had the Description from your self then have been thus bobb'd off to Blondel so laxely cited without Page Paragraph Number Chapter or Book as you cite him here so that I must be enforced if I will find it to turn over his whole Treatise a Book in Folio of 1268 Pages Whatsoever therefore is of him with whom I have nothing to do for the present for if I would answer every particular Author of yours whom you cite as wildly as you do this Blondell I might have work enough it is evident that some Extra-Imperial Provinces were under the Ancient Patriarchs And in the first place concerning the Bishop of Rome the 39 Canon of the Nicene Council in the Arabick Edition published by Pisanus which I shall cite more particularly hereafter and prove the Authenticalness of those Canons affirms expresly that the Roman Bishop as being Christ's Vicar has power over all Christian Princes and their people subject to them Tom. 1. Conc. p. 416. and that he as being the Vicar of Christ is over all people and all Christian Churches and Can. 36. declares that the Bishop of Alexandria has Jurisdiction over the Ethiopick Churches And Can. 35. orders that the Bishop of Antioch should have Authority over the Church of Persia which was Extra-Imperial And the Council of Chalcedon Ibid. pag. 4â—â—5 Can. 28 th so much extolled by you gives to the Bishop of Constantinople Authority over the Barbarous Nations near those parts that is such as were Extra-Imperial as that of Russia and Muscovia Baxter Num. 65. The Emperors themselves did sometime giving power to the Councils Acts make Rome the chief and sometime as the Councils did also give Constantinople equal priviledge and sometime set Constantinople highest as I have shewed in my Key pag. 174 175. But the Emperours had no power to do thus with respect to those without the Empire Iohnson Num. 65. I will here give my Reader an assay of the solidity of your proofs heaped confusedly one upon another in your Key You cite in pag. 174 175. Now pag. 174. you translate Pontifex Pope and summus Pontifex chief Pope Sure you never had this Translation from any Grammarian new or old Who ever before you said that Pontifex signifies Pope or what similitude is there betwixt Pontifex and Pope save onely that they both begin with the same Letter When S. Paul saith speaking of our Saviour Habemus Pontificem magnum Hâ—â—b 4.14 would you translate it We have a great Pope Or when he affirms that he is Pontifex secundum ordinem Melchisedec would you English it Hâ—â—b 6.20 He is a Pope according to the order of Melchisedec I alwayes thought that Pontifex or summus Pontifex signified the highest sort of Priests both in the Old Testament and the New but never heard that it signified Pope before But you have some drift in this Baronius say you in Martyrolog Roman April 9. affirms that all Bishops were stiled anciently not onely Pontifices but summi Pontifices that is say you Popes and chief Popes to infringe thereby what some gather as you say viz the Supremacy of the Roman Bishop from this Title of being stiled Summi Pontifices chief Popes say you pag. 173. You should have done well to have told us who those some were and would have done so had you writ like a Scholar But I 'le help you out for once Bellarmin is one of that some you speak of Lib. 2. de Pontif. Roman cap. 31. sect Quartum But Barenius say you affirms that Title to have been attributed anciently to all Bishops that 's true too if you take the Latin words but not in that sense wherein Bellarmin takes Summus Pontifex For Baronius takes it for a chief Priest and Bellarmin for the chiefest or highest Priest not onely in respect of simple Priests who are in a rank below Bishops and in relation to whom Bishops were anciently stiled summi Pontifices such as were in the highest order of Priests but absolutely in respect of all other Bishops in the Church For Bellarmin in proof of this Title cites an Epistle of Pope Stephen where the Bishop of Rome is stiled Summus omnium praesulum Pontifex the highest Bishop of all Prelates or Bishops In the same sense he cites S. Gregory and S. Bernard And lastly the sixth Synod which intitles him Act. 18. in Sermon Acclamatorio Sanctissimum Patrem nostrum summum Papam their most holy Father and most high Pope that is the highest of all Bishops even over the Bishops of that Council And though Baronius cited by you grant the bare words of summus Pontifex as they signifie onely a chief Priest were anciently given to all Bishops yet in his Annals Anno 215 216. num 3. from the Title of Pontifex maximus the greatest or highest Bishop that is summus Pontifex in Bellarmins sense he proves the eminent Authority of the Roman Bishop Now this is worth the noting also that you first take summus Pontifex for the chief Pope in Bellarmins sense and then prove that summus Pontifex as it signifies not the chief Pope but a chief Priest as Baronius takes it is no proof of his universal Authority In your second Paragraph you shew that the Titles Papa Dominus Pater Sanctissimus Beatissimus Dei amantissimus c. were commonly given to all Bishops Who confute you here who ever said these Titles prove his Supremacy The like is of the Church of Rome being called the mother of all Churches Paraph. 