Considerations on the Council of Trent being the fifth discourse, concerning the guide in controversies / by R.H.

CHAP. III.

Of Councils General.

• 1. The necessary Composition of them, considered with relation to the acceptation of them by Absents. §. 35.
  • This Acceptation in what measure requisite. §. 39.
• 2. To whom belongs the Presidentship in these Councils. §. 47.
• 3. And, Calling of them. §. 47.

[§. 31] THis (from §. 9.) said of all inferior Persons, and Councils, and their Presidents, so high as a Patriarchal: of their several Subordinations, and Obedience, in any dissent, due still to the su∣perior Court, or Prelate. Now I come to the supreme Council, Oecumenical, or General; (the Rules and Laws of which may be partly collected from the former). Wherein the chief Considera∣bles are; 1 The Composition; of what, or what number of per∣sons it must necessarily consist: 2 The President-ship in it; and the Calling of it; to whom they belong.

[§. 32] 1st. Then, for the Composition, It is necessary, that it be such, either wherein all the Patriarchs, (or at least, so many of them as are Catholick) with many of their Bishops, do meet in person, or where, after All called to It, and the Bishops of so ma∣ny Provinces, as can well be convened, sitting in Council, headed by the Prime Patriarch, or his Legates, Delegates are sent by the rest; or, at least, the Acts, and Decrees thereof, in their neces∣sary absence, are accepted, and approved by them, and by the several Provinces under them; or, by the major part of those Provinces.

[§. 33] For; a General, or Oecumenical, Council, such as doth con∣sist of all the Bishops of the Catholick Universe, met together, there never hath been any; but, in those which are generally, by Protestants, as well as Catholicks, reputed, and admitted for such, sometimes we find a greater, sometimes a smaller number, accord∣ing to the propinquity of the place, the peace of the times, the numerosity of Sects, &c. So the four first General Coun∣cils,

all held in the East, by reason of the Heresies, they opposed, chiefly reigning in that Coast, consisted mostly of Oriental Bi∣shops. The first General Council, of Nice, had present in it only. 2. Presbyters (the Bishop of Rome's Legates), and 3. Bishops of the Occidental Churches. The 2^d General Council, of Con∣stantinople, had in it no Occidental Bishop at all; but only was confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, and his Occidental Council as∣sembled in Rome, not long after it. The 3^d. General Council of Ephesus, had only 3. Delegates sent to it from the Bishop of Rome, and his Occidental Synod. The 4^th. of Chalcedon, had only 4. Legates, sent thither from the Bishop of Rome; after that the We∣stern Bishops, assembled in several Provincial Synods, had com∣municated their judgment to them, in the Controversie then agi∣tated; and besides these, 2. Affrican Bishops, and one Sicilian. Where note; That the 3^d. also, of these Councils transacted most of their business, and condemned Nestorius the Bishop of Constantinople, without the presence of the Antiochian Patriarch, and his Bishops, who retarded his journey in favour of Nestorius, (though afterwards he, and his, consented also to his Condemna∣tion): And that the 4^th. Council acted all things, without Dioscorus, the Alexandrian Patriarch; whom also they deposed, for his favouring the Heretical Party; and for his Contumacy a∣gainst the See of Rome. See Conc. Chalced. Act 4.

Yet all these Councils, whether the Bishops personally present, were fewer, or more, were accounted equally valid; [§. 34] from the After-acceptation. and admittance of their Decrees by the Pre∣lates absent; i. e. the acceptation of such persons, as, if present, had had a Vote in them. All which Prelates, were they personal∣ly present in the Council, or the much major part of them, there would be no further need of any approbation of the Church Ca∣tholick, or, of any other Members thereof, to confirm its acts; nor are they any way capable thereof; because the remainder of the Church diffusive (I mean of those, who have any decisive vote in Ecclesiastical affairs) must be concluded, in their Judgment, and Sentence, by this supposed much-major part thereof, that are personally present in the Council. But this wanting, the other compleatsits defect. And upon such Acceptation it is, that the 2^d. and the 5^th. of the Councils called General; held at Constan∣tinople, without the Pope, or his Legat's presence therein, yet bear the name of General, because the Decrees of the former of them were accepted by Damasus, and his Occidental Council, con∣vened not long after it; and the latter, after some time, accepted by Vigilius, and his Successors, with the Western Bishops; as,

on the contrary, for want of such Acceptation, the 2^d. Eph••sin Council, though for its meeting as entire and full, as most of the other called Oecumenical, yet was never esteemed such, because its Decrees, though passed by a major part of the present Bishops, were opposed by the Popes Legates in the Council; and by Him, and the main Body of the Occidental Prelates, out of it.

