and Articles to be subscribed with the Letters of Celestine to Nestorius which when Nestorius had received he was so far from repentance that he accused St. Cyril in those Articles to be guilty of the Heresie of Apollinaris so that St. Cyril being also accused of Heresie was barred from pronouncing sentence against Nestorius so long as he stood charged with that Accusation Theodosius the Emperour seeing the Eastern Church embroiled in these difficulties writes to Pope Celestine about the assembling of a general Council at Ephesus by Petronius afterwards Bishop of Bononia as is manifest in his life written by Sigonius Pope in his Letters to Theodosius not only professeth his consent to the calling of that Council but also prescribeth in what form it was to be celebrated as Firmus Bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia testified in the Council of Ephesus Hereupon Theodosius sent his Letters to assemble the Bishops both of the East and West to that Council And Celestine sent his Legats thither with order not to examine again in the Council the cause of Nestorius but rather to put Celestines condemnation of him given the year before into execution S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East by reason of that preheminency and primacy of his See after that of Rome presided in the Council yet so that Philip who was only a Priest and no Bishop by reason that he was sent Legatus à Latere from Celestine and so supplied his place as he was chief Bishop of the Church subscribed the first even before S. Cyril and all the other Legats and Patriarchs In the sixth Action of this holy Council Iuvenalis patriarch of Hierusalem having understood the contempt which Iohn patriarch of Antioch who was cited before the Council shewed of the Bishops and the Popes Legats there assembled expressed himself against him in these words Quod Apostolica ordinatione Antiqua Traditione which were no way opposed by the Fathers there present Antiochena sedes perpetuo à Romana diregeretur judicareturque That by Apostolical ordination and ancient Tradition the See of Antioch was perpetually directed and judged by the See of Rome which words not only evidence the precedency of place as Dr. Hammond would have it but of power and judicature in the Bishop of Rome over a Patriarch of the Eastern Church and that derived from the time and ordination of the Apostles The Council therefore sent their decrees with their condemnation of Nestorius to Pope Clestize who presently ratified and confirmed them Not long after this in the year 445. Valentinian the Emperour makes this manifesto of the most high Ecclesiastical authority of the See of Rome in these words Seeing that the merit of S. Peter who is the Prince of the Episcopal Crown and the Dignity of the City of Rome and no less the authority of the holy Synod hath established the primacy of the Apostolical See lest presumption should attempt any unlawful thing against the authority of that * See this at length in Baronius in the year 445. See for then finally will the peace of the Churches be preserved every where if the whole universality acknowledge their Governour when these things had been hitherto inviolably observed c. Where he makes the succession from S. Peter to be the first foundation of the Roman Churches primacy and his authority to be not only in place but in power and government over the whole visible Church And adds presently that the definitive sentence of the Bishop of Rome given against any French Bishop was to be of force through France even without the Emperors Letters Patents For what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches and then adds his Imperial precept in these words But this occasion hath provoked also our command that hereafter it shall not be lawful neither for Hilarius whom to be still intituled a Bishop the sole humanity of the meek Prelate i. e. the Bishop of Rome permits neither for any other to mingle arms with Ecclesiastical matters or to resist the commands of the Bishop of Rome c. We define by this our perpetual decree that it shall neither be lawful for the French Bishops nor for those of other Provinces against the ancient custom to attempt any thing without the authority of the venerable Pope of the eternal City But let it be for a law to them and to all whatsoever the authority of the Apostolick See hath determined or shall determine So that what Bishop soever being called to the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop shall neglect to come is to be compelled by the Governour of the same Province to present himself before him Which evidently proves that the highest Universal Ecclesiastical Judge and Governour was and ever is to be the Bishop of Rome which the Council of Chalcedon before mentioned plainly owned when writing to Pope Leo they say * Epist. Concil ad Leon. Pap. Act. 1. sequ Thou governest us as the head doth the members contributing thy good will by those which hold thy place Behold a Primacy not only of Precedency but of Government and Authority which Lerinensis confirms contr Haeres cap. 9. where speaking of Stephen Pope he saies Dignum â—â—t opinor existimans si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione quantum loci authoritate superabat esteeming it as I think a thing worthy of himself if he overcame all others as much in the devotion of faith as he did in the Authority of his place And to confirm what this universal Authority was he affirms that he sent a Law Decree or Command into Africa Sanxit