SECTION I.

HAVING Discoursed in a former Dissertation, Of the Antiquity of Temples in the times of the Old Testament: I proceed in this, with the Consideration, Of the Antiquity of Churches in Gospel times under the New. Wherein the com­mon Opinion of Protestants is maintained, not only against Bellarmine and Baronius, but some Protestants also, as Fuller in his Miscellanea Sac. l. 2. c. 9. who undertakes to prove that Christians had their Churches or Temples built, even in the days of the Apostles: And more especially Mede, who hath largely handled this Subject in's Treatise Of Appropriate Pla­ces for Christian Worship, both in, and ever since the Apostles time. Both these state and maintain the Question as they do, and light their Candles at their Torches. In this Controversie our Adversaries take the Word [...](which we render, when taken for a Religious Assembly, by the word Church; from [...], whence the Saxon Cyric, and the Ger­man Kyrk, and we by adding a double Aspiration Chyrch, or Church) as it was in after Ages (not in the beginning) taken for a Publick Place for Worship. Concerning which, here let me premise, That although we have no particular command for building of Churches, as of Old for the Tabernacle (which was a moveable Temple) or the Temples, which were stand­ing Tabernacles, (their Names being frequently interchanged;) nor do they recommend our Services to God, as those that were Typical of our Saviour did: Yet are Edifices very con­venient for the Worshippers, and are so far necessary for the [Page 2]advancing Gods Service, as appears by the Light of Nature, and the use of Synagogues amongst the Jews: That by such Structures we are better defended against the injuries of Wind and Weather; as also, the Voice of the Minister is in them more Audible than in the open Air, and that thereby we have greater conveniency of excluding such, as ought not to Communicate with us: Besides that after the spreading of the Gospel, they were more necessary for the containing a greater number of Christians, than could meet together in private Houses, or Places: which occasioned afterwards, as liberty was granted, or encouragement given by Christian Magistrates, the building of Oratories and Churches. So that tho we grant the Primitive Christians had always Places for Publick Worship; yet we deny they built any Edifices publickly for the exercise of their Religion, or had any such appropriate places, as our Opponents call Temples or Churches; but worshipp'd God in such numbers, as could conveniently meet together, only in private Houses, or such places as were obscure, for above 200 Years after our Blessed Saviour's A­scension. Altho in the Third Century, they had some Ora­tories or Conventicles, here and there, even in the Roman Em­pire, as well as in Persia, and other Nations, where the Gospel was spread. For Arnobius, who flourished about 285, menti­ons, l. 4. the Christian Conventicles. And Lactantius his Schollar ( Justit. l. 5. c. 2.) a Temple destroyed in Bithynia. Who being Schoolmaster to Crispus, the Son of Constantine, it's probable, the publick Places, granted the Christians by Galie­nus, were then enlarged, which were before called Conventi­cles; as he saith, One in Phrygia set a Conventicle on Fire, and burnt all assembled therein, cap. 11.

SECT. 2.

The Reasons for this our Assertion are, (1.) The great Per­secutions the Christians lived under for the most part, all that time. Which is so apparent from all Histories, Sacred and Civil, that I wonder Fuller should say, That Persecutions in the beginning were more rare, and for the most part private. Both which are notoriously false, as appears from the Acts. For no sooner had the Apostles begun to preach the Gospel, c. 2. & 3. but they were by the Rulers imprisoned, beaten [Page 3]and charged to desist, c. 4 & 5. Stephen taken and stoned, c. 6 & 7. And thereupon the Church of Jerusalem by a great Persecution, scattered, c. 8. & 11. v. 19. After we have Herods persecuting the Christians, killing James, and impri­soning Peter, with intention to put him to Death, c. 12. The Rulers persecute Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, c. 13. and at Iconium; and at Lystra Paul is stoned, c. 14. He and Silas whip'd and imprison'd by the Roman Magistrates, c. 16. Per­secuted at Thessalonica, c. 17. A Tumult against Paul, &c. c. 19. He saith, bonds and afflictions wait for him in every City, and that grievous Wolves should enter among them, not sparing the Flock, c. 20. And what Persecutions he suffered at Jeru­salem, not only from the Rabble, but the Chief, both of the Jews and Romans, may be seen in the following Chapters. Most of his Epistles were written in Bonds. And its gene­rally said, that he suffered at Rome under Nero, as Peter, many say, did also. And St. John's Banishment into the Isle of Pat­mos, is certain (as 'tis said) by the Emperour Domitian. And Hospinian hath observed, that from the Apostles time, till Bi­shop Sylvester and the Emperour Constantine's, for above 300 Years, not one of all those 30 Bishops of Rome, but suffer'd Martyrdom. But Fuller adds, that the same publick calami­ties were usually common to the Jews with the Christians; and therefore if they kept their Synagogues, why might not these their Churches. Mede also urgeth this of the Jewish Sy­nagogues, because the Jews Religion was no more the Empires than the Christians. Both which we deny, for the Jews were the Persecutors, and the Christians the Persecuted: they usu­ally stirring up and incensing the Gentiles against these, as the Acts of the Apostles testifie, and St. Paul, 1 Thes. 2.14, 15, 16. Nor had the Christians then any Churches, as the Jews had Synagogues, tho they had in some Cities separate Meetings. Of the Jewish Synagogues we read in Scripture, but neither Scripture nor History mentions any publick Churches for 200 Years. And afterwards, when they had some Oratories, we read of courses taken for demolishing them: but not (much less at the same time) of the Jewish Synagogues. These hav­ing been long before, publickly tollerated in many Places to the Jews where they resided. And they having now re­nounced Christ, the Devil and Heathen Emperours had no cause to disquiet them, but made use of them in opposing [Page 4]Christianity. As Julian we know, employ'd them for build­ing again their Temple at Jerusalem, to despite the Christi­ans. And no Religion is more hated of a Natural Man than the True; all others being prefer'd before this.

Mr. Mede in answering the Objections against his Opinion, endeavours to enervate this of Persecution two ways. (1.) By asserting, that the greatest Persecutions (as the five last of the Ten) fell out in the Third Century, wherein 'tis granted the Christians had some Oratories, and therefore why not in the two former, seeing their Persecutions were not continual, nor of long duration. But tho we grant, in regard of the abun­dance of Bloud-shed, the last were the cruellest; yet was there always such as hindred, both the erecting and appropri­ating Churches, and publickly assembling (the Laws and Em­perors being their Enemies) contenting themselves to meet as they could with the most safety in secret. And tho their Per­secution was not constant, yet were they constantly liable thereunto, as the Apostle tells us, Rom. 8.36. For thy sake we are killed all the day long, we are accounted as Sheep for the Slaughter. Histories also shew us, their Sufferings were more continual, and less interrupted, in the two first, than third Century. Wherein after a sore Storm under Valerian, they enjoy'd a comfortable calm, under his Son Galienus, who re­stored to them their Cemeteries, and all other places of Wor­ship; which was such a favour or Tolleration, as we read not of in the two first Ages. (2.) Mr. Mede argues from the credibility of the Christians having Oratories in the Roman Empire, as well as in the Persian. Which we deny, for 'tis the Roman Empire only, that is represented under the Shape of a Red Dragon with 7 Heads and 10 Horns, making War with the Saints of God. Nor are we now dealing with a matter of Opinion, or Credibility, but matter of Fact and History; which ascertains the Persecution under the Roman Emperors for 300 years, but mentions little or none at all, under the Persian Monarchs, during that time, tho afterwards, as Sozomen l. 2. c. 8. relates by Saporez, which was long before Isdigerdis, who was Contemporary with Theodosius.

Nor doth the Churches of Persia prejudice our Opinion; seeing they were but (by Mr. Mede's acknowledgment) in Constantine's time. Before which, there were some Churches in the Roman Empire. For Dioclesian his Predecessor made an Edict for the demolishing them.

Having thus vindicated our Argument from several At­tacks: We may further enforce it, both by the experience of former Ages, and also our own. The Israelites in Egypt, tho they dwelt together, a long time at least, yet we read not of any Temples they built there. And when they were in Captivity in Babylon, tho we read of their building Houses, Jer. 29. yet nothing of Synagogues. Pass on from the Hea­thenish to the Popish Persecutions, former and latter: Where at this day, in Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, are any Churches built, or Publick Meeting-Places for Protestants? Nay even the Lutherans will not allow the publick exercise of the Reformed Religion. The Story of the German Church under Johannes a Lasco, who fled from London, to avoid the Persecution under Queen Mary, to the Lutherans, and how barbarously treated, is well known, and lamentable to consider. And the same spirit continues, so that the Dutch Church at Hamburg go to Altena, and the English are confin'd to their own House. Sweden is expelling them, and several Princes persecuting them. Nor need we go so far, the expe­rience of these Three Kingdoms is sufficient. Where altho the Persecution of the Nonconformists, was not from the Hea­thens, (as the Primitive Christians:) Nor from Papists (as the Waldenses of old, and all Dissenters from them generally ever since:) Or any Protestants of a different Denomination; nor to death; but only Fines or Imprisonments. &c. Yet who went about to build any publick Places for Worship, or had such, till a Tolleration was granted them? Who can ima­gine any so mad, as to build or buy publick Places, where their Enemies are Rulers; and having all Civil Power in their hands, would not only shut them up, or demolish them, but also severely punish such presumption.

SECT. 3.

Our 2d Argument is from the defect of sufficient Testimo­nies from Scripture, of the Christians having any publick appropriate places in the Apostles time; or from authentick Authors, of any such the two first Centuries. Nor let any think it sufficient to say, that Argumentum ab autoritate non valet negative; an Argument from authority negatively, is of no force. For in Religion, Scripture so argues, not only in mat­ter [Page 6]of our duty, because never commanded; but also in mat­ter of History, as Hebr. 7.14. Our Lord sprang out of Juda, of which Tribe Moses spake nothing concerning Priesthood. Whence by the way, we may gather, that our Saviour never went fur­ther into the Temple, not being a Priest of the Tribe of Levi, than the Outward Court. And in matters of Fact so many Hundred Years ago, this way of arguing is generally used and received. As Baronius useth it in a like case, A. D. 48. and others also frequently. For how should we know, what was done so long since, but by History. Now in all the dili­gent searchers into Antiquity, as Eusebius, Hierom, Clemens Alexandrinus, and other Ancient Fathers and Authors, we find no footsteps of any publick Churches, the two first Cen­turies; but many against them.

For the Scriptures, whosoever reads the Apostles Acts, which contain their History about 32 Years; will find the Church assemblies still in private Houses, as c. 12. v. 12. so c. 20. v. 8. and to the very last, c. 28. v. 29, 30. so also in their Epistles. And the all places were indifferent to them in respect of ho­liness, yet not of conveniency; so that according thereto, no doubt they were appointed; and in the heat of Persecution, such as were most secret and secure.

And will never find the Church therein taken for a Place. It being the general Opinion of Protestants, which the Learn­ed Lutheran, Gerrard de Eccles. c. 2. relates. In S. literis signifi­catio Ecclesiae pro loco non occurrit; sed progressu temporis factum, ut à Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis tandem reciperetur. Sed quilibet vi­det hanc appellationem esse impropriam, & [...]. In the Holy Scriptures, the Church is no where taken for a Place; tho in process of time, it came to be so used in Ecclesiastical Writers. But every one sees, the taking of it in this sense, is improper and ca­tachrestical. Camero likewise, a Learned Calvinist, in's Tract. de Ecclesia, and generally all of both Professions. So that we may conclude as to the Scriptures, that however the grand Tyrant Custom prevailed in after Ages, to call the Place by the name of Church, yet from the beginning it was not so.

And for human Testimonies; for the first Ages succeed­ing the Apostles, we might here produce very many, to prove the Primitive Christians had no such publick Churches or Temples. But in regard we sustain the negative part, and our Opponents the affirmative, to whom the Proof most pro­perly [Page 7]belongs, according to the Maxim, affirmanti incumbit probatio: And those that favour our Adversaries Opinion, will be apt to say, we do but beg the Question; for that they have both Scripture, and good Humane Testimonies for them. We shall therefore first examine what they alledge; and after­wards produce such Witnesses against them, as we shall willingly submit to the judgment of all impartial Men, on which side the Truth lies. For if they can either by Scrip­ture, or approved Authors, mantain their cause, we shall yield it; notwithstanding the improbability therof, from the Persecutions the Christians were under in the first Ages. But here we must profess, that this being matter of fact, we are not to be put off, nor shall we acquiesce with conjectures or probabilities, such as Platina, Polid. Virgil, &c. urge, from the Apostles and Primitive Christians zeal to promote Religion, (as if there could be none, without such appropriate and consecrated Places, as they call Churches) But there must be authentick Records, from approved Authors, that there were such in the Apostles days, and the two first Ages after our Saviour; otherwise we can have no certainty of what was done at such a distance from us, so many Ages agone.

SECT. 4.

We shall therefore now enter the Lists with our Adversa­ries, and not decline any of their Weapons, being well se­cur'd by the shield of Truth. Tho we take no notice of se­veral flourishes they make, that being needless, in regard of the several Editions of the Authors, wherein they may be seen, and especially of Mede, our principal Adversary.

From Scripture, especially 1 Cor. 11.18, 20, 22. which Bel­larmine c. 4. de cultu sanctorum, and Baronius, produce for Churches and Oratories distinct from private Houses in the Apostles days. Answered at large by Vedelius in his Exercitation upon Ignatius's Epistle to the Magnesians.

Mr. Fuller likewise, who argues that from that the Apostle having said, v. 18. when you come together in the Church, forth­with expounds it by v. 20. when you come together in the same place; shewing by the Church he denotes the Place. But here he supposeth, that [...], is to come toge­ther in the same place; which is denied. For men cannot [Page 8]come, or meet together, but in some place, either natural or artificial. Beza renders it in unum, others simul or conjuncti: I should ad idem. For the expression is Hellenistical, and sig­nifies not only a Concourse in the same place, but agreement. in condition, and concurrence in the same action, tho in diffe­rent places, according to the Septuagint. Even as in Acts 2.44. and other Texts it must be understood; for both the diversity of Tongues, and multitude of Christians, as five thousand, c. 4. v. 4. manifest it could not be in the same place. Camero in his Myrothecium, shews the Phrase is taken from the Septuagints Version of Psalm. 2.2. where the Princes assem­ble together, [...], not in reference to the same place, but to their conjunction in heart and counsel about the same thing. Which sence Dr. Hammond follows, on Acts 1.15. If any object, if the Church be not the place, but the People, 'tis as much as to say, when you meet together in a Meet­ing. But this is also denied, for [...]signifies on­ly the general Notion of coming together, or assembling, as Acts 11.26. but the Church, a special, viz. a holy Meeting. So that 'tis not the place, but the imployment, that gives the denomination. For as it is not in every place, where the Sena­tors or Parliament-men meet, that there is a Senate or Par­liament. Nor in every place, where the Pastors of the Church meet, is there forthwith a Synod. Seeing both sorts may come together at Fasts or Feasts, or other occasions. But there and then only, where and when they meet to deliberate about affairs, Civil or Ecclesiastical. So wheresoever the Members of a Church come together, they are not for that said to come together in the Church, but only then and there, when and where they come together for the exercise of Religion.

But the chief Argument all our Opponents make use of, is from v. 22. where they assert an Antithesis or Opposition, be­tween private Houses proper to each, and the Church which is common to all. Let us therefore duly consider it. And (1.) That tho the word [...] be used above 100 times in the New Testament; yet this is the only place our Protestants insist on for their Opinion. Altho Bellarmine alledgeth also, 1 Cor. 14.25. which yet clearly proves the contrary. (2.) We deny, as Camero in his Answer to Fuller, (Tract. de Eccles. c. 1.) that the opposition here, is made between the doing of any thing in this or that place; but in the presence of others, or not [Page 9]in their presence. As when one doth that in publick, which should be done at home; we rate him saying, Hast thou not an House of thy own? Dost thou despise the City? understanding not the Structures or Streets, but the faces of the Citizens who are there. And that this is the Apostles meaning, appears both by the following words, and shame them that have not: that is the poor Brethren, that had neither Money to buy, nor Provisions to bring for their Feasts of Charity (then in use at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.) So that 'tis not despising the Place, but the Persons; putting the poor (who are a great part of the Church) to blush and be ashamed. And also by a parallel Place in this Epistle, c. 14. v. 34 & 35. where the A­postle forbids their Women to speak in the Churches, And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their Husbands at home; for it is a shame for Women to speak in the Church. Where we see a plain opposition, between the Church and their own Home; which yet cannot be understood of the Church as a Place: The Case being clear, that it was not unlawful for Women to speak in such a Place simply, but only at such a time when the Congregation was at Divine Worship: other­wise, it would be unlawful for any Woman, before or after Publick Worship, to speak in the place. Nor was it sinful surely, for Women to speak at their Love-Feasts, tho in the Church. Besides, 'tis said, your Women in the Churches, which implies, there were more than one Congregation in the Church of Corinth.

I shall not stand to alledge Commentaries on 1 Cor. 11.22. as Cajetan, who is absolutely for the Congregation, and Aqui­nas, and Carthusian, as also Dr. Pearson on the Creed, p. 337. say, it may as well be so understood as of the place. But further prove the Truth (3.) By the Argument which the Apostle draws from the holiness of the Meeting, and not from the holiness of the Place, to take the Corinthians off from their Dissentions, v. 18. for in every Meeting, Dissentions are to be avoided; but in a holy Meeting, ordained for Religion, they ought to be detested. And so from Intemperance, v. 20, 21. shewing unity in the Truth of Doctrine, and unanimity in affections are necessary for the right receiving the Lords Sup­per, in the following Verses. And I would further argue with mine Opponents, suppose their meeting had been on some Mountain, or in some Cave, (which was not unusual) and the [Page 10]faults here mentioned had been committed; should they not have been liable to the same censure of despising the Church of God? But (4.) Should we grant the opposition they make, between the Church and their own Houses, yet will not this serve to overthrow our Opinion, or establish their own; except they can further prove, this Church or Place to have been publick, and not in a private House, like unto others mentioned throughout the Acts.