3. for the term mother may be understood either in relation to the first origin or fountain of Christanity and in this sense Hierusalem is the mother Church or in regard of authority and government which a mother hath over her children And in this sense the title of mother is attributed to the Roman Church and proves evidently her aâ—â—thority over all Christian Churches But is it not very handsome for you first to affix the title of mother absolutely to the Roman Church and then to infringe that title by saying the Church of Cesarea out of S. Basil is the mother of all Churches in a manner Would you think it a rational answer if one should prove your mother had authority to correct you by vertue of the title of mother Fallacy 10. you should answer that the tiof mother proves nothing for your elder sister was as a mother to you in a manner though she had no authority over you Is not not this a plain Fallacy from simpliciter to secundum quid In your fourth Paragraph you say If the words be consulted where the Roman Church is stiled mater Ecclesiarum mother of all Churches for that 's her title they signifie only priority of dignity that is without authority and jurisdiction over all Churches joyned to that dignity And this you never go about to prove so irrefragable is your authority that your bare word must passe for a proof I wonder you have
jejune gloss upon the title of universalis Ecclesiae Episcopus for in effect it comprehends all the authority which we ascribe to the Roman Bishop over the Church and as much nay much more then you would have signified by the title of the universal Bishop conformable to this title in its genuine signification are others of the like nature given to the Popes by the ancient Fathers Thus writes St. Ambrose ep 81. Ad Cyricium Papam Recognovimus literis sanctitatis tuae boni pastoris excubias quam fideliter tibi commissam januam serves pia solicitudine Christi ovile custodias we discover by your Holiness letters the watchfulness of a good Pastor how faithfully you keep the door committed to you and with how holy a care you preserve the fold of Christ. And again in 1. ad Tim. 3. Domus Dei est Ecclesia cujus hodie Rector est Damasus the house of God is the Church the Governor whereof is Damasus who was then the Bishop of Rome The Council of Chalcedon as we have already seen â—â—p ad Leonem sayes thus in super contra ipsum â—â—ui vineae custodia a Salvatore commissa est id est contra tuam Apostolicam sanctitatem extendit insaniam Moreover Dioscorus extends his madness against him to whom the care of the Vineyard was committed by our Saviour that is against this Apostolical sanctity An. Ed. Binnii p. 141. The Popes Legates in the Council of Chalcedon intitle Leo Caput universalis Ecclesiae head of the universal Church Now to imbroyle the controversie and cast a slurre upon Bellar. you put St. Greg. at odds with him and then ask which of those two is the wiser whereas Bell. promises first a distinction of two different significations of universalis Episcopus universal Bishops In the one he accords with St Gregory that the said title is prophane sacrilegious and Anti-christian and proves that St. Greg. took the words in that sence when he inveighed so highly against them and never asserts that Episcopus universalis taken in that prophane sence and Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae are of the same force Then he accommodates as you your self do though another way another signification to those words universal Bishop wherein they were taken in the bills directed to St. Leo in the Council of Chalcedon for neither would the Council have permitted nor those Catholiques and Clericks have ascribed a prophane sacrilegious and Anti-christian title to Pope Leo and it appears that as they took the word universal it had no more of the prophane c. in it as applyed to St. Leo then it had as apply'd to the Council of Chalcedon for to both of them they attribute universal as therefore the Council was truly universal in a most Catholique sence without any prejudice to other Bishops or the Hierarchy of the Church in the like sence did they understand Pope Leo to be universal Archbishop his universal jurisdiction suiting as well with the compleat authority of all other Bishops as did that of the Council for though the Council was truly universal in jurisdiction over the whole Church as I have proved yet that notwithstanding the Patholick Bishops became no substitutes Vicars or Officers to those of the Council but still remain'd absolute Officers of Christ and true Pastours Bishops Governors in place of Christ in their respective districts c. In like manner the Popes being universal in jurisdiction took not away any part of the full power and authority of other Bishops