Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	day_n	sabbath_n	sunday_n	1,780	5	11.2140	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20733	A defence of the sermon preached at the consecration of the L. Bishop of Bath and VVelles against a confutation thereof by a namelesse author. Diuided into 4. bookes: the first, prouing chiefly that the lay or onely-gouerning elders haue no warrant either in the Scriptures or other monuments of antiquity. The second, shewing that the primitiue churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment, were not parishes properly but dioceses, and consequently that the angels of the churches or ancient bishops were not parishionall but diocesan bishops. The third, defending the superioritie of bishops aboue other ministers, and prouing that bishops alwayes had a prioritie not onely in order, but also in degree, and a maioritie of power both for ordination and iurisdiction. The fourth, maintayning that the episcopall function is of apostolicall and diuine institution.	Downame, George, d. 1634.	1611 (1611)	STC 7115; ESTC S110129	556,406	714

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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how many ten thousands there are of belieuing Iewes c. My second argument to proue 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 haue 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 vpon 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 haue 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 others as opposite to Popery as our refuter haue 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 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. 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. that hee brought the places of the assemblies of the Christian brethren in Rome vnto 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 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 haue 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 vpon the sabbath day all to assemble together in one place 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

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 haue digged well and haue 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 haue 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 haue 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 Serm. sect 5. pag. 19. But the Antecedent is not onely 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 The number of the Christians in the greatest Cities was very great hee should haue 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 haue 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 haue been Themselues doe teach that parishes ought to bee so well compact and trussed together 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 vs 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 haue 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 onely 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 haue 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 onely 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 Hauing thus cauilled with the consequence hee proceedeth to the antecedent which is the assumption of his syllogisme denying euery 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 vpon 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 vpon 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 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 onely betweene Ierusalem and

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 onely doubt of it but plainely denie it for when he saith At Ierusalem they were not so many c. hee should haue said when and that still they continued c. hee should haue 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 vpon the beginning of which persecution 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 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 haue that consequence granted him The Assumption also is false 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 vnder one high Priest so was it intended that all the Christians both in the City and count●y should be vnder 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Apostles For to them alone had Christ promised that they should bee baptized 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and had all things common and sold their possessions c. Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 onely 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