That in matter of rebaptization of Hereticks nothing should be innovated which was a manifest argument of his Spiritual Authority over those of Africa and à paritate rationis over all others I will shut up all with that which was publickly pronounced and no way contradicted and consequently assented to in the Council of Ephesus one of the four first general Councils in this matter Tom. 2. Concil p. 327. Act. 1. where Philip Priest and Legat of Pope Celestine says thus Gratias agimus sanctae venerandaeque synodo quod literis sancti beatique Papae nostri vobis recitatis sanctas chartas sanctis vestris vocibus sancto capiti vestro sanctis vestris exclamationibus exhibueritis Non enim ignorat vestra beatitudo totius fidei vel etiam Apostolorum caput esse beatum Apostolum Petrum And the same Philip Act. 3. p. 330. proceeds in this manner Nulli dubium imo saeculis omnibus notum est quod sanctus beatissimusque Petrus Apostolorum Princeps caput Fideique columna Ecclesiae Catholicae Fundamentum à Domino nostro Jesu Christo Salvatore generis humani ac redemptore nostro claves regni accepit solvendique ac ligandi peccata potestas ipsi data est qui ad hoc usque tempus ac
some exception witnessed bâ—â— Catholick antiquity made against it or grant it was accepted by the whole Church yet had it been Theodoret alone who approved that appeal I had prov'd there was at least one Orthodox christian who held the Popes supremacy in those ages which was all I undertook to prove to infringe your assertion ut Supra Mr. Baxter Num. 147. The Council expresly take on them the determination after Leo and they slight the legates of the Pope and pronounce him a Creature of the Fathers and give Constantinople equall priviledges though his legates refuse to consent but of the frivolousnesse of this your instance see D. Field of the Church lib. 5. cap. 35. pag. 537.538 and more fully Blondel de primatu ubi sup cap. 25. sect 63.65 William Iohnson Num. 147. Here is much said and nothing proved part of what you say is just now satisfied when in your rejoynder you alleadge the reasons of those two Doctors of yours you shall have an answer Mr. Baxter Num. 148. Your next instance is that the Council of Sardis determined that no Bishop deposed by other neighouring Bishops pretended to be heard againe was to have any successor appointed till the case were defined by the Pope Conc. Sard. cap. 4. cited by Anthanas apol 2. pag. 753. Reply It seems you ar well acquainted with the Council that know not of what place it was It was the Council at Sardica and not at Sardis that you would mean Sardis was a City of Lydia apud Tmolum olim Regio Coersi inter Thyatiram Philadelphiam But this Sardica was aâ—â— City of Thrace in the confines of the higher Mysia inter Naissum Mysiae Phillippopolim Thraciae as to the instance William Iohnson Num. 148. Had you seen my citation in the margin you might have saved this labour for I find it cited in two different copies of mine Concilium Sardicense not Sardiense and in a third Con Sardic which haply was contracted in the copie sent to you as you have printed it Con. Sard whereby it is manifest I know what I cited and all the defect was in Englishing the latine word Sardicense wherein such as have lived most part of their lives beyond Sea are not so well verst as those who never stept out of England and indeed you might as well blame the common strain of our English writers as me in this who ordinarily translate Nicea Nice when it should be Nicee for Nice and Nicea are all as different Cities as Sardis and Sardica yet the very name Sardis for Sardica was used long before me for I am not the first who confounded the names of those two Cities as Baronius witnesses an 347. Mr. Baxter Num. 149. This Council is by Augustine rejected as Heretical though I defend not his opinion William Iohnson Num. 149. Why then loose you time in mentioning it Zozom l 3. cap. 10. Epist. Synodalis Arianorum Extat inter Hilar. frag l. 2. but by your leave St. Augustine never rejected this Council of Sardica for it is probable it was unknown to him to be different from that of Nice But that of Philippopolis not far from Sardica where the Arian Bishops assembled a conventicle and gave it out under the name of the Arian Council Mr. Baxter Num. 150 2. It was of so little note and authority that it was not known to the Council of Carthage to have the next antecedent Canons which you would have omitted if you had read them its like in which your writers glory as their cheifest strength and which Bellarmine thinkes Pope Zosimus called the Nicene William Iohnson Num. 150 I can scarce think you were in earnest when you writ this was the Sardican Council of little note when Socrates Zozomen Severus Theodoret Vigilius episc Tadentinus Hilarius Epiphanius and above all St. Athanasius who was present in it make most honourable mention of it as of a famous general Council wherein as many of them say were above 308 Bishops all Catholicks wherein the Nicene Faith was confirmed against the Arians which for its great and unblemisht authority so fully consonant with the Nicene doctrine deserved to be accounted the same with it and to passe under the name and notion of the Council of Nice now this Council was celebrated by consent of both the Emperours of the East amd West and therein were Bishops as St. Athanasius and Theodoret witness from all the Provinces of Christendome Athan. ad salit even from Arabia it self though extra-imperial Mr. Baxter Num. 151. Or rather is it not suspicious that this