligion under a Pagan government in Per­sia, and could they not under the Romane Empire?

The other Objection is from the Authors of Apologies against the Gentiles, Object. 2. Origen against Celsus, Minutius Felix, Arnobius, and Lactantius, who when the Gentiles object Atheisme 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: [Page 59] Templorum fundationes fugimus, quia ubi per Iesu 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 sirectè 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 imò consecrandus est pectore?

[Page 60] 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: Institut. adver­sus Gentes. lib. 2. cap. 2. Cur, inquit, oculos in coelum non tollitis? &, advocatis Deorum nomi­nibus, in aperto sacrificia celebratis? Cur ad pa­rietes & ligna & lapides potissimum, quàm illò 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 dayes?

This Objection indeed looks very big at the first sight, but it is no more but a shew, and we shall deale well enough with it. For we are to take notice, that these Authors all foure of them lived and [Page 61] 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 Scholler 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, unlesse they dissembled it, who so securely urge these passages, to infer a Conclusion point-blanck against evidence of Fact. As for example (I will alledge no more, but what is out of possibility to be denyed or eluded.) Had the Christians no Oratories or Churches in Gregory Thauma­turgus [Page 62] his time? Had they none in S. Cypri­ans? Had they none in the dayes of Diony­sius Alexandrinus? Had they none, when Galienus released their [...]? Had they none in those halcyonian dayes whereof Eusebius speaks, when the multi­tude of Christians was grown so great, that [...], 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 [Page 63] with them, answer them according unto it. For they defined a Temple by an Idoll 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 spels and magicall conse­crations, to be retained and shut up in their Temples, as birds in a Cage, or the devill 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 Idoll 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, [...], Temples and Idols to be places where Daemons are [...], enthroned or seated, either having praeoccupied such places of themselves, ‘ [...], or brought thither by certaine ceremonies and magicall invocations, do as it were dwell there. And againe, [Page 64] Lib. 7. pag. 385. in fin. telling us, that Dae­mons [...], set in those kinde of formes and pla­ces, (viz. Idols and Temples) [...], &c. & ei­ther lodged and confined thither by ma­gicall consecrations, or otherwise having praeoccupied the places of themselves; where they are delightfully fed and re­freshed (for so the Gentiles thought) with the nidor and savour of the Sacrifices.’ 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 finde them;) that also of Menander cited by Iustin Martyr, in his De Monarchia Dei, hath reference.

[Page 65] [...] (saith he) [...], — [...].

