A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 2 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V. Answering their obiection, who say, that in the first two hundred yeeres, all the Christians in each great Citie, were but one particular congregation, assembling in one place.
NOw wee are to examine their proofes. And first, that which I obiected for them, and then that which the Refuter bringeth for himselfe.
(Serm. sect. 4. page 19. Against this which hath been said, they doe obiect, that in the first two hundred yeeres, &c. 16 lines ▪)
Here the refuter chargeth me, that I making shew of taking away what euer can bee said against my assertion, doe propound but one onelyonly bare obiection, whereas diuers testimonies and reasons both from scriptures and fathers hauehave been alleaged by others, &c. Thus makes he no conscience, either of belying me, who onelyonly intended to answere that, which I tooke to be their chiefe obiection, and had of late been most vrged: or of outfacing the truth with vaunts of diuers testimonies and reasons, which are scarce worth the answering; blaming also me for bringing but one reason for them, when himselfe after all his brags, bringeth but one, and that not so strong, though you adde thereto the testimonies which he vaunteth of.
In the obiection, which J bring for them, he putteth such confidence, that if he can make it good against me (whereof he doubteth not, such is his tried valor) all my labour about my Sermon will proue nothing worth. No doubt he would appeare to be some tall man, if he durst shew his head. But let vsus heare his dispute: for he hath taken the obiection out of my hands, because I did not vrge it strongly for them, obiecting no more then J knew my selfe able to answere: and yet all that he addeth is but losse of time in multiplying of words.
First, he premiseth a syllogisme concluding the maine question, that the Churches in the Apostles times (hee should hauehave added as I did, and the age following, for themselues in their question include two hundred yeeres) were not dioceses properly, but parishes.
If the Presbyteries and presidents therof in the great Cities …ere assigned but to one particular ordinary congregation assembled together in one place: then the Churches in the Apostles times (and in the age following) were not dioceses properly, but parishes. But the Presbyteries and presidents thereof in the great Cities were assigned but to one particular ordinary congregation assembled together in one place.
Therefore the Churches in the Apostles times (and in the age following) were not dioceses properly but parishes.
The consequence of the proposition is cleare by that I answered a little before, where I said that ad…cesse must needs consist of distinct congregations.
But if this proposition hauehave no better hypothesis to support it, I may deny it: seeing I hauehave proued before, that there were dioceses in the first conception of the Churches before distinction of parishes. So that the addition of this syllogisme hath made his cause somewhat worse then it was before.
The assumption is th…r…d:
If all the Christians in any one great Citie did make but one such congregation:Ad page …. then both the Presbyteries and presidents thereof were assigned but to one congregation: hee should say to one particular ordinarie congregation assembled together in one place.
But al the Christian… in any great Citie (vnderstand in the first 200 yeeres) did make but one such congregation.
Therefore both the Presbyteries and presidents therof of were assigned but to one congregation.
The former syllogisme for breuity I omitted, desiring in few words to bring their argument to the issue, presuming that any man might from my conclusion deduce the maine question, after this manner:
They were prouided but for one particular ordinary congregation assemb…ing together in one place.
Therefore not for a diocesse.
The second which containeth the issue, I propounded as forcibly as he hath done. But my aduersary is one of those disputers, who when the consequence of an Enthymeme is denied, make it good by a connexiue syllogisme. When as an Enthymeme, for disputation, is by somuch better then a connexiue syllogisme, by how much it is shorter: the consequence being thesame with the connexion of the proposition, the antecedent all one with the assumption, and the consequent the very same with the conclusion of the connexiue syllogisme. Such disputers are good to waste paper, and spend time.
But to the point.§. 2. His consequence denied. I deny, as before, both the consequence and the antecedent of the Enthymeme; so now, both the proposition and the assumption of his syllogisme. The proofe of the consequence hee slubbereth ouer, for his faculty is better in denying consequences, then in prouing of them. For, saith hee, seeing the deniall is vponupon this ground, that the Prestbyters were appointed not onelyonly to take charge of them that were conuerted, but also to labour the conuersion of the rest, which we hauehave shewed to bee false, it wil remaine good notwithstanding.
But I hauehave proued that it is an vndigested fancy & rare conceit of shallow (if not giddy) heads, which see no further then their nose end, to imagine that the Apostles intending (as they cannot deny) the conuersion of the citie and country, did place in the citie a Bishop and Presbytery, to take charge only of that small number which at the first was conuerted; but chiefly from hence to infer, that eueryevery particular parish should hauehave the like B…shop and Presbytery. The antient Church of God in all places vnderstood the Apostles intent as I expound the same. And therefore when all both in citie and country, were conuerted to the profession of the faith, they acknowledged the generall care and inspection ouer them all, to belong to that one B…shop of the citie, and themselues as I said in the Sermon, to be part of that Church: and neuer did, vnlesse it were in time of schisme or heresie, set vp another B. and Presbytery within the diocesse: but eueryevery congregation contented it selfe with a learned Presbyter, if it could bee so well prouided for. And this is so manifest a truth, that I doubt not to pronounce him void either of a sound iudgement, or good conscience, that shall deny it. This consequence therefore will neuer bee made good. And therefore the Refuter might hauehave saued his labour if it were ought worth, which he spendeth vponupon the assumption, vntill he had proued the proposition.
