CHURCHES, THAT IS, Appropriate Places FOR Christian Worship; BOTH IN, AND EVER SINCE THE APOSTLES TIMES. A Discourse at first more briefly delivered in a College Chapel, and since enlarged.  
BY JOSEPH MEDE B. D. and Fellow of Christ's College in CAMBRIDGE.  
LONDON, Printed by M. F. for JOHN CLARK, and are to be sold at his Shop under St Peter Church in Cornhill. M DC XXXVIII.   

REVmo. IN CHRISTO PATRI ET DOMINO SVO SVMME HONORANDO, DOMINO GVILIELMO DIVINA PROVIDENTIA ARCHIEPISCOPO CANTVARIENSI, METROPOLITANO, TOTIUSQVE ANGLIAE PRIMATI.  
Hanc suam de Ecclesiarum (hoc est, Locorum cultui Christiano dicatorum) jam inde ab Apostolorum temporibus antiquitate Dissertationem, Antiquitatis Ecclesiasticae propugnatori, sublatique inter sacrum & profanum discriminis assertori eximio, In grati & officiosi animi indicium Eâ, quâ decet, submissione, & favoris spe DICAT CONSECRATQUE Revma Paternitatis ipsius Cultor & Sacellanus observantissimus I. M.   

PErlegi hanc Dissertationem Historicam de Christianarum Ecclesiarum Antiquitate, cui Titulus est [Churches, etc. both in and ever since the Apostles times.] in quâ nihil reperio Fidei Orthodoxae, aut Historiae Ecclesiasticae contrarium, quo minùs cum utilitate publicâ imprimatur, ita tamen, ut si non intra tres menses proximè sequentes typis mandetur, haec Licentia sit ominò irrita.  
JUN. 4ᵒ. 1638. Rmo. in Christo Patri, & Dno. D. Arch. Cant. Sacellanus Domesticus GUIL. BRAY.   

CHURCHES: THAT IS, APPROPRIATE Places for Christian Worship both in, and ever since the Apostles times.  1 COR. 11. 22. Have ye not houses to eat and drink in? [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;] Or despise ye the CHURCH of God? 
IT is taken in a manner for granted by the most of our Reformed Writers, and affirmed also by 
* joseph. Vice. come. de antiquis Missae ritibus. Vol. 3. l. 2. c. 21.  some of the other side: That in the Apostles times, and in the Ages next after them (whilst the Church lived under Pagan and persecuting Emperors) Christians had no Oratories, or places set apart for Divine Worship; but that they assembled here and there promiscuously, and uncertainly, as they pleased, or the occasion served, in places of common use, and not otherwise. But that this is an error, I intent to demonstrate by good evidence, taking my rise from this passage of the Apostle, who reproving the Corinthians for using profane banquet and feastings in a sacred place; Have ye not Houses (saith he) to eat and drink in? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Or despise you the CHURCH of God? Here I take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Church, to note, not the assembly, but the place appointed for sacred duties, and that from the opposition thereof to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their own Houses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Have ye not houses to eat and drink in? These are places proper for ordinary and common repast, and not the Church or house of God: which is again repeated in the last verse of that Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If any man hunger, let him eat at home.  
Thus most of the Fathers took 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this passage; namely, as most of the words, signifying an assembly or company, are wont to be used also for the place thereof: as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Synagoga, Collegium, etc.  
St. AUSTIN is so plain, 
Quaest 57 sup. levit.  as nothing can be more. For concerning expressions, where the continent is called by the name of the thing contained, he instances in this of Ecclesia: Sicut Ecclesia (saith he) dicitur locus, quo Ecclesia congregatur. Nam Ecclesia homines sunt, de quibus dicitur: Vt exhiberet sibi gloriosam Ecclesiam. Hanc tamen vocari etiam ipsam Domum orationum, idem Apostolus testis est, ubi ait; Nunquid domos non habetis ad manducandum & bibendum? an Ecclesiam Dei contemnitis?  
St. BASIL hath the same notion in his Moralia. Reg. xxx. Quòd non oportet 
* Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  loca sacra, mistura eorum quae ad communem usum spectant, contumelia afficere. Which he confirms thus; Et intravit Iesus in Templum Dei, & ejiciebat omnes ementes & vendentes in Templo, & mensas numulariorum & cathedras vendentium columbas evertit, & dicit eye; Scriptum est, Domus mea domus orationis vocabitur, vos autem fecistis eam speluncam latronum. Et ad Cor. 1. Nunquid domos non habetis ad manducandum & bibendum? aut Ecclesiam Dei contemnitis? Si quis esurit, domi manducet, ut non in judicium conveniatis.  
Again, in his Regulae compendiosiùs explicatae, Interog. & Respons 310. answering that question, Nunquid in communi domo sacra oblatio debeat celebrari: Quemadmodum, saith he, verbum non permittit, ut vas ullum commune in sancta introferatur, eodem modo etiam vetat, sancta in domo communi celebrari: quum vetus Testamentum nihil isto modo fieri permittat; Domino item dicente, plusquam templum est hic; Apostolo item, Nunquid domos non habetis ad manducandum & bibendum? etc. Ex quibus erudimur, neque communem coenam in Ecclesia edere & bibere, neque Dominicam coenam in privata domo contumelia afficere: extra quam, si quis, cum necessitas poscat, locum domumve puriorem delegerit tempore opportuno.  
The Author also of the Commentaries upon the Epistles, amongst the works of S. Hierom (whosoever he were) expounding Ecclesiam Dei contemnitis, by Facientes eam Triclinium epularum, shows, he took Ecclesia here to signify the place.  
The selfsame words are to be found in the Commentaries of Sedulius, as many other passages of this Author verbatim; which I note by the way.  
St. CHRYSOSTOME is of the same mind; Ecce quarta accusatio (saith he) quod non pauperes tantum, sed Ecclesia laeditur. Quemadmodum enim Dominicam coenam privatam facis, ita & LOCUM, tanquam DOMO ECCLESIA usus. Ecclesia therefore here with him is Locus.  
And so it is with THEODORET, who paraphraseth the words on this manner: Si acceditis, ut lautè & opiparè epulemini, hoc facite in domibus Hoc enim in ECCLESIA est contumelia, & aperta insolentia. Quomodo enim non est absurdum, intus in Templo Dei, praesente Domino qui communem nobis mensam apposuit; vos quidem lautè vivere, eos autem qui sunt pauperes, esurire, & propter paupertatem erubescere?  
THEOPHYLACT and OECUMENIUS follow the same tract, as he that looks them shall find.  
I have produced thus largely the Glosses of the Fathers upon this Text; that they might be as a preparative to my ensuing discourse, by removing or mitigating, at the least, that prejudice which some have so deeply swallowed, of an utter unlikelihood of any such places to have been in the Apostles times, or the times near them. For if these Glosses of the Fathers be true, then were there places called Ecclesiae, and consequently places appointed and set apart for Christian assemblies to perform their solemn service to God in, even in the Apostles times; Or suppose they be not true, or but doubtful, and not necessary; yet thus much will follow howsoever, That these Fathers, who were nearer to those Primitive times by above 1100. years then we are, & so had better means to know what they had or had not, than we, supposed there were such places, even in the Apostles times. If in the Apostles times, than no doubt in the Ages next after them. And thus we shall gain something by this Text, whether we accept this notion of the word Ecclesia, or not.  
HAVING therefore gotten so good an entrance, we will now further inquire what manner of places they were, or may be supposed to have been, which were appropriated to such use; and that done, proceed to show by such testimonies or footsteps of Antiquity, as time hath left unto us; That there were such places through every Age respectively, from the days of the Apostles unto the reign of Constantine; that is, in every of the first 3. hundred years; For the first, It is not to be imagined they were 
* Isidorus Pelusiota. lib. 2. Epist. 246. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where note, that of two expressions of this in the same place, the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Printed Copy are deficient in the first of them; but to be supplied out of this, the second, or repetition of the same thing, as the Reader that considers it, will observe the Antithesis requires.  such goodly and stately structures as the Church had after the Empire became Christian, and we now by God's blessing enjoy; but such as the state and condition of the times would permit; At the first, some capable and convenient room within the walls or dwelling of some pious disciple, dedicated by the religious bounty of the owner, to the use of the Church, and that usually an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an upper room, such as the Latins call Coenaculum; being, according to their manner of building, as the most large and capacious of any other, so likewise the most retired and freeest from disturbance, and next to heaven, as having no other room above it. For such uppermost places we find they were wont then to make choice of, even for private devotions; as may be gathered from what we read of S. Peter. Acts 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; That he went up to the house top to pray: for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, exusu Hellenistarum, and is accordingly here rendered by the vulgar Latin, in superiora.  
Such an Hyperôon as we speak of, was that remembered by the name of 
* Coenacula dicuntur, ad quae ●calis ascenditur. Fest. Ind Enyo Coenacula maxima coeli.  Coenaculum Zion, where, after our Saviour was ascended, the Apostles & Disciples (as we read in the Acts) assembled together daily for prayer and supplication; and where being thus assembled, the holy Ghost came down upon them in Cloven tongues of fire at the feast of Pentecost. 