but consisted together with it as did the universal jurisdiction of the Council Now in this second and Catholick sense only Bellar. affirms that universal Bishop and Bishop of universal Church are the same in sense wherein there is no debate between him and St. Gregory Thus you cunningly delude your Readers by casting such confused mists as these before their eyes 59. By this the weakness of what you say next p. 264. is clearly discover'd where you vent rather your passion then speak reason against Bellar. for who can doubt but St. Gregory had ground enough to execrate as he did that title when it was so obnoxious in it self to prophaness c. And pretended by a person of so ambitious a spirit as was that Iohn of Constantinople that he was in danger to make the worse use of it for his own advantage Thus though Christotocos be capable of a true and Catholick sense yet because it is also capable and obnoxius since Nestorius his heresie to be taken in an heretical signification the Church forbade it as sacrilegious and prophane and much more as it was then used by Nestorius 60. In your answer to Bellar. second reason p. 264. you abuse both him and St. Gregory Bell. sayes the title of universal was not due to Iohn of Constantinople in neither of the two senses now delivered which you conceal and therefore was absolutely prophane and sacrilegious as applied to him in any sense whatsoever and yet even St. Gregory himself refus'd it as prophane c. Though in some sense it might be due to him to beat down the pride of Iohn you abuse St. Gregory in saying p. 265. That he approv'd that title for himself or that Bell. affirms he approved of it as for himself neither of them say any such matter prove they do Know you not that Malum ex quocunque defectu that every defect makes a thing evil seeing therefore there was a defect of a prophane signification and scandal in the title of universal for that defect he accounted it evil and absolutely disallowed of it nor could the capacity of that word to be taken in a more moderate sense prevail with him to approve of it quia malum ex quocunque defectu the other defect had corrupted it nor sayes Bellarmine that he approved it even for himself but that in some sence it agreed with him yet the danger of scandal in accepting a title so subject to bear a prophane sense deterr'd him from approving of it even for himself as knowing the curse which lyes upon those which give scandal to their weak brethren and that Christians are to avoy'd all appearance of evil 61. In your last clause of this paragraph you fall again into your old fallacie proceeding a notione secunda ad primam from the titles which hath two significations to the thing controverted which corresponds but to one of those significations I have proved though St. Greg. disallowed of that scandalous title yet both he and his predecessors allwaies admitted of an universal Soveraignty as it was explicated above most untrue therefore is your illation that it sprung up since St. Greg. dayes your next citation out of St. Gregory confirmes what I have now said he thought the title of universal by reason of the scandal comprized in it absolutely to be refus'd by all good Prelats And so does the rest that followes out of St. Gregory page 266. only in these words sed
in Councils that presided did govern them Mr. Baxter Num. 260. We must have new Grammars and Dictionaries to understand your translations Who ever said before you that praeesse signifies to go before I was alwayes taught and I think you too or you had a Sir Iohn lack-Latin for your Master that esse signifies to be and not to go and so praeesse is to be before or above another and not to go before them A servant may go before his Lady to usher her can it therefore be said praeest Dominae a horse goes before the Cart can you therefore say praeest currui We read Gen. 1. v. 16. that God made the Sun ut praeesset diâ—â—i would you translate that it might go before the day and v. 26. he gave power to man ut praeesset piscibus maris volucribus caeli c. will you translate that he might go before the beasts of the Earth and the birds of the Air and the 1. Tim. 3.5 si quis quis autem Domui suae praeesse nescit if any know not how to go before his family c. But to be more serious I challenge you to give me any one instance where praeesse signifies not to govern others as I translate it either in Scripture or antiquity Indeed Sir you are a worse Critick then you are a Controvertist I say not therefore 't is you who mistake it that to go before must be to govern but that praeesse aliis to govern them which all the world sayes with me Whence also that if Aurelius in quality of Primate in Africa did praeesse conciliis he also governed them as did anciently the Primate of England the Councils in England Mr. Baxter Num. 261. It was but benevolentiam praetulisse that they acknowledged and that the Magistrates not only presided indeed but did the work of Iudges and Governours is expresse in the Acts it s