[§. 35] And, upon this General Acceptation also, inferior Councils may become, in their Obligation, equivalent to Gene∣rall: since, however the Churches Testimony is received; whe∣ther conjunctly, or by parts; yet — Ecclesia universa errare non potest in necessariis. So Bellarmine observes, ancient Councils, less than General, very frequently to have determined matters of Faith. — Haeresin Pauli Samosateni damnavit Concilium Antiochenum pau∣corum Episcoporum (Euseb l. 7. c. 24.) nec alii, multò plures in toto mundo, conquesti sunt; sed ratum habuerunt: — Haeresin Mace donii damnavit Concilium Constantinopolitanum; in quo nullus fuit Lati∣norum; Latini probaverunt. Haeresim Pelagii damnaverunt Concilia Provincialia; Milevitanum, & Carthaginense. — Haeresim Nestorii damnavit Concilium Ephesinum, antequàm adessent Latini; Latini vo∣luerunt cognoscere rem gestam, & cognitam approbaverunt. All which Determinations of lesser Councils received their strength from the General Body of the Church owning them. Neither did, or ought, such inferior Councils, when necessitated by contenti∣ons, and disputes, define any such thing, hastily, or rashly; but as they well knew, before any such Resolution, the common Sen∣timents of the Church Catholick herein. Thus the Paucity of Church-Prelates in Councils is shewed to infer a necessity of an after-Acceptation by absents to ratifie its Acts.

[§. 36] Next: Concerning the just quality, measure, and propor∣tion, of this after-Acceptation, several things are to be well ob∣served. 1^st. That it is not to be extended, (in a Latitude of Christianity much greater), beyond the bounds of the Church Ca∣tholick. Which Catholick Church is many times of a nar∣rower compass, than the Christian Profession; all Heretical, and Schismatical Churches▪ I mean, such as have made a former discessi∣on, in Doctrine▪ or external Communion, from their lawful Ec∣clesiastical Superiors, and, being but a part, have separated from the former whole, standing contradistinct to it. So, after the Nicene Council, in Constantines time, the Arrians, and in S. Au∣stins time, the Donatists, were esteemed, though Christians, yet no Catholicks; and the Catholick Church was named still as a part of Christianity, opposite to them. Of which thus S. Austin†

— Tenerme, justissimè, in Ecclesiae gremio ipsum Catholicae nomen, quod [nomen], non sine causâ, inter tam multas haereses, sic ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit. Therefore, upon the growth of many He∣resies, after the Heathen persecutions ceased, instead of these words of the Apostles Creed, [I believe the Holy Catholick Church, the Communion of Saints, (i.e.) in it] we read in this Creed, as explained by Councils, [I believe One, Holy, Catholick, and A∣postolick Church:] 1. One, to distinguish it from many, varying, Sects, pretending also to be true Churches of Christ. 2. Holy; i. e. as to the external maintaining the true and holy Faith, Man∣ners, Sacraments, Government, Discipline, delivered by our Lord, and his Apostles; and, in particular, Holy, as maintaining no Doctrine contrary to Holiness; but not Holy; so as that some external Members thereof may not be, by their own default, inter∣nally, unholy and unsanctified, and no true Members of Christ. 3. Apostolick; i. e, Succeeding them by un-interrupted Ordinati∣ons; and preserving their Traditions, for Doctrine, Govern∣ment, and Discipline, And therefore here the other Clause, [the Communion of Saints] is omitted, as sufficiently included in the former Explication; which is observed also by Dr. Hammond, (of Fundamentals, p. 69, & 83.) So, in the yet more enlar∣ged, Athanasian Creed, we find the Catholick Faith used in a re∣strained sence, opposed to all those Heresies, that are rejected by that Creed. And to this notion of Church Catholick, See, in Disc. 1. §. 37. & 44. Learned Protestants willingly consenting.

[§. 37] 2^ly. This Acceptation, in respect of the Catholick Church, (i e. of those Prelates, that be not formerly, by any Herefie, or Schisme, shut out of it,) cannot rationally be required, absolutely universal of all, but only of the considerably Major part of them; for in a Government not simply Monarchical, whether Ecclesiasti∣cal, or Civil, no Laws can be promulgated, nor Unity preserved, if of their Governors the fewer be not regulated by a major part: and it hath been shewed at large, Disc. 2. §. 25. (which I desire the Reader to review, and consider well, because much weight is laid upon it) that the Decrees of the first. 4▪ General Councils were none of them established with such a plenary acceptation: the practice of which Councils is a sufficient Rule, and Warrant to posterity: Nor, otherwise, can any new Heresie, patronized by any Bishops formerly Catholick, (as the most pernicious He∣resies have ever been), he ever legally suppressed, so long as such Prelates persist in their dissent from the rest. See what hath been said of this in Disc. 1. §. 28, 38, 39. — & Disc. 3. §. 11, & 37.