For these traditions, See Adricenius ex Nicephor. etc. and Bede infra, de locis sanct.  Concerning which, there hath been a tradition in the Church; that this was the same room wherein our blessed Saviour, the night before his Passion, celebrated the Passeover with his Disciples, and instituted the mystical Supper of his Body and Blood, for the sacred Rite of the Gospel: The same place, where on the day of his Resurrection he came, and stood in the midst of his Disciples, the doors being shut; and having showed them his hands and his feet, said, Peace be unto you, As my Father hath sent me, so I send you, etc. john 20. The place where 8. days, or the Sunday after, he appeared in the same manner again unto them being together, to satisfy the incredulity of Thomas, who the first time was not with the rest: The place where james the Brother of our Lord, was created by the Apostles, Bishop of jerusalem: The place where the 7. Deacons (whereof S. Stephen was one) were elected and ordained: The place where the Apostles and Elders of the Church at jerusalem held that Council, and pattern of all Counsels, for decision of that question; Whether the Gentiles which believed were to be circumcised or not. And for certain the place of this Coenaculum was afterwards enclosed with a goodly Church, known by the name of the Chur: ZION, upon the top whereof it stood: Insomuch that S. Hierome in his Epitaphio Paulae, 
Epist. 27.  made bold to apply that of the Psalm unto it; Fundamenta ejus in montibus sanctis: diligit Dominus portas Sion super omnia tabernacula jacob. How soon this erection was made, I know not; but I believe it was much more ancient than those other Churches erected in other places of that City by Constantine and his Mother; because neither Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoret nor Sozomen make any mention of the foundation thereof, as they do of the rest. It is called by S. Cyril, who was Bishop of the place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the upper Church of the Apostles; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles in the likeness of fiery tongues here in jerusalem in the UPPER CHURCH OF THE APOSTLES. Cyril Hierosol. Cat. 16.  
If this tradition be true, it should seem by it, that this Coenaculum, from the time our blessed Saviour first hallowed it by the institution and celebration of his mystical Supper, was thenceforth devoted to be a place of prayer & holy assemblies. And surely no Ceremonies of dedication, no not of Solomon's Temple itself, are comparable to those sacred guests whereby this place was sanctified. This is the more easy to be believed, if the house were the possession of some Disciple at least, if not of kindred also to our Saviour according to the flesh; which both reason persuades, and tradition likewise confirmeth it to have been. And when we read of those first believers, that such as had houses and lands sold them and brought the prices & laid them down at the Apostles feet: it is nothing unlikely, but some likewise might give their house unto the Apostles for the use of the Church to perform sacred duties in. And thus perhaps should that tradition, whereof Venerable Bede tells us, be understood; viz. That this Church of Zion was founded by the Apostles: Not, that they erected that structure, but that the place, from the time it was a Coenaculum was by them dedicated to be an house of prayer. His words are these De locis sanctis. cap. 3. in Tom 3. In superiori Montis Zion planicie, monachorum cellulae Ecclesiam magnam circundant, illic, ut perhibent, ab Apostolis fundatam; eo quod IBI SPIRITUM SANCTUM acceperint: In quâ etiam LOCUS COENAE DOMINI venerabilis ostenditur.  
And if this were so, why may I not think that this Coenaculum Zion was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereof we read concerning the first Christian society at jerusalem. Acts. 2. 46. That they continued daily in the Temple and breaking bread [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the House, ate their meat with gladness and singleness of heart? the meaning being, that when they had performed their devotions daily in the Temple, at the accustomed times of prayer there, they used to resort immediately to this Coenaculum, and there having celebrated the mystical banquet of the holy Eucharist, afterwards took their ordinary and necessary repast with gladness & singleness of heart. 
Apud Homerum passim.  For so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendered for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not domatim, or per domos, house by house as we translate it; and so both the Syriack and Arabic renders it, and the N. T. (as we shall see hereafter) elsewhere uses it. Moreover we find this Coenaculum called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 2. ver. of this chap. And for the phrase of breaking of bread, we know that the same a little before in the 42. ver. is wont to be understood of the Communion of the Eucharist, and by the Syriack Interpreter is expressly rendered by the Greek word, Fractio Eucharistiae, both there and again chap. 20. ver. 7. according to that of S. Paul, The bread which we break, etc. why should it not then be so taken here? If it be, then according to the Interpretation we have given, this will also follow; that that custom of the Church, to participate the Eucharist fasting and before dinner, had its beginning from the first constitution of the Christian Church: A thing not unworthy observation, if the interpretation be maintainable; of which let the learned judge.  
It was an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Coenaculum also, where the Disciples at Troas came together upon the first day of the week to break bread, or to celebrate the holy Eucharist. Act 20. 7. where S. Paul preached unto them, and whence Eutychus, being overcome with sleep, sitting in a window fell down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the third story or loft, and was taken up dead. Such a one seems also to have been the place of the Church's assembly at Caesarea Cappadociae, by that which is said Acts 18. 22. viz. That S. Paul sailing from Ephesus, landed at Caesarea, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having gone up and saluted the Church, he went down to Antioch. Note, he went up to salute: whereby it should seem, that the place where the Church was assembled, was some upper place. See Ludovic de Dieu upon this place; where he tells us, that the Ethiopic translator so understood it, rendering, & descendit Caesaream, & ascendit in Domum Christianorum (i. Ecclesiam) & salutavit eos, & abiit Antiochiam. Such as these, I suppose, were the places at first set apart for holy meetings, much like to our private Chapels now in great men's houses, though not for so general an use.  
In process of time, as the multitude of believers increased, some wealthy and devout Christian gave his whole house or Mansion place, either whilst he lived, if he could spare it, or bequeathed it at his death, unto the Saints, to be set apart and accommodated for sacred assemblies, and religious uses.  
At length, as the multitude of believers still more increased, and the Church grew more able; they built them structures of purpose, partly in the Coemiteries of Martyrs, partly in other public places: even as the jews (whose religion was no more the Empires than theirs) had, nevertheless, their Synagogues in all Cities and places where they lived among the Gentiles.  

IN THE FIRST CENTURIE.  
THIS being premised, I proceed now (as I promised) to show, that there were such places as I have described, appointed and set apart among Christians for their religious assemblies and solemn address unto the divine Majesty, through every one of the first three Centuries particularly; and that therefore they assembled not promiscuously, and at hap hazard, but in appropriate places; unless necessity sometimes forced them to do otherwise.  
For the times of the Apostles therefore, or first Century in particular, which ends with the death of S. john the Evangelist, I prove it, first, from the Text I premised, where is a place mentioned by the name of ECCLESIA, not to be despised or profaned with common banquet: at least from the authority of the Fathers, who by their so expounding it, give us to understand, they thought it not improbable, that there were such places in the Apostles times. For the further strengthening of this kind of argument, know also, that Eusebius, 
Hist. Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 16.  in that discourse of his, where he endeavours to prove, that the Essenes', or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Philo describes, were the first Christian Society of the jewish nation at Alexandria, converted by S. Mark; amongst other Characteristical notes (as he 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  calls them) or badges of Christianity (however he were mistaken in his conclusion or inference) alleges this for one of the first, that they had sacred Houses, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or worshipping places, that is, Churches. His words are these. Deinceps ubi eorum domicilia quaenam essent descripserat (nempe Philo) de Ecclesiis in vari●s locis extructis sic loquitur: Est in quoque agro aedes sacra, quae appellatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in quo illi ab aliis 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  soli agentes, 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  sanctae religiosaeque vitae mysteria obeunt: 
c N. B.  nihilque eò vel cibi, vel potionis, vel aliarum rerum, quae ad corporis usum necessariae sunt, important, 
d He means the Books of the Law, the Prophets, and Psalms, and like things of sacred use.  sed leges & oracula à prophetis divinitùs edita, & hymnos, aliaque quibus scientia & pietas erga Deum crescat & perficiatur. Afterwards reciting some other customs and particular observances of their discipline; as their frequent assemblies in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to hear the Scriptures read & interpreted; the distinction of places for men and women; their manner of singing Hymns and Psalms by a Preceptor, the rest answering, 
e Author Const. Ap. vocat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. al. 61. Alius David hymnos cana & populus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, idest, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, extremitates versuum; non versuum initia, ut malè Intepres Bovius.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the extremes of the verses; the degrees of their Hierarchy, like those of Deacons and Bishops, and some other the like, he concludes; Quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: That Philo wrote these things, as one having knowledge of the customs at the beginning delivered by the Apostles, is manifest to any one. But whether that be so manifest or not, this I am sure is; that Eusebius believed the antiquity of Churches or Oratories of Christians to have been from the Apostles times; yea, to have been an Apostolical ordinance, or else he mightily forgot himself, to bring that for an argument or badge to prove Philo's Essenes' to be S. Marks Christians: than which otherwise there could not be a stronger argument to evince the contrary to what he intended. Now who could know this better than Eusebius, who had searched into and perused all the writings and monuments of Christian antiquity then extant, for the compiling of his Ecclesiastical history, and his Commentaries of the 
* He mentions it Hist. Eccl. li. 5. cap. 1.  Acts of Martyrs now perished?  
