Chapter 9: Of Councils and Their Authority

Now, although I grant them all things concerning the Church: yet they shall thereby not much prevail for their intent. For whatever is said of the Church, the same they by and by give to the Councils, forasmuch as in their opinion those represent the Church. Yea where they so stiffly contend for the power of the Church, they do it of no other purpose, but to give all that they can get to the Bishop of Rome and his guard. But before I begin to discuss this question, I must needs here make protestation of two things beforehand. First, that where I shall in this point be somewhat rough, it is not because I less esteem the old Councils than I ought to do. For I reverence them from my heart, and wish them to be had in their due honor with all men. But herein is some mean, that is, that there be nothing withdrawn from Christ. Now this is the right of Christ, to be the head in all Councils, and to have no man fellow with him in this dignity. But I say that then only he is the head, when he governs the whole assembly with his word and Spirit. Secondly, whereas I give less to Councils than the adversaries require, I do it not for this cause that I am afraid of the Councils, as though they did make for their side, and were against ours. For as we are abundantly furnished with the word of the Lord to the full proof of our own doctrine fully, and to the overthrow of the whole Papistry, that we need not much to desire any other thing beside it: so if the matter require, the old Councils do for a great part minister to us so much as may suffice for both.

Now let us speak of the thing itself. If it be sought of the Scriptures, what is the authority of Councils: there is no plainer promise than in this saying of Christ: Where two or three shall be gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them. But that does no less belong to every particular assembly than to a general Council. But the doubt of the question stands not therein: but because there is a condition added, that God will so only be in the midst of the Council, if it be gathered together in his name. Therefore although our adversaries do a thousand times name Councils of Bishops, they shall little prevail: neither shall they make us to believe that which they affirm, that is, that they be governed of the Holy Ghost, until they have proved that they are gathered together in the name of Christ. For it is as possible that wicked and evil Bishops may conspire against Christ, as good and honest Bishops may come together in his name. For a very clear proof hereof are many decrees that have proceeded from such Councils. But this shall be seen hereafter. Now I do but answer in one word, that Christ promises nothing, but to them that are gathered together in his name. Let us therefore define what that is. I deny that they be gathered together in the name of Christ, which casting away the commandment of God, wherein he forbids any thing to be added to his word, or taken from it, do decree every thing after their own will: which being not contented with the oracles of the Scripture, that is to say the only rule of perfect wisdom, do imagine some new thing of their own head. Surely since Christ has not promised that he will be present at all Councils, but has adjoined a peculiar mark, whereby to make true and lawful Councils different from other: it is meet that we should not neglect this difference. This is the covenant, which in old time God made with the Levitical Priests, that they should teach out of his mouth. This he always required of the Prophets: this law also we see to have been laid upon the Apostles. Whoever breaks this covenant, God does not vouchsafe, to let them have the honor of Priesthood, nor any authority. Let the adversaries undo me this knot, if they will make my faith bound to the decrees of men beside the word of God.

For whereas they think not that truth remains in the Church, unless it be among the Pastors: and that the Church itself stands not, unless it appear in general Councils: that is far from having been always true, if the Prophets have left to us true testimonies of their own times. There was in the time of Isaiah a Church at Jerusalem, which God had not yet forsaken. But of the pastors he says thus: The watchmen are all blind, neither know they any thing. They are all dumb dogs, neither are they able to bark. They lie along and sleep, and love sleeping: and the Pastors themselves know nothing, nor do understand: and they do altogether look back to their own ways. After the same manner Hosea says: The watchman of Ephraim with God, the snare of the fowler, hatred in the house of God. Where joining them with God by way of mockery, he teaches that their pretense of the priesthood is vain. The Church also endured to the time of Jeremiah. Let us hear what he says of the Pastors. From the Prophet even to the priest, every one follows lying. Again: The Prophets do prophesy a lie in my name, when I have not sent them, nor commanded them. And lest we should be too long in reciting his words, let those things be read that he has written in the whole 23rd and 40th chapters. At that time on the other side Ezekiel did no more gently inveigh against the same men. The conspiracy (says he) of the Prophets in the midst of her as a roaring lion, and that violently takes his prey. Her priests have broken my law, and have defiled my holy things, and have made no difference between holy and profane: and the rest that he adds to the same effect. Like complaints are every where in the Prophets, so that nothing is more often found in them.

But perhaps it might be that that was so among the Jews: but our age is free from so great an evil. I would to God indeed it were so: but the Holy Spirit has given warning that it shall be far otherwise. The words of Peter are plain. As (says he) there were in the old people false prophets, so shall there also be among you false teachers, slyly bringing in sects of perdition. Do you not see how he says that there is danger to come, not by men of the common people, but by them that shall boast themselves with the title of teachers and pastors? Moreover how often has it been foretold by Christ and his Apostles, that there should very great dangers hang over the Church by the pastors? Indeed Paul plainly shows that Antichrist shall sit in no other place than in the temple of God. Whereby he signifies that the horrible calamity of which he there speaks shall come from nowhere else but from them that shall sit in stead of pastors in the Church. And in another place he shows that the beginnings of so great a mischief are even already near at hand. For when he speaks to the bishops of Ephesus: I know (says he) that after my departure there shall enter in to you ravening wolves not sparing the flock. And they shall be of your own selves, that shall speak perverse things, to lead away disciples after them. How much corruption might a long course of years bring among pastors, when they could so far go out of kind in so small a space of time? And, not to fill much paper with recounting them by name: we are admonished by the examples in a manner of all ages, that neither the truth is always nourished in the bosom of the pastors, nor the safety of the Church does hang upon their state. They ought indeed to have been the governors and keepers of the peace and safety of the Church, for preservation whereof they are ordained: but it is one thing for a man to perform that which he ought, and another thing to owe that which he performs not.