Canon is forged when those Carthage Fathers plainly say in nullo patrum concilio invenimus mentioning that antecedent Canon proposed by Hosius to which this mentioned by you proposed by Gaudentius is but an addition or supplement And it is not like that all these African Fathers could be ignorant of those canons of Sardica when such abundance of African Bishops were at the Council and that but about 50 years before You may see in Binius how hard a strait he is put to to give any tolerable reason of this and onely saith that its like some of the Canons were lost sure tradition was then grown untrusty William Iohnson Num. 151. Had you but perused at leisure what the malice of the Donatists had wrought in Africa concerning the acts of the true Sardican Council in suppressing the canons of that Council and obtruding those of the false council of Philippopolis composed of Arians under the title and name of the Council of Sardica you had had smal reason to judge that the Affrican Fathers could not be ignorant of those canons of Sardica Now that the foresaid Arian Council was given out by the Donatists under the name of the Sardican Council it was most evident from St. Aug. ep 163. where he affirms that in a book containing the Council of Sardica he found St. Athanasius and Iulius Bishop of Rome condemned whence he collected it was a Council of Arians and contra l. 3. c. 24. He tells his adversary the Council of Sardica was a conventicle of Arians as was evident by the copies which in his time they had of it amongst them having been assembled principally against St. Athansius whereas it is manifest as the authors witnesse in the former paragraph the true Council of Sardica was in favour and defence of St Athanasius and in confirmation of the Nicene Faith Epist. con Sard. apud Athan. Athan Apol. ad sol vit that this fraud was practised by the Donatists St. Aug. witnesseth Ep. 163. where he affirmes that Spurious book was shewed him by Fortunius the Donatist and gives also there the reason of this perfidious dealing because they found in that Arian Council a writing addrest to the African Bishops of their communion with Donatus the first beginner and then Bishop of the Donatists whence appears undeniably that in St. Aug's and so in time of the African Council there was
clearly then I have done I say we hold no such Monarch in the Church as is an imperious sole Commander as temporal Kings are c. And when I have said all this in sensu conjuncto and knit my words and sense together as close as I can you go and pull all in pieces and ask me if I understand them in sensu diviso Is not this very handsome think you Should I say that Iane Shore was no honest Christian woman would you have askt me which of these is it that I deny not that she was a woman not that she was a Christian not that she was honest in her conversation would it not have been ridiculous in a high degree and if upon this you should adde after I had said she was no honest Christian woman conform to what you do here I would either you or I could know what you hold about Iane Shore Would not every one laugh at you But in sober sadness did you not understand what I denyed as plainly as what I deny of Iane Shore Hold we him to be an Imperious sole Commander as temporal Kings are whom we unanimously affirm to have no power to deprive Church Officers at his pleasure as Kings have power to put out what Officer soever they please through their whole Kingdom who is not alone to govern the Church either immediately or mediately as Kings govern their Kingdoms according to Christs institution But every Bishop being Christs Officer and not the Popes as truly as the Pope is within the precincts of his Diocess are as true Governours of the different respective parts of the Church as the Pope is of the whole Now I hope at last you understand me how Popes differ from temporal Kings Mr. Baxter Num. 385. Sure your following words shew not the difference First Kings may receive power from Christ. 2. Kings must rule in meekness charity and humility William Iohnson When we say he receives power from Christ you cannot be ignorant that we understand it of Christ as author of Christian Religion and not as author of nature and morality nor can you but know that temporal Kings as such abstract from Christian Religion and are truly Kings whether they be Christians or no they cannot therefore be said in any formal proper sense to receive power from Christ as he is head of his Church but from God as author of nature and morality Mr. Baxter Num. 386. But I think the meekness charity and humility of Popes hath been far below even wicked Kings if cruel murthering Christians for Religion and setting the world on fire may be witness as your own Histories assure us William Iohnson You tear my discourse all in pieces I join that of governing in charity c. to this as Brethren and Children and you fallaciously divide it it is not contrary to the humility of a King to account all in his Kingdom to be his vassals Substitutes Officers but it would be contrary to the humility of a Pope A King will not be thought cruel and defective in meekness if he judge a person and condemn a malefactor to death but a Pope would The rest is a pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I spake of the Office of Popes and you of the persons I of what we hold they ought to do and you of what they do or may hap to do If any personal cruelty have been exercised by Popes let them answer it not I who have not in the least medled with it