The Temple Opened, Tract · Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Shewing that a place of Meeting is no where taken in the New Teſtament for a Church of Chriſt.
IT's neceſſary to intimate concerning the word foreign in General, that tho' it be taken for a Congregation or Aſſembly of people, yet it's not alwayes limited to a religious one, but is uſed by Claſſick Authors, for any Aſſembly; prophane, civil or religious; and ſo it's uſed expreſly, Acts 19. for a prophane and tumultuous aſſembly, foreign and for a civil lawful Court or Aſſembly, ver. 39. foreign the firſt of which was diſmiſſed ver. 40. But in the proper and uſual ſence of the Spirit of God in the New Teſtament, it's every where, except in the place above mentioned, taken for a Church of Chriſt in one ſence or another; and therefore that we may be aſſured in what ſences it is underſtood, it's neceſſary to winnow the Chaff from the Wheat, and ſet aſide ſuch things as through the miſtakes of men, error, cuſtom and carnal intereſt, are uſually called ſo, and impoſed as ſuch upon erring or unthinking judgments, when Chriſt and his Goſpel never called them ſo.
Firſt there is nothing more frequent among us, then to call a place of meeting for Publick-Worſhip, a Church: I affirm there is no juſt reaſon of underſtanding it ſo in the New Teſtament, no not in a Metonymy-ſence: though Learned Mr. Joſeph Mede takes a great deal of pains to prove that the word foreign [1 Cor. 11.22. Have ye not houſes to eat and drink in, but deſpiſe you the Church of God?] is there to be underſtood for the material place of ordinary aſſembling together for the Worſhip of God, and ſaith, that their Oratories where they frequently met, were called Churches; and yet in the begining of his diſcourſe he ſaith, It is taken for granted in a manner by the moſt of our Reformed Writers, and affirmed by ſome of the other ſide, that in the Apoſtles times, and ages next after them; (whilſt the Church lived under Pagan and Perſecuting Emperours) 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; which thing undoubtedly is juſtly enough (and upon grounds more evident) believed, then any reaſons brought to prove the contrary by that worthy perſon, wherein he acknowledgeth himſelf almoſt ſingular in this undertaking, and lays his firſt and greateſt ſtreſs on that expreſſion, 1 Cor. 11.22. Here (ſaith he) I take the word foreign or Church, to note not the Aſſembly, but the place appointed for ſacred duties, and that from the oppoſition thereof to foreign, their own houſes; theſe are places proper for common and ordinary repaſt, and not the Church or houſ… of God. This is the only argument which he brings, beſides ſome obſcure paſſages of ſome Fathers whoſe opinions will not ſway here, but as in other things, ſo far as we ſee them conſonant to the truth, manifeſt in Scriptures, compared together; and it ſeems ſtrange that the word ſhould have a tropical meaning in this place, and every where elſe a proper one: and beſides, the reaſon from the oppoſition will not hold, eſpecially if we conſider what Mr. Mede underſtands thoſe Oratories or Churches of theirs to be. It is not to be imagined that in the firſt three hundred years before Conſtantines time, that they were ſuch goodly and stately ſtructures as the Church had after the Empire became Christian — 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 foreign upper room, or Caenaculum; It's very probable that all the Diſciples houſes were at the ſervice of the Churches; but that any one houſe (or room in a houſe) was dedicated ſo to that religious uſe, as to be ſeparated for it from common uſes when the Church met not, is not probable at all: for in times and places of Perſecution, if Churches meet in any certain houſe or place, though in a private houſe, they ſhall be ſure to be interrupted and broken in upon by Perſecuting Officers and Informers. The only place met in for ſome time conſiderable, that we read of, was Pauls own hired houſe at Rome; but we find not that it was conſecrated or called a Church. I am ſure conſecrated Barns, Garrets, Cellars, or Dining Rooms, would be eſteemed by our devout Eccleſiaſticks a great Abomination.
But how will the Oppoſition hold, if the Room called the Church, was in the ſame houſe they eat and drank ordinarily in? He ſhould have rather ſaid, Have ye not Kitchens or Parlours of common uſe to eat and drink in, but you muſt deſpiſe or put a Prophanation on the Garret, which is the Church of God? Beſides, if that Addition had not been made to the Church, I ſhould much rather have enclined to Mr. M…des ſence, if he had ſaid only, deſpiſe ye the Church? But I take it, that it would be a very audacious and highly abuſive Expreſſion, to ſay, T…at a Meeting-houſe is a Church of God, or a Church of Chriſt: And why is not the Oppoſition as full thus? Have you not houſes to eat and drink in, or Families [for ſo the word is uſed] But you muſt do it in the Church-Aſſemblies? for they made their Love-feaſts in their Aſſemblies. It is evident enough that the Apoſtle takes foreign for the Aſſembling of the Church together, as verſ. 18. where its uſed: when you meet together in Aſſembly, (i. e. when you are Congregated together) I hear that there have been Diviſions (or Schiſms) among you, and thoſe he means had the Diviſions, who were the Church, for the Goſpel aſcribes culpable Schiſmes no where, but to Body Politicks, or Aſſemblies, not to Houſes. But if we grant Mr. Mede all that he ſo induſtriouſly labours to ſqueeze out of the Text, only to favour the Relative Holineſs of ſuch places; its not to be ſuppoſed that he intended that they were real and proper Churches, but only Metonymical Churches, by a Trope, and improperly ſo named; no otherwiſe allowable names; putting the Continens pro contento, to diſtinguiſh places allotted to convenient aſſembling in Religious Worſhip, from Town-halls, and other houſes of meeting together for publick concerns, or more private Society and Converſation. And ſo we loſe nothing by it, if ſuch a place be called improperly a Church, its not the Church of Chriſt intended in the Goſpel which Chriſt purchaſed with his blood; nor built of living ſtones, nor ſuch as Chriſt is the Head of; nor ſuch as Paul wrote his Epiſtles too; nor the Church of Corinth, which he exhorts, rebukes, and commends in the Epiſtles that he wrote: And therefore we may with the greateſt aſſurance conclude, that no place where Religious Aſſemblies frequently uſe to be, is a Church of Chriſt; or may properly be ſo called.
They that plead the Expreſſion in the Epheſian Town-Clerks, Speech, [Act. 19.37. Ye have brought hither theſe which are neither Robbers of Churches.] Shew their little skill in the Original Text, the word is, foreign Robbers of Temples, ſuch as were dedicated to the Heathen Gods and Godeſſes, to which they aſcribed not only Relative, but inherent Holineſs; and therefore adapted that name to them.