so gouerned still Whereunto I answere according to the euident light of truth that the Presbyters gouerned the Churches as vnder the Apostles and that but for a time vntill the Apostles substituted BB. or left them as their successors committing the gouernment of the seuerall Churches vnto them To the second part of his assumption I answere that the Apostles contradicted that gouernment which hee speaketh of by common counsell of Elders ruling without a B. not so much by words as by deeds when ordayning BB. in seuerall Churches they committed the whole care thereof as Ierome speaketh or at least the chiefe care and authoritie as Ignatius testifieth to them And so leauing the Refuter to rowle the stone he speaketh of I proceed to my third argument The III. CHAPTER Prouing that the Apostles themselues ordayned Bishops Serm. Sect. 5. pag. 65. But yet I proceede to a further degree which is to proue that the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. and committed the Churches to them and therefore that the Episcopall function is without question of Apostolicall institution c. to 38. yeares pag. 69. THE refuter would faine haue me seeme to proue idem per idem but that he could not but discerne that I argue from the ordination of the persons to the institution of the function against which consequence though himselfe say that without question it is good yet I confesse he might haue taken more iust exception then he hath hitherto against any which was not of his owne making so farre is it from concluding the same by the same For he might haue said though they ordayned the persons yet Christ instituted the function and that is the iudgement of many of the Fathers who holde that our Sauiour Christ in ordayning his twelue Apostles and his seauentie two Disciples both which sorts he sent to preach the Gospell he instituted the two degrees of the ministerie BB. answering to the high Priest and Presbyters answerable to the Priests Againe those Fathers who affirme the BB. to be the successors of the Apostles doe by consequence affirme that Christ when he ordayned Apostles ordayned BB. and Cyprian in plainetermes saith so much that our Lord himselfe ordayned Apostles that is to say Bishops For the Popish conceipt that the Apostles were not made Priests till Christs last supper nor BB. till after his resurrection as it is sutable with other their opinions deuised to aduance the Popes supremacy so it is repugnant to the iudgement of the ancients contrary to the truth Seeing the very Disciples who were inferiour to the Apostles were authorized before Christs last supper to preach to baptise Neither had they or needed they any new ordination whereby they might be qualified to administer the Sacrament But of this matter I will not contend for whether the function were first ordayned by Christ or instituted by the Apostles Christ is the authour thereof either immediatly according to the former opinion or mediatly according to the latter And those things are said to be of Apostolicall institution which Christ ordayned by the Apostles The antecedent of my argument viz. that the Apostles ordayned BB. and committed the Churches to them was in the Sermon explaned and proued by shewing the time when the places where the persons whom the Apostles ordayned BB. As concerning the time I said there was some difference betweene the Church of Ierusalem and the rest in respect of their first Bishop For there because shortly after Christs passion a great number were conuerted to the faith for we read of three thousand conuerted in one day and because that was the mother Church vnto which the Christians from all parts were afterwards to haue recourse the Apostles before their dispersion statim post passionem Domini straight wayes after the passion of our Lord ordayned Iames the iust Bishop of Ierusalem as Ierome testifieth Here my refuter maketh me to argue thus culling out one part of my argumentation from the rest Iames was ordayned Bishop by the Apostles therefore the Apostles ordayned Bishops And then denieth the consequence because though Iames being an Apostle had Episcopall power in respect of ordination and iurisdiction yet it would not follow that the Apostles ordayned Diocesan Bishops in other Churches But my argument is an induction standing thus The Apostles ordayned BB. at Ierusalem and in other Churches which afterwards particularly I doe enumerate therefore they ordayned BB. That they ordayned BB. at Ierusalem I proue because they ordayned Iames the Iust and Simon the sonne of Cleophas BB. of Ierusalem That they ordayned Iames B. of Ierusalem I proue in this section That they ordained Simon the sonne of Cleophas B. of Ierusalem and Bishops in other Churches I proue afterwards according to the order of time Beginning here with Ierusalem because that Church had first a Bishop Now that Iames was by the Apostles made B. of Ierusalem I proue by these testimonies first of Ierome whose words are these Iames who is called the brother of our Lord f●●named the iust straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was ordayned by the Apostles the Bishop of Ierusalem This is that Ierome on whose onely authoritie almost the Disciplinarians in this cause relye alledging out of him that Bishops were not ordayned till after the Apostles times Secondly of Eusebius and of the most ancient histories of the Church whose testimonies he citeth to this purpose first therefore he saith in generall that the histories before his time did report that to Iames the brother of our Lord surnamed the iust the throne of the Bishopricke of the Church in Ierusalem was first committed Then particularly he citeth Clemens Alexandrinus testifying that Iames Peter and Iohn after the ascension of our Sauiour did choose Iames the iust Bishop of Ierusalem Afterwards Hegesippus who was nere the Apostles times as Ierome speaketh being as Eusebius saith in the very first succession of the Apostles to the like purpose Eusebius himselfe in his Chronicle translated by Ierome hath these words Iames the brother of our Lord is by the Apostles made the first Bishop of Ierusalem Againe in his history he not onely saith that Iames called the brother of our Lord was the first Bishop of Ierus●●em but also testifieth vpon his knowledge that the Episcopall throne or chaire wherein Iames sate as Bishop of Ierusalem and wherein all the BB. of that See succeeded him was yet in his time to be seene being preserued as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a worthy and sacred monument And finally both in his historie and Chronicle he setteth down the succession of the Bishops of Ierusalem from Iames vnto Macarius whom he noteth to haue been the thirtie ninth Bishop of Ierusalem reckoning Iames the first and Simon the second and Iustus the third Zacheus the fourth c. Epiphanius also testifieth that Iames the Lords brother was