Which is the True Church, Part 1 · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. What mean you by a GENERAL COUNCIL?
W. I. A General Council I take to be an Assembly of Bishops, and other chief Prelates, called, Sect. 1.convened, confirmed, by those who have sufficient spiritual authority to call, convene and confirm it.
R. B. Here is nothing still but flying and hiding: his cause is such that he dare not answer. Note that, 1. Here is no mention of what extent it must be at all, whether these Prelates must be sent from all the Christian world? or whence? The least Provincial Council that ever was called, may be a General Council by this description.
2. He tells us of other chief Prelates, and yet never tells what sort of things he meaneth by chief Prelates, that are no Bishops. And when he hath told us, doubtless he will never prove (nor I hope affirm) that any such Prelates are of Christs institution. And if the matter of General Councils be not of Divine right, whether such Councils can be of Divine right, I leave to censure. A Council of humane Officers, is but a humane Council; and yet he leaveth out, yea excludeth Presbyters who are of Gods institution.
3. He tells us not who it is that must call, convene and confirm them. And he had reason for it: lest he reprobate all those that were otherwise called. Here therefore I first asked:
Q. 1. Who is it (ad esse) that must call, convene and confirm it? Till I know that, I am never the Sect. 2.nearer knowing what a Council is, and which is one indeed.
W. J. Definitions abstract from inferior Subdivisions: For your satisfaction I affirm, it belongs to the Bishop of Rome.
R. B. This you must needs say for your cause sake: But he justifieth his definition as having a sufficient Genus [An Assembly] and [Differentia] [Bishops and chief Prelates convened, &c.]
Ans. You do ill to refuse all disputes but what are exactly Logical, (which is your custom for advantage to amuse the women) if your Logick be no better, should not a Relative Assembly be defined by its subject, fundamentum & terminus? 1. Your Genus is too general; it should have been a nearer Genus. 2. Your subject is partly false (as taking in besides Bishops, other chief Prelates, and excluding Presbyters), and partly ambiguous, what [other chief Prelates] you mean? and specially too narrow, not at all differencing this Council from any inferior Synod. 3. Here is no end or terminus expressed, and so no difference put between a Council, and an Assembly of Prelates called, for any common civil use, as if it were but to choose or attend a Prince. 4. Here is no just notice of the fundamentum, or the ratio fundandi; the true fundamentum is totally omitted, which is the mutual consent, 1. of the Churches chusing and sending their Bishops or Delegates; 2. of the Bishops to go in that Relation; 3. of all the Bishops to convene and agitate conciliar business for the proper ends. And a fundamentum is mentioned, which is, 1. Insufficient and as nothing; being but a Genus [called by those that have sufficient authority,] instead of a species in your own opinion, who think that the Authority is only in the Pope. 2. And when you so explain your self, it is false, as shall he shewed. 5. Yea the very formal Relation is not mentioned; which is the relation which the assembled members have to the Churches which they represent, and to each other, and to the intended end and work. So that here is a definition that is no definition, nor hath any thing like a definition, yet defended by this great disputer: Nor can any man tell what a General Council is by it. And how can we dispute intelligibly, when you can no better explain your terms?
Here I urged, from his making the Popes call, convening and confirmation, necessary ad esse, that this nullifieth the chief Councils called General; this he denieth to be true. To which instead of transcribing long Histories, I only say, that whoever readeth the true Histories of the calling and convening of the Councils at Nice, Constantinople, (divers) at Ephesus, the first and second, yea that at Calcedon, though Leo desired it of the Emperour, and many others in those ages, and yet will not confess that most of them were called by the Emperours special command, sometime requiring the Bishop of Alexandria to call them, sometime the Bishop of Constantinople, and sometime writing or sending to all the Patriarchs, or most, to come and send their Bishops, and usually also to his Civil and Military Officers to concur, and to be Judges; I shall not think that man fit to be disputed with about such matters, who hath the face to contradict such consent of History and Records.
R. B. Q. 2. Must it not represent all the Catholick Church? Doth not your definition agree to a Provincial or the smallest Council?
W. J. My definition speaks specifically of Bishops and those Prelates, as contradistinct from the Sect. 4.inferior Pastors and Clergy, and thereby comprized all the Priests contained in the species, and consequently makes a distinction from the National or particular Councils, where some Bishops are only conven'd, no… all; that being only some part, and not the whole speci…, or specifical notion applied 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 come.
R. B. O what a disadvantage is an ill Cause! The man is so confounded, that the further he goeth, the worse he makes it.
1. He must needs intimate that it is all the Church that must be represented, and yet he durst not speak that out.
2. He intimateth, that his speaking specifically of Bishops and Prelates, is equivalent to all Bishops and Prelates.
3. He intimateth, that naming Bishops as contradistinct from inferior Pastors and Clergy, was necessary to difference a General Council from a National or other; as if a National or Provincial one might not consist of Bishops only; or as if the inferior Clergy might not be of a General one, as they oft have been.
