Amos iii, 12. Sitting in the corner is a stately attitude. The
place of honour is the corner of the room, and there the master of the
house sits and receives his visitants.
COUNCIL sometimes denotes any kind of assembly; sometimes that of the
sanhedrim; and, at other times, a convention of pastors met to regulate
ecclesiastical affairs. It may be reasonably supposed that as
Christianity spreads, circumstances would arise which would make
consultation necessary among those who had embraced the Gospel, or at
least among those who were employed in its propagation. A memorable
instance of this kind occurred not long after the ascension of our
Saviour. In consequence of a dispute which had arisen at Antioch
concerning the necessity of circumcising Gentile converts, it was
determined that “Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should
go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and elders about this
question.”--“And the Apostles and elders came together for to consider
of this matter,” Acts xv, 6. After a consultation, they decided the
point in question; and they sent their decree, which they declared to be
made under the direction of the Holy Ghost, to all the churches, and
commanded that it should be the rule of their conduct. This is generally
considered as the first council; but it differed from all others in this
circumstance, that its members were under the _especial_ guidance of the
Spirit of God. The Gospel was soon after conveyed into many parts of
Europe, Asia, and Africa; but it does not appear that there was any
public meeting of Christians for the purpose of discussing any contested
point, till the middle of the second century. From that time councils
became frequent; but as they consisted only of those who belonged to
particular districts or countries, they were called provincial or
national councils. The first general council was that of Nice, convened
by the emperor Constantine, A. D. 325; the second general council was
held at Constantinople, in the year 381, by order of Theodosius the
Great; the third, at Ephesus, by order of Theodosius, Junior, A. D. 431;
and the fourth at Chalcedon, by order of the emperor Marcian, A. D. 451.
These, as they were the first four general councils, so they were by far
the most eminent. They were caused respectively by the Arian,
Apollinarian, Nestorian, and Eutychian controversies, and their decrees
are in high esteem both among Papists and orthodox Protestants; but the
deliberations of most councils were disgraced by violence, disorder, and
intrigue, and their decisions were usually made under the influence of
some ruling party. Authors are not agreed about the number of general
councils; Papists usually reckon eighteen, but Protestant writers will
not allow that nearly so many had a right to that name. The last general
council was that held at Trent, for the purpose of checking the progress
of the reformation. It first met by the command of Pope Paul III, A. D.
1545; it was suspended during the latter part of the pontificate of his
successor, Julius III, and the whole of the pontificates of Marcellus
II, and Paul IV, that is, from 1552 to 1562, in which year it met again
by the authority of Pope Pius IV, and it ended, while he was pope, in
the year 1563. Provincial councils were very numerous: Baxter enumerates
four hundred and eighty-one, and Dufresnoy many more.
2. Of the eighteen councils denominated “general” by the Papists, four
have already been enumerated; and they with the next four constitute the
eight eastern councils, which alone, according to the “Body of Civil
Law,” each of the popes of Rome, on his elevation to the pontificate,
solemnly professes to maintain. The fifth was convened at
Constantinople, A. D. 556, by the emperor Justinian; the sixth, also at
Constantinople, in 681, in which the emperor Constantine IV, himself
presided; the seventh at Nice, in 787, by the empress Irene; and the
eighth, at Constantinople, in 870, by the emperor Basilius. It is matter
of historical record, and therefore cannot be denied, that the convening
of all these councils appertained solely to the respective emperors;
that they alone exercised authority on such occasions; that the bishop
of Rome was never thought to possess any, although his power may be said
to have been set up between the fifth and sixth general councils; nor
did the bishop himself, _pro tempore_, think himself entitled to an
authority of the kind. The other councils which the Romish church
dignifies with the title of “general,” are the ten western ones, which
are here subjoined:--(9.) The first council of Lateran, held under Pope
Calixtus, A. D. 1123; (10.) the second of Lateran, under Innocent II, in
1139; (11.) the third of Lateran, under Alexander III, in 1179, the
decrees of which were intended to extirpate the Albigenses, as well as
the Waldenses, who were variously called Leonists, or poor men of Lyons;
(12.) the fourth of Lateran, under Innocent III, in 1215, which incited
Christian Europe to engage in a crusade for the recovery of the Holy
Land, and whose canons obtruded on the church the monstrous doctrines of
transubstantiation and auricular confession, the latter being ranked
among the duties prescribed by the law of Christ; (13.) the first of
Lyons, under Innocent IV, in 1245; (14.) the second of Lyons, under
Gregory X, in 1274; (15.) that of Vienne, under Clement V, in 1311;
(16.) that of Florence, under Eugenius IV, in 1439; (17.) the fifth of
Lateran, under the infamous Julius II; and (18.) the council of Trent,
of which an account is given in the preceding paragraph, and which
grounds its fame on its opposition to the progress of the reformation
under Luther. Though, according to Bellarmine, these eighteen alone are
recognised by the Romish church œcumenical or universal councils, yet
some of them did not deserve even the more restricted appellation of
“general.” For the council of Trent itself, in some of its sessions,
could scarcely number more than forty or fifty ecclesiastics, and, of
those, not one eminent for profound theological or classical knowledge.
