The Number and Authority of the Ecumenical Councils in the Second Helvetic Confession

Abstract

Abstract Whilst Bullinger’s CHP accepts the decisions of the first four ecumenical councils, no description has been produced concerning their criteria. Based on the common features of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon, the Apostles’ Council of Jerusalem would fit the pattern, with one exception: it had neither been convened nor supervised by secular rulers. Why did the strongly Bible-oriented Reformers fail to ‘renumber’ the ecumenical councils starting with the one in Jerusalem, as they did e.g. with the Decalogue or the sacraments? Apparently, they acquiesced in the already established state of affairs to appease the contemporary secular powers, whilst preserving Chalcedon’s Christological and soteriological heritage.