Add to this, what I a little before observed out of Bede, de locis sanctis; of a tradition, that the Church of Zion was founded by the Apostles. And so I leave my first argument.  
My next argument why may I not take from that singular character given to some one above other in the Apostles salutations, as their peculiar? Salute such a one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Church at his house. As Colos. 4. 15. of Nymphas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Salute Nymphas and the Church at his house. To Philemon also; To Philemon our dear brother and fellow labourer (to Appia our beloved, and Archippus our fellow-soldier,) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to the Church at thy house. See, he forgets it not after a parenthesis, neither attributes it to Archippus, but as proper to Philemon alone. The like he hath of Aquila and Priscilla two several times, once sending salutation to them, Rom. 16. Salute Priscilla and Aquila, and the Church at their house▪ Again sending salutation from them, 1 Cor. 16. 19 Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the Church at their house. Which I understand not, to be spoken of their families as it is commonly expounded, but of the congregation of the Saints, there wont to assemble for the performance of divine duties; that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Whence (if it be granted) it will follow; First, that the Churches then, used to assemble, not in mutable and promiscuous, but in definite and appropriate places. Secondly, that those who are here saluted with that appendix, were such as, in their several Cities, had bestowed & dedicated some part, or some place within their dwellings, to be an Oratory for the Church to assemble in, for the performance of divine duties according to the rule of the Gospel; Nymphas at Colosse, Philemon at Laodicea (for there Archippus, who is saluted with him, was Bishop, saith 
* Lib. 7. c. penul.  Author constit. Apost. as Philemon himself was afterwards of the neighbouring City Colosse:) Aquila and Priscilla first at Rome, till Claudius banished them with the rest of the jews from thence, Acts 18. 2. afterwards at Ephesus, Ibid ver. 19 whence S. Paul wrote that first Epistle to the Corinthians.  
I am not the first (I think) who have taken these words in such a sense. Oecumenius in two or three of these places (if I understand him) goes the same way, though he mention the other exposition also: As to that of Aquila and Priscilla, Rom. 16. his note is; Adeò virtute spectati erant, ut suam etiam domum Ecclesiam fecerint. Vel dicitur hoc, Quia omnes domestici fideles erant, ut jam Domus esset Ecclesia. He mentions as I said both interpretations. So upon that of Nymphas, Col. 4. His words are, Magni nominis hic vir erat, nam domum suam fecerat Ecclesiam. And unless this be the meaning, why should this appendent be so singularly mentioned in the salutations of some, and not of others? and that not once, but again, if the same names be again remembered, as of Aquila and Priscilla. Had none in those Catalogues of salutation, Christian families, but some one only who is thus remembered? It is very improbable, nay if we peruse them well, we shall find they had, but otherwise expressed; as in that prolix Catalogue, Rom. 16. we find Aristobulus and Narcissus saluted with their household, Asyncritus, Phlegon, etc. with the brethren which are with them; others, with the Saints which are with them. 2 Tim. 4. 19 The household of Onesiphorus. This therefore so singular an Appendix must mean some singular thing, not common to them with the rest, but peculiar to them alone: And what should this be but what I have showed?  
Now because this exposition concludes chiefly for a Coenaculum devoted to be an house of prayer: let us see, if out of a Pagan writer, who lived about the end of this Centurie, we can learn what manner of ones they were. For 
* Or whosoever else were the Author thereof under Trajan, whose then fresh success in subduing the Parthians and Arabians (contrary to the unlucky presages of some) his scope seems to have been to gratulate. See jacobus Micyllus in Argumento.  Lucian in his Dialogue Philopatris, by way of derision (sed ridentem dicere verum quid vetat?) brings in one Critias, telling, how some Christians went about to persuade him, to be of their religion; and that they brought him to the place of their assembly, being an Hyperôon, which he describes thus: Pertransivimus (saith he) ferreas portas, & aerea limina; multisque jam superatis scalis, in Domum aurato fastigio insignem ascendimus, qualem Homerus Menalai fingit esse: atque ipse quidem omnia contemplabar,— video autem, non Helenam, sed mehercle viros in faciem inclinatos & pallescentes. So he.  
My third proof is from a tradition the Church hath had, of the houses of some devout and pious Christians, as afterwards; so even in the Apostles time, converted into Churches or Oratories; as the house of Theophilus, a potent man in Antioch (the same, as is supposed, to whom S. Luke (who was also an Antiochean) inscribes both his Gospel and Acts of the Apostles) who, being converted unto the Faith by S. Peter, converted his house into a Church, where S. Peter had his first See, or Episcopal Residence. This tradition is derived out of the Recognitions of Clemens, where it is first found. Which, though it be an Apocryphal writing, yet is of no small antiquity; and this passage is of such a nature, as it cannot be well imagined, to what end it should be devised or feigned.  
The like is reported of the house of Pudens, a Roman Senator and Martyr, in the Acta Pudentis; That it was turned into a Church after his Martyrdom. This is that Pudens mentioned by the Apostle in the 2. Epist. to Timothy, and coupled with Linus: Pudens and Linus (saith he) salute you. All this comes not of nothing; but surely argues some such custom to have been in those times.  
I will seal up all my proofs for this Centurie of the Apostles with one passage of Clemens (a man of the Apostolical age, in his genuine 
* Pag. 52. Vid. Graec.  Epistle ad Corinthios: Debemus omnia rite & ordine facere, quaecunque nos Dominus peragere jussit: praestitutis temporibus oblationes & liturgias obire. Neque enim temere vel inordinatè voluit ista fieri, sed statutis temporibus & horis. VBI etiam, & A QVIBUS peragi vult, ipse excellissima sua voluntate definivit; ut religiosè omnia, secundùm beneplacitum ejus, adimpleta, voluntati ipsius accepta essent. Here Clemens saith expressly, That the Lord had ordained (even now in the Gospel) aswell appropriate places WHERE, as appropriate Times and Persons (that is Priests) When and WHEREBY he would be solemnly served, that so all things might be done religiously and in order. Who then can believe, that in the Apostles times (when this Clemens lived) the places were not distinct for holy services, as well as the Times and Persons were; or that Clemens would have spoken in this manner, unless he had known it so to have been? The Corinthians, it seems, in that their notorious sedition and discord, had violated this order; at the correction whereof this passage aimeth.  
This one passage therefore makes all my former proofs credible, and may supply their defect, where they are not enough convictive. And it is the more precious, in regard of the penury of written Monuments by any Disciples of the Apostles remaining unto us of that Primitive Age.  
If any man shall ask, where this divine ordinance, which Clemens here mentioneth, is to be found? I answer, in the Analogy of the old Testament; whence this principle is taught us: That, as the divine Majesty itself is most sacred and incommunicable, (the reason why the worship and service given unto him must be communicated with no other) so is it likewise a part of that honour we owe unto his most sacred, singular and incommunicable eminency, that the things wherewith he is served, should not be promiscuous and common, but appropriate and set apart to that end and purpose. And thus I conclude the first Seculum.   

IN THE SECOND CENTURIE. 
Ab An. 100 ad 200.   
NOW for the second, & that too for the beginning thereof, we have a witness not to be rejected, the holy Martyr Ignatius who suffered An. 107. & wrote the most of his Epistles in his bonds. He in his confessed Epistle add Magnesios' speaks thus: Omnes ad orandum in idem loci convenite, una sit communis precatio, una mens, una spes in charitate & fide inculpata in jesum Christum: quo nihil praestantius est. Omnes velut VNUS, ad TEMPLUM Dei [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] concurrite, quemadmodum ad VNUM Altar, ad VNUM jesum Christum Pontificem ingeniti Dei. Lo here a Temple with an Altar in it, whither the Magnesians are exhorted to gather themselves together to pray; To come together in one place, that so they might all join together in one common prayer, spirited with one intention, with one & the same hope in the Charity & Faith they have to Christ ward: Secondly, to come thither as one, that is, in unity of affection and brotherly love one towards another, as if all were but one & not many, even as the Altar, before which they presented themselves, was but one, and the high Priest and Mediator between them and the Father, jesus Christ, but One.  
For it is to be observed that in those primitive times they had but One Altar in a Church, as a Symbol, both that they worshipped but One God through One Mediator jesus Christ, & also of the unity the Church ought to have in itself: whence Ignatius, not only here, but also in his Epist to the Philadelphians urges the unity of the Altar for a monitive to the congregation to agree together in one. For Vnum Altar (saith he) omni Ecclesiae, & unus Episcopus cum Presbyterio & Diaconis conservis meis. This custom of One Altar is still retained by the Greek Church. The contrary use is a transgression of the Latins, not only symbolically implying, but really introducing, (as they handle it) a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or multiplying of Gods and Mediators, instead of that One God, and One Mediator between God and men, the man Christ jesus.  
