|
(Continued
from Issue #8)
Letter 5.
Our next inquiry is, first, who were the persons
that met in council to establish a new canon? And secondly, what
authority they had for so doing.*
As
to the first question, they plainly appear to have been a set of men
entirely unqualified for such an undertaking; for from the best authority we may collect, that a majority in these councils was
always formed by faction and intrigue; that the members were led by
interest, prejudice, and passion; and that they were contentious,
ambitious, ignorant, and wicked. The judicious Mr. Chandler gives such a
character of the Fathers, such a description of all general councils, as
must be very convincing how improper they were, and what little
authority their determinations ought to have. I shall therefore
transcribe a few passages from him:
As
to the Fathers says he, "It is infinite, it is endless labour to
consult all that the Fathers have written; and when we have consulted
them, what one controversy have they rationally decided? How few texts
of Scripture have they critically settled the sense and meaning of? how
often do they differ from one another, and in how many instances from
themselves? Those who read them, greatly differ in their interpretation
of them, and men of the most contrary sentiments all claim them for
their own. Athanasians and Arians, all appeal to the Fathers; and
support their principles by quotations from them. And are these the
venerable gentlemen, whose writings are to be set up in opposition to
the Scriptures? are creeds of their dictating to be submitted to as the
only criterion of orthodoxy? or esteemed as standards to distinguish
between truth and error? Away with this folly and superstition! the
creeds of the Fathers and Councils are but human creeds; that have marks
in them of human frailty
and ignorance."*
Another
eminent person declares himself thus: "The Fathers, you say, whom
you regard as the propagators of the Christian religion, must
necessarily have been men of true piety and knowledge; but it has been
maintained and proved to you by a great number of instances, that the
Fathers have not only fallen into very gross errors, and been most
profoundly ignorant of many things which they ought to have known; but
farther, that most of them have more or less suffered themselves to be
led by passion; so that their conduct has been found frequently to be
such as is neither regular nor justifiable." Again, "In the
first ages of Christianity, and those that followed after, the men most
applauded, and who bore the greatest character in the church, were not
always those that had the greatest share of good sense; or were the most
eminent for learning and virtue."*
As
to general councils, "I think it will evidently follow from this
account," says Mr.
Chandler, "that the determinations of councils and decrees of
synods as to matters of faith are of no manner of authority, and carry
no obligation upon any Christian whatsoever. I will mention here one
reason, which will be itself sufficient if all others were wanting;
viz., that they have no power given them in any part of the gospel
revelations, to make these decisions in controverted points, and to
oblige others to subscribe to them; and that therefore the pretence to
it is an usurpation of what belongs to the great God, who only hath and
can have a right to prescribe to the conscience of men. But to let this
pass, what one council can be fixed upon that will appear to be composed
of such persons, as upon impartial examination can allowed to be fit for
the work of settling the faith, and determining all controversies
relating to it? I mean, in which the majority of the members may in
charity be supposed to be disinterested, wise, learned, peaceable and
pious men? Will any man undertake to affirm this of the Council of Nice?
Can any thing be more evident, than that the members of that venerable
assembly came, many of them, full of passion and resentment; and others
of them were crafty and wicked; and others ignorant and weak? Did their
meeting together in a synod immediately cure them of their desire of
revenge, make the wicked virtuous or the ignorant wise? If not, their
joint decree as a synod could really be of no more weight than their
private opinions, nor perhaps of so much; because it is well known that
the great transactions of such an assembly are generally managed and
conducted by a few; and, that authority, persecution, prospect of
interest, and other temporal motives; are commonly made use of to secure
a majority. The second general council were plainly the creatures of the
Emperor Theodosius, all of his party, and convened to do as he bid them.
The third general council were the creatures of Cyril, who was their
president, and the inveterate enemy of Nestorius, whom he condemned for
heresy, and was himself condemned for rashness in this affair. The
fourth met under the awe of the Emperor Marcian, managed their debates
with noise and tumult; were formed into a majority by the intrigues of
the Legates of Rome, and settled the faith by the opinions of
Athanasius, Cyril, and others. I need not mention more; the further they
go the worse they will appear. As their decision in matters of faith
were arbitrary and unwarranted, and as the decisions themselves were
generally owing to court practices, intriguing statesmen, the thirst for
revenge, the management of a few crafty interested bishops, to noise and
tumult, the prospects and hopes of promotions and translations, and
other like causes, the reverence paid them by many Christians is truly
surprising."*
"All
the world saw," (says M. Barbeyrac, who quotes an author who cannot
be suspected of any ill-will towards the Fathers,) "the dreadful
cruelties that were committed in these unhappy centuries: they
maintained sieges in their monasteries; they battled in their councils;
they treated with the utmost cruelty all whom they but suspected to
favour opinions, which too often proved to be such as nobody understood,
not even those that defended them with the greatest zeal and
obstinacy." "These," says he, "are the great lights
of the church! these are the holy Fathers whom we must take for men of
true piety and knowledge!"*
"One
council," says another historian, "was summoned to annul what
another had done, and all things were managed with that faction, strife
and contention, as if they laboured to quench the spirit of meekness and brotherly love, so often recommended in the gospel. Some were
banished, some were imprisoned, and against others they proceeded with
more severity, even to the loss of their lives."*
As
to the second inquiry, "What authority they had to establish a new
canon?" I should say that no other appears to me but their own;
which, considering what sort of men they were, will never be allowed to
be any authority at all; they produced none from Jesus, none from the
apostles, neither had they any given but those very writings. They had
no criterion by which they could distinguish among the variety of books
that were then in the world under the name of the apostles, (if any were
truly theirs,) which were so, and which not: and we do not hear a word
of the least pretensions to any extraordinary assistance or revelation
to this council from God; so that the authority which they imposed on
these writings appears to have been entirely accidental, and to have
depended upon their having a majority in their favour. This, I think, is
most that can be said of them, and the same might or would have befallen
any of those writings which were rejected as spurious, had the majority
of the council consisted of a contrary party; but what authority the
opinion of the majority of any council, acting under the influence and
motives before mentioned, can have, is what every person must determine
for himself.
(To
be continued.) |