here But I see such fallacies as these in passing à jure ad factum and the like are spread thick over your whole answer yet even in this objected cruelty we must take your honest word for here 's no other proof then that you affirm at a venture our Historians assure us it is so You 'l tell us I hope in your next who those Historians are Mr. Baxter Num. 387. The Government of Kings also is for mens eternal good how ever Papists would make them but their executioners in such things William Iohnson Num. 387. Of what Kings know you not we dispute now in sensu formali that is of temporal Kings for that was my term and would you have temporal Kings that is temporal Governours as such tend to a spiritual and eternal good for if as such they tend to a spiritual end then all temporal Princes even Turks and Heathens must do so Mr. Baxter Num. 388. Brethren as such are no subjects and therefore if the Pope rule men but as brethren he rules them not by governing authority at all William Iohnson Num. 388. What mean you by brethren as such are no subjects abstractively to what purpose is it also true to say men and women as such are no subjects that is they are not subjects precisely quatenus under the formal notion of men and women for then all men and women should be subjects exclusively that is their being brethren repugnes to their being subjects Take heed that doctrine will be dangerous at Court what were not his Majesties brethren his subjects or because his Majesty ruled them but as brethren he ruled them not by any governing authority as you say here of the Pope the like is if any elder brother should be Schoolmaster or General or Magistrate over his younger brother did he not rule him by governing authority And have you not an express prophesie of two brethren major serviet minori the greater shall serve the lesser Nay calls not Christ himself his Apostles brethren will you therefore say he rul'd them not by governing authority But you I suppose very innocently fall into a grosse folly here when I say he governs them as brethren you would have my meaning to be as they are brethren by a reduplication upon the object whereas by the term as brethren I mean he governs them as brethren use or ought to be govern'd reduplicating upon the act of governing not upon the object that is to be govern'd that is the chief Governour of Christs Church is according to the will and institution of Christ to govern all Christians as a brother who is a Superiour and Governour of his brethren and ought to govern them to wit in meekness charity and humility and therefore I make all my reduplications and reflections upon the act when I say if only for one who hath received power from Christ in meekness charity and humility to govern all the rest for their eternal good as brethren or children I grant it Mr. Baxter Num. 398. Children to him we are not you must mean it but metaphorically and what mean you then Is it that he must do it in love for their good so also must Kings so that you have yet exprest no difference at all William Iohnson Num. 389. To what purpose trifle you thus do I say Christians are the Popes natural children Say I not as children and know you not that nullum simile est idem who can think they are otherwise then
Apostoloâ—â—um Capuâ—â— Petrus unde Cephas appellatus est In qua una Cathedra unitâ—â—s ab omnibus servaretur ne caeteri Apostoli singuli sibi quisque defenderent Ut jam Schismaticus peccator esset qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collocaret Ergo Cathedra unica quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus c. Therefore sayes Optatus thou canst not deny that thou knowest in the City of Rome the Episcopal chaire was first given to Peter wherein sate the head of all the Apostles Peter whence he is called Cephas In which one chaire unity should be kept by all least every one of the rest of the Apostles should defend another chair to himselfe That now he should be a Schismatick and a sinner who should erect another chaire against this that is single or one only therefore in this only chair which is one of the dowries of the Church first sate Peter to whom Linus succeeded c. Thus farr Optatus and then he reckons up seven and thirtie Popes succeeding one another to Ciricius who sate in his time then adds Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formarum in una communionis societate concordat Literarum supplendum videtur with whom Ciricius the whole world accords with us by the correspondence of formed Letters This done he relates that this truth of unity in faith and communion was then a thing so notoriously known throughout the whole Christian world for a mark of a true Christian that the Donatists themselves to have some pretence to it even from their first beginning sent one of their partie to be Bishop of the African Donatists in Rome and still continued the succession of those Donatists Bishops there to the number of four whose names he mentions so ambitious were they of having at least a shadow of communicating with a Bishop at Rome seeing they could never have it with the true Bishop of Rome as Optatus notes here St. Chrysostome (t) Orat. Encom in Petrum Paulum orat 5. contr Iudeos hom 83 in Math. hom 87. in Ioan. hom 80. ad po Anteoch stiles St. Peter Doctour or Teacher of the Apostles and that he was the first of the Apostles brought under his subjection the whole world and that Christ built his Church upon him The top of the Apostolical Colledge that he was President of the Church throughout