The lawyers who attended, says Father Paul, “knew little of religion,
while the few divines were of less than ordinary sufficiency.” Some of
the other councils which are not acknowledged by the Papists to be
“general” with respect to all their sessions, (as those of Basle and
Constance,) are in part received by them, and in part rejected.
Bellarmine and other celebrated writers of his church, are dubious about
determining whether or not “the fifth of Lateran” was really a general
council, and leave it as a thing discretionary with the faithful either
to retain or reject it; if it be rejected, the only refuge which they
have, is to receive in its place the council of Constance, held under
John XXIII, in 1414, which is disclaimed by the Italian clergy but
admitted by those of France, and which is rendered infamous in the
annals of religion and humanity by its cruel and treacherous conduct
toward those two early Protestant martyrs, John Huss and Jerome of
Prague; “who went to the stake,” says, Æneas Sylvius, “as if it had been
to a banquet, without uttering a complaint that could betray the least
weakness of mind. When they began to burn, they sung a hymn, which even
the crackling of the flames could not interrupt. Never did any
philosopher suffer death with so much courage, as they endured the
fire.” But this acknowledgment of Constance as one of the eighteen is
resisted _vi et armis_, by the crafty Cisalpine ecclesiastics, because
one of the earliest acts of that council declared the representatives of
the church in general council assembled to be superior to the sovereign
pontiff, not only when schism prevailed, but at all other times
whatsoever.
3. A general council being composed of men every one of whom is
fallible, they must also be liable to error when collected together; and
that they actually have erred is sufficiently evident from this fact,
that different general councils have made decrees directly opposite to
each other, particularly in the Arian and Eutychian controversies, which
were upon subjects immediately “pertaining unto God.” Indeed, neither
the first general councils themselves, nor those who defended their
decisions, ever pretended to infallibility; this was a claim of a much
more recent date, suited to the dark ages in which it was asserted and
maintained, but now considered equally groundless and absurd in the case
of general councils as in that of popes. If God had been pleased to
exempt them from a possibility of error, he would have announced that
important privilege in his written word; but no such promise or
assurance is mentioned in the New Testament If infallibility belonged to
the whole church collectively, or to any individual part of it, it must
be so prominent and conspicuous that no mistake or doubt could exist
upon the subject; and above all, it must have prevented those
dissensions, contests, heresies, and schisms, which have abounded among
Christians from the days of the Apostles to the present time; and of
which that very church, which is the asserter and patron of this
doctrine, has had its full share.
The Scriptures being the only source from which we can learn the terms
of salvation, it follows that things ordained by general councils as
necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, as the
church of England has well said, unless it may be declared that they he
taken out of Holy Scripture. It is upon this ground we receive the
decisions of the first four general councils, in which we find the
truths revealed in the Scriptures, and therefore we believe them. We
reverence the councils for the sake of the doctrines which they declared
and maintained, but we do not believe the doctrines upon the authority
of the councils.
place of honour is the corner of the room, and there the master of the
house sits and receives his visitants.
