加爾文基督教要義(75)卷四第九章 論教會會議及其權威

第九章 論教會會議及其權威
　　假如我向我的對敵讓步，承認他們為教會所要求的一切，他們還是達不到目的。因為凡關於教會所說的，他們就立刻轉移到那由他們認為代表教會的會議上去；更可以進一步說，他們其所以為教會熱烈爭權，無非是要將所爭得的，歸之於羅馬教皇和他的屬下。因此在我討論這問題之前，我必須先作兩個簡短的說明。第一，倘若在這章中我向對敵說得過於嚴厲，這並非因我對於古代教會會議，不願表示它們所應得的尊重。其實我是衷心尊重這些會議的，也願意它們從眾人得著應有的尊重；不過這種尊重須有限度，不可侵犯基督的權威。主持教會會議，乃是基督的特權，任何世人不能同他分享這尊榮。但是我得主張，基督只在藉他的道和他的靈統治全會眾的地方，才實在主持教會會議。第二，我其所以不照對敵所要求的來尊重教會會議，並非因我怕它們有助於對敵的主張，而有損於我們的主張。因為我們既充分有主的道作援助，來完全建立我們的教義，並完全顛覆教皇制，就對別的援助不太需要了，若是有需要的話，古代教會會議正可以大量供給我們充分的理由，來達到這兩個目的。
　　二、現在讓我們來討論題目的本身。若有人問，按著聖經說，教會會議的權威是什麼，就沒有什麼比基督的應許，更為充分明顯，他說：「無論在那裡，有兩三個人奉我的名聚會，那裡就有我在他們中間」（太18： 20）。但是這個應許對於每一個會眾，和對於全體教會的會議都是一樣的。然而問題的重心不在乎此，而在乎那連帶的條件——就是只有奉主的名聚集的教會會議，他才在其中。因此，我們的對敵雖提到千萬主教所開的會議，仍對他們的立場無補助，他們也不能使我們相信他們的假託，說這些會議都為聖靈所指導，除非他們能證明這些會議是奉基督的名而聚集的。因為不虔誠和不忠心的主教可能聚集陰謀違反基督，正如虔誠和忠心的主教可以奉基督的名聚集一樣。關於這一點，我們從這種教會會議所頒布的許多教令，可以得著充分證據；這是將要在我們的討論中見到的。目前，我只用一句話回答，那就是說，基督的應許只限於那些「奉他的名聚會的人」。所以，讓我們來說明這是指誰。人若違反神的命令，對他的道予以增減（參申4：2；啟22：18，19），憑己意決斷各事，不以那作為完滿智慧惟一標準的聖經教訓為滿足，卻從自己的頭腦中捏造一些新東西，我否認他們是奉基督的名聚會。基督並未應許他要臨格於一切教會會議中，而是把分別真假會議的記號給與了我們，我們就切不要忽略這種分別。古時神與利未族的祭司立約，命令他們用神口中的話去教訓百姓（瑪2：5-7）；他也常以此來命令諸先知；我們見到，同樣的律也加於眾使徒。那些違反這約的人，神既不加以祭司的尊榮，也不授予權柄。我們的對敵若想要我把我的信仰順服人的決議，而不顧神的道，就讓他們來解決這困難罷。
　　三、他們假定說，除非在牧師中間找著真理，教會就沒有真理，而教會本身除非在教會會議中表現出來，它就不能存在；但是倘若先知們對他們的時代給我們留下了可信的紀錄，他們的這說法就並不是常對的。在以賽亞的時代，耶路撒冷仍然有神所未曾拋棄的教會；然而他說到祭司的時候，有以下的話：「他看守的人是瞎眼的，都沒有知識，都是啞吧狗，不能叫喚；但知作夢，躺卧，貪睡；這些牧人不能明白，各人偏行己路，各從各方求自己的利益」（賽56： 10，11）。何西阿同樣說：「以法蓮曾作我神守望的，至於先知，在他一切的道上作為捕鳥人的網羅，在他神的家中懷怨恨」（何9：8）。他這樣譏諷地將他們聯繫於神，乃是表明他們的祭司職是空虛假冒的。教會也存在於耶利米的時代。讓我們聽他論牧者說：「從先知到祭司都行事虛謊」（耶6：13）。又說：「那些先知托我的名說假預言；我並沒有打發他們，沒有吩咐他們」（耶14：14）。為避免過於冗長引證他的話，我介紹讀者熟讀他的二十三章和四十章。以西結對待這些人，也不減其嚴厲，他說：「其中的先知同謀背叛，如咆哮的獅子抓撕掠物；他們吞滅人民，搶奪財寶，使這地方多有寡婦。其中的祭司強解我的律法，褻瀆我的聖物，不分別聖的和俗的。其中的先知為百姓用未泡透的灰塗抹他們，就是為他們見虛假的異象，用謊詐的占卜，說，主耶和華如此說，其實耶和華沒有說」 （結22：25，26，28）。同樣的控訴充滿於一切的先知書上，沒有什麼比這些控訴出現還多的。
　　四、但是他們會說，這雖是猶太人中的情形，但我們這個時代卻免了這種大禍患。我誠心愿望這是屬實的；但是聖靈已指明，事實與此大不同。彼得的話很明白：「從前在百姓中有假先知起來，將來在你們中間，也必有假師傅，私自引進陷害人的異端」（彼后2： 1）。請注意他宣布說，危險並非是從一般百姓中發生，而是從那些自命為牧師和教師的人中興起。此外基督同他的使徒都屢次預言說，最大的危險將要由牧師加於教會（太24：11，24）。保羅明明說，敵基督者將要「坐在神的殿里」（帖后2：4），意即他所說那可怕的災禍，要從教會裡的牧師當中發生。在另一處他表示這種不幸即將開始了。因為他向以弗所的監督這樣說：「我知道我去之後，必有凶暴的豺狼，進入你們中間，不愛惜羊群。就是你們中間，也必有人起來，說悖謬的話，要引誘門徒跟從他們」（徒20：29，30）。倘若牧師能在一個很短的期間如此墮落，那麼在長久的年代中他們當中可能引入多大的敗壞呀！我們不要用許多篇幅一一枚舉，我們從各時代的例子就知道，真理既不常常蓄於牧師的胸中，而教會的安全也不依靠他們的穩健。他們誠然理當是教會的安寧和鞏固的護衛人，因為他們原是受委來保障教會的；但他們履行所負的職責，是一回事，而負職責卻不予履行，又是一回事。