That strict condition therefore, which Dr. Hammond requires to authentize, and ratifie the Definitions, and Canons of General Councils in respect of Acceptation, seems not reasonable; Name∣ly, That after their promulgation [at least, if not before] they should be accepted by each Provincial Council, and acknowledged to a∣gree with that Faith, which they had originally received (of Her. §. 6. n. 8, 12.). — Or, That such Conciliar Declarations should be uni∣versally received by all Churches, (Her. §. 14. n. 4.): because such are (saith he) Christians, and Bishops, as well as the Bishop of Rome; and consequently their Negatives, as evident prejudices to, and as ut∣terly unreconcileable with, an universal affirmative, as the Popes can be, &c. Like to which (§. 12. n. 6.) he argues thus, con∣cerning the absence, or dissent, of any Bishops from a Council — That the promise, of the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church, can no way belong to a Council, unless all the Members of a Church were met together in a Council; [I add, or, when met, do consent] for if there be any left out, why may not the promise be good in them, though the Gates of Hell should be affirmed to prevail against the Council. And, §. 5. n. 3. — That, if the matter delivered by a Council be not testified from all places, it is not qualified for our be∣lief, as Catholick, in respect of place; because the Faith being one, and the same, and by all, and every of the Apostles, deposited in all their Plantations, what was ever really thus taught, by any of them, in any Church, will also be found to have been taught. and received, in all other Apostolical Churches. And, §. 10 n. 2, 3. He concludes the Canon of the 7th. General Council not obliging; — because the contrary Doctrine being delivered before in a Provincial Council, that of Eliberis, [which is not true], yields (saith he) an irrefragable proof, that the Doctrine of the 2^d. Nicene Council, was not testified, by all the Churches, of all ages, to be of Tradition Apostolical. I say, such an universal acceptation as this, of every Church, or Pro∣vince, seems upon any such pretence, unreasonably exacted.

1^st. Because all Conciliary Definitions are not (as he saith there they are) only Declarations, and Testifications of such Aposto∣lical Traditions, as were left by them evident, and conspicuous, in all Christian Churches planted by them; but are, many times, Determinations of points deduced from, and necessarily consequen∣tial to, such clear Traditionals, whether written, or unwritten.

2^ly. Because, if the Acts of General Councils were only such De∣clarations of Apostolical Tradition, yet, it is possible, that some particular Church may, in time, depart from such a Tradition, entrusted unto them: (else how can any Church become Here∣tical, against any such Tradition?) and so, when their acceptance

is asked, may refuse to acknowledge, what all the rest justisie. And all this clearly appears in those Bishops, or Churches, that made some opposition to the Decrees of the 4. first General Coun∣cils; and in the opposition of S. Cyprian, and his Bishops, con∣cerning Rebaptization.

[§. 41] 3^ly. For the manner of this Approbation of such major part; It is thought sufficient, if it be a tacit, and interpretative, Ap∣probation only (and not positive, or express; for who can shew this, to most allowed Councils?) Namely, when, such Decrees be∣ing promulgated, they signifie no opposition thereto. Of which thus Franciscus à Sancta Clarâ (System. fidei, c. 23. p. 262) — Ne{que} tamen dubitandum est, quin statim obligare incipiant actus Concilia∣res, si non appareat Ecclesiarum (non dico hujus, vel illius, vel ali∣quorum protervorum hominum) reclamatio; nam praesumendum est, omnes consensisse, si non constet oppositum: ut etiam acutè observavit Mirandula, ubi post alia dicit — Quoad dum universalis Ecclesia non reclamarit, necessariò credendum est. And thus D^r. Hammond, of Heres. §. 6. n. 15.16.— When a Doctrine is conciliarly agreed on, it is then promulgated to all; and the universal, though but tacit, ap∣probation, and reception thereof, the no considerable contradiction gi∣ven to it in the Church, is a competent evidence, that this is the judg∣ment, and concordant Tradition of the whole Church, though no resolu∣tion of Provincial Synods [which was used before some General Councils] hath preceded.—But if their Acts are contradicted, and pro∣tested against, this evidently prejudiceth the Authority of that Council. And Archbishop Lawd, §. 26. p. 195. saith, — It is a sufficient con∣firmation to a General Council — if, after it is ended, the whole Church admit it, though never so tacitly. The whole Church admit it, saith he. And, the whole, say we, or, such a major part of the whole, as ought to conclude the rest. Which admission also is sufficiently discerned in the most general Conformity, to such Decrees, in mens profession, and practice▪ For it is all reason, that where we cannot have, Quod creditum est ubi{que}; ab omnibus; semper; by rea∣son of some divisions in the Church, we hold to what is nearest it, quod creditum est in pluribus locis; & à pluribus; & diutius or antiquiùs; For the plures, pluribus locis, joined in one Communion with the Ec∣clesiastical Head of the Church here on earth, are the securest Ex∣positors to us, of quod antiquius; or, quod creditum semper. See Disc. 3. §. 11.

4^ly. For the applying of this Acceptation to all the Decrees of a Council, or only to some, [§. 42] whilst some other Decrees are dis∣claimed (as sometimes happens): Here also, so far as a due Ac∣ceptation is extended, so far is our Obligation; nor can any

reasonably argue, that, if some Acts of a Council are, by some after-opposition, rendred invalid, therefore no other things p••ssed in that Council, and generally approved, have force.

