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 't is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 SECT 7. In the Second Century Mr. Mede begins with the Testimonies of Ignatius the Martyr A. D. 107. First with his confessed Epistle ad Magnesios and then with the spurious ad Antiochenos But had he lived to have seen what is now extant of and concerning these Epistles by the great Luminaries of Learning in this Age A. B. Vsher Dally Bp. Pearson Larock c. he would never have laid such stress upon them The manifest difference between the ancient genuine Copies and the latter is evident by their Translations particularly that of Caius College in Cambridge which A. B. Vsher prefers to the common Greek Copies Wherein this very place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. is quite differently rendred from Mede's carrying the words for an unity in Doctrine not Devotion and that they should all come into Christ as into one Temple and Altar making him both as alluding to 1 Pet. 2.4 where the one Temple into the which we are built up coming unto him and one Altar Jesus Christ and spiritual Sacrifices offered to God in him as on an Altar whereby they become acceptable Not to insist upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Temple no ways agreeing to the meeting places of the Primitive Christians as both Bellar. de Rom. Pontif. l. 3. c. 13. and Vedelius hath shewn sufficiently from the Ancient Fathers And that which follows in Mede of one Bishop and one Altar in every Church is not only alien to the scope of Ignatius but the Truth also For the Church of Ephesus had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishops Acts 20.28 so had the Philipians 1.1 and of Jerusalem Narcissus and Alexander who at the same time jointly governed the Church as Eusebius relates Gersom Bucer in 's Answer to Downam's Sermon p. 302. proves the like in other Churches by ten instances and Vedelius the same Exercit. 8. in Epist Ignat. c. 3. And Epiphanius of old professed that the Church of Alexandria was singular in this of having but one Bishop It 's true the Inscription of the 7 Epistles Apoc. c. 2 3. each to the particular Angel of the Church seems to imply that they had but one apiece Which yet Mr. Mede himself sufficiently shews is inconsequent in 's Comment on Apocal. p. 265. where he observes it the course in Scripture to attribute that to one Angel which is performed by the Ministry of many What 's alledged from Justin Martyr is answered by Bucer and Sozomen acquaints us Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 3. That even Villages had their Bishops and no wonder then if one Lords Table in each might suffice to make them correlatives Mr. Mede proceeds with another proof out of Ignatius's Epistle ad Antiochenos wherein he salutes the Keepers of the holy Doors concluding thence holy Houses This Epistle he endeavours to perswade us is genuine contrary to the judgment of all other Protestants from sundry probabilities But this is a strange way of reasoning That it 's likely such a thing should be done and therefore it was done And to say because the Antiochians were his own Flock I think rather makes it improbable because he had sufficiently established them in the Faith before he lest them which when he went thence to Rome to receive the Crown of Martyrdom he endeavoured by his Epistles to do for other Churches And surely they would have been careful above all other Churches in keeping their own Pastor's Letter if he had sent them one And was not Polycarp as likely to be acquainted with this as the rest Besides that if he or Eusebius had had any
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 't is 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 innâ—itâ—r tunc etiam Ecclesiam aliquo modo sacratam fuisse hence 't is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
thereof But that they do so still as Gregory also saith I think is a mistake I never observed it in any of their Synagogues tho I have seen several and their Worship yet I never saw any People so regardless therein as the present Generation of the Jews But why may we not pray in the same posture with the Jews of old which were Gods People and had his direction as well as in the posture of those Gentile Idolaters that worshipped the Sun Ezek. 8.16 as the Persians and many other Nations Truly if you will believe the Cardinal because this posture signifies so much more excellent things than the Jewish which he there mentions even the difference between the Gospel and Christianity from the present Religion of the accursed Jews the Enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ Here recommend me to the man that hath so strong Faith as to believe a bare posture can denote such great things to which it hath no tendency or likeness at all But if any one hath list and leisure to see a deal of dry Learning thrown away on this subject of praying towards the East they may peruse the 18th Chap. of Gregory's Notes on Zachary 6. v. 12. Who had written also a Treatise he intituled Alkibla i. e. the place toward which men worship as the Publisher of his posthumous Works acquaints us the loss whereof he laments tho for my part I think it not great Before I pass to another Argument