Maclear and Williams on Article XXI: Of the Authority of General Councils

were summoned in other places on the same subject. Cyprian held several councils at Carthage between A.D. 253 and 255 on the vexed question of the treatment of the lapsed and the rebaptism of heretics. Councils were also held at Antioch, A.D. 264, 265, respecting the heretical teaching of Paul of Samosata.

v. The first Ecumenical Council was summoned in A.D. 325 by the Emperor Constantine at Nicaea, and con- sisted entirely of Bishops of the Roman Empire, who owed allegiance to the Emperor1. It met to deal with the Arian heresy. (2) In A.D. 381 the Council of Constantinople was summoned by the Emperor Theodosius to deal with the opinions of Macedonius. (3) In A.D. 431 the Council of Ephesus was summoned by Theodosius II. to condemn the Nestorian heresy. (4) In A.D. 45 1 the Council of Chalcedon, suggested and requested by Leo the Great, was actually summoned by the Emperor Marcianus to condemn the heresy of Eutyches. (5) In A.D. 553 the second Council of Constantinople was summoned by the Emperor Justinian, and confirmed the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. (6) In A.D. 680 the third Council of Constantinople was summoned by the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, and condemned the Monothelite heresy. These six are the only Councils, which have been acknowledged by the Universal Church. The fifth and sixth, however, have not been quite so universally esteemed as the first four, of which Gregory the Great was wont to say that “he rever- enced them as he did the four Evangelists’-.”

M.

“regionum.”

25S

vi. In the first three Centuries no General Council was ever held, for there was no one Christian power, which could summon all the bishops together, and which, when summoned, they would be bound to obey. But when the Roman Empire became subject to one man, and that man was a Christian and a protector of the Church, then his power enabled him to summon all bishops, who were under his sway, and he could compel their attendance. While the Roman Empire lasted, it was possible for this to be done. But when the Empire was divided, and its Eastern portion separated from the West, and later still, when Europe was split up into several nationalities, each having its own sovereign, and each speaking, more or less, its own language, the question arose who could summon a General Council ? The power to do this was claimed by the Bishop of Rome, as possessing an universal dominion over the Church of Christ by virtue of his succession to the Primacy of S. Peter, and he began to exercise the power, hitherto enjoyed only by the Emperors, of calling together General Councils of the Church.

vii. Power claimed by the Pope. But whereas, when Emperors summoned such Councils, all parts of Christendom obeyed, it was not so when the Pope claimed to exercise the same authority. The bishops, indeed, of the Roman obedience, felt bound to obey the summons, but the bishops of the ancient patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, refused to assemble at the command of the Patriarch of the West1. The Article, therefore, asserts that princes only have a right to summon General Councils, not on the ground of their possessing any inherent, inalienable, claim to do so, but because they alone have power to compel attendance at them. Hence

when the Pope called the Council of Trent, the English bishops and Convocation refused to acknowledge his right to summon it, holding that ” neither the Bishop of Rome, nor any one prince of what state, degree, or preeminence so- ever he be, may by his own authority call, indict, or summon any General Council, without the express consent, assent, and agreement of the residue of Christian princes1.”

viii. Councils may err. When the Article asserts that, even when Councils are gathered together, they may err and have erred, it has been observed that this must be understood of General Councils “that pass for such2.” The Councils summoned by the Pope, and acknowledged by the Churches of the Roman obedience3, were commonly regarded as General Councils at the time the Articles were drawn up, as they are now in the Roman Communion. But the decrees of these Councils, though called General, have never been received by the Oriental Churches, and cannot therefore be said to be of universal authority. They may pass for such, but they have no real justification for the claim.

ix. Supremacy of Scripture. When General Councils are gathered together, whence do they derive their authority ? The answer was symbolized in ancient times by placing a copy of the Holy Gospels on a throne in the midst of the

respecting General Councils in the p. 53.

Appendix to Cranmer’s Works, vol. iv. 2 Bishop Burnet quoted by Bishop

p. 258. In the sixteenth century “it Browne on the Articles, p. 490.

became more and more evident to 3 The Councils allowed as General

the Knglish princes and the English by the Latin Church are the First

people that they must take their own Council of Lateran a.d. 1123; the

ground. They had no choice. They Second Lateran A.D. 1 139 ; the Third

could not hope to reform their Church Lateran A.D. 1 179 ; the Fourth La-

by the help of foreigners. They must teran a.d. 1215 ; Lyons A.D. 1245;

give up allegiance to their Sovereigns, Lyons A.D. 1274; Vienna a.d. 1311 ;

they must give up their faith that Constance A.D. 1414; Basle A.D.