Yea but this consequence belike might hauehave been made stronger. For
he did wisely, saith he, to digge the pit no deeper, but that he might be able to fill it againe: so could hee not hauehave done, had …e gone as low as we doe, who thus frame our reason:
All the Christians in any one great Citie and the townes about it (vnlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes) did make but one particular ordinary congregation, assembled in one place.
Therefore both the Presbyters and Presidents thereof, were assigned but to one congregation.
I mislike not his addition of the townes about, so he will bee pleased, as hee addeth them to strengthen his consequence, so not to forget (as I doubt he will) to take them into the defence of his antecedent. But where he speaketh of his digging deeper; others as good Pioners as hee, to vndermine the state of our Church, went no deepeer: and I durst not adde more to their antecedent, as he hath done, lest I should make it too absurd.
But what meaneth that parenthesis, (vnlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes?) I feare to be circumuented with this inclosure. Belike there were more congregations then one in the cities and townes (as he said before Cenchrea was a distinct Church from Corinth) and then, how shall all both in citie and country, be said to bee but one congregation? Tush, wee hauehave a bush for that gap. We will except all other congregations but that one, and so they being excepted, all will bee but one. Ridiculum caput! As if you had said, all the congregations of Christians both in citie and country were but one, vnlesse there were more then one. I promise you you hauehave digged well, and hauehave hedged your ditch with a strong enclosure. But why had you not the like hedge or wall rather for the citie? (vnlesse there were distinct Churches in the citie) for then all had been cockesure. This hedge for the townes, and this wall for the citie, would hauehave sufficiently fenced the antecedent. But then the consequence had been ridiculous: and as it is now propounded, (with this inclosure in the antecedent) is altogether as weake as it was before. For to what purpose are the townes added, if the parishes be excepted? And by this inclosure the antecedent it selfe is bewraied of falshood. For if there were in the citie and country more distinct Churches, or parishes, (as here is supposed) and these all subordinate to one (as I hauehave manifestly proued before) then all these will make a diocesse. I say therefore againe, that though their antecedent were true, yet the consequence were to be denied.
§ 3. The Church of each citie not one parishionall congregation onl….(Serm. sect. 5. pag. 19. But the Antecedent is not onelyonly false, but also vnreasonable, and vncredible, &c. 20. lines, to, one day.)
The reason whereby I disprooue the Antecedent, is by the Refuter framed after his fashion, and propounded at large. It shall suffice to turne his proposition into an Enthymeme; thus:He should hauehave added, and the towns about. Ad. Pag. 62. The number of the Christians in the greatest Cities was very great, (hee should hauehave said, greater then could ordinarily meet in one assembly) the times such for persecution, as would not permit them ordinarily to meet in great multitudes, and the places of their meeting priuate and vncapeable of any great multitude, (I say such multitudes:)
Therefore in the first two hundred yeeres, all the Christians in any great Citie (and the townes about, which he should hauehave added) did make more then one particular congregation ordinarily assembling in one place.
Did not I tell you that hee would forget to adde to the Cities, the Townes about them, which hee did adde to his Antecedent to make the former consequence good, but dares not adde it now for feare of marring all?
But what doth he answere to it, as it is? First, hee cauilleth, and meerely cauilleth with the consequence, obiecting such things as hee is perswaded in his owne conscience, neither were in the primitiue Church, nor ought to hauehave been. Themselues doe teach, that parishes ought to bee so well compact and trussed together,T. C. H.I. as that all of the same Church may conueniently and ordinarily meet together; and also that where the multitude is greater, then that all can well meete together, they ought to diuide themselues into diuers congregations. And now he telleth vsus of great parishes, either in the suburbs of London, or in some parts of the land, which were at their setting out nothing so populous as now they are: both which sorts being so mightily increased in respect of the number of their parishioners, himselfe I dare say is of opinion that they ought to bee diuided. And therefore ought not (but that hee meant to cauill) to hauehave supposed the practise of the primitiue Church (which hee and his consorts doe alwaies vrge as a precedent for imitation) to bee sutable to those instances, which though hee giueth, yet hee and all his partners doe vtterly mislike, as swaruing from the practise of the primitiue Churches. And where he saith, M. D. doth mistake the matter, whiles hee thinketh that wee hold, that all and euerie of the Christians in the great Cities did, or could alwaies meete in the same place: hee vtterly mistaketh me in so conceiuing (though I am not ignorant they hold very strange things) but this J conceiue you to hold, that each visible Church was, and still ought to bee a particular ordinary constant congregation of Christians, which not onelyonly may conueniently, but also must necessarily, (if they bee not by sufficient causes hindered) assemble together ordinarily to praier, and to the ministery of the word and Sacraments. And I say, that in respect of the number, or rather innumerable company of Christians (which T. C. himselfe thinketh to hauehave been greater in those times then now) in respect of the times wherein they liued, raging with persecution, and in regard of the places, vncapeable of such multitudes, it is vncredible, yea impossible, that all the Christians in the greatest cities and countries about them, should make but one particular congregation, ordinarily and constantly meeting in one place. Neither doth that further his cause, which hee professeth to be their assertion, that the Christians which dwelt in and about any great Citie, and were called the Church of the Citie, were members of one body: for not onelyonly they, but also those that dwelt in the remotest parts of the Country (though distinguished into many particular congregations) did not hold themselues to bee entire bodies by themselues (vnlesse they were schismatickes or heretikes) but all members of the same outward body and visible Church, whereof the mother Church in the citie was the chiefe or head, by which they were denominated, and also distinguished (as now they are) from other Churches.
