Green on Article XXI: Of the Authority of General Councils

To assert the sole right of the Civil Power to call General Councils, and to express the conviction that some of the Councils, which were at the time commonly reputed General Councils, bad fallen into error.

§ EXPOSITION.

(1.) General Councils.

This Article is closely related to the preceding. In Article XX. it is laid down that the Church has authority in contro¬ versies of Faith ; the present Article is concerned with General

Councils, by which the Church exercises that authority, for they

are an important stage in the process by which the judgment of the Church on matters of Faith has been ascertained. In order that a Council may be ranked as a General Council it is necessary that two main conditions should be fulfilled ; it should be —

(a) Representative of the Church at large ; and

(b) Free; i.e ., there must be no constraint placed upon the members by any civil or spiritual ruler, or by any faction within the Church itself.

The real test, however, of the oecumenicity of a Council con¬ fists in the reception of such Council and its work by every portion of the Church. The Divine Spirit is promised to the whole Church, and the consentient witness of the whole Church is therefore necessary. If this principle be kept in mind, defer¬ ence to the decisions of General Councils is quite intelligible ; the actual deliberations of Synods may perhaps be marked by polemics and by bitterness of tone, but they are the regular machinery for registering the agreement of the Church, and their authority only becomes decisive after their verdict has been accepted by the Church at large. Their decisions, therefore, in the result, represent, not the tyranny of chance majorities, but the working out in balanced formulae of complex Scriptural truth.

The opinion of our English Reformers with regard to General Councils may be illustrated from the Reformatio Legum, “ De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica,” Cap. 1 4 : —

“Nam quaedam illorum, qualia sunt praecipua ilia quatuor, Nicenum, Constantinopolitanum primum, Ephesinum et Chalcedo- nense, magna cum reverentia amplectimur et suscipimus. Quod quidem judicium de multis aliis quae postea celebrata sunt ferimus, in quibus videmus et confitemur sanctissimos patres de heata 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 nonnulla interdum errasse, et contraria inter sese definivisse, partim in actionibus juris, partim etiam in fide, manifestum est.”

Gf. also Stat. 1 Elizabeth, c. i, quoted under heading (5.) below.

The opinion of both Saxon and Swiss schools of Reformers may be gathered from the following extracts : 1 —

Hermann’s Consultatio :

“ Which thinges nevertheless we set furth to he receyued and obserued of men committed to our charge, none otherwise than as a beginninge of so holie and necessary a thinge, until a general reformacion of congregacions be made by the holie empire, by a fre and Christian council vniuersall or national.”

[…]

“ Fatemur sua debere esse in Ecclesia de dogmatis et sacris judicia, et magnam esse legitimorum Conciliorum auctoritatem. Sed longe omnium maxima sit auctoritas verbi Dei necesse est.

… Testantur quoque exempla, non Pontifices tantum, sed etiam Concilia erasse.”

Scotch Confession, Art. XX. :

“ Quemadmodum non temere damnamus illud quod viri pii, congregati in generali concilio legitime convocato, nobis pro- posuerunt ; ita sine justo examine non admittimus quicquid hominibus, generalis concilii nomine obtruditur : manifestum enim est, quod sicut fuerunt homines, ita etiam eorum quidam manifeste errarunt, idque in rebus maximi ponderis et momenti. Quatenus ergo concilium, sententiam et mandatum quod dat, probat piano Dei verbo, eatenus statim idipsum reveremur et amplectimur.”

Second Helvetic Confession, Art. II. :

[…]

Cf. the Declaration of the Faith, Church Order, and Discipline, of the Congregational or Independent Dissenters. “ Prin¬ ciples of Church Order and Discipline,” § 2 :

“ They believe that the New Testament contains, either in the form of express statute or in the example and practice of the Apostles and Apostolic Churches, all the Articles of Faith neces¬ sary to be believed, and all the principles of order and discipline requisite for constituting and governing Christian societies ; and that human traditions, fathers and councils, canons and creeds, possess no authority over the faith and practice of Christians.”

1 Luther himself appealed more than once to a future General Council.

(2.) General Councils should be summoned by the Civil Power.

General Councils may not be gathered together without the com¬ mandment and will of Princes.

Cf. a letter of Cranmer to Melanchthon dated Lambeth, March 27, 1 5 5 2

“ I could wish, therefore, that those who excel others in erudi¬ tion and judgment should he assembled together, after the example of the Apostles, and declare their judgment, as well respecting other subjects of dispute, as likewise especially respecting this controversy, and attest their agreement by some published docu¬ ment. But you will perhaps say, ‘ And I also have often expressed the same wish ; but this matter cannot be effected without the aid of princes.’ I have therefore [consulted with] 1 the king’s majesty, who places his kingdom of England at your disposal, and most graciously promises, not only a place of security and quiet, but also his aid and assistance towards these godly endeavours.” — Original Letters , vol. i. p. 26.