Nay more than this: It should seem, that in those first times, before Dioceses were divided into those lesser & subordinate Churches, we now call Parishes, & Presbyters assigned to them, they had not only One Altar in one Chur or Dominicum, but one Altar to a Church, taking Chu: for the Company or Corporation of the Faithful, united under one Bishop or Pastor; and that was in the City and place where the Bishop had his See and Residence: like as the jews had but one Altar & Temple for the whole Nation, united under one high Priest. And yet, as the jews had their Synagogues, so perhaps might they have more Oratories than one, though their Altar were but one, there namely where the Bishop was. Die Solis, saith Iust. Mart. omnium, qui vel in oppidis vel ruri degunt, in eunden locu conventus fit; Namely, as he there tells us, to celebrate & participate the holy Eucharist. Why was this, but because they had not many places to celebrate in? And unless this were so, whence came it else, that a Schismatical Bishop was said constituere or collocare aliud Altar: & that a Bishop & an Altar are made correlatives. See S. Cyprian Ep 40, 72, 73. & de unitate Ecclesiae. And thus perhaps is Ignatius also to be understood in that forequoted passage of his: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vnun Altar omni Ecclesiae, & unus Episcopus cum Presbyterio & Diaconis. Howsoever, I here determine nothing, but refer it to the judgement of those who are better skilled in Antiquity: only adding this, that if it were so, yet now that Parishes are divided into several Presbyteries as their proper Cures, every one of them being as it were, a little Diocese, the reason and signification of unity is the same, to have but One Altar in a Parish Church.  
To this testimony of Ignatius of the use in his time, I will add another of his, in his Epistle ad Antiochenos, where, in his salutes he speaketh thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I salute the keepers of the HOLY DOORS the Deaconisses which are in Christ: that is, the Doors the women entered in at. For so we may learn from the Compiler of the Apostolical Constitutions, Li. 2. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 al. 61. describing a Ch: assembly: Stint ostiarii, saith he, ad introitus virorum, illos custodientes; Diaconissaes ad introitus foeminarum. But if they had in Ignatius his time Holy doors, (or as some render it sacra vestibula) who can believe also but they had holy Houses?  
This Epistle indeed is none of the confessed ones. The title is accepted against; as that Ignatius wrote no Epistle ad Antiochenos, because Eusebius, and after him S. Hierom, when they rehearse his Epistles, make no mention of any such. Yet were the Antiochians his flock, his pastoral charge. Who would not then think it unlikely, that, amongst so many Epistles written to other Churches in his going that long journey from Antioch to Rome, to receive the crown of Martyrdom (yea to Smyrna through which he had passed) he should not remember with one farewell Epistle that Church whereof he was Bishop & Pastor, as well as the rest? Thus much I dare say; that this is as strong an argument every whit, to persuade that he wrote such an Epistle (especially there being one extant under that Title) as Eusebius his silence (for S. Hierom did but follow his steps) is that he did not. For why should it be thought more necessary, that Eusebius should have met with all the Epistles of Ignatius in the Library of Aelia or jerusalem (whence he 
* Lib. 6. c. 14 al. 21. Vid. Graec.  professeth to have collected the whole matter of his History) than he did with all the works and Commentaries of some other Ecclesiastical men whom he mentioneth; many of whose writings, besides those he rehearseth, he confesseth not to have come to his hands, or knowledge, either what, or how many they were? See him Hist. Li. 5. c. 
a In Graeco 27.  26. & Li. 6 c. 
b In Graeco 12.  10. This will be yet more considerable, if we remember, that some Books, even of the Canon of the N. Test. were not known to some Churches at the same time with the rest, and therefore a while doubted of, after they had notice of them. Besides it is to be noted, that Eusebius in express terms undertakes only to recite those Epistles of Ignatius, which he wrote, as he passed thorough Asia: but after his coming into Europe (whence those Epistles are dated, which he mentions not) whether any thing were written by him or not, he informs us nothing. Nay, which is yet more; Vedelius grants the words and sentences of this Epistle to be the most of them, by their style & character the words & sentences of Ignatius; but he would have them therefore to be taken out of some of his other Epistles; to wit, according to a new & strange conceit of his, that the genuine Epistles of Ignatius have been robbed & gelded of much of their contents, to make up more Epistles under new Titles. he excepts only in this Epistle against the salutations at the end thereof; because there were not so many, or no such 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vid. Epiplaen. Exposit. Fidei cathol. c. 21. De duobus ultimis, Const. Apost. l. 8. cap. 24, 26.  Church-offices in Ignatius his time, as are there mentioned. But what is this else, but to beg the question? Till therefore some body shall not only affirm, but prove, there were no such, no not in the Church of Antioch (
b See Act. 11. 26. Socr. lib. 6. c. 8. Theod. lib. 2. c. 24.  whence diverse Ecclesiastical customs had their first beginning, which were afterwards imitated by the rest of the Churches) I can see no just cause hitherto, why I should not believe this passage, as well as the rest, & so the whole Epistle to have had Ignatius for its Author. And so I leave it.  
For the middle of this Seculun, or thereabouts, there are 
a In Tom. 1. Biblioth. Patris edit. Pariscens. ex Archivo Viennensi.  extant two short Epistles of PIUS the 1. Bishop of Rome to one justus Viennensis; none of the Decretals (for they are indeed sergeant) but others divers from them, which no man hath yet, that I know of, proved to be suppositious. In the first whereof there is mention made of one Euprepia, a pious and devout Matron, who consigned the title of her house unto the Church for the use of sacred assemblies. Antequam Roma exiisses, saith he, soror nostra Euprepia (sicut benè recordaris) titulum domus suae pauperibus assignavit: ubi nunc cum pauperibus nostris commorantes, 
b The word Missa seem●s to have been long used in Italy before it was elsewhere.  Missas agimus. He seems by pauperes, to note the Clergy, which in his other Epistle he calls Senatus pauperum, Salutat te Senatus pauperum: Otherwise the whole Christian flock might be so called; according to that in the Gospel, Pauperes Euangelizantur. (Mat. 11. 5. Luc. 7. 22.) and that of Esa. cap. 61. applied by our Saviour Luc. 4. The Lord hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor: & according to that in the Parable Luc. 14. 21. Introduc pauperes, Bring in hither the poor. Perhaps in those perilous times, they were wont to make their donations of this kind under such covert names.  
In his 2. Epistle to the same justus he mentions certain Martyrs, who had then newly (as he there speaks) triumphed over the world: Among which he mentions one Pastor, by Office a Presbyter; who before his death, had erected or created a Titulus, that is, a Church, as that name is vulgarly known to signify: Presbyter Pastor (saith he) Titulum condidit, & digne in Domino obiit. Why the Roman Chu: called such places by the name of Tituli, whether because by their dedication the name of Christ our Lord was, as it were, inscribed upon them, (as the manner than was to set the names or titles of the owners upon their Houses and possessions;) and so it would concur in notion with those other names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & Basilica, The Lords and the Kings: or whether because they gave a title of Cure or denomination to the Presbyters, to whom they were committed (for the chief or Episcopal Church I doubt whether it were so called or not) let others determine.  
I shall not do amiss, I think, if I add to this testimony a passage of Theophilus Antiochenus (who lived at the same time) which though, I grant to be indifferent to be otherwise understood; yet seems very prone to be construed for our purpose: It is to be found in his second Book ad Autolycum; where having compared the world to the Sea, he follows the Allegory thus; Quemadmodum (saith he) in Mari insulae quaedam prominent habitabiles, frugiferae, & quibus est aqua salubris, necnon navalia, & portus commodi, quò se naufragi reciperent; Sic Deus dedit mundo, qui peccatorum tempestatibus & naufragiis jactatur, Synagogas, quas Ecclesias sanct as nominamus. [gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in quibus veritatis doctrina fervet, ad quas confugiunt veritatis studiosi, quot quot salvari, Deique judicium & iram evitare volunt. It is ambiguous what he means here by Ecclesiae: but if it were probable, that Synagoga were here taken, as it is usually in the N. T. for a place; then might we determine, that Ecclesia were so taken also, and not for a Company or Assembly only.  
Well, howsoever Ecclesia be taken in this passage (which I reckon not upon) yet thus much I am sure of, that toward the end of this Century, it was used for a place of sacred assembly: witness Clemens Alexandr. (who then lived) Lib. 7. Strom where speaking of the Church or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I call not now THE PLACE, but the congregation of the Elect, Ecclesia: whereby it appears, that in his time Ecclesia was used for the place of the assembly of the Elect, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he calls them, that is, of the Saints, and not for the congregation only. For otherwise this caution needed not. And so himself uses it in that story of the young man, 
Clem, Alex in Opere, Quis sit ille dives, qui salvetur, Apud Euseb. Hist. Ecc. lib. 3. cap. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  whom S. john committed to a Bishop of Asia to be instructed and trained up in the Christian piety and discipline, and who afterwards was by ill company withdrawn to lewd and debauched courses, and became Captain of a band of robbers in the Mountains. 
