Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)
XIV. But the Romanists have a further design in maintaining
that councils possess the power of interpreting the Scripture,
and that without appeal. For it is a false pretence, when every
thing that has been determined in councils is called an interpretation
of the Scripture. Of purgatory, the intercession of
saints, auricular confession, and similar fooleries, the Scriptures
contain not a single syllable. But, because all these things
have been sanctioned by the authority of councils, or, to speak
more correctly, have been admitted into the general belief and
practice, therefore every one of them is to be taken for an interpretation
of Scripture. And not only so; but if a council
determine in direct opposition to the Scripture, it will still be
called an interpretation of it. Christ commands all to drink of
the cup which he presents to them in the sacred supper.[970]
The Council of Constance prohibited it to be given to the
laity, and determined that none but the priest should drink of
it. Yet this, which is so diametrically repugnant to the institution
of Christ, they wish us to receive as an interpretation of it.
Paul calls “forbidding to marry” a “doctrine of devils;”[971]
and the Holy Spirit, in another place, pronounces that “marriage
is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled.”[972]
The prohibition,
which they have since denounced, of the marriage of
priests, they wish us to consider as the true and natural interpretation
of the Scriptures, though nothing can be imagined
more repugnant to it. If any one dare to open his mouth to
the contrary, he is condemned as a heretic, because the determination
of the Church is without appeal, and the truth of its
interpretation cannot be doubted without impiety. What further
requires to be urged against such consummate effrontery? The
mere exhibition of it is a sufficient refutation. Their pretensions
to confirm the Scripture by the authority of the Church, I
purposely pass over. To subject the oracles of God to the
authority of men, so as to make their validity dependent on
human approbation, is a blasphemy unworthy of being mentioned;
beside which, I have touched on this subject already.
I will only ask them one question: If the authority of the Scripture
be founded on the approbation of the Church, what decree of
any council can they allege to this point? I believe, none at all.
Why, then, did Arius suffer himself to be vanquished at Nice by
testimonies adduced from the Gospel of John? According to
the argument of our opponents, he was at liberty to reject them,
as not having yet received the approbation of any general council.
They allege an ancient catalogue, which is called the Canon
of Scripture, and which they say proceeded from the decision
of the Church. I ask them again, in what council that canon
was composed. To this they can make no reply. Yet I would
wish to be further informed, what kind of a canon they suppose
it to be. For I see that the ancient writers were not fully
agreed respecting it. And if any weight be attached to the
testimony of Jerome, the two books of the Maccabees, the history
of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and other books, will be considered as
apocryphal; to which our opponents will by no means consent.
