Dissertation Concerning the Antiquity of Churches, Section 4
SECT. 4.
We ſhall therefore now enter the Liſts with our Adverſaries, and not decline any of their Weapons, being well ſecur'd by the ſhield of Truth. Tho we take no notice of ſeveral flouriſhes they make, that being needleſs, in regard of the ſeveral Editions of the Authors, wherein they may be ſeen, and eſpecially of Mede, our principal Adverſary.
From Scripture, eſpecially 1 Cor. 11.18, 20, 22. which Bellarmine c. 4. de cultu ſanctorum, and Baronius, produce for Churches and Oratories diſtinct from private Houſes in the Apoſtles days. Anſwered at large by Vedelius in his Exercitation upon Ignatius's Epiſtle to the Magneſians.
Mr. Fuller likewiſe, who argues that from that the Apoſtle having ſaid, v. 18. when you come together in the Church, forthwith expounds it by v. 20. when you come together in the ſame place; ſhewing by the Church he denotes the Place. But here he ſuppoſeth, that foreign, is to come together in the ſame place; which is denied. For men cannot come, or meet together, but in ſome place, either natural or artificial. Beza renders it in unum, others ſimul or conjuncti: I ſhould ad idem. For the expreſſion is Helleniſtical, and ſignifies not only a Concourſe in the ſame place, but agreement. in condition, and concurrence in the ſame action, tho in different places, according to the Septuagint. Even as in Acts 2.44. and other Texts it muſt be underſtood; for both the diverſity of Tongues, and multitude of Chriſtians, as five thouſand, c. 4. v. 4. manifeſt it could not be in the ſame place. Camero in his Myrothecium, ſhews the Phraſe is taken from the Septuagints Verſion of Pſalm. 2.2. where the Princes aſſemble together, foreign, not in reference to the ſame place, but to their conjunction in heart and counſel about the ſame thing. Which ſence Dr. Hammond follows, on Acts 1.15. If any object, if the Church be not the place, but the People, 'tis as much as to ſay, when you meet together in a Meeting. But this is alſo denied, for foreignſignifies only the general Notion of coming together, or aſſembling, as Acts 11.26. but the Church, a ſpecial, viz. a holy Meeting. So that 'tis not the place, but the imployment, that gives the denomination. For as it is not in every place, where the Senators or Parliament-men meet, that there is a Senate or Parliament. Nor in every place, where the Paſtors of the Church meet, is there forthwith a Synod. Seeing both ſorts may come together at Faſts or Feaſts, or other occaſions. But there and then only, where and when they meet to deliberate about affairs, Civil or Eccleſiaſtical. So whereſoever the Members of a Church come together, they are not for that ſaid to come together in the Church, but only then and there, when and where they come together for the exerciſe of Religion.
But the chief Argument all our Opponents make uſe of, is from v. 22. where they aſſert an Antitheſis or Oppoſition, between private Houſes proper to each, and the Church which is common to all. Let us therefore duly conſider it. And (1.) That tho the word foreign be uſed above 100 times in the New Teſtament; yet this is the only place our Proteſtants inſiſt on for their Opinion. Altho Bellarmine alledgeth alſo, 1 Cor. 14.25. which yet clearly proves the contrary. (2.) We deny, as Camero in his Anſwer to Fuller, (Tract. de Eccleſ. c. 1.) that the oppoſition here, is made between the doing of any thing in this or that place; but in the preſence of others, or not in their preſence. As when one doth that in publick, which ſhould be done at home; we rate him ſaying, Haſt thou not an Houſe of thy own? Doſt thou deſpiſe the City? underſtanding not the Structures or Streets, but the faces of the Citizens who are there. And that this is the Apoſtles meaning, appears both by the following words, and ſhame them that have not: that is the poor Brethren, that had neither Money to buy, nor Proviſions to bring for their Feaſts of Charity (then in uſe at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.) So that 'tis not deſpiſing the Place, but the Perſons; putting the poor (who are a great part of the Church) to bluſh and be aſhamed. And alſo by a parallel Place in this Epiſtle, c. 14. v. 34 & 35. where the Apoſtle forbids their Women to ſpeak in the Churches, And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their Husbands at home; for it is a ſhame for Women to ſpeak in the Church. Where we ſee a plain oppoſition, between the Church and their own Home; which yet cannot be underſtood of the Church as a Place: The Caſe being clear, that it was not unlawful for Women to ſpeak in ſuch a Place ſimply, but only at ſuch a time when the Congregation was at Divine Worſhip: otherwiſe, it would be unlawful for any Woman, before or after Publick Worſhip, to ſpeak in the place. Nor was it ſinful ſurely, for Women to ſpeak at their Love-Feaſts, tho in the Church. Beſides, 'tis ſaid, your Women in the Churches, which implies, there were more than one Congregation in the Church of Corinth.