§ 4. Of the number of Christians in one Citie. Ad pag. 63.Hauing thus cauilled with the consequence, hee proceedeth to the antecedent, (which is the assumption of his syllogisme) denying eueryevery particular branch thereof. And first for the number: hee would examine my proofes: but what should hee speake of proofes, when all I say is but vponupon imagination? Verily, for ought I see, my imaginations are better reasons then your strongest proofes. And that here appeareth where you weaken my imagination, J will not say falsifie it, by propounding it after your maner. But could a man professing sincerity, so cast off all shame, as to affirm that all I say, is but vponupon imagination, when of that which I say there are foure proofes set downe in the Sermon? first, by comparison of the lesse to the greater: secondly, an instance of Rome: thirdly, the testimony of Cornelius: fourthly, the testimony of Tertullian. The first he propundeth thus: If the multitude of Christians at Ierusalem within a few weekes after Christ was very great, then was it great in such cities. But the former is true: Therefore the latter.
It is your fashion to make my consequences not to exceed the proportion of your owne imagined ability in answering them. My reason standeth thus:
If the multitude of Christians at Ierusalem was verie great within a few weekes after the ascension of Christ; then in all likelihood the number of Christians in greater cities hauing the like (though not alwaies so great) meanes, was within two hundred yeeres increased so much, as to exceed the proportion of one particular assembly, ordinarily meeting in one place.
But the former is true:Act. 2.41. Act 4 4. Act. 6.1.7. (for at the Feast of Pentecost 3000. were conuerted in one day, and shortly after their number was growne to 5000. which afterwards daily and mightily increased) therefore the latter.
In my argument (as you see) comparison is made not onelyonly betweene Ierusalem and other greater Cities, but chiefly (which was omitted by the Refuter) betweene the short time of a few weekes, and the continuance of 200. yeeres. Jf at Ierusalem, within a few weekes, the Christians were become many thousands; how may wee thinke they were increased before the end of 200. yeeres, in Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus, Antioch, and such like Cities? So that I doubt not, but the consequence is strong enough (containing an argument from the lesse to the greater) though I prooue none of those foure things which hee would hauehave prooued: as first, that all which were conuerted in Ierusalem at that time, remained members of that Church. Which maketh not against the consequence, but rather for it, seeing those which remained not in Ierusalem, were by persecution dispersed to other Cities, to helpe forward the plough of Christ there. Secondly, that all the great Cities had the like meanes to that of Ierusalem: which needeth not to be proued, seeing the meanes which had beene vsed, and the miracles which had beene wrought at Ierusalem, were also effectuall in other places, and are at this day, besides the like meanes of their owne. Thirdlie, though the meanes were alike, that yet the effects were answerable: which also needeth not to be prooued, seeing wee know by the report of the best Writers, how wonderfully and miraculously the Church was multiplied in the greatest Cities within that time. Fourthly, that there was neuer any apostasie in any of those Churches with which Paul (in his conceit) doth seeme to charge them of Asia, 2. Tim. 1.15. Which exception also is friuolous,2. Tim. 1.15. seeing not only the Churches of the greatest Cities, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, but euen these seuen of Asia, were famous in those times for the profession of the faith. Thus you see, how he seeketh all the corners of his wit, to finde, if it were possible, some starting hole, whereby to escape the force of this consequence. But these points are not worth the standing on.
§. 5. Pag. 57. & 63. Whether all in Asia made an apostasie from the faith in Pauls time.Only whereas now hee chargeth, the second time, all them of Asia, with apostasie from the faith, because S. Paul saith, that all who are in Asia had forsaken him; hee must be admonished to reforme his iudgement. For first, Paul speaketh not of all the Christians of Asia, but onelyonly of all those Asians of note, who had beene in Rome since his imprisonment: of which number (saith hee) are Phygellus and Hermogenes. Neither doth hee speake of an apostasie from the faith, but of their forsaking him in his affliction, as the Disciples had shrunke from our Sauiour Christ: for else, when hee saith in the fourth chapter of the same epistle, In my first Apologie no man stood with me, 2. Tim. 4.16.but all …id forsake me, wee might in like manner collect, that all were Apostares from the faith. But what kinde of desertion Paul meaneth, whereinto those of Asia did fall, it appeareth by the contrary practise of Onesiphorus, whom he commendeth in the same place, who often refreshed Paul, and was not ashamed of his chaine: but when he was at Rome, hee was so farre from shrinking from Paul, that hee most diligently sought him out and found him. The others of Asia (of whom hee complaineth) when they were in Rome, shrunke from him, as being ashamed or afraid of his chaine. Thus Chrysostome expoundeth it, that Paul when hee was apprehended,Chrys. in 2. Tim. 1. hom. 3. was forsaken of his friends: foreign: it is likely there were many then in Rome, from the parts of Asia; but none, saith hee, stood to mee, no man would know me, all were estranged from me. Theophylact likewise: When Paul was apprehended of Nero, hee was forsaken of all the faithfull in Asia. who from Asia had gone to Rome with him. O…cumenius in like manner: When Paul was apprehended of Nero, his friends of Asia did forsake him: for there were in Rome many of Asia which were followers of Paul, or otherwise faithfull men; but all foreign, withdrew themselues, and as we say, drew their neckes out of the collar, after Nero had laid hold on him. foreign, (saith hee) foreign: those in Asia, that is, those of Asia. It is likely (saith Theodoret) that some of those which in Asia had beleeued were at Rome, but auoided the companie of Paul for feare of Nero.
