Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 6.djvu/542

510 COUNCIL. Early in its history the Christian church gave outward expression to a sense of the mutual depen dence of its members by summoning Councils, or Synods, where on common ground the spokesmen of the Christian community sought, with zeal and acumen, but often not with out passion, prejudice, and diplomacy all too human, to dis cover the mind of the Spirit. There prevailing practices were approved or reprehended, and the dim persuasions of the few or the many were sharpened into dogmatic state ment binding on all. On the great movements of Chris tian thought, much has ever been reserved for individuals to accomplish, the collective church gradually and unoffi cially recognizing the indefeasible power of some one spiritual or ecclesiastical genius; but the councils have deeply left their mark on the doctrine and on the constitution of the church. The minor synods, forming a well-balanced system of regularly recurring assemblies, served as an important organ for the administration of ecclesiastical business ; and the greater councils, summoned to meet pressing emergencies, often proved turning-points in the church s history. At them the pulse of the visible church beat high. The councils have not inaptly been called &quot; the pitched battles of church history ;&quot; but while they have at times caused the forces of the heretics to draw more closely together, and have more than once precipitated schism, or rendered it more determined and persistent, it is not the less true that the synods of the church universal have been her great legislative assemblies, when discussion and deci sion, more or less full and deliberate, have restored into one channel the main stream of ecclesiastical life, and have brought home, alike to those within and to those without the pale, a sense of the church's corporate oneness. It is characteristic of the church of Christ that it was left free to mould its constitution according to its circum stances. The founders of Christianity left no detailed con stitutional code. And as in other regards, so it was here ; neither Christ nor the apostles prescribed a synodal system for the infant church, or enacted when and where councils should assemble, how they should bo constituted, and what they should determine. Much zealous labour has been spent in proving that the councils, even as a developed organiza tion, are a divine institution, a difficult task certainly, if it be necessary to agree that what is human is therefore not divine, but accidental and &quot; invented.&quot; The most various Christian parties have with one consent sought the prototype of all Christian councils in that assembled at Jerusalem under the apostles ; and from its scanty record in Acts. xv. (the other apostolic assemblies reported in Acts i., vi., xxi., being passed by as irrelevant) the advocates of the most divergent systems have extracted precise rules for the con vening and the guidance of ecclesiastical assemblies. But even if we fully accept the historical accuracy of the report, it is impossible to decide with certainty the relation of the apostles to the &quot;presbyters,&quot; and of both to the &quot;brethren ;&quot; and the decree embodying the decision of the Jerusalem Council contains rather a practical compromise, the arrangement of a modus vivendi in the spirit of peace and mutual forbearance, than a final settlement on grounds of principle of the grave and long-lasting problem as to what should be the relations between the new Christian church and the old Jewish law. It points to temporary concession, not to the formulation of a permanent creed. It is not till after the middle of the 2d century that we find the example of Jerusalem followed, and councils called to solve questions that threatened the unity and well-being of the Christian church and community. The earliest councils historically attested are those convened in Asia Minor against the Montanists ; though it is by no means unlikely that at a much earlier period the Christian Greeks gave scope, ia ecclesiastical affairs, to their instinct for organization, for taking common action in regard to matters affecting the public good. Near the end of the 2d century again, varying views as to the celebration of Easter led to councils in Palestine, at Rome, in Pontus, Gaul, Mesopotamia, and at Ephesus. These councils were all specially called to consider particular questions. But before the middle of the 3d century, it seems that in Asia Minor at least the councils or synods had become a standing institution, and met yearly. About the same time we find councils in the Latin Church of North Africa. Before the end of this century there were councils meeting regularly in almost every province in Christendom, from Spain and Gaul to Arabia and Mesopotamia ; and by extension and further organization, there was soon formed a system of mutually correspondent synods that gave to the church the aspect of a federative republic. {{ti|1em|The developing episcopal system suggested plainly enough a gradation of rank and functions for the various synods. A synod composed of all the clergy under one bishop, with their bishop as president, stood at the bottom of the scale, and is commonly named the diocesan synod. The metropolitan synod, or provincial council, met under the presidency of the metropolitan, and included all the bishops of his ecclesiastical province. Such metropolitan synods the Council of Nicaea recommended to be held twice a year. When all the bishops of a patriarchate met under the patriarch, or all those of a nation under its primato or first metropolitan, the council was patriarchal or na tional or primatial (not infrequently termed concilium generale or plenarium}. Occasionally the bishops of adjoining provinces met, the senior metropolitan presid ing, for the consideration of matters common to a district of wider area than the one ecclesiastical province. The o-woSot evfyfj-ovaai held at Constantinople by the metropolitan, who invited as many bishops to meet him as chanced to be then in the city, though not irregular, corresponded to no territorial division of the church. Concilia mixta, held chiefly during the Middle Ages in Germany, England, Spain, and Italy, were constituted not less of temporal than of spiritual princes, and resolved questions not solely ecclesiastical. General synod was usually the name for an assembly of the bishops from all portions either of the Western or of the Oriental division of the church. Such a synod was that of Aries, whither, in 314 A.D., Constantino summoned the bishops of the Western Church. But the minor councils were soon over shadowed by the oecumenical councils, at which the whole of Christendom was held to be represented, and which by universal agreement came ultimately to be regarded as having authority for the whole church.}} At the diocesan synods, presbyters were members as well as the bishop, but they had only a votnm consultativum. The regular members of the higher synods were the bishops alone or their representatives, and exercised the votum decisivum. But other clergy, deacons, doctors of theology and of canon law, and abbots, were invited to assist the bishops with their advice, and it seems that sometimes at least the abbots were permitted to give a decisive vote. Laics, especially emperors, kings, and their commissioners, were often present, and to some English councils even abbesses were admitted. Save at the Councils of Constance and Basel, the voting was by count of heads ; but at Con st ince the voting was according to nations, in order to counteract the numerical predominance of the Italian Bishops. A similar method was adopted at the Council of Basel. It has never been settled beyond dispute which of the councils are to be regarded as truly and authoritatively re-; presentative of the Christian ot/cou/xeV?;. And of those that may fairly be called oecumenical, one differs widely from 