(Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4, part 9)
Chapter 8. Of the power of the church in articles of faith. The
unbridled license of the papal church in destroying purity of
doctrine.
This chapter is divided into two parts, - I. The limits within
which the Church ought to confine herself in matters of this kind,
sec. 1-9. II. The Roman Church convicted of having transgressed
these limits, sec. 10-16.
Sections.
1. The marks and government of the Church having been considered in
the seven previous chapters, the power of the Church is now
considered under three heads, viz., Doctrine, Legislation,
Jurisdiction.
2. The authority and power given to Church-officers not given to
themselves, but their office. This shown in the case of Moses
and the Levitical priesthood.
3. The same thing shown in the case of the Prophets.
4. Same thing shown in the case of the Apostles, and of Christ
himself.
5. The Church astricted to the written Word of God. Christ the only
teacher of the Church. From his lips ministers must derive
whatever they teach for the salvation of others. Various modes
of divine teaching. 1. Personal revelations.
6. Second mode of teaching, viz., by the Law and the Prophets. The
Prophets were, in regard to doctrine, the expounders of the
Law. To these were added Historical Narratives and the Psalms.
7. Last mode of teaching by our Saviour himself manifested in the
flesh. Different names given to this dispensation, to show that
we are not to dream of any thing more perfect than the written
word.
8. Nothing can be lawfully taught in the Church, that is not
contained in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, as
dictated by the Spirit of Christ.
9. Neither the Apostles, nor apostolic men, nor the whole Church,
allowed to overstep these limits. This confirmed by passages of
Peter and Paul. Argument a fortiori.
10. The Roman tyrants have taught a different doctrine, viz., that
Councils cannot err, and, therefore, may coin new dogmas.
11. Answer to the Papistical arguments for the authority of the
Church. Argument, that the Church is to be led into all truth.
Answer. This promise made not only to the whole Church, but to
every individual believer.
12. Answers continued.
13. Answers continued.
14. Argument, that the Church should supply the deficiency of the
written word by traditions. Answer.
15. Argument founded on Matth 18: 17. Answer.
16. Objections founded on Infant Baptism, and the Canon of the
Council of Nice, as to the consubstantiality of the Son.
Answer.
1. We come now to the third division, viz., the Power of the
Church, as existing either in individual bishops, or in councils,
whether provincial or general. I speak only of the spiritual power
which is proper to the Church, and which consists either in
doctrine, or jurisdiction, or in enacting laws. In regard to
doctrine, there are two divisions, viz., the authority of delivering
dogmas, and the interpretation of them. Before we begin to treat of
each in particular, I wish to remind the pious reader, that whatever
is taught respecting the power of the Church, ought to have
reference to the end for which Paul declares (2 Cor. 10: 8; 13: 10)
that it was given namely for edification, and not for destruction,
those who use it lawfully deeming themselves to be nothing more than
servants of Christ, and, at the same time, servants of the people in
Christ. Moreover, the only mode by which ministers can edify the
Church is, by studying to maintain the authority of Christ, which
cannot be unimpaired, unless that which he received of the Father is
left to him, viz., to be the only Master of the Church. For it was
not said of any other but of himself alone, "Hear him," (Matth. 17:
5.) Ecclesiastical power, therefore, is not to be mischievously
adorned, but is to be confined within certain limits, so as not to
be drawn hither and thither at the caprice of men. For this purpose,
it will be of great use to observe how it is described by Prophets
and Apostles. For if we concede unreservedly to men all the power
which they think proper to assume, it is easy to see how soon it
will degenerate into a tyranny which is altogether alien from the
Church of Christ.