Mr. Mede carries this 22d verse, for a reproof of the Co­rinthians, for using profane Banquetings and Feastings in a sa­cred place, to introduce his Opinion of the holiness of Church­es, as Bellarmine c. 5. de cultu sanct. saith, Satis inn [...]it [...]r, tunc etiam Ecclesiam aliquo modo sacratam fuisse, hence 'tis suffici­ently gathered, that even then the Church was some manner of way holy; which he saith, was for consecration. But Mede runs a­gainst the stream of Interpreters, who expound it of their Love-Feasts. Neither doth the Apostle reprove them for any such thing, but for their schismatical, unbrotherly and intem­perate Carriage therein. These Love-Feasts, a Lapide, as Au­stin, Aquinas, Cajet an, and others, think preceeded; and Ju­stinian as Chrysostom and divers others, that they followed af­ter the Communion. The Opinions of the Ancients concern­ing their order, are cited by these two Learned Jesuites upon the place, where they may be seen; and the manner of them in Kerchers Roma Subterranea l. 6. c. 27. As far as my reading reaches, tho these Love-Feasts sometimes were before as in the Church of Alexandria, (as Sozomen saith, l. 7. c. 19.) and some others: Yet more usually they followed after the Sacra­ment. However, we have multiplicity of Testimonies in the Writings of the Ancients, for them at the Communion in the Primitive Church: and none I can find amongst them for Mr. Mede's Opinion, except Sedulius; nor amongst the Modern, but Salmeroni; and these quite contrary to the genius of the Text.

But he proceeds to tell us, that as most of the Words sig­nifying an Assembly or Company, are wont to be used also for the place; so here [...]. Which we deny not in common Speech; but then the expression is not proper, but figurative, continens pro contentis, the Place containing, for the Persons contained. He cites St. Austin taking the Church here for the place of Meeting. It's true, he does so, on Leviticus, l. 3. c. 57. to which Bede on the Text refers, but only for the [Page 11]time wherein the Congregation met, Ecclesia dicitur locus, quo Ecclesia congregatur: And it is apparent, that the faults men­tioned by the Apostle, are such only as were committed, at the time of their assembling for the Worship of God. Nor doth Austin appropriate it to a Place civil or artificial, as our Opponents do, not considering such abuses have their course in their Meetings in what place soever, natural or civil.

The next Author he produceth is Basil, who pleads for the Holiness of Churches; of which hereafter.

Commentators follow. The Author of the Comments on the Epistles (falsly ascribed to Hierom) a Pelagian, seems to deliver the Opinion of others, rather than his own, saying, Quidam hunc locum ad illos referunt, qui Epulas in Ecclesia facie­bant: facientes eam trielinium Epularum. And Sedusius (whom the former Author seems to point at) is of that Opinion, thinking it unlawful to keep their Feasts in the Church. Where­in he is singular, and contrary to the Apostle, who rectifies the abuse only, by admonishing them to stay one for another, and make their poor Brethren partakers with them of their Viands. Furthermore, even those that take the Church for a holy Place, and cite this (as Sir H. Spelman and several others) of the Corinthians making the Church trielinium Epularum, make it only a private Room, for trielinium was never taken for a House, much less a publick one. To which may be added, the practice in after Ages, in St. Austin's time, when the Christi­ans kept their Love-Feasts in memoriis Martyrum, or in their Churches, as appears by his Answer to Faustus the Maniche, l. 10. c. 20, 21. at large.

As for Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophilact and Cecumenius, tho they take the Church for a Place; yet none of them as Mede, that the Corinthiaws fault was, in keeping there profane Ban­quetings: Nor otherwise than in reference to the very time only, of their meeting therein. And whereas Chrysostom says, the Church as well as the Poor were wronged; he cannot, I suppose, mean it of the Place, for Time and Place cannot be said to be despised or dishonoured, but by an extrinsecal de­nomination, when God is dishonoured, or our Brethren, by our unchristian behaviour in the place. As here the latter member, being joyn'd thereto by a copulative, may fairly ex­pound the former (as usually) viz. in shaming them that have not, you despise the Church, as Cajetan and Piscator expound [Page 12]it. So that tho the Grammatical opposition be between two places; yet the Logical and Theological is between a place of many present therein, and a private place. From these Testi­monies, Mede concludes there were places appointed, and set apart for Christian Worship, even in the Apostles times.

But tho no Man doubts, that believes the Gospel, that the Christians had places for Worship; yet it follows not thence, that they were set apart from all other uses, for Christian Worship. Neither doth he, or any other Opponent prove this. Places of meeting, the Ancients suppose, but separate Places they suppose not. It was 200 Years and more, e'er they had Publick Oratories. And when the Heathen object­ed they had no Temples, Altars nor Images, they freely con­fess as much.

Having vindicated this Text in the Corinths, we shall briefly mention some others, alledged for separate and publick Churches: Tho some are so far-fetch'd, they deserve not mentioning. As Mr. Fuller from 1 Cor. 14.40. That all things be done decently, and in order, inferring that publick Offices be done in publick Places, as much as may be. And what, I pray, is more publick than the open Air, Mountains and Fields where our Saviour instructed his Followers?

Likewise from Acts 19.9. Paul separated the Disciples, disputing daily in the School of one Tyrannus: As if this School was one of the Temples of Christians, which he confesseth was but borrowed, or hired for the urgent necessity.

His next place is Acts 15.21. whence he argues, the Israe­lites from the beginning of their Commonwealth had Syna­gogues; so the Christians from the day of Pentecost, Church­es. But that is very dubious; for tho I judge Synagogues much Ancienter than till after the Captivity (whence many Learned Men date them;) yet that they were so Ancient as he makes them, cannot be proved. Nor will Ps. 74.8. serve, admitting various Translations. The 70, They have put down the Feasts; Hierome, Tabernacula; Montanus, Conventicula; Junius, Synagogas, which denotes all kinds of Assemblies, Ci­vil and Ecclesiastical, in their places; as Gerhard de Eccles. c. 1. §. 4. shews at large. Nor that of Ps. 83.12 of which Sir H. Spelman hath a Discourse, at the end of his Tract de non temerandis Ecclesiis. And who sees not a vast difference; the Israelites were a free State of themselves, and had Gover­nours [Page 13]Civil and Ecclesiastical, supream and subordinate, in the Land of Canaan, of their own: Whereas the condition of Christians was quite otherwise, till Constantine's time, as all know. His last Scripture is James 2.2. where [...] Sy­nagogue, is much more pregnant to denote a Place, than [...] the Church; for of above 100 Texts where this is used, no one, except that in 1 Cor. 11.22. is with any colour alledged for a Place; whereas Synagogue is frequently so taken, both in the 70, and in the New Testament, when applied to the Jews, as Acts 13.14. & 14.1. &c. tho some­times for an Assembly, and most usually so when applied to Christians. As the Syriac here renders it; and Beza, coetum: the vulgar Latine (which some say is the Vetus Italica, and make great account of it, (as our Bishop Andrews, &c.) con­ventum; as our last Version Assembly, and the former compa­ny; declining the Word Synagogue, for no other reason, that I can conceive, but because they judged, that Christians had no separate Places in those days, as the Jews had; James we know wrote to the Twelve Tribes dispersed, with whom the Word [...], was in use, as Hellenistical; so that after they became Christians, they might well call their Metting, of what condition soever it were, by that name: For the Word signifies all kinds of Assemblies, Civil and Sacred, as Dr. Hammond shews on Matth. 6.2. from many Texts; and here in James, Consistories for Judicature, by 5 reasons. And the Apostles having used the Word [...], or Church, to distinguish the Christians meetings from the Jewish, and as more proper, &c. (which Gerhard in the Chap. above cited, notes;) the Name of Synagogue was soon given over among Christians, and such places called [...] and [...]; but whether before they became separate places, or after; and about what time such were built for Prayer, is the question.

SECT. 5.

Mr. Mede from Scripture, proceeds to enquire, what man­ner of Places these appropriate were, before he produceth the testimonies of Antiquity for such. Where first he acknow­ledges (as Baronius had before him) that they were not so goodly and stately, as after the Empire became Christian, and we now enjoy: But some capable and convenient room, with­in [Page 14]the Walls or Dwelling of some pious Disciple, dedicated by him to the use of the Church, usually an Upper-Room, such as that called Caenaculum Sionis, where the Apostles and Disci­ples after our Saviour's Ascension, usually assembled, and the Holy Ghost fell upon them, on the day of Pentecost. Con­cerning which place he brings a long Train of Traditions from Nicephorus; a most fabulous Author, in the judgment of all Learned Men; not worthy to be mentioned.

Here let me observe the Difference amongst our Opponents. (1.) As to the Place, Bellarmine and Baronius, as also our Fuller, conclude from that Text in the Corinths, for appropri­ate Houses or Churches; but Mede only for one Room, usu­ally an upper, in an House. (2.) Bellarmine would have these Houses to be holy Temples, from the Christian Sacrifices there­in, meaning the Mass, which he thinks is alone sufficient for the denomination of a Temple. For c. 4. de cultu sanctorum, he saith, Templum nihil aliud est, quam locus Altaris. A Temple is no other thing than the place of an Altar: called also, basilica, saith he, as erected at some Saints Sepulcher. Baronius and Fuller content themselves with the distinction of Oratories, which tho poor and mean amongst Christians, in comparison of the Heathens Temples, yet were those Temples, as well as these. But Mede will have his rooms, by reason of the Owners Dedication, to be Oratories and Churches: Tho Ju­stinian distinguishes these, (on 1 Cor. 11.) saying, Christians had their meetings first in private Houses, afterwards in Oratories and Churches.

And whereas Mr. Mede discourseth of a room and House, in the singular number (as best suiting his Opinion of appro­priate places, even in the Apostles days) meaning without doubt, wheresoever there was a Church, as he instanceth in the coenaculum Sionis, in Jerusalem. All this is nothing better than building upon the Sand. For considering the several cir­cumstances in Acts c. 1. & 2. its far more probable, that that [...], or upper Room, was in the Temple, than any private House As appears from several Authors and Arguments gathered together in Pool's Synopsis, on Acts 1 13. to which I refer, being unwilling to transcribe such Authors, as are common, and easily come at. Then what room could contain such numbers, as 3000 Acts 2.41. which soon increased (as some think) to 5000, or more probably, (as others gather [Page 15]from the Text Acts 4.4.) were so many more. The ingeni­ous Potter on 666. ch. 36. from the multitude of Believers in Jerusalem, computes that each of the Twelve Apostles might have about 500 under his care. Besides, the Gift of so ma­ny Tongues, implies their several meetings accordingly: for we must not fancy, as Salmasius and some others, that who­ever spake in any Language, was understood by all: because this makes the Miracle to be in the Hearers, and not the Speakers; who were inspired for preaching the Gospel abroad in the Nations, whose Languages they were ignorant of be­fore. Consider also that hot Persecution that presently fol­lowed the year after, in the 8th of the Acts, and whether this did not necessitate them, often to change the places of their assembling, it being neither safe to meet in great multi­tudes, nor always in the same place. It's probable also, from v. 3. by Saul's entring [...] into their several Houses, was either when, or where they assembled; for into every House (as we render it) of so many Christians, as were in Jerusalem, seems to me improbable.

I pass over the fabulous Traditions, and fictitious Glosses on Acts 10.9. and 18.22. especially, as unworthy the Au­thor, and the least consideration. And can grant him that which follows, of some giving whole Houses, for sacred Assem­blies, as the multitude of Believers increased; tho this can­not be proved in the two first Centuries. As also, that at length, they built Structures in the Coemeteries of Martyrs; which yet Platina and Polid. Virgil say, were but Sacella, Chappels, and those in secret and unknown places

SECT. 6.

We shall now proceed to examine their Testimonies: which Mr. Mede having most fully gathered, and regularly, of all our Opponents, ranked throughout the 3 first Centuries: We shall therefore follow his order, and paticularly consider them, as he represents them. Altho we think it not necessa­ry to express all his words; his Works by many Editions, being in most Scholars hands. He begins with Eusebius's re­lating a passage out of Philo the Jew, concerning the Essenes, whose manner of Life and Worship Philo describes ( p. 376. &c. and more fully in his following Book de vita contempla­tiva, [Page 16]p. 893. &c. of last Edition 1691.) Which place in Eu­sebius l. 2. c. 17. Hist. Bellarmine before him had alledged, c. 4. de cultu sanctorum: tho they both knew Eusebius's being gene­rally censured, for his accommodating it to the Christians. For its plain to any that peruses Philo, that he speaks of a Sect of Jews, who were Monks, and had each their proper place for Worship, called [...], and one [...], or common, wherein they assembled for Worship every 7th day. Whereas the Christians neither withdrew into Cells, nor ob­served the 7th, but the first day of the Week, from Christ's Resurrection, and the day of Pentecost, which fell on the first, and after, as appears by Scripture. And however con­fident Mede is, of Eusebius being of his Opinion, the contra­ry appears in's Book de prepar. Evangel. l. 7. c. 6. & l. 13. c. 13. and Philo's Book of the Cherubims, shews he was not of Mede's mind.

His next Argument is from the Apostles Salutations of se­veral Persons, and the Church in his or their House. Which he understands not of Families, (as he grants 'tis commonly taken) but the Congregation of Saints. Whence he infers, appropriate Places, and their Dedication by their Owners, to be Oratories for the Church in their several Cities. And he cites Lucian's Philopatris, for their Description.

To which we reply,

• (1.) That this proves no more, than that Christians had meetings in private Houses, which none denies: which yet were often interrupted, not only in Dio­clesian's time, when they were examined if they kept their meetings in their Houses, as appears in the Acts of Martyrs, but in Tertullian's time also.
• (2.) The Place in their Houses, was but a caenaculum, or Dining-Room, as Mede grants; which as it was incapable of salutation, so of containing the whole Church in most of those Cities. For who can think their Houses, much less one room, so large, seeing Aquila was but a Tent-maker, banished from Rome by Claudius, after whose Death he returned, before St. Paul's Epistle to the Church there, wherein c. 16. v. 5 he salutes the Church in their House. And not only at Rome, but at Philippi, or Ephe­sus also, the Church that was in his House, as 1 Cor. 16.19. And what the rest were that had Churches in their Houses, we read not.
• (3.) The Church in their Houses is considered as distinct from themselves, that were Masters and Owners, and [Page 17]thus it is fairly applied to their Families: But if to the whole Congregation, the Persons whose Houses they were, being Members thereof, as well as any others, it were very impro­per. For so when St. Paul bids the Church of Rome, Salute the Church in Aquila and Priscilla's House, Rom. 16.5. his mean­ing is, that the Romans should salute themselves. So in wishing the Colossians (4.15.) to salute the Church in Nymphas's House, he desires them to salute themselves. And so of the rest.

Now to say these Masters of Houses, bestowed some part or place thereof to the Churches use, needs no proof (for none can lawfully enter into another man's House, without his allowance) but that they Dedicated them, doth: For if Dedication was then used (of which hereafter) yet surely not by a private person. And whereas some singular thing must be meant, saith Mede, he concludes, this of the whole Church in their House, must be it. Which is inconsequent. And tho it be unreasonable, to demand a reason of anothers actions, which himself conceals; yet something may be gathered for this, from the Apostle. As for Aquila and Priscilla from Rom. 16.3, 4. and Acts 18.26. And as they were his helpers in Christ Jesus, that is in reference to the promoting the Gospel: so were Nymphas also, and Philemon, whom Paul calls his fellow la­bourer. As for Lucian, cited also by Baronius, for proof of Houses separate: Vedelius answers,

• (1.) That the Dialogue Philopatris, is none of Lucian's, sed alterius alicujus scioli: and
• (2.) That the place may as well be understood of a private as a publick House.

His 3d proof is from Tradition, That Theophilus to whom St. Luke inscribes his Gospel and Acts, converted his House in­to a Church; derived from the Traditions of Clemens. As In­dens likewise mentioned, 2 Tim. 4.21. a Roman Senator and Martyr from the Acta Pudentis.

This of Theophilus mentioned by Bellarmine c. 4. de cultu sanct. from Clements Recognit. l. 10. and Baronius A. D. 58. num. 32. that had not found who he was, but in Clements Recognitions: Vedelius answers,—(in Epist. Ign. ad Magnes.) scriptis quae citat Baronius tantum deferendum est, quantum citanti: To the Writings cited by Baronius we are to give as much credit, as to the Citer. See the judgment of Papists concerning these Recognitions, in Coci censura Scriptorum, p. 20. of Pererius, Sixtus Senensis, Drie­do, [Page 18]yea Baronius himself, A. D. 51. num. 53. who saith, That out of these Books, as out of a dirty Sink, are taken such prodigious Lies, and mad Dotages, as are not only to be reproved, but extream­ly rejected by the Learned, &c.

His last Testimony is from Clemens's Epistola ad Corinthios, who speaking of Gods Worship under the Gospel, saith, He hath determined where and by whom, &c. Whence Mede con­cludes, Places, as well as Times and Persons, were appropri­ate and distinct, in the Apostles days. Adding, that this Di­vine Ordinance is found in the Analogy of the Old Testa­ment.

To which I answer (1.) That 'tis granted this Epistle is authentick. Grotius hath in a large Epistle approved it. Sal­masius de Epise. & Presbyt. and Blundel and Hammond in their Disciplinarian Controversies, own it for genuine. Junius and Dr. Fell, in their Notes vindicate it; tho I know, a late Au­thor, Ernestus Teutzelius a German hath largely answered them, and pronounces the Epistle spurious; especially for the men­tion of the Phoenix therein. Whom I have had thoughts to refute, and animadvert on some others that have nibled at it, when I get time to publish various Observations I have upon it. For Dr. Wake in's Introduction to his Translation, c. 2. hath only touched thereon. But (2.) What needs Mr. Mede to make such a stir about Clemens's [...], when the Scripture hath determined, that God under the Gospel is to be worship­ped every where, as Malachy 1.11. From the rising of the Sun to the going down of the same. And our Saviour himself signi­fies as much, John 4.20, 21, 22, 23. where he declares who are the true Worshippers of God under the Gospel, without any reference to place, in opposition to the worshipping him, in this or that place; whether on the Mount where the Pa­triarchs worshipped him of old, or at Jerusalem where the Jews worshipped him afterwards. As Gorran observes, locali­tatem excludit: He excludes appropriation to any place, as necessa­ry to Gods worship; and adds, non determinat locum orationis ali­enbi, sed ubique; determines not the place of prayer to any particular place, but enlarges it to every place. To every private House, Acts 9.11, to the top of an House, 10.9. to the Sea shore, 21.5. so the Apostle, 1 Cor. 1, 2. In every place call on the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord; and 1 Tim. 2.8. I will, that men pray every where. And undoubtedly Clement could not be ignorant [Page 19]of this, considering the persecuting times wherein he lived, when the Churches of God were driven from place to place, and constrained to meet as they could, with most safety.