4. He makes the difference here to be, that some bishops are convened, not all; when yet he after saith, that all come not to General Councils.
5. Our question being, What constitut… a General Council? He saith, It is All the Bishops, and … All are not there, though …alled. As if those that come not, were any part of the Council.
6. He would perswade us, that yet he well left out the word ALL, though it must be all that are …alled because they come not:
To this I further answered him, That then you have had no General Councils, much less can you Sect. 5.have any more: for you have none to represent the greatest part of the Church, unless by a mock representation. …. If all must be called, your Councils were not General, a great part of the Church being …t called.
W. J. We are …ow bu… explicating terms——that all were not called, is denied.
R. B. Then let never modesty forbid you to deny any thing. I have elsewhere proved against Mr. Hutch…son, that your Councils were generali, but as to the Roman Empire; and seldom, if ever, so much as that. 1. Had the Emperors (who certainly called them) any power to call any of other Princes Dominions? 2. Doth any History mention that ever the Emperors did so? 3. Did the Pope of Rome call to the Councils at Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Calcedon▪ &c. all the Bishops of all the extra-Imperial Churches? 4. Were the businesses there agitated, any of theirs? 5. Were any Concilia… Decrees executed on them? Any extra-Imperial Bishops put in or out, or suspended by them? 6. Were all the bishops of the Greek Churches, of the Armenians, and all other Southern and Eastern Nations, called to the Councils at Trent, Lateran, &c.? What is it that some will not pretend?
7. Were it not an impudent thing for any man to call together all the Bishops in the world? Sect. 6.If it be not desired that they come, why are they called? Ludicrous hypocrisies beseem not matters of this moment. If it be desired only that they ch…e some few among the rest, it is the chusing of those few only that should be required. But if all be intended, the Devil could scarce make a more … motion. What! for all the Bishops on Earth, 1. To forsake their charges, most of them for many years. 2. To lose so many years time in Travel and Session. 3. To lose the lives of so, many as are never like to endure Voyages and journies by Sea and Land so long, with strange air and other difficulties, &c. But why should I stay to shame such madness? when though W. I. be fain to vent it, their Sect never intended nor attempted any such thing…. But suppose it were but some delegate Bishops that he pleaded for to make an Universal Council, I have shewed in the 2d part of my Book called, A Key for Catholicks, how impossible and wicked the design of a true Universal Council is. For, 1. They must be so many from all parts of the world as may make it an equal Representative, and not two or three from the remotest part, and 200 from Italy and other nearer parts, or else it is a putid mockery. 2. Some Churches have a 100 Bishops over so many Christians, as in other Countries are under one only. Most report that in all Abassia there is but one Abuna; which though it be not now so big as it hath been, or as Alvarez saith, yet is like to be as big as Brierwood concludeth, viz. as France, Spain, Italy and Germany. And should that one Abuna leave his Country to have no more vote than Pate or Ola… Magnus had at Trent. 3. Most of the Christian world have not half so many able Teachers as they need, especially the remotest parts: and it would be cruelty to the peoples souls to call away from them proportionable representatives. 4 None are so fit men for the great business of Councils, as the ablest, boliest, experienced Bishops; and these are most of them aged, sickly and weak, and unfit for so long travels. 5. Abassia … not Sea-ports, and the Armenians and other Nations are out of the reach of such necessary converse, as must duly warn all of the time and place. 6. The Bishops are under Princes of such various Religions, minds and interests, as they could never agree to a true Council Would the Turk that is an enemy to Christianity, give leave to the Greek Bishops proportionably to come? Would the Countries that are in War with those that send them, give them a free passage? 7. The time would be so long in passing from Abassia, Armenia, St. Thomas, Mexico▪ the Antipodes, and staying at the Council and returning, that few were like to come home alive; and so the Bishops are murdered, and the Countries receive not any just account of their transactions. 8. When they come together, the number would be so great, as that they could not hear what was said by one another. 9. And many would understand and speak no one common language with the rest, and so be uncapable of that right understanding and communication as is necessary to the end. 10. And their judgments and interests would be so cross, as would render the Council too like a pitcht field; and when they had wearied themselves to go home to the further parts of the world with no better an account, but that they were over-voted by a greater number of Europeans, who living near and under the Pope were awed by his power, or by assed by interest, what good would this do the Countries that sent them. And all this wicked and impossible design ariseth from the idle brains of men, without any true usefulness or need, or any ground of Gods word or reason; only because in one Empire there were oft such things as General Councils, which yet were like to fields of War, and had torn the Imperial Churches all to pieces, had not some Emperours done much to keep the peace: so that Pighius saith, That General Councils themselves were but a new devise of Constantine, and not of Gods institution, nor of necessity.