　　五、誰也不要根據我所說的，斷定我在任何情形之下，不分皂白，定意要削弱牧師的權威，使他們受人輕視。我不過叫人對作牧師的加以分辨，免得以那些只頂著牧師頭銜的人為牧師。但教皇和他的一切主教，只因他們號稱為牧者，就毫不服從神的道，隨意擾亂諸事；同時卻還堅持說，他們不會缺乏真理的亮光，而神的靈也不斷地住在他們心中，更且教會是和他們共存共亡。好像今日主不能將那處分古時不知感恩的人的刑罰加於世人一般，即將驚惶，顛狂和瞎眼來打擊牧者一般（亞12：4）。他們這般極端愚妄，竟不知道他們所行的，正如古時那些違反神的道的人所行的一樣。耶利米的對敵與真理作對，說「來吧，我們可以設計謀害耶利米，因為我們有祭司講律法，智慧人設謀略，先知說預言」（耶18：18）。
　　六、因此，答覆他們替教會會議所提的辯論，乃是容易的事。諸先知的時代，有真教會存在於猶太人中，這是不能否認的事。但若召集一次祭司會議，試問這種會議所表達的是什麼教會呢？神不僅指責他們當中兩三個人，而且指責他們全體，說：「祭司都要驚奇，先知都要詫異」（耶4： 9）。又說：「祭司講的律法，長老設的謀略，都必斷絕」（結7：20）。又說：「你們必遭遇黑夜，以致不見異象：又必遭遇幽暗，以致不能占卜；日頭必向你們沉落，白晝變為黑暗」（彌3：6）。倘若這些祭司和先知聚集在一起，那麼，主持這會議的靈是什麼靈呢？這在亞哈所召集的會議中顯然表明出來了。有四百先知到會。但因為他們除諂媚那不敬虔的君王外，沒有別的意向，所以主遣撒但在他們口中作虛謊的靈（王上22：6，22，24，27）。他們一口同聲拒絕真理；米該亞被斥為異端分子，挨打，下在監里。耶利米受了同樣的待遇，別的先知也遭受同樣不公道的待遇。
　　七、但有一個最可記念的例子，足為一切例子的樣本。祭司長和法利賽人在耶路撒冷為反對基督所召集的會議，從外表上說，那會議缺少什麼呢？因為在耶路撒冷，當時若沒有教會，基督就決不會參加他們的獻祭和其他的禮儀。嚴肅的會議召集了；大祭司主持會議；眾祭司也都到會；然而基督被定了罪，他的教訓被拒絕。這就證明教會不存在於那會議中。但是，有人要說，這樣的危險不會在我們當中發生。誰對我們保證這一點呢？對於這樣的大事，過於自信，就是犯了愚妄的罪。聖靈既借著保羅的口顯然預言說，必有離道反教的事，而這種事沒有牧者首先違反神，是不會發生的（帖后2：3；提前4：1），那麼，我們對那足以使我們滅亡的事，為何故意閉目不見呢？因此，我們一點不能承認教會是在於眾牧者的會議中，因為關於他們，神並未曾應許說，他們常常都是良好的，他反倒斥責他們有時是邪惡的。他警告我們有危險，意思就是叫我們更謹慎。
　　八、那麼，他們要說，難道教會會議的決議沒有權威么？自然是有的；我並不是拒絕一切的會議，或完全推翻它們的一切決議。然而他們仍堅持說，我貶低了它們的權威，讓每人隨意接收或拒絕會議所決定的。決不如此。不過講到任何決議時，我願堅持兩件事：第一，我要詳細考查，該會議是在何時舉行的，因著何事，有何目的，由誰參加；第二，該會議中所討論的題目應當用聖經的標準來審核。會議的決議應有力量，也應被認為已經決定了的，但這並不足以免除我所提到的考查。我誠懇願望每一個人，都要遵守奧古斯丁在駁馬克西米努那書上第三部所提出的方法。為要止住那個異端分子對會議的教會的爭執，他說：「我不當用尼西亞會議來反對你，你也不當用亞利米努會議（Council of Ariminum）來反對我，以預斷問題。我不受亞利米努會議的權威束縛，你也不受尼西亞會議的權威束縛。最好根據聖經的權威，來讓事與事對，論據與論據對。這聖經的權威不屬於那一方面，乃是雙方所共有的。」若這樣作，各會議都可仍舊保留它們所應有的尊嚴，同時也保持了聖經最高的地位，使萬事都得依照聖經的標準而行。根據這個原則，有一些為判決錯誤信仰而舉行的古代會議，如尼西亞會議，君士坦丁堡會議，第一次以弗所會議，迦克墩會議等等，就它們所維護的信條來說，我們都樂意接受，並尊重它們為神聖；因為它們只包含對聖經的純正真實解釋，很適合於有屬靈審判的聖教父們用來推翻當時聖教的敵人。此後所舉行的若干會議，也具有真實熱忱的虔誠，識見，學問，和審斷。但是世界既總是越來越壞的，所以從較近的會議，我們容易看出，教會如何逐漸從那黃金時代的純正信仰墮落了。然而，即令在較腐敗的時代里，我並不懷疑，會議中有些主教是品格較為優秀的；但是他們的經驗也正如古時羅馬參議會的經驗一樣。參議員自己批評說，在參議會中意見佔優勝與否，是因人數的多寡，而不是因理由的充分與否為定；因此，會中的優秀分子必然常為多數所壓服。無疑的，教會的會議曾頒布了許多不虔敬的教令。這裡不必提供什麼特殊例證，一方面因為太費篇幅，另一方面因為已有人努力做過這一番工作，我們毋須加上什麼。