Under the Roman Empire large bodies of bishops would not have been allowed to assemble from all parts without the sanction of the civil power, and at the present time, when the time- honoured intimate relation between Church and State is still, in many nations, maintained, the statement of the Article holds good. There can be no doubt, however, that the union between Church and State is loosening all over Christendom, and in the event of its being everywhere dissolved, the commandment and will of Princes would have no concern with the Councils of the Church.2

(3.) General Councils may err, and sometimes have erred.

And 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, and sometimes have erred,

1 One or more words are here wanting in the original.

2 Some of the Reformers were inclined to give a much more prominent posi¬ tion to the civil power in the Councils of the Church than our Article affirms. See, e.g ., Westminster Confession, XXIII. 3 : —

“ The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in wor¬ ship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.”

even in things pertaining unto God (in his quae ad normam pietatis pertinent).

The words of the Article are strictly true, as the evidence of history shows ; e.g. : —

(a) The Council of Ariminum, a.d. 359, at which about 400 bishops were present, secured a temporary triumph for Arianism.

(b) A Council was held at Ephesus a.d. 449, the violent and dis¬ orderly proceedings of which gained for it from Pope Leo the title of ‘Latrocinium’ ( i.e ., Ruffian-synod), by which it is com¬ monly known. It pronounced in favour of Eutychianism.

These were fairly representative Councils, but are not, of course, reckoned as General Councils, because their decisions have not been accepted by the Church at large. The in¬ fallibility of a Council can never be guaranteed at the moment, but the test of the value of its decisions is, as we have seen, their after-reception by the Church.

The object which the compilers of our Article here had in view seems to have been to record the conviction that some of those Councils which were commonly spoken of in the Western Church at the time as “General Councils” had erred, “in his quae ad normam pietatis pertinent ; ” thus : — -

(i.) The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) had laid down the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

(ii.) The Council of Constance (1414) had withheld the cup from the laity in the Holy Eucharist.

(4.) Decisions of Councils as to things necessary to Salva¬ tion MUST BE FOUNDED ON SCRIPTURE.

Wherefore 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.

A General Council is summoned to declare what has always been the Faith, not to propound a new faith. The Faith has been once, for all delivered (S. Jude 3), and is enshrined in Holy Scripture, which is thus the Church’s standard of doctrine ; nothing may, therefore, be taught as an article of Faith unless it be traceable to Holy Scripture. Our Church is here simply to carry out the great Reforma¬ tion principle which has been already laid down — that “ Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salva¬ tion.” (See Article VI., and notes there.)

t

(5.) Table of Councils accounted (Ecumenical.

a.d. 325. Nicsea (1).

381. Constantinople (1). 431. Ephesus.

382. Chalcedon.

383. Constantinople (2). 681. Constantinople (3). 787. Nicsea (2).

384. Constantinople (4). 1123. Lateran (1).

385. Lateran (2).

386. Lateran (3).

a.d. 1215. Lateran (4).

1245. Lyons (1).

1246. Lyons (2).

1 31 1. Yienne.

1409. Pisa.

1414-18. Constance.

1430, Basle. Removed to Florence.

1512. Lateran (5).

i545~63- Trent*

1869. Vatican.

All these Councils are recognised as General Councils by the Church of Rome.

The English Reformers reverently accepted the first four. See the extract from the Reformatio Legum quoted above (under heading (1) of this section), and cf. Stat. i Elizabeth, c. i, by which it is determined that nothing shall be henceforth accounted heresy but that which has been so adjudged,

“ 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.”

The Act has been repealed, but the words quoted may be taken as indicating the mind of the Reformers. The second and third Councils of Constantinople merely confirmed decrees of the pre¬ ceding General Councils ; hence they also may be considered as recognised by the English Church.

The Orthodox Eastern Church acknowledges the first seven Councils in the list given above as CEcumenical Councils. Cf. the * Holy Catechism ’ by Bernadaces, p. 1 6 : —

Q. What is an (Ecumenical Council ?

A. An assembly of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church from all parts of the world to inquire and decide concerning ques¬ tions of the Christian Faith.

Q. How many (Ecumenical Councils of this sort have there been 1

A. Seven, and the first of them composed the Creed.

The authorities of the Eastern Church were also willing to recognise the sessions at Florence, which were a continuation of the Council opened at Basle (1430).

I45

\

It will have been already gathered from the examples we have given that the formularies which give expression to the views of the Swiss School of Reformers do not assign a very high value to the decisions of Councils. The very important and widely approved Second Helvetic Confession, however, in Article XI., holds to the first four Councils : —

“Et ut paucis multa hujus causae dicamus, quaecunque de incarnationis Domini nostri Jesu Christi mysterio definita sunt ex Scripturis sanctis, et comprehensa symbolis ac sententiis quatuor primarum et praestantissimarum Synodorum, celebratarum, Xiceae, Constantinopoli, Ephesi et Chalcedone, una cum beati Athanasii symbolo, et omnibus his similibus symbolis, credimus corde sin- cero, et ore libero ingenue profitemur, condemnantes omnia his contraria. ”

T