R. B. I next asked of him, If all must be called, and but some come, whether th…se that never come there (through distance, age, prohibition of Princes, poverty, &c▪) be any parts of the Council? and so Sect. 7.whether it be General, because those should come that do not? If that will serve, what if none come when all are called? He answereth:
W. J. As it is a true Parliament if a competent number come, when all are called—…o here.
R. B. 1. The validity of a few mens acts, cometh from the fundamental Constitution, which is as the Law to them. But who made such a Law for all the world? If God did, shew it to us▪ if man, who? and by what power? Whether all be right and valid that is done in a Parliament, or not, when few are there, yet it is certain the rest are absent. Parliaments meet and act under Laws; but Councils meet as Equals upon meer and voluntary consent. The Law may oblige all the Land by that which a few men do: but if there be a meeting, e. g. as now at N…mengen, of the Agents of free Princes, who can oblige ten by the acts of two without their consent? However, if only Europeans be at the Council, it's certain that Africans, Asians, and Americans are absent: and if absent, their judgment and consent is not there signified: and therefore if your question be only de nomine, whether forty bishops may be called a General Council, while the rest are far off? Or if it be whether the Laws or Canons of a small or Provincial Council, may oblige some men, though it were not general? These are nothing to our present business.
2. Moreover, were all the world under the Popes or any other mens Laws, yet they could not be bound to wickedness, self-murder, neglect of their flocks, and to impossibilities: Therefore if (e. g) there were forty bishops, or forty two at Trent in the beginning, and 200 after, and perhaps 20000 absent that were never obliged to be there, the question is both whether this was an universal meeting, and whether the 20000 were obliged by the Acts of the 40 or 200
3. And if they were obliged, what's that to notifie the, Tradition of all the absent Churches? Can you know their minds and customs, by saying that they were obliged by the Decrees?
R. B. Q. 4. May none but Bishops and chief Prelates be members (as you say?)Sect. 8.
W. J. No other, unless such Inferiors as are sent to supply their places, and as Deputies of those Bishops or Prelates, &c.
R. B. Note here, 1. He determineth no others, but never tells us quâ lege, and who it is that made that Law to all the world. And it's known that the Apostles, Elders and Brethren were …senters at Ierusalem, Act 15.
2. Inferiors may come as Deputies of the Bishops; for he knew that the Bishop of Rome had oft sent such to Councils so far off as his gravity would not suffer him to go to. But are these Priests capable persons or not? If not, how can a Bishops deputation make them capable? what if a Priest depute a Lay-man to consecrate the Eucharist? or a Bishop depute a Priest or Deacon only to ordain? will the deputation make them capable? but if they are capable, why may they not be there by their own right? If the business of Councils be as much as our modern Papists tell us, to transmit the Traditions which the several Countries have received from their Ancestors, why may not ten learned grave Priests as truly and credibly tell what are the Traditions of their Country, as one unlearned (or learned) Bishop.
3. Note here how the highest acts of a Pope or Prelate with them may be done per alios, by Deputies that are no Bishops. To preside in General Councils was of old in the Empire the top of the Popes prerogative, and yet he may do that by a Presbyter; and a Bishop may vote and do all his part in a General Council by a Presbyter. And is that an office properly Ecclesiastical and Sacred, which may be exercised by others not of that office? why then may not a Lay-man be deputed to preach, baptize, pray, consecrate and administer the Eucharist, excommunicate, absolve, &c. if deputed? And if so, what is proper to the office?
I told him of the Council of Basil, where were a multitude of Priests: And he answereth:
W. J. Basil in many things is not allowed of by us; name those others received as General Councils Sect. 9.by us that had simple Priests with power of giving Votes as such.
R. B. See Reader, when they have talkt of Councils and Traditions of all the Church, &c. all signifieth but what please the Pope, and his dislike can make Councils and their judgments null at a word. Basil was one of the greatest Councils that ever was; but they condemned and deposed the Pope, and no wonder then if the Pope dislike them; and now that's an answer to all such authority, Basil is not allowed by us. Nor is any thing allowed by you that is against you.
But if any of them would see where Priests have had Votes in Councils, let them read Blondel in the end of his Def. Sent. Hieron. and he shall have proof enough. For I will not tire the Reader with vain citations, done by many long ago. Only I note, 1. If Abbots that are no Bishops have Votes in Councils, why not Priests? saving the Popes will, what makes the difference? (2d) If Presbyters may have Votes in National and Provincial Councils, why not in General ones? the will of the Pope makes and unmakes all. Thus we have no satisfaction what a General Council is.