Boultbee on Article XXI: Of the Authority of General Councils

The text of the Article remains as it stood in 1552, with the exception of a verbal omission of no great consequence. The Latin and English versions are in close agreement and require no special comment.

The first clause, on the legality of assembling General Councils, would seem to us to represent a mere matter of fact. A Council must be held in the territory of some State, and must consist of the subjects of some States. It must, therefore, be dependent on the civil laws permitting such meetings and the movements of individual subjects. The clause, however, was really directed against the claim of the Pope to have the power of summoning and dismissing such Coimcils.

In dealing with this subject we shall first follow the guid- ance of Dr. Barrow, in his ’ Treatise on the Papal Supremacy,’ for the historical facts as to the summoning General Councils. Then we shall point out the basis on which the popes have founded their claim.

Dr. Barrow^ thus writes, * There was no general synod before Constantine ; and as to the practice firom that time, it is yery clear that for some ages the popes did not assume or exercise such a power, and that it was not taken for their due. Nothing can be more evident ; and it were extreme impudence to deny that the emperors, at their pleasure and by their authority, did congregate all the first general synods; for so the oldest historians in most express terms do report, so those princes in their edicts did aver, so the synods themselves did declare. The most just and pious emperors, who did bear greatest love to the clergy, and had much respect for the pope, did call them without scruple ; it was deemed their right to do it ; none did remonstrate against their practice ; the Fathers in each synod did refer thereto, with aUowance, and commonly with applause ; popes themselves did not contest their right, yea commonly did petition them to exercise it.’

Dr. Barrow proceeds to establish this by the express state- ments of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and the other ecclesias- tical historians of the fourth and fifth centuries, setting forth the facts as to the actual mode of summoning the first Councils. It will be seen, on examining those statements, that it is im- possible for historical facts to be more clearly ascertained than these are.

Dr. Barrow next shows that the popes themselves, when they desired the settlement of an important point of doctrine or discipline, petitioned the emperors again and again for the assembling of a General Council. Such Councils were generally held in the East. Pope Leo I. was exceedingly anxious that one should be held in Italy, and addressed the Emperor Theo- dosius in these words : ’ All the Churches of our parts, all bishops, with groans and tears, do supplicate your grace, that you would command a general synod to be held in Italy.’

• Supposition \T.

Tills entreaty is not an exceptional instance, but a specimen of the ordinary course of proceeding.

Not only so, but it is next shown that the popes did not preside in the early Ck>uncils : St. James presided at Jerusalem; Gonstantine at Nice ; Nectarius and Gregory Nazianzen at Constantinople ; O^ril of Alexandria at Ephesus.

At Chalcedon, it is said that Pope Leo’s legates presided, though Dr. Barrow shows, from the record of the transactions^ that the Emperor’s commissioners really controlled and con- ducted the proceedings.

In the fifth General Coimcil the Patriarch of Constantinople presided ; and in the sixth ’ the Emperor in each act is ex- pressly said to preside, in person or by his deputies ; although Pope Agatho had his legates there.’

The historical facts being so clear, the next inquiry is upon what basis the popes have founded their exclusive claim to summon, to preside over, to dismiss, a General Council. The answer is, that they founded’ their claim upon those elaborate forgeries and &lsifications of ancient documents, conamenced by a writer imder the name of Isidore in the middle of the ninth century. He produced what purported to be a collection of about a hundred decrees of the earliest popes, together with spurious writings of other prelates, and Acts of Synods. These decretals reigned imquestioned until the fifteenth century, and are the real basis of the papal claims.

There were other febrications about the time of Gregory VII, In the middle of the twelfth century all these, with some addi- tions, were engrafted into Gratian’s Decretum, which became thenceforward the fundamental authority on Canon Law.

In the middle of the thirteenth century a Catena of spurious passages of Greek Fathers and Councils was presented to Pope Urban IV., containing a basis for the papal claims. The con- temporary Thomas Aquinas, unacquainted with Greek, received these forgeries, and adopted them all into his system of theo- logy, which, as is well known, has been since the great autho- rity on dogmatic divinity in the Eoman Schools. This is the basis on which the papal claims have been established, and in reliance upon which Leo X. and other popes have issued their

bulls claiming absolute jurisdiction in the matter of General Councils.

Some account of these forgeries (especially of the Isidorian decretals) will be foimd in the ordinary Church histories ; but the most complete summaiy is contained in the recent work, entitled ’ The Pope and the Coimcil,’ by Janus.

The next point arising under this Article is to what extent the authority of General Coimcils is recognised by the Church of England. The student will be reminded that so far * Holy Scripture has been laid down as the sole rule of faith. The creeds themselves * are received, not as the definitions of Coun- cils, but as being in accordance with Holy Scripture. National Churches* may * ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies, or rites of the Church, ordained only by man’s authority;’ the only restraints and limits assigned to this power being God’s word, and the condition of edifying. It appears, therefore, that there is scarcely any place left for the superior restraining power of a General Council. Accordingly, the Article before us simply asserts the fallibility of all such Councils, and the actual &ilure of some in their definitions of Divine truth . It refuses to recog- nise any authority in their dogmatic decrees apart from that of Holy Scripture from which they must be derived. The ground upon which the fallibility of such Councils is argued is peculiarly important. If admitted, it utterly destroys the theory on which their infallibility has been based. The general argument for their infallibility has been to this efifect. Christ left to His Church the promise that * the gates of hell should not prevail against it.’ This is assumed to imply that the Church visible (as a whole) shall be preserved from error in doctrine. It is further assiuned that the whole visible Church may be represented in a General Council, and in point of fact has been so represented. From these premises it is deduced that a genuine General Council has the promise of inerrancy firom Christ. It must be readily seen how weak every step of the argument is — that the exposition of the text is doubtftd — tl;)# the possibility of a really General Council has hitherto been a very questionable thing — and that the (so

’ Art. vi. * Art. ^-iii. ^ Art. xxxiv.

called) General Councils have been summoned in a very arbi- trary and partial manner ; some of them, indeed, with the most indecent partisanship. But assuming the supposed &ct of the Council being really General, and imder the express guidance of the Holy Ghost, its decrees are further assumed to be in&llible, whatever may be the individual characters of the members of the Council.