And Mede's saying, that Clemen's Divine Ordinance, for the place of Church Service, is to be found in the Analogy of the Old Testament; seems very strange. For the Temple at Jerusalem was the only place God appointed for the Jewish Worship. And should the Christians by Analogy have but one Temple? They had also many Synagogues, which our Churches more resemble; yet where did God prescribe the place wherein they were to be built? And as to his Principle. That as the Divine Majesty is most sacred, and incommunicable, so the things wherewith he is served, should not be common, but appro­priate to that end. This proves nothing of the place, but only its qualification, that it ought to be appropriate, whereof any place is capable: nor doth Clemens mention any such sepa­rate or appropriate places; of which we shall have occasion to speak more hereafter. As also how this Analogy hath mis­led him and several others, to assert the holiness of Places by Dedication, and Temples, Priests, Altars, and proper Sacrifi­ces under the Gospel.

SECT. 7.

In the Second Century, Mr. Mede begins with the Testimo­nies of Ignatius the Martyr, A. D. 107. First with his con­fessed Epistle ad Magnesios; and then with the spurious ad Antiochenos.

But had he lived to have seen what is now extant, of and concerning these Epistles, by the great Luminaries of Learn­ing in this Age, A. B. Ʋsher, Dally, Bp. Pearson, Larock, &c. he would never have laid such stress upon them. The mani­fest difference between the ancient genuine Copies, and the latter, is evident by their Translations; particularly that of Caius College in Cambridge, which A. B. Ʋsher prefers to the common Greek Copies. Wherein this very place [...], &c. is quite differently rendred from Mede's; carrying the words for an unity in Doctrine, not Devotion: and that they should all come into Christ, as into one Temple and Altar, making him both; as alluding to 1 Pet. 2.4. where the one Temple, into the which we are built up, coming unto him; and one [Page 20]Altar Jesus Christ, and spiritual Sacrifices offered to God, in him as on an Altar, whereby they become acceptable.

Not to insist upon [...], or Temple, no ways agreeing to the meeting places of the Primitive Christians: as both Bellar. de Rom. Pontif. l. 3. c. 13. and Vedelius hath shewn sufficiently, from the Ancient Fathers. And that which follows in Mede, of one Bishop, and one Altar, in every Church, is not only alien to the scope of Ignatius, but the Truth also. For the Church of Ephesus had [...], or Bishops, Acts 20.28. so had the Philipians, 1.1. and of Jerusalem, Narcissus and Alex­ander, who at the same time jointly governed the Church, as Eusebius relates. Gersom Bucer in's Answer to Downam's Ser­mon, p. 302. proves the like in other Churches, by ten in­stances: and Vedelius the same, Exercit. 8. in Epist. Ignat. c. 3. And Epiphanius of old, professed that the Church of Alexan­dria was singular in this, of having but one Bishop. It's true, the Inscription of the 7 Epistles, Apoc. c. 2 & 3. each, to the particular Angel of the Church, seems to imply that they had but one apiece. Which yet Mr. Mede himself sufficiently shews is inconsequent, in's Comment on Apocal. p. 265. where he observes it the course in Scripture, to attribute that to one Angel, which is performed by the Ministry of many. What's alledged from Justin Martyr is answered by Bucer; and Sozomen acquaints us, ( Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 3.) That even Villa­ges had their Bishops; and no wonder then, if one Lords Table in each might suffice to make them correlatives.

Mr. Mede proceeds with another proof out of Ignatius's Epistle ad Antiochenos, (wherein he salutes the Keepers of the holy Doors) concluding thence holy Houses. This Epistle he endeavours to perswade us is genuine (contrary to the judg­ment of all other Protestants) from sundry probabilities.

But this is a strange way of reasoning, That it's likely such a thing should be done, and therefore it was done. And to say, because the Antiochians were his own Flock, I think ra­ther makes it improbable; because he had sufficiently establish­ed them in the Faith before he lest them; which, when he went thence to Rome, to receive the Crown of Martyrdom, he endeavoured by his Epistles to do for other Churches. And surely they would have been careful above all other Churches, in keeping their own Pastor's Letter, if he had sent them one. And was not Polycarp as likely to be acquaint­ed [Page 21]with this, as the rest. Besides that, if he or Eusebius had had any inkling of such an Epistle, surely they would have mentioned it, tho they could not meet with it. And how doth Mede prove any such Officers in the Primitive Churches? that which he alledges for this from the Apostoli­cal Constitutions, falsly father'd on Clemens, is yet stranger. For besides others, my Learned Countriman Cook, in's censura Scriptorum, hath detected so much vanity, and many Lyes there­in (whereof he reckons Eight) besides the censures of Atha­nasius, the 6 Synod in Trullo, Binius, Baronius, Bovius and Bellarmine; that I wonder Mr. Mede, who knew all this, should once offer to produce them. I know Mr. Cook and many Learn­ed Divines reject all Ignatius's Epistles: altho others, considering the Testimonies of the Ancients, acknowledge 7 for genuine, specified by Eusebius, Hierom and others, tho robbed of some passages mentioned by the Fathers; and also have a number of beggarly patches added to his Purple, as A. B. Ʋsher saith: Of which 7, this ad Antiochenos is none, and therefore not genuine; for more were not found nor acknowledged by Polycarp (who composed them together) Euseb. Hierome, Sophronius and Ruffinus.

What Mede observes besides, is the Argument of Baronius An. 109. numb. 19. and Gretser against Whitaker de S. Script. l. 4. c. 7. Which I shall not need to answer, it being done already so fully by Vedelius on Ignatius's Epistles (whom Mede more especially undertakes in this Treatise) in's pref. c 3. (wherein he refutes Martialis, Mastraeus, Baronius and Pellar­mine) and his Exercitation on this Epistle: that I need not mention, Cook, Scult [...]tus, Rivet, Gerhard, Erockman, &c.

Mede's next Testimony, is from two Epistles of Pius the First, Bishop of Rome; relating in the former how Euprepria, titu­lum domus suae pauperibus resignavit, ubt nune cum pauperibus nostris commorantes missas agimus; resigned the Title of her house to the Poor, where now (saith Pius) we residing with our poor, say Mass. And in the latter of a Presbyter that erected a Titu­lus or Church.

To this, which Baronius alledged before to the same pur­pose, an. 57. numb. 98, 99, 100. and Vedelius answered: We further say, (1.) These Epistles are forged, as Causabon's Ex­ercit. 16. shews, For if Mass was so early, how came it, saith he, that no footsteps thereof is extant in approved Authors, for above 300 Years? And Bishop Morton in's Book of the Mass [Page 22] l. [...]. §. 1. not before St. Ambrose time, about A. D. 373. who uses it in another Notion than Papists do since. And Morney of the Mass, l. 1. c. 1. saith it was unknown for 400 years.

Not to mention the many Authors, who have handled this Argument of the Mass, against Bellarmine, and other Papists largely. I shall only name du Moulin on the Mass in French, and more largely in Latine, c. 1. for the Pedigree of the Mass. (2.) We answer, This was most likely some room in the House (seeing they dwelt therein) where they said Mass; and were it the whole House, yet was it but a private one, which scarce any wise man would call a Temple. And for the name of Title, that was given at pleasure. So that were these spurious Epistles authentick, they neither prove our ad­versaries Opinion, nor disprove ours.

Mr. Mede produceth next Theophilus Antiochenus, l. 2. ad Antolycum; who saith, God hath given Synagogues, which we call holy Churches, &c. Which yet is confest by him to be doubt­ful. For (saith he) if it were probable Synagogue was here taken, as usually in the New Testament for a place, then Church likewise for a place.

To which we say, that if Church, in a hundred places of the New Testament, be taken for a Congregation: then 'tis most probable, it's so taken here. And the sense of the words makes this evident; for Theophilus compares Heresies to rocky Islands; and the wholesome Doctrine of Truth and Holiness, to good and habitable Islands; and not the places of Truth and Heresies.

The last Author in this 2d Century alledged, is Clemens Alexandrinus; who useth the word [...] or Church, for the Place, and not the Congregation only, Stromat. l. 7. And so again in the story of the young man, who had left the Church, and betook himself to a Mountain with Robbers.

That Christians had places of meetings is beyond all doubt; but we say in private Houses and Places for 200 years and upwards. Nor doth Clemens or any other, prove they had publick Oratories. And Vedelius, p. 74. upon this passage of Clemens, shews, they did not think this appellation so proper and convenient. Therefore Salvian 200 years after, l. 3. de gub. Dei, Itaque Ecclesias vel potius Templa, &c. correcting the impropriety, in using Churches, for the places of assembling, and preferring the word Temples.

And for the opposition of Church and Mountain, in the sto­ry of the young man, that became Captain to a Band of Robbers: The sense is plain, that he left the company of Christians, rather than the place of their Assembly, to asso­ciate with Robbers on the Mountains.

Thus for the two first Centuries, we have heard the noise of our Adversaries Artillery, which was nothing but Powder, and vanished into Smoak, without any Shot, that might in the least wound our cause.

SECT. 8.

Mr. Mede goes on with the 3d Century, wherein we shall follow him at the Heels, tho not obliged thereto, by our Asser­tion. For I know no Protestant that in this Century denies Christian Oratories; but only in the two first. And there­fore 'tis not fair to feign Adversaries, and represent us as de­nying that we willingly grant. We know well, the Church being considerably increased, Oratories were built; and the fate that followed them, namely, to be demolished. For Eu­sebius relates, how before Dioclesian's days, there was both an enlargement of Churches formerly built; and an addition of new, more large and stately than the former, which were also destroyed in his Reign; and towards the end of this 3d Age the Christians not only questioned for affording their private Houses to meet in, but moreover tortur'd for it. Add hereunto, that Mede still goes on to pervert the state of the Question: as if private Houses and secret places in sore Perse­cutions (which none denies) were publick Oratories, Church­es or Temples. The first Author cited by him is Tertullian in three places, whereof the first hath reference to the Assembly; and if to the place, yet only to the time of Worship; for which an upper room served; as Hospinian (de orig. Templ. c. 3.) explains him; and the second citation implies as much, where 'tis said their House was in editis & apertis, in high and open places, as their coenacula or upper rooms were; seeing in Temples tho never so large, people are upon the Ground.

I shall not meddle with what is added of Churches ancient­ly looking Eastward; (for which Bellarmine gives [...]ive reasons, c. 3. de cultu sanct.) further than by referring to such Anti­quaries, as have treated thereof; Walfridus Strabo, Hospinian [Page 24]and others. The 3d is in's Book de corona militis; several others being waved: (all which are brought to the same pur­pose by Baronius, A. D. 57. num. 99. except that one out of l. de spectaculis.) There c. 3. its said, those that were to be baptised, first made their abrenunciation of the Devil, &c. in the Church, and after again at the Water. Upon which Mede, to serve his own Hypothesis, supposeth their Baptisteries, were not then, as now our Fonts, within, but without the Church, and often in places very remote from it. But how will he, or any other prove that there were any Baptisteries in Tertulli­an's time, distinct from the places of their Assemblies. Ho­spinian that was well versed in Ecclesiastical Antiquities, finds none before Constantine's time, de orig. baptisterii, p. 30, 31. For as no place for Baptism was prescribed by Christ, or his Apostles, but lest indifferent, and accordingly used at first: so we find nothing certain concerning this in the Primitive Church. The History of Basilides in Euseb. l. 6. c. 5. mani­fests that some were baptised in Prisons, and Cyprian's Epistle to Magnus, that sick persons were baptised in their Beds. Nor doth it follow, the Church here is not the Assembly, because that was also at the Baptistery. For if there were such (as I think there was not) yet a part more likely was only there; and probably the abrenunciation was not the same day. How­ever, without all doubt, it was not made but when the Church was assembled, and respected the Assembly and not the Place. Consider but those times, and what Tertullian saith to encou­rage the Christians to meet, notwithstanding the danger thereof, Si Fides transferre potest montem, annon potest militem? Can Faith remove a Mountain, and can it not remove a Soldier? and again, If you cannot keep your Dominicals in the Day, keep them in the Night: and, then judge, if he can be thought a support to our Adversaries.

His next Witness in Hyppolytus, who in's Tract de Antichristo, saith, then [...], The Temples of God should be as common Houses: And Churches every where demolish­ed, &c.

This Author is cited by the Rhemists, to prove that Anti­christ should abolish their Mass: but of small or no account with Protestants. For he makes Antichrist to be the Devil, ap­pearing in the shape of a Man; and that John the Evangelist is not yet dead, but shall continue with Enoch and Elias till the [Page 25]time of Antichrist. And lived in Cryptis, or subterraneous Vaults, as Baronius writes A. D. 259. numb. 10. where he offi­ciated also, as Eusebius relates. So that Mede's inference, that he was well acquainted with such places, as Temples and Churches, seems less probable, (seeing we read of none before) than that this Tract is supposititious. Besides that [...] agrees not to Christian Churches, as both Bellarmine and Vedelius have largely proved, which we mentioned before.

For the same time Lampridius an Historian is cited, who re­ports, Quod cum Christiani quendam locum, qui publicus flier at, occupassent; contra Popinarii dicerent, sibi cum deberi; Alexan­der Mammeae Imperator rescripsit: melius esse, ut quomodo cunque Deus illic colatur, quam Popinarits dedatur. That when the Chri­stians had possest a publick place; which the Victualers challeng'd to belong to them; Alexander the Emperour determined; it was better, that God should be there any manner of way worshipped, than that the Victualers should have it.

This Passage is brought by Baronius, A. D. 57. num. 101. for the same purpose; who yet afterwards, A. D. 224. con­fesseth, that at that time the Christians had no Church there, but chose that place to build one in. For which he alledgeth a fabulous Miracle. But Platina in the life of Calixtus, believes not this, by reason of the frequent Persecutions in those days. Calixtus himself having suffered Martyrdom. And Baronius acknowledgeth, that Persecution was frequent in this Empe­rour Alexander's days, and divers suffered Martyrdom, even the Bishop of Rome himself. So that 'tis doubtful, whether they built any publick Oratory, in that publick place, during his Reign; and if they did, 'tis the first we read of in any Classic Author.

The next Author is Gregory of Neocaesarea, Sirnamed Thau­matourgus, who in an Epistle called canonica, describes the Discipline then in use, with the distinct and regular places for Penitents, (who stood without the Gate of the Oratory) Auditors, and others that stood within, as the Catechumens and Faithful in distinct places.

And further in's Life written by Gregory Nissen, 'tis said, that he was a great Founder and Erecter of Churches; whereof that built by him at Neocaesarea in Fontus (where he was Bishop) Gregory Nissen saith, was still standing in his time, having remained unshaken in a great Earthquake, [Page 26]which had thrown down all other Edifices both publick and private.

Now let it be granted, That this Canonical Epistle is ge­nuine; tho I will not say, as Bellarmine, that without contro­versie 'tis so; even for that which he saith is certain. That this Gregory made a short Confession of Faith, which he learn­ed of John the Evangelist, appearing unto him in the compa­ny of the blessed Virgin, the Mother of God: and the many monstrous Fables father'd on this devout Man, by the name of Miracles. But because Balsamon, the learned Canonist, hath commented upon it, I shall not reject it; tho neither Christ our Lord and Lawgiver, nor his Apostles, no nor the Church of the First Age, (wherein like occasions were given by defe­ction) ever made such orders, or used such distinctions of places: which any considering man will judge, more befitting peaceable than persecuting times.

And (2.) We further grant, as we have several times sug­gested, that in this Third Century the Christians had their publick Oratories, small at the first, and afterwards enlarged, as Eusebius testifies, Hist. l. 8. c. 1. tho most in secret, by rea­son of Persecution. So that neither this, nor the following Testimonies, prejudice our Assertion: nor prove theirs, of such publick and separate places of Worship, both in and ever since the Apostles times.

But how Gregory Nissen came to believe, that the Temple Thaumaturgus built, continued till his time, I know not. For whosoever considers the many Edicts, made by Heathen Em­perors between these two Gregory's days, for demolishing them all, will think this incredible. Except some Ruderaes remain­ing, and a Temple after built upon them, was accounted the same; like as that which we read in the Gospel, of Solomon's Porch. Or that it was preserved by a Miracle, as Baronius thinks, and that a greater, than its preservation in the Earth­quake. For the Decree of Dioclesian was very general and severe, for demolishing all Churches; which both Theodoret and Eusebius write, was so punctually executed, that all were pulled down, not one by them excepted. And this Decree came forth from Nicomedia, a City in Bithynia, upon which Pontus bordered, wherein Neocaesarea stood, and therefore ve­ry unlikely this should be spared.

But if any have so strong a Faith to believe, what is report­ed of this great Wonder-worker Gregory, he may possibly think that he had sufficient power to restrain Dioclesian's Agents, and defend the Church he built. For Baronius at the Year 253. num. 135, 136, 137. relates what power he had over Devils, to cast them out of their Temples, and drive them out of any place, whither he pleased, and restore them also at his plea­sure: which he did, to shew his power, to one in writing under his hand, saith Baronius, in these words, Gregorius Satanae, ingre­dere; Gregory to Satan, enter in, that was into his Temple again. And Bellarmine relates another Miracle of him upon this very Argument, c. 4. de cultu Sanct. saying, That when he would have built a Church, and wanted room, by reason of a Rock, that border'd on the place, where he would build it, he by his prayers removed it away. Mr Mede was wiser than to mention this, for Gregory's building of Churches. And indeed none can imagine, how much prejudice such fabulous Miracles and lying Legends (decryed and detested even by many sober and Learned Papists) hath done to Christianity. Let but any one read a Pamphlet Printed this very Year, of a Conference between a Jew and a Jesuite, at Amsterdam; concerning Christ being the true Messiah, which this undertaking to prove by his Miracles; was replied upon by the other, with a Number as great, out of many Popish Authors, insomuch that the Jew quite confounded the Jesuite.