Yet let no man take these our words in such part, as though I would everywhere and rashly without any choice diminish the authority of pastors. I do but only admonish that even among pastors themselves there is a choice to be had, that we should not immediately think them to be pastors that are so called. But the Pope with all his flock of bishops, upon no other reason, but because they are called pastors, shaking away the obedience of the word of God, do tumble and toss all things after their own lust: and in the mean time they labor to persuade, that they cannot be destitute of the light of truth, that the Spirit of God perpetually abides in them, that the Church consists in them and dies with them. As though there be now no judgments of the Lord, whereby he may punish the world at this day with the same kind of punishment, wherewith sometime he took vengeance of the unthankfulness of the old people, that is, to strike the pastors with blindness and amazed dullness. Neither do they, most foolish men, understand that they sing the same song, which those in old time did sing that warred against the word of God. For the enemies of Jeremiah did thus prepare themselves against the truth: Come, and we will imagine imaginations against Jeremiah: forasmuch as the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise man, nor the word from the prophet.

Hereby it is easy to answer to that other objection concerning general councils. It cannot be denied but that the Jews had a true Church in the time of the prophets. But if there had then been a general council gathered together of the priests, what manner of face of the Church had there appeared? We hear what God says, not to one or two of them but to the whole order: The priests shall be astonished, and the prophets shall be made afraid. Again, The law shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the elders. Again, Night shall be to you in stead of a vision, and darkness in stead of prophesying: and the sun shall fall down upon the prophets, and be darkened upon these days. Well: if all such had then been gathered together in one, what Spirit should have governed in that assembly? Of that thing we have a notable example in that council which Ahab called together. There were present four hundred prophets. But, because they were come together of no other mind but to flatter the wicked king: therefore Satan was sent of the Lord to be a lying spirit in the mouth of them all. There by all their voices the truth was condemned, Micah was condemned for a heretic, stricken and cast in prison. So was done to Jeremiah, so to the other prophets.

But let one example suffice for all, which is more notable than the rest. In that council which the bishops and Pharisees gathered at Jerusalem against Christ, what can a man say that there wanted, in so much as pertained to the outward show? For if there had not then been a Church at Jerusalem, Christ would never have communicated with their sacrifices and other ceremonies. There was made a solemn summoning of them together: the high bishop sat as chief; the whole order of priests sat by him: yet Christ was there condemned, and his doctrine driven away. This doing is a proof that the Church was not enclosed in that council. But there is no peril that any such thing should happen to us. Who has given us assurance thereof? For it is not without fault of sluggishness, to be too careless in so great a matter. But where the Holy Spirit does with express words prophesy by the mouth of Paul, that there shall come a departing (which cannot come but that the pastors must be the first that shall forsake God) why are we herein willfully blind to our own destruction? Therefore it is in no wise to be granted, that the Church consists in the company of pastors, for whom the Lord has nowhere undertaken that they shall perpetually be good, but he has pronounced that they shall sometime be evil. But when he warns us of the danger, he does it to this intent to make us the warier.

What then? Will you say: Shall the Councils have no authority in determining? Indeed they shall. For neither do I here argue that all Councils are to be condemned, or all their acts to be repelled, or (as the saying is) to be defaced with one blot. But (you will say to me) you bring them all into subjection, that it may be free for every man to receive or refuse that which the Councils have determined. Not so. But so often as the decree of any Council is brought forth, I would have it first to be diligently weighed, at what time it was held, for what cause it was held, what manner of men were present: and then the very thing that is treated of, to be examined by the rule of the Scripture: and that in such sort as the determination of the Council may have its force, and be as a prejudged sentence, and yet not hinder the aforesaid examination. I would to God all men did keep that moderation which Augustine prescribes in the third book against Maximinus. For when he minded briefly to put to silence this heretic contending about the Decrees of Councils: Neither (says he) ought I to object against you the Synod of Nice, nor you against me the Synod of Ariminum, as to the intent to conclude one another by prejudged sentence, neither am I bound by the authority of the one, nor you of the other. By authorities of Scriptures, not such as are proper to either one, but such as are common to both, let there strive matter with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason. So should it come to pass, that Councils should have the majesty that they ought: but in the mean season the Scripture should be alone in the higher place, that there might be nothing that should not be subject to the rule thereof. So these old Synods, as of Nice, of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, and such others, which were held for confuting of errors, we willingly embrace and reverence as holy, so much as belongs to the doctrines of faith: for they contain nothing but the pure and natural exposition of Scripture, which the holy fathers with spiritual wisdom applied to the subduing of the enemies of religion that then rose up. In some of the later Councils also, we see to appear a true zeal of godliness, and plain tokens of wit, learning, and wisdom. But as things are wont commonly to grow to worse, we may see by the later Councils, how much the Church has now and then degenerated from the purity of that golden age. And I doubt not but that in these more corrupt ages also, Councils have had some Bishops of the better sort. But in these the same happened which the Senators themselves complained to be not well done in making of ordinances of the senate at Rome. For while the sentences are numbered, not weighed, it is of necessity that oftentimes the better part is overcome by the greater. Truly they brought forth many wicked sentences. Neither is it here needful to gather the special examples, either because it should be too long, or because others have done it so diligently that there can not much be added.