2. Therefore, it is here necessary to remember, that what ever
authority and dignity the Holy Spirit in Scripture confers on
priests, or prophets, or apostles, or successors of apostles, is
wholly given not to men themselves, but to the ministry to which
they are appointed; or, to speak more plainly, to the word, to the
ministry of which they are appointed. For were we to go over the
whole in order, we should find that they were not invested with
authority to teach or give responses, save in the name and word of
the Lord. For whenever they are called to office, they are enjoined
not to bring anything of their own, but to speak by the mouth of the
Lord. Nor does he bring them forward to be heard by the people,
before he has instructed them what they are to speak, lest they
should speak anything but his own word. Moses, the prince of all the
prophets, was to be heard in preference to others, (Exod. 3: 4;
Deut. 17: 9;) but he is previously furnished with his orders, that
he may not be able to speak at all except from the Lord.
Accordingly, when the people embraced his doctrine, they are said to
have believed the Lord, and his servant Moses, (Exod. 14: 31.) It
was also provided under the severest sanctions, that the authority
of the priests should not be despised, (Deut. 17: 9.) But the Lord,
at the same time, shows in what terms they were to be heard, when he
says that he made his covenant with Levi, that the law of truth
might be in his mouth, (Mal. 2: 4-6.) A little after he adds, "The
priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at
his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts." Therefore,
if the priest would be heard, let him show himself to be the
messenger of God; that is, let him faithfully deliver the commands
which he has received from his Maker. When the mode of hearing,
then, is treated of, it is expressly said, "According to the
sentence of the law which they shall teach thee," (Deut. 17: 11.)
3. The nature of the power conferred upon the prophets in
general is elegantly described by Ezekiel: "Son of man, I have made
thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at
my mouth, and give them warning from me," (Ezek. 3: 17.) Is not he
who is ordered to hear at the mouth of the Lord prohibited from
devising anything of himself? And what is meant by giving a warning
from the Lord, but just to speak so as to be able confidently to
declare that the word which he delivers is not his own but the
Lord's? The same thing is expressed by Jeremiah in different terms,
"The prophet that has a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that has
my word, let him speak my word faithfully," (Jer. 23: 28.) Surely
God here declares the law to all, and it is a law which does not
allow any one to teach more than he has been ordered. He afterwards
gives the name of chaff to whatever has not proceeded from himself
alone. Accordingly, none of the prophets opened his mouth unless
preceded by the word of the Lord. Hence we so often meet with the
expressions, "The word of the Lord, The burden of the Lord, Thus
saith the Lord, The mouth of the Lord has spoken it." And justly,
for Isaiah exclaims that his lips are unclean (Isa. 6: 5;) and
Jeremiah confesses that he knows not how to speak because he is a
child, (Jer. 1: 6.) Could anything proceed from the unclean lips of
the one, and the childish lips of the other, if they spoke their own
language, but what was unclean or childish? But their lips were holy
and pure when they began to be organs of the Holy Spirit. The
prophets, after being thus strictly bound not to deliver anything
but what they received, are invested with great power and
illustrious titles. For when the Lord declares, "See, I have this
day set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out,
and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and
to plant," he at the same time gives the reason, "Behold, I have put
my words in thy mouth," (Jer 1: 9, 10.)
4. Now, if you look to the apostles, they are commended by many
distinguished titles, as the Light of the world, and the Salt of the
earth, to be heard in Christ's stead, whatever they bound or loosed
on earth being bound or loosed in heaven, (Matth. 5: ]3, 14; Luke
10: 16; John 20: 23.) But they declare in their own name what the
authority was which their office conferred on them, viz., if they
are apostles they must not speak their own pleasure, but faithfully
deliver the commands of him by whom they are sent. The words in
which Christ defined their embassy are sufficiently clear, "Go ye,
therefore, and teach all nations, teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you," (Matth. 28: 19, 20.) Nay,
that none might be permitted to decline this law, he received it and
imposed it on himself. "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent
me," (John 7: 16.) He who always was the only and eternal counsellor
of the Father, who by the Father was constituted Lord and Master,
and yet because he performed the ministry of teaching, prescribed to
all ministers by his example the rule which they ought to follow in
teaching. The power of the Church, therefore, is not infinite, but
is subject to the word of the Lord, and, as it were, included in it.