　　九、對於那些會議與會議間的矛盾，又何必要來數述呢？沒有人能說，兩個會議間若有矛盾，必有一個是不合法的。因為我們怎能下此決定呢？我所知道的唯一方法，就是要根據聖經來決定教會是否合乎正道；除此以外別無準確的標準了。九百年前，利歐皇帝所召集的君士坦丁堡會議，便命令把一切在教堂中的神像都搗毀拋棄。不久以後，愛任依（Irene）女皇為反對前一個會議所召集的尼西亞會議，又命令恢復一切神像。在這兩個會議中，我們承認那一個會議為合法呢？通常是承認那在教堂中使神像有地位的后一個會議為合法。但是奧古斯丁曾宣布，這種作法未有不迫近偶像崇拜危險的。一個更古的作者伊皮法紐（Epiphanius）以更嚴厲的話說，在基督徒的殿中見到神像，乃是很可憎的邪惡。這樣立言的教父們若是尚活著，他們會贊成那會議嗎？但若歷史家的記載是真的，那會議在它的行動上不但容許神像存在，而且決定它們當受崇拜。很顯然的，這教會必是出於撒但。我已證明他們對聖經加以曲解破壞，這豈不表示他們藐視聖經么？除非我們用那作為世人和眾天使的標準，即神之道，來檢查一切會議，我們對於這許多彼此抵觸的會議，就無法分辨了。在這立場上，我們拒絕第二以弗所會議，而接受迦克墩會議，因為後者定了優提克斯不敬虔的意見為有罪，而前者卻裁可之。迦克墩會議的這個判斷，是由聖潔的人根據聖經而決定的。我們斷事時，也效法他們靠那光照他們的神之道來光照我們。任憑羅馬教徒，照著他們一向的作風，誇口說，聖靈和他們的會議是分不開的吧。
　　十、即令最早最純潔的會議仍有可指責的地方，或是到會的主教雖為智慮明達之士，卻被眼前的題目所拘束，而未能將眼界擴展到許多別的事上去；或是他們為主要的事所佔住，以致忽略了次要的事；或只因他們是人，就不免於無知和錯誤；又或有時因情緒激昂而失於鹵莽。講到最後所提似乎最嚴重的一點，我們從尼西亞會議找著一個很顯著的例證。該會議的尊嚴一向普遍受到，而且理當受到人們最高的敬重。可是首要信條雖受到了威脅，他們雖當與那反對這信條到會標準爭執的亞流奮鬥，在那些原為要推翻亞流錯誤而到會的人中間雖最應彼此保持和諧，然而他們竟忽略了當前的大危險，忘記了嚴肅，謙卑，以及一切禮貌，將爭辯擱置，好像他們聚集，是要叫亞流得到滿足似的，他們之間起了內鬨，不筆誅亞流，反彼此筆誅起來。在會中聽到最險惡的控訴，散發誹謗的文章，當時大有要彼此傷害，爭論才得罷休之勢。幸喜君士坦丁皇帝出來干涉，說，追究他們的生活，乃是在他管轄之外的事，因此，他以讚美而不以懲罰，將他們的鹵莽鎮壓下來了。後來舉行的會議，在好多方面可能犯了錯誤，這並不需多加證明；因凡檢閱各會議決議案的人，即可以發現許多缺點，且不提更壞的事。
　　十一、羅馬教皇利歐對於迦克墩會議，不惜責以野心和輕率的鹵莽，同時他卻承認它的教義是正統的。他不否認這是一個合法的會議，但他毫不猶疑地申明，它可能犯了錯誤。也許有人想，我努力指出這些錯誤，恰足以暴露我缺乏判斷力，因為我們的對敵承認，教會會議在與得救無關重要的事上可能錯誤。然而我的這種努力並非是不必要的。因為他們雖然口裡不得不如此承認，然而當他們不分皂白地將各會議對各事的決議作為聖靈的訓諭強加於我們時，他們向我們所索取的，實多於他們原來所要求的。這種行為豈不是等於說，會議是不能錯誤的嗎？即使會議有錯誤，我們也不當發現真理，或拒絕同意這種錯誤嗎？我從這些事實上所下的結論乃是：聖靈管理基督徒的虔誠會議，但同時也讓它們暴露人的弱點，好叫我們不要太相信人。這意見較拿先斯（Nazianzum）的貴鉤利的意見要寬大多了。他說：「他從來沒有看見什麼會議，有一個好的終局。」因為凡主張一切會議，毫無例外都有不好終局的人，很少給它們留下什麼權柄。此處對於省區會議，我們不必另述，因為從大公會議就可以知道，它們應有多少權柄來訂立信條，並規定什麼是當接受的教義。
　　十二、但是羅馬教徒一旦發現，理智上的一切支撐都不能為他們的主張作辯護，就只好求助於那最後可憐的託辭，說：雖然人的理解和辯護暴露最大的愚蠢，雖然他們存最不義的動機和計劃來行事，然而聖經卻仍命令我們要順服我們的領導者（來13： 17）。但是倘若我們否認這些人是我們的領導者，又怎樣呢？因為他們不能賽過那作先知和良牧的約書亞。且聽主任命他所說的話：「這律法書不可離開你的口；總要晝夜思想，不可偏離你的左右，使你無論往那裡去，都可以順利」（書1：7，8）。因此，我們只能承認那些不偏離主道的人，才是我們屬靈的領導者。倘若對一切牧者的教訓，我們都該毫不猶疑地領受，主為什麼親口諄諄誥誡我們，不要聽從假先知呢？他藉耶利米說：「這些先知向你們說預言，你們不要聽他們的話，他們以虛空教訓你們所說的異象，是出於自己的心，不是出於耶和華的口」（耶23：16）。主又說，「你們要防備假先知，他們到你們這裡來，外面披著羊皮，裡面卻是殘暴的狼」（太7：15）。不然，約翰所警戒我們的也將歸於無用，他說「總要試驗那些靈是出於神的不是」（約壹4：1）；這一試驗即令天使也是不能避免的，撒但和其虛謊更是不能避免了。