Now, what need I to rehearse Councils disagreeing with Councils? And it is no cause that any should murmur against me, and say, that of those Councils that disagree the one is not lawful. For, how shall we judge that? By this, if I be not deceived, that we shall judge by the Scriptures, that the decrees thereof are not agreeable with true doctrine. For this is the only certain law to discern them by. It is now about nine hundred years ago, since the Synod of Constantinople gathered together under Leo the Emperor, judged that images set up in Churches should be overthrown, and broken in pieces. A little afterward, the Council of Nice, which Irene the Empress assembled in spite of him, decreed that they should be restored. Which of these two shall we acknowledge for a lawful Council? The later which gave images a place in Churches, has prevailed among the people. But Augustine says that that can not be done without most present peril of idolatry. Epiphanius who was before in time, speaks much more sharply: for he says that it is wickedness and abomination to have images seen in a Church of Christians. Would they that so speak, allow that Council, if they were alive at this day? But if both the historians tell truth, and the very acts be believed, not only images themselves, but also the worshipping of them was there received. But it is evident that such a decree came from Satan. How say you to this, that in depraving and tearing the Scripture, they show that they made a mocking stock of it? Which thing I have before sufficiently made open. However it be, we shall no otherwise be able to discern between contrary and disagreeing Synods, which were many, unless we try them all by that balance of all men and angels, that is, by the word of the Lord. So we embrace the Synod of Chalcedon, refusing the second Synod of Ephesus, because in this latter one the wickedness of Eutyches was confirmed, which the other former condemned. This thing holy men have judged none otherwise but by the Scripture: whom we so follow in judging: that the word of God which gave light to them does also now give light to us. Now let the Romanists go and boast, as they are wont, that the Holy Spirit is fastened and bound to their Councils.

However, there is also somewhat which a man may well think to be wanting in those ancient and purer Councils: either because they that then were at them, being otherwise learned and wise men, wholly bent to the business then in hand, did not foresee many other things, or because many things of lighter importance escaped them being busied with weightier and more earnest matters: or because simply, as being men they might be deceived with unskilfulness: or because they were sometime carried headlong with too much affection. Of this last point (which seems the hardest of all) there was a plain example in the Nicene Synod, the dignity of which has by consent of all men, as it was worthy, been received with most high reverence. For when the principal article of our faith was there in danger, Arius the enemy was present in readiness, with whom they must fight hand to hand, and the chief importance lay in the agreement of them that came prepared to fight against the error of Arius. This notwithstanding, they careless of so great dangers, yea as it were having forgotten gravity, modesty and all humanity, leaving the battle that they had in hand, as if they had come there of purpose to do Arius a pleasure, began to wound themselves with inward dissensions, and to turn against themselves the style that should have been bent against Arius. There were heard foul objections of crimes, there were scattered books of accusations, and there would have been no end made of contentions, until they had with mutual wounds one destroyed another, unless the Emperor Constantine had prevented it, who professing that the examining of their life was a matter above his knowledge, chastised such intemperance rather with praise than with rebuking. How many ways is it credible that the other Councils also failed, which followed afterward? Neither does this matter need long proof. For if a man read over the acts of the Councils, he shall note therein many infirmities: though I speak of nothing more grievous.

And Leo bishop of Rome sticks not to charge with ambition and unadvisedness the Synod of Chalcedon, which yet he confesses to be sound in doctrines. He does indeed not deny that it was a lawful Synod: but he openly affirms that it might err. Some man perhaps will think me foolish, for that I busy myself in showing such errors: inasmuch as our adversaries do confess that Councils may err in those things that are not necessary to salvation. But this labor is not yet superfluous. For although because they are compelled, they do indeed confess it in word: yet when they thrust to us the determination of all councils in every matter whatever it be, for an oracle of the Holy Spirit, they do therein require more than they took at the beginning. In so doing what do they affirm, but that Councils cannot err: or if they err, yet it is not lawful for us to see the truth, or not to soothe their errors? And I intend nothing else, but that it may thereby be gathered that the Holy Spirit so governed the godly and holy Synods, that in the meantime he suffered somewhat to happen to them by the nature of men, lest we should too much trust to men. This is a much better sentence than that of Gregory Nazianzen, that he never saw a good end of any Council. For he that affirms that all without exception ended ill does not leave them much authority. It is now nothing needful to make mention severally of provincial Councils: inasmuch as it is easy to judge by the general how much authority they ought to have to make new articles of faith and to receive whatever kind of doctrine it pleases them.