5. But though the rule which always existed in the Church from
the beginning, and ought to exist in the present day, is, that the
servants of God are only to teach what they have learned from
himself, yet, according to the variety of times, they have had
different methods of learning. The mode which now exists differs
very much from that of former times. First, if it is true, as Christ
says, "Neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son will reveal him," (Matth. 11: 27,) then those who
wish to attain to the knowledge of God behaved always to be directed
by that eternal wisdom. For how could they have comprehended the
mysteries of God in their mind, or declared them to others, unless
by the teaching of him, to whom alone the secrets of the Father are
known? The only way, therefore, by which in ancient times holy men
knew God, was by beholding him in the Son as in a mirror. When I say
this, I mean that God never manifested himself to men by any other
means than by his Son, that is, his own only wisdom, light, and
truth. From this fountain Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and
others, drew all the heavenly doctrine which they possessed. From
the same fountain all the prophets also drew all the heavenly
oracles which they published. For this wisdom did not always display
itself in one manner. With the patriarchs he employed secret
revelations, but, at the same time, in order to confirm these, had
recourse to signs so as to make it impossible for them to doubt that
it was God that spake to them. What the patriarchs received they
handed down to posterity, for God had, in depositing it with them,
bound them thus to propagate it, while their children and
descendants knew by the inward teaching of God, that what they heard
was of heaven and not of earth.
6. But when God determined to give a more illustrious form to
the Church, he was pleased to commit and consign his word to
writing, that the priests might there seek what they were to teach
the people, and every doctrine delivered be brought to it as a test,
(Mal. 2: 7.) Accordingly, after the promulgation of the Law, when
the priests are enjoined to teach from the mouth of the Lord, the
meaning is, that they are not to teach anything extraneous or alien
to that kind of doctrine which God had summed up in the Law, while
it was unlawful for them to add to it or take from it. Next followed
the prophets, by whom God published the new oracles which were added
to the Law, not so new, however, but that they flowed from the Law,
and had respect to it. For in so far as regards doctrine, they were
only interpreters of the Law, adding nothing to it but predictions
of future events. With this exception, all that they delivered was
pure exposition of the Law. But as the Lord was pleased that
doctrine should exist in a clearer and more ample form, the better
to satisfy weak consciences, he commanded the prophecies also to be
committed to writings and to be held part of his word. To these at
the game time were added historical details, which are also the
composition of prophets, but dictated by the Holy Spirit; I include
the Psalms among the Prophecies, the quality which we attribute to
the latter belonging also to the former. The whole body, therefore,
composed of the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and Histories, formed
the word of the Lord to his ancient people, and by it as a standard,
priests and teachers, before the advent of Christ, were bound to
test their doctrine, nor was it lawful for them to turn aside either
to the right hand or the left, because their whole office was
confined to this - to give responses to the people from the mouth of
God. This is gathered from a celebrated passage of Malachi, in which
it is enjoined to remember the Law, and give heed to it until the
preaching of the Gospel, (Mal. 4: 4.) For he thus restrains men from
all adventitious doctrines, and does not allow them to deviate in
the least from the path which Moses had faithfully pointed out. And
the reason why David so magnificently extols the Law, and pronounces
so many encomiums on it, (Ps. 19, 119,) was, that the Jews might not
long after any extraneous aid, all perfection being included in it.
7. But when at length the Wisdom of God was manifested in the
flesh, he fully unfolded to us all that the human mind can
comprehend, or ought to think of the heavenly Father. Now,
therefore, since Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, has arisen, we
have the perfect refulgence of divine truth, like the brightness of
noon-day, whereas the light was previously dim. It was no ordinary
blessing which the apostle intended to publish when he wrote: "God,
who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in time past unto
the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us
by his Son," (Heb. 1: 1, 2;) for he intimates, nay, openly declares,
that God will not henceforth, as formerly, speak by this one and by
that one, that he will not add prophecy to prophecy, or revelation
to revelation, but has so completed all the parts of teaching in the
Son, that it is to be regarded as his last and eternal testimony.