let me set down the Opinion of Strabo in the place fore-mentioned an Author near 800 Years old when Ceremonies and Superstition were in Vogue and near their Altitude concerning the site of Churches Eastward Et quia diversitas Idololatriae diversis modis Templa extruxerat non magnopere curabant illius temporis justi quam in partem orationis loca converterent dum tantum videretur ubi eliminatae sunt Daemonum sordes ibi Deum creatorem omnium qui ubique est coli adorari And because Temples were built after divers manners according to the different ways of Idolatry The righteous men of those days did not much care which way the places of Prayer stood their consideration being only this that look where the filth and abomination of Devils were cast out of Doors there God the Creator of all who is every where might be worshipped and adored Now that by the righteous men of those times which cared not which way they converted their places or selves in Prayer to God were the times of the Conversion of the Empire from Idolatry to Christianity is plain by what preceds c. 3. where he saith After the time was come wherein the true Worshippers in Spirit and Truth not in Jerusalem only or in the Hill of Samaria that is not locally but spiritually began to worship the Father and the Doctrine of Salvation went forth into all Nations according to the commandment of the Lord the Faithful began to seek loca munda clean places which he interprets by that which follows and removed from tumults and affairs of men of carnal conversation therein to celebrate pure Prayers and the holy Mysteries and the comforts of mutual edification For tho we read in the Gospel the Disciples were with the Believers always in the Temple or in some upper room praising God and giving themselves to Fasting and Prayer yet after the coming down of the Holy Ghost upon them we read Act 1. 2d chap. that they Celebrated Prayers and the Eucharist circa domos from house to house and they met together not only within the City in some house or other but without also in secret places as at Philippi Acts 16.13 But when the number of Believers was multiplied they began to make their Houses Churches as we often read in the Legends of the Saints Oftentimes also declining the rage of Persecutors they had their meetings in Vaults under ground and in places of Burial and in Caves and desert Mountains and Valleys Then as the Miracle of Christian Religion profited more and more and the Devil loosing ground as Christ gained New Oratories were built nor so only but also the Temples of their Gods and Idols with the abominable Worship thereof being thrown away and banished were changed into the Churches of God It 's true that he dislikes not praying towards the East but gives reasons for the congruity of it yet upon consideration of the Temple at Jerusalem that the Holy of Holies was Westward and that Solomon in 's Prayer at the Dedication thereof turned his Face that way he concludes His aliis exemplis edocti cognoscimus non errasse illos vel errare qui Templis vel noviter Deo constructis vel ab Idolorum squalore mundatis propter aliquam locorum opportunitatem in diversas plagas altaria statuerunt quia non est locus ubi non sit Deus By these and other Examples we learn that they who either in Temples nowly built for God or purged from the filthiness of Idols did according to the opportunity of places set Altars towards different Coasts did nothing erre seeing there is no place where God is not present And accordingly proceeds to shew that in the Temple built by Helena at Jerusalem upon Christ's Sepulcher and in the Pantheon at Rome converted to Christian use as also in St. Peter's Church there Altars were Erected not only towards the East but also other Quarters of the Heavens And adds Haec cum secundum voluntatem vel necessitatem fuerint ita disposita improbare non audemus So that tho he approves rather of praying towards the East yet professeth he dares not blame those who otherwise ordered the matter and that not only in case of necessity but of meer will and pleasure Concluding thus Vnusquisque in suo sensu abundet propè est Dominus omnibus invocantibus eum in veritate Let every one abound in his own sense the Lord is near to all that call upon him in Truth I must add to all these the Example of the Church of England in reading the Liturgy Ministers Prayers and Peoples practice and further shew that tho Mede joins the position of Churches and Prayers yet neither of these necessarily infer the other but I have run out too far on this Argument already The second is drawn from the Discipline of the Church which required distinct and regular places in their Assemblies for Penitents Auditors Catechumens and the Faithful which argues they had places accommodated for that purpose We had this Argument before in the middle of the Third Century where we answered the same and therefore shall be briefer here Where I shall not insist upon it That distinctions might be made in private Houses or Places tho not so well or great as in publick Churches Nor deny the authority of that obscure Epistle however called Canonical of Gregorius Neocaesariensis which was a little before alledged for this Discipline and also considered But roundly answer that no such