As for the assumption,§. 6. Of the number of Christians at Ierusalem. Ad pag. 64. viz. that the multitude of Christians at Ierusalem within a few weekes was great, it maketh nothing (saith he) for him, or against vsus. Which is a strange speech, seeing it is one of the premisses whereupon the conclusion is inferred, and which being granted, their assertion cannot be true. But heere againe hee telleth vsus of the great parishes about London, saying, that they of Ierusalem did all meet together as well as they. Which is spoken against reason, and against sense: for first, it was not intended, that they of Ierusalem should meet, as those of London which be of one parish, after their multitude was increased. Secondly, neither might they (being vnderunder persecution) meet in great multitudes, as those of London, which through Gods goodnes enioy peace and liberty. Thirdly, neither had they such places of meeting for great multitudes. But where I said, it was not intended, when their multitude should bee great, that they of Ierusalem should assemble together, as they who are of one parish about London; that needeth some explanation. The parishes about London, and eueryevery where from the beginning, are each of them one among many, seuered from the rest, with purpose that all within that precinct should make an ordinarie set congregation, hauing one Presbyter, and not a presbyterie, much lesse a Bishop assigned to them: whereas contrariwise, the Church of Ierusalem, whereunto Iames was appointed Bishop, assisted with a presbyterie of Ministers, was neuer intended to be one parish among many, but to bee a mother Church, which should by Gods blessing beget others to bee seuered from it in particular assemblies, and yet to remaine subordinate and subiect vntounto it, as children to the mother. It was neuer meant, neither in Ierusalem, nor in any other Citie, that the Bishop and his presbyterie should bee set ouer no more but one particular congregation; or that as more congregations should bee constituted, euerie one should hauehave a Bishop and a presbyterie. But they were prouided for the people of God, that either then were in the Citie and Countrey, or after should bee; which as it increased, was to be diuided into seuerall Congregations, whereunto Presbyters seuerally were to bee assigned; all being members of one bodie, subiected to the Bishop and Presbyterie of the mother Church, which was (as it were) the head of that bodie.
§. 7. He retorteth my argumēt.The Refuter not contented thus to hauehave cauilled with my argument, doth also threaten (as though he had wrested my weapon out of my hands) to turne the poem of it (such is his crueltie) to the very heart of my cause. But his minaces are but words, and his words but winde: for this is all he can say or doe:
If the Christians in Ierusalem were not so many but that still they continued one parishionall assemblis, meeting together in one place; then the Christians of other Cities might be, and did so in like sort.
But the antecedents is crue: therefore the consequent.
Of the consequence (hee saith) no reasonableman can make any doubt: and so taketh it for granted, wanting reason to prooue it.Me thinkes there is great reason, why I should not onelyonly doubt of it, but plainely denie it: for when he saith, At Ierusalem they were not so many &c. hee should hauehave said when; and that still they continued, &c. hee should hauehave said how long; that being compared with other Cities at the same time, and of the like continuance, the reason of his consequence might appeare. There bee three reasons to be giuen, why the Church at Ierusalem should not bee at the end of one hundred or two hundred yeeres, so great as in other Cities. First, the persecution begunne with the martyrdome of Steuen, and continued vntill the destruction of Ierusalem: vponupon the beginning of which persecution,Act. ….1. Rom. 9.10.11. all the faithfull in Ierusalem (except the Apostles) were dispersed into other parts. Secondly, …he reiection of the Iewes, (for the generality of them) when the Gentiles were to be called. 3. The destruction of Ierusalem by Titus, After which time the BB of Ierusalem were of the Gentiles, who till then had beene of the circumcision.about the yeare 72. and finall extirpation of the Iewes out of Ierusalem by Aelius Hadrianus about the yeare 137. who called it Aelia after his owne name, prohibiting any …ew to come any more within that City. So that if it were true, that the number of the Christians in Ierusalem within the first 200. yeares had neuer exceeded the proportion of a parishional assembly: yet hereof it would not follow, that the number of Christians in other Cities, should for 200. yeares continue so smal. No reasonable man therefore would looke to hauehave that consequence granted him.
