The Remains of John Corbet, Section 10
§ 10. The Headſhip of a General Council examined.
BY Headſhip over the Church in this inquiry, is not meant a dominion and Deſporick power over it; for the Church hath no Lord but Chriſt, nor ſoveraign authority over it, which is the power of legiſlation and final deciſive judgment, by which men ſtand or fall finally; for the Church hath no King but Chriſt. I exclude Headſhip in any ſuch ſence, as not fit to come under conſideration.
But the Query is, Whether a general Council be ſupream in that kind of power which reſides in the Church, and is only miniſterial and diſpenſatory? that is, whether it hath a ſupream miniſtry or Geconomy over the Catholick Church, ſo that all Churches and miniſters have their power conveyed to them from the ſame, not as from the Fountain (which is Chriſt alone) but as from the firſt receptacle thereof, and are ſubject to its authoritative regulation and determinations, and finally accountable to it for their adminiſtrations.
Who can affirm that an Oecumenical council rightly ſo named, was ever in being? The councils that have born that name, were conventions of Biſhops within the Roman Empire, except ſome very few that were without it, and thoſe living near the confines of it. Whereupon let it be conſidered, whether the ſaid councils were truly Oecumenical, or juſt repreſentatives of the Catholick Church.
That which is wont to be ſaid for the affirmative is, that no Biſhops were excluded from the right of voting therein, but from all parts of the world they might come to them as rightful members of them, if they would.
But what if no greater number of Biſhops meet upon a ſummons to a General council, than did at the council of Trent? May ſuch a convention be called an Oecumenical council becauſe all might come that would, when ſo ſmall a number came as was comparatively nothing to the number of biſhops throughout the world? Or can the convention of a greater number, ſuppoſe as many as met in the firſt Nicene council, be juſtly called a repreſentative of the Catholick Church, or carry the ſence of it, when it bears no more proportion to it? Surely it is not their freedom of acceſs, but their actual convening at leaſt, in a proportionable number, that can juſtly give the denomination.
And what if the biſhops without the limits of the Roman Empire would not come to a General council called by the Mandate of the Roman Emperour, eſpecially they that lived in the remoter parts, as Ethiopia and India, &c? Were they obliged to come to a general council (in caſe it had been ſummoned) in another, eſpecially a remoter Empire or Dominion…? Moreover, what if they could not come (which may well be ſuppoſed) by reaſon of the reſtraint of their ſeveral Princes, or the length of the journey, or inſuperable difficulties, or utter incapacities?
Tho the moſt illuſtrious part of the Catholick Church was contained in the Roman Empire, yet an aſſembly of the biſhops thereof could no more make a repreſentative of the Catholick Church, than an aſſembly of the biſhops of the other part of the world without them could have done, if there had been ſuch an aſſembly.
Beſides the ancient General councils were uſually called in the Eaſtern parts of the Empire; and tho the biſhops of thoſe parts might convene in a conſiderable number, yet the number from the Weſtern parts was inconſiderable, and as none, comparatively to a juſt proportion. Let it be hereupon conſidered, whether the ſaid councils were a juſt repreſentative, and did carry the ſence of that part of the Catholick Church that was included in that Empire. And in this conſideration it is not of little moment to obſerve what numbers of biſhops were ordinarily congregated in the many provincial aſſemblies, and that within provinces of narrower circuits of ground.
And how doth it appear that an Oecumenical council, rightly ſo named, can be? For ſuppoſe it be not neceſſary to conſiſt of all the biſhops in the world, but of ſome as delegates in the name of all, yet it muſt conſiſt of ſo many proportionably delegated from all in the ſeveral quarters, as may ſignifie the ſence and conſent of all.
Hereupon let it be conſidered, whether there be a poſſibility of ſuch aſſemblies; much more whether there be a poſſibility of the continuation, or of the ſucceſſion of them in ſuch frequency as would be requiſite in caſe ſuch an aſſembly were Head of the Church.
Nor doth it ſtand with reaſon, that an Oecumenical council, in caſe it were exiſtent, can poſſibly execute the authority that belongs to the head of the Univerſal Church, in overſeeing all, in receiving appeals from all, in making authoritative determinations for all, either immediately by it ſelf, or mediately by ſubordinate councils, judicatories, and miniſters, to be ſuperintended, regulated and determined by it in their proceedings.
Nor is there any notice given of the ſaid headſhip of a General council, more than of the Popes or any other biſhops univerſal headſhip in the primitive and authentick records of the Charter that Chriſt hath given to his Church, to wit, the Holy Scriptures: Nor is any rule given therein for the conſtitution of a General council, whether it ſhall be made up only of the Clergy, or only of ſuch biſhops as are of a higher order th… Presbyters or of all ſuch biſhops of the Catholick Church or if of ſome in the name of all, what number there muſt be, either definite or indefinite, and proportionate to the number of thoſe that are repreſented.
It is evident de facto, that the officers of the Catholick Church, as the particular biſhops or paſtors, and the aſſociations and conventions of them, do not derive their ſpiritual authority from a General council: Nor doth it appear that de jure they ſhould derive their power from it, any more than from the Pope.