I ſhall not ſtand to alledge Commentaries on 1 Cor. 11.22. as Cajetan, who is abſolutely for the Congregation, and Aquinas, and Carthuſian, as alſo Dr. Pearſon on the Creed, p. 337. ſay, it may as well be ſo underſtood as of the place. But further prove the Truth (3.) By the Argument which the Apoſtle draws from the holineſs of the Meeting, and not from the holineſs of the Place, to take the Corinthians off from their Diſſentions, v. 18. for in every Meeting, Diſſentions are to be avoided; but in a holy Meeting, ordained for Religion, they ought to be deteſted. And ſo from Intemperance, v. 20, 21. ſhewing unity in the Truth of Doctrine, and unanimity in affections are neceſſary for the right receiving the Lords Supper, in the following Verſes. And I would further argue with mine Opponents, ſuppoſe their meeting had been on ſome Mountain, or in ſome Cave, (which was not unuſual) and the faults here mentioned had been committed; ſhould they not have been liable to the ſame cenſure of deſpiſing the Church of God? But (4.) Should we grant the oppoſition they make, between the Church and their own Houſes, yet will not this ſerve to overthrow our Opinion, or eſtabliſh their own; except they can further prove, this Church or Place to have been publick, and not in a private Houſe, like unto others mentioned throughout the Acts.
Mr. Mede carries this 22d verſe, for a reproof of the Corinthians, for uſing profane Banquetings and Feaſtings in a ſacred place, to introduce his Opinion of the holineſs of Churches, as Bellarmine c. 5. de cultu ſanct. ſaith, Satis inn…it…r, tunc etiam Eccleſiam aliquo modo ſacratam fuiſſe, hence 'tis ſufficiently gathered, that even then the Church was ſome manner of way holy; which he ſaith, was for conſecration. But Mede runs againſt the ſtream of Interpreters, who expound it of their Love-Feaſts. Neither doth the Apoſtle reprove them for any ſuch thing, but for their ſchiſmatical, unbrotherly and intemperate Carriage therein. Theſe Love-Feaſts, a Lapide, as Auſtin, Aquinas, Cajet an, and others, think preceeded; and Juſtinian as Chryſoſtom and divers others, that they followed after the Communion. The Opinions of the Ancients concerning their order, are cited by theſe two Learned Jeſuites upon the place, where they may be ſeen; and the manner of them in Kerchers Roma Subterranea l. 6. c. 27. As far as my reading reaches, tho theſe Love-Feaſts ſometimes were before as in the Church of Alexandria, (as Sozomen ſaith, l. 7. c. 19.) and ſome others: Yet more uſually they followed after the Sacrament. However, we have multiplicity of Teſtimonies in the Writings of the Ancients, for them at the Communion in the Primitive Church: and none I can find amongſt them for Mr. Mede's Opinion, except Sedulius; nor amongſt the Modern, but Salmeroni; and theſe quite contrary to the genius of the Text.
But he proceeds to tell us, that as moſt of the Words ſignifying an Aſſembly or Company, are wont to be uſed alſo for the place; ſo here foreign. Which we deny not in common Speech; but then the expreſſion is not proper, but figurative, continens pro contentis, the Place containing, for the Perſons contained. He cites St. Auſtin taking the Church here for the place of Meeting. It's true, he does ſo, on Leviticus, l. 3. c. 57. to which Bede on the Text refers, but only for the time wherein the Congregation met, Eccleſia dicitur locus, quo Eccleſia congregatur: And it is apparent, that the faults mentioned by the Apoſtle, are ſuch only as were committed, at the time of their aſſembling for the Worſhip of God. Nor doth Auſtin appropriate it to a Place civil or artificial, as our Opponents do, not conſidering ſuch abuſes have their courſe in their Meetings in what place ſoever, natural or civil.
The next Author he produceth is Baſil, who pleads for the Holineſs of Churches; of which hereafter.
Commentators follow. The Author of the Comments on the Epiſtles (falſly aſcribed to Hierom) a Pelagian, ſeems to deliver the Opinion of others, rather than his own, ſaying, Quidam hunc locum ad illos referunt, qui Epulas in Eccleſia faciebant: facientes eam trielinium Epularum. And Seduſius (whom the former Author ſeems to point at) is of that Opinion, thinking it unlawful to keep their Feaſts in the Church. Wherein he is ſingular, and contrary to the Apoſtle, who rectifies the abuſe only, by admoniſhing them to ſtay one for another, and make their poor Brethren partakers with them of their Viands. Furthermore, even thoſe that take the Church for a holy Place, and cite this (as Sir H. Spelman and ſeveral others) of the Corinthians making the Church trielinium Epularum, make it only a private Room, for trielinium was never taken for a Houſe, much leſs a publick one. To which may be added, the practice in after Ages, in St. Auſtin's time, when the Chriſtians kept their Love-Feaſts in memoriis Martyrum, or in their Churches, as appears by his Anſwer to Fauſtus the Maniche, l. 10. c. 20, 21. at large.