And wheras Mr. Mede notes, that a litle before the persecu­tion of Decius (which was A. D. 252.) the Christians erected Oratories, in the Name of Christ. I desire Baronius may be consulted, and then let any one judge, how improbable it is that Christians had publick Churches, with such distinction of places, as is mentioned or built such Publick Oratories, as our Adversaries say. For Decius gave express order to forbid all Christian assemblies; upon pain of Death, threatning accurate ob­serving them; (because many Heathens were converted thereby to Christianity.) As appears by Aemilianus his writing to Diony­sius Bishop of Alexandria in Euseb. l. 7. c. 9. vel 10. and Baro­nius ad A. D. 260. Num. 17. who further relates, how their very Coemateria or burying places (which were Vaults under ground, called cryptae, as Baronius shews A. D. 259 num. 16.) usually a Mile or more from their Cities (which were often after some time discovered; and then how dangerous it was [Page 28]to meet there, he shews. A 255) were now strictly forbidden them in particular, as well as in the general all other places whatsoever.

Cyprian contemporary with Gregory, is next alledged for Christian Oratories.

• (1) In his book de Opere and Eleemosynis, by the Name of Dominicum brought also by Bellarm. c. 4 de cultu Sanct.
• (2) In 55 Epistle, by the Title of Ecclesia.

We never doubted, but Christians had from the first Oratories, or places of Meeting: And that in this Century some publick, which as the Church increased, were inlarged. But that even in Cyprian's time their assembling were in subter­raneous Vaults; both at Alexandria, as we have shewn; and Rome, as is clear by Pope Cornelius's Letter to the Bishop of Vienna, as Baronius testifies A. 255. n. 47. and here at Carthage in Africa, A. 260. n. 37. Where the Proconsul urged Cyprian himself with the Emperors Edict, ne in aliquibus locis conciliabula fiant, nee caemeteria ingrediantur; that the Christians should not meet in any places, nor enter into their Coemeteries. In which they usually celebrated the holy Mysteries; which Pameltus calls the Sacrifice; but Goulartius, the Word, Sacraments and Prayers; performed only, when the Church assembled. Nor is the opposition mentioned, of any force, as we shew'd on 1 Cor. 11.22.

Another Contemporary cited, is Dionysius Alexandrinus in's Epistle to Basilides, declaring his Opinion, That Wo­men during the time of their Separation, ought not to enter into the Church, which he calls the House of God. By which we learn, saith Mede, not only the Christians had their Houses of Worship, but a religious respect also, to difference them from common places.

To this we say, as formerly, That Christians had always places for meeting in, but still whether in private Houses, or in publick lies the question. And if but a Chamber in a pri­vate House, where they worshipped God, it was sufficient to denominate it the House of God, as well as a Cathedral. And that their Assemblies then were very private, appears in that they were forbidden on pain of death (as we have shewn) and yet where this is related by Eusebius, Dionysius testifies, that nevertheless they kept them. But surely not in the usu­al places, where they had easily been discovered, to the loss of their lives; but in all likelihood often changed the places, [Page 29]for their security. And whether every such, was thereby so sanctified, that it was unlawful for a menstruous Woman to enter thereinto, let any one judge. Nor was this a Canon, as Mede calls it, Baronius hath made apparent against Balsamon; and by the equity of a contrary course taken by Pope Grego­ry, in regard that legalia or ceremonials are now abdicated. And if it were in force, it relates not to the Place simply, but the Offices there performed, and the time thereof, which suppose the Congregation present, from which such an one was to be excluded, whether the meeting was on a Mountain, or in an House, or under Ground, in Caves and Dens of the Earth.

Nor need Mr. Mede tell us, such places were known to the Gentiles, and called worshipping places. For when the Christi­ans were grown so numerous, before this time of A D. 260. as Tertullian thinks, near to equalize the Heathens; their Assemblies could not possibly be concealed, whether above or under the Ground (especially when they enjoyed any tollera­ble freedom from Persecution) as appears by two Rescripts of Gallienus in Euseb. Hist. l. 7. c. 12. one for restoring all places in general to the Christians, and the other their Coemiteries in particular.

Nor doth Aurelian's Speech in Vopiscus evince a publick place; nor the opposition between the Capitol and Church imply the place; but the Congregation rather, that stands in congruous opposition to the Sibyls Oracles. For they might be Masters of the Christian Oratories when they pleased, and there consult of what they list, even of setting forth the Books of the Sibyls.

But Mr. Mede thinks his cause is supported by that of Euse­bius l. 7. relating how Paulus Samosatenus being deposed by the Council, Aurelian decreed, that [...], the House of the Church, should be taken from him, &c. This Bellarmine c. 4. de cultu sanctorum, and also our Fuller alledge to the like purpose. Yet both ours confess, that some interpret it of domum Epifcopalem, the Bishops House. Belike Christopherson, tho a Popish Bishop in Queen Maries days, and zealous for the Opinion of our Opponents. So Baronius takes it, A. D. 272. num. 18. and our Learned Antiquary Sir H. Spelman, de non temerandis Ecclesiis, p. 64. for a House belonging to the Church of Antioch. And indeed 'tis not reasonable to under­stand [Page 30]it, of a publick Temple, as Fuller calls it; for to what purpose should he keep that, which could be of no use to him, neither for an Habitation, nor for publick Worship, being deprived of his Bishoprick for Heresie, and Domnus in his place: and the Congregation could keep him out of, without troubling the Emperour. Nor is it denied, that in the time Eusebius mentions between the 9 and 10 Persecution, for a­bout 30 Years, several old Oratories or Churches were en­larged, and new built; like as 'tis manifest they were demo­lished by Dioclesian 40 years after. And were the 3 places of Eusebius alledged, taken for the place; they speak of no more than an House or Houses, which denotes them private, not publick, as Churches and Temples.

Mr. Fuller lays mighty stress on Eusebius calling them [...], which he renders prisca aedificia, ancient edifices: and from thence infers, that therefore there were Oratories or Churches, even in the Apostles times. For he tells us, the Learned define saeculum, an age, to denote 100 years: and that one age is not sufficent to denominate houses prisca, or antient; considering that monas an unity, is not to be accounted a number; wherefore they must be of two Ages at least, or more, to be termed Ancient.

But all this is very strange talk. For

• (1.) Eusebius hath nothing answerable to saeculum an age.
• (2.) If monas an unity be no number; then one hundred years, or one thousand. is no number; and so should be insufficient to denominate any thing ancient.
• (3) The Phrase may either import the distance of time, between their erection and amplification; or the distance between their erection, and the time when Eu­sebius wrote, which was considerably longer, and more pro­bably I think to be here meant.
• (4.) Let it be considered, that we read of no Edifices before Decius and Valerians Per­secution: and those specified only by coemiteria, places of Bu­rial, in which they had their cryptae, Vaults under Ground; which were forbidden them, and again restored and granted them by Gallienas. Now this Persecution by Decius and Va­lerian, was but about 40 years before Dioclesian's: so that if we take the Phrase for the time intervening, it imports no more than Edifices formerly built, and those not very ancient.
• (5.) New and Old, are Terms of respect, and taken in great latitude; so that now a Man of an hundred years, is truly ac­counted [Page 31]a very old man; tho in the antedeluvian days, one of 200 but young, when Men lived to eight or nine hundred. And tho some of our Churches in England may be termed truly ancient, being perhaps of 6 or 700 years standing; yet the eldest in Eusebius's time, could not be 300; nor hath any yet been proved to have been then an hundred years old. Such a Critick as Mr. Fuller might have observed the word [...] is such, being both variously rendred, and applied in the New Testament. Sometimes to great Antiquity, as Mat. 11.21. Hebr. 1.1. and Jude 4. Sometimes to things not long before, as 2 Pet. 1.9. He hath forgotten that he was purged from his [...], old sins; and sometimes to that lately past, as Mark 15.44. Pilate asked the Centurion, if Jesus had been [...], any while dead. But the Latin Version prisca aedificia, ancient Edifices, better suited his Hypothesis; which made him adhere thereto rather than the Original Greek; which may well be rendred priora aedificia, former edifices.

Mr. Mede's last Witness, which he saith will dispatch all at once, and depose for the whole, and thinks alone sufficient to carry his Cause, is Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 8. c. 1. Where de­scribing those Halcyon days, from Cyprian's Martyrdom to the Persecution of Dioclesian, the shews the vast multitude of Christians and their Meetings, cum antiquis illis aedificiis (i. e. Oratories) satis amplius loci non haberent, amplas spaciosasque in omnibus urbibus ex fundamentis, erexerunt ecclesias; so that having no longer room enough in their ancient buildings, (i. e. Ora­tories, as he had named them) they erected large and spacious Churches from their foundations, in all their Cities. Here's not only Churches in those days, but such as might then be call­ed [...], ancient Edifices, which how far it may reach, let others judge.

But if this Witness will depose for the whole, there's no thanks due to Mr. Mede; considering that long before, this was dispatch'd; Baronius having alledged the same, and Ve­delius answered him, (as he could not but know) Exercit, in epist. ad Magnes. Tertio, Eusebii l. 8. c. 1. citat Baronius, & di­cit eum asserere, longe ante Dioclesiani tempora fuisse Ecclesias. Sed falsum est, &c. Thirdly, Baronius cites the 8th Book of Eu­sebius c. 1. and saith, that he affirmeth Churches to have been long before Dioclesians time. But 'tis false to say, Eusebius speaks of the time long before Dioclesians Reign. For he speaks only of that [Page 32]part of time, intermediating between the 9 and 10 Porsecution, (or according to the computation of others the 8th and 9th) as the seri­es of the preceeding story, and the Text it self sufficiently shew. Now the Persecution preceeding Dioclesian 's began A. D. 272. under the Emperour Valerian, and ended about 10 years after. And the Persecution by Dioclesian began, as some account, A. D. 306. Whereby the ridiculousness of Baronius 's inference appears, viz. There were Churches long before the time of Dioclesian; therefore in the very days of the Apostles there were such. As if I should say, Eusebius testifies, That for about 30 years before Dioclesian there were Churches: therefore he saith that there were Churches 300 years before Dioclesian. But this course is frequently used by Baronius, that corrupter of Chronicles.

But that Mede insists on most, (as others before him) is that Phrase in Eusebius [...] ancient Edifices. Which how far it may reach, faith he, let others judge.

Belike he trusted more to his Readers forwardness, to em­brace the suspicions this Phrase might raise, at first sight in their minds, than his own improvement of it; that he turns it off with so short and slender a Remark, which in shew was his most pregnant proof. Or knowing that Fuller had done his best on the Phrase, waved the speaking further thereon. However, having spoken sufficiently, I think, to it in the for­mer Paragraph, I need say nothing more in this.

But that Eusebius mentions there, and also c. 2. and 6. is very remarkable; and lets us see, that tho Prosperity be de­sired of all, yet few can use it aright: so that we may con­clude, if it were best for God's People, they should enjoy it. For from Valerian's Persecution to Dioclesian's, the Church had a comfortable calm ( Aurelian's Edict made for Persecution, be­ing never signed by him, God having terrified him with Lightning (as Eutropius and Vopiscus affirm) and so stopt his wicked Tyranny.) But alas, instead of being better'd, they extreamly degenerated: So that Eusebius saith, God sent that direful storm of Persecution on them under Dioclesian, for the corruptness of their lives and manners. Maximè vero Ecclesiasticorum, in quorum vultu simulationem, in corde dolum, verbis fallaciam cernere licuit: livore, superbia, inimicitiis inter se certantes, tyrannidem potius quam sacerdotium sapere videbantur; Christianae pietatis omnino obliti; divina mysteria profanabant potius, quam celebrabant. Which I forbear to English. Those [Page 33]that please may read more in Fox's Martyrology in the 9th Primitive Persecution? tho he misreckon it, there having been no general Persecution in Aurelian's Reign, who as he himself saith, rather intended, than moved Persecution. But for their wick­edness followed the 10th. When their Churches were demo­lished, their Bibles burnt, their Persons punished with all kinds of cruelty; neither Courtiers, nor Friends, not the Empress Prisca, nor Daughter Valeria spared; his Decree was aut Deos Gentilium, aut mortem eligerent; That the Christians should choose either the Heathen Gods or Death.

Of this Tenth and greatest Persecution, Eusebius in his 8th Book of History. Lactantius de mortibus Persecutorum, from 7 to 49 Chap. with the Notes in Latin of 1693, which are 10 times larger than the Text. And Fox in his first book of Martyrology, from Eusebius and several others, have written largely; which I shall not transcribe, but dismiss with this short remark; That of all the 10 general Persecutions, this last (which was the forest, and continued above Ten Years,) only reached England; wherein Albanus first, and very many after, sealed their Faith in Christ with their blood; so that Christianity was almost with the Scriptures, and Churches destroyed throughout the whole Kingdom, tho short­ly after revived by the blessed Constantine.

Having now examined all our Adversaries Witnesses we leave the Impartial Reader to judge of their validity; and whether they prove the Christians to have had any publick appropriate places for Worship in the two first Centuries. Which tho undoubtedly most sit and convenient always; yet in times of Persecution, men must do as they may, and meet as secretly as they can, and be constrained, often to change their meeting places, and when private Houses will not serve for secresie, to seek out Vaults under ground, where they may worship God. And yet not even in the most secret and retired places, without fear of their enemies, and danger of their lives: which shews our happiness in this regard, above theirs, who were much better than we.

There is but one scruple, that I can imagine, remaining: and that is, tho these places were private, yet they might be, as Mede terms them, appropriate.

To which I answer, that his first Argument for his Opinion, which immediatly follows, from their worshipping towards [Page 34]the East, implies that he takes them for Publick, and purposely built accordingly for that end. And (2). who ever diligently peruses his Treatise, will see that he founds their appropriation (as also their holiness, of which in the next Dissertation) on their Consecration, (or as he sometimes calls it Dedication.) Now if we consider when this begun, Platina in vitis Pontif. tells us, That Telesphorus having suffer'd Martyrdom, in the first year of Antomus Pius (which was about the year of our Lord 142.) Hyginus an Athenian succeeded him. Who ordained these two things. First the use of those Witnesses we common­ly call Godfathers and Godmothers, in the Administration of the Sacrament of Baptism. Which was then, I confess, more necessary, by reason the generallity of those amongst whom the Christians lived, were Heathens. And therefore in case the Parents, on whom it is incumbent to see thei Children edu­cated in the Christian Religion, came to die; they that were Sponsors, might take care to see them brought up therein. Which Institution (as likewise Confirmation) is now degenerated into a meer Formality: few regarding their solemn Engagements made for that end. And (2.) he or­dained also Templorum consecrationes; the Consecration of Temples, that or Churches, being the usual Names, given to all places for Gods Worship, in after Ages. So that Consecration being but introduced in the second Century; if Mede takes it in the usual sense; his Opinion that There were appropriate Places for Christian Worship both in the Apostles days, and ever since, falls to the Ground; except it can be proved, that some of them at least, lived so long.

But if he takes it for a private House, or some room there­in, where the Church met together, as he seems in the be­ginning, and by the expressions of the Church in their House: then whensoever any Owners thereof, gave leave for the Christians to assemble therein, their permission was a Consecra­tion thereof, whereby they appropriated the same to the Churches use; and so, according to his Tenets, employed them no more for their own Civil use, being appropriate to a Sacred. Or else some pious Christians, gave their Houses, as he thinks, and dedicated them to the Church for a Meet­ing Place, by which Dedication it was appropriated. But neither of these can be reasonably imagined. Considering

• (1.) That we read of several that sold their Possessions, for the [Page 35]Maintenance of the Poor: but we read of none that gave their Houses to the Church for meeting in.
• (2.) The multi­tude of Christians increasing, many Houses were requisite to contain them, as we have formerly observed.
• (3.) How often in those bloody Persecutious, they were forced to shift their Meeting-Places, to shun the loss of their Estates, Liberties and Lives, we may easily conclude.
• And lastly, Had any either granted, or given any House, or certain place, for such an use, as therein constantly to assemble: they had thereby, with­out all doubt, been quickly discovered, certainly dispersed, and often times most severely punish'd. So that tho we are not to question the readiness of many that were able, nor their pious liberality: so we must also consider their Pru­dence, the times wherein they lived, and what was most con­ducible to their preservation, that they might not run them­selves on the rocks of destruction.

SECT. 9.

Our Opponents besides the Authorities mentioned, produce several Arguments for their Opinion; whereof 3 are made use of by Mede, which we shall now consider.

First, It's certain, saith he, That in their Sacred Assemblies, Christians used then to Worship and Pray towards the East. Which how it could be done, with any order and conveniency, is not easie 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. This he had touched on before, from Tertullian in the begin­ning of the 3d Century; for which no authority is vouched, but that only of the forged Apstolical Constitutions, falsly ascribed to Clemens.

Here let me observe, whereas Mede saith to worship and pray, Bellarmine c. 3 de cultu sanct. rightly restrains to prayers only, and those made publickly in the Temples. For having menti­oned several Authors for this, adds, Et omnes illi Veteres, qui scribunt Apostolicam esse traditionem, ut oremus conversi ad Orien­tem; id praecipue servari par est, in solemnibus precibus, quae fun­duntur in Templis: And all those Ancients which write, that 'tis an Apostolical Tradition, that we pray turned towards the East: [Page 36]that ought especially to be observed in the solemn Prayers, which are made in Temples.

Secondly, Tho we grant this an ancient Custom; yet is it without Command, or Example in the Scriptures; for Christ never required it, nor was it practised from the beginning of Christianity. Where's the Proof they then used so to Wor­ship? Or when this Custom first came up? For as to the Constitutions, rightlier to be called Apocryphal than Apostolical (as we have formerly observed) they deserve no Credit at all.