COUNCIL sometimes denotes any kind of assembly; sometimes that of the
sanhedrim; and, at other times, a convention of pastors met to regulate
ecclesiastical affairs. It may be reasonably supposed that as
Christianity spreads, circumstances would arise which would make
consultation necessary among those who had embraced the Gospel, or at
least among those who were employed in its propagation. A memorable
instance of this kind occurred not long after the ascension of our
Saviour. In consequence of a dispute which had arisen at Antioch
concerning the necessity of circumcising Gentile converts, it was
determined that “Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should
go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and elders about this
question.”--“And the Apostles and elders came together for to consider
of this matter,” Acts xv, 6. After a consultation, they decided the
point in question; and they sent their decree, which they declared to be
made under the direction of the Holy Ghost, to all the churches, and
commanded that it should be the rule of their conduct. This is generally
considered as the first council; but it differed from all others in this
circumstance, that its members were under the _especial_ guidance of the
Spirit of God. The Gospel was soon after conveyed into many parts of
Europe, Asia, and Africa; but it does not appear that there was any
public meeting of Christians for the purpose of discussing any contested
point, till the middle of the second century. From that time councils
became frequent; but as they consisted only of those who belonged to
particular districts or countries, they were called provincial or
national councils. The first general council was that of Nice, convened
by the emperor Constantine, A. D. 325; the second general council was
held at Constantinople, in the year 381, by order of Theodosius the
Great; the third, at Ephesus, by order of Theodosius, Junior, A. D. 431;
and the fourth at Chalcedon, by order of the emperor Marcian, A. D. 451.
These, as they were the first four general councils, so they were by far
the most eminent. They were caused respectively by the Arian,
Apollinarian, Nestorian, and Eutychian controversies, and their decrees
are in high esteem both among Papists and orthodox Protestants; but the
deliberations of most councils were disgraced by violence, disorder, and
intrigue, and their decisions were usually made under the influence of
some ruling party. Authors are not agreed about the number of general
councils; Papists usually reckon eighteen, but Protestant writers will
not allow that nearly so many had a right to that name. The last general
council was that held at Trent, for the purpose of checking the progress
of the reformation. It first met by the command of Pope Paul III, A. D.
1545; it was suspended during the latter part of the pontificate of his
successor, Julius III, and the whole of the pontificates of Marcellus
II, and Paul IV, that is, from 1552 to 1562, in which year it met again
by the authority of Pope Pius IV, and it ended, while he was pope, in
the year 1563. Provincial councils were very numerous: Baxter enumerates
four hundred and eighty-one, and Dufresnoy many more.
2. Of the eighteen councils denominated “general” by the Papists, four
have already been enumerated; and they with the next four constitute the
eight eastern councils, which alone, according to the “Body of Civil
Law,” each of the popes of Rome, on his elevation to the pontificate,
solemnly professes to maintain. The fifth was convened at
Constantinople, A. D. 556, by the emperor Justinian; the sixth, also at
Constantinople, in 681, in which the emperor Constantine IV, himself
presided; the seventh at Nice, in 787, by the empress Irene; and the
eighth, at Constantinople, in 870, by the emperor Basilius. It is matter
of historical record, and therefore cannot be denied, that the convening
of all these councils appertained solely to the respective emperors;
that they alone exercised authority on such occasions; that the bishop
of Rome was never thought to possess any, although his power may be said
to have been set up between the fifth and sixth general councils; nor
did the bishop himself, _pro tempore_, think himself entitled to an
authority of the kind. The other councils which the Romish church
dignifies with the title of “general,” are the ten western ones, which
are here subjoined:--(9.) The first council of Lateran, held under Pope
Calixtus, A. D. 1123; (10.) the second of Lateran, under Innocent II, in
1139; (11.) the third of Lateran, under Alexander III, in 1179, the
decrees of which were intended to extirpate the Albigenses, as well as
the Waldenses, who were variously called Leonists, or poor men of Lyons;
(12.) the fourth of Lateran, under Innocent III, in 1215, which incited
Christian Europe to engage in a crusade for the recovery of the Holy
Land, and whose canons obtruded on the church the monstrous doctrines of
transubstantiation and auricular confession, the latter being ranked
among the duties prescribed by the law of Christ; (13.) the first of
Lyons, under Innocent IV, in 1245; (14.) the second of Lyons, under
Gregory X, in 1274; (15.) that of Vienne, under Clement V, in 1311;
(16.) that of Florence, under Eugenius IV, in 1439; (17.) the fifth of
Lateran, under the infamous Julius II; and (18.) the council of Trent,
of which an account is given in the preceding paragraph, and which
grounds its fame on its opposition to the progress of the reformation
under Luther. Though, according to Bellarmine, these eighteen alone are
recognised by the Romish church œcumenical or universal councils, yet
some of them did not deserve even the more restricted appellation of
“general.” For the council of Trent itself, in some of its sessions,
could scarcely number more than forty or fifty ecclesiastics, and, of
those, not one eminent for profound theological or classical knowledge.