after wrote in that Epistle Haec sunt quae tecum qui spiritu praesens eras complacere tanquam fratribus deliberasti qui pene per tuorum vicariorum sapientiam videbaris à nobis effecimus William Iohnson Num. 261. Will you venture to Criticize again after your late foyle know you not that the Greek language is ful of courteous and friendly expressions it was indeed Leo's good will to send his Legates with their instructions to them but was it therefore no act of power and authority is it not benevolentia Principis to confer new honours upon his well deserving subjects seems it not therefore to be an act of Royal power over them who denies the Magistrates did the work of Judges but still in their kind and within their Sphere to see good order justice and peace observed amongst the Bishops But prove if you can they ever as Judges gave their suffrages and votes together with the Bishops in definitions of faith or framing Ecclesiastical decrees Mr. Baxter Num. 262. And haec à tua sanctitate fuerunt inthoata and yet qui enim locum vestrae sanctitatis obtinent iis ita constitutis vehementer resistere tentaverunt from all which it appeareth that he only is acknowledged to lead the way and to please them as his brethren and to help them by the wisdom of his substitutes yet that the Council would not yeild to their vehement resistance of one particular William Iohnson Num. 262. These consequences I understand as little as I do your translations I beseech you in your next draw something against my assertion from them Mr. Baxter Num. 263. But I have told you oft enough that the Council shall be judge not in a complemental Epistle but in Can. 28. where your Primacy is acknowledged but 1. as a gift of the Fathers 2. And therefore as new 3. For the Cities dignity 4. And it can be of no farther extent then the Empire the givers and this Council being but the members of that one Common-wealth so that all is but a novel Imperial Primacy William Iohnson Num. 263. This is already answered in part and shall be more fully when we come to it Mr. Baxter Num. 264. And for the words of Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 9. what are they to your purpose quantum loci authoritate signifieth no more then we confess viz. that in those times the greatness of Rome and humane ordination thereupon had given them that precedency by which their loci authoritate had the advantage of any other Seat Or else they had never swelled to their impious usurpation William Iohnson Num. 264. I see here you are as skilful in Chronologie as you are in Criticismes know you not that Vincentius speaks of St. Stephen Pope and Martyr who sate in the year 258. till 260. in whose time the temporal greatness of Rome served for nothing but to render its Bishops objects of tyranny and subjects of torments nor was there then any humane ordination at all either from general Councils or Christian Emperours from whom only you derive it for it was many years before them both which notwithstanding this ancient Catholique author sayes that even then in those purest times the Roman Bishop surpassed all other Bishops loci authoritate not in precedency only but in authority of his place Now I hope you will tell us in your next who if not our Saviour gave that Soveraign authority to the Bishop of Rome in those dayes Should one say the Lord Mayor of London surpasses all those of the City in the authority of his place signifies no more then that in publique meetings he is to take place of all the other Aldermen c. without any governing power over them would any rational man think he speaks sense Mr. Baxter Num. 264. I have plainly proved to you in the end of my safe Religion that Vincentius was no Papist William Iohnson Num. 265. I am subject to believe your proofs there wil be much like those which I lately examined in your Key The question is not now of what Religion Vincentius was but whether in this place he gave an unanswerable testimony of the Popes Supremacy I am sure the answer you have given to it is fallacious not distinguishing the time wherein Vincentius writ from the time whereof he writes in that Chapter and it is no less untrue and inconsistent in it self your constituting humane ordination for the Popes authority when there was none Mr. Baxter Num. 266. But you draw an argument from the word sanxit as if you were ignorant that bigger words then that are applyed to them that have no governing power Quantum in se sanxit he charged them that they should not innovate And what is it P. Stephen that is the Law-giver of the Law against unjust innovation did not Cyprian believe that this was a Law of Christ before Stephen medled in that business what Stephen's authority was in those dayes we need no other witnesses then Firmilian Cyprian and a Council of Carthage who slighted the Pope as