The Assumption also is false.§ 8. The church of Ierusalem not parishionall. The Church of Ierusalem, whereof Iames was Bishop, neuer was a Parish; so far was it frō continuing so still. But as the people both in the City and Country were vnderunder one high Priest; so was it intended, that all the Christians, both in the City and count…y should be vnderunder the Bishop of Jerusalem, and so continued vntill the destruction thereof. Afterwardes, because that City being destroied, Caesarea was made by the Romans the Metropolis of Iewry; it came to passe (the church following the common-wealth) that the Bishop of Caesarea was the Metropolitan. The Bishop of Ierusalem hauing the Bishopricke of the City, & the places adioining. Howbeit, in processe of time, the Christians honouring the place, granted the prerogatiue of the 4. Patriarchship to the Bishop of Ierusalem or Aelia, Conc. Nic. c. 7.reseruing to Caesarea the Metropolis, her owne dignity.
Nether is it probable, that the Church at Ierusalem after they once came to the number of 5000 (as quickly it did, & continued with great increase vntil the death of Steuē ) did ordinarily meete all in one place. We reade of some Panegyricall meetings, as it were, in Salomons porch, and in the temple, such as be the meetings at Paules Crosse, or at the Spittle; but their ordinarie, & as it were parishionall meetings, were by cōpanies in more priuate places. Nay, I say further, that the meetings either of the 12. Apostles, (who neuer were intended to be members, either all, or any of them, of one parish) with the Disciples, Act. 6.1. or of some of them with the Presbyters, and whole assembly, Act. 15.22.26. (which places are by the refuter alleadged) were not parishionall, but rather Synodicall.
As for those other places in the Acts: some of them are ignorantly, some absurdly alleadged. In the 2. of the Acts he quoteth three places, viz. the two first verses, 6. & 44. In the first, it is said, that when the day of Pentecost was come, they were all with one accord in the same place. All, that is, all the Apostles, whose mutuall society, and conuersing together is noted. So doe some old Manuscrpts reade, saith Beza, foreign, all the Apostles. For to them alone had Christ promised, that they should bee baptized,Act. 1.5. after a few dayes, with the holy Ghost, and to that purpose hee commaunded them to stay at Ierusalem, expecting the performance of this promise. Luke also sheweth, who they were, verse 14. saying, that Peter stood with the eleuen, and the people who wondred at them, seem to in…inuate, saying, are not all these men of Galilee? Is it not strange then, that the conuersing of the Apostles together in one house, should be alleadged as an example, yea patterne of a parishionall assembly? Or if by all, were ment the 120. Disciples assembled before the descending of the holy Ghost; how doth it proue, either that they were a parishionall assembly, wherein the 12. Patriarches of Christendome were met; or that they continued for an 100. or 200. yeares, so small a company as a parishionall assembly; seeing within a few dayes, yea the very same day, they grew to bee many thousands?
In the 6. verse it is said, that when this voice or rumor was spread in the streetes concerning the Apostles, speaking with variety of tongues, great multitudes of people flocked together, not of Christians (to make a parishionall assembly,) but of all sorts to behold this wonder: whereat when some had wondred, and some had scoffed, by Peters sermon, 3000. of them were conuerted.
In the 44. verse, Luke saith, that all they which belieued, were foreign, and had all things common, and sold their possessions, &c. Where foreign, doth either signifie they conuersed together in one place, and kept company one with another, and so speaketh not of their assemblies, for vers. 46. hee speaketh of their meeting in the temple, (where they could not meet alone,) wherein nationall, rather then parishionall meetings vsed to bee assembled: or else it signifieth they were in one, that is, they were ioined together in heart and affection, as it is said Act. 4.32. which sense Caluin preferreth. There remaineth Act. 21.22. where the Presbyters of Ierusalem, who were with Iames their Bishop, when Paul came to him, tell Paul that it cannot be auoided, but the multitude would come together, hearing that he was come. Vnderstanding by the multitude, either the multitude of the people of Ierusalem, as well those which belieued not, as those which did, (for they direct him to goe into the temple, there to shew himselfe to be an obseruer of the law) or the company of beleeuers onelyonly, who when they would flocke together to see him, should find him in the temple conforming himselfe to the law of Moses. But to the absurditie of alleadging these places, this is added, that none of them reach any thing neare the time which we speake of. For the 2. of the Acts speaketh of that which was done within a fortnight after Christs Ascension. The 6. before the martyrdome of Steuen: the 15. aboue 20. yeares, the 21. about 15. years before the destruction of Ierusalem, that is, almost 150. yeares before the period of that time whereof we speake. And yet in Act. 21. there is mention of I know not how many ten thousands of belieuing Iewes; ver. 20. You see, say they to Paul, foreign, how many ten thousands there are of belieuing Iewes, &c.
My second argument to proue,§. 9. My Instance from the City of Rome. that in some Cities the multitude of Christians did not ordinarily assemble in one place, as one set particular congregation, is a particular instance of the City of Rome, in these words.
(Serm. Sect 6. Pag. 20. At Rome about the yeare 100. the Company of Christians being much increased &c. Euaristus diuided them into diuers Parishes, &c. to Apolog. c. 37. pag. 21.
