Dissertation Concerning the Antiquity of Churches, Section 8
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 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 foreign, 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 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 foreign 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, 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 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, 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 foreign, 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 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 foreign, 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 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 foreign 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 foreign, old ſins; and ſometimes to that lately paſt, as Mark 15.44. Pilate asked the Centurion, if Jeſus had been foreign, 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 foreign, 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 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 foreign 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 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 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 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.