much as I do William Iohnson Num. 266. You criticize again Signifies sanxit to charge one I ever yet thought that sanxit signified he made a decree or a Law look into the Dictionaries and you 'l find it so A father charges his child to rise at six a clock in the morning will you say sanxit shew me in any approved ancient author that sanxit is ever applied to any who have not power to command or to give Laws to others in regard of whom they do sancire establish any thing to be observed The question is not now what Stephen did or Cyprian believed but what Vincentius sayes of Stephen he sayes sanxit he sent or fram'd a Law or decree that in matter of baptism of those who had been baptized by heretiques nothing should be innovated but what was delivered by tradition of receiving them into the Church without rebaptizing them should be observed this St. Cyrian questioned and inclin'd too much to the contrary Nor is the question here what Stephens authority was in other particulars or was not but whether Lyrinensis say that he had power and actually did sancire enact and make a Law to oblige all those in Africa in this particular Why divert you the question by so many turnes I leave your answer to judgement You still take all occasions to enervate the Popes authority by alleadging the opposition of those who you know and all the learned with you were in error against it such were those in that Council of Carthage Firmilian and St. Cyprian then whilst they defended the error of rebaptization Whence appears the untruth of what you affirm here that St. Cyprian knew that the ancient custome maintain'd by Pope Stephen of non-rebaptization was to be observed for he with Firmilian and Council of Carthage c. practised and taught the quite contrary Mr. Baxter Num. 267. I pray answer Cyprians testimony and arguments against Popery cited by me in the Disp. 3. of my safe religion William Iohnson Mum. 267. I see you 'l give me work enough if I had nothing else to do then busie my self with the tasks you set me what have I to doe now with the third disputation of your safe religion I believe I shall finde it much of the same temper with your key or whether St. Cyprians arguments are with or against Popery Our question is about Vincentius Lyrinensis his authority answer that in the true sense of the Latin word Sanxit and then wee 'l talk with you about other questions when occasion requires it Mr. Baxter Num. 268. You say you will conclude with the saying of your Priest Philip and Arcadius at Ephesus and 1. you take it for granted that all consented to what they contradicted not but your word is all the proof of the consequence Nothing more common then Senates and Synods to say nothing to many passages in speeches not consented to If no word not consented to in any mans speech must pass without contradiction Senates and Synods would be no wiser societies then Billinsgate affords nor more harmonious then a fair or vulgar rout what confusions would contradictions make amongst them William Iohnson Num. 268. Yet certainly if any one in your Council held at London an 1562 should have said as much of St. Peters and the Popes supremacy as this legate said in the Council of Ephesus he would have had all the new Bishops about his ears and a greater noise against him then was ever yet hard at Billingsgate which would have rung all the Kingdome over You answer to my difficulty is fallacious ex ignoratione elenchi you suppose me to argue thus in an universal proposition whatsoever is said by any particular person and not contradicted in Councils is consented to by the whole Council and upon this false supposition you frame your Reply Now I advance no such universal proposition at all in that place but argue from their silence or non contradiction to their consent out of the particuler instance of the legates delivering a doctrine in your principles absolutely destructive of the authority and jurisdiction of all the Bishops in the Council and therefore were obliged in conscience to contradict it their silence therefore evinces they conceived it was no disadvantage to them but a great advantage both to them and the whole Church and so argues they consented to it All therefore that I affirm is this whatsoever is said tending directly to the destruction of the authorities and priviledges of those to whom it is said as those words of the Legates must have done in your opinion would have been contradicted by them because they were all oblig'd to stand for the priviledges which Christ had given them and to oppose every one who delivered any doctrine contrary to them Seeing therefore not so much as any one in the Council speak the least word against the Legates its evident they esteemed not themselves to be injur'd or concern'd in them and consequently consented to their doctrine as Catholick and Orthodox nor any way abridging any Bishop there of those Episcopal dignities and jurisdictions conferr'd by our Saviours institution upon them Mr. Baxter Num. 269. You turne me to Tom. 2. pag. 327. Act. 1. I began to hope of some expedition here but you tell me not att all what author you use and in Binius which I use the Tomes are not divided into acts but chapters and pag. 327. is long before this Council so that I must believe you or search paper enough for a weeks reading to disprove you this once I will believe you to save me that labour and supposing all rightly cited I reply William Iohnson Num. 269. 