[Footnote 22: S. Clem. Rom., ad Corinth. I, 40.]
[Footnote 23: Mede, in Epist. lviii Folio, Lib. iv.]
{lxv}
This indeed is obviously S. Clement's meaning: and not to go at any length into the consideration of all the particular forms or ceremonies of the Old dispensation which were perpetuated in the New—as the threefold Ministry deduced by S. Jerome, from the High Priest, Priests, and Levites; the Canonical Hours; the Gospel anciently laid on the altar, answering to the Two Tables, and the like—it will be sufficient to refer once more to the remarkable parallel between a Christian church and the Jewish Temple. [Footnote 24] There can be little doubt that Mede proved his point of the propriety of genuflexion towards the altar. We are contending for a much simpler thing: for no more indeed than the concession of a probability that in the earliest Christian churches there was at least this resemblance to the Temple; that there should be in both a Holy of Holies and an outer-court. Supposing this distinction to have been only made by a curtain, our point is nevertheless gained; and we would rest here on this one particular of resemblance only (though others might be insisted on); because, any one designed parallel being granted, the inference for others is easy. And here it will be enough to observe that the almost constant practice in ancient writers of applying to some one part of a Christian church a name or names derived directly from the Holy of Holies is a strong argument in our favour: though the passages are often too incidental to be adduced as evidence of an intended symbolism. [Footnote 25] But, we repeat, the fact that a particular part of a church—(if we were now arguing for rood screens, we {lxvi} should show that any such distinction of parts made a screen of some sort necessary, even if we did not know what sort of screens really existed)—the fact that a particular part of a church was distinguished by names directly carrying us back to the exactly corresponding particular part in the Temple, shows that in the arrangement at least, if not in the building, of the earliest churches there was, at least in this one point, an intention to produce an antitype to the typical Tabernacle. It is observed in a note to Neander's history [Footnote 26] that if the interpretation of Michaelis be received there is evidence of a Christian church being built at Edessa, A.D. 202, with three parts, expressly after the model of the Temple.
[Footnote 24: See this carried out by Durandus. Appendix A.]
[Footnote 25: Compare, amongst others, S. Cyprian, Ep. 55; Euseb. x, 4.
; Id. vii, 18.
(the word used in the lxx for the Sanctuary)'. S. Dionys. Areop., Ep. 8, ad Demoph.; S. Athanas., Edit, Commel. Tom. ii, p. 255; Theod. H. E. iv, 17, v, 18; Concil. Tours. (A. D. 557). can. 4; S. Germ. Constant. In Theor. rer. Eccles.; Card. Bona. Rer Liturg.i, xxv, II; Dionys. Hierarch. cap. 2; S. Chrysost. Lib vi, De Sacerdotio.]
[Footnote 26: Rose's Neander, i, 246.]
Whatever may be the authority allowed to the Apostolical Constitutions, the fact that they touch at some length upon the form of churches is enough for our purpose. 'The church,' [Footnote 27] they say, 'must be oblong in form, and pointing to the East' The oblong form was meant to symbolise a ship, [Footnote 28] the ark which was to save us from the stormy world. It would be perfectly unnecessary to support this obvious piece of symbolism by citations. The orientation is an equally valuable example of intended symbolism. We gain an additional testimony to this from the well-known passage of Tertullian, [Footnote 29] (a.d. 200,) about 'The house of our Dove.' Whether this corrupt extract be interpreted with Mede or Bingham, there can be no doubt that its {lxvii} in lucem means that the church should face the East or dayspring. The praying towards the East was the almost invariable custom in the Early Churches, and as symbolical as their standing in prayer upon the Festivals of the Resurrection. [Footnote 30] So common was orientation in the most ancient churches, that Socrates [Footnote 31] mentions particularly the church at Antioch as having its 'position reversed; for the altar does not look to the east but to the west.' This rule appears to have been more scrupulously followed in the East than in the West; though even in Europe examples to the contrary are exceptions.