To this instance his answere is twofold. First, that it is but a tale of no credite, nor truth . Of no credite; because, both the author deserueth no credite, and the matter reported by him, is vnlikely and vntrue. The Author, either because wrongfully hee beareth the name of Damasus; or if it be Damasus himselfe, hee is not to be credited in reporting a matter done 300. yeares before his time. So that wee are resolued to deny it, let the author bee who hee will. Yea, but the Venetian Edition of the Councels chargeth that Author (but hee saith not where) with disagreement from other approued histories, (but he saith not wherein.) Doth hee in this particular disagree from approued histories? Or is there any reason, why he should be suspected of forgery in this particular? In all writings of the Romanists, which are suspected of forgery, there is something contained which seemeth to bee coined, or foisted in for an aduantage. Now I would gladly know, to what end they should faine this particular? serueth it to magnifie the Papall supremacy, or to maintaine any of their corruptions, or to contradict their opposites in any thing which they held in former times? Nothing lesse. For to begin with the last; It could not bee counterfeited with purpose to contradict any body; for, that one and the same Church, was and ought to be diuided into Parishes, and that Presbyters were and ought to be seuerally appointed to them, neuer any man that J hauehave read or heard of, denied before T. C. Not Caluin, nor Beza, nor any other fauourer of the pretended Discipline before him. Likewise, that which is reported, was a godly and necessary act, which had been practised long before this in Alexandria (though I knew not so much when I made the Sermon, but you shall heare of it in due place) which also was practised vponupon the like occasion in all the Churches of the world: that is to say, when the number of Christians was so increased, that they could not all conueniently meet in one place; they were by their B. diuided into diuers assemblies. Was not this done in all Churches whatsoeuer yea ought it not to hauehave bene done? In Rome it was done, long before the time of Damasus (for before his time there were aboue 40. parish Churches built in Rome) and no doubt but it had a beginning, and a beginner; which, if it were not Euaristus, let it be shewed who it was. It was done, as J will straight waies note, before Tertullians time, who flourished about the year 180. And therfore if not by Euaristus, thē by one of the other anciēt BB. within the compas of the limited time, who were godly BB. & famous Martyrs.
That it was Euaristus his act (to let passe Damasus, and the volumes of the councils which report it out of him, Platina, Onuphrius before cited, and Sabelliciu testifying the same:Ennead. 7. l. 4.) others as opposite to Popery as our refuter, hauehave beleeued, & accordingly reported. Iohn Bale reporteth of Euaristus, that hee shining with the grace of God, euen in the time of persecution increased the number of the sacred assemblies of Christians.De viti… R. pō tif. in Euaristo. Likewise Robert Barnes that famous Martyr saith, Presbyteris Rome, titulos distribuit: Hee distributed the titles or parishes to the Presbyters. To these I might adde the testimony of a Protestant writer, who for 30.De vitis pōtif. yeares together studiously laboured in penning a Chronologie (though it be not printed) wherein among other things he reporteth of Euaristus (who as he noteth was made Bishop of Rome in the yeare 99.Will. Harison Prebendary of Windsore.) that hee brought the places of the assemblies of the Christian brethren in Rome vntounto 7▪ congregations▪ & appointed to each of them seuerall pastors & teachers, that they might by such means remaine more secret, liue in better securitie, and heare the word with more ease and profit, then otherwise they could (considering the iniquity of the time) if they did meete in greater nūbers.
As touching the matter, he saith. 1. it is vnlikely that the Presbyters attended the flocke promiscuously, §. 10.and the people met in diuers places vncertainely: and yet that which he excepteth against as the matter, is not so much as material. The question is, whether Euaristus diuided the Church of Rome into diuers seuerall congregations, and assigned seuerall Presbyters to them, as Damasus reporteth. But whether the Presbyters before attended them promiscuously, or the people mette vncertainly, that is not the question. But seing hee is pleased to except against those words which are not in Damasus, but Onuphrius & my selfe added as a reason of Euaristus his act; let him also be pleased to answer me, whether the whole Christian people of Rome in the city, suburbs & country adioyning, did vsually & ordinarily meete together in one assembly throghout the whole term of 200. years; or in diuers assemblies, as they could most conueniently. If they alwaies or most vsually met together; then, whether alwaies in one certain place, or in diuers vncertainly & occasionally. The former himselfe denieth. If the latter, then the Presbyters had not charge of them seuerally, but of them al promiscuously: then also the people met vncertainly. If they did not ordinarily meet all together, but in diuers assemblies (which is the truth) then, whether were the seuerall meetings set and certain, and seueral Presbyters appointed to them: or were the meetings and Presbyters for the instructing of those assemblies, appointed vncertainely, as occasion and opportunity serued. If the latter, which seemeth to hauehave beene the vse before Euaristus his time: then that is true, which hee excepteth against. If the former, which was brought to passe by Euaristus, then the maine assertion which he oppugneth, is true.