Also in this Century undoubtedly were extant those fabrics in the Coemiteries of S. Peter, in the vatican, and of S. Paul in via ostiensi (which could be no other than some Christian Oratories) whereof Gaius speaks, in Euseb. & calls Tropaea Apostolorum. lib. 2. cap. 24.  For there when S. john, after a time coming again to visit the Churches, demanded of the Bishop an account of the charge he had committed to him; The Bishop answers, He is become a villain and a robber, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and now instead of the Church, he hath laid hold of a Mountain, with a company like himself. To conclude, if the name were in Clemens his time, undoubtedly the thing was. And this is my proof for the latter end of this Centurie.   

IN THE THIRD CENTURIE. 
Ab Anno 200. ad 300.   
NOW are we arrived at the third Seculum, and the last under the Ethnic and persecuting Emperors: Wherein the Testimonies of the Christians Oratories do abound, and are such as will outface any that shall dare contradict them.  
For the beginning of this Centurie, Tertullian shall give in evidence. 1. In his Book De Idololatria. Where declaiming against some Christian Artificers, who, because it was their occupation and trade, thought it lawful to make Idols for the Gentiles, so themselves worshipped them not; he speaks thus: Tota die, ad hanc partem zelus fidei perorabit, ingemens Christianum ab Idolis in ECCLESIAM venire, de adversaria officina in DOMUM DEI venire; attollere ad Deum patrem manus matres Idolorum, his manibus adorare, quae (nempe in operibus suis) foris (i. in Templis Gentium) adversus Deum adorantur; eas manus admovere Corpori Domini, quae Daemoniis corpora conferunt. Mark here, DOMUS DEI, & ECCLESIA expounded by it; In Ecclesiam venire, id est, In Domum Dei venire; and both of them set in opposition to an Idol-shop.  
Of this DOMUS DEI or House of God, in his Book adversus Valentinianos', he describes unto us the form and posture, upon this occasion. He compares the Valentinian heresy, in respect of their affected secrecy, and reservedness in hiding the mysteries of their doctrine, to the Eleusinian Holies, whose Temple had many Curtains and Doors, through which those, that were to be initiated, were 5. years in passing, before they could be admitted unto the Adytum or sacrary, where the Deity was: Whereas chose, he proveth out of Scripture, the badge and genius of the Religion of Christ, to consist in a Dovelike simplicity and openness, and accordingly had its Oratories or Houses of worship, not like that of the Eleusinian Holies, concealed with multiplicity of walls, vails, turnings and windings, but agreeable to, and as it were figuring its disposition. For Nostrae Columbae domus (saith he) simplex, etiam in editis & apertis; & ad lucem. Amat figuram Sp. sancti, Orientem Christi figuram: Nihil veritas erubescit, &c .... Nostrae Columbae domus i. Domus religionis nostrae columbinae, or Catholici Christi gregis, qui Columba figuratur; namely, as he said a little before, Christum Columba demonstrare solitaest, serpens vero tentare; meaning, as I suppose, not so much Christ personal, as Christ mystical, that is, the Disciples, or Religion of Christ. For it is the conclusion of his proofs brought out of Scripture, to show, that simplicity was the livery of Christ's Disciples or Religion; In summa, saith he, Christum columba demonstrare solita est, etc. And otherwise, that solita est would scarcely be true; since Christ personal is but once pointed out by a Dove, namely, at his Baptism. This House, saith he, is simplex, that is, Sine tot portarum & sipariorum involucris: Also in editis & apertis, places which Doves delight in: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril. Hier.  Et ad lucem. i toward the place whence light springeth, or the Sunrising: For Amat figuram Sp. sancti. i. the Dove, as also Orientem Christi, figuram: wherein he alludes to that Oriens exalto, or Dayspring from on high, in Zacharies' Benedictus, and hath reference to the word, Et ad lucem. i. ad locum vel plagam lucis. For, that the Churches of Christians anciently were turned toward the East, appears by the Author of the 
* Lib. 2. cap. 57 al. 61.  Apostolical Constitutions, which surely are as ancient as Tertullian Domus sit oblonga, ad Orientem conversa, saith he; Besides it appears out of 
a Apol. cap. 16.  Tertullian himself, that Christians then worshipped towards the East, and therefore more than probable, their houses were sited and accommodated accordingly. Thus I have done my best to clear this passage, because the Author is crabbed and obscure.  
There are two or three 
b De Spect. cap. 25. Ad Vxor: lib. 2. c. 9 De coron. milit. c. 3. De velandis virginibus. cap. 3. & 13.  more places in the same Father, where the Christian Oratories are mentioned by the name of Ecclesia: but because the ambiguous and indifferent signification of this word, either for a Place or an Assembly, makes them not convictive, unless some circumstance be annexed, which determines it: I will only produce that De corona Militis, Chap. 3. where concerning the Sacrament of Baptism he speaks thus: Aquam adituri, ibidem, sed & aliquanto prius in ECCLESIA, sub Antistitis manu contestamur, nos renunciare Diabolo, & Pompae & Angelis ejus. Dehinc ter mergitamur. I say Ecclesia here signifies the Place. For the clearing whereof, know, that the Baptisteries, or places of water for Baptism, in those elder times, were not, as now our Fonts are, within the Church, but without, and often in places very remote from it. When therefore Tertullian here saith; That those, who were to be baptised, first made their abrenunciation in the Church sub manu Antistitis (that is, as I suppose, the Bishop or Priest laying hands upon them, either in the mean time, or assoon as they had done) and afterward again at the Water: He must needs by Ecclesia mean the Place; otherwise, if it were taken for the Assembly of the faithful, the Church in that sense was present also at the Water. But Ecclesia here and the Water are supposed to be two distinct places; in both of which (according to the rite of the African Churches) Abrenunciation was to be performed: Aquam adituri, IBIDEM (i. apud aquam) sed & aliquando prius in ECCLESIA, contestamur, nos renunciare Diabolo, etc. And thus much for the testimony of Tertullian.  
My next witness is Hippolytus, who flourished between the twentieth and thirtieth year of this Century in the reign of Alexander Mammeae. He in his Treatise De consummatione mundi seu de Antichristo, describing the signs and impieties which should precede the persecution of Antichrist (as he conceived thereof,) hath this passage concerning the irreligion and profaneness which should then reign: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Templa Dei domorum communium instar erunt, ubique Ecclesiarum eversiones fient, scripturae contemnentur. And in his description of the persecution itself, This: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 JEPA 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
* Ex Psal. 79. 2. & caeteris similibus juxta LXX.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Sacrae Ecclesiarum aedes instar Pomorum custodiae erunt, pretiosumque corpus & sanguis non extabit in diebus illis, Liturgia extinguetur, Psalmorum decantio cessabit, scripturarum recitatio non audietur. No man of reason can believe, but that he that speaks thus, knew and was well acquainted with such Places in his own time; though his description be of that which was to be in time to come. For it would be a marvellous conceit, to think he prophesied of them, having never seen them. Nay, a profane Testimony will further confirm us, he needed not: For Lampridius reports of this Alexander Mammeae (in whose time Hippolytus lived) Quòd cum Christiani, 
Cap. 49.  quendam locum, qui publicus fuerat, occupassent; contra Popinarii dicerent sibi eum deberi: rescripsit Imperator, Melius esse, ut quomodocunque illic Deus colatur, quam Popinariis dedatur.  
About the middle of this Century flourished that famous Gregory of Neocaesarea, surnamed Thaumaturgus. He in his Epistola Canonica (as the Greeks call it) describing the 5. degrees or admissions of Poenitents, according to the discipline of his time (which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) est extra portam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ORATORII, ubi peccatorem stantem oportet fideles ingredientes orare, ut pro se precentur. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i. Auditio) est intra portam in loco qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur, ubi oportet eum qui peccavit stare usque ad Catechumenos, & illinc egredi. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i. substratio) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 NAOY 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut intra TEMPLI portam consistens cum Catechumenis egrediatur. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i. congregatio, seu consistentia) est ut cum fidelibus consistat, & cum catechumenis non egrediatur. Postremo est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 participatio Sacramentorum. Who sees not here, that Christians in his time had Oratories or sacred Houses to worship in, and those accommodated with distinct places of remoter and nearer admission?  
Nay further we find in this Gregory's life written by Gregory Nissen, that he was himself a great Founder and erecter of these sacred Edifices; whereof the Church built by him at Neocaesarea in Pontus, (where he was Bishop) was still standing in Gregory Nissens time. Hear his words, where he relates the speedy and wonderful success this Thaumaturgus had in the conversion of that City: Cum omnibus omnia fieret, saith he, tantum sibi auxilio spiritus repente populum adjunxit, ut ad TEMPLI fabricationem animum adjiceret (gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) cum omnes offerendo, tam pecunias quam operas suas, studium ejus adjuvarent. Hoc est, Templum, quod usque hodie ostenditur: quod magnus ille vir statim aggressus, quasi fundamentum atque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacerdotii sui (i. Episcopatus) in maxim conspicuo urbis loco constituit. He adds beside, that, whereas in his own time there had happened a most grievous Earthquake; Quo omnia tàm publica quam privata aedificia disjecta essent; solum illud Templum Gregorianum illaesum & inconcussum mansisse.  