But our Romanists, when they see that in defense of their cause all help of reason does fail them, do resort to that extreme and miserable shift: that although the men themselves be dull in wit and counsel, and most wicked in mind and will, yet the word of God remains, which commands to obey rulers. Is it so? What if I deny that they be rulers that are such? For they ought to take upon themselves no more than Joshua had, which was both a Prophet of the Lord and an excellent pastor. But let us hear with what words he is set by the Lord into his office. Let not (says he) the volume of this law depart from your mouth: but you shall study upon it days and nights. You shall neither bow to the right hand nor to the left: then shall you direct your way and understand it. They therefore shall be to us spiritual rulers which shall not bow from the law of the Lord, neither to the one side nor to the other. But if the doctrine of all pastors whatever they be is to be received without any doubting, to what purpose was it that we should so often and so earnestly be admonished not to hearken to the speech of false prophets? Hear not (says he by Jeremiah) the words of the prophets that prophesy to you. For they teach you vanity, and not out of the mouth of the Lord. Again, Beware of false prophets, that come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. And John should in vain exhort us that we should prove the spirits, whether they be of God. From which judgment the very angels are not exempted, much less Satan with all his lies. What is to be said of this saying: if the blind lead the blind, they shall both fall into the ditch? Does it not sufficiently declare that it is of great importance what manner of prophets be heard, and that not all are rashly to be heard? Therefore there is no reason that they should make us afraid with their titles, thereby to draw us into partaking of their blindness: inasmuch as we see on the other side that the Lord had a singular care to frighten us away from suffering ourselves to be led with other men's error, under whatever guise of name it lurks. For if the answer of Christ be true, then all blind guides, whether they be called fathers of the Church, or prelates, or bishops, can do nothing but draw their partners into the same headlong downfall. Therefore let no names of Councils, Pastors, Bishops, (which may as well be falsely pretended as truly used) hinder us, but that being taught by lessons both of words and examples, we may examine all spirits of all men by the rule of the word of God, that we may prove whether they be of God or no.

Forasmuch as we have proved that there is not given to the Church a power to set up a new doctrine, now let us speak of the power which they attribute to it in expounding of Scripture. Truly we do willingly grant, that if there happen debate about any doctrine, there is no better nor surer remedy than if a Synod of true bishops assemble together, where the doctrine in controversy may be discussed. For such a determination, to which the Pastors of Churches shall agree in common together, calling on the Spirit of Christ, shall have much greater force, than if every one severally should conceive it at home, and so teach it to the people, or if a few private men should make it. Again, when bishops are gathered together in one, they do the more commodiously take advice in common, what and in what form they ought to teach, lest diversity should breed offense. Thirdly Paul prescribes this order in discerning of doctrines: for whereas he gives to every several Church a power to discern, he shows what is the order of doing in weightier causes: that is, that the Churches should take on them a common trial of the matter together. And so does the very feeling of godliness instruct us, that if any man trouble the Church with an unwonted doctrine, and the matter proceed so far that there be peril of greater dissension, the Churches should first meet together, and examine the question proposed, at last, after just discussion had, bring forth a determination taken out of the Scripture, such as may both take away doubting out of the people, and stop the mouths of wicked and greedy men, that they may not be so bold as to proceed any further. So when Arius arose, the Nicene Synod was gathered together, which with the authority thereof both broke the wicked endeavors of the ungodly man, and restored peace to the Churches, which he had vexed, and defended the eternal Godhead of Christ against his blasphemous doctrine. When afterward Eunomius and Macedonius stirred up new troubles, their madness was resisted with like remedy by the Synod of Constantinople. In the Counsel at Ephesus the wickedness of Nestorius was banished. Finally this has been from the beginning the ordinary means in the Church to preserve unity, so often as Satan began to work anything. But let us remember, that not in all ages or in all places are found Athanases, Basils, Cyrils, and such defenders of true doctrine whom the Lord then raised up. But let us think what happened at Ephesus in the second Synod, where the heresy of Eutyches prevailed, the man of holy memory Flavianus was banished with certain other godly men, and many such mischiefs committed: even because Dioscorus a seditious man and of a very naughty nature, was there the chief, and not the Spirit of the Lord. But there was not the Church. I grant. For this I determine utterly that the truth does not therefore die in the Church, although it be oppressed of one Council: but that the Lord marvellously preserves it, that it may again in due time rise up, and get the upper hand. But I deny that this is perpetual, that that is a true and certain exposition of Scripture which has been received by consents of a Council.