[§. 43] 5^ly. What is said here of the non-approbation of some Pre∣lates, or Churches (as frequently happens) its not invalidating a Council, or its Decrees, must be said also of the absence of some Prelates from the Council, or of their non-concurrence, when sitting in it; their absence, 1. Either voluntary; as, of those, who, heterodox in opinion, and fewer in number, foresee, that probably they shall be over voted by the rest: (as the Arrian Pre∣lates did absent themselves from the Council of Sardica; and so, might also have absented themselves from that of Nice; or again, the Eutychian Prelats, from Chalce••on) notwithstanding whose ab∣sence, or non-concurrence, the Council will not cease to bear the just title of General (provided, that it consist of a major part of the Christian Churches, and have the concurrence of the Prime Patriarch; without whom nihil finiendum): Otherwise an Here∣tical, or Schismatical, Church can secure themselves, as they please, from being condemned by any General Council; which, as long as they are absent, will be called not General, and so its force cannot extend to them. Nay; otherwise, after any defecti∣on from the Orthodox Faith, or after any considerable Schism in the Church, now, there can never be any more Oecumenical Councils; because, forsooth, that party fallen away will give no meeting to the other, too prevalent; and thus General Councils cease to have any being, when there first begins to be any need of them. Of this thus a Learned Protestant‖ with intention to make the 5^th. Council a General one without the presence of the Pope, and his Occidental Bishops. — The Presidence, and Presence (saith he) of the Bishop of Rome is not so necessary in General Councils; but that, in case of his wilsul refusal, a Council may proceed, and be holden for lawful, without his consenting to it. And,— As a Council may be holden in such a case [i.e. they refusing to come], without the presence, and concurrence of the Roman Bishop, and those that are subject to him; so, being present, if be refuse to concur in judgment with the rest, they may proceed without him, and their sentence may be of force, though he consent not to it. What, then, they presume to affirm, thus, of the Roman, they must not deny, of their own Bishops. This, that the voluntary absence of some Prelates doth not invalidate a Council, or its Acts. ². Neither yet doth the absence forced of some others; if such as being for∣merly justly e••communicated, or anathematized, have now no right to any voting in such Councils, though perhaps, if admitted,

these might equal the Orthodox in number, Thus Gelasius Bi∣shop of Rome† concerning the Eutychians (when very numerous in the East) and also of the Favourers of them, not to be admit∣ted to a Council — Ecclesiastici moris non est, cuni his, qui pollutam habent communionem, permixtam{que} cum perfidis, miscere Concilium. — And, Meritò ab Apostolicâ sede, caeteris{que} Catholicis, non jam consulendi erant, sed potiùs notandi, &c.

6^ly. What hath been here said of the necessary Constituti∣on, or Composition of a General Council, [§. 44] and Ratification of its Acts, must be said exactly, on the same ground, concerning a Patriarchal or other inferior Council: that it is not necessary, that all the Bishops of such Patriarchy, be assembled; or, absent, do accept, and ratifie it, to make it Legal, or Obligatory.

[§. 45] 2. This said concerning the necessary Composition of a Ge∣neral Council; come we next to the Presidency, and Moderatorship therein.

1. Where, 1^st. As it hath been already shewed, in all the o∣ther Synods,‖ Protestants consenting†, that the Presidentship in them, without any new election made by the Council, or yet by the secular power, belong•• to him, who hath the prime place, and dignity; the presiding in the Provincial Council, to the Metropo∣litan: in the National Council, where be may Metropolitans, to the Primate of them, &c. which President, also, had in these Councils a negative voice†: so it seems all reason, that, i•• a General Council also, that Prelate should preside, who is the Bi∣shop of the chief See; and, to whom, in all ages, all other Churches, and Prelates, have allowed the Primacy; i. e. the Bi∣shop of Rome (See 2. Gen. Counc. c. 5.) All reason, I say, That the Primate of the Patriarchs Preside in a General Council, as the Primate of the Metropolitans, in a National. And, that, what other Priviledges these other Presidents enjoyed in those Councils, the same at least (though we set aside here his universal Pastorship) He should enjoy in This▪ agreeable to that ancient Canon, and Custom, in the universal Church, (mentioned by Socrates, l. 2. c. 13. — And Sozamen, l. 2. c. 13.—And, vindicated, by Pope Innocent, apud August. Epist. 91. — And, yet more anciently, by Pope Julius, against some Oriental Bishops, apud Athanas. Apol. 2.) — Sin•• Romans P••••tifice nihil finiendum.

[.§ 46] 2^ly. If, in this Matter, Prescription may be of any force; de facto, the Prime Patriarch, the Bishop of ••ome, in the ancient Council•• General hath always bean allowed this Presidentship. As will appear to any reviewing the Church-History for the first 8.

