Gibson on Article XXI: Of the Authority of General Councils

Since the Forty-two Articles were first published in 1553 this Article has remained practically unchanged.^ But before puUication a clause had been wisely omitted from the close of it, which, as we find from the MS. signed by the six royal chaplains,^ had stood in the original draft : ” Possunt reges et pii magistratus, non expectata conciliorum generalium sententia aut convocatione, in

• In the Eiujllsh edition of 1553 ** not only in worldly nwattei-s, but also ” stood before ” in things pertaining unto God.” There was nothing corresiwnding to these wonls in the Latin, and they were accordingly omitted in 1563. In the Latin ” verbis Dei ” stood in 1553 and 1563, being altered to the singular ” verbo ” in 1571.

republica sua juxta Dei verbum de rebus religionis constituere.” The gravest objection might have been taken to such a clause, and we may be thankful that it was withdrawn before the Articles were published.

Perhaps no Article gains more than this from being read in the light of the history of the time when it was drawn up, and from being illustrated by contemporary documents. Had we nothing but the bare letter of the Article itself to consider, it might be plausibly maintained that by saying that ” General Councils have erred,” it condemns those Councils which the whole Church has ever reverenced as truly general, and expressing her mind, such as Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451). Nothing, however, is more certain than the fact that no such sweeping condemnation is intended, for contemporary with the Forty-two Articles, and drawn up to a great extent by the very same men who are responsible for them, is the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum ;^ and in this there is a remarkable section which runs parallel with the Article, amplifying its statements, and affording a practical exposition of it, and commentary upon its meaning. It runs as follows : —

” Be conciliis quid sentiendum.

“Jam vero conciliis, potissimum generalibus, tametsi ingentem honorem libenter deferimus, ea tamen longe omnia infra Scripturarum canonicarum dignitatem ponenda judicamus : sed et inter ipsa concilia magnum discrimen ponimus. Nam qusedam illorum, qualia sunt praecipua ilia quatuor, Nicenum, Constantinopolitanum primum, Ephesinum, et Chalcedonense, magna cum reverentia amplectimur et suscipimus. Quod quidem judicium de

multis aliis qua3 postea celebrata sunt ferimus, in quibus videmus et confitemur sanctissimos patres de beata et summa Trinitate, de Jesu Christo Domino et servatore nostro, et humana redemptione per eum procurata, juxta Scripturas divinas multa gravissime et perquam sancte constituisse. Quibus tamen non aliter fidem nostram obligandam esse censemus, nisi quatenus ex Scripturis Sanctis confirmari possint. Nam concilia nonnuUa interdum errasse, et contraria inter sese definivisse, partim in actionibus juris, partim etiam in Me] manifestum est. Itaque legantur concilia quidem cum’ honore atque Christiana reverentia, sed interim ad Scripturarum piam certam rectamque regulam examinentur.”!

The Article must beyond question be interpreted by this longer statement. It is certain, therefore, that it does not intend to cast any slur upon those Councils which are received ” magna cum reverentia,” but that it uses the term “General Councils” in a loose and popular way, of Councils which claimed to be ” general,” as well as of those which are truly representative of the mind of the whole Church. The necessity for such an Article is seen in the circumstances of the time. From the early days of Luther, the Eeformers, both on the Continent and in England, had persistently appealed to a free General Council, and finally the Pope (Paul III.) had been driven, in 1545, to summon a “General Council.” But (1) it was called by the Pope alone, who claimed the right to cite to it, in person or by proxy, the king of England among other Christian princes ;2 and (2) it consisted only of bishops of the Koman obedience. It was therefore not such a Council as the Eeformers could regard as truly ” general,” or feel themselves compelled

’ lief. Legum Eccles., De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica, c. xiv. - Cf. Dixon’s History of (he Church of England, vol. i. p. 425.

to accept. But in view of the fact that it was actually being held when the Articles were drawn up, and that its decrees were certain to be appealed to as authoritative by the opponents of the Reformation, it was important that in the Anglican formulary a statement should be found, asserting, in terms such as would justify a refusal to be bound by the decisions of Trent, the abstract position maintained with regard to ” the authority of General Councils.”

Three principal statements are made concerning them —

1. They may not be gathered together without the consent of princes.

2. They are liable to err.

3. As a matter of history they actually have erred.

I. They may not he gathered together without the

consent of Princes.

General Councils may not (non possunt) be gathered together without the commandment

and will of princes. It is sometimes inferred fron^ the I-.atin ” non possunt ” that what is here meant is that as a matter of fact they cannot be so gathered together. This appears doubtful, for it is more probable that ” non possunt ” means ” cannot lawfully,” i.e. ” may not.”^ But, however this may be, either statement is true, for princes alone have it in their power to compel or to prohibit the attendance of their subjects, and therefore obviously have the right not only to be consulted as a matter of courtesy, but also to say

^ Cf. Article XX., where ’* nee exponere potest*^ is equivalent to “neither may it so expound,” and XXXVIL, where “Leges civiles possunt,’^ etc. can only mean as the English renders it, ** the laws of the realm may punish,” etc.

whether a CouncU shall or shall not be held A a matter of history there is no question that all th early General Couneils were summoned by the Emperor and not by the Pope. Indeed, the idea of a Gefera Councd seems to have originated, not with the Chu ch butth the Emperor ; and although, after the decline of the Empire and the division of Europe into several kmgdoms, smce there was no longer any one supreme Z7TrT o commanding and enforcfng the lend-that thl r’°P”°’° ™” o”tries, it was natural that the Pope, whose power was steadily growing should not only preside at the Council when ‘summoned bt?

