Dissertation Concerning the Antiquity of Churches, Section 6
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, 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 foreign, and one foreign, 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 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, 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 foreign, 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 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.