the whole world St. Augustine (u) In questi novi test q. 75 in fine That all titles of Authority next after Christ were in St. Peter that he was the head to be Pastor of Christs flock that our Saviour praying for St. Peter pray'd for all the Apostles (x) Serm. 15. de Sanctis Serm. 16. because what is done for a Superiour or Governour is done for all those who are under his charge that he was the foundation of the Church by virtue of our Saviours words upon this rock I will build my Church he calls the Roman Sea the Sea Apostolick absolutely (y) Lit. 2. contr lit petil c. 51. (z) Himno cont partem Donati in initio That the succession of the Roman Bishops is the rock which the gates of Hell do not overcome I omit for brevity sake many other holy Fathers of those ages hoping these will be a sufficient testimony of St. Peters and the Roman Bishops authority not within the Empire only but through the whole Christian world 44. To your fift Argument p. 251. I deny your Antecedent you prove it by an outfacing confidence in five particulars to the first and second I answer it is not necessary he should either have chosen or ordain'd them nor authorize any other to the validitie of ordaining them nor that they should receive their Episcopal power of ordaining from him but their Patriarchal power was from him as I have proved above in that he both restored and deposed those Patriarchs as occasion requir'd To your third the lawes and canons of the Church they receiv'd and those were confirm'd by his authority To your fourth I have evidenced they were commanded and judged by him To your fift I deny the Patriarch of Constantinople to be equal with him in all things nor can you prove it No nor so much as essay to prove it without contradicting your self who grant him a precedency of place before the Bishop of Constantinople which is one priviledge CHAP. IV. St. Gregories doctrine about universal Bishop Num. 45. In what sence St. Gregory condemn'd the title of universal Bishop how cleerly he attributes to St. Peter the Soveraign authority over the whole Church by Christs authority and consequently to his lawful Succâ—â—ssors after his death the Bishops of Rome Num. 47 Whether the title of universal were offered St. Leo by the Council of Chalcedon why St. Gregory refus'd and condemn'd that title Num. 52. Mr. Baxter contradicts St. Gregory and himself and brings all he hath objected in 8. or 10. pages to nothing Num. 53 54 55. how various he is in his accounts Num. 57. into what difficulties Mr. Baxter casts himself 45. Pag. 253. You trifle about the title of universal Bishop or Patriarch this St. Gregory took to be full of pride and insolency and injurious to all Patriarchs and Bishops in the Church because it was capable of this signification that he was the universal Bishop of the whole Church so that there were no other true and effectual Bishops in the whole Church save himself and the rest were not Christs but his officers nor receiving their power from Christ but from him this he insinuates in the words you cite here and after sayes Iam vos Episcopi non estis if once an universal Bishop were admitted in the Church then all the rest were no longer Bishops for this reason this holy Pope refused and condemn'd this title but as for the thing it self which is in controversie betwixt us that the Pope hath power and jurisdiction over the whole Church we have above proved St. Gregory to be most positive in it in several passages of his works See St. Gregories Epistles throughout nor was there every any Pope exercised more acts of jurisdiction through the whole Church as occasion required then he did And in his Epistles themselves even in those he writ in time of this controversie with Iohn of Constantinople he gives most evident proofs of it Ep. lib. 1. ep 24. he sayes thus Hinc namque est quod Petrus authore Deo principatum tenens a bene urgente Cornelio sese ei humiliter prosternanti immoderatius venerari recusavit Hence it is that Peter holding the principality by Gods authority or God being the author refused to be immoderately venerated by good Cornelius who prostrated himself unto him where he attributes St. Peters principality to the institution of God that is of our Saviour but then presently St. Gregory addes that when St. Peter dealt with Ananias
some time or other all those whom you term Christians were not such Heretiques as in Reality were no Christians being Christians onely in name as the Arians were nay how shall they know they were any Christians at all for five hundred yeares agoe they must take all upon your word and so as much resolve their Faith into your Authority as you would have ours to resolve theirs into that of their Parish Priests Resolve this and you have solved your own difficulty against us General Council William Iohnson A general Council I take to be an Assembly of Bishops and other chief Prelates called convened confirmed by those who have sufficient spiritual Authority to call convene and confirm it Mr. Baxter Qu. 1. Who is ad esse that must call convene and confirm it till I know that I am never the nearer knowing what a Council is and which is one indeed William Iohnson Answ. Definitions abstract from inferiour subdivisions for your satisfaction I affirm it belongs to the Bishop of Rome Mr. Baxter If it be necessary to the being or validity of a Council that it be called or confirmed by the Pope then your Definition signifies nothing if you abstract from that which is so necessary an ingredient unlesse it were presupposed