Thirdly, If this necessarily implies Edifices so situated, which I question, and he supposes, (but hath not proved) then those [...], upper rooms, the coenaculum Sionis, that upper room in Sion, and private Houses, which were the first Churches, he grants in the beginning of his Treatise, were all so situ­ate, which I hardly think, he himself thought. And much less that the Coemeteries and Vaults under Ground, which so many Authors mention for their Meeting Places (as we shall shew hereafter) were so: or had such Light Eastward, more than from other Quarters of the Heavens.

Fourthly, Bellarmine there treating of the Form of Chri­stian Churches, saith only, Ʋt plurimum eas ad Orientem con­versas fuisse, & quatuor latera habuisse quibus quatuor Mundi partes aspicerent. That for the most part they were turned towards the East, and had four sides, turned towards the four parts of the World. Likewise Walfridus Strabo de rebus Eccles. c. 4. saith, Majorem partem Ecclesiarum ita fabricari; That the greater part of Churches were so made. So that by their saying, all were not so; some might be round, as we have an ancient Church in Cambridge so built, which some say, was the usual Form of the Jewish Synagogues, such as the lesser, at Amsterdam. And some sited otherwise than Eastward, as the Church of Antioch in Syria, as Socrates l. 5. c. 21. testifies. And if they were oblong, and stood East and West, seeing they had four sides, 'tis meant doubtless of the Chancel, which was East­ward. Of which distinction in Churches; when first it be­gan, or who was the Author thereof, is not set down by any Writers I have met with. Tho we know, in Constan­tine's time, when stately Churches were erected, this was used. And if we take this in the first Ages, for private pla­ces, frequently stiled Oratories and Chappels, such as were in [Page 37]Houses and Vaults under Ground, or above in the open Air; to say their aspect was Eastward, is to beg the question, and cannot be proved. We may well imagine, those built, were rather according to the conveniency of the place, or pleasure of the Founders. As the Chappels of Emanuel and Sidney College in Cambridge, which stood rather North and South. Tho the former hath now a new one built in Mode and Figure; and is no more to be derided, as formerly, by Cart-wright, an Oxford Poet:

Nor the other now in danger to be demolished, as Mr. Mathews, an ancient Fellow thereof, told me, was in the days of A. B. Land, threatned therewith.

I confess Bellarmine brings several Authors for this situati­on of Churches; but none that proves there was always such, nor that they were all such; as also for the Ceremony of praying towards the East, for which he produces 5 reasons, (such as they are) I shall briefly represent them, to shew the sorry grounds of this practice, which takes away the liberty Christ hath left us, to advance a Custom of humane Constitu­tion.

1. Because Paradise was in the East, and we being here but strangers, should labour to regain our ancient Country, which we were cast out of. Which is produced by several other Papists, as the Opinion of the Fathers, and lately by the Learned Huetius c. 3. de situ Paradisi.

As if Paradise, where ever it was (the place thereof having puzzl'd so many Learned Inquisitors) whether in or near Mesopotamia, or elsewhere, was not as well West to the Chri­stians beyond it, as East to us on this side. Or that we were to look after a Terrestial Paradise, more than a Coelestial, whereof that was but a Type. And as the Saints in the Old Testament lookt from all parts toward the Temple, as a Type of our blessed Saviour; so under the New, we are directed to look towards Heaven, as the Habitation of our Heavenly Father, where Christ sits at his right hand to make Intercessi­on for us.

2. Because the Sun rising there, 'tis the most excellent part of the World.

But supposing its motion, doth it not continually arise in the several Horizons, to those of the same Latitude throughout the World and there set to their Antipodes? so that the East of Jerusalem, as Gregory explains it, must needs be West, to the further parts of the World. And how can that be most excellent to any, which is equally alike to all?

3. Because Christ whom we Worship, is the light of the world, Vir Oriens, the Man of the East.

Its true that as the blessed God, is called light, which of all creatures is the most pure: So Christ is called, the Sun of righteousness, the light of the world, and the day spring from on high &c. But this is only metaphorically, in regard of his illumina­ting us, and not at all to the place of East or West, North or South, all being equally alike to him for that end.

4. Because Christ was crucified with his Face Westward, so that we look Eastward to behold his countenance. And he ascended towards the East, and from thence shall come to Judgment.

But where's the proof of that posture in his Crucificti­on? Not in the Scripture sure. And how should the Christi­ans beyond Jerusalem pray towards his Face so, who lived in Persia, and other Eastern Countries. Math. 24.27. is meant of his Gospel Dispensation, or his speedy coming to destroy Jerusalem, as Hammond and Lightfoot think; or by that Emblem to Judgment: the point of East in the Heavens, being no where so to all the World he is to Judge.

5. Because the Jews prayed, and pray towards the West, we towards the East; to signifie theirs to be the killing Letter, and ours the Vivificating Spirit, and that the Veil still remains over their hearts, which we converted unto the Lord, have laide aside.

That the Jews at the Temple looked Westward, was because the Mercy-Seat, in the most holy Place was at the West end thereof. But that they do so still, as Gregory also saith, I think is a mistake; I never observed it in any of their Synagogues, tho I have seen several, and their Worship: yet I never saw any People so regardless therein as the present Generation of the Jews. But why may we not pray in the same posture with the Jews of old, which were Gods People, and had his direction? as [Page 39]well as in the posture of those Gentile Idolaters that worship­ped the Sun ( Ezek. 8.16.) as the Persians and many other Nations? Truly if you will believe the Cardinal, because this posture signifies so much more excellent things than the Jew­ish, which he there mentions; even the difference between the Gospel and Christianity, from the present Religion of the accursed Jews, the Enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here recommend me to the man that hath so strong Faith, as to believe a bare posture can denote such great things, to which it hath no tendency, or likeness at all.

But if any one hath list and leisure, to see a deal of dry Learning thrown away on this subject of praying towards the East; they may peruse the 18th Chap. of Gregory's Notes on Zachary 6. v. 12. Who had written also a Treatise, he intituled Alkibla (i. e. the place toward which men worship) as the Publisher of his posthumous Works acquaints us: the loss whereof he laments, tho for my part, I think it not great.

Before I pass to another Argument, let me set down the Opinion of Strabo in the place fore-mentioned; (an Author near 800 Years old, when Ceremonies and Superstition were in Vogue, and near their Altitude) concerning the site of Churches Eastward. Et quia diversitas Idololatriae, diversis mo­dis Templa extruxerat: non magnopere curabant illius temporis justi, quam in partem orationis loca converterent, dum tantum vi­deretur, ubi eliminatae sunt Daemonum sordes, ibi Deum creatorem omnium, qui ubique est, coli & adorari. And because Temples were built after divers manners, according to the different ways of Ido­latry: The righteous men of those days, did not much care which way the places of Prayer stood; their consideration being only this, that look where the filth and abomination of Devils were cast out of Doors, there God the Creator of all, who is every where, might be worshipped and adored.

Now that by the righteous men of those times, which cared not which way they converted their places, or selves in Prayer to God, were the times of the Conversion of the Em­pire from Idolatry to Christianity, is plain by what preceds, c. 3. where he saith, After the time was come, wherein the true Worshippers in Spirit and Truth, not in Jerusalem only, or in the Hill of Samaria, that is not locally but spiritually, began to wor­ship the Father, and the Doctrine of Salvation went forth into all [Page 40]Nations, according to the commandment of the Lord, the Faithful began to seek loca munda, clean places (which he interprets by that which follows) and removed from tumults and affairs of men of carnal conversation, therein to celebrate pure Prayers, and the holy Mysteries, and the comforts of mutual edification. For tho we read in the Gospel, the Disciples were with the Believers al­ways in the Temple, or in some upper room, praising God, and giving themselves to Fasting and Prayer; yet after the coming down of the Holy Ghost upon them. we read Act 1. & 2d chap. that they Celebrated Prayers and the Eucharist circa domos, from house to house: and they met together not only within the City, in some house or other, but without also in secret places, as at Philippi. Acts 16.13. But when the number of Believers was multiplied, they began to make their Houses, Churches, as we often read in the Legends of the Saints. Oftentimes also declining the rage of Persecutors, they had their meetings in Vaults under ground, and in places of Burial, and in Caves, and desert Mountains and Valleys. Then as the Miracle of Christian Religion profited more and more; and the Devil loosing ground, as Christ gained: New Oratories were built; nor so only, but also the Temples of their Gods and Idols, with the abominable Worship thereof, being thrown away and banished, were changed into the Churches of God.

It's true, that he dislikes not praying towards the East, but gives reasons for the congruity of it; yet upon conside­ration of the Temple at Jerusalem, that the Holy of Holies was Westward, and that Solomon in's Prayer at the Dedica­tion thereof, turned his Face that way, he concludes, His & aliis exemplis edocti, cognoscimus, non errasse illos, vel errare, qui Templis vel noviter Deo constructis, vel ab Idolorum squalore mun­datis, propter aliquam locorum opportunitatem, in diversas plagas altaria statuerunt; quia non est locus, ubi non sit Deus. By these and other Examples, we learn that they who either in Temples now­ly built for God, or purged from the filthiness of Idols, did accord­ing to the opportunity of places, set Altars towards different Coasts, did nothing erre, seeing there is no place where God is not present. And accordingly proceeds to shew, that in the Temple built by Helena at Jerusalem, upon Christ's Sepulcher; and in the Pantheon at Rome, converted to Christian use; as also, in St. Peter's Church there, Altars were Erected, not only towards the East, but also, other Quarters of the Heavens. And adds, Haec cum secundum voluntatem, vel necessitatem fuerint ita dispo­sita, [Page 41]improbare non audemus. So that tho he approves rather, of praying towards the East; yet professeth, he dares not blame those, who otherwise ordered the matter, and that not only in case of necessity, but of meer will and pleasure. Concluding thus, Ʋnusquisque in suo sensu abundet, propè est Dominus omnibus, invo­cantibus eum in veritate. Let every one abound in his own sense, the Lord is near to all that call upon him in Truth. I must add to all these, the Example of the Church of England, in read­ing the Liturgy, Ministers Prayers, and Peoples practice; and further shew, that tho Mede joins the position of Church­es and Prayers; yet neither of these necessarily infer the other; but I have run out too far on this Argument already.

The second is drawn from the Discipline of the Church, which required distinct and regular places in their Assemblies, for Penitents, Auditors, Catechumens and the Faithful; which argues, they had places accommodated for that purpose.

We had this Argument before, in the middle of the Third Century, where we answered the same; and therefore shall be briefer here.

Where I shall not insist upon it, That distinctions might be made in private Houses or Places; tho not so well or great as in publick Churches. Nor deny the authority of that ob­scure Epistle; however called Canonical, of Gregorius Neocae­sariensis, which was a little before alledged for this Disci­pline, and also considered. But roundly answer, that no such distinction of places can be proved in the days of the Apostles, or an hundred years after. It's therefore a strange inference, that if there were such different places, for the several sorts of Church Members, in Gregory's time; which was about 250 years after the Nativity of our blessed Saviour; that there were such in the Apostles days, and ever since; as our Ad­versaries would perswade us. But they must have stronger reasons than these, before they gain our assent. For who seeth not, that such distinction of places is more sit for times of Peace than Persecution (such as were mostly the first 300 years of Christianity) wherein men must be content to do as they may, and can, seeing they cannot do as they desire.

The Third Argument is drawn from the Example of the Synagogues and Proseucha's of the Jews, whose Religion was as contrary to the Empires, as the Christians, and yet in their dispersion amongst the Gentiles, had appropriate places for [Page 42]the exercise thereof. Who can believe that such a Pattern should not invite the Christians to an imitation of the same, tho we should suppose there were no other reasons to induce them, but that of ordinary conveniency.

This Reason supposes the Christians might do, as the Jews, who built them Synagogues in those Cities where they resid­ed; having a legal Tolleration for the exercise of their Reli­gion; whereas the Laws of the Empire were against the Chri­stians. Which makes me wonder such Learned Men, as Fuller, Mede and others, that could not but know so much; should produce this Plea for their Opinion. Just as if they should argue, The Jews in many Popish Countries, build and enjoy their Synagogues, whose Religion is more contrary to Po­pery than the Protestants; and therefore the Protestants should follow their Example, and build themselves Churches for their publick Worship. To which the answer is easie; that so they would if they had the like Tolleration. But to what purpose should they build up that which the Magistrates would throw down, and they should never enjoy, but instead thereof be more persecuted and punisht. Whence in several great Ci­ties, where there are some Protestants, Ministers are sent them, which they call, sub Cruce, or under the Cross of Persecution, as the Learned Professor Hornbeck was in his younger years in Collen, (where I have seen the Jews Synagogue) and others I have known at Ghent, and elsewhere, incognito, or disguis'd, exercising their Office with great secresie, for their greater security. Not to mention the Persecutions the Christians were under in the first Ages of Christianity, when the Jews enjoyed the Liberty of their Religion: having spoken some­thing thereof in the second Section, and shall more fully in the following.

Nor let any one stop me, with objecting the many Thou­sands of Jews under Caligula and Claudius Reigns, for their Tumults and Insurrections: or the Wars in the Reigns of Nero and Vespasian, wherein eleven hundred thousand per­ished, Jerusalem taken and demolished, with the Temple burnt. Nor after under Aelius Adrianus, about A. D. 130. who tho he built Jerusalem, calling it Aelia by his fore-name, (as he did Adrianople by his other) yet made miserable Havock of the Jews and their Country. For this was not by Persecuti­on, but by open Wars with them for 6 Years together, which [Page 43]they brought upon themselves. The occasion is said to be, quod mutilare genitalia vetarentur, arma corripuerant; that being forbidden Circumcision, they took up Arms. Instead of humbly addressing for a revocation, they betake themselves to War­like Opposition; being also set agog by Bencochab, who gave himself out for their Messias. In which Wars this their false Messias was slain; and more Thousands of the Jews, than the number of the Israelites that came out of Egypt, as their Rabbins report; or as our Historians, five hundred thousand, and a thousand of their Villages burnt down to the Ground.

SECT. 10.

Having now Answered their Reasons, We shall proceed to lay down several Considerations for the corroborating our Assertion. Which amount not to a Demonstration, I confess, That there could be no publick Places erected, for the Exer­cise of the Christian Religion, in the two First Centuries; yet compared with our Adversaries Arguments, will render our Cause much more probable, and weigh down theirs so clearly, as to satisfie all unprejudiced Readers.

1. Let's consider the State and Condition of the World as to Religion, when our blessed Saviour, after his Resurrection, sent forth his Apostles to Preach the Gospel to all Nations. In which were two sorts of Men, Jews and Gentiles; of whom 'tis hard to say, whether were the more implacable Enemies to the Christian Religion, and the Professors thereof.

As for the Jews, what Calumnies and Tumults did they raise against the Christians, not only in Judea, but whereso­ever they resided; accusing their Doctrine as Blasphemous, their Persons as Factious and Seditious, and setting up a new King instead of Caesar. And where they had no power to Persecute them, they stirred up the Magistrates in the Empire to do it, as we find frequently in the Acts of the Apostles.

And as to the Gentiles, what Ignorance, Wickedness, and abominable Idolatries they lived in, Scripture hath abundantly declared. God having in times past suffered [...] all the Gentiles, rather than as we Translate it, all Nations, to walk in their own ways. Acts 14.16. For the Jews had the way of Salvation made known to them; but the Gentiles ways were in gross Idolatry, setting up to themselves multiplicity of Gods, [Page 44]whom they worshipped and served; although some of the wiser sort of them held one Supream, whom they called Jove, contracted from Jehova, [...] the Father both of Men and Gods. And this their Idolatrous Worship and Religion was so ancient, even from Time immemorial, and so universal in all the Nations of the Gentiles; that none can imagine but the Gospel, which opposed and condemned this wherever it came, should have the utmost Opposition, and its Publishers and Professors Persecutions, rather than a Toleration or Permission to set up a Religion in publick, destructive of their own.

2. Consider the Power of the Roman Monarchy, which was then at the height; having Conquered the greatest part of the Western Nations, both in Europe and Africa, and East­ward as far as Euphrates, in which especially the Gospel was to be Preached, though it was carried also into the remoter Parts elsewhere, over which the Roman Eagle never stretcht her Wings. In the City of Rome, Tacitus Reports, Hist. l. 11. there were not fewer than 6944000. and what vast Nations were then subject to its Empire, is sufficiently known; and what numerous Armies they constantly kept up. All which Power was Unanimous for the defence of their Idols, and their Idolatrous Worship, against all Men and Means that would defame them, or tended to their Demolition.

3. Consider also, That at that time there was not only the greatest Power to oppose Christianity, but also the greatest in­tellectual Helps and Means, Learning being then in its full Me­ridian of Glory. They had subtle Philosophers for defending their Religion, and as good Arguments for its Verity, as Bel­larmine, and the Papists, alledge for theirs, such as Antiquity, Universality, Extent, Succession of their Priests, Prosperity, and the like. They had Eloquent Orators to Plead their own, and Implead, Tertullus like, the Christian Religion; besides the vast multitude of Priests, and those imployed for the training them up in their Idolatrous Worship, whereby they became prejudiced to the utmost against the Gospel of Christ, especially considering the nature and tendency thereof, either as to the Credenda or Agenda, things to be Believed or Practised, in­joyned therein.

For Sinners to be Saved by a Crucified Jesus, might well to the Carnal and Unbelieving Jews and Gentiles be a stumbling [Page 45]Block, and accounted Foolishness; as the Resurrection of the Dead, and other Articles of our Faith, strange Doctrines: And things so contrary to Flesh and Blood, as Self-denial, Mortification, Suffering joyfully Persecution, and even Death it self for Christ's sake and the Gospel, might well be accoun­ted hard Sayings not to be born, but rather derided and re­jected, as indeed they were generally by the wise Men of the World.

Nor let any here object Mahometism, for that was set up when the Empire was broken to pieces under Heraclius, by the Irruption of the Barbarous Nations; and in Arabia, amongst an ignorant People, where few Christians were, and no Learn­ing, but ready to embrace any Innovations, and receive any Impressions of Religion, especially such a Sensual one as the Alcoran holds forth; when there were neither Men of Know­ledge and Parts to oppose it, nor Princes of Power to persecute it, but worldly Power to set it up and support it. So that 'tis less wonder that soon grew publick: Whereas it was quite o­therwise with the Gospel, which was neither set up, nor car­ried on, by Might and Power of Arms, but by the Spirit of the Lord accompanying it all along, where it was carried, to make it Efficacious.