For which reason, the whole period of the new dispensation, from the
time when Christ appeared to us with the preaching of his Gospel,
until the day of judgement, is designated by the last hour, the last
times, the last days, that, contented with the perfection of
Christ's doctrine, we may learn to frame no new doctrine for
ourselves, or admit any one devised by others. With good cause,
therefore, the Father appointed the Son our teacher, with special
prerogative, commanding that he and no human being should be heard.
When he said, "Hear him," (Matth. 17: 5,) he commended his office to
us, in few words, indeed, but words of more weight and energy than
is commonly supposed, for it is just as if he had withdrawn us from
all doctrines of man, and confined us to him alone, ordering us to
seek the whole doctrine of salvation from him alone, to depend on
him alone, and cleave to him alone; in short, (as the words
express,) to listen only to his voice. And, indeed, what can now be
expected or desired from man, when the very Word of life has
appeared before us, and familiarly explained himself? Nay, every
mouth should be stopped when once he has spoken, in whom, according
to the pleasure of our heavenly Father, "are hid all the treasures
of wisdom and knowledge," (Col. 2: 3,) and spoken as became the
Wisdom of God (which is in no part defective) and the Messiah, (from
whom the revelation of all things was expected,) (John 4: 25;) in
other words, has so spoken as to leave nothing to be spoken by
others after him.
8. Let this then be a sure axiom - that there is no word of God
to which place should be given in the Church save that which is
contained, first, in the Law and the Prophets; and, secondly, in the
writings of the Apostles, and that the only due method of teaching
in the Church is according to the prescription and rule of his word.
Hence also we infer that nothing else was permitted to the apostles
than was formerly permitted to the prophets, namely, to expound the
ancient Scriptures, and show that the things there delivered are
fulfilled in Christ: this, however, they could not do unless from
the Lord; that is, unless the Spirit of Christ went before, and in a
manner dictated words to them. For Christ thus defined the terms of
their embassy, when he commanded them to go and teach, not what they
themselves had at random fabricated, but whatsoever he had
commanded, (Matth. 28: 20.) And nothing can be plainer than his
words in another passage, "Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your
Master, even Christ," (Matth. 23: 8-10.) To impress this more deeply
in their minds, he in the same place repeats it twice. And because
from ignorance they were unable to comprehend the things which they
had heard and learned from the lips of their Master, the Spirit of
truth is promised to guide them unto all truth, (John 14: 26; 16:
13.) The restriction should be carefully attended to. The office
which he assigns to the Holy Spirit is to bring to remembrance what
his own lips had previously taught.
9. Accordingly Peters who was perfectly instructed by his
Master as to the extent of what was permitted to him, leaves nothing
more to himself or others than to dispense the doctrine delivered by
God. "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God," (1
Peter 4: 11;) that is, not hesitatingly, as those are wont whose
convictions are imperfect, but with the full confidence which
becomes a servant of God, provided with a sure message. What else is
this than to banish all the inventions of the human mind, (whatever
be the head which may have devised them,) that the pure word of God
may be taught and learned in the Church of the faithful, - than to
discard the decrees, or rather fictions of men, (whatever be their
rank,) that the decrees of God alone may remain stedfast? These are
"the weapons of our warfare," which "are not carnal, but mighty
through God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down
imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the
knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the
obedience of Christ," (2 Cor. 10: 4, 5.) Here is the supreme power
with which pastors of the Church, by whatever name they are called,
should be invested, namely, to dare all boldly for the word of God,
compelling all the virtue, glory, wisdom, and rank of the world to
yield and obey its majesty; to command all from the highest to the
lowest trusting to its power to build up the house of Christ and
overthrow the house of Satan; to feed the sheep and chase away the
wolves; to instruct and exhort the docile, to accuse, rebuke, and
subdue the rebellious and petulant, to bind and loose; in fine, if
need be, to fire and fulminate, but all in the word of God.