我們當如何了解主以下的警戒呢？他說：「若是瞎子領瞎子，兩個人都要掉在坑裡」（太15：14）。這豈不充分說明，最要緊的事乃是，要知道當聽從那些牧師的聲音，而且知道牧師不都是值得聽從的么？所以他們並不能用他們的頭銜來威嚇我們，叫我們與他們同做瞎子；我們反倒知道，主已特別關顧我們，叫我們不受別人錯誤的引誘，不管這錯誤是藏在什麼假面具或名稱下。因為倘若基督的話是對的，那麼一切瞎眼的領導者，不問他們是稱為神甫，或主教長或教皇，都只能將隨從他們的一同領入滅亡。所以我們既然為這些教訓和事例所警告，就不能讓任何牧師，主教，或會議的名稱——不管他們是自稱的或正當的——來阻止我們，使我們不用神的話來考驗諸靈，看他們是不是出於神。
　　十三、我們既已證明教會沒有立定新教義之權，現在就要說到我們的對敵所謂教會有解釋聖經之權。我們毫不否認。倘若教義上發生爭鬧，最美好可靠的補救辦法，無過於召集真實的主教的會議，來討論所爭論的教義。因為這樣由教會的牧師呼籲基督之靈所共同達到的一個決議，較之他們個人在講道時對會眾的宣講，或是少數私人會商的結果，都要可靠得多。第二，當眾主教會商時，他們就能更有效地考慮到應當施行什麼數訓，並使用什麼方式來傳達它，免得因意見紛歧而擾亂教會。第三，保羅也曾提出這方法來決定教義上的問題。他雖然給每一個教會一種「明辨」權（林前14：29），但他在較重要的事情上表明各教會應當共同處理。所以虔誠之心也教訓我們，倘若有人用新教義來擾亂教會，而事態擴大，有引起分裂的危險，眾教會就應當首先召集會議，來檢討所提出的問題，在經過充分的討論后，應當宣布一個以聖經為根據的決議，終止會眾中的一切懷疑，封閉倔強和有野心的人們的口，使他們不能再放肆。這樣，當亞流興起的時候，乃有尼西亞會議召集，用其權威，擊敗了那不虔敬之人的惡毒企圖，恢復了他所擾亂的教會治安，並伸張了基督的永恆神性，以反對他那褻瀆神的教義。過了些時候，當猶諾米（Eunomius）和馬其頓紐（Macedonius）掀起了新爭端，他們的狂妄又由君士坦丁堡會議用同樣的補救方法來加以反對。涅斯多留（Nestorius）的不敬虔有第一次以弗所會議予以排斥。總之，每遇撒但起來攻擊教會一體的時候，教會自始即用此法來保全自己的一體。但須謹記，不是各時各地都能產生像在古代神所興起的亞他那修，巴西流，區利羅等為真道奮鬥的人物。我們也當回憶第二次以弗所會議的情況。在那次會議中優提克斯的異端獲了勝利。那無可指責的主教夫拉維努（Flavianus），和其他虔誠人竟都被放逐。此外還產生了其他許多同樣的罪惡。這是只因為主持會議的，是那好結黨的邪惡的丟斯庫若（Diascorus），而不是主的靈。但是他們要說，這一個會議不是真代表教會的。我承認這一點，因為我堅信，真理不會在教會中消滅。雖然真理可以由一個會議壓抑，但是主要奇妙地保守它，在他所定的時候再使它興起，得到勝利。不過我否認會議所批准的每一解釋，就必然是聖經真實確切的意義。
　　十四、但是羅馬教徒主張會議具有最後解釋聖經之權，還有一個目的。因為他們要藉此種會議中所決定的一切，為聖經的解釋。關於煉獄，聖徒代求。私人認罪，以及其他種種愚弄人的舉動，聖經並未有一字提到。只因為這些事情被會議的權威所裁可，或說得更正確一點，被容納為一般的信仰和實行，所以它們就都被認為是聖經的解釋。不但如此，即或是會議中所決定的直接與聖經相反，仍被認為是聖經的解釋。基督命令信徒都喝他在聖餐中所賜的杯(太 26：27)。君士坦思會議卻禁止將杯給平信徒，決定除神甫外，別人不得領受。可是這樣一種與基督所設立的聖餐直接相違反的事，他們竟想要我們接受為聖經的解釋。保羅稱「禁止嫁娶，是魔鬼的道理」（提前4：1，3），而聖靈在另一處宣布說：「婚姻人人都當尊重。床也不可污穢」（來13：4）。他們卻一向禁止教牧結婚，還要我們認為這是聖經的本意，其實我們不能想象，還有什麼比這更違反聖經的了。倘若有人敢開口反對，他就被指斥為異端分子，因為教會的決議是不得非難的，而對教會的解釋加以懷疑，是算為有罪的。我又何必還要說什麼，來反對這種極端的膽大無恥呢？只要把它指出來，便是把它駁斥了。他們以教會的權威來認可聖經之說，我故意置之不論。把神的訓諭置於人的權威之下，以人的認可來決定其效力，這乃是不值一提的褻瀆，何況我已經討論過這個題目。我只要向他們提出一個問題：倘若聖經的權威是以教會的認可為根據，試問他們能指出什麼會議的議決，來證實這一點么？我相信他們做不到。那麼，亞流為什麼在尼西亞會議中讓人以約翰福音的證據來征服他呢？照著我們對敵的論點來說，他很可以拒絕這證據，說它尚未經任何教會會議所批准。他們提出古時一個目錄，稱之為聖經正典，說這是出於教會的議決。我再問，這正典是在那一個會議中編定的。對這個問題，他們不能回答。然而我願意再請教，他們認為這是一種什麼正典。因為我知道古時的作者對它並未完全同意。若是我們以耶柔米的見證為重要，那麼馬加比傳上下卷，多比雅書，和傳道經等等，都只能算為次經；那又是我們的對敵所不能同意的。