Christ had called England to be a 1431; Florence A.D. 1439 ; Fiftn

Church, if they made the attempt.” Lateran A.D. 1512; Trent A.D. 1546.

26o

assembly, as a type of the source whence all true doctrine camel. It was always assumed in the early ages that the duty of a Council was, not to propound new objects of belief, but to declare what had been the faith from the beginning2. A Council must witness to a continuous tradi- tion, and give authority to its enunciation, but it cannot teach anything as of divine faith, which it does not trace up to the Holy Scriptures3. The language of the Council of Carthage, A.D. 348, when it declares that it makes its decrees ” mindful of the Divine precepts, and of the magis- terial authority of the Divine Scriptures,” enunciates an important principle which applies to all Councils. When the decrees of a Council come forth, if they concern things necessary to salvation, we should esteem them to “have neither strength nor authority,” until they have been com- pared with and can be declared to be taken out of Holy Scripture. But when the Church is satisfied that they have this authority, and has fully received them, then they assume the form of “judgments of the Church” concern- ing the doctrines of Scripture4. This was the case with

and sacred consultations a thing

whereof God’s own blessed Spirit was the author ; a thing practised by the holy Apostles themselves; a thing always afterwards kept and observed throughout the world ; a thing never otherwise than most highly esteemed of, till pride, ambition, and tyranny began by factious and vile endeavours to abuse that divine invention unto the furtherance of wicked purposes.” Eccl. Pol. I. x. 14.

3 A General Council is not a ne- cessity. It was impossible from one set of causes for the first three hundred years, but all through that period

men like Irenreus and Tertullian were not prevented from arriving at the mind of the Church by the comparison of traditions. “The judgment of the Church diffusive,” says Mr Wilber- fqree, “is no less binding than that of the Church collective.” Principles of Church Authority, p. 77, quoted by Gore, Roman Catholic Claims, p. 52.

the first four General Councils. They put forth their decisions as their interpretation of the Word of God. All Christendom received these interpretations as sound and true, and from that day to this they have been admitted by the Catholic Church as true Articles of Faith1.

Decrees, and thus as to the (Ecume- nical character of the Council whose they are, rests with the educated in- stinct of the Church; it is a matter for the consensus post of Christendom ; what is permanent and adequate per- fists, what is transitory and made- quate passes away.

1 See Palmer On the Church, Part iv. ch. 8. “While the Church is in her present condition,… we must con- tent ourselves with Councils less than CEcumenical though resting on their basis, and it is quite possible that it was not intended in God’s Providence, that the formulation of CEcumenical

dogmas should go beyond defining the basis of the Christian faith and life, as it is given in the Creeds. The imposition of a dogma as a condition of communion is a necessary evil, which should be kept within the smallest limits possible in view of the Church’s safety ; and a Church shows her life not by creating new dogmas, but by living on the old faith, and ‘commending it to every man’s con- science’ by rendering it intelligible in view of new needs to new genera- tions of men.” Gore’s Rom. Cath. Claims, p. 53.

Notes

• The term “(Ecumenical Council” first occurs in Euseb. Vit. Constantin. iii. 6, and again in Concil. Constantin. A.D. 381, it denoted a Council “totius oriis” (S. Aug. de Baft. c. Don. i. 7), a ” plcnarinm universe ecclesiae ” (S. Aug. Epist. 162), as distinguished from a Council “provinciaium,” or
• Gregor. Epist. ad Joann. Con- stantinop. Episc. Epp. Lib i. c. 24. On the acknowledgment of the first four General Councils by the law of England see Hooker, Eccl. Pol. VIII.
• See Bp Browne On the Articles, p. 4S5.
• See the Judgment of Convocation F. D. Maurice, Serm. on the Articles,
• See Introduction to the Creeds, p. 26, and also p. 175, n.
• Bp Forbes on the Articles, p. 298. Hooker speaks of General Councils as “those reverend, religious,
• By Stat. i. Eliz. c. 1, the Commis- sioners, in their judgment of heresies were enjoined to adhere in the first place, to the authority of the Canonical Scriptures; secondly to the decisions of the first four General Councils ; and thirdly to the decision of any other General Council, founded on the ex- press and plain words of Holy Scrip- ture. See Hardwick, p. 3S8, ed. 1S59. The ultimate decision as to the uni- versally binding force of Conciliar