Although, as I have observed, there is this difference between the
apostles and their successors, they were sure and authentic
amanuenses of the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, their writings are to
be regarded as the oracles of God, whereas others have no other
office than to teach what is delivered and sealed in the holy
Scriptures. We conclude, therefore, that it does not now belong to
faithful ministers to coin some new doctrine, but simply to adhere
to the doctrine to which all, without exceptions are made subject.
When I say this, I mean to show not only what each individual, but
what the whole Church, is bound to do. In regard to individuals,
Paul certainly had been appointed an apostle to the Corinthians, and
yet he declares that he has no dominion over their faith, (2 Cor. 1:
24.) Who will now presume to arrogate a dominion to which the
apostle declares that he himself was not competent? But if he had
acknowledged such license in teaching, that every pastor could
justly demand implicit faith in whatever he delivered, he never
would have laid it down as a rule to the Corinthians, that while two
or three prophets spoke, the others should judge, and that, if
anything was revealed to one sitting by, the first should be silent,
(1 Cor. 14: 29, 30.) Thus he spared none, but subjected the
authority of all to the censure of the word of God. But it will be
said, that with regard to the whole Church the case is different. I
answer, that in another place Paul meets the objection also when he
says, that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,
(Rom. 10: 17.) In other words, if faith depends upon the word of God
alone, if it regards and reclines on it alone, what place is left
for any word of man? He who knows what faith is can never hesitate
here, for it must possess a strength sufficient to stand intrepid
and invincible against Satan, the machinations of hell and the whole
world. This strength can be found only in the word of God. Then the
reason to which we ought here to have regard is universal: God
deprives man of the power of producing any new doctrine, in order
that he alone may be our master in spiritual teaching, as he alone
is true, and can neither lie nor deceive. This reason applies not
less to the whole Church than to every individual believer.
10. But if this power of the Church which is here described be
contrasted with that which spiritual tyrants, falsely styling
themselves bishops and religious prelates, have now for several ages
exercised among the people of God, there will be no more agreement
than that of Christ with Belial. It is not my intention here to
unfold the manner, the unworthy manner, in which they have used
their tyranny; I will only state the doctrine which they maintain in
the present day, first, in writing, and then, by fire and sword.
Taking it for granted, that a universal council is a true
representation of the Church, they set out with this principle, and,
at the same time, lay it down as incontrovertible, that such
councils are under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, and
therefore cannot err. But as they rule councils, nay, constitute
them, they in fact claim for themselves whatever they maintain to be
due to councils. Therefore, they will have our faith to stand and
fall at their pleasure, so that whatever they have determined on
either side must be firmly seated in our minds; what they approve
must be approved by us without any doubt; what they condemn we also
must hold to be justly condemned. Meanwhile, at their own caprice,
and in contempt of the word of God, they coin doctrines to which
they in this way demand our assent, declaring that no man can be a
Christian unless he assent to all their dogmas, affirmative as well
as negative, if not with explicit, yet with implicit faith, because
it belongs to the Church to frame new articles of faith.
11. First, let us hear by what arguments they prove that this
authority was given to the Church, and then we shall see how far
their allegations concerning the Church avail them. The Church, they
say, has the noble promise that she will never be deserted by Christ
her spouse, but be guided by his Spirit into all truth. But of the
promises which they are wont to allege, many were given not less to
private believers than to the whole Church. For although the Lord
spake to the twelve apostles, when he said, "Lo! I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world," (Matth. 28: 20;) and again,
"I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter,
that he may abide with you for ever: even the Spirit of truth,"
(John 14: 16, 17,) he made these promises not only to the twelve,
but to each of them separately, nay, in like manner, to other
disciples whom he already had received or was afterwards to receive.