CHAPTER 9.
OF COUNCILS AND THEIR AUTHORITY.579579   See Calvin』s Antidote to the Articles of Sorbonne; Letter to Sadolet; Necessity of Reforming the Church; Antidote to the Council of Trent; Remarks on the Paternal Admonition of the Pope.

Since Papists regard their Councils as expressing the sentiment and consent of the Church, particularly as regards the authority of declaring dogmas and the exposition of them, it was necessary to treat of Councils before proceeding to consider that part of ecclesiastical power which relates to doctrine. I. First, the authority of Councils in delivering dogmas is discussed, and it is shown that the Spirit of God is not so bound to the Pastors of the Church as opponents suppose. Their objections refuted, sec. 1-7. II. The errors, contradictions, and weaknesses, of certain Councils exposed. A refutation of the subterfuge, that those set over us are to be obeyed without distinction, sec. 8-12. III. Of the authority of Councils as regards the interpretation of Scripture, sec. 13, 14.

Sections.

1. The true nature of Councils.

2. Whence the authority of Councils is derived. What meant by assembling in the name of Christ.

3. Objection, that no truth remains in the Church if it be not in Pastors and Councils. Answer, showing by passages from the Old Testament that Pastors were often devoid of the spirit of knowledge and truth.

4. Passages from the New Testament showing that our times were to be subject to the same evil. This confirmed by the example of almost all ages.

5. All not Pastors who pretend to be so.

6. Objection, that General Councils represent the Church. Answer, showing the absurdity of this objection from passages in the Old Testament.

7. Passages to the same effect from the New Testament.

8. Councils have authority only in so far as accordant with Scripture. Testimony of Augustine. Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, Subsequent Councils more impure, and to be received with limitation.

9. Contradictory decisions of Councils. Those agreeing with divine truth to be received. Those at variance with it to be rejected. This confirmed by the example of the Council of Constantinople and the Council of Nice; also of the Council of Chalcedon, and second Council of Ephesus.

10. Errors of purer Councils. Four causes of these errors. An example from the Council of Nice.

11. Another example from the Council of Chalcedon. The same errors in Provincial Councils.

12. Evasion of the Papists. Three answers. Conclusion of the discussion as to the power of the Church in relation to doctrine.

13. Last part of the chapter. Power of the Church in interpreting Scripture. From what source interpretation is to be derived. Means of preserving unity in the Church.

14. Impudent attempt of the Papists to establish their tyranny refuted. Things at variance with Scripture sanctioned by their Councils. Instance in the prohibition of marriage and communion in both kinds.

1. Were I now to concede all that they ask concerning the Church, it would not greatly aid them in their object. For everything that 2403is said of the Church they immediately transfer to councils, which, in their opinion, represent the Church. Nay, when they contend so doggedly for the power of the Church, their only object is to devolve the whole which they extort on the Roman Pontiff and his conclave. Before I begin to discuss this question, two points must be briefly premised. First, though I mean to be more rigid in discussing this subject, it is not because I set less value than I ought on ancient councils. I venerate them from my heart, and would have all to hold them in due honour.580580   French , 「Si je tien ici la bride roide pour ne lascher rien facilement à nos adversaires, ce n』est pas a dire pourtant que je prise les conciles anciens moins que je ne doy. Car je les honore de bonne affection, et desire que chacun les estime, et les ait en reverence.」—If I here keep the reins tight, and do not easily yield anything to our opponents, it is not because I prize ancient councils less than I ought. For I honour them sincerely and desire that every man esteem them, and hold them in reverence. But there must be some limitation, there must be nothing derogatory to Christ. Moreover, it is the right of Christ to preside over all councils, and not share the honour with any man. Now, I hold that he presides only when he governs the whole assembly by his word and Spirit. Secondly, in attributing less to councils than my opponents demand, it is not because I have any fear that councils are favourable to their cause and adverse to ours. For as we are amply provided by the word of the Lord with the means of proving our doctrine and overthrowing the whole Papacy, and thus have no great need of other aid, so, if the case required it, ancient councils furnish us in a great measure with what might be sufficient for both purposes.

2. Let us now proceed to the subject itself. If we consult Scripture on the authority of councils, there is no promise more remarkable than that which is contained in these words of our Saviour, 「Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.」 But this is just as applicable to any particular meeting as to a universal council. And yet the important part of the question does not lie here, but in the condition which is added—viz. that Christ will be in the midst of a council, provided it be assembled in his name. Wherefore, though our opponents should name councils of thousands of bishops it will little avail them; nor will they induce us to believe that they are, as they maintain, guided by the Holy Spirit, until they make it credible that they assemble in the name of Christ: since it is as possible for wicked and dishonest to conspire against Christ, as for good and honest bishops to meet together in his name. Of this we have a clear proof in very many of the decrees which have proceeded from councils. But this will be afterwards seen. At present I only reply in one word, that our Saviour』s promise is made to those only who assemble in his name. How, then, is such an assembly to be defined? I deny that those assemble in the name of Christ who, disregarding his command by which he forbids anything to be added to the word of God or taken from it, determine everything at their own pleasure, who, not contented with the oracles of Scripture, that is, with the only rule of perfect wisdom, devise 2404some novelty out of their own head (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18). Certainly, since our Saviour has not promised to be present with all councils of whatever description, but has given a peculiar mark for distinguishing true and lawful councils from others, we ought not by any means to lose sight of the distinction. The covenant which God anciently made with the Levitical priests was to teach at his mouth (Mal. 2:7). This he always required of the prophets, and we see also that it was the law given to the apostles. On those who violate this covenant God bestows neither the honour of the priesthood nor any authority. Let my opponents solve this difficulty if they would subject my faith to the decrees of man, without authority from the word of God.