Nor is this all; He tells in the same place, how that a little before the persecution of Decius (which was Anno Christi 252.) this Thaumaturgus, having converted, not the City of Neocaesarea only, but the whole territory adjoining, to the faith of Christ, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the converts pulling down their Idol-Altars, and Idol-Temples, and in every place erecting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Oratorias in nomine Christi Aedes, stirred up the fury and indignation of the Emperor.  
About the same time with this Gregory, lived S. Cyprian at Carthage. In him I observe the Christian Oratories twice remembered; once by the name of Domnicum i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; another time of Ecclesia. The first in his Book De opere & eleemosynis, speaking against communicating the holy Eucharist without an offering. Matrona, saith he, quae in Ecclesia Christi locuples & dives es, Dominicum (sacrificium) celebrare te credis, quae corbonam omnino non respicis? quae in DOMINICUM sine sacrificio venis, quae partem de sacrificio quod pauper obtulit, sumis? The other in his 55. Epist. or 3. ad Cornelium; where declaiming against some lapsed Christians, who having in time of persecution sacrificed unto Idols, would nevertheless, without due penance and satisfaction, be admitted again into the Church: If this be once permitted (saith he) Quid superest quam ut ECCLESIA Capitolio cedat; & recedentibus sacerdotibus ac Domini nostri ALTARE removentibus, in Cleri nostri sacrum venerandumque consessum (i. in Presbyterium, seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) simulacra atque Idola cum Aris suis transeant? Note, that Ecclesia here and Capitolium, Christ's House and jupiters' Temple, stand in opposition one to the other; also that Capitolium by Antonomasia is put for a Gentile Temple in general; that in the one (to wit, Ecclesia) was Altar Domini nostri, & sacer venerandusque consessus Cleri; in the other, Idola & simulacra cum Aris Diaboli.  
Contemporary with S. Cyprian was that famed Dionysius Alexandrinus, 
He was made Bishop, Anno 249. lived until 260. viz. Cypr.  made Bishop somewhat before him, but outlived him some 5. years, namely until 265. There is an Epistle of his extant (which is part of the Canon Law of the Greek Church) to one Basilides, resolving certain quaeres of his; Amongst the rest, whether a woman during the time of her separation might enter into the Church or not; To which, his answer is negative. This Quaere he expresseth thus; De mulieribus quae sunt in abscessu, an eas sic affectas oporteat DOMUM DEI ingredi, gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By which, and his answer thereunto we learn not only, that the Christians had then Houses of worship, but a religious respect also to difference them from common places.  
And here, because the time fitly presents it in our way, take notice, for some reason that we shall hear of ere we have done: That this of the Christians having such houses for their devotions, was a thing publicly known to the Gentiles themselves, together with the name whereby they called them: as appears by two Imperial Rescripts, the one of Galienus about the year 260. recorded by Eusebius. Hist. lib. 7. cap. 12. which calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Worshipping Places; which having been a little before, in the persecution of Valerianus his Father, taken from the Christians, and then in the hands of the Gentiles, Galienus graciously restored them unto them, with liberty freely to exercise their Religion. The words of the Rescript, so much of them as is needful to our purpose, are these: Imperator Caesar, Publius Licinius, Galienus, etc. Dionysio, Puniae, Demetrio, & caeteris Episcopis, salutem. Meae munificentiae beneficium per universum divulgari Orbem praecepi: Vt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. à locis religionis cultui dicatis discedatur. Et propterea vos mearum literarum exemplari uti poteritis, quo nemo deinceps vobis quicquam facessat molestiae, etc.  
The other is of Aurelianus, De libris Sibyllinis inspiciendis, when the Marcomanni invaded the Empire, Anno Ch. 271. recorded by Vopiscus, in these words: Miror vos, Patres sancti (he writes to the Senate) tamdiu de aperiendis Sibyllinis dubitasse libris; perinde quasi in Christianorum ECCLESIA non in TEMPLO Deorum omnium tractaretis; that is, in the Capitol, where the Senate used sometimes to sit.  
Add to this, if you please, that which Eusebius relates of this Emperor, to wit, that when Paulus Samosatenus, being deposed by the Council from his Bishopric, and Domnus chosen in his room, would not yield up the possession of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The matter being brought before Aurelianus the Emperor, he decrees, that it should be given to those of the Sect, unto whom the Bishops of Rome and Italy should send Letters of communion: Sic demum Paulus (saith Eusebius) à seculari potestate, summo cum dedecore, ex ECCLESIA expellitur. For that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here meant the Christians Oratory or house of sacred assembly at Antioch, (and not the Bishop's house, as some would have it) appears, both because Eusebius elsewhere so uses it, as namely Lib. 8. cap. ult. & Lib. 9 cap. Θ. as also, because he expounds himself presently by Ecclesia, when he saith: Sic Paulus summo cum dedecore à potestate seculari, ex Ecclesia exigitur. For surely he meant not, that he was by the secular arm cast out of the Church, as Church is taken for the company of the Faithful, but as it signifies the Place of sacred assembly, where this Paulus kept possession, after he was deposed for heresy by the Council.  
But what need we trouble ourselves thus to gather up Testimonies for the latter half of this Seculum? I have one Testimony behind, which will dispatch it all at once, yea, and if need be, depose for the whole also. It is that of Eusebius in his eighth Book Hist. Eccl. in the beginning: where describing those peaceful and haltionian days, which the Church enjoyed for many years, from the time of the Martyrdom of S. Cyprian unto that most direful persecution of Diocletian, and how wonderfully the number of Christians was advanced during that time, he speaketh on this manner: Quomodo quisquam infinita illos hominum turbâ frequentatos conventus coetuunque in singulis urbibus congregatorum multitudinem, illustresque in 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  ORATORIIS concursus describere valeat? Quorum causa, quum in 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  ANTIQVIS illis AEDIFICIIS satis amplius loci non haberent (vel antiquis illis aedificiis haudquaquam amplius contenti) 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ....  amplas spatiosasque in omnibus urbibus ex fundamentis erexerunt ECCLESIAS. Lo here, how in those Haltionian days, Christians had not only Churches or Houses of worship, but such as might then be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ancient aedifices; which how far it may reach, let others judge: Secondly, that the number of Christians being grown so great, that those ancient Fabrics were no longer sufficient to contain them, they erected new and more spacious ones in every City from the foundations: And all this testified by one that himself lived and saw part of those times. These sacred Aedifices, Diocletian, and those other surrogated Emperors, (which contained that direful ten years' persecution begun by him) commanded by their Edicts to be every where demolished, as we may read in the same Eusebius at large. The like whereunto seems never to have happened in any of the former persecutions; in which they were only taken from the Christians; but again, when the persecution ceased, for the most part restored unto them: as in the former persecution they were by Galienus, under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And thus I think I have proved, by good and sufficient Testimonies, that Christians had Oratories or Churches, that is, appropriate Places for Christian worship in every of the first 300. years: I am well assured (whosoever be judge) long before the days of Constantine. I will add to these authorities two or three reasons, why they must, in all likelihood, have had such Places; First, because it is certain, that in their sacred assemblies they used then to worship and pray towards the East: which how it could be done with any order and conveniency, is not easy to be conceived; unless we suppose the Places wherein they worshipped to have been situated and accommodated accordingly; that is, chosen and appointed to that end. Secondly, because of their discipline, which required distinct and regular Places in their assemblies, for the Poenitentes, Auditores, Catechumeni, & Fideles, and therefore argueth they met not in every place promiscuously, but in Places already fitted & accommodated for that purpose. Lastly, because they had before their eyes an example and pattern in the Proseuchais and Synagogues of the jews, from whom their Religion had its beginning; which though as contrary to the Religion of the Empire as theirs, 
Wheresoever ten men of Israel were, there ought to be built a Synagogue. Maimon. in Tephilla. cap. 11. §. 1.  yet had places appropriate for the exercise thereof, wheresoever they lived dispersed among the Gentiles. Who can believe, that such a pattern should not invite the Christians to an imitation of the same, though we should suppose, there were no other reasons to induce them, but that of ordinary conveniency.   

ANSWER TO THE OBJECTIONS.  
I Come now to answer the Objections brought by such as maintain the contrary opinion, 
Object. 1.  which are two. First, say they, It is not likely, no not possible, they should have any such places living under a Pagan and persecuting State and Empire. I answer: this Objection is already confuted by matter of fact. For it is to be noted, that the greatest and most cruel Persecutions, and the 5. last of the ten, fall with in the third or last Centurie. In which, that Christians had Oratories or Houses of Christian worship, we have before proved by most indubitate and irrefragable testimonies: But if in this, why not aswell in the former Ages, wherein the persecutions were, as no more in number, so far less bitter? For it is to be taken notice of, that these Persecutions were not continual, but as it were by fits, and those of the 2. first Centuries of no long durance: so as the Churches enjoyed long times of peace and quietness between them.  