When they interpret these promises, which are replete with
consolation, in such a way as if they were not given to any
particular Christian but to the whole Church together, what else is
it but to deprive Christians of the confidence which they ought
thence to have derived, to animate them in their course? I deny not
that the whole body of the faithful is furnished with a manifold
variety of gifts and endued with a far larger and richer treasure of
heavenly wisdom than each Christian apart; nor do I mean that this
was said of believers in general, as implying that all possess the
spirit of wisdom and knowledge in an equal degree: but we are not to
give permission to the adversaries of Christ to defend a bad cause,
by wresting Scripture from its proper meaning. Omitting this,
however, I simply hold what is true, viz., that the Lord is always
present with his people, and guides them by his Spirit. He is the
Spirit, not of error, ignorance, falsehood, or darkness, but of sure
revelation, wisdom, truth, and light, from whom they can, without
deception, learn the things which have been given to them, (1 Cor.
2: 12;) in other words, "what is the hope of their calling, and what
the riches of the glory of their inheritance in the saints," (Eph.
1: 18.) But while believers, even those of them who are endued with
more excellent graces, obtain in the present life only the
first-fruits, and, as it were, a foretaste of the Spirit, nothing
better remains to them than, under a consciousness of their
weakness, to confine themselves anxiously within the limits of the
word of God, lest, in following their own sense too far, they
forthwith stray from the right path, being left without that Spirit,
by whose teaching alone truth is discerned from falsehood. For all
confess with Paul, that "they have not yet reached the goal," (Phil.
3: 12.) Accordingly, they rather aim at daily progress than glory in
perfection.
12. But it will be objected, that whatever is attributed in
part to any of the saints, belongs in complete fulness to the
Church. Although there is some semblance of truth in this, I deny
that it is true. God, indeed, measures out the gifts of his Spirit
to each of the members, so that nothing necessary to the whole body
is wanting, since the gifts are bestowed for the common advantage.
The riches of the Church, however, are always of such a nature, that
much is wanting to that supreme perfection of which our opponents
boast. Still the Church is not left destitute in any part, but
always has as much as is sufficient, for the Lord knows what her
necessities require. But to keep her in humility and pious modesty,
he bestows no more on her than he knows to be expedient. I am aware
it is usual here to object, that Christ has cleansed the Church
"with the washing of water by the word: that he might present it to
himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle," (Eph. 5: 26,
27,) and that it is therefore called the "pillar and ground of the
truth," ( 1 Tim. 3: 15.) But the former passage rather shows what
Christ daily performs in it, than what he has already perfected. For
if he daily sanctifies all his people, purifies, refines them, and
wipes away their stains, it is certain that they have still some
spots and wrinkles, and that their sanctification is in some measure
defective. How vain and fabulous is it to suppose that the Church,
all whose members are somewhat spotted and impure, is completely
holy and spotless in every part? It is true, therefore, that the
Church is sanctified by Christ, but here the commencement of her
sanctification only is seen; the end and entire completion will be
effected when Christ, the Holy of holies, shall truly and completely
fill her with his holiness. It is true also, that her stains and
wrinkles have been effaced, but so that the process is continued
every day, until Christ at his advent will entirely remove every
remaining defect. For unless we admit this we shall be constrained
to hold with the Pelagians, that the righteousness of believers is
perfected in this life: like the Cathari and Donatists we shall
tolerate no infirmity in the Church. The other passage, as we have
elsewhere seen, (chap. 1 sec. 10,) has a very different meaning from
what they put upon it. For when Paul instructed Timothy, and trained
him to the office of a true bishop, he says, he did it in order that
he might learn how to behave himself in the Church of God. And to
make him devote himself to the work with greater seriousness and
zeal, he adds, that the Church is the pillar and ground of the
truth. And what else do these words mean, than just that the truth
of God is preserved in the Church, and preserved by the
instrumentality of preaching; as he elsewhere says that Christ "gave
some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some,
pastors and teachers;" "that we henceforth be no more children,
tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by
the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait
to deceive; but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in
all things, who is the head, even Christ?" (Eph. 4: 11, 14, 15.) The
reason, therefore, why the truth, instead of being extinguished in
the world, remains unimpaired, is, because he has the Church as a
faithful guardian, by whose aid and ministry it is maintained. But
if this guardianship consists in the ministry of the Prophets and
Apostles, it follows, that the whole depends upon this, viz., that
the word of the Lord is faithfully preserved and maintained in
purity.