'T was your want of books not mine of preciseness in citations for I cite Tome Act and page which created you this labour I had reason to think you were not ignorant that the edition of Paulus quintus ut supra was by actions not chap. And there you may finde it as I have cited it Mr. Baxter Num. 270. Phillip was not the Council you bare witnese to your selves therefore your witnesse is not credible William Iohnson Num. 270. Philip was not the council who sayes he was what then ergo his authority not contradicted by the Council as I have now declared is no good argument the Council consented to his doctrine make that good But suppose it had been Philip or Arcadius alone even speaking out of the Council it had concluded against you you have it seems forgot what you affirmed p. 2. your edit viz. But at least of four hundred years after Christ I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world that is one who was for the Popes universal monarchy or vice-Christship Now you know the Council of Ephesus was celebrated in the years 430 and 431. That is in a moral consideration of so many years 400 years after Christ and who can doubt that this Philip flourisht within the first 400 this testimony therefore
manifestly that in some of these Councils were many Bishops out of Spain France and Germany or at least that these Councils had power and jurisdiction over the Churches in those Nations after they were separated from the Roman Empire under other Kings and Governours I will now indeavour to shew that there were extra-imperial Bishops in the four first Councils and that such as were out of the Empire subjected themselves to their determinations as to such as were obligatory through the whole Church concerning the first In the first Council of Nice Theophilus Gothiae Metropolis Bishop of Gothia in the farthest parts of the North beyond Germany Dominus Bospori Bishop of Bosporus a citty of Thracia Cimmeria or India as Cosmographers declare the Bishop of Botra a City of this name is found in Arabia and Sala a Town also of great Phrygia the higher Pannonia and Armenia is so called as Ptolomeus notes l. 4. c. 1. Iohanâ—â—es Persidis of Persia which was not under the Roman Empire as you acknowledge above In the first Council of Constantinople the second General were three Bishops of Scythia And Etherius Anchialensis now Anchialos is a City in Thracia not far from great Apollonia In the first Council of Ephesus the third General was Phebamon Coptorum Episcopus the Bishop of Kopti Theodulus Elusae Episcopus anciently a City of Arabia Theodorus Gadarorum Episcopus of that name is a City in Cavà -Syria In the Council of Chalcedon the fourth General was present Antipater Bostrorum Episcopus a City in Arabia ut supra Olympius Scythopoleos which is a City of the Scythians in Coele syria Eustathius Gentis Saxacenorum of Saraca there is a City so called in Arabia-Foelix Constantinus Episcopus Bostrorum in Arabia Subscripsit quidam pro Glaco Gerassae Episcopo Gerasa is a City in Coele-syria Now 't is evident that the Fathers of those general Councils in all their decrees constitutions and Canons intended to oblige all Christians through the whole world and thereby demonstrated themselves to have jurisdiction over the whole Church and never so much as insinuated that their authority was limited within the precincts of the Empire Thus the Council of Ephesus sayes their decrees was for the good of the whole world Thus the Council of Chalcedon act 7 apud Bin. tome 2. pag. 105. declares the Church of Antioch to have under its government Arabia and act 16. cap. 28. apud Bin. which you hold for a Genuine Canon that the Bishop of Constance should have under him certain Churches in barbarous Nations which you must prove to have been then under the Empire The first Council of Constance in that Canon which you admit about the authority of the Bishop of Constantinople makes a decree concerning those Churches which were amongst the Barbarians that they should be governed according to the ancient custome no wayes restraining the Canon to those only which were under the Empire Thus Nicephorus lib. 15. hist. Ecclesiast c. 16. relates that Leo the Emperour writ to the Bishops of all Provinces together circularibus per orbem literis ad Ecclesias missis Leo haec sic ad omnes ubique Episcopos misit which he accounts were above a thousand to have them subscribe to the Council of Chalcedon And in correspondence to those letters of the Emperour the Bishops of the second Armenia which seem to have been out of the Empire writ an answer wherein they affirm the Council of Nice conferr'd peace upon all the Catholick Churches founded thorough the whole world to wit by teaching them to