(True authority of church councils, 1-2)
1. TWO PREFATORY REMARKS
Now, suppose I grant them their every point on the church, even this would not much further their major premise. For all that is said about the church, they at once transfer to councils, since in their opinion these represent the church. Indeed, they so stubbornly contend over the power of the church to no other purpose but to bestow all they can extort upon the Roman pontiff and his entourage.
But before I begin to discuss this question, I must make two brief prefatory remarks:
The fact that I shall here be rather severe does not mean that I esteem the ancient councils less than I ought. For I venerate them from my heart, and desire that they be honored by all.F284 But here the norm is that nothing of course detract from Christ. Now it is Christ’s right to preside over all councils and to have no man share his dignity. But I say that he presides only when the whole assembly is governed by his word and Spirit.
Secondly, the fact that I attribute less to councils than my opponents claim does not mean that I am afraid of councils, as if they supported their side and opposed ours. For as we have been amply equipped by the Word of the Lord for the full proof of our teaching and for the overthrow of all popery, and consequently there is no great need to require anything additional, so, if the matter should require it, the ancient councils would in large measure provide us enough evidence for both these.
2. TRUE AND FALSE COUNCILS
Let us now speak of the matter itself. If one seeks in Scripture what the authority of councils is, there exists no clearer promise than in this
statement of Christ’s: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them” [<401820>
Matthew 18:20]. But that nonetheless refers as much to a little meeting as to a universal council. Yet the difficulty of the question does not lie in this, but in the added
condition that Christ will be in the midst of a council only if it is gathered together in his name. As a consequence, it will benefit our adversaries but little to mention councils of bishops a thousand times over; nor will they persuade us to believe what they contend—that councils are governed by the Holy Spirit—before they convince us that these have been gathered in Christ’s name. Ungodly and evil bishops can just as much conspire against Christ as good and honest ones can come together in his name. We have clear proof of this fact in a great many decrees that have come forth from such councils. But this will appear later.F285 I now reply with but one word: Christ promises nothing except to those who are gathered in his name. Let us therefore define what that means. I deny that they are gathered in his name who, casting aside God’s commandment that forbids anything to be added or taken away from his Word [<050402>Deuteronomy 4:2; cf. <051232>
Deuteronomy 12:32; <203006>
Proverbs 30:6;
<662218>Revelation 22:18-19], ordain anything according to their own
decision; who, not content with the oracles of Scripture, that is, the sole rule of perfect wisdom, concoct some novelty out of their own heads.
Surely, since Christ promised that he would be present not in all councils whatsoever but laid down a special mark by which a true and lawful one might be distinguished from the rest, it behooves us never to neglect this distinction. This is the covenant which God of old made with the Levitical priests, that they should teach from his own lips [<390207>
Malachi 2:7]. He required this always of the prophets; we see that this rule was also
imposed upon the apostles. Those who violate this covenantsF286 God deems worthy neither of the honor of the priesthood nor of any authority.
Let my opponents resolve this difficulty for me if they would bind my faith to the decrees of men apart from God’s Word.
(Defects of pastors render their councils fallible, 3-7)
3. THE TRUTH CAN ALSO SUPPORT AND ASSERT ITSELF IN THE CHURCH WITHOUT AND AGAINST THE “PASTORS”
They suppose that the truth does not abide in the church unless there is agreement among the pastors; and that the church itself exists only if it becomes visible in general councils.F287 Yet this is far from having always been true, if the prophets have left us true testimonies of their times. In Isaiah’s day, there was a church at Jerusalem which God had not yet forsaken. But of the pastors he thus speaks: “His watchmen are all blind, and know nothing; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark. Lying down, they sleep, and love sleep.... And the shepherds know and understand nothing; they all look to their own way” [<235610>
Isaiah 56:10-11 p.]. qn the same way Hosea says: “The watchman of Ephraim is... with God, a fowler’s snare... and hatred in God’s house” [<280908>
Hosea 9:8 p.]. There, by ironically joining them with God, he teaches that theirs is a vain pretense of the priesthood. The church also endured to the time of Jeremiah. Let us hear what he says of the pastors: “From prophet to priest, everyone deals falsely” [<240613>
Jeremiah 6:13]. Again: “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name, since I did not send them, nor did I command them” [<241414>
Jeremiah 14:14]. And lest we should be too prolix in quoting his words, let our readers consult what he has written in the whole twenty-third [<242301>
Jeremiah 23:1 ff.] and fortiethF288 chapters.
At that time, from another quarter, Ezekiel no more gently inveighed against the same ones. He says: “A conspiracy of her prophets in the midst of her is like a roaring lion tearing the prey.... Her priests have done violence to my law, and have profaned my holy things; they have made no distinction between the holy and the common” [<262225>Ezekiel 22:25-26];
and the rest that he adds in this sense. Similar complaints appear in the prophets again and again; in fact, nothing else recurs more frequently there [<230914>
Isaiah 9:14; 28:7; 29:10; <240208>
Jeremiah 2:8, 26; 5:13, 31; 6:13;
8:10; 13:13; 14:14; 23:1; 27:9; etc.].