4. Consider how strongly Gentilism was guarded by Laws. For all Nations, though they had several Idol Gods, and Wor­ship, yet accounted their Religion to be of a Divine Original: As the Romans from the Goddess Egeria, and others from some God or Goddess they Worshipped: and would never suffer their Gods to be dishonoured, or their Rites of Wor­ship, how Ridiculous soever, to be defamed by any amongst them, though Foreigners they could not hinder, did, as the Romans, the Jews and Egyptians especially. I shall not abuse the Reader's Patience, in citing Histories and Poets for these things, they are so many, and so well known; nor how they always provided by their Laws, Security for their own, and Prohibition and Penalties against other Religions. The Ro­mans, by the Laws of the 12 Tables, forbad ‘Nequis alios inducat Deos, sed Patriam sive Romanam Religionem sequatur.’ [Page 46] That none should introduce other Gods, but follow the Country's, or Roman Religion, and that under severe Penalties. Of which Ci­cero, l. 2. de Legibus largely. By vertue of which Laws alone, many Christians were extreamly punish'd by the Praetors, and Presi­dents of Provinces, and put to Death, without any Edicts from the Emperors; though where these were added to en­force their Execution, Persecution was much more fierce and cruel: And this appears plainly by Pliny's Epistle to Trajan; who having Condemned and Executed many by the Laws of the Empire, deterr'd at length by the multitude of those that were to be punished, Consulted the Emperor what he should do in that case, the Emperors having power to Suspend Exe­cution, though not to Abrogate the Laws, which Senatus Po­pulus (que) & Principes Romani decreverant ut non sint Christiani: The Roman Senate, People and Princes had decreed, as that no Chri­stians be tollerated. Another early Law made by the Senate, mention'd by Eusebius, 5.21. Non debere demitti Christianos qui semel ad Tribunal venissent, nisi propositum mutent: That the Christians which once came to publick Tryal, should not be dismist, except they changed their Religion.

5. Consider the Policy of the State, which was against Tol­lerating any diverse Religion amongst them, and much more a contrary to their own. As the Christian, which wholly changed the Face of the World, accounted their Deities Idols, and their Devotion gross Idolatry; which was therefore judg­ed dangerous for raising Tumults and Commotions among the People, which might end in Civil Wars for Religion: So that they Unanimously concluded it best for the Publick Safe­ty, to Extirpate Christianity, and the Professors thereof. Yea, so Jealous were they, that all Societies, or Conventions, were forbidden, as appears by 42. & 43. Epist. Plinij, l. 10. And much more of Christians, as Ep. 98. Acquaints Trajan, How the Christians forbore post edictum meum, quo secundum mandata tua hetaerias esse vetueram: After my Edict, whereby I forbad, ac­cording to your Command; all Conventions of Societies.

This Consideration of State-Policy, hath been the great Ar­gument and Engine in all Ages for Persecution; insomuch, that some Christian Writers of Politicks, upon this account, justifie the Heathens, and Popish Inquisition; though S. James calls this Wisdom earthly, sensual, devillish, quite contrary to [Page 47]that from above, which is, first pure, then peaceable, gentle and easie to be intreated, full of mercy, &c. And oh! that it had not prevail'd amongst Protestants, to the great Scandal of the Prince of Peace, and his peaceable Gospel, which they profess! It was far more tollerable in the Gentiles, who had only the Light of Nature for their Guide; as the Romans, who yet tollerated the Nations they Conquered, to retain their Reli­gion, not only Gentilism, but Judaism also, both in Judea, and in their dispersion in the Roman Territories: the Jews having before submitted to the Roman Government, and become their Tributaries, when Subdued by Pompey. By reason whereof, the Christians coming from Jerusalem, and passing in the Empire, a while at the first for Jews, whose Synagogues they used then to frequent, passed undiscerned, without Persecution; 'till after­wards that they were discovered, and then both Jews and Gentiles became their implacable Enemies, those frequently stir­ring up these (as we read in the Acts) to Persecute them. For they both accounted them setters up of a strange God and Re­ligion, in their worshipping Christ, whom they both took for a meer Man, whom their Ancestors had Crucified; and that the Gospel tended to overturn both their Religions, and ways of Worship; which will yet more evidently appear, by that which in the next place follows.

6. Consider the many and grievous false Accusations brought against the Christians, which greatly incensed all sorts of Peo­ple against them. They were accused of Atheism, and all man­ner of Impiety, as killing and eating Children, Incest, and impure Mixtures, Magick, and every Evil almost that might render them odious, which may be read in the Primitive Fa­thers, Greek and Latine, in their Apologies for Christianity; summarily mentioned in Spencer's Annotations on the First Book of Origen. So that the Christians for their Impiety, were ac­counted the Cause of all those publick Calamities that befel the Empire. If there was a Famine, Pestilence, &c. the Peo­ple cryed out Christianos ad Leones, cast the Christians to the Li­ons, as Tertul. Apol. c. 40. Cypr. Ep. 75. and others. So when Rome was taken by Alaricus, it was imputed to the Anger of the Gods, for the contempt of their Religion; which occa­sioned S. Austin to write that excellent Book de civitate Dei, and Orosius his Orchestra, for the Refutation of their Heathen­ish Folly, which was so great, that they still thought to ap­pease [Page 48]the Anger of their Gods, with the Blood of the Christians.

Nor were they less traduced for being Enemies to the State, and such as turned the World upside down; notwithstanding all their peaceable Demeanour under the Civil Government; because they would not Pray to their Idols (though they did to Almighty God) nor offer Sacrifices to them for the Prospe­rity thereof.

In like manner also were they Accused, for being Rebels to their Emperors; because they refused to frequent their So­lemn Feasts and Spectacles for their Victories; nor would Swear, as others did, by their Genius; nor give them Divine Honours, by offering Sacrifices to them, together with their Idol Gods. For as Julius Caesar, as Suetonius tells us in his Life, c. 76. Decerni sibi passus est, Templa, Aras, simulachra, juxta Deos: Suffered Temples, Altars and Images, to be De­creed for him near the Gods. So his Heathen Successors in the Empire continued the same, as may be seen in Pliny's Epistle to Trajan. Hence they were called Sacrilgi, Sacriligious, and Lawless, because this Worship of the Gods and Caesar, was by Law Established: Yea, the Enemies of Mankind, because by their Contempt of the Gods, they brought Miseries upon the World.

So that being accounted by the Heathens Enemies of their Gods, and Religion, their State, Emperors, Laws, Manners, and all Mankind: No wonder if they became the object of publick Hatred, according to that of Tertul. l. Scorp. c. 11. Odio habe­mur ab omnibus hominibus nominis causa. We are hated of all Men for the Name of Christians, and his, and Athenagoras, and Ju­stin, likewise in their Apologies, as our Saviour had foretold, Matth. 10.22. So 24.9. and Luke 21.12.

And it had been happy for after Ages, since the World turn'd Christian, if these Calumnies had not been used, to re­present the best sort of Men, as Enemies to Princes and States, who could not in Conscience comply to worship the Image they set up. How have not only Papists under such Pretexts, all along Persecuted all that would not submit to their impious Impositions, but even Protestants also, frequently for small Matters, all such as refused to Dance after the Fidle of the Times.

7. Let us further consider the Temporal Interest of most, which carries all before it, with those that regard not their [Page 49]Spiritual and Eternal: The whole World turning continually upon the Hinge of Self-Interest. And herein the vast number of those ingaged thereby against the Christians; some for pre­serving the Dignities and Revenues they had, and others for Augmenting them.

Of the former sort were the several Religious Orders of Priests, or Flamines, and Augurs or Prognosticators, with the whole Rabble that depended on them. Which must needs be many, considering the multitude of Places and People, as also of Idols and Temples they were to serve, by performing their Religious Functions in Sacrifices, Lustrations and Supplications. All which had great Credit, as in all Religions such have, espe­cially amongst an Ignorant and Superstitious People. And un­derstood very well, that Christianity, would ruine at once all their Offices, Honours, and Profit. Knowing that thereby their Gods would be derided, their Worship neglected, their Oracles remaining contemned, and proved often false; many of them being already silenced; which the learned Plutarch both confest and wondred at in's Book de defectu Oraculorum, amongst his Works, and with Camararius's Notes alone. Which Consideration stopt two of the Heathen Emperours, which had most kindness for Christ, if we may believe Lampridius in the Life of Alexander Severus, who writes thus. Christo (Alexan­der) Templum facere voluit, eumque inter Deos recipere. Quod et Adrianus cogitasse fertur, qui Templa in omnibus Civitatibus sine simulachris jusser at fieri: Quoe hodie idcirco, quia non habent nu­mina, dicuntur Adriani, quae ille ad hoc parasse diccbatur: Sed prohibitus est ab iis, qui consulentes sacra, repererant omnes Chri­stianos futuros, si id optata evenisset, & Templa Reliqua deserenda. Alexander Severus would have made a Temple for Christ, and re­ceive him amongst the Gods. Which Adrian, also is said to have determined, who had commanded Temples to be made in all Cities without Images; which therefore still, because they have no Gods, are called Adrian's; which He was said to have prepared for this; but was prohibited by those, who consulting the Oracles, found all would turn Christians, if that had happened well, and all other Tem­ples would be forsaken.

Of the latter Sort, that were for augmenting their Estates, were especially the Magistrates, both Supream and Subordi­nate. For knowing they might gain, by the Execution of the Laws: Those especially that were Superstitious, Covetous, and [Page 50]Cruel, were thereby induced to fly upon the Spoil, by confis­cating the Estates of Christians, who indured a great fight of Af­flictions; were made a gazing Stock both by Reproaches and Affli­ctions; and were Companions of them that were so used, and took joyfully the spoiling of their Goods, Heb. 10.32, 33, 34. and else­where their Sufferings are set forth, comprizing their Losses: Yea, even Felix the Governour hoped to have got Mony from poor Paul for his Freedom; and communed with him oftner for this End, thinking belike, that his Friends would contri­bute thereto, Acts 24.26. So that Temporal Interest inga­ged all Officers, Sacred and Civil, to prevent and suppress Christianity, and the Professors thereof.

8. To all the former Considerations, which suggest sufficient Reasons for the Christians to keep themselves as private as possible, we may add several other Particulars.

As the vast Multitude of their Enemies, whose extream pre­judice against Christianity, and inveterate hatred of the Chri­stians, stirr'd them up frequently to raise Popular Tumults against their Persons, Families, and Societies; as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, and other Authors.

And if the People were supprest by the Magistrates from exorbitant Violence, they had always Liberty to accuse them, and bring them to Tryal. And such was their Malice and Rage, that sometimes they hurried them by Violence before their Rulers; and sometimes exhibited Multitudes in the same Libel, or Accusation. Then were they strictly examined, and put to purge themselves upon Oath. And if they denied, were commanded, for further Proof thereof, not only to Worship and Sacrifice to the Idol Gods and Emperours, but also to curse Christ. And if they confest, were certainly condemned to Punishment, which was of several kinds, most usually Death. Altho no other Crime was alledged or proved then their Chri­stianity. Their Christian Constancy, termed inflexible ob­stinacy, was judged sufficient ground for their Condemnation. Of which the Primitive Fathers Apologies, and Pliny's Epistle to Trajan, inform us sufficiently.

And if they were brought to a Publick Tryal, where less Tumultuousness, and more legal Proceedings were used: Yet how little Hopes they could have, of escaping the utmost Se­verities of the Laws against them, may be easily imagined, see­ing all that Tryed them, as well as those that Accused them, [Page 51]were their implacable Enemies. For when an Accusation was brought in, the Pretor in Rome, and the Proconsul or Supream Governour in the Provinces, having appointed the Time of Tryal, then came and sate on the Tribunal, and the Judges chosen by Lot (more or fewer, according to the Quality of the Cause) sate on Benches. And all the Favour the Accused had, was to Object against those he thought good, (as we are wont in England of the Juries) which the Accuser had like­wise Liberty to do; and the number of those rejected being again supplied by Lot, the Cause was pleaded, and the Judges gave Sentence, by Capital Letters in Tables, A. absolvebat, absolved. C. condemnabat, condemned. N. L. non liquet, Its not manifest. As our Juries pronounce, Guilty, or Not Guilty, or Ignoramus. I know the manner of the Grecians passing Sen­tence was otherwise, by casting small stones into an Urne, the White and whole signifying Absolution, the Black and Ho­led Condemnation. But this only by the by.

Having thus laid down so many Considerations, to support our Assertion; I submit them to the Judgment of all impartial Readers, if they do not preponderate our Opponents Reasons for theirs; and proceed in the last Place, to produce several Testimonies, for Defence of the Truth we have laid down, and undertaken to prove.

SECT. 11.

We come now to alledge several Testimonies to make good our Position; which we shall take from such Authentick Au­thors, as are beyond all Exceptions; and not such spurious ones, as several that have been brought against us.

And for the more distinct proceeding herein; we shall re­duce them to these three General Heads.

• 1. Such as speak of the Persecution of the Primitive Churches; whereby any one may judge, whether they were in a Conditi­on suitable to the injoyment of certain appropriate Places, call them Oratories, Churches, or as some of our Opponents falsly Temples (for that Name came not in for them, till the fourth Century) if you please; much less to build such publickly in the first Ages, for their constant worshipping in.
• 2. Such as declare, that for two hundred Years at least they had no such, as our Adversaries avouch.
• [Page 52]3. What kind of Places they then assembled in: Which were the most Private they could find or contrive for their Security.

As to the first of these, concerning the Persecution of the Primitive Church, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles; we have spoken something already in the second Section; and shall therefore proceed to that part of Nero's Reign, that im­mediately Succeeds. For St. Paul's coming to Rome, about the fifth of that Emperour, and Imprisonment there for the space of two Years, concludes the Acts. There he found a flourish­ing Church, as appears by c. 1. v. 8. of that admirable Epistle he had Written to them, between two and three Years before. Whether Founded by those Strangers of Rome that were at Je­rusalem in the Day of Pentecost, Acts 2.10. Or by those men­tioned in the 16. Chapter of his Epistle, or joyntly by them all, I determine not: But that it was not by Peter, who had not as yet been there, is apparent by the Series of History. Du­ring his Imprisonment, he wrote several of his excellent Epi­stles, as that to the Galatians (a People inhabiting Tanium pessinunt, and Anoyra in Asia) the Ephesians, Philippians, Colos­sians, Philemon, and as most think, even those that were last, as that to the Hebrews, and those to Timothy. Tho' Dr. Cave and others Judge, the first to Timothy was written in's return to Rome, and the second in the Year following. For both, some Places of Scripture, and many Ancient Fathers testifie, that being released after two Years by Nero, he went and Preached the Gospel, in the East, Italy, France, and Spain for about four Years, and being apprehended and brought again to Rome, was there Beheaded. For Nero now inraged at the increase of the number of Christians, and the decrease of the Worshippers of the Idol Gods, made that bloody Decree, Quisquis Christianum se confitetur, tanquam generis humani convi­ctus hostis, sine ulteriore sui defensione, capite Plectitor. Whosoever confesseth himself to be a Christian, shall as thereby a convicted Enemy of Mankind, without any further Defence of himself, loose his Head. And Orosius l. 7. c. 7. Primus (Nero) Romae Christianos suppli­cits & mortibus affecit; ac per omnes Provincias pari Persecutione execruciari imperavit; ipsumque nomen extirpari conatus, &c. Nero was the first at Rome, that punished the Christians, and put them to Death; and commanded that through all the Provinces, they should be tormented with like Persecution; and endeavoured to extir­pate the very Name of Christians. Where Note, that tho' all [Page 53]Authors generally make him the first Persecutor of the Chri­stians, it must either be understood, as first of the Emperors; or the first general Persecution, after the Constitution of Churches amongst the Gentiles, which is usually reckoned from our Saviours Ascension, the Time of twenty five Years to Nero. For that both particular Persons, and the Church at Jerusalem, were persecuted before Nero's Time, is manifest in the Acts of the Blessed Apostles.

There is a Passage in Tacitus Annals, l. 15. c. 44. transcri­bed by Sulpicius Severus, l. 2. Hist. very remarkable, for Con­gruity with Scripture, and clearing some Places therein. Which I shall therefore, tho' somewhat large, relate, and im­prove.

Having set forth the burning of Rome, attributed to Nero, Abolendo rumori subdidit reos, & quaesitissimis paenis affecit, quos per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis ejus Christus, qui Tiberio Imperitante per Proconsulem Pontium Pi­latum supplicio affectus erat. Repressaque in Praesens exitiabilis Su­perstitio, rursus erumpebat, non modo per Judaeam, originem ejus mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt, celebranturque. Igitur primo correpti, qui fatebantur, de­inde judicio eorum multitudo ingens, haud perinde in crimine incendii, quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. Et pereuntibus addita ludi­bria, ut ferarum tergis contecti, leniatu canum interirent, aut cruci­bus affixi, aut flamandi, atque ubi defecisset dies; in usum noctur­ni luminis uterentur. Hortos sui ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat. Ne­ro to extinguish the Rumor of his burning the City, falsly accused, and exquisitely tormented those, odious for their wickedness, which the common People called Christians. The Author of that Name is Christ, who in the Reign of Tiberius, was executed by his Procon­sul Pontius Pilate. And this Pestilent Superstition having been re­pressed for a Time, broke out again, not only in Judea, the Original of that evil, but also in the City of Rome, whither all heinous and shameful things from all parts flow together, and are had in Estima­tion. First therefore they were apprehended, who confessed; then a great multitude of them being discovered were convicted in Judgment, not so much for the crime of burning the City, as the hatred of Man­kind. And mockeries added to their Deaths, they were covered with the Skins of wild Beasts, that they might be torn in Pieces by Dogs, or Crucified, or Burnt, and when the Day was spent, they were used for Lights in the Night. Nero had offered his Gardens for this Spectacle.