General Councils: In 4. of which Councils, namely, the 4th. 6th. 7th▪ and 8th, the Protestant grant it without dispute. Next; For his Presidency in the 3d. General Council; it seems evident enough,‖ from the testimony of Evagrius ‖, that Cyril Bishop of Alexandria was deputed by him to execute this Office; who saith, That the Bishops meeting in that Council— Cyrillo locum Celestini, Episcopatum antiquae Romae gerentis, obtinente, accersunt Nestori∣um, &c. whose Deputy also Cyril was made before, for the ex∣communication of Nestorius by the Authority of the Apostolical See; as appears in the Pope's Letter to Cyril† — Nostrâ vice, & loco, cum potestate, usus, ejusmodi sententiam exequêris, &c.

For the 2^d. and 5^th. General Council, both held at Constan∣tinople; as it is true, that the Pope presided not in them, because indeed neither He, nor his Legates were present in them; so it is true, that these Councils were not General, till they were, after their Session, accepted by him, and the other Western Churches. But yet both these Councils, apparently enough, yield the Presi∣dency to him in general Councils: the 5^th. (which much courted his presence) in express terms, in Eutychi•••• the Patriarch of Con∣stantinople his Letter to him ‖ — Petinius,‖ presidente nobis vestrâ Be∣atitudine, communi tractatu, eadem capitula in medio proponenda qua∣ri, &c. And the 2^d. in that which infers his presidency, whilst the Bishop of Constantinople, who in the absence of him, and his Legates, presided in it, challengeth Primatus honorem only post Ro∣manum Episcopum.† —And that Council, in their Epistle to Dama∣sus the Roman Bishop, acknowledge their meeting in that Council by order of his Letters.—Concurreramus Constantinopolim ad ve∣strae Reverentiae literas. Now for the first Council, That of Nice, which only remains: Here also the Popes Legates are found to subscribe the first, before all the other Patriarchs: only Hosius bear∣ing no title, save Bishop of Corduba, gives his Vote, and attests the Nicene Creed, before these Legates; which hath caused much dispute. Gelazius Cyzicenus ‖ and some other Ancients, say; Ho∣sius presided in it, as Sylvestri Episcopi Maximae Romae locum obtinens (And indeed, the Popes Primacy before the other Patriarchs, and so, much more, before a Bishop of his own Patriarchy, being granted; and no mention being made of any such Presidentship conferred on Hosius, either by election of the Council, or of the Emperor, what can be said, but that he held such Presidency only in this capacity, viz. the Popes, Deputation (as Cyr••l also did in the 3d. General Council)? unless ••ny will say; that his voting in the first place, was a pure Indulgence of honour to him, as being, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a Confessor in Divelesian's days, and narrowly missing Martyr∣dom;

* the Emperor's especial Favourite, sent by him formerly ••o compose the differences in Egypt ‖; * a person, as Athanasius ••aith of him,† Ob••tantos labores omni Reverentiâ dignus ‖: and now, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Compiler of the new Form of the Nicene Creed. To which Creed therefore himself gives the first testimony in this form — Hosius Episcopus Civitatis Cordubensis, Provinciae Hispaniae dixit; ••ta credo, sicut superius scriptum est, after which consent of his, fol∣lows in the first place, the Pope's Legates Subscripsimus; and then that of the other Patriarchs, and Bishop, Where it may also be confidered, what D^r. Field hath observed | That the Subscriptions,‖ in the first Councils. were more irregular; and no such certain, and uni∣form course kept in giving preeminences to the chief Bishops, as was af∣terward; For, in this Council, the third Patriarch of Antioch sub∣scribes not only after the Bishops of Egypt, but of Palestine, and several others subject to his own Patriarchate. And thu•• far the same D^r. Field proceeds in deferring this Presidentship to the Bi∣shop of Rome; All Antiquity (saith he†) yielded to the Bishop of Rome a Presidentship of honour to have preeminence in place, to propose things to be, debated, to direct the Actions, and to give definitive Sen∣tence according to the Voices and Judgment of the Council. [He might have added: And in matters concerning Faith. to render the Act of it invalid, and unconclusive to the Church, without his consent, according to the ancient Canon; Sine Romano Pontifice nibil finiendum, &c. as appears in his nulling the Act of the second Ephesine Council voting Eutychianisme]: but not a Presidentship of power, to have the power not only of directing, but of ruling their do∣ings also that are assembled in Council, and to conclude of matters af∣ter his own judgment, though the greater part of the Council like it not, yea though no part like it. [But such a Presidentship of power in the Pope, as to conclude matters after his own judgment, ei∣ther against the whole, or major part of a General Council, is denied as well by modern Catholicks, as by Protestants, or Anti∣quity.]

[§. 47] 3^ly. What of Presiding in, the same is to be said of the Calling of, General Councils. 1. Where, 1st. It seems all rea∣son; that, such Meetings being Consultations for the better managing of affairs purely Ecclesiastical, and for the better feeling and preserving of the Churches.Unity, and Peace, (of the neces∣sity of which meetings the Clergy can best judge), All reason, I say, it seems, that the Calling of them should belong to the Cler∣gy; especially, when the secular powers are not Christian. And this also we find in the Churche's practice; that both that first Council, Act. 15. and all those following, till Constantine's days,

were assembled by the Churche's sole Authority, without the Prince's concurrence, or leave; and, if amongst these Councils, none save the first, were absolutely General, yet this was not from a defect of power in the Church to convene such a Council, but that she thought, in such a secular opposition, her affairs might be, by many divided Councils Provincial more privately, and se∣curely dispatched, as the Controversie about Easter was in the se∣cond Century.