Secondly, he would proue it to be false, and that by 2. testimonies, the former of Iustin Martyr, an. 142. Who directly affirmeth of the Church of Rome in speciall (as in generall of all other Churches) that they vsed vponupon the sabbath day all to assemble together in one place.Ad. Pag. 65. Iust. Mar…. Apolog. 2. His words are these: On the sunday as it is called, all the Christians dwelling in the cities, or abroad in the countries, do come together in the same place. He speaketh not of the Church of Rome in speciall, but of the practise of all Christians in general. Is therefore the word all to bee taken collectiuè, or distributiuè? if in the former sense, then his meaning should be that all Christians in the world, whether they dwelt in cities or countreys, did on the Lords day meet in one place; which is absurd. If the latter, then he meaneth all them distributiuely, who, whether they liued in the cities or countries, belonged to one congregation. As if one of vsus speaking of the custome of our times should say, foreign, on Sunday so called, there is a comming together of all into one place who doe dwell in the cities or the countries: that is, all in eueryevery place that belong to the same congregations. And that it is so to be vnderstood, it appeareth by the word foreign Cities, propounded in the plurall nūber. For his meaning neuer was, that the people of diuers cities did meet ordinarily together: & the note of disiūction … or, added to the word foreign cuntry, doth signifie that those of the country did not al meet with thē of the City; for then he would hauehave said foreign: but that al did meet in their seuerall congregations, whether they liued in the cities or coūtries.
His other testimony is of Platina, §. 11. Plat. de vit. pontif. in Dionysio.affirming that Dionysius about 160. yeares after Euaristus, did first diuide and set (out) parishes, and therefore hee referreth him & Damasus to Onuphrius to be reconciled. But well may this refuter with shame enough hide his head, who shameth not so oft to falsifie the authors which hee quoteth. This is that which Platina reporteth of Dionysius, that he being made B. straightwaies diuided the Churches and coemiteries (which were the places of christian meetings) in the city of Rome to the presbyters:Presbyteris ecclesi… et coemiteria in vrbe Roma statim diuisit. but he saith not that he first did it; neither was it his mening: for he had said the same before of Euaristus. Abroad also, saith he, in the country, he distributed parishes & dioceses (so coūtry parishes are called) to the end that eueryevery one should be content with his bounds & limits. Agreeable hereunto is the report of Dionysius himself (if it be himself) in his epistle to Seueru… the B. of Corduba. Dionys. epist. ad Seuerī.For wheras Seuerus had asked his directiō, what course was to be takē cōcerning parish churches throghout the prouince of Corduba: he wisheth him to follow that, which he had lately done in the church of Rome, ecclesias vero singulas, singulis presbyteris dedimus, seueral Churches we assigned to seueral presbyters, & diuided to thē the churches & coemiteries, & ordained that eueryevery one shold hauehave his proper right, in such sort as that none may inuade the lands, bounds or right of another parish, but that eueryevery one should be content with his owne boundes, and so keepe his church and people committed to him, that before the tribunall of the eternall Iudge he may giuegive an account of all committed to him, and may receiue glorie and not iudgement for his deeds.
De episcopat. et titul. &c.Now these reports are easily reconciled, with the afore cited testimony of Damasus. For, as Onuphrius also hath obserued, Euaristus first diuided the parishes to the presbyters, the nūber wherof by Hyginus not lōg after was augmēted an. 138 After whō nothing was altered vntill the time of Dionysius: an. 260. who increased the nūber of the parishes, which afterwards were multiplied by Marcellus, about the yeare 305 &c. Besides, thogh Euaristus first diuided the parishes in Rome; yet Dionysius might be the first that set out the coū try parishes. Which distinction, if it wil salue their credits, who hauehave said that Dionysius first diuided parishes, I wil not be against it. His 2. answere is, that if Euaristus did any such thing, he diuided the titles to only gouerning elders &c. A likely matter. For the titles were the sacrae aedes, the places of metings vntounto Gods worship, in which the Presbyters, or as Dionysius calleth thē, sacerdotes the Priests, were ordained to feed the people cōmitted to them, with the ministery of the word & sacraments, and goe before them in the worship of God. But of lay elders I hauehave sufficiently spoken before, if any thing wil suffice, to perswade men, that there neuer were any such in the church of God.
§. 12. The testimony of Cornelius. Euseb. l. 6. c. 43My 3. proof, is the testimony of Cornelius the B. of Rome: who, as he saith, there were 46. Presbyters at that time in the Church of Rome, & 108 others of the clergy, & 1500. poor people maintained al of them by the contributiō of christians: so he calleth the Christian people in Rome foreign, a very great & innumerable people. Did the B. and 154. clergy men attend one parishionall assembly only? was there 1500. poor christians, besides 154 of the clergy, together with the B. maintained of one parishional congregatiō? was an innumerable people, the people of one particular ordinary congregation assembling in one place? This testimony, saith our refuter, is quite besides the purpose, a fift part (meaning 50. yeres beyond the time we speak of. The limitatiō of the time, wherto they hauehave cōfined the primitiue church was deuised for a poor shift, because they knew there was not the like euidence for the 2. century, as for the 3. Otherwise, what reasō can be rēdred, why there should be diuers parishes vnderunder one B. in the year 250. if it were not so in the year 200? especially, seing they, which of purpose hauehave written of these things, do professe that there was no differēce in the nūber of the parishes in that time, & 10. years after. What reson can be giuē, why the christian people which was innumerable in the yeare 250. should hauehave been in the yeere 200. the people of one particular parish? especially, seeing good authors before the year 200, doe acknowledge as much as if they had said, that then they were innumerable.