Besides, why should it seem to any one less credible, that Christians should have their Oratories or Houses of worship under the Roman Empire, whilst the State thereof was yet Gentile and opposite to the faith of Christ; then that they had them in the Kingdom of Persia, which never was Christian? For, that they had them there as old as the days of Constantine, Sozomen testifieth, Lib. 2. c. 8. The occasion of the demolishing whereof by K. Isdigerdes, and of that most barbarous persecution of the Christians of those Countries for 30. years together, about the year 400. Theodoret relates Lib. 5. cap. 38. namely, that one Audas, out of an indiscreet and unseasonable zeal, (though otherwise a virtuous and godly Bishop) having demolished the Persians Pyraeum, or Temple where the Fire was worshipped, and refusing to build it up again, as was enjoined him; the King thereupon mightily enraged, caused all the Christians Oratories or Churches in his Dominions to be demolished likewise, and that horrible persecution before mentioned, to storm against them. Could the Christians find means and opportunity to erect Churches, that is, houses for their Religion under a Pagan government in Persia, and could they not under the Roman Empire?  
The other Objection is from the Authors of Apologies against the Gentiles, 
Object. 2.  Origen against Celsus, Minutius Felix, Arnobius, and Lactantius, who when the Gentiles object Atheism to the Christians, as having no Templa, no Arae, no Simulacra; these Authors are so far from pleading they had any such, that they answer by way of concession, not only granting they had none, but (which is more) affirming, they ought not to have, and condemning the Gentiles which had. Celsus, saith Origen, ait nos Ararum, & statuarum, Templorunque fundationes fugere: Origen denies it not, but gives the reason: Templorum fundationes fugimus, quia ubi per jesu doctrinam comperimus, quemadmodum colendus sit Deus; ea nos evitamus, quae sub pietatis praetextu & opinion quadam impios reddant, qui à vero per jesum cultu aberrando falluntur, qui utique solus est vericultus via, vereque illud profatur, Ego sum via, veritas, & vita.  
MINUTIUS FELIX when Caecilius objects, Cur occultare & abscondere, quicquid illud quod colunt magnopere nituntur .... Cur nullas aras habent? Templa nulla? nulla not a Simulacra? ..... nisi illud quod colunt & interprimunt aut puniendum est, aut pudendum; brings in his Octavius answering thus: Putatis autem nos occultare quod colimus, si Delubra & Aras non habemus? Quod enim simulacrum Deo fingam, cum sirectè existimes, sit Dei homo ipse simulacrum? Templum quod ei extruam, cum totus hic mundus, ejus operâ fabricatus, eum capere non possit? & cum homo laxiùs maneam, intra unam Aediculam vim tantae Majestatis includam? nun melius in nostra dedicandus est ment? in nostro imò consecrandus est pectore?  
ARNOBIUS In hâc consuestis parte crimen nobis maximum impietatis affigere, quod neque Aedes sacras venerationis ad officia extruamus, non Deorum alicujus Simulacrum constituamus aut formam, non altaria fabricemus, non Aras. He denies none of this, but answers: Templa quaerimus in Deorum quos usus? aut in cujus rei necessitatem, aut dicitis esse constructa, aut esse rursus aedificanda censetis? &c .....  
LACTANTIUS condemns the Gentiles for having them: 
Institut. adversus Gentes. lib. 2. cap. 2.  Cur, inquit, oculos in coelum non tollitis? &, advocatis Deorum nominibus, in aperto sacrificia celebratis? Cur ad parietes & ligna & lapides potissimum, quam illò spectatis, ubi Deos esse creditis? Quid sibi Templa? Quid Arae volunt? quid deniq, ipsa simulacra? Who would now think, that Christians had any Churches or Houses of worship in these Author's days?  
This Objection indeed looks very big at the first sight, but it is no more but a show, and we shall deal well enough with it. For we are to take notice, that these Authors all four of them lived and wrote within, and after the third Seculum was begun, and the eldest of them Minutius Felix after Tertullian; Origin after him: yea, why do I say, after the third Seculum was begun, or within it? when as 2. of them, Arnobius and Lactantius, lived and wrote rather after it was ended, and in the beginning of the fourth; Arnobius in the time of the Persecution of Diocletian, Lactantius somewhat after him: for he was his Scholar and dedicates his Institutions adversus Gentes, to Constantine the Great.  
Now then remember, what authorities and testimonies were even now produced for the Christians Oratories all that Seculun throughout, not probabilities only, but such as are altogether irrefragable and past contradiction. This they seem not to have considered, unless they dissembled it, who so securely urge these passages, to infer a Conclusion pointblank against evidence of Fact. As for example (I will allege no more, but what is out of possibility to be denied or eluded.) Had the Christians no Oratories or Churches in Gregory Thaumaturgus his time? Had they none in S. Cyprians? Had they none in the days of Dionysius Alexandrinus? Had they none, when Galienus released their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Had they none in those haltionian days whereof Eusebius speaks, when the multitude of Christians was grown so great, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the ancient Aedifices were no longer able to contain their Assemblies; but that they were fain to build new and spacious Churches in every City from the foundations? Had they none, when the Edict of Diocletian came forth for demolishing them? For all these were before, that either Arnobius or Lactantius wrote. Let those therefore, who put so much confidence in these passages, tell us, before they conclude, how to untie this knot, and then they shall say something.  
What then, will you say, is the meaning of these passages, and how may they be satisfied, and this scruple taken off? I answer: The Gentiles in these Objections had a peculiar notion of what they called a Temple, and these Fathers and Authors, in their disputes with them, answer them according unto it. For they defined a Temple by an Idol and the enclosure of a Deity; not of the statue or Image only, but of the Daemon himself: that is, they supposed their gods by the power of spells and magical consecrations, to be retained and shut up in their Temples, as birds in a Cage, or the devil within a circle; that so their suppliants might know where to have them, when they had occasion to seek unto them; and that, for such retaining or circumscribing of them in a certain Place, an Idol was necessary, as the centre of their collocation. Thus much Origen himself will inform us in those his disputes against Celsus, as in his 3. Book pag. 135. Editionis Graecolat; where he describes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Temples and Idols to be places where Daemons are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, enthroned or seated, either having praeoccupied such places of themselves, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or brought thither by certain ceremonies and magical invocations, do as it were dwell there. And again, Lib. 7. pag. 385. in fin. telling us, that Daemons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, set in those kind of forms and places, (viz. Idols and Temples) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. & either lodged and confined thither by magical consecrations, or otherwise having praeoccupied the places of themselves; where they are delightfully fed and refreshed (for so the Gentiles thought) with the nidor and savour of the Sacrifices. I shall not need to produce the rest of his sayings to the same purpose; let him that will, consult him further in the end of that 7. Book pag. 389. and a little before p. 387. in fine. To this confining of gods in Temples (that so those that had occasion to use their help might not be to seek, but know where to find them;) that also of Menander cited by justin Martyr, in his De Monarchia Dei, hath reference.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
No God pleaseth me that god's abroad,  
None that leaves his house shall come in my Book,  
— A just and good God ought  
To tarry at home to save those that placed him.  
According to this notion of a Temple, these Authors alleged grant, that Christians, neither had any Temples, no nor ought to have; Forasmuch as the God whom they worshipped, was such a one as filled the heaven & the earth, and dwelled not in Temples made with hands. And because the Gentiles appropriated the name of a Temple to this notion of encloistering a Deity by an Idol; therefore the Christians of those first Ages, for the most part, abstained therefrom, especially when they had to deal with Gentiles; calling their houses of Worship Ecclesiae, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (whence is the Dutch and our English Kurk and Church) in Latin Dominica; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Oratories, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the like: seldom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Templa; that appellation being grown, by the use of both sides, into a name of distinction of the houses of Gentile superstition from those of Christian Worship. Which that I affirm, not upon bare conjecture, these examples will make manifest. First that of Aurelian the Emperor, before alleged, in his Epistle to the Senate, 
According to this notion of Templum, Tertul. c. 15. de Idololatria. Si Templis renunciasti, neseceris Templum janu●● tuam. Et de corona mil. Excubabit (nempe) Christianus) pro Templis quibus renunciavit? & coenabit illic ubi Apostolo non placet? Id est, in Idolaeo. 1 Cor. cap. 8. 10.  De libris Sibyllinis inspiciendis: Miror vos, Patres sancti, tamdiu de aperiendis Sibyllinis dubitasse libris, perinde quasi in Christianorum ECCLESIA, non in TEMPLO Deorum omnium tractaretis. And that of Zeno Veronensis in his Sermon de Continentia: Proponimus itaque, ut saepe contingit, in unum sibi convenire diversae religionis diem, quo tibi ECCLESIA, illis adeunda sint TEMPLA. (He speaks of a Christian woman married to a Gentile.) That also of S. Hierom in his Epistle ad Riparium, saying of julian the Apostate, Quod sanctorum BASILICAS, aut de struxerit, aut in TEMPLA converterit. Thus they spoke, when they would distinguish: Otherwise, now and then, the Christian Fathers use the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Templum, for Ecclesia; but respecting the Temple of the true God at jerusalem, not the notion of the Gentiles.  