But the Romanists shoot at another mark, when they teach that the power to expound the Scripture belongs to the Councils, and indeed without appeal from them. For they abuse this cover, to call whatever is decreed in the Councils an exposition of the Scripture. Of purgatory, of the intercession of saints, of auricular confession, and such other things, there cannot be found one syllable in the Scriptures. But because all these things have been established by the authority of the Church, that is to say (to speak truly) received in opinion and use, therefore every one of them must be taken for an exposition of Scripture. And not that only: but if a Council decree anything, though Scripture cry out against it, yet it shall bear the name of an exposition thereof. Christ commands all to drink of the Cup, which he reaches in the Supper. The Council of Constance forbade that it should not be given to the lay people, but willed that the priest only should drink of it. That which so directly fights against the institution of Christ, they will have to be taken for an exposition of it. Paul calls the forbidding of marriage the hypocrisy of devils: and the Holy Ghost in another place pronounces, that marriage is in all men holy and honorable. Whereas they have afterward forbidden priests to marry, they require to have that taken for the true and natural exposition of the Scripture, when nothing can be imagined more against it. If any dare once open his mouth to the contrary, he shall be judged a heretic: because the determination of the Church is without appeal: and to doubt of her exposition, that it is not true, is a heinous offense. Why should I inveigh against so great shamelessness? For the very showing of it is an overcoming of it. As for that which they teach of the power to approve the Scripture, I wittingly pass it over. For in such sort to make the Oracles of God subject to the judgment of men, that they should therefore be of force because they have pleased men, is a blasphemy unworthy to be rehearsed: and I have before touched the same matter already. Yet I will ask them one thing: if the authority of the Scripture be founded upon the approval of the Church, what Council's decree will they allege of that matter? I think they have none. Why then did Arius suffer himself to be overcome at Nicea with testimonies brought out of the Gospel of John? For after these men's saying, it was free for him to have refused them, forasmuch as there had no approval of a general Council gone before. They allege the old roll, which is called the Canon, which they say to have proceeded from the judgment of the Church. But I ask them again, in what Council that Canon was set forth. Here they must needs be dumb. Howbeit I desire further to know, what manner of canon they think that was. For I see that the same was not very certainly agreed among the old writers. And if that which Jerome says ought to be of force, the books of Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus and such other shall be thrust among the Apocrypha: which those Canons do in no way allow to be done.

Even if I were to grant them everything they say about the church, it would do little to advance their cause. For whatever they claim for the church, they immediately transfer to councils, which in their view represent the church. In fact, their fierce insistence on the church's power has no other purpose than to hand everything over to the bishop of Rome and his associates. But before I take up this question, I must first register two things. First, where I speak somewhat sharply on this point, it is not because I esteem the ancient councils less than I should. I reverence them wholeheartedly and want them to be honored by everyone as they deserve. But there is a proper limit: nothing must be taken away from Christ. And Christ's right is this: to be the head in all councils, with no one sharing that dignity with Him. He is the head, I say, only when He governs the whole assembly by His word and Spirit. Second, where I attribute less to councils than our opponents demand, it is not because I fear councils, as though they would support their side and undermine ours. For we are so fully equipped by the Lord's word to prove our own doctrine and to overthrow the entire papacy that we scarcely need anything else. Yet if the matter requires it, the ancient councils for the most part furnish us with more than enough for both purposes.

Now let us address the matter itself. If we ask Scripture about the authority of councils, no promise is clearer than Christ's own words: 'Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am among them.' But this promise applies no less to every particular assembly than to a general council. The difficulty in the question does not lie there, however, but in this: a condition is attached. God will be in the midst of a council only if it is gathered in His name. So let our opponents name councils of bishops a thousand times — it will accomplish little. We will not believe what they claim — that such councils are governed by the Holy Spirit — until they have proved that these councils are gathered in the name of Christ. For it is just as possible for wicked and corrupt bishops to conspire against Christ as for godly and honest bishops to come together in His name. The many decrees that have come out of such councils are a very clear proof of this — but we will see that later. For now I give only one answer: Christ promises His presence only to those gathered in His name. Let us therefore define what that means. I deny that people are gathered in the name of Christ who, disregarding God's commandment forbidding anything to be added to or taken from His word, decide everything according to their own will — who, not content with the oracles of Scripture as the only rule of perfect wisdom, fabricate new things from their own minds. Since Christ did not promise to be present at all councils, but attached a specific mark to distinguish true and lawful councils from others, we must not ignore that distinction. This is the covenant God made in ancient times with the Levitical priests — that they would teach from His mouth. He required this of the prophets throughout their ministry. The same law was laid on the apostles. Whoever breaks this covenant, God refuses to honor with the dignity of priesthood or any authority. Let our opponents resolve this difficulty for me, if they expect my faith to be bound to the decrees of men beyond the word of God.

They assume that the truth cannot remain in the church unless it resides with the pastors, and that the church cannot stand unless it appears in general councils. But this was far from always being true, as the prophets themselves leave us clear testimony. In Isaiah's time there was a church in Jerusalem that God had not yet forsaken — and yet of the pastors He said: 'Their watchmen are all blind, they have no knowledge. They are all silent dogs unable to bark. They lie down and sleep, they love slumber. And the shepherds themselves have no understanding — they have all turned to their own way.' Hosea similarly says: 'The watchman of Ephraim is with God, a fowler's snare, and hatred in the house of God' — sarcastically pairing them with God to expose how worthless their pretended priesthood was. The church also continued into Jeremiah's time. And what does he say of the pastors? 'From prophet to priest, everyone deals falsely.' And again: 'The prophets prophesy lies in My name. I did not send them, nor did I command them.' For the full picture, one need only read Jeremiah's chapters 23 and 40 in their entirety. Ezekiel at the same time was no less forceful against the same men: 'The conspiracy of her prophets in the midst of her is like a roaring lion tearing its prey. Her priests have violated My law, profaned My holy things, and made no distinction between the holy and the common' — and so on with what follows in the same vein. Complaints like these appear throughout the prophets — nothing is more common in their writings.