3. Their idea that the truth cannot remain in the Church unless it exist among pastors, and that the Church herself cannot exist unless displayed in general councils, is very far from holding true if the prophets have left us a correct description of their own times. In the time of Isaiah there was a Church at Jerusalem which the Lord had not yet abandoned. But of pastors he thus speaks: 「His watchmen are blind; they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they are greedy dogs which never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way」 (Isa. 56:10, 11). In the same way Hosea says, 「The watchman of Ephraim was with my God: but the prophet is a snare of a fowler in all his ways, and hatred in the house of his God」 (Hosea 9:8). Here, by ironically connecting them with God, he shows that the pretext of the priesthood was vain. There was also a Church in the time of Jeremiah. Let us hear what he says of pastors: 「From the prophet even unto the priest, every one dealeth falsely.」 Again, 「The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them」 (Jer. 6:13; 14:14). And not to be prolix with quotations, read the whole of his thirty-third and fortieth chapters. Then, on the other hand, Ezekiel inveighs against them in no milder terms. 「There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls.」 「Her priests have violated my law, and profaned mine holy things」 (Ezek. 22:25, 26). There is more to the same purpose. Similar complaints abound throughout the prophets; nothing is of more frequent recurrence.

4. But perhaps, though this great evil prevailed among the Jews, our age is exempt from it. Would that it were so; but the Holy Spirit declared that it would be otherwise. For Peter』s words are clear, 「But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily will bring in damnable heresies」 (2 Peter 2:1). See how he predicts impending danger, not from ordinary believers, but from those who should plume themselves on the name of pastors and teachers. Besides, how often did Christ and his apostles foretell that the greatest dangers with 2405which the Church was threatened would come from pastors? (Mt. 24:11, 24). Nay, Paul openly declares, that Antichrist would have his seat in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4); thereby intimating, that the fearful calamity of which he was speaking would come only from those who should have their seat in the Church as pastors. And in another passage he shows that the introduction of this great evil was almost at hand. For in addressing the Elders of Ephesus, he says, 「I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them」 (Acts 20:29, 30). How great corruption might a long series of years introduce among pastors, when they could degenerate so much within so short a time? And not to fill my pages with details, we are reminded by the examples of almost every age, that the truth is not always cherished in the bosoms of pastors, and that the safety of the Church depends not on their state. It was becoming that those appointed to preserve the peace and safety of the Church should be its presidents and guardians; but it is one thing to perform what you owe, and another to owe what you do not perform.

5. Let no man, however, understand me as if I were desirous in everything rashly and unreservedly to overthrow the authority of pastors.581581   French, 「Toutesfois je ne veux point que ces propos soyent entendus comme si je vouloye amoindrir l』authorité des pasteurs, et induire le peuple à la mepriser legerement.」—However, I would not have these statements to be understood as if I wished to lessen the authority of pastors, and induce the people lightly to despise it. All I advise is, to exercise discrimination, and not suppose, as a matter of course, that all who call themselves pastors are so in reality. But the Pope, with the whole crew of his bishops, for no other reason but because they are called pastors, shake off obedience to the word of God, invert all things, and turn them hither and thither at their pleasure; meanwhile, they insist that they cannot be destitute of the light of truth, that the Spirit of God perpetually resides in them, that the Church subsists in them, and dies with them, as if the Lord did not still inflict his judgments, and in the present day punish the world for its wickedness, in the same way in which he punished the ingratitude of the ancient people—namely, by smiting pastors with astonishment and blindness (Zech. 12:4). These stupid men understand not that they are just chiming in with those of ancient times who warred with the word of God. For the enemies of Jeremiah thus set themselves against the truth, 「Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet」 (Jer. 18:18).

6. Hence it is easy to reply to their allegation concerning general councils. It cannot be denied, that the Jews had a true Church under the prophets. But had a general council then been composed of the priests, what kind of appearance would the Church have had? We hear the Lord denouncing not against one or two of them, but 2406the whole order: 「The priests shall be astonished, and the prophets shall wonder」 (Jer. 4:9). Again, 「The law shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the ancients」 (Ezek. 7:26). Again, 「Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them,」 &c. (Micah 3:6). Now, had all men of this description been collected together, what spirit would have presided over their meeting? Of this we have a notable instance in the council which Ahab convened (1 Kings 22:6, 22). Four hundred prophets were present. But because they had met with no other intention than to flatter the impious king, Satan is sent by the Lord to be a lying spirit in all their mouths. The truth is there unanimously condemned. Micaiah is judged a heretic, is smitten, and cast into prison. So was it done to Jeremiah, and so to the other prophets.

7. But there is one memorable example which may suffice for all. In the council which the priests and Pharisees assembled at Jerusalem against Christ (John 11:47), what is wanting, in so far as external appearance is concerned? Had there been no Church then at Jerusalem, Christ would never have joined in the sacrifices and other ceremonies. A solemn meeting is held; the high priest presides; the whole sacerdotal order take their seats, and yet Christ is condemned, and his doctrine is put to flight. This atrocity proves that the Church was not at all included in that council. But there is no danger that anything of the kind will happen with us. Who has told us so? Too much security in a matter of so great importance lies open to the charge of sluggishness. Nay, when the Spirit, by the mouth of Paul, foretells, in distinct terms, that a defection will take place, a defection which cannot come until pastors first forsake God (2 Thess. 2:3), why do we spontaneously walk blindfold to our own destruction? Wherefore, we cannot on any account admit that the Church consists in a meeting of pastors, as to whom the Lord has nowhere promised that they would always be good, but has sometimes foretold that they would be wicked. When he warns us of danger, it is to make us use greater caution.