It will be seen from these considerations how entirely the Church of England repudiates the inherent authority of the Councils; for she takes into account the characters of the members composing them, instead of regarding any supposed sacred inspiration of the assembly as a whole.

Thus the Article declares that they ’ may err and some- times have erred,’ because ‘they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and “Word of God.’

A question of considerable importance remains. Although the inherent authority of the Councils has been thus rejected by the Church of England, it may be asked whether she has not acknowledged the validity of some of their decisions. In other words, whether she has not exercised her independent and co-ordinate authority ^ and decided that the dogmatic decrees of certain Councils are in accordance with the word of God, and therefore binding upon herself. To this it must be replied that there is no ecclesiastical formula of the Church of England, now in force, containing such a decision. The first Article of Henry VIII. (1586) recog- nised the judgments of the first four Councils against heresies. But that document, as it is well known, has no authority, and is in many respects in direct opposition to the Thirty-nine Articles. The Reformers of Edward’s reign spoke with great respect of the four great Councils. The * Refer- matio Legum Ecclesiasticarum ’ declares that we reverently accept the four great (Ecumenical Synods ; but this document also has no authority. All this, then, and more which might be quoted, falls short of recognition by our Church. There was, however, in addition to this, a recognition to a certain extent of the four Councils in the Act of Parliament ^ which

n2

i80 AETICLE XXI.

restored the supremacy over the Church to the Crown. Authority having been given to the Crown by that Act to exercise its supremacy by means of commissioners appointed by letters patent imder the great seal of England, the proviso was added that such commissioners should * not in any wise have authority or power to order, determine, or adjudge any matter or cause to be heresy, but only such as heretofore have been determined, ordered, or adjudged to be heresy by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four General Councils, or any of them, or by any other General Council wherein the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures, or such as shall be ordered, adjudged, or determined to be heresy by the High Court of Parliament of this realm with the assent of the clergy in their convocation. ’

This proviso of the Act was evidently intended to be a check on an imdue exercise of the royal prerogative. The dog- matic decisions of the first four Coimcils relate to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity only, as it is professed in the Creeds, and these were adopted by Parliament as a guide to the Royal Commissioners. The majority of the canons of those Councils refer to matters of organisation and discipline, and are wholly omitted in the clause of the Act just quoted, which refers to judgments on questions of heresy, not of discipline. To this extent, therefore, the doctrinal^ but not the disciplinary canons of the four Coimcils appear to have been legally binding as a limitation to the judicial authority of the Crown in ques- tions of heresy. But the abolition of the High Commission in 1640 seems to have annulled this also. Vain, then, is the assertion in a recent edition of the canons of the four Councils that * the decrees of the first four General Councils are declared as authoritative by Act of Parliament ; ’ whereas several of the disciplinary decrees will be found in direct collision with the usages and organisation of the Church of England.

It will be manifest from what has been said, that we must look later than those four, for the General Councils which * have erred in things pertaining to God.’ If we include those of the middle ages, which have been commonly so styled, there will

be no lack of unscriptural doctrine in their decrees. The second Council of Nice decreed the veneration of images ; the Papal Councils (as those of the Lateran and others) sanctioned transubstantiation and other errors condemned bj our Church.

For further information on the subject of Greneral Councils reference may be made to Field * Of the Church.’ ^ According to Bishop Browne, the Greek Church acknowledges eight General Councils, including the second Council of Nice, 787, and the fourth of Constantinople, 869. To these the Roman Church has added many more. But the answer of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the pope’s invitation to the Vatican Coimcil of 1869, admits only seven General Coimcils. The Patriarch is reported to have spoken thus : * According to an (Ecumenical Council, the (Ecumenical Church and true Catholicity is, and is defined to be, that holy, undefiled body, in which (independently of its material extent) the sum of the pure teaching of the Apostles is held, and the faith of the whole Church on earth, as it was established and thoroughly tried for the first eight centuries after the foimdation of the Church, during which period the Fathers both of the East and West, and the seven and only (Ecumenical and most holy and inspired Councils speak one and the same heavenly utterance of the Gospel.’

In the midst of this uncertainty about the true constitution, lawful assembly, and validity of the Acts of Coimcils assuming to be general, we may hail with gladness the wisdom of our Church, the most firee upon earth as touching things not essen- tials to the Gospel. The difficulty of the subject is acknow- ledged in a docmnent of 1536, signed by Archbishop Cranmer and many other bishops and clergy in the name of convocation.* In this paper, Gregory Nazianzen, who had seen more of Synods than most men, is quoted as writing thus : * I think this, if I should write truly, that all assemblies of bishops should be eschewed; for I have seen a good result of no Synod, but an increase rather than a solution of evils ; for love of controversy and ambition overcome reason (think not that I write maliciously).’

Book T. 48-63. « Bumet’s * Hist. Reform,* App. iiL 6.

Notes

• Arts. zx. and xxziy. > 1 Eliz. cap. i. 36.