According to this notion of a Temple, these Authors alledged 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 Idoll; therefore the Christians of those first Ages, for the most part, abstained therefrom, especially when they had to deale with Gentiles; calling their houses of Worship Ecclesiae, or [...] (whence is the Dutch [Page 66] and our English Kurk and Church) in La­tine Dominica; [...] & [...], that is, Oratories, or [...], or [...], or the like: seldome [...], 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 Emperour, before alledged, in his Epistle to the Senate, According to this notion of Templum, Ter­tul. c. 15. de Ido­lolatria. Si Tem­plis renunciasti, neseceris Tem­plum janu [...] tu­am. Et de co­rona mil. Excu­babit (nempe) Christianus) pro Templis quibus renunciavit? & coenabit illic ubi Apostolo non pla­cet? Id est, in Idolaeo. 1 Cor. cap. 8. 10. ‘ De libris Sibyllinis inspiciendis: Miror vos, Patres sancti, tam­diu de aperiendis Sibyllinis dubitasse libris, perinde quasi in Christianorum ECCLESIA, non in TEMPLO Deorum omnium tracta­retis. And that of Zeno Veronensis in his Sermon de Continentia: Proponimus itaque, ut saepe contingit, in unum sibi convenire di­versae religionis diem, quo tibi ECCLESIA, illis adeunda sint TEMPLA.’ (He speaks of a Christian woman maried to a Gentile.) That also of S. Hierom in his Epistle ad Riparium, saying of Iulian the Apostate, ‘ Quod sanctorum BASILICAS, aut de stru­xerit, [Page 67] aut in TEMPLA converterit.’ Thus they spake, when they would distinguish: Otherwise, now and then, the Christian Fathers use the words [...] or Templum, for Ecclesia; but respecting the Temple of the true God at Ierusalem, 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 Emperours Galienus and Aurelian; and a controversie about one of them referred unto the latter; when also the Emperours Edicts flew about in every City for demo­lishing them. Why therefore do they ob­ject in this maner, 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 [Page 68] the Persians and Iews were, as concerning this matter, in like cōdition with the Chri­stians; neither of both induring to worship their Gods in Temples. Heare Origen speak, ‘ Lib. 7. p. 385, 386. Licet Scythae, Afri (que) Nu­midae, & impii Seres aliae (que) gentes, ut Celsus ait....at (que) etiam Persae aversentur TEM­PLA, ARAS, STATVAS, non eandem aver­sandi causam, esse illis & nobis: and a little after; Inter abhorrentes à statuarum, templo­rum, ararum ceremoniis, Scythae, Numidae, im­pii (que) Seres & Persae, aliis moventur rationi­bus, quàm Christiani & Iudaei, quibus religio est sic numen colere. Illarum enim gentium, ne­mo ab his alienus est....quod intelligat, Dae­monas DEVINCTOS haerere CERTIS LO­CIS & STATVIS, sive incantatos quibusdā magicis carminibus, sive aliàs incubantes lo­cis semel praeoccupatis, ubi lurconum more se oblectant victimarum nidoribus.....Cae­terum, Christiani homines, & Iudaei, sibi tem­perant ab his, propter illud legis; Dominum Deum tuum timebis, & ipsi soli servies: item propter illud; Non erunt tibi alieni Diipraeter me, &, Non facies tibi ipsi simulacrum, &c.’ [Page 69] Loe here, it is all one with Origen to have Tem­pla, as it was to worship So with Tertullian in the pla­ces before alledged in the margin Renuncias­se Templis dicitur qui Idolis. 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 Iews, were ignorant, that the Persians had their S [...]rabo [...]. 15. in ap­pend ad He­rodot. Theod. li. 5. c. 38. Yea [...]e de [...] Nanea in Elyma de Perfidis. 1 Mac. 6. 2. 2 Mac. c. 1. ver. 13. Py­raea or Pyrathaea (Houses where the Fire was worshipped) though without Images or Sta­tues: also, that the Iews 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 generall; i. [...] not [...] but [...], places where Dae­mons were incloistered by the position of an I­dol, or cōsecrated Statue. And here let me adde (because it is not impertinent) what I have ob­served in reading the Itinerarium of Benjamin Tudelensis the Iew; namely, that he expresses cō ­stantly after this maner, the Oratories of Iews, Turks, & Christians by differing names: those of the Iews he cals [...] .i. Houses of as­sembly, or Synagogues: The Turkish Mos­quees [Page 70] [...] Houses of prayer; but the Christi­an Churches, because of Images (yea that re­nowned Church of S. Sophie it self) he called al­wayes [...] BAMOTH, the name of the Idol-Temples in the old Testament, which we translate High Places. This I note for an exam­ple of that pronenesse 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 in­deavouring I suppose, to expresse the Greek word [...]. The place is about the end of his 4. Book adversùs Gentes: ‘ Quòd si haberet vos (saith he) aliqua vestris pro religionibus indig­natio, has potiùs literas’ (he meanes the Poets ab­surd [Page 71] & blasphemous fictions & tales of their gods) ‘ hos exurere debuistis olim libros; istos demo­liri, dissolvere Theatra haec potiùs, in quibus infa­miae numinū propudiosis quotidie publicātur in fa­bulis’ (of this their scurrilous dishonouring of their gods upō the Stage he had spoken much before) ‘ Nam nostra quidē scripta, cur ignibus me­ruerint dari? cur immaniter CONVENTICVLA dirui? in quibus Liturgiae Christianae discriptio. summus Orator Deus, pax cun­ctis & venia postulatur, magistratibus, exerciti­bus, Regibus, familiaribus, inimicis, adhuc vitam degentibus, & resolutis corporum vinctione, &c.’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 Iosua testifie both for Chur­ches and Altars among Christians in his time. For, thus he allegorizeth there the story of the Gibeonites, whose lives Iosua & the flders spared, but gave them no better entertainmēt, [Page 72] than to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the Congregation, and for the Altar of the Lord. ‘ Sunt quidam in Ecclesia (saith he) credentes quidem, & habentes fidem in Deum, & acquiescentes in omnibus divinis praeceptis, qui (que) etiam erga servos Dei religiosi sunt & servire eis cupiunt; sed & ad ornatū ECCLESIAE vel mi­nisterium satis prompti parati (que) sunt: in actibus verò suis, & conversatione propria, obscoenitatibꝰ & vitiis involuti, nec omnino deponentes vete­remhominem cum actibus suis, sed involuti vetu­stis vitiis & obscoenitatibus suis, sicut & isti (.i. Gabeonitae) pannis & calceamentis veteribus obtecti; praeter hoc, quod in Deum credunt, & er­ga servos Dei, vel ECCLESIAE cultum (.i. orna­tum) videntur esse devoti, nihil adhibent emenda­tionis vel innovationis in mores, &c..... And a little after: Veruntamen sciendum est, quantum ex hujuscemodi figurarū adumbrationibus edoce­mur, quòd si qui tales sunt in nobis, quorum fides hoc tantūmodo habet, ut ad ECCLESIAM veniāt, & inclinent caput suum sacerdotibus (mark here a custome) officia exhibeant, servos Dei honorēt, ad ornatum quo (que) ALTARIS vel ECCLESIAE aliquid conferant, non tamen adhibent studium, ut [Page 73] etiam mores suos excolant, actus emendent, vitia deponant, castitatem colant, iracundiam mitigent, avaritiam reprimant:.....sciant, sibi, qui tales sunt, qui emendare se nolunt, sed in his us (que) in se­nectutem ultimam per severant, partem, sortén (que) ab Iesu Domino cum Gabeonitis esse tribuendam.’

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 every thing, as he found it. Heare his words. ‘ Illa (saith he) quae in Iesu Nava & in Iudicum librum & in 36, 37, & 38. Psal. scripsimus, simpliciter expressimus ut invenimus, & non multo cum labore transtuli­mus.’ 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, unlesse he made the whole Homily: because the contents of them are the onely argument thereof, and being taken from it, nothing would be remaining.

[Page 74] Lastly, because the fore-alledged 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 heare him also, Instit. Lib. 5. c. 2. expresly giving evidence for us, and that even by the name of ‘ Templum. Ego (saith he) cum in Bithynia lite­ras oratorias accitus docerem; contigissét (que) eodem tempore, ut Dei Templum everteretur: duo exti­terunt ibidem, qui jacenti at (que) abjectae veitati (the Christian verity) nescio, utrum superbiùs an importuniùs, insultârunt.’ 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 proofes will finde the freer passage with those of understanding and judgement; to whose pious consideration I have devoted this my Discourse.