8. What, then, you will say, is there no authority in the definitions of councils? Yes, indeed; for I do not contend that all councils are to be condemned, and all their acts rescinded, or, as it is said, made one complete erasure. But you are bringing them all (it will be said) under subordination, and so leaving every one at liberty to receive or reject the decrees of councils as he pleases. By no means; but whenever the decree of a council is produced, the first thing I would wish to be done is, to examine at what time it was held, on what occasion, with what intention, and who were present at it; next I would bring the subject discussed to the standard of Scripture. And this I would do in such a way that the decision of the council should have its weight, and be regarded in the light of a prior judgment, yet not so as to prevent the application of 2407the test which I have mentioned. I wish all had observed the method which Augustine prescribes in his Third Book against Maximinus, when he wished to silence the cavils of this heretic against the decrees of councils, 「I ought not to oppose the Council of Nice to you, nor ought you to oppose that of Ariminum to me, as prejudging the question. I am not bound by the authority of the latter, nor you by that of the former. Let thing contend with thing, cause with cause, reason with reason, on the authority of Scripture, an authority not peculiar to either, but common to all.」 In this way, councils would be duly respected, and yet the highest place would be given to Scripture, everything being brought to it as a test. Thus those ancient Councils of Nice, Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the like, which were held for refuting errors, we willingly embrace, and reverence as sacred, in so far as relates to doctrines of faith, for they contain nothing but the pure and genuine interpretation of Scripture, which the holy Fathers with spiritual prudence adopted to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen. In some later councils, also, we see displayed a true zeal for religion, and moreover unequivocal marks of genius, learning, and prudence. But as matters usually become worse and worse, it is easy to see in more modern councils how much the Church gradually degenerated from the purity of that golden age. I doubt not, however, that even in those more corrupt ages, councils had their bishops of better character. But it happened with them as the Roman senators of old complained in regard to their decrees. Opinions being numbered, not weighed, the better were obliged to give way to the greater number. They certainly put forth many impious sentiments. There is no need here to collect instances, both because it would be tedious, and because it has been done by others so carefully, as not to leave much to be added.

9. Moreover, why should I review the contests of council with council? Nor is there any ground for whispering to me, that when councils are at variance, one or other of them is not a lawful council. For how shall we ascertain this? Just, if I mistake not, by judging from Scripture that the decrees are not orthodox. For this alone is the sure law of discrimination. It is now about nine hundred years since the Council of Constantinople, convened under the Emperor Leo, determined that the images set up in temples were to be thrown down and broken to pieces. Shortly after, the Council of Nice, which was assembled by Irene, through dislike of the former, decreed that images were to be restored. Which of the two councils shall we acknowledge to be lawful? The latter has usually prevailed, and secured a place for images in churches. But Augustine maintains that this could not be done without the greatest danger of idolatry. Epiphanius, at a later period, speaks much more harshly (Epist. ad Joann. Hierosolym. et Lib. 3 contra Hæres.). For he says, it is an unspeakable abomination to see images in a Christian temple. Could those who speak thus approve of that council if they were alive in 2408the present day? But if historians speak true, and we believe their acts, not only images themselves, but the worship of them, were there sanctioned. Now it is plain that this decree emanated from Satan. Do they not show, by corrupting and wresting Scripture, that they held it in derision? This I have made sufficiently clear in a former part of the work (see Book I. chap. 11 sec. 14). Be this as it may, we shall never be able to distinguish between contradictory and dissenting councils, which have been many, unless we weigh them all in that balance for men and angels, I mean, the word of God. Thus we embrace the Council of Chalcedon, and repudiate the second of Ephesus, because the latter sanctioned the impiety of Eutyches, and the former condemned it. The judgment of these holy men was founded on the Scriptures, and while we follow it, we desire that the word of God, which illuminated them, may now also illuminate us. Let the Romanists now go and boast after their manner, that the Holy Spirit is fixed and tied to their councils.

10. Even in their ancient and purer councils there is something to be desiderated, either because the otherwise learned and prudent men who attended, being distracted by the business in hand, did not attend to many things beside; or because, occupied with grave and more serious measures, they winked at some of lesser moment; or simply because, as men, they were deceived through ignorance, or were sometimes carried headlong by some feeling in excess. Of this last case (which seems the most difficult of all to avoid) we have a striking example in the Council of Nice, which has been unanimously received, as it deserves, with the utmost veneration. For when the primary article of our faith was there in peril, and Arius, its enemy, was present, ready to engage any one in combat, and it was of the utmost moment that those who had come to attack Arius should be agreed, they nevertheless, feeling secure amid all these dangers, nay, as it were, forgetting their gravity, modesty, and politeness, laying aside the discussion which was before them (as if they had met for the express purpose of gratifying Arius), began to give way to intestine dissensions, and turn the pen, which should have been employed against Arius, against each other. Foul accusations were heard, libels flew up and down, and they never would have ceased from their contention until they had stabbed each other with mutual wounds, had not the Emperor Constantine interfered, and declaring that the investigation of their lives was a matter above his cognisance, repressed their intemperance by flattery rather than censure. In how many respects is it probable that councils, held subsequently to this, have erred? Nor does the fact stand in need of a long demonstration; any one who reads their acts will observe many infirmities, not to use a stronger term.

11. Even Leo, the Roman Pontiff, hesitates not to charge the Council of Chalcedon, which he admits to be orthodox in its doctrines, with ambition and inconsiderate rashness. He denies not that it was lawful, but openly maintains that it might have erred. Some 2409may think me foolish in labouring to point out errors of this description, since my opponents admit that councils may err in things not necessary to salvation. My labour, however, is not superfluous. For although compelled, they admit this in word, yet by obtruding upon us the determination of all councils, in all matters without distinction, as the oracles of the Holy Spirit, they exact more than they had at the outset assumed. By thus acting what do they maintain but just that councils cannot err, of if they err, it is unlawful for us to perceive the truth, or refuse assent to their errors? At the same time, all I mean to infer from what I have said is, that though councils, otherwise pious and holy, were governed by the Holy Spirit, he yet allowed them to share the lot of humanity, lest we should confide too much in men. This is a much better view than that of Gregory Nanzianzen, who says (Ep. 55), that he never saw any council end well. In asserting that all, without exception, ended ill, he leaves them little authority. There is no necessity for making separate mention of provincial councils, since it is easy to estimate, from the case of general councils, how much authority they ought to have in framing articles of faith, and deciding what kind of doctrine is to be received.