rel Vr ” […] yt it BtandB to rea,n that even so this could only be properly done with ” the consent of princes.” * f y “one

Manning, vol. ii. c. xvi. rarcell s Life of ArcMmlwp

[…]

tttS-H

that many pnnces have absolute power in their own realms, and a whole ent.e monarchy, no other prince may by his authority oil a Gel^erll 35

.>

II. General Councils are liable to err.

When they be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the spirit and word of God)

they may err. On this matter the verdict of history is conclusive. Had we not the experience of the past to teach us, it might have seemed, a priori, probable that God would not have allowed a body that is summoned as representative of the whole Church to err. But as it is, there can be no question on the subject The record of Councils, summoned as ” General ” ones and conducted with proper forms, is often a painful one to read; and the exhibitions of human passion and prejudice sometimes exhibited in them have certainly shown that all their members are not necessarily ” governed by the spirit of God.” Moreover, they have always been treated by the Church as liable to err,^ for many of them have been reviewed by later Councils, and sometimes their verdicts have been reversed.-

Council ” (Collier, Records, xxxviii.). Three years later a more authoritative “judgment concerning General Councils ” was put forth by Convocation, in which the divines of both houses gave their opinion that ” neither the Bishop of Rome ne any one prince, of what estate, degi-ee, or preeminence soever he bo, may, by his own authority, call, indict, or summon any General Council, without the express consent, assent, and agi*ecment of the residue of Christian princes, and especially such as have within their own realms and seignories imperium menim, that is to say, of such as have the whole, entire, and supreme government and authority over all their subjects, without kuowledging or recognising of any other supremo power or authority,” Burnet, I. ii. p. 301 sc</.

^ Thus the ** Latrocinium ” was summoned as a General Council, but its decisions were reversed by the Council of Chalcedon, 451. So also in

Thus the Article is perfectly justified, not only in its second statement, but also in its third.

III. As a viaiter of ffistmy, General Councils have erred.

That they sometime have erred, eYen in things

pertaining unto God (etiam in his quie ad normam pietatis pertinent), is a matter which can easily be shown when it is remembered that the Article is referring to any CoimcUs which claimed to be General. Thus Ariminum and Seleucia were summoned as General Councils representative of the whole Christian world, but they went fatally wrong ” even in things pertaining to God.” The same is true of many later Councils; and if the position taken up in Articles VI. and XX. with regard to Holy Scripture is sound, there can be no doubt that the closing words of the Article now under consideration

are justified, and that things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.

The language of the Article itself and all that has here been said in the commentary upon it, is, of course, only one side of the whole truth about Councils, and that the least pleasant to dwell upon. It must never be forgotten that there is another side, and that the Church owes very much to the work of Councils which were truly ” General ” and representative. Nor has the Church of England been slow to acknowledge this. The language of the Reformaiio Legum Ecdcsiasticarum has

the Iconoclastic Controversy, the seventh Council of Constantinople (754) condemned image-worship ; but its decrees were reversed by the second Council of Nicica, which sanctioned the practice in 787. Frankfort (794) condemned the practice, but the eighth of Constentinoi)le (869) sanctioned it.

been already cited. The Homily ” Against peril of Idolatry ” speaks of the six Councils which were allowed and received of all men ; and it may be added that by an Act of Parliament passed in the first year of Elizabeth’s reign it was determined that ” nothing is to be adjudged heresy, but that which heretofore has been so adjudged by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or the first four General Councils, or some other General Council, wherein the same has been declared heresy by the express word of Scripture.” ^

The question remains, How is it to be known whether a Council is truly ” General ” and representative of the mind of the whole Church ? To this it is believed that no answer can be returned at the moment. However large may be the number of the bishops present, no guarantee is thereby afforded that they faithfully represent the mind of the universal Church. That which alone can show this, is the after-reception of the decisions of the Council hy the different parts of the Church, “Where the decisions win their way to universal acceptance, there we have the needful guarantee that the Council has faithfully reflected the mind of the universal Church, and we may well be content to believe that the Council has not erred. But ” the inerrancy of a Council can never be guaranteed at the moment. The test of the value of a Council is its after-reception by the Church.” 2

Notes

• ■» State Papers, ♦‘Domestic,” Edward VI. vol. xv. No. 28. Cf. vol. i. p. 14, and Hard wick, p. 283.
• See vol. i. p. 28 seq.
• See the letter of Pope Julius in Athanasins, Apologia coiUra Arianos, § 20-25. In this Julius says that it is unreasonable that what has been estal dished by Councils should be set aside by “a few individuals,” but treats the decision of Councils as liable to l>e reviewed by others, referring to the Council of Nic^ea as having decided that this should be done (see Robertson’s note, in loc. and p. Ixxvi.).
• 1 Eliz. cap. 1. Some Anglican divines, as Hooker and Andrews, seem to recognise but four General Councils ; others, as Field and Hammond, recognise six. See Palmer’s Treatise mi (he Churchy part IV. c. ix.
• Bishop Forbes On the Ariieles, p. 298. On this, which is sometimes called the Gallican theory of the test of the authority of General Councils, see Sir W. Palmer’s Treatise on the Churchy j>art IV. c. vii. ; R. L. Ottley, Doctrine of the Incarnation, vol. i. p. 321 seq. ; and Church HUtorical Society Lectures, series 2, p. 147 scq.