That this answer is true and genuine, I prove, first, because the Gentiles themselves, who objected this want to the Christians, neither were, nor could be ignorant, that they had Oratories where they performed their Christian service, when they were so notoriously known (as we saw before) to the Emperor's Galienus and Aurelian; and a controversy about one of them referred unto the latter; when also the Emperor's Edicts flew about in every City for demolishing them. Why therefore do they object in this manner, but because, for the defect of something they thought thereto necessary, they esteemed not those Oratories for Temples?  
Secondly, because in that dispute between Origen & Celsus, it is supposed by both, that the Persians and jews were, as concerning this matter, in like condition with the Christians; neither of both enduring to worship their Gods in Temples. Hear Origen speak, Lib. 7. p. 385, 386. Licet Scythae, Africa Numidae, & impii Seres aliaeque gentes, ut Celsus ait .... atque etiam Persae aversentur TEMPLA, ARAS, STATVAS, non eandem aversandi causam, esse illis & nobis: and a little after; Inter abhorrentes à statuarum, templorum, ararum ceremoniis, Scythae, Numidae, impiique Seres & Persae, aliis moventur rationibus, quam Christiani & judaei, quibus religio est sic numen colere. Illarum enim gentium, nemo ab his alienus est .... quod intelligat, Daemonas DEVINCTOS haerere CERTIS LOCIS & STATVIS, sive incantatos quibusdam magicis carminibus, sive aliàs incubantes locis semel praeoccupatis, ubi lurconum more se oblectant victimarum nidoribus ..... Caeterum, Christiani homines, & judaei, sibi temperant ab his, propter illud legis; Dominum Deum tuum timebis, & ipsi soli servies: item propter illud; Non erunt tibi alieni Diipraeter me, &, Non facies tibi ipsi simulacrum, etc. Lo here, it is all one with Origen to have Templa, as it was to worship 
a So with Tertullian in the places before alleged in the margin Renunciasse Templis dicitur qui Idolis.  other gods: as it was a little before with Minutius Felix his Octavius (if you mark it) to have Delubra & Simulacra.  
Yet certain, neither Celsus nor Origen, whatsoever they here say of the Persians and jews, were ignorant, that the Persians had their 
b S●rabo ●●. 15. in append ad Herodot. Theod. li. 5. c. 38. Yea ●e de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nanea in Elyma de Perfidis. 1 Mac. 6. 2. 2 Mac. c. 1. ver. 13.  Pyraea or Pyrathaea (Houses where the Fire was worshipped) though without Images or Statues: also, that the jews had both then, & also formerly, their Synagogues and Proseuchaes, in the places and Countries where they were dispersed; and once a most glorious & magnificent Temple or Sanctuary: Ergo, by Temples they understand not houses of prayer & religious rites in the general; 
c i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, places where Daemons were encloistered by the position of an Idol, or consecrated Statue. And here let me add (because it is not impertinent) what I have observed in reading the Itinerarium of Benjamin Tudelensis the jew; namely, that he expresses constantly after this manner, the Oratories of jews, Turks, & Christians by differing names: those of the jews he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Houses of assembly, or Synagogues: The Turkish Mosques 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Houses of prayer; but the Christian Churches, because of Images (yea that renowned Church of S. sophy itself) he called always 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 BAMOTH, the name of the Idol-Temples in the old Testament, which we translate High Places. This I note for an example of that proneness in Religions of a contrary Rite, thus to distinguish, as other things, so their Places of worship by diversity of names, though they communicate in the same common nature and use.  
Thirdly, that the answer I have given to these objected passages is genuine, I prove; because some of these Authors acknowledge elsewhere, that Christians had houses of sacred worship in their time: As namely Arnobius (whose words were as pressing as any of the rest, yet) in the self same Books acknowledges the Christians Oratories by the name of CONVENTICULA, or Meeting places; by that name endeavouring I suppose, to express the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The place is about the end of his 4. Book adversùs Gentes: Quòd si haberet vos (saith he) aliqua vestris pro religionibus indignatio, has potius literas (he means the Poets absurd & blasphemous fictions & tales of their gods) hos exurere debuistis olim libros; istos demoliri, dissolvere Theatra haec potius, in quibus infamiae numinum propudiosis quotidie publicantur in fabulis (of this their scurrilous dishonouring of their gods upon the Stage he had spoken much before) Nam nostra quidem scripta, cur ignibus meruerint dari? cur immaniter CONVENTICULA dirui? in quibus 
* Liturgiae Christianae discriptio.  summus Orator Deus, pax cunctis & venia postulatur, magistratibus, exercitibus, Regibus, familiaribus, inimicis, adhuc vitam degentibus, & resolutis corporum vinctione, etc. He alludes unto the burning of the Books of Scripture and demolition of the Christians Oratories by Diocletian; of which see Eusebius, Lib. 8. cap. 3. And know from hence when Arnobius wrote.  
Nay Origen himself, one of the first brought to depose against us, (if Rufinus his Translator, deserve any credit) will in his Homily upon the 9 chap. of josua testify both for Churches and Altars among Christians in his time. For, thus he allegorizeth there the story of the Gibeonites, whose lives josua & the flders spared, but gave them no better entertainment, than to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the Congregation, and for the Altar of the Lord. Sunt quidam in Ecclesia (saith he) credentes quidem, & habentes fidem in Deum, & acquiescentes in omnibus divinis praeceptis, quique etiam erga servos Dei religiosi sunt & servire eis cupiunt; sed & ad ornatum ECCLESIAE vel ministerium satis prompti paratique sunt: in actibus verò suis, & conversatione propria, obscoenitatibus & vitiis involuti, nec omnino deponentes veteremhominem cum actibus suis, sed involuti vetustis vitiis & obscoenitatibus suis, sicut & isti (i. Gabeonitae) pannis & calceamentis veteribus obtecti; praeter hoc, quod in Deum credunt, & erga servos Dei, vel ECCLESIAE cultum (i. ornatum) videntur esse devoti, nihil adhibent emendationis vel innovationis in mores, &c ..... And a little after: Veruntamen sciendum est, quantum ex hujuscemodi figurarum adumbrationibus edocemur, quòd si qui tales sunt in nobis, quorum fides hoc tantummodo habet, ut ad ECCLESIAM veniant, & inclinent caput suum sacerdotibus (mark here a custom) officia exhibeant, servos Dei honorent, ad ornatum quoque ALTARIS vel ECCLESIAE aliquid conferant, non tamen adhibent studium, ut etiam mores suos excolant, actus emendent, vitia deponant, castitatem colant, iracundiam mitigent, avaritiam reprimant: ..... sciant, sibi, qui tales sunt, qui emendare se nolunt, sed in his usque in senectutem ultimam per severant, partem, sorténque ab jesu Domino cum Gabeonitis esse tribuendam.  
Thus Origen by his Interpreter. And if any where Rufinus may be trusted, sure he may in this, forasmuch as in his Peroration in Epist. ad Romanos, he hath given us his word, that in his translation of this and the next Book, he took not his wont liberty, to insert or alter any thing, but simply expressed every thing, as he found it. Hear his words. Illa (saith he) quae in jesu Nava & in judicum librum & in 36, 37, & 38. Psal. scripsimus, simpliciter expressimus ut invenimus, & non multo cum labore transtulimus. Vide locum & Erasmi Censuram. Lib. Origen. Besides, he that but considers the matter, together with the brevity of this Homily, cannot see a possibility, how these passages can be an addition or supplement of the Translators, unless he made the whole Homily: because the contents of them are the only argument thereof, and being taken from it, nothing would be remaining.  
Lastly, because the forealleged words of Lactantius are so usually brought against us, though they be nothing urgent, and his time be altogether repugnant to any such inference: yet absolutely to take away all scruple, let us hear him also, Instit. Lib. 5. c. 2. expressly giving evidence for us, and that even by the name of Templum. Ego (saith he) come in Bythinia literas oratorias accitus docerem; contigissétque eodem tempore, ut Dei Templum everteretur: duo extiterunt ibidem, qui jacenti atque abjectae veitati (the Christian verity) nescio, utrum superbiùs an importuniùs, insultârunt. See the rest which follows. This was when the Edict of Diocletian came forth for the demolishing of the Christians Churches.  
And thus, having removed that stumbling stone, which hath been the main inducement to the contrary opinion, so prejudicial to those works of religious bounty and piety: I hope my proofs will find the freer passage with those of understanding and judgement; to whose pious consideration I have devoted this my Discourse.  
FINIS.