This Right therefore, formerly possessed by the Church, Princes, by their submitting unto it, and becoming Christian, cannot justly take away: nor may be thought to do so, by their accumulative power in assisting the Church from time to time for procuring the more effectual concurrence. (which much depends on their temporal penalties), of such great Assemblies. But whatever priviledge of calling General Councils should be al∣lowed to Princes so long as Catholick, yet at least that Right, which in this matter is conceded to belong to the Church, in case the Emperor, or Prince, be Infidel, must also be resumed in case the Prince Christian be an enemy to the Orthodox Faith: (i. e.) be either Heretical, or Schismatical (of which likewise it belongs to the Supreme Governors of the Church to judge▪) For▪ What mischief may the Church suffer from unbelieving, that she may not also suffer from Heretical, Princes? And again must also be re∣sumed, in case the secular Princes, through whose Dominions the Catholick Church is dispersed, be many; of many several tempo∣ral Interests; and, in respect of these, not facil to concur in the calling such Council, where the Church apprehends need.

[§ 48] 2. Next; This hath been shewed already, § 9. — & 16. n. 4. in all the inferior Synods, Protestants consenting, 1. That the Right of calling them, though the Prince be Christian, be∣longs to such an Ecclesiastical person, as hath either a superiority of Power over the Members of such Synod, (as, in a Provincial Synod, the Metropolitan hath); or at least, the superiority of Or∣der, and Place, (es in a National Synod, the Primate hath, in respect of the other Metropolitans, whereof it consists): 2. And Belongs to such Ecclesiastical persons, without their first con∣sulting any other preparatory Synod, about calling such Synods: 3. And again, belongs to some of them (as the calling of Patri∣archal Synods, to the Patriarch) when the Bishops, so called together by him, do live under many several secular Govern∣ments; Yet—which Patriarchs (saith D^r. Field‖) are neither so depending of, nor subject to, the power of Princes, but that when they are enemies to the Faith [I add Faith, either Christian, or

Catholick] they may exercise the same without their consent, and pri∣vity, and subject them, that refuse to obey their Summons, to such pu∣nishments, as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt, or wilful negligence. And the 8^th. General Council, (Can. 17.) upon occasion of some Metropolitans, qui, ne secundum voca∣tionem Apostolici Praesulis accurrant, à mundi Principibus se detineri, sine ratione, causantur, declares also thus against such Princes— Cum Princeps pro suis causis conventum frequentèr agat, impium esse, ut summos Praesules ad Synodos pro Ecclesiasticis negotiis celebrandum impediant, vel quosdam ab eorum Conciliis prohibeant: And all these things are justified, and allowed by Protestants: Sutably then to all the rest it seems all reason, That the calling of a Gene∣ral Council, i.e. a Synod consisting of many Patriarchs, and their Patriarchies, should belong to the Primate of the Patriarchs, or Bishop of the chief See; though we suppose, that he claim no more, than a preeminency of order, as Primates do over Metro∣politans.

[§. 49] Of this matter therefore some Learned Prote••••rnts seem to speak more moderately. 1^st. Thus Mr. Thorndike concerning the Right of Calling Councils its belonging to the Church. Epil. p. 33.—I must (saith he) here not omit to alledge the Authority of Councils; and to maintain, the Right, and Power of holding them, and the obligation, which the Decrees of them, regularly made, is a∣ble to create, to stand by the same Authority of the Apostles: He ac∣counting that Assembly (Act. 1.) at the election of Matthias, a General Council; and again, that, Act. 15.

And then, thus B. Bramhal, concerning the Prime Patri∣arch's calling such Council, Schism-guarded, p. 356.— If the Pope, (saith he) hath any right, either to convocate General Councils him∣self, or to represent to Christian Soveraigns the fit Seasons for convoca∣tion of them, either in respect of his beginning of Ʋnity, or of his Protopatriarchate, we do not envy it him, since there may be a good use of it in respect of the division of the Empire, so good caution be observed. Bellarmine‖ confesseth that power which we acknowledge; that is, that, though the Pope be no Ecclesiastical Monarch, but only Chief of the principal Patriarchs, yet the Right to convocate General Coun∣cils should pertain unto him. So B. Bramhal.

