Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)
XII. But our Romanists, when they find all the supports
of reason fail them in the defence of their cause, have recourse
to that last and wretched subterfuge—That although the persons
themselves betray the greatest stupidity in their understandings
and pleas, and act from the most iniquitous motives
and designs, still the word of God remains, which commands
us to obey our governors.[963]
But what if I deny that such
persons are our governors? For they ought not to arrogate to
themselves more than belonged to Joshua, who was a prophet
of the Lord and an excellent pastor. Now, let us hear with
what language he was inaugurated into his office by the Lord:
“This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but
thou shalt meditate therein day and night: turn not from it to
the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever
thou goest.”[964]
We shall consider them as our spiritual
governors, therefore, who deviate not from the word of God,
either to the right hand or to the left. If the doctrine of all pastors
ought to be received without any hesitation, why have we
such frequent and earnest admonitions from the mouth of the Lord
himself, not to listen to the speeches of false prophets? “Hearken
not,” says he by Jeremiah, “unto the words of the prophets
that prophesy unto you; they make you vain; they speak a
vision of their own hearts, and not out of the mouth of the
Lord.”[965]
Again: “Beware of false prophets, which come
to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening
wolves.”[966]
The exhortation given us by John would also
have been useless: “Try the spirits, whether they are of
God;”[967]
though from this examination the very angels are
not exempted, much less Satan with all his falsehoods. How
are we to understand this caution of our Lord? “If the blind
lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”[968]
Does it not
sufficiently declare, that it is of the highest importance what
kind of pastors are heard, and that they are not all entitled to
the same attention? Wherefore there is no reason why they
should overawe us with their titles, to make us partakers of
their blindness, while we see, on the contrary, that the Lord has
taken peculiar care to deter us from suffering ourselves to be
seduced by the error of other men, under whatever mask or
name it may be concealed. For if the answer of Christ be
true, all blind guides, whether they are denominated priests,
prelates, or pontiffs, can do nothing but precipitate their followers
into the same ruin with themselves. Impressed, therefore,
by these warnings, both of precepts and of examples, no
names of pastors, bishops, or councils, which are as capable of
being falsely claimed as rightly assumed, ought ever to prevent
us from examining all the spirits by the rule of the Divine
word, in order to “try whether they are of God.”
XIII. Having proved that the Church has received no power
to frame any new doctrine, let us now speak of the power
which our opponents attribute to it in the interpretation of the
Scripture. We have not the least objection to admit, that if
a controversy arise respecting any doctrine, there is no better
or more certain remedy than to assemble a council of true
bishops, in which the controverted doctrine may be discussed.
For such a decision, formed by the common consent of the
pastors of the Churches, after an invocation of the Spirit of
Christ, will have far greater weight, than if every one of them
separately were to maintain it in preaching to his people, or if
it were the result of a private conference between a few individuals.
Besides, when bishops are collected in one assembly,
they deliberate together with greater advantage on what they
ought to teach, and the manner in which their instructions
should be conveyed, so as to guard against offence arising from
diversity. In the third place, Paul prescribes this method of determining
respecting doctrines. For while he attributes to every
distinct Church a power “to judge,”[969]
he shows what ought
to be the order of proceeding in more important cases; namely,
that the Churches should undertake the common cognizance of
them. And so the dictate of piety itself teaches us, that if any
one disturb the Church with a new doctrine, and the matter be
carried so far as to cause danger of a more grievous dissension,
the Churches should first assemble, should examine the question
proposed to them, and after a sufficient discussion of it, should
announce a decision taken from the Scriptures, which would
put an end to all doubt among the people, and shut the mouths
of refractory and ambitious persons, so as to check their further
presumption. Thus, when Arius arose, the Council of Nice
was assembled, and by its authority defeated the pernicious
attempts of that impious man, restored peace to the Churches
which he had disturbed, and asserted the eternal deity of Christ
in opposition to his sacrilegious dogma. Some time after, when
Eunomius and Macedonius raised new contentions, their frenzy
was opposed with a similar remedy by the Council of Constantinople.
The impiety of Nestorius was condemned in the first
Council of Ephesus. In short, this has been the ordinary method
of the Church from the beginning, for the preservation of unity,
whenever Satan has begun to make any attempt against it.
But let it be remembered, that neither every age, nor every
place, can produce an Athanasius, a Basil, a Cyril, and other such
champions of the true doctrine, as the Lord raised up at those
periods. Let it also be recollected what happened at the
second Council of Ephesus, in which the heresy of Eutyches
prevailed. Flavianus, a bishop of irreproachable memory, was
banished, together with other pious men, and many similar
enormities were committed, because it was Dioscorus, a factious
and ill-disposed man, and not the Spirit of the Lord, that presided
in that council. But that council, it will be said, was not the
Church. I admit it: for I am firmly persuaded of this, that the
truth is not extinct in the Church, though it may be oppressed by
one council, but that it is wonderfully preserved by the Lord, to
arise and triumph again in his own time. But I deny it to be
an invariable rule, that every interpretation which may have
been approved by a council is the true and certain sense of
the Scripture.