13. And that my readers may the better understand the hinge on
which the question chiefly turns, I will briefly explain what our
opponents demand, and what we resist. When they deny that the Church
can err, their end and meaning are to this effect: Since the Church
is governed by the Spirit of God, she can walk safely without the
word; in whatever direction she moves, she cannot think or speak any
thing but the truth, and hence, if she determines any thing without
or beside the word of God, it must be regarded in no other light
than if it were a divine oracle. If we grant the first point, viz.,
that the Church cannot err in things necessary to salvation, our
meaning is, that she cannot err, because she has altogether
discarded her own wisdom, and submits to the teaching of the Holy
Spirit through the word of God. Here then is the difference. They
place the authority of the Church without the word of God; we annex
it to the word, and allow it not to be separated from it. And is it
strange if the spouse and pupil of Christ is so subject to her lord
and master as to hang carefully and constantly on his lips? In every
well-ordered house the wife obeys the command of her husband, in
every well-regulated school the doctrine of the master only is
listened to. Wherefore, let not the Church be wise in herself, nor
think any thing of herself, but let her consider her wisdom
terminated when he ceases to speak. In this way she will distrust
all the inventions of her own reason; and when she leans on the word
of God, will not waver in diffidence or hesitations but rest in full
assurance and unwavering constancy. Trusting to the liberal promises
which she has received, she will have the means of nobly maintaining
her faith, never doubting that the Holy Spirit is always present
with her to be the perfect guide of her path. At the same time, she
will remember the use which God wishes to be derived from his
Spirit. "When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you
into all truth," (John 16: 13.) How? "He shall bring to your
remembrance all things whatsoever I have said unto you." He
declares, therefore, that nothing more is to be expected of his
Spirit than to enlighten our minds to perceive the truth of his
doctrine. Hence Chrysostom most shrewdly observes, "Many boast of
the Holy Spirit, but with those who speak their own it is a false
pretence. As Christ declared that he spoke not of himself, (John 12:
50; 14: 10,) because he spoke according to the Law and the Prophets;
so, if any thing contrary to the Gospel is obtruded under the name
of the Holy Spirit, let us not believe it. For as Christ is the
fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets, so is the Spirit the
fulfilment of the Gospel," (Chrysost. Serm. de Sancto et Adorando
Spiritu.) Thus far Chrysostom. We may now easily infer how
erroneously our opponents act in vaunting of the Holy Spirit, for no
other end than to give the credit of his name to strange doctrines,
extraneous to the word of God, whereas he himself desires to be
inseparably connected with the word of God; and Christ declares the
same thing of him, when he promises him to the Church. And so indeed
it is. The soberness which our Lord once prescribed to his Church,
he wishes to be perpetually observed. He forbade that any thing
should be added to his word, and that any thing should be taken from
it. This is the inviolable decree of God and the Holy Spirit, a
decree which our opponents endeavour to annul when they pretend that
the Church is guided by the Spirit without the word.
14. Here again they mutter that the Church behaved to add
something to the writings of the apostles, or that the apostles
themselves behaved orally to supply what they had less clearly
taught, since Christ said to them, "I have yet many things to say
unto you, but ye cannot bear them now," (John 16: 12,) and that
these are the points which have been received, without writing,
merely by use and custom. But what effrontery is this? The
disciples, I admit, were ignorant and almost indocile when our Lord
thus addressed them, but were they still in this condition when they
committed his doctrine to writing, so as afterwards to be under the
necessity of supplying orally that which, through ignorance, they
had omitted to write? If they were guided by the Spirit of truth
unto all truth when they published their writings, what prevented
them from embracing a full knowledge of the Gospel, and consigning
it therein? But let us grant them what they ask, provided they point
out the things which behaved to be revealed without writing. Should
they presume to attempt this, I will address them in the words of
Augustine, "When the Lord is silent, who of us may say, this is, or
that is? or if we should presume to say it, how do we prove it?"