D^r. Field speaks yet more distinctly, and copiously†—The State of the Christian Church (saith he) being spiritual, is such, that it may stand, though not only forsaken, but grievously oppressed, by the great men of the world: and therefore it is by all resolved on; that the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that bear the Sword: and that there is, in the Church, a power of convocating these

her spiritual Pastors, to consult of things concerning her we••fare, though none of the Princes of the world do favour her.—And there is no question, but that this power [of convocating these Pastors] is in them that are first, and before other, in each company of spiritual Pa∣stors, and Ministers — Hereupon we shall find, that the calling of Dio∣cesan Synods pertaineth to the Bishop; of Provincial, to the Metropoli∣tan; of National, to the Primate; and of Patriarchal, to the Patri∣arch. And of these he saith—That they neither are so depending, &c. quoted before. §. 48. Lastly, Concerning the Calling of General Councils—In times of persecution (saith he) and when there are no Christian Princes [i. e. to assist the Church, as he saith afterward] —If there be any matter of Faith, or any thing con∣cerning the whole State of the Christian Church, wherein a common de∣liberation of all the Pastors of the Church is necessary, he that is in or∣der the first among the Patriarchs, with the Synods of Bishops subject to him, may call the rest together, as being the principal part of the Church, whence all actions of this nature do take beginning. Instan∣cing in Julius, and Damasus, Bishops of Rome, with their Coun∣cils, practising this. So D^r. Field.

[§. 50] Only, here you see two limitations, or bars, put in by him, for the Reformation to make some advantage of. The one, In times of persecution, or, when the Church hath not Princes to assist her, then, the power of Calling General Councils to belong to the Clergy. The other, (That then it belongs, in the Clergy, to the prime Patriarch; yet not singly; but, joined with his Council; for (saith he‖) the first Patriarch hath not power, singly, to call together the other Patriarchs, and their Bishops, because none of them is supe∣rior to another in degree, as Bishops are to Presbyters, nor so, in Or∣der, Honour, and Place, as Metropolitans are to Bishops; or Patri∣archs, to Metropolitans. Now to the first of these, his limiting this Ecclesiastical power only to times of persecution, see what hath been said already ‖; and his own instances prove against it; for Julius, [§. 47] and Dama••us, summoned the Oriental Bishops to such a Council. the one of them in the Reign of Constans, the other, of Theodosius, both of these being Christian, Orthodox, Catho∣lick. Emperors. Though, if this be allowed, that in any non-assistance of the secular powers (Heathen, or Christian, it mat∣ters not) the Church hath power, when she judgeth it requisite, to assemble such Councils, more needs not be desired. Con∣cerning his second Limitation; In the reason he gives for it, he omits one Superiority among the rest, which would have fitted the purpose; namely, the Superiority, that Primates have to the other Meropolitans, in their calling a National Synod, and that

without any Assembly of the Primate's own Bishops, first consult∣ed: I ask therefore, why not the Primate of the Patriarchs, do the like? 2^ly. If the first Patriarch singly have no authority for calling together the other Patriarchs, neither hath he, joined with his Synod; his Synod having no more power over other Pa∣triarchs, then himself. As for the Instances: Julius sent to the Orientals, singly, concerning a Council, to be joined of both the East and West. Damasus indeed sent, when a Western Coun∣cil was sitting; but this called for other matters, and not for this, to give him a Commission for such a Summons, or to join with him in it; as if the first Patriarch cannot, when need requires, call a General Council without first Summoning, and convening a Pa∣triarchal Council, to give their consent to the calling of this Ge∣neral: A thing, to which the Churches practice is known to be contrary; and also the convening of a Patriarchal Council, a mat∣ter of so great trouble, and delay, as it seems most unreasonable to require the assembling of such a Council, either for this, or for much other Church-business (as hearing Appeals of less account. &c.) which come to the Patriarchs hands. And the same Dr. Field elsewhere grants so much; where he saith‖, —That in time, causes growing many, and the difficulties intollerable, in coming together, and in staying to hear these Causes thus multiplied, and increased [which he confesseth before, to be just considerations] it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of Complaints, and Appeals, to Me∣tropolitans, and such like Ecclesiastical Judges, limited, and directed by Canons, and Imperial Laws, than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces, and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors, and Guides. Thus Dr. Field.—And the Protestant-Primates (saith Bi∣shop Bramhal†) use the same customs of judging Church-Causes, with∣out calling Synods. Now what is, in this kind, conceded to Metro∣politans, much more ought to be to Patriarchs; whose Councils are not so easily collected as Provincial; nor ever was a set time appointed for these, as for the other. This said, concern∣ing the Calling of General Councils, its belonging, of right, to the Church; and, in it; to the Supremest Prelate.

[§. 49] 3^ly. It is not denied, but that the Emperor had, and, since the dissolution of the Empire, other Princes joined, still have a lawful power of convocating a General Assembly of the same Pre∣lates, as being their Subjects; of calling these, both in assistance to the Church in her necessities; and also in order to their own Civil affairs, when any way disturbed by contentions in the Church; Provided, this be with the Prime Patriarch's consent; consent, ei∣ther before, or, at least after, the Indiction of them. Of which

thus Bellarmine‖ — Catholici munus convocandi Concilia Generalia ad Romanum Pontificem propriè pertinere volunt; fic tainen, ut possit etiam alius, Pontifice consentiente, Concili••m indicere; quinetiam satis sit, si indictionem factam ipse postea ratam habeat, & confirmet, at si, nec ipse indicat Concilium, nec aliquis alius de ejus mandato vel consensu, nec ipse saltem approbat indicationem, illud non Concilium, sed Conciliabulum fore.