4. DEJECTION OF THE PASTORS FORETOLD This, someone will say, may have prevailed among the Jews: our age, however, is free from such great evil! Would, indeed, that it were! But the
Holy Spirit has declared that it will be otherwise. For Peter’s words are clear: “As there were,” he says, “false prophets among the ancient folk, so also among you there will be false teachers, secretly bringing in destructive heresies” [<610201>
2 Peter 2:1 p.]. Do you see how he predicts that danger threatens, not from the common people, but from those who boast the title of teachers and pastors? Moreover, how often did Christ and his apostles foretell that pastors would pose the greatest dangers to the church [<402411>
Matthew 24:11, 24; <442029>
Acts 20:29-30; <540401>
1 Timothy 4:1; <550301>2 Timothy 3:1 ff.; 4:3]? Indeed, Paul plainly shows that Antichrist will sit in no other place than the temple of God [<530204>
2 Thessalonians 2:4]. By this he means that the terrible calamity of which he there speaks will come from no other source than from those who will sit as pastors in the church. And in another passage he shows that the
beginnings of that very great evil were already almost at hand. For when he addresses the Ephesian bishopsF289 he says, “I know that after my
departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” [<442019>
Acts 20:19-30]. Since the pastors could become so degraded in such a short time, how much
corruption could a long succession of years bring among them? And, not to fill many pages in reciting them, we are warned by examples from almost every age that the truth is not always nurtured in the bosom of the pastors, and the wholeness of the church does not depend upon their condition. It was indeed fitting that they be executors and keepers of the peace and safety of the church, since they were appointed for its
preservation; but it is one thing to render what you owe; another, to owe what you fail to render.
5. THE NEED TO JUDGE THEM WITH DISCRIMINATION Still, let no one understand these words as if I meant to undermine the authority of pastors, in general, rashly, and without distinction. I am only warning that discrimination is to be made among these pastors themselves, lest we also immediately regard as pastors those who are so called. But the pope with the whole troupe of his bishops, for no other reason except that they are called pastors, having shaken off obedience to God’s Word, tumble and toss everything at their pleasure. And meantime they strive to
persuade us that they cannot be bereft of the light of truth, that the Spirit of God dwells continually in them, that the church subsists in them, and dies with them. As if there were now no judgments of the Lord to punish the world today with the same kind of punishment that he once visited upon the ungratefulness of the ancient folk: that is, he struck the pastors with blindness and dullness [<381117>
Zechariah 11:17]. Nor do these utterly stupid men realize that they are singing the same song that those once sang who were fighting against God’s Word. For thus did Jeremiah’s enemies array themselves against truth: “Come, and we shall make plots against Jeremiah, for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet” [<241818>Jeremiah 18:18].
6. THE TRUTH CAN ALSO STAND AGAINST COUNCILS Hence it is easy to answer that other objection concerning general councils.
That the Jews had a true church under the prophets cannot be denied. But if a general council of priests had then been convened, what semblance of the church would have shown itself? We hear that God announced not to one or another of them, but to the whole order: “The priests shall become mute and the prophets astounded” [<240409>
Jeremiah 4:9 p.]. Also: “The law will perish from the priest and council from the elders” [<260726>Ezekiel 7:26 p.]. Also: “The night shall be vision for you, and darkness your divination; the sun shall go down upon the prophets, and the day shall be black over them” [<330306>
Micah 3:6 p.]. Come now, if they had all been assembled together, what spirit would have presided over their assembly?
We have a notable example of this thing in the council convened by Ahab
[<112206>1 Kings 22:6,22]. Four hundred prophets were present. But
because they convened with no other purpose than to flatter the wicked king, Satan is sent by the Lord to be a lying spirit in the mouths of all. The truth is there, by the vote of all, condemned: Micaiah is condemned as a heretic, beaten, and cast into prison [<112226>1 Kings 22:26-27]. The same happened to Jeremiah [<242002>
Jeremiah 20:2; 32:2; 37:15 ff.] and to the other prophets [cf. <402135>Matthew 21:35; 23:29 ff.].
7. EXAMPLE FROM <431147>
JOHN 11:47
But one example, more memorable than the rest, will suffice for all. In that council which the high priests and Pharisees convened at Jerusalem against
Christ [<431147>John 11:47], what was lacking as far as outward appearance is concerned? For unless a church then existed at Jerusalem, Christ would never have taken part in the sacrifices and other ceremonies. A solemn convocation takes place; the high priest presides; the whole priestly order is present. Yet Christ is there condemned, and his teaching cast away [<402657>
Matthew 26:57 ff.]. This deed proves that the church was by no means embraced within that council. Yet, our opponents assert, there is no danger of such a thing happening to us. Who has assured us of this? For to be unconcerned in so important a matter is culpable neglect. But when the Holy Spirit prophesies expressly through Paul’s lips that an apostasy is coming [<530203>2 Thessalonians 2:3]—which cannot come unless the pastors are the first to forsake God—why are we here willfully blind to our own destruction? Accordingly, we must by no means admit that the church consists in the assembly of the pastors, whom the Lord nowhere assumes to be forever good but has declared will sometimes be evil. But where he warns of peril, he does so to render us more wary.