Perhaps one might say: that was true of the Jews, but our age is free from so great an evil. I wish to God it were. But the Holy Spirit has given us clear warning that it will be very much otherwise. Peter's words are plain: 'Just as there were false prophets among the ancient people, so there will be false teachers among you, secretly introducing destructive heresies.' Do you not see how he says the danger will come not from ordinary people, but from those who will boast the title of teachers and pastors? And how many times did Christ and His apostles foretell that the church would face severe dangers from within the pastoral office? Indeed, Paul explicitly says that antichrist will sit nowhere but in the temple of God — meaning that the terrible catastrophe he describes will come from none other than those sitting in the place of pastors in the church. And he shows elsewhere that the seeds of this great disaster were already sprouting in his own day. For when he addressed the bishops of Ephesus, he said: 'I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. And from among your own number men will arise speaking twisted things, to draw disciples after them.' If the pastoral order could fall this far in so short a time, how much more corruption could spread through many long centuries? Without filling many pages with names and examples: the history of almost every era warns us that truth is not always cradled in the bosom of the pastors, and that the safety of the church does not rest on their condition. They ought indeed to have been the guardians and protectors of the church's peace and safety, for which they were ordained. But there is a difference between what a person owes and what he actually performs.

Let no one read these words as though I would carelessly and universally disparage the authority of all pastors. I am only cautioning that even among those called pastors, discernment is required — we should not assume that everyone who bears the title is truly a pastor. But the pope with his whole flock of bishops, on no other grounds than that they are called pastors, shakes off obedience to God's word and drives everything forward by their own will. All the while they insist that they cannot lack the light of truth, that the Spirit of God permanently dwells in them, and that the church consists of them and perishes with them. As though there were no longer any judgments of the Lord by which He might punish the world today with the same kind of punishment He once used against the ingratitude of the ancient people — striking the pastors with blindness and spiritual stupor. These foolish men do not realize they are singing the same song as those in ancient times who warred against God's word. For Jeremiah's enemies prepared themselves against the truth with exactly this argument: 'Come, let us devise plans against Jeremiah — for the law will not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet.'

From this it is easy to answer the objection about general councils. No one can deny that the Jews had a true church in the time of the prophets. But if a general council had been assembled from all the priests at that time, what kind of church would have appeared? We hear what God said — not to one or two of them, but to the entire order: 'The priests will be appalled, and the prophets will be dismayed.' And again: 'The law will perish from the priest, and counsel from the elders.' And again: 'It will be night for you instead of vision, and darkness instead of prophecy. The sun will set on the prophets, and the day will grow dark for them.' If all such men had been gathered into one assembly, what spirit would have governed that council? We have a vivid example in the council Ahab convened. Four hundred prophets were present. But because they had come together with no other purpose than to flatter the wicked king, the Lord sent Satan as a lying spirit into the mouths of all of them. By their unanimous voices, truth was condemned, Micah was declared a heretic, struck, and thrown in prison. The same was done to Jeremiah and to the other prophets.

But let one example stand for all — one that is more striking than the rest. In the council that the chief priests and Pharisees assembled at Jerusalem against Christ, what was lacking in terms of outward appearance? If there had been no true church in Jerusalem at that time, Christ would never have participated in their sacrifices and other ceremonies. A solemn assembly was convened; the high priest presided; the whole order of priests sat alongside him — and yet Christ was condemned and His teaching suppressed. This proves that the church was not enclosed in that council. But surely, someone will say, there is no risk of anything like that happening to us. And who has given us that assurance? It is not without the fault of negligence to be so careless about such an important matter. And when the Holy Spirit explicitly prophesies through Paul that there will be 'a great falling away' — which can only occur when the pastors are the first to abandon God — why do we willfully blind ourselves to our own destruction? We must therefore never concede that the church is identical with the company of pastors — for the Lord has nowhere guaranteed that they will always be good. He has in fact declared that they will sometimes be evil. When He warns us of this danger, He does so to make us all the more watchful.

What then? Are you saying councils should have no authority in making decisions? Not at all. I am not arguing that all councils should be condemned or all their acts swept away. But, you might say, you are subjecting them all to private judgment, so that anyone is free to accept or reject whatever a council has decided. No — that is not it either. What I am saying is this: whenever a council's decree is brought forward, it should first be carefully examined — when the council was held, why it was held, and who was present. Then the substance of the matter should be tested against the rule of Scripture. This should be done in such a way that the council's decision carries genuine weight as a prior judgment, without that weight preventing the examination I have described. I wish all people would practice the moderation Augustine prescribes in his third book against Maximinus. When he wanted to briefly silence this heretic who was appealing to council decrees, he wrote: 'I should not cite the Synod of Nicaea against you, nor should you cite the Synod of Ariminum against me, as though either of us could prevail by a prejudged ruling. I am not bound by the one, nor you by the other. Let the matter be decided by the authority of Scripture — not texts peculiar to either side, but those common to both. Let argument meet argument, case meet case, reason meet reason.' This would give councils the dignity they deserve, while leaving Scripture in its proper place above all things — so that nothing escapes its rule. On these terms we gladly embrace and honor as holy the early councils: those of Nicaea, Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and similar ones held to refute errors. These contain nothing but the pure and natural exposition of Scripture, which the holy fathers applied with spiritual wisdom to subdue the enemies of true religion who arose in their day. In some of the later councils, too, we see genuine zeal for godliness and clear signs of learning and wisdom. But as things commonly tend to get worse over time, the later councils show how much the church has at various points fallen from the purity of that golden age. I do not doubt that even in those more corrupt periods, councils had some bishops of better character. But in these councils, the same thing happened that Roman senators themselves complained of in making Senate decrees: when votes are counted rather than weighed, the better cause is often defeated by sheer numbers. They produced many wicked decisions. There is no need to catalog the particular examples here — it would take too long, and others have already done it so thoroughly that little could be added.