Here we have the Heathens Opinion of Christianity and Christians: An Attestation to that great Article of our Faith, Christs Suffering under Pontius Pilate: And the Sufferings of his Servants (for which I alledge the Place especially) These caused that Defection of many, the Historian briefly touches in saying, this Pernicious Superstition (meaning Christianity) was for a Time represt. That is, by those former Persecutions, we have frequently mentioned in Paul's Epistles (and also those of James and Peter.) Whereby some forsook the Christian As­semblies, others apostatized from the Faith of Christ, against which the Apostle warns the rest, Hebrews, 10.23. to the end of the Chapter. Others mixt Christianity with Judaism (which was tollerated) lest they should suffer Persecution for the Cross of Christ, Gal. 6.12. Altho those Sanguinary Laws and Bloody Persecutions that followed, had not as yet fallen on them, as Heb. 12.4. shews, where the Apostle saith, Ye have not yet resisted unto Blood. For these were begun by Nero, a­bout the seventh or eighth Year of his Reign. I suppose, be­fore the Conflagration at Rome (usually reckoned the tenth) but for these, see the several Notes on c. 2. of Lactantius, de mortibus Persecutorum. Domitian about thirteen Years after Nero is made Emperor, who in Cruelty surpast him: Taking Pleasure in beholding those in Torments, nor sparing some of his nearest Relations.

Confirmatissimam toto orbe Christi Ecclesiam, datis ubique crude­lissimae Persecutionis Edictis, convellere ausus est universali Per­secutione. Saith Orosius l. 7. c. 7. That is, He adventured to pluck up by the Roots the Church of Christ, that was most firmly settled in the whole World, by universal Persecution, Edicts for most cruel Persecutions every where being given out by him. So that how privately soever the Christians kept their Assemblies, most of their Pastors were forced to fly, according to the Verse of that Time.

Trajan about a Year and four Months after Domitian, fol­lows in the Empire, under whom the Third General Persecuti­on is reckoned. For that many Christians suffer'd under him, [Page 55]by his Governours executing the Laws against them is mani­fest. For, Suidas saith, Tyberianus the President of Syria writ him Word, Se non esse parem Christianis occidendis, eo quod ultro illi se neci offerrent. That he was not able, or sufficient for killing the Christians, because of their own Accord, they offered themselves to Death. And Pliny his Proconsul in Bithynia, after he had put many to Death, affrighted with their Multitude, consult­ed the Emperor what was to be done with them, in that excel­lent Epistle to Trajan, l. 10. Epist. 98. (mentioned by Tertul. in Apol. Eusebius and others) which I shall not transcribe, be­ing in most Mens hands. Only let me observe, that so severe was the Persecution, that many for fear, denied they were Christians, tho' they had been they confest, but had forsaken it, some of them ante plures Annos many Years before; and that after he had forbidden their Societies, according to the Empe­rors command, they had forborn them; and having faithfully declared, their Manner of Worship, and Innocency of Life; yet Trajan answers him, They should not be sought after, but Connived at, except they were Accused and Convicted, and then if they persisted, they should be punished. Conquirendi non sunt: Si deferantur, & arguantur, puniendi sunt, by which occasion, saith Eusebius, l. 3. Hist. c. 33. Plurimi ex fidelibus multiplicis Martyrii certamen subjerunt. Many of the Christian suf­fered manifold Martyrdom. And thus I have gone through the first Age, and the Times of all the Apostles; St. John who out-lived all the rest, till the third Year of Trajan (as Iraeneus and Hierom affirm) and dyed 100. or more Years of old Age. From what's said, let any impartial Man judge, If in the Apo­stles Times as well as ever since, the Christians had such Pla­ces for Worship, as our Adversaries contend for.

I design not a History, and therefore shall not proceed to the General Persecutions that follows in the Second and Third Century, which together with the former, are generally count­ed Ten (tho' differently reckoned) that they may answer the Ten Plagues of Egypt, but by some Twelve in Number. In regard 'tis needless; so many having related them at large, Eusebius especially, at whose Torch most after him Light their Candles. And in our own Language, Fox in the beginning of his Martyrology. I shall only request, the considering the Hi­story of those general Persecutions in the Roman Empire; and it will appear, that tho' they were not continual, yet the Chri­stians [Page 56]in the first Ages had not any long time of Repose, tho' some lucid Intervals sometimes, when the Affairs of the Em­pire were disturbed and turbulent, (as is usual we know by Modern Examples) especially from Commodus to Severus, and from Severus to Decius. So that it was the wonderful Work of God, and Power of his Grace, that carried on the Work of the Gospel, against all Opposition; and let the World see how vain the Attempts of Men were, against what Gods Hand and Counsel determined before should come to pass. As Ter­tul. in c. 5. Apolog. Cruciate, torquete, damnate, atterite nos—. Plures efficimur quoties metimur à vobis. Semen est Sanguis Chri­stianorum, Torment, torture, condemn, break us to Pieces. The oftner we are Mowen down by you, the more we are made. The Blood of Christians, is the Seed of the Church. And because some pretend, the good Nature of some of the Emperors, and their peaceable Reigns: It is not denied, that some were far better, comparatively than others, as Nerva, Domitians Successor, who recalled those he had Banished, as John the Evangelist, with many others, and acquitted the Christians from the Rigour of the Laws. But Alas! this was but a short Breathing Time, he having Reigned but four Months and nine Days above a Year; so that it's scarce accounted; nor some that were longer, no nor any, as the effect of their Clemency, but Reason of State, and their being imbarrest in other Affairs, or imbroiled in Wars. For this we have Theodoret's evident Testimony, Hist. l. 1. c. 38. Quotquot Imperatores ante Constantinum M. reg­narunt, contra Veritatis Professores insana rabie furere non desie­runt. All the Emperors that Reigned before Constantine the Great, ceased not with mad Fury to Rage against the Professors of the Truth. So that we may conclude, there was no trusting to their Friend­ship, or Favour, further than their Temporal Interest, and their own Safety, and Security of the Government were con­cerned. And therefore small Opportunity or Incouragement for Christians injoying any publick Places for Worship constant­ly, much less for Building any such.

SECT. 12.

Here occurs an Objection, made against the Greatness and Cruelty of these Persecutions, by Reason of the Paucity of the Martyrs comparatively, with the common Opinion of [Page 57]their great Multitudes. Which is especially managed, by my old Friend, the Learned Mr. Dodwel, in's XI. Dissertati­on on Cyprian.

But in this he seems not only singular, but to found his O­pinion upon a false Foundation; that because we find not so many mention'd in Antiquity, therefore they were fewer, than we commonly account them. For some Presidents of Provinces prohibited the reserving the Records of the Mar­tyrs Tryals: And most of those that were recorded, and re­mained to the Times of Christian Emperors; afterwards by the Irruption of the barbarous Nations into the Empire, were lost. So that we have little more than what Eusebius had gather'd up, and Published, in's Ecclesiastical History, and more particularly in two Books of the Martyrs; the former a Collection of the Ancient Martyrs, which is lost. The latter of those of Palastine that had suffered in his Time. Besides, 'tis observable, that great numbers were slain, both by the Magistrates and People without any formal Process of Law, and so could not be taken Notice of. Propter Confessi­onem torquetis. Causa non judicata supplicia infertis, saith Justin in's Apology, Ʋpon our Confession you Torment us. No Judgment being given of the Cause, you punish us. And to the same Purpose, Tertul. in Apologet. c. 37. The Governours of Cities and Provinces, being stir'd up by the Priests and People; made no great difficulty many Times, to Sacrifice them to the Popular Fury. For Things being carried often by Tumults, many were slain quasi jure Belli, as if it were in War, sometimes 10, 20, 30, 60, and sometimes 100, Men and Women with their little ones were Massacred in a Day, as Eusebius tells us, l. 3. c. 33. and l. 4. c. 8. and l. 8. c. 9. of his History.

Insomuch that the Emperors were forced to give Orders for restaining them, as Hadrian Ne quis posthac sine objectu criminis & legitima accusatione condemnaretur. Let none hereaf­ter be condemned without setting forth the Crime, and a legal Accusation. Nor are we to reckon the Persecutions, or num­ber of Martyrs, by the Emperors Edicts; for 'tis evident, the Roman Rulers and Governors, waited not for any such Decrees, but when any were Accused, they Tryed, Con­demn'd and Executed them, according to the Laws made [Page 58]against them. This is evident by Pliny's Proceeding, when he was Proconsul in Pontus and Bithynia, without Trajans Order. Yea, under some of the Emperors that more favour'd the Christians, as Alexander Severus, through his Mother Mammea's Perswasions, though they emitted no Edicts for prohibiting their Persecution, many Martyrs suffered in their Reigns.

But this Question relating to Matter of Fact, cannot be determined otherwise, than by having recourse to the Histo­rians and Ancient Fathers that have written of those Times. Which whosoever peruseth, may soon see that vast Army of glorious Martyrs, which may astonish him, and sill him with Admiration of their Christian Fortitude, under such direful Sufferings as they underwent.

It would be endless to recite their Sayings, for the great number of Martyrs. In the Third General Persecution there were innumerable Martyrs. The Menologia Graecorum say, Decem millia Christianorum in Monte Ararat cruci suffixa sub Trajano. That there were ten Thousand Christians Crucified un­der the Reign of Trajan in the Mountain of Ararat. In the Fourth under Adrian, Passim Martyrum millena, there were fre­quently Thousands of Martyrs. And so in the following, many thousands in the general, are reckon'd by several Authors. Chytraeus in's Historical Kalender, reports from the fore-men­tion'd Menology, 28 Decembris bis decem millia Martyrum in Nicomedia ustorum, That on the 28th of December Twenty Thousand were burnt in Nicomedia. And if so many on one Day, what numbers in so many Years? And if so many in one Place, how great must the number be in all Places? But we must not stay upon Particulars. Euseb. l. 5. saith under the Emperor Antoninus, Innumerabiles prope Martyres per uni­versum orbem enituisse; That Martyrs almost innumerable, were famous throughout the World. And if in the Fifth Persecution (as that's usually reckon'd) alone, were so many, what were there in all the Ten or Twelve? Prudentius Hymno xi. l. de Coronis, saith, In [...]u [...]eros Martyres; Rome ignoros fuisse; That there were innumerable unknown Martyrs at Rome; and if at Rome alone, what in the whole Empire?

And of them all Cyprian saith, l. de Exhort. ad Martyr. Non posse numerari Martyres Christianos Novi Testamenti; [Page 59]That the Christian Martyrs of the New Testament cannot be numbred. And St. Augustin often in's Sermons de Temp. mentions the millia Martyrum, Thousands of Martyrs: And Tract. 113. in Joh. innumerabiles, innumerable.

I shall only further recite what Fox, l. 1. p. 44. saith from an Ancient Author, Hierom or Heliodorus, where he makes this Calculation. Nullus esset Dies, qui non ultra quinque millium numerum Martyrum, reperiri posset ascriptus, excepto die Calen­darum Januarii, i. e. There is no Day in the whole Year, unto which more than the number of five Thousand Martyrs cannot be ascribed, except only the first of January. Which by Computation amounts to a Million and Eight Hundred Twenty five Thousand.

To animadvert on Dodwels Dissertation, is not necessary; in regard the Considerations laid down in the Tenth Section, with what is here added, I suppose sufficient. If any desire further Satisfaction, I must refer them to such Authors, as have industriously answered him. As Monsr. Jaquelot, in French, Dissertation, 4. c. 5. in the general. Pagius in Criti­ca Baroniana, frequently in several Places. Mabellonius in Itinere Italico. And the Notes of several on Lactantius de mortibus Persecutorum. But especially, Theodor. Ruinartius in Praefatione ad acta Martyrum, most particularly.

To conclude this Discourse of the Primitive Persecutions, I shall likewise refer the Reader to such as have more largely treated thereof, besides those formerly mention'd. Lactantius de mortibus Persecutorum cum notis variorum. Ultrajecti, 1693. 8vo. Meisnerus de Persecutionibus & Martyriis Christianorum ve­terum. Witteb. 1654. 4to. Gerhardi Vossii Commentarius in Epist. Plinii & edicta, Caes. R. Adversus Christianos, Amsterd. 1654. Christ. Cortholtius de Persecutionibus Ecclesiae Primirivae sub Impp. Ethnicis, deque veterum Christianorum Cruciatibus. Jenae. 1660. 8vo. A Table of whose several sorts of Tor­ments, may also be seen in Fox's Martyrology.

SECT. 13.

We shall now proceed, to confirm our Opinion, by pro­ducing undeniable Testimonies, from approved Ancient Au­thors, such especially as writ Apologies for the Christians [Page 60]against the Gentiles. Wherein they plead for those of for­mer Ages, as well as their own; and in all places, as well as where they lived; though especially where their Enemies endeavoured to defame their Holy Profession.

1. Minutius Felix, who flourished as Dodwel thinks about the end of M. Antoninus's Reign; but Bellarmine, under Alex. Severus, or about A. D. 206. And Baldwin yet later. How­ever Cecilius the Heathen Objects, Cur occultare & abscondere, quicquid illud colunt, magnopere nituntur? Cum honesta semper publico gaudeant, scelera, secreta sint? Cur nullas aras habent, Templa nulla, nulla nota simulachra? Why the Christians greatly endeavour to keep secret and hide, that they Worship: Seeing ho­nest Things may rejoice to be Publick, but wicked Things would be kept secret? Why they have no Altars, no Temples, nor known Images? To which Octavius the Christian replies, by way of Concession, think ye that we hide that we Worship, if we have no Temples or Altars? What Image shall I make of God, since Man is his Image? What Temple shall I build for him, seeing the whole World made by him cannot con­tain him? Concluding it better. He be set up in our Minds and Hallowed in our Hearts.

2. Origen, who flourished by Bellarmin's account, about the Year 226. in his excellent Book against Celsus, the Epicurean Philosopher. Which he wrote at above sixty Years of Age, as Euseb. saith l. 6. c. 36. Therefore A. D. 245. having been born, 185. Wherein Celsus Objects in the end of l. 7. That the Christians [...], could not indure to see the Temples, Altars, and Sta­tues, and l. 8. p. 389, 390, and 391. of the Cambridge E­dition, objects the same. To which Origen replies, That the Christians had for Altars spiritual Minds, and Prayers out of a pure Conscience for Incense. For Statues, the Image of God their Maker; and Temples agreeable to these; Holy Bodies, and the most excellent Temple of all, the Body of Christ, John 2.19, 22. 1 Pet. 2.5. Isa. 54.11, 12. Not re­garding liveless and sensless Temples, which sensless Men ad­mire: Because taught to shun those counterfeit Religions, which make all those impious, that depart from the Religi­on of Jesus Christ, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. By which some might think, Origen thought it unlawful to [Page 61]Worship God in a Temple, as when He saith [...]. We avoid to Build liveless and dead Temples to him that is the be­stower of all Life. But Origen hath no such meaning, as the Series of his Discourse shews: But that wheresoever Righte­ous Persons are found, that offer up Vows and Prayers to God from a pure Mind and Conscience, there God is wor­shipped after the best Manner, whether within a Temple, or without, elsewhere. And Lil. Giraldus in's Hist. Deorum Syntagm. 1. Commends this as a most acute Discourse in O­rigen. For, whereas the Pagans thought they performed, a great piece of Service and Worship to God, by building Temples to him: This Origen opposeth, because a Temple is a sensless or a liveless Thing, and Contributes nothing to the pleasing of God in his Worship. Our Saviour and his A­postles, having by Word and Prayers, worshipped God as acceptably often in the open Air, as in the Temple of Je­rusalem. So that hitherto the Christians had no Publick Pla­ces of Worship, but only in Private, may be rationally con­cluded.

3. Arnobius, who flourished by Bellarmin's account about A. D. 285. or as other later, brings in the Gentiles object­ing against the Christians as the greatest Crime, that they had no Temples, Altars, nor Images; and answers not by denial, but granting what they said; and for Temples, In cujus rei necessitatem, aut dicitis esse constructa, aut esse [...]ursus aedificanda censetis? What Necessity think you doth urge Men to build them, or after they are pulled down, to repair and restore them? See his Reasons for the Christians forbearing to build them Temples, l. 6. He shews that Temples were not neces­sary, though convenient for their Religion. Therefore when they had Liberty, they built them Oratories, in the Third Century, which were now demolished by Dioclesian. For the Christians in all Times, and Places of the Empire, under­stood very well, that it was in the Emperors Power to pull down, whatsoever they Built, whensoever they pleased. And therefore if their Religion depended on Temples or Stru­ctures (as the Religion of the Heathens did, who as Lactant. saith l. 5. c. 19. found it all there, and left it there) they had been in an ill Case. If they have but a Private House, or [Page 62]Room, as our Saviour when he instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, or the Disciples met in at Troas, their Service is as acceptable to God, as if performed in a Temple as glorious as Solomons. And this is the meaning of Arnobi­us, when he saith, Neque aedes sacras ad venerationis Officia extruamus, They did not build Temples, to perform Off [...]ces of Worship. For that God is equally served, honoured, and wor­shipped, as well without Temples as in them: Which Cle­mens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Athanasius, &c. have often as­serted and proved.

4. Lactantius, Arnobius's Schollar, Condemns the Gentiles for their Temples, Altars, and Images. Quid sibi Templa, quid arae volunt? Quid denique ipsa simulachra? What means your Temples, Altars, and Images? In his Instit. l. 6. c. 25. Non Templa illi congestis in altitudinem saxis extruenda sunt: In suo cuique consecrandus est pectore. Temples are not to be built to God, of Stones raised on heighth, every one ought to Consecrate him in his own Bre [...]st So again, Si Deus non videtur, ergo his rebus coli debet quae non videntur. If God be Invisible, He is to be Worshipped with such Things as cannot be seen.

From these Ancients, it appears, the Primitive Christians held it as a Thing indifferent, as to the acceptableness of their Worship to God, whether they performed it in Tem­ples, or without: And that Gods Worship being meerly of a spiritual Nature, the Place though never so magnificent and glorious, contributed nothing thereto: Which was directly opposite to the Opinion the Heathen had of Temples. And Secondly, The Gentiles Objections against Christians, shews that they had no Temples in the Days of Minutius Felix, and Origen.