defend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against Arius and call the Council of Chalcedon twice occumenical and general and Adelphus a Bishop of Arabia subscribes amongst the rest to this Epistle The Bishops of the second Mesnia which you must prove to have then been under the Empire writ that the Council of Nice deliver'd the Faith toto orbi terrarum to the whole world they stile also the Roman Bishop the head of Bishops and that the Council of Chalcedon was gathered by Pope Leo's command who since they call him head of Bishops they extend his power and consequently the power of that general Council gather'd by him to all Bishops and Churches in the world To this Epistle subscribes Dita Bishop of Odyssa in Scythia It is manifest also that the Bishops of Spain France and Germany who were not under the Emperour in time of the third and fourth general Councils submitted themselves to their decrees and esteem'd themselves obliged to it as you cannot deny Mr. Baxter Num. 415. As to what you say of the Council of Constance which you must say also of Basil and of the French Church Venetians c. you pretend the doubt to be only between ordinary and extraordinary Governours But 1. of old the Councils called General indeed but of one principality were more ordinary then now the Pope hath brought them to be and I blame him not if he will hold his greatness to take heed of them William Iohnson Num. 415. I wonder you have the boldness to say general Councils were more ordinary that is more frequent of old then now they are seeing that from St. Peters dayes till 300. years after Christ there was not so much as one general Council in the Church was the Church think you all that time governed by general Councils as by its ordinary Governour but what mean you by more ordinary you equivocate in the word ordinary for you by that word can mean no more then frequent whereas I take ordinary as it is taken in the Canon Law for that which is of it self not frequently but alwayes required for the Churches government and without which the Church cannot be rightly governed Thus a King is the ordinary head and supream Governour in his Kingdom and though Parliaments be ordinarily that is frequently called yet they cannot be said to be the ordinary governours of the Kingdom You play and dally with words not understanding the sense but the sound of them Mr. Baxter Num. 416. The way not to have been extraordinary if the Council of Constance had been infallible or of sufficient power who decreed that there should be one every ten years William Iohnson Num. 416. Here you use the same equivocation in the word extraordinary that you did just now in the word ordinary you call that extraordinary which is not frequent or happens but seldom when the true sense in which I speak and which you should oppose is this that which is not alwayes of its own nature necessary for the Churches government nor perpetually in use and power whether it be frequent or not frequent that is ordinary or extraordinary in your mistaken sense But I would intreat you hereafter to reflect a little more of what you write you hasten so much that you leave sense behind you The way say you not to have been extraordinary if the Council of Constance had been infallible or of sufficient power
interiour Pastours do but interiour Pastours also Mr. Baxter This is but your naked affirmation I have proved the Contrary from Scriptures Fathers and Councils in my dispute of Episcopacy viz. that a Bishop may be and of old ordinarily was over the Presbyters onely of one parish of single Congregation or a people no more numerous then our Parishes you must shew us some Scripture or General Council for the contrary before we can be sure you here speak truth was Gregory Thaumaturgus no Bishop because when he came first to Neocaesarâ—â—a he had but seventeen soules in his Charge the like I may say of many more Rejoynder Am I obliged to Answer in this paper all the reasons you alledged in your Book of Episcopacy what you say here of Gregory Thaumaturgus is easily answered he was sent to be Bishop of Caesarea and of the country about it or under it's Command and though there had been no more then seventeen Christians in the Citie yet how know you there were no more in all the Countrey adjacent whereof he was Bishop But suppose there had been no more then that small number neither in that City nor Countrey know you not that he was sent to multiply Christians there as he did and thereby to make himself a Competent Diocesse the Apostle S. Iames is recorded to have converted no more the seven persons at the first coming in Spain would you thence deduce that the Apostolical office did not include in it a superiority over both Priests Bishops TRADITION I understand by Tradition the visible Delivery from hand to hand in all cases of the Revealed Will of God either written or unwritten Mr. Baxter Qu. But all the Doubt is by whom this Traditions that is valid must be by the Pastour or People or both by Pope or Councils or Bishops