What need is there to rehearse council after council contradicting one another? And no one should object against me that one of the two contradicting councils is simply illegitimate. By what standard would we judge that? By this, if I am not mistaken: we judge it by Scripture — whether its decrees agree with true doctrine. That is the only reliable law by which councils can be discerned. About nine hundred years ago the council assembled at Constantinople under the Emperor Leo judged that images set up in churches should be torn down and destroyed. Shortly afterward, the Council of Nicaea, which the Empress Irene convened in opposition, decreed that images should be restored. Which of these shall we acknowledge as the lawful council? The latter, which restored images to churches, has prevailed among the people. But Augustine says this cannot be done without the most immediate danger of idolatry. Epiphanius, who came before, speaks even more sharply: he says it is wickedness and an abomination to have images visible in a Christian church. Would either of them, if alive today, have approved that council? And if the historians are truthful and the acts of the council are to be believed, not only were images themselves received there — the worship of them was as well. Such a decree clearly came from Satan. And how they twisted and mangled Scripture to justify it — turning it into a mockery — I have already sufficiently demonstrated. In any case, the only way to judge between conflicting and contradictory councils — of which there are many — is to test them all by the standard that governs all people and angels alike: the word of the Lord. On this basis we embrace the Council of Chalcedon while rejecting the Second Council of Ephesus — because the latter confirmed the wickedness of Eutyches, while the former condemned it. This is how holy men judged the matter, by Scripture alone — and we follow them in judging, so that the word of God that gave light to them also gives light to us. Let the Romanists now go and boast, as they do, that the Holy Spirit is permanently bound and fixed to their councils.

There is also something one might reasonably find lacking even in those ancient and purer councils — either because the learned and wise men present, being entirely focused on the matter at hand, did not foresee many other things; or because many lesser matters slipped by unaddressed while they were occupied with weightier concerns; or simply because, being human, they could be led astray by inexperience; or because they were sometimes swept along by excessive passion. The last of these — which seems most striking — was clearly visible even at the Nicene Council, whose dignity has been deservedly and universally received with the highest reverence. The core article of our faith was at stake; Arius, the opponent, was present and ready to be challenged directly; everything depended on the unity of those who had gathered to combat Arian error. And yet — forgetting such great dangers, and as if they had lost all gravity, modesty, and common decency — they abandoned the battle before them and turned against each other. It was as though they had come not to fight Arius, but to do him a favor. Ugly accusations were traded, written charges were circulated, and the quarreling would have ended only in mutual destruction — had the Emperor Constantine not stepped in. Rather than rebuking them, he shamed their lack of self-control by gently praising what restraint remained, and declared that judging their personal conduct was beyond his competence. If this is what happened in that council, how many ways might the councils that followed have failed? This does not require lengthy proof. Let anyone read through the acts of the councils and he will find many weaknesses — and I am not even speaking of anything more serious.

Even Leo, bishop of Rome, did not hesitate to charge the Council of Chalcedon with ambition and rashness — though he acknowledged that its doctrine was sound. He did not deny it was a legitimate council, but he openly stated that it could err. Perhaps someone will think I am wasting time pointing out such errors, since our opponents themselves admit that councils can err in things not necessary for salvation. But this effort is not superfluous. Though they are compelled to admit it in words, when they press upon us the decisions of every council on every matter as oracles of the Holy Spirit, they are claiming far more than they initially acknowledged. In doing so, what are they really saying — except that councils cannot err, or that even if they do, we are not permitted to see the truth or refuse to flatter their errors? My only point is this: that the Holy Spirit governed the godly and holy councils, yet allowed human nature to produce some failures along the way — so that we would not place too much trust in men. This is a more measured position than Gregory Nazianzen's saying that he never saw a council come to a good end — for someone who says all councils without exception ended badly leaves them very little authority. There is no need at this point to address provincial councils separately. It is easy enough to judge from what we have said about general councils how much authority provincial councils ought to have to create new articles of faith or receive whatever teaching they please.