(August. in Joann. 96.) But why do I contend superfluously? Every
child knows that in the writings of the apostles, which these men
represent as mutilated and incomplete, is contained the result of
that revelation which the Lord then promised to them.
15. What, say they, did not Christ declare that nothing which
the Church teaches and decrees can be gainsaid, when he enjoined
that every one who presumes to contradict should be regarded as a
heathen man and a publican? (Matth. 18: 17.) First, there is here no
mention of doctrine, but her authority to censure, for correction is
asserted, in order that none who had been admonished or reprimanded
might oppose her judgement. But to say nothing of this, it is very
strange that those men are so lost to all sense of shame, that they
hesitate not to plume themselves on this declaration. For what,
pray, will they make of it, but just that the consent of the Church,
a consent never given but to the word of God, is not to be despised?
The Church is to be heard, say they. Who denies this? since she
decides nothing but according to the word of God. If they demand
more than this, let them know that the words of Christ give them no
countenance. I ought not to seem contentious when I so vehemently
insist that we cannot concede to the Church any new doctrine; in
other words, allow her to teach and oracularly deliver more than the
Lord has revealed in his word. Men of sense see how great the danger
is if so much authority is once conceded to men. They see also how
wide a door is opened for the jeers and cavils of the ungodly, if we
admit that Christians are to receive the opinions of men as if they
were oracles. We may add, that our Saviour, speaking according to
the circumstances of his times, gave the name of Church to the
Sanhedrin, that the disciples might learn afterwards to revere the
sacred meetings of the Church. Hence it would follow, that single
cities and districts would have equal liberty in coining dogmas.
16. The examples which they bring do not avail them. They say
that paedobaptism proceeds not so much on a plain command of
Scripture, as on a decree of the Church. It would be a miserable
asylum if, in defence of paedobaptism, we were obliged to retake
ourselves to the bare authority of the Church; but it will be made
plain enough elsewhere, (chap. 16) that it is far otherwise. In like
manner, when they object that we nowhere find in the Scriptures what
was declared in the Council of Nice, viz., that the Son is
consubstantial with the Father, (see August. Ep. 178,) they do a
grievous injustice to the Fathers, as if they had rashly condemned
Arius for not swearing to their words, though professing the whole
of that doctrine which is contained in the writings of the Apostles
and Prophets. I admit that the expression does not exist in
Scripture, but seeing it is there so often declared that there is
one God, and Christ is so often called true and eternal God, one
with the Father, what do the Nicene Fathers do when they affirm that
he is of one essence, than simply declare the genuine meaning of
Scripture? Theodore relates that Constantine, in opening their
meeting, spoke as follows: "In the discussion of divine matters, the
doctrine of the Holy Spirit stands recorded. The Gospels and
apostolical writings, with the oracles of the prophets, fully show
us the meaning of the Deity. Therefore, laying aside discord, let us
take the exposition of questions from the words of the Spirit,"
(Theodore. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 1 c. 5.) There was none who opposed
this sound advice; none who objected that the Church could add
something of her own, that the Spirit did not reveal all things to
the apostles, or at least that they did not deliver them to
posterity, and so forth. If the point on which our opponents insist
is true, Constantine, first, was in error in robbing the Church of
her power; and, secondly, when none of the bishops rose to vindicate
it, their silence was a kind of perfidy, and made them traitors to
Ecclesiastical law. But since Theodore relates that they readily
embraced what the Emperor said, it is evident that this new dogma
was then wholly unknown.
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume 4
(continued in part 10...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09: cvin4-09.txt
.