The lawyers who attended, says Father Paul, “knew little of religion,
while the few divines were of less than ordinary sufficiency.” Some of
the other councils which are not acknowledged by the Papists to be
“general” with respect to all their sessions, (as those of Basle and
Constance,) are in part received by them, and in part rejected.
Bellarmine and other celebrated writers of his church, are dubious about
determining whether or not “the fifth of Lateran” was really a general
council, and leave it as a thing discretionary with the faithful either
to retain or reject it; if it be rejected, the only refuge which they
have, is to receive in its place the council of Constance, held under
John XXIII, in 1414, which is disclaimed by the Italian clergy but
admitted by those of France, and which is rendered infamous in the
annals of religion and humanity by its cruel and treacherous conduct
toward those two early Protestant martyrs, John Huss and Jerome of
Prague; “who went to the stake,” says, Æneas Sylvius, “as if it had been
to a banquet, without uttering a complaint that could betray the least
weakness of mind. When they began to burn, they sung a hymn, which even
the crackling of the flames could not interrupt. Never did any
philosopher suffer death with so much courage, as they endured the
fire.” But this acknowledgment of Constance as one of the eighteen is
resisted _vi et armis_, by the crafty Cisalpine ecclesiastics, because
one of the earliest acts of that council declared the representatives of
the church in general council assembled to be superior to the sovereign
pontiff, not only when schism prevailed, but at all other times
whatsoever.
3. A general council being composed of men every one of whom is
fallible, they must also be liable to error when collected together; and
that they actually have erred is sufficiently evident from this fact,
that different general councils have made decrees directly opposite to
each other, particularly in the Arian and Eutychian controversies, which
were upon subjects immediately “pertaining unto God.” Indeed, neither
the first general councils themselves, nor those who defended their
decisions, ever pretended to infallibility; this was a claim of a much
more recent date, suited to the dark ages in which it was asserted and
maintained, but now considered equally groundless and absurd in the case
of general councils as in that of popes. If God had been pleased to
exempt them from a possibility of error, he would have announced that
important privilege in his written word; but no such promise or
assurance is mentioned in the New Testament If infallibility belonged to
the whole church collectively, or to any individual part of it, it must
be so prominent and conspicuous that no mistake or doubt could exist
upon the subject; and above all, it must have prevented those
dissensions, contests, heresies, and schisms, which have abounded among
Christians from the days of the Apostles to the present time; and of
which that very church, which is the asserter and patron of this
doctrine, has had its full share.
The Scriptures being the only source from which we can learn the terms
of salvation, it follows that things ordained by general councils as
necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, as the
church of England has well said, unless it may be declared that they he
taken out of Holy Scripture. It is upon this ground we receive the
decisions of the first four general councils, in which we find the
truths revealed in the Scriptures, and therefore we believe them. We
reverence the councils for the sake of the doctrines which they declared
and maintained, but we do not believe the doctrines upon the authority
of the councils.