When our Romanists see that all rational argument fails them in defending their cause, they fall back on their last desperate resort: that even if the men are dull in mind and corrupt in will, God's word still commands obedience to rulers. Is that so? What if I deny that such men are rulers at all? For they should assume no greater authority than Joshua had — who was both a prophet of the Lord and an outstanding shepherd. And hear in what terms the Lord set Joshua in his office: 'Let not this book of the law depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night. You shall not turn to the right or to the left; then you will make your way prosperous and succeed.' Spiritual rulers, then, are those who do not turn from the Lord's law in either direction. But if the teaching of all pastors, whatever their character, is to be received without question — why were we so frequently and earnestly warned not to listen to false prophets? 'Do not listen,' says the Lord through Jeremiah, 'to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They are teaching you vanity, not from the mouth of the Lord.' And: 'Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.' And John's exhortation that we should 'test the spirits, whether they are from God' would be pointless — a test from which even angels are not exempt, much less Satan with all his lies. What then does Christ's saying mean: 'If the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into the ditch'? Does it not make plain that it matters greatly what kind of prophets are heard, and that not all are to be followed without examination? There is therefore no reason to be intimidated by their titles into sharing in their blindness — especially since we see that the Lord's great concern on the other side was to warn us against being led by others' error, whatever impressive name it hides behind. If Christ's word is true, then all blind guides — whether they call themselves fathers of the church, prelates, or bishops — can only drag those who follow them into the same headlong fall. Let no titles of councils, pastors, or bishops — which can be falsely claimed just as easily as genuinely held — prevent us from examining by the rule of God's word every spirit, from whatever source, to prove whether it is from God or not.

Having shown that the church has no power to establish new doctrine, let us now address the power they attribute to it in interpreting Scripture. We gladly grant that when a doctrinal dispute arises, there is no better or more reliable remedy than for a synod of true bishops to assemble and discuss the contested teaching together. A decision reached by pastors of the churches in common, calling on the Spirit of Christ, carries far greater weight than if each one formed his view privately at home, or if a few private individuals worked it out among themselves. Moreover, when bishops gather together, they can more effectively advise one another about what to teach and in what form, so that doctrinal diversity does not cause offense. Third, Paul prescribes this procedure for judging doctrines. While he grants every individual church the power of discernment, he shows that for weightier matters the churches should undertake a common examination together. The very instinct of godliness teaches us the same: if someone troubles the church with an unfamiliar doctrine, and the matter goes so far that a serious division is at risk, the churches should first come together, examine the proposed question, and after full discussion bring forth a judgment drawn from Scripture. This judgment should both resolve the people's doubts and silence the audacity of wicked and scheming men, preventing them from pressing further. This is exactly what happened when Arius arose: the Nicene Council assembled, broke the force of his wickedness, restored peace to the churches he had disturbed, and defended the eternal divinity of Christ against his blasphemous teaching. When Eunomius and Macedonius later stirred up new troubles, the Council of Constantinople met them with the same remedy. At Ephesus, the wickedness of Nestorius was condemned and expelled. This has been from the beginning the church's ordinary means of preserving unity whenever Satan began to work. But let us remember that men like Athanasius, Basil, Cyril, and the other defenders of true doctrine whom the Lord raised up then are not found in every age or every place. Consider what happened at the Second Council of Ephesus: the heresy of Eutyches prevailed; the godly Flavianus and other holy men were banished; and many other disasters occurred — because the seditious and deeply corrupt Dioscorus presided there, not the Spirit of the Lord. But was the church present in that council? I grant that it was not. I am firmly convinced that truth does not die in the church even when it is suppressed by one council — the Lord wonderfully preserves it so that it rises again and prevails in due time. But I deny that whatever a council has received by common consent is necessarily a true and reliable interpretation of Scripture.

The Romanists are aiming at something different, however, when they teach that the power to interpret Scripture belongs to councils — and belongs to them with no appeal. They exploit this claim by calling whatever councils decree an 'exposition of Scripture.' On purgatory, the intercession of saints, auricular confession, and such things, not one syllable can be found in Scripture. But because all these things have been established by the authority of the church — that is, received into common opinion and practice — each one must be received as an exposition of Scripture. And not only that: if a council decrees something that Scripture itself cries out against, it will still be called an exposition of Scripture. Christ commands all to drink from the cup He offers at the Supper. The Council of Constance forbade it to be given to the laity and allowed only the priest to drink. What directly contradicts Christ's institution they insist must be received as an exposition of it. Paul calls the forbidding of marriage 'the hypocrisy of liars,' and the Holy Spirit elsewhere declares that marriage is honorable among all. When they afterward forbade priests to marry, they require us to receive this as the true and natural exposition of Scripture — when nothing could be more contrary to it. If anyone dares open his mouth in objection, he will be judged a heretic — for the church's determination admits no appeal, and to doubt her interpretation is a serious offense. Why would I denounce such shamelessness? Exposing it is sufficient to defeat it. As for their teaching on the church's power to approve Scripture, I will deliberately pass over it. To make the oracles of God subject to human approval — so that they carry authority only because people have found them pleasing — is a blasphemy not worth dignifying in detail. I have already touched on this matter earlier. But I will ask them one thing: if Scripture's authority rests on the church's approval, which council decree will they cite for that? I suspect they have none. Why then did Arius submit to being refuted at Nicaea by testimonies from the Gospel of John? By their own logic, he was free to reject them, since no general council had previously approved them. They appeal to the ancient list known as the Canon, which they say proceeded from the church's judgment. But I ask them again: in which council was that canon established? Here they will have no answer. Furthermore, I want to know what kind of canon they have in mind — for I see that it was never firmly agreed upon among the ancient writers. And if Jerome's view is to carry weight, the books of Maccabees, Tobit, Sirach, and similar books would be placed among the Apocrypha — which those canons in no way allow.