As for Chryſoſtom, Theodoret, Theophilact and Cecumenius, tho they take the Church for a Place; yet none of them as Mede, that the Corinthiaws fault was, in keeping there profane Banquetings: Nor otherwiſe than in reference to the very time only, of their meeting therein. And whereas Chryſoſtom ſays, the Church as well as the Poor were wronged; he cannot, I ſuppoſe, mean it of the Place, for Time and Place cannot be ſaid to be deſpiſed or diſhonoured, but by an extrinſecal denomination, when God is diſhonoured, or our Brethren, by our unchriſtian behaviour in the place. As here the latter member, being joyn'd thereto by a copulative, may fairly expound the former (as uſually) viz. in ſhaming them that have not, you deſpiſe the Church, as Cajetan and Piſcator expound it. So that tho the Grammatical oppoſition be between two places; yet the Logical and Theological is between a place of many preſent therein, and a private place. From theſe Teſtimonies, Mede concludes there were places appointed, and ſet apart for Chriſtian Worſhip, even in the Apoſtles times.
But tho no Man doubts, that believes the Goſpel, that the Chriſtians had places for Worſhip; yet it follows not thence, that they were ſet apart from all other uſes, for Chriſtian Worſhip. Neither doth he, or any other Opponent prove this. Places of meeting, the Ancients ſuppoſe, but ſeparate Places they ſuppoſe not. It was 200 Years and more, e'er they had Publick Oratories. And when the Heathen objected they had no Temples, Altars nor Images, they freely confeſs as much.
Having vindicated this Text in the Corinths, we ſhall briefly mention ſome others, alledged for ſeparate and publick Churches: Tho ſome are ſo far-fetch'd, they deſerve not mentioning. As Mr. Fuller from 1 Cor. 14.40. That all things be done decently, and in order, inferring that publick Offices be done in publick Places, as much as may be. And what, I pray, is more publick than the open Air, Mountains and Fields where our Saviour inſtructed his Followers?
Likewiſe from Acts 19.9. Paul ſeparated the Diſciples, diſputing daily in the School of one Tyrannus: As if this School was one of the Temples of Chriſtians, which he confeſſeth was but borrowed, or hired for the urgent neceſſity.
His next place is Acts 15.21. whence he argues, the Iſraelites from the beginning of their Commonwealth had Synagogues; ſo the Chriſtians from the day of Pentecoſt, Churches. But that is very dubious; for tho I judge Synagogues much Ancienter than till after the Captivity (whence many Learned Men date them;) yet that they were ſo Ancient as he makes them, cannot be proved. Nor will Pſ. 74.8. ſerve, admitting various Tranſlations. The 70, They have put down the Feaſts; Hierome, Tabernacula; Montanus, Conventicula; Junius, Synagogas, which denotes all kinds of Aſſemblies, Civil and Eccleſiaſtical, in their places; as Gerhard de Eccleſ. c. 1. §. 4. ſhews at large. Nor that of Pſ. 83.12 of which Sir H. Spelman hath a Diſcourſe, at the end of his Tract de non temerandis Eccleſiis. And who ſees not a vaſt difference; the Iſraelites were a free State of themſelves, and had Governours Civil and Eccleſiaſtical, ſupream and ſubordinate, in the Land of Canaan, of their own: Whereas the condition of Chriſtians was quite otherwiſe, till Conſtantine's time, as all know. His laſt Scripture is James 2.2. where foreign Synagogue, is much more pregnant to denote a Place, than foreign the Church; for of above 100 Texts where this is uſed, no one, except that in 1 Cor. 11.22. is with any colour alledged for a Place; whereas Synagogue is frequently ſo taken, both in the 70, and in the New Teſtament, when applied to the Jews, as Acts 13.14. & 14.1. &c. tho ſometimes for an Aſſembly, and moſt uſually ſo when applied to Chriſtians. As the Syriac here renders it; and Beza, coetum: the vulgar Latine (which ſome ſay is the Vetus Italica, and make great account of it, (as our Biſhop Andrews, &c.) conventum; as our laſt Verſion Aſſembly, and the former company; declining the Word Synagogue, for no other reaſon, that I can conceive, but becauſe they judged, that Chriſtians had no ſeparate Places in thoſe days, as the Jews had; James we know wrote to the Twelve Tribes diſperſed, with whom the Word foreign, was in uſe, as Helleniſtical; ſo that after they became Chriſtians, they might well call their Metting, of what condition ſoever it were, by that name: For the Word ſignifies all kinds of Aſſemblies, Civil and Sacred, as Dr. Hammond ſhews on Matth. 6.2. from many Texts; and here in James, Conſiſtories for Judicature, by 5 reaſons. And the Apoſtles having uſed the Word foreign, or Church, to diſtinguiſh the Chriſtians meetings from the Jewiſh, and as more proper, &c. (which Gerhard in the Chap. above cited, notes;) the Name of Synagogue was ſoon given over among Chriſtians, and ſuch places called foreign and foreign; but whether before they became ſeparate places, or after; and about what time ſuch were built for Prayer, is the queſtion.