Disjunct by the major part of the Church or Bishops or Presbyters or the minor and by how many William Iohnson By such and so many proportionably as suffice in a Kingdome to certifie the people which are the ancient universal received Customes in that Kingdome which is to be morally considered Mr. Baxter I consent to this General But then 1. how certainly is Tradition against you when most of the Christian World yea all except an Interested Party doe deny your Soveraignty and plead Tradition against it And how lame is your Tradition when it is carried on your private Affirmations and is nothing but the improved Saying of a Sect. William Iohnson The Intention both of you and me was to know what was meant by our Terms that we might come to some Agreement about them here we are as appears by your Reply agreed about what is meant by Tradition first your Objection how this agrees not with our Tradition is now out of season and should have it's place when we come to the main Controversie If the notion of Tradition wherein we are agreed make against me so much the better for you who denyed our Soveraignty as I describe it in my Thesis or had a Church Government inconsistent with it in the First three and four hundred yeares Let those Churches be named and since those times nominate any particular body of Christians which opposed it whom I cannot shew evidently to have sprang up of new since those times Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. What proof or notice of it must satisfie me in particulars that it is so past William Iohnson Answ. Such as with proportion is a sufficient proof or notice of the Lawes and Customes of temporal Kingdomes Mr. Baxter But is it necessary for every Christian to be able to weigh the credit of Contradicting parties when one half of the world say one thing and the other another thing what opportunity have ordinary Christians to compare them and discern the moral advantages on each side William Iohnson As much as they have to know which Books are and which are not Canonical Scripture amongst those which are in Controversie Mr. Baxter As in case of the Popes Soveraignty when two or three parts of the Christian world is against it and the rest for it can private men try which party is the more credible or is it necessary to their Salvation William Iohnson As much as they can try which is Canonical Scripture in Books Controverted Mr. Baxter If so they are cast upon unavoidable despair if not must they all take the words of their present teacher William Iohnson As much as they do for the Determination of Canonical Scriptures Mr. Baxter That most of the World must believe against you because most of the Teachers are against you There is no Congregation of Christians united in the same profession of Faith External Communion and dependance of Pastours which is contrary in Belief to us any way to be Parallel with us in Extent and Multitude prove there is and name it All our Adversaries together are a patcht body of a thousand different professions and as much Adversaries one to another as they are to us the one Justifying us in that wherein the other condemn us so that no heed is to be taken to their Testimonies non sunt Convenientia Mr. Baxter And it seems mens faith is resolved into the Authority of the Parish Priest or their Confessour the Lawes of a Kingdome may be easilier known then Christian Doctrine can be known especially such as are controverted among us by mere unwritten Tradition Kingdomes are of narrower compass then the world And though the sense of Lawes is often in question yet the being of them is seldome matter of Controversie because men conversing constantly and familiarly with each other may plainly and fully reveal their mindes when God that condescendeth not to such a familiarity hath his minde by inspired persons long agoe with much lesse sensible Advantages because it is a Life of Faith that he directeth us to Live VVilliam Iohnson No such matter no more then the belief of such a Determinate Canon of Scipture is Resolved by your Parishioners into your Authority can you not distinguish betwixt a Propounder and a Revealer good Christians Resolve their Faith into God Revealing and so pronouncing their Creed say I believe in God c. when did you ever hear any of ours say I believe in my Parish Priest he indeed is the means whereby they came to believe as God's Instrument but he is no principle or formal object of Faith into which it is Resolved But constitute you what Systeme you please of the Christian Religion let us for the present suppose it be that which you mention in your papers that all Christians even heretiques and schismatiques compose onâ—â— Catholique Church whereof Christ is the head now you say there that some heretiques are not Christians of which sort the Church is not composed how shall your Parishioners know as the like is of all the unlearned which Heretiques were Christians which not nay or what Heretiques there have been in all succeeding ages or whether at