to be understood William Iohnson I have often told you that Definitions must abstract if my Definition be true why yield you not to it if false why shew not wherein my Genus is an Assembly my Differentia of Bishops and chief Prelates called convened c. Is there here either a false genus or a false Differentia In this first objection you admit both and yet will not be satisfied with my Definition this I understand not when I named the Bishop of Rome I told you it was for your satisfaction not for compleating my Definition for that abstracts from particulars Mr. Baxter If it belong to the Bishop of Rome to call a Council as necessary to its being then the first great general Council and others following were none it being certain that they were not called by him and as certain that he hath never proved any such Authority to call them or confirm William Iohnson What with you is certain till you prove it I hold not onely to be uncertain but untrue also Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. Must it represent all the Catholick Church doth not your Definition agree to a provincial or the smallest Council William Iohnson Answ. My Definition speaks specifically of Bishops and those Prelates as contradistinct from inferiour Pastours and Clergie and thereby comprised all the Priest conteined in the Species and consequently makes a distinction from the National or particular Councils whom some Bishops onely Convened not all that being onely some part and not the whole Species or specifical notion applyed to Bishops of every age and yet I said not all Bishops But Bishops and chief Prelates because though all are to be called yet it is not necessary that all should convene whence appears what I am to answer to the next Questions Mr. Baxter Then you have no General Councils much lesse can you have any now for you have none to represent the greatest part of the Church unlesse by a mock-Representation 2. If all must be called your Councils have not been General that called not a great part of the Church William Iohnson The matter we are now about is to explicate Termes whether those Explications agree with us or make against us belongs to our further Dispute what you say of our having had no Councils representing the whole Church is as easily denied as affirmed without proof which are those which called not all Mr. Baxter If most are necessarily detained as by distance the Prohibition of Princes c. the call made it not their duty to be there and so make it not a generall Council which is so called from the Generality of the meeting and representation and not of the Invitation no more than a Call would make it a true Council if none come William Iohnson Your Reason concludes not drawn from none present to most absent when a Parliament is summoned in our Nation if none at all should come it would be no Parliament follows it therefore if most fall sick or are lawfully hindered or wilfully absent themselves that by reason of the absence of them it is neither Representative sufficiently of the Kingdome nor enabled to enact Lawes binding all the Inhabitants see you not that such Principles as this of yours are of dangerous Consequence and render the Lawes of our Nation dubious and uncertain nor is the Call a sole invitation but a summon or command Mr. Baxter Qu. How many Bishops and from what parts ad esse make such a Council William Iohnson The number is morally to be considered more or fewer according to the difference of times distances of place and other circumstances from whence thay are to come Mr. Baxter This is put off for want of an Answer is it a Council if difficulties keep away all if not it can be no General Council when difficulties keep away the most much lesse when such a petty Confederacy as met at Trent shall pretend to represent the Christian world you thus leave us uncertain when a Council is General and when not how can the people tell when you cannot tell your selves when the Bishops are so many as make a Council General William Iohnson By this is answered what you say here tell me what number present may consist with the Essence of a Parliament or a Diet in the Empire and I will tell you with proportion what number may suffice for a Representation of the Church in a General Council will you have things of a moral consideration to consist in indivisibles But who sees not how by cavilling in in this manner against the validity of a Council you lay grounds of dangerous consequence for rejecting the authority of lawfull Parliaments whilst you thus carp at the members present and thereby render it as difficult to know which is a sufficient number foâ—â— Parliament as for a Council Mr. Baxter Qu. 4. May none but Bishops and chief Prelates be members as you intimate William Iohnson Answ. No others unlesse such inferiours as are sent to supply their places and as Deputies of those Bishops or Prelates who are such members of the Council as have decisive Votes in framing Decrees and Definitions Mr. Baxter This is your private opinion no Council hath defined it unlesse they are Contradictory for I suppose you know that Basil and many Councils before it had Presbyters in them William Iohnson Basil in many things is not allowed of by us name those others received as General Councils amongst us which had simple Priests with power of giving voices belonging to them as such SCHISM I understand by Schism a wilfull Separation or Division of ones self from the whole visible Church of Christ. Mr. Baxter Qu. 1. Is it no Schisme to separate