(Departing from Scripture, councils have deteriorated, but even those of Nicaea and Chalcedon were defective, 8-11)
8. THE VALIDITY OF CONCILIAR DECISIONS
What then? You ask, will the councils have no determining authority? Yes, indeed; for I am not arguing here either that all councils are to be
condemned or the acts of all to be rescinded, and (as the saying goes) to be canceled at one stroke. But, you will say, you degrade everything, so that every man has the right to accept or reject what the councils decide. Not at all! But whenever a decree of any council is brought forward, I should like men first of all diligently to ponder at what time it was held, on what issue, and with what intention, what sort of men were present; then to examine by the standard of Scripture what it dealt with—and to do this in such a way that the definition of the council may have its weight and be like a provisional judgment, yet not hinder the examination which I have mentioned.
Would that all kept that moderation which Augustine enjoins in the third book against Maximinus! When he wishes to silence in a few words this heretic contending over the decrees of councils, he says: “I ought not to
throw up against you the Council of Nicaea, nor you against me the Council of Ariminum as prejudging the matter. For I am not subject to the authority of the second, nor you to that of the first. Let matter contend with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason, by Scriptural
authorities, not those peculiar to either one, but those common to both.”F290
Thus councils would come to have the majesty that is their due; yet in the meantime Scripture would stand out in the higher place, with everything subject to its standard. In this way, we willingly embrace and reverence as holy the early councils, such as those of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus I, Chalcedon,F291 and the like, which were concerned with refuting errors—
in so far as they relate to the teachings of faith. For they contain nothing but the pure and genuine exposition of Scripture, which the holy fathers applied with spiritual prudence to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen. In some of the later councils also we see shining forth the true zeal for piety, and clear tokens of insight, doctrine, and prudence. But as affairs usually tend to get worse, it is to be seen from the more recent councils how much the church has degenerated from the purity of that golden age.
I do not doubt that even in these more corrupt times the councils had their bishops of a better type. But the same thing happened to them that Roman senators of old themselves complained of—senatorial decrees were badly framed. For so long as opinions are counted, not weighed, the better part had often to be overcome by the greater. They have surely put forward many impious opinions. And it is not necessary here to collect instances, either because it would take too long or because others have done this so diligently that not much can be added.F292
9. COUNCILS AGAINST COUNCILS
Need I then recount how councils disagreed with councils? And there is no ground for anyone to murmur against me that of the two that disagree one is not legitimate. For by what shall we judge such a case? By this, unless I am deceived, that we shall determine from Scripture which one’s decree is not orthodox. For this is the only sure principle on which to distinguish.
It is now about nine hundred years since the Council of Constantinople, convened under the Emperor Leo, decided that images set up in churches should be pulled down and smashed. A little later, the Council of Nicaea, which the Empress Irene, in hatred toward the first council, assembled, decreed the restoration of images.F293 Which of these two shall we acknowledge as legitimate? The latter, which gave images a place in churches, has subsequently prevailed among the people. But Augustine says that this practice involves an ever-present danger of idolatry.F294 Epi- phanius, of a previous period, speaks much more harshly, for he states that it is unlawful and abominable for images to be seen in the churches of Christians.F295 Would they who speak thus approve this council if they were alive today? But if the historians tell the truth, and the acts themselves are believed, not only the images themselves but also their worship was approved there. It is obvious that such a decree emanated from Satan. What about the fact that, in perverting and mangling the whole of Scripture, they show that it was a laughingstock to them? This I have made abundantly clear above.F296 However it may be, we cannot otherwise distinguish between councils that are contradictory and discordant, which have been many, unless we weigh them all, as I have said, in the balance of all men and angels, that is, the Word of the Lord. Thus, we accept
Chalcedon, but reject Ephesus II, because in it the Eutychean heresy was confirmed, which Chalcedon condemned.F297 Holy men have judged this matter solely by Scripture, and we so follow them in judgment that God’s Word, which shone before them, may now shine before us also. Now, let the Romanists go and boast (as they are accustomed) that the Holy Spirit is fastened and bound to their councils.
10. HUMAN FAILINGS IN THE COUNCILS
Still, in those ancient and purer councils one may count something lacking.
For either otherwise learned and wise men who were present, occupied with the business at hand, did not foresee many other things; or some things of lesser importance escaped them, occupied as they were with graver and more serious matters; or simply, as men, they could be deceived through lack of skill; or they were sometimes borne headlong with too much feeling. Of this last (which seems hardest of all), there is a notable example in the Council of Nicaea, whose eminence has been recognized by