[§. 52] And this thing is made good by the ancient practice; where, As the Emperors, being, by their secular power, much more effe∣ctual promoters thereof, were prevailed with to call the first Gene∣ral Councils, so this was not done, but either from the first Moti∣on, or with the consent, of the Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Head of the Church; as appears concerning all the first 6. Ge∣neral Councils, in the acclamatory speech of the 6^th. Council, at the conclusion thereof, to the Emperor — Arius Divisor, &c. They naming 1 Sylvester, 2 Damasus, 3 Caelestinus, 4 Leo, 5 Vigilius, 6 A∣gatho, Bishops of Rome, joined with the Emperor, in the promo∣ting all these Councils. And, to come to some particulars, Concerning the Second General Council of Constantinople; thus saith that Council in their Letter to Damasus, and to the Coun∣cil assembled with him at Rome—Concurreramus Constantinopolim, ad vestrae Reverentiae [i. e. of Damasus singly, this Council not then sitting, when the Orientals met first in Council, though it did, when they writ,] literas, missas Theodosio, summâ pietate Imperatori. Concerning the 3^d. Council thus Prosper (in Chronico) —Synodum Ephesinam factam esse Cyrilli industriâ, & Coelestini authoritate. Concerning the 4^th. Thus the Emperor to Leo, (in the Epistles pertaining to that Council)—Superest, ut si pla∣cuerit tuae Beatitudini in has partes advenire, &c. Synodum celebrare, hoc facere Religionis affectu dignetur, nostris uti{que} desideriis vestra San∣ctitas satisfaciet, & Sacrae Religioni, quae utilia sunt decernet. Si ve∣r•• hoc onerosum est, ut tu ad has partes advenias, hoc ipsum nobis pr••∣priis Literis tua Sanctitas manifestet, quatenus in omnem Orientem, & in ipsam Thraciam & Illyricum sacrae nostrae Literae dirigantur, ut ad quendam definitum locum, ubi nobis placuerit, omues sanctissi∣mi Episcopi debeant convenire; & quae Christianorum Religioni, at{que} Catholicae Fidei, prosint, sicut Sanctitas tua secundum Eccesiasticas Regulas definiverit, suâ dispositione declarent. To which add, * that of Pulcherta the Emperor's Sister, to the same Pope.—Propterea tua Reverentia, quocun{que} modo prospexerit, significare dignetur, ut omnes etiam totius Orientis Episcopi, Thraciae at{que} Illyrici (sicut eti∣an nostro Domin pi••ssimo Imperatori placuit) in unani Civitatem ve∣lociter ab Orientalibus partibus valeant convenire; & illic facto Con∣cilio,

de Catholicâ confessione, &c. te authore, decernant. And, * the Accusation of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria, in the first Act of that Council—Quòd Synodum ausus est facere fine authori∣tate Sedis Apostolicae, quod nunquam factum est, nec fieri licuit; The like to which see in the Epistle of Pope Pelagius. 2. to the Ori∣ental Bishops, against John Bishop of Constantinople: And that of Gelasius, who lived about some 40. years after, in his Epistle ad Episcopos Dardaniae.—Sedes Apostolicae impiam Synodum [i. e. the second Ephesin] non consentiendo, sola summovit; & authorita∣te, ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret, sola decrevit. Lastly, If the ancient Canon, that in such Councils Sine Romano Pontifice ni∣hil finiendum, stand good, the calling such Councils by Emperors, without the Mandate, or confent also of this Bishop, will be to no purpose; because nothing can be established therein, without his concurrence. Thus much of the power of Calling Ge∣neral Councils.

Notes

• De Concil. l. 2. c. 28.
• 1.
• †

  Contra Episc. Fu••d. c. 4.
• 3.
• 4.
• 5.
• ‖

  Dr. Field, p. 651.
• †

  Epist. ad E∣piscopos Dar∣daniae.
• 6.
• ‖

  §. 9, &c
• †

  §. 16.
• †

  See, before, §. 10.
• ‖

  l. 1. c. 4. & Conc. Eph. pars 2. Act. 1.
• †

  Act. Concil. Eph. Tom. 1.
• ‖

  Conc. Constan Collat. 1.
• †

  Conc. Constant. c. 5.
• Act. Conc. Nic. l. 2. c. 5.
• †

  Apolog. 2. Epist. ad Solit. vitam agentes.
• Euscb. de vita Const. l. 2. c. 62. Socrat. l. 1. c. 4.
• ‖

  p. 652.
• †

  p. 653:
• 1.
• 2.
• ‖

  p. 653.
• ‖

  De Concil. l. 1. c. 12.
• †

  Of the Chur. p. 697.
• ‖

  p. 668.
• ‖

  p. 513.
• †

  Vind. c. 1. p. 257.
• 3.
• ‖

  De Concil. l. 1. c. 12.