Constantine, first at Constantinople (F), and thence transferred to Nice (G), in the year 787. They were assembled to support the worship of images, and consequently reprobated and condemned all that had been done at the former council; and passed the monstrous decrees which will be found below. The Bishop of Rome, Adrian, sent legates to it (H), and approved of what was there transacted. Its decrees in favour of image-worship were vehemently opposed in the West by the Emperor Charlemagne, who wrote, or caused to be written against it, certain books called the Caroline books. The English bishops (1) were very earnest in their opposition to it, and the learned Alcuin is stated to have drawn up a strong memorial against it, in their names, replete with sound and Scriptural argument. In the year 794 Charlemagne assembled a great council at Francfort on the Maine, composed of 300 bishops from (K) Germany, Britain, Gaul, Aquitaine, and Lombardy, at which he himself in person, and two legates from the Bishop of Rome were present. In this council the decrees of the Nicene Synod, called Constantinopolitan, because there first assembled, were considered and expressly condemned (L). In the year 814, the Nicene Synod was again condemned at Constantinople (M). Again in 824 it was condemned by a great assembly of bishops at Paris (N).

Besides its decrees concerning image worship, the second Nicene Synod is remarkable for affording indirectly a testimony against transubstantiation no

less forcible, when calmly considered, than that afforded by the former self-styled seventh council. For in answer to the argument against images adduced by that council from the bread in the Eucharist, being the image of our Lord's body, the obvious thing would have been to have alleged the doctrine of transubstantiation had it then existed; but this they do not. They merely content themselves with affirming that it is His very body (o) and His very blood, (which for sacramental purposes we freely admit and maintain) and cite with unqualified approbation (P), in illustration and corroboration of their assertion, the liturgy of St. Basil, from which it appears that the change which that holy father contemplated and prayed for, was a spiritual change for sacramental purposes for the use of the communicants (Q); and not material abstracted from the use. For more concerning the authority of this council, see above, page 74.

Constantinople, A.D. 861.

The style of a General Council was assumed by a synod of 318 bishops, who met at Constantinople in the year 861, under the Emperor Michael. They assembled partly to re-establish image worship, but chiefly to confirm the violent intrusion of Photius into the See of Constantinople, and the deposition of Ignatius his predecessor. The Bishop of Rome had two legates present who consented to all that

was done. But the acts of the council were not received at Rome, and the legates asserted that fraud and violence had been employed to procure their consent. Conc. viii. 735 and 964.

VIII. Constantinople, A.D. 869.

The Romans have attributed the authority of a General Council to the synod of 102 bishops who assembled in Constantinople under the Emperor Basilius, in the year 869. They met for the purpose of replacing Ignatius in the See of Constantinople, and of passing censure upon Photius: they also re-enacted the decrees of the deutero-Nicene Synod, respecting image worship. The Bishop of Rome (Adrian) sent representatives to it. Conc. viii. 967-1495.

Constantinople, A.D. 879.

The Greeks ascribe the name and authority of a General Council to the assembly of 383 bishops convened at Constantinople in the year 879. They met after the death of Ignatius, to re-instate Photius in the See of Constantinople, who then entered into an agreement with John, bishop of Rome, whose representatives were present at the council, by virtue of which, as appears in the first canon (R) of this council, their respective sentences of ecclesiastical censure were to be mutually observed. They condemned the preceding council. During all this

G

period, when the rivalries between the Sees of Old and New Rome were at their greatest height, the mutual charges and recriminations, of forgeries and impostures, in documents, make it very difficult to place much reliance upon the genuineness of the acts ascribed to any of the opposing councils. The conduct of Binius in respect to the Florentine council, to which long afterwards the style of the eighth General Council was given in the acts, altering the eighth into the sixteenth, that it might not clash with the Roman assumption, is an indisputable proof that even if it be true that the Greeks have sometimes interpolated their documents, the Roman advocates are not a whit behind them in the disgraceful practice. For the account of the council, see Conc. ix. 324-329. The canons are given Conc. viii. 1525. The fraud of Binius is pointed out in Beveridge's Pandect. ii. 170.

In this council the creed as it originally stood was confirmed, and all additions forbidden; thus excluding the interpolation, filioque, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, which had been made in the West. In excluding the words they did but the same that had been recommended by the Bishop of Rome, Leo III. in 809, who to put an end to the interpolation, which is supposed to have had its origin in Spain, caused the creed, without these words, to be engraven in Greek and Latin on silver tablets in his chapel (s); and forbade the interpolation to the deputation from the council of Aix-la

Chapelle (T) who waited upon him concerning this

matter.

IX. Lateran, 1. A.D. 1123.

The ninth General Council, according to the Romans, is that of upwards of 300 bishops, convened in the Lateran Church at Rome, by Pope Callixtus II. in 1123. It does not appear that there were any Eastern bishops present. The object of their meeting was to oppose the Emperor Henry's interference in the appointment of bishops. An agreement was made between the Pope and the Emperor, the latter engaging that the elections of bishops should be free (U), and the former that the bishops should receive the temporalties from the Emperor. At this council twenty-two canons were made, two of which, namely 3rd and 21st, related to the celibacy of the clergy. Conc. x. 891-900.

X. Lateran, 2. A.D. 1139.

The tenth Council, accounted General, is that of about a thousand bishops convened in the Lateran Church by Pope Innocent the Second in the year 1139. They met to condemn the opinions of Arnold of Brixia, and Peter de Bruis, who are stated to have contended against infant baptism, and against endowments of churches, as well as against the adoration of the cross, and other points. They passed