12. But our Romanists, when, in defending their cause, they see all rational grounds slip from beneath them, betake themselves to a last miserable subterfuge. Although they should be dull in intellect and counsel, and most depraved in heart and will, still the word of the Lord remains, which commands us to obey those who have the rule over us (Heb. 13:17). Is it indeed so? What if I should deny that those who act thus have the rule over us? They ought not to claim for themselves more than Joshua had, who was both a prophet of the Lord and an excellent pastor. Let us then hear in what terms the Lord introduced him to his office. 「This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then shalt thou make thy way prosperous, and thou shalt have good success」 (Josh. 1:7, 8). Our spiritual rulers, therefore, will be those who turn not from the law of the Lord to the right hand or the left. But if the doctrine of all pastors is to be received without hesitation, why are we so often and so anxiously admonished by the Lord not to give heed to false prophets? 「Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you; they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord」 (Jer. 23:16). Again, 「Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep』s clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves」 (Mt. 7:15). In vain also would John exhort us to try the spirits whether they be of God (1 John 4:1). From this judgment not even angels are exempted (Gal. 1:8); far less Satan with his lies. And what is meant by the expression, 「If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch」? (Mt. 15:14) Does it 2410not sufficiently declare that there is a great difference among the pastors who are to be heard, that all are not to be heard indiscriminately? Wherefore they have no ground for deterring us by their name, in order to draw us into a participation of their blindness, since we see, on the contrary, that the Lord has used special care to guard us from allowing ourselves to be led away by the errors of others, whatever be the mask under which they may lurk. For if the answer of our Saviour is true, blind guides, whether high priests, prelates, or pontiffs, can do nothing more than hurry us over the same precipice with themselves. Wherefore, let no names of councils, pastors, and bishops (which may be used on false pretences as well as truly), hinder us from giving heed to the evidence both of words and facts, and bringing all spirits to the test of the divine word, that we may prove whether they are of God.

13. Having proved that no power was given to the Church to set up any new doctrine, let us now treat of the power attributed to them in the interpretation of Scripture. We readily admit, that when any doctrine is brought under discussion, there is not a better or surer remedy than for a council of true bishops to meet and discuss the controverted point. There will be much more weight in a decision of this kind, to which the pastors of churches have agreed in common after invoking the Spirit of Christ, than if each, adopting it for himself, should deliver it to his people, or a few individuals should meet in private and decide. Secondly, When bishops have assembled in one place, they deliberate more conveniently in common, fixing both the doctrine and the form of teaching it, lest diversity give offence. Thirdly, Paul prescribes this method of determining doctrine. For when he gives the power of deciding to a single church, he shows what the course of procedure should be in more important cases—namely, that the churches together are to take common cognisance. And the very feeling of piety tells us, that if any one trouble the Church with some novelty in doctrine, and the matter be carried so far that there is danger of a greater dissension, the churches should first meet, examine the question, and at length, after due discussion, decide according to Scripture, which may both put an end to doubt in the people, and stop the mouths of wicked and restless men, so as to prevent the matter from proceeding farther. Thus when Arius arose, the Council of Nice was convened, and by its authority both crushed the wicked attempts of this impious man, and restored peace to the churches which he had vexed, and asserted the eternal divinity of Christ in opposition to his sacrilegious dogma. Thereafter, when Eunomius and Macedonius raised new disturbances, their madness was met with a similar remedy by the Council of Constantinople; the impiety of Nestorius was defeated by the Council of Ephesus. In short, this was from the first the usual method of preserving unity in the Church whenever Satan commenced his machinations. But let us remember, that all ages and places are not favoured with an Athanasius, a Basil, a Cyril, and like vindicators 2411of sound doctrine, whom the Lord then raised up. Nay, let us consider what happened in the second Council of Ephesus when the Eutychian heresy prevailed. Flavianus, of holy memory, with some pious men, was driven into exile, and many similar crimes were committed, because, instead of the Spirit of the Lord, Dioscorus, a factious man, of a very bad disposition, presided. But the Church was not there. I admit it; for I always hold that the truth does not perish in the Church though it be oppressed by one council, but is wondrously preserved by the Lord to rise again, and prove victorious in his own time. I deny, however, that every interpretation of Scripture is true and certain which has received the votes of a council.

14. But the Romanists have another end in view when they say that the power of interpreting Scripture belongs to councils, and that without challenge. For they employ it as a pretext for giving the name of an interpretation of Scripture to everything which is determined in councils. Of purgatory, the intercession of saints, and auricular confession, and the like, not one syllable can be found in Scripture. But as all these have been sanctioned by the authority of the Church, or, to speak more correctly, have been received by opinion and practice, every one of them is to be held as an interpretation of Scripture. And not only so, but whatever a council has determined against Scripture is to have the name of an interpretation. Christ bids all drink of the cup which he holds forth in the Supper. The Council of Constance prohibited the giving of it to the people, and determined that the priest alone should drink. Though this is diametrically opposed to the institution of Christ (Mt. 26:26), they will have it to be regarded as his interpretation. Paul terms the prohibition of marriage a doctrine of devils (1 Tim. 4:1, 3); and the Spirit elsewhere declares that 「marriage is honourable in all」 (Heb. 13:4). Having afterwards interdicted their priests from marriage, they insist on this as a true and genuine interpretation of Scripture, though nothing can be imagined more alien to it. Should any one venture to open his lips in opposition, he will be judged a heretic, since the determination of the Church is without challenge, and it is unlawful to have any doubt as to the accuracy of her interpretation. Why should I assail such effrontery? to point to it is to condemn it. Their dogma with regard to the power of approving Scripture I intentionally omit. For to subject the oracles of God in this way to the censure of men, and hold that they are sanctioned because they please men, is a blasphemy which deserves not to be mentioned. Besides, I have already touched upon it (Book 1 chap. 7; 8 sec. 9). I will ask them one question, however. If the authority of Scripture is founded on the approbation of the Church, will they quote the decree of a council to that effect? I believe they cannot. Why, then, did Arius allow himself to be vanquished at the Council of Nice by passages adduced from the Gospel of John? According to these, he was at liberty to repudiate 2412them, as they had not previously been approved by any general council. They allege an old catalogue, which they call the Canon, and say that it originated in a decision of the Church. But I again ask, In what council was that Canon published? Here they must be dumb. Besides, I wish to know what they believe that Canon to be. For I see that the ancients are little agreed with regard to it. If effect is to be given to what Jerome says (Præf. in Lib. Solom.), the Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the like, must take their place in the Apocrypha: but this they will not tolerate on any account.