To which purpose in the 4 place I quoted Tertullian, The testimony of Tertullian.whom J needed not, if we wil beleeue the refuter, to hauehave cited, seeing (saith he) he speaketh vnlimitedly of the christiās in the Romane Empire, & saith nothing herein that w…e deny, nor ought for M.D. profit. By his good leaue therefore, I will recite the words. For after that hee had professed that christians then (contrary to the iudgement and practise of the Papists now) thought it vnlawfull for them to auenge themselues on their persecutors,Tertul. apol. c. 37. he saith: For if we should shew our selues to be open enemies & not secret auengers, should we want either number or strength? we are aliants frō you, et vestra omnia implenimus, and we hauehave filled al places that are yours, cities, Islands, Castles, towns, assemblies &c. only your temples we leaue vntounto you. If we should but depart away from you, the losse of so many citizens would amaze you. Without doubt you would be astonished ad solitudinē nostrā at the solitarines which our absēce would make, you would seek the reliques of a dead city, wherein you might rule, more enemies then citizens wold remain vntounto you; but now you hauehave the fewer enemies by reason of the multitude of Christians, penè … ci…ium, being almost all citizens, penè omnes ciues Christianos habendo, by hauing almost al your Citizens Christians. Let the Reader judge what the number of Christians were in those times, & whether Tertullian doth not speake chiefly of the city of Rome; & let him consider whether almost all the citizens of Rome (of whom ordinarily there were diuers hū dred thousands) besides christian strangers, seruants, and the female sex, were like to be the people of one parish.
Ad Scapulam.The same author speaking to the same purpose in another place, saith, it may be sufficiently manifest vntounto you that we deale according to the doctrine of diuine patience Seing we being so great a multitude of men, euen the greatest part almost of eueryevery city, do cary our selues in silence & modestie.
And so much concerning the multitude of the people.
§ 13: The time and place.(Serm sect. 7. p. 21. Ad to the multitude of the people, the consideration of the times, raging for the most part with persecution &c. to the end of the 2. point.)
As touching the times, the refuter answereth, that how furiously soeuer the times raged with persecution: yet the christian people did vsually assemble together. Whereof I doubt not But the question is, whether in diuers congregations, as I say, & as it is most euidēt; or altogether in one place, which is altogether vncredible. As for the places, wherin the christians in the first 200. yeares vsed to assemble, especially in time of persecution; whereas I say they were priuate houses, vaults and secret places not capable of such multitudes, as hauehave bin spoken of; for refuge he flieth to the v…lts & holes, as he calleth thē, which he supposeth were capable of great multitudes, but omitteth priuate houses, and other small roomes turned to this vse. And whereas J say they were not capable of such multitudes, as were th… whole companies of Christians in the greatest cities, proued before to hauehave bin in a manner innumerable, hee onelyonly saith great multitudes. But what we are to cōceiue of this point, let vsus enquire of Hospinian a Protestant writer,De origin. templor. c. 6. who hath trauelled in this argument. He therefore saith, in the time of the Apostles, and some while after, the places of meetings which Christians had, were simple houses, neither were they permitted by the cruelty of tyrants, and rage of the people, to build, I say not magnificent, but not meane Temples. The places therefore of publike meetings in those times were base, more like dens and secret corners, then magnificall Temples, as Eusebius …estifieth. And Tertullian plainly affirmeth, that in his time the Christians had no other temples but simple houses.Lib. 5. de inuent. c. 6. Polydor Virgil testifieth, that the Christians were so far from hauing any temple built in these times, that all was secret, & their places of meeting were chapels, and those hidden and for the most part vnderunder the ground, rather then in open and publike places.De orig. err… rum. lib. 1. c. 21. Bullinger likewise saith, that the antient Christians vnderunder Constantine the Great, were wont vnderunder the quire of the temples to build crypta…, vaults, in memory of the persecutions, whereby the Christians vnderunder the Emperors before Constantine, were not suffered sometimes to come abroad; and therfore they were forced to hold their assemblies, and performe the sacred exercises in secret, sometimes in dens and other priuy places.
But, saith the Refuter, Let them bee as little as he would make them, yet it doth not follow hereof, that the Churches in the Cities alone, contained many particular congregations or parishes.Ad pag. 66. To which purpose againe, he alleageth his chapels of ease for a meere euasion, seeing himselfe is perswaded there was none such in those times. And where he saith, that although there were diuers places of meeting in those times, yet all appertained to one congregation ; I confesse it to be true: for euen after the distinction of parishes both in citie and country, all of them belonged to one Church, as mēbers of the same body. Yea but, saith he, if there were many particular congregations in eueryevery city, how chanceth it, he told vsus before, that the parishes were not distinguished? Distinguish the times, and the answere is easie. In the first hundred yeeres, though Christians met in diuers places, as they could; yet neither, were there in the most cities certaine set places of meeting, nor certaine Presbyters assigned to them, as to their perpetuall and peculiar charge. But at the end of the first hundred yeeres, Euaristus diuided to seuerall Presbyters in Rome, titles, that is, the set places of meetings, which we call parish Churches, whereof they were entituled, and called the Presbyters of such and such a title or parish.
And thus hauehave J maintained my arguments and answers against his cauils. Now am I to defend my assertion against his proofes.