For we deny not, that there were Churches or Houses of Divine Worship in Arnobius or Lactantius's Time, who lived in the end of the Third or beginning of the Fourth Century. For they both acknowledge them, though but in some Places (it being improbable that Christians in all Places had them) Lactan. l. 4. mentions a Conventicle pull'd down, and l. 5. c. 21. Of one burnt in Phrygia with all the People therein. and l. 5. c. 2. Of a Temple of God demolished. For about his Time, in the F [...]urth Century, begun the Christians to [Page 63]use the Word Temple, for the Place of Christian Assemblies: Which formerly, to distinguish them from the Gentiles Tem­ples they called, Oratories, Assemblies, Congregations, Collects or gatherings together, Churches, and sometimes also Stati­ons; as Bellarmin, and Vedelius, formerly mention'd; and Bauldrus in's Notes on Lactantius, de mortibus Persecutorum, and Spanhem have shewn.

Nor say we, that Lactantius taxed the Heathens barely for their Buildings; but for their Error, in thinking, God was better served in Temples than without: And that the more glorious they were, their Service was more grateful to God. Whereas the Christian Religion, tota in animo colentis est, is all in the mind of the Worshipper. And this appears all along in his Book, l. 2. c. 6. l. 5. c. 19. and l. 6. c. 1. and 25.

Also Chrysostom, Homil. 36. on 1 Corinth. saith, That in the Apostle's Days, Houses were Churches, meaning Private Houses no doubt. And Isidore Pelusiota his Schollar is very plain and positive, l. 2. Epist. 246. That in the Time of the Apostles, when the Church abounded with the Graces of the Spirit, and Holiness of Life, there were no Temples, though ours now are adorned more than is meet. And having di­stinguished between [...] and [...], the Church, and the Place, as [...], and [...], the Sacrifice and Al­tar, [...], and [...], the Councel, and Place of their Convention; concludes that in the Apostle's Times [...], there were no Artificial Churches.

These with other of the Ancients, are followed by many of the Learned in after Ages. Gerhard the Glory of the Lu­therans for Learning, c. 2. §. 9. de Ecclesia, saith, Ex Actis Apostolicis, & Seriptoribus vetustioribus constat, quod Christiani. A­postolorum tempore nondum habuerunt Publica Templa, sed in Privatis Domibus convenerunt. That 'tis manifest from the Acts of the Apostles, and Ancient Writers, that the Chri­stians had no Publick Temples in the Apostles Time, but met in Private Houses.

The Learned Jesuit Justinian, in's excellent Comments on the Epistles on 1 Cor. 11.18. saith, The Christian Assemblies were first in Privatis Domibus in Private Houses; afterwards in Oratoriis & Ecclesiis, in Oratories and Churches: Plainly [Page 64]distinguishing Oratories from Private Houses, and shews by Reason of Persecution, they met very often in Vaults, and Burying-places. Our renowned Bishop Pearson in's Com­ment on the Creed, p. 337. having said Acts 11.26. and 1 Cor. 11.18. seem to take the Church for the Place, in the following Page saith, its not certain the Apostle uses them in that Sense, nor that there were any Houses set apart for the Worship of God, in the Apostles Times, which then could be called by the Name of Churches.

And that the Primitive Christians thus continued, with­out Publick Oratories or Churches, is concluded by Vedelius in Ignat. Ʋltra ducentissimum annum, nullum Oratoriorum Publicorum vestigium apparet: That there's no footsteps in Antiquity of any Publick Places of Worship for above the first Two Hundred Years after Christ: And upon the same grounds Spanhemius in Hist. Saeculo 2d ^o. That Templa adhuc Christia­nis nulla, ex silentio veterum & conditione temporum liquet, &c. That the Christians had no Temples in the Second Century is apparent, from the Ancient Writers making no mention of any, and the Condition of those Times, by Reason of Persecution. So also Cuperus in's Ep. ad P. Voet. amongst the Notes on Lactantius de mortibus Persecutorum.

I shall add no more Testimonies for this, that the Chri­stians had not any Publick Places to assemble in from the Times of the Apostles and ever after, as our Adversaries af­firm; having shewn the Opinions of Clem. Alexandrinus, Eu­sebius and others, concerning Temples in my first Dissertati­on. But proceed to the Third Thing proposed, which will further clear this Controversie: In shewing, what Time, and in what kind of Places they assembled, during their Per­secution under the Heathens.

SECT. 14.

First, How careful the Primitive Christians were, of keep­ing their Assemblies for the Worship of God, as Private as possible; appears by their holding them frequently in the Night, of which we have unquestionable Witnesses. Pliny in's Ep. to Trajan, writes Se de sacris corum nihil aliud com­perisse, quam caetus antelucanos, &c. That he found nothing [Page 65]concerning their Religious Worship, but that they held their Meetings, in the Night before Day-light, wherein they sung Hymns to Christ as God, &c.

The same is Recorded in Tertullian's Apol. c. 2. Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 32. And Hiecrom in Chron. Euseb. Gerh. Vos­sius in's Comment on the foremention'd Epistle saith, It was necessary for them so to assemble in the Night, because of the continual Persecution they were under, Persecutio totis sae­ [...]lis duravit, ut passim necesse fuerit conveniri noctu.

Tertullian, l. 2. ad Ʋxorem, disswading her from Marrying an Infidel, brings this as one Argument, that He would not willingly suffer her to leave him in Bed, to frequent the Nocturnal Assemblies of Christians, if it were needful. Quis Nocturnis Convocationibus, si ita oportuerit, à latere suo ex­imi libenter feret? And the Learned Heraldus in's Notes on Tertullian, de Corona Militis, saith, That the Christians often assembled in the Night, saepius Noctu Congregatos. And so do several others: Whence the Learned derive that Cere­mony, of Burning Wax Candles before the Shrines of Saints even in the Day Time (as is usual in all the Popish. Coun­tries) to retain that Custom of the Primitive Christians, who in Times of Persecution met in the Night, and usually in the Burying Places of the Deceased Christians.

Secondly, Let us consider what kind of Places, the Pri­mitive Christians held their Assemblies in, for Worship: And we shall find them the privatest possible, that they might not be discovered. So that Celsus p. 4, and 5. in Origen, makes this his very first Objection against the Chri­stians in general, and not of that time only, that they held their Meetings in Private and obscure Places. The which none ever doubted of or denied, that are not strangers in Ecclesiastical History or Antiquity; wherein this is so fre­quently mentioned.

Alexander Hales Writes of the whole Time in general, re­lated by G. Biel on the Canon of the Mass, Lect. 13. Ab E­piscopatu Petri Apostoli, usque ad Tempus Sylvestri, &c. That from Peter to Sylvester Persecution raging, the Episcopal Sta­tion of the Bishop of Rome was uncertain: But wheresoever the present Necessity constrained them to be, whether in Vaults under-ground, or the Houses of Christians, or what [Page 66]other places soever; there they celebrated Mass upon an Al­tar of Wood, made hollow like an Ark, which was carried by the Priests to the Place, wheresoever tho Bishop of Rome lay hid.

And Hierom on 40. Chap. of Ezekiel describes those Vaults, which they often made their Meeting-places, Dum essem Ro­mae Puer, &c. When I was a Youth at Rome, and instruct­ed in liberal Studies, it was my Custom with others of the same Age and Profession, on the Lords Days to visit the Se­pulchres of the Apostles and Martyrs, and often to enter in­to the Vaults, which were digged deep in the Earth; wherein were on each side as we went, the Bodies of dead Men buri­ed. And all Places there were so Dark, that it might well be said of them, according to that of the Prophet, The Living go down into Hell. And rarely Light was let in from a­bove, to qualifie the horror of the Darkness, through a Hole rather than a Window.

And again, going on Foot by Foot, and being compassed about with dark Night, we are minded of that which Virgil saith, Horror ubique animos, simul ipsa silentia terrent. Horror on every side, and Silence therewithal affrights Mens Minds. A like Description of these Vaults where tho Christians met, we have in Prudentius his 11th Hymn, in excellent Verses, but too many to be here inserted.

Not that these Burying-places were peculiar to the Mar­tyrs; for other Christians were also Buried there, though not in the same Graves, till under Christian Emperors, Churches were Erected in Cities, into which the Martyrs Bodies were brought from without, and Superstition prevail­ed to make them the Common Burying-places: Which many Learned Men both Papists and Protestants have written a­gainst, and shewn how Injurious 'tis to the Health of the Living, with many other Reasons; but the Tyrant Custom hath always conquer'd the strongest Arguments.

Nor when they met in such Places, was it for their Wor­shipping the Reliques of the Martyrs, as the Papists thence infer: But (besides their Privacy, being remote from their Cities,) for the preserving their Memories fresher in their Minds, and by their Examples be excited to Constancy in the Faith, and Suffering Martyrdom. And though Onuphri­us [Page 67]de Caemiteriis, maintains, that Structures were made for Worship in these Burial-places; and Hospinian grants it came to that at length; yet were they but Sacella, or Chap­pels under-ground; as Platina tells us in the Life of Calix­tus, who having said he did not believe that famous and large Church which Alexander the Son of Mammaea (who be­gan his Reign, A. D. 225. according to Baronius) had granted the Christians, to be the same, with that which Ca­lixtus was said to have built, on the other side of Tiber, he gives this Reason, Cun [...]a tempestate, ob crebras Persecutiones, occulta essent omnia, & sacella potius, atque eadem abdita, & ple­rumque subterranea, quam apertis in Locis & Publicis fierent. For in those Days, by Reason of frequent Persecutions, all Things were carried secretly: And they had Chappels rather, and those hidden, and for the most part under-ground, than in open and publick Places. Which last Words are also re­cited by Pol. Virgil. If any desire further Satisfaction, con­cerning the Primitive Christians meeting in those Burial-Pla­ces: He may find it in Kercher's Roma subterranea, l. 1. c. 2. de Coemeteriis.

But though these Places after some time, and Martyrdom under Nero and following Emperors, were used more especi­ally by the Christians, as appears by the Edict of Decius, Nec usquam omnino vel vobis, vel aliis quibusque potestas erit aut celebrandi conventus, aut in ea quae coemeteria appellantur ingredi; Thus the Christians in Alexandria, and all others were pro­hibited their Meetings, or entering into the Coemiteries par­ticularly. As also by the Edict of Valerian, whereby all their Assemblies being strictly prohibited, these Places in special were forbidden them; And as Gallienus his Son by his Re­script graciously restored the Places of Worship in general: So by another these Coemeteries in special, Euseb. Hist. l. 7. Yet as Necessity required, by Reason of Persecution, their Meetings in these Places, being found out and known by the Heathens, they met elsewhere some times in one Place, and some times in another, as in Woods, Caves, Mountains, &c. When they could not in Private Houses, that they might not be discovered. Our Learned Hooker in's fifth Book of Eccles. Pol. §. 11. hath a short, but very comprehensive Passage for this.

The Church of Christ (saith He) which was in Jerusa­lem, and hold that Profession, which had not, the publick Allowance, and countenance of Authority, could not so long use the Exercise of christian Religion, but in Private only. And as God gave Increase to his Church; they sought out both there, and abroad for that Purpose, not the sittest (for so the Times would not suffer them to do) but the safest Places they could. In Process of Time, some whiles by Suf­ferance, some whiles by special Leave and Favour, they be­gan to erect to themselves Oratories. Thus Hilary also in his Book against the Arrians and Auxentius, speaking of Chri­stians in the Apostles Days, affirms that they were, Per cae­nacula & secreta coenutes, such as had their Meetings in Cham­bers, and secret Places. Afterwards most commonly in cae­miteriis & cryptis, in subterraneous Vaults. And in the Time of his Banishment warns them to whom he writes, to be­ware of Antichrist, for you are unhappily taken with the Love of Walls, you do not well in venerating the Church of God for Structures and Edifices: Is it doubtful that Anti­christ shall sit in these? Montes mihi & sylvae, & lacus, & carceres & vordgines tutiores sunt, &c. Mountains and Woods, and Lakes, and Prisons, and Gulfs, are more safe to me. For in these, the Prophets either abiding or drowned, have Prophesied by the Spirit of God, And Walafudus Strabo to the same Purpose, whose Words we recited in Ninth Section, Page 40.

So Polid. Virgil, a good Antiquary in's Book de Inventione rerum, l. 5. c. 6. affirms that, à Christi ascensu, ad Dioclesia­num & Maximianum, toto fere temporis intervallo tantum abe­rat, ut aliquod templum à Christianis, publicè aedificaretur; ut eti­am ommia essent occulta & sacella potius, atque etiam abdita, & plerumque subterranea quàm apertis in Locis ac Publicis fierent. That from Christs Ascension to Dioclesian and Maximianus, for that whole Interval of Time almost, the Christians were so far from building any Temple in Publick, that all Things were kept secret: And Chappels rather, and those also hid­den, and for the most part under-ground, than in open and publick Places. Though He thinks it credible, where the Fury of persecuting Tyrants reached not, the Apo­stles might Consecrate some Temples, as Matthew in Ae­thiopia, [Page 69]Bartholomew in India, and Andrew in Scythia, and James at Jerusalem. But these are but this Conjectures (for which he brings no Proof in founded upon the Piety of the Apostles, who always imployed their utmost Power to pro­pogate Religion amongst all Nations. For: we no where find that any of the Apostles required the erecting of Stru­ctures for Worship, or Consecrating any for that end: Nor the least Signification, that without such, Religion could not be propogated.

And the Renowned Sir H. Spelman, p. 70. De non teme­vandis Ecclesiis, having mentioned the Consecration of Churches in Constantines Time, adds, That the Christians being in Elder Ages in Persecution, might hardly Build or Dedicate any Churches; but were constrained to use Private Houses, and Solitary Places for their Assemblies. The Learned Mr. Robert Cook Viccar of Leeds in's Censura quor. Script. shews Dionysius Works to be Counterfeit, because he mentions several Things, and particularly stately Temples, after the manner of that at Jerusalem, having their Sancta Sanctorum divided from the rest, into which it was not law­ful for the Monks and Lay People to enter. Whereas there were no such Things in those Days, saith Cook, but Christi­ans met together after the Manner of the Apostles, Acts 1.13. and 12.12. and 20.8. in private and secret Places, and there had their Prayers and Sermons: Publick Temples they had none by reason of Tyrants.

I might bring in the like Attestations from our famous Jewel Article 3. p. 145. Willet's Synopsis Papismi, sixth General Controversie, Quest. 6. With several others: But I shall con­clude all with the Testimony of a great Historian yet living (of whose Acquaintance and Friendship I have the Honour to partake) viz, Dr. Spanhem the Honorary Professor at Leyden, who in's learned and useful Ecclesiastical Hist. of the New Testament saith, Loca Sacrorum Conventuum fuere sae­culo secundo, partim aedes privatorum, caenacula, balnea, porti­cus, cryptae, loca abdita. Partim caemeteria seu Sepulchreta Mar­tyrum ad quae Conventus indicerent, zelo accendendo, his constan­tiae exemplis. The Places of the Christians Meetings in the Second Century, were partly Private Houses, Dining Rooms, Baths, Galleries, Vaults, and secret Places: Partly Burial-Places [Page 70]or Sepulchres of the Martyre, which they appointed their Meetings, for the inflaming their Zeal, by those Ex­amples of Constancy. And afterwards shews, the Manner of notifying their Conventions, was by their Servants from House to House: For as yet neither the beating of Wood, nor sound of Bells, or Brass, or Voice of Cryers were used for, this end, lost their Assemblies should be known to the Heathens.

In the Third Century, whether the Christians had any Tem­ples or Churches Dedicated or Consecrated by Sacred and Christian Rites is, saith He, a Controversie amongst the Learned. Pol. Virgil, Durantus, Baronius, Bellarminus, Ciaconi­us and Valcsius affirm it. And of ours also Wower, Fuller, Selden and others.

That Churches are frequently mentioned in this Age, is out of doubt: At nec Temptorum illis aut Nomen, aut Forma, aut Splendor, aut Species quaedam. Aedes fuere Privatorum, Domus, caenacula, sed plorumque caemeteria, Cryptae spatiosissimae, quas areas Martyrum dixere; etiam latibula, stabula, oremi, car­ceres, agri ex Antiquis Scripporibus, & ox Conditione Temporum, saeviente ut plurimum Persecutions. Quanquam sub. Al. Severo, & Philippis, & Gallieno, conveniendi libertas Christianis ma­jor. Hinc nulla esse Christianis Templa. Quae memorantur Tem­pla, Tituli, Consecrationum Ritus Sacerdotales, à Baronio, Cia­conio, Fr. Bivario, aliis; ea ex Apocryphis Decretalibus, ex Pontific. vitis, ex Flavii Dextri Chronico Supposititio, id genus fontibus lutulentis hausta. But they had neither the Name, nor Form, nor Splendor, nor Shape or Kind of Temples. They were the Dwellings of Private Persons, Houses, Dining-Rooms, and for the most part Burying-places, very spacious Vaults, which they called the Floors of the Martyrs: Also Lurking-places, Stables, Wildernesses, Prisons, Fields, as from Ancient Writers, and the Condition of those Times is manifest, Persecution then for the most Part raging. All­though under Al. Sevetus, the Philips, and Gallienus, greater Liberty was given for Christian Assemblies. Hence we con­clude, the Christians yet had no Temples. Those Temples, Titles, and Sacerdotal Rites of Consecration, mentioned by Baronius, Ciaconius, Fr. Bivarius, and others; are all taken from the Apocryphal Decretals, the Lives of the Popes, and [Page 71]the Supposititious Chronicle of Flavius Dexter, and such like impure Fountains. Thus far that Learned Professor.

To draw up all in a short Conclusion. We read in Euse­bius of the Christians building Publick Oratories after Deeius and Valerians Days, not of any built before. These were by Publick Decrees, commanded to be pulled down by Dioclesian and Maximus, and not long after restored by Consiantine. Those formerly taken from the Christians by Decius and Va­lerian, were expressed to be Caemeteria Places of Burial in which they had their Cryptae or Vaults under-ground, formerly represented. So that for separate and publick Places for Worship, for Two Hundred Years and more after Christs. Nativity, we have no Records in approved History.