COUNCILS; THEIR AUTHORITY.
Though I should concede to our adversaries all the claims which they set
up on behalf of the Church, yet this would effect but little towards the
attainment of their object. For whatever is said respecting the Church,
they immediately transfer to the councils, which they consider as
representing the Church; and it may further be affirmed, that their
violent contentions for the power of the Church, are with no other view
than to ascribe all that they can extort, to the Roman pontiff and his
satellites. Before I enter on the discussion of this question, it is
necessary for me to premise two brief observations. First, if in this
chapter I am rather severe on our opponents, it is not that I would show
the ancient councils less honour than they deserve. I venerate them from
my heart, and wish them to receive from all men the honour to which they
are entitled; but here some limits must be observed, that we may
derogate nothing from Christ. Now, it is the prerogative of Christ to
preside over all councils, and to have no mortal man associated with him
in that dignity. But I maintain, that he really presides only where he
governs the whole assembly by his word and Spirit. Secondly, when I
attribute to the councils less than our adversaries require, I am not
induced to do this from any fear that the councils would favour their
cause and oppose ours. For as we are sufficiently armed by the word of
the Lord, and need not seek any further assistance for the complete
establishment of our doctrine, and the total subversion of Popery, so,
on the other hand, if it were necessary, the ancient councils would
furnish us in a great measure with sufficient arguments for both these
objects.
II. Let us now come to the subject itself. If it be inquired what is the
authority of councils according to the Scriptures, there is no promise
more ample or explicit than this declaration of Christ: “Where two or
three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of
them.”[944] But this belongs no less to every particular congregation
than to a general council. The main stress of the question, however,
does not lie in this, but in the annexed condition,—that Christ will be
in the midst of a council, then, and then only, when it is assembled in
his name. Wherefore, though our adversaries mention councils of bishops
a thousand times, they will gain but little ground; nor will they
prevail upon us to believe what they pretend,—that such councils are
directed by the Holy Spirit,—till it shall have been proved, that they
are assembled in the name of Christ. For it is equally as possible for
impious and unfaithful bishops to conspire against Christ, as for pious
and upright bishops to assemble together in his name. Of this we have
ample proof in numerous decrees which have been issued by such councils;
as will be seen in the course of this discussion. At present I only
reply in one word, that the promise of Christ is exclusively restricted
to those who “are gathered together in his name.” Let us, therefore,
define wherein this consists. I deny that they are assembled in the name
of Christ, who, rejecting the command of God, which prohibits any
diminution of his word, or the smallest addition to it,[945] determine
every thing according to their own pleasure; who, not content with the
oracles of the Scripture, which constitute the only rule of perfect
wisdom, invent something new out of their own heads. Since Christ has
not promised to be present in all councils, but has added a particular
mark to discriminate true and legitimate councils from others, it
certainly behoves us by no means to neglect this distinction. This was
the covenant which God anciently made with the Levitical priests, that
they should teach their people from his mouth;[946] he always required
the same of the prophets; and we see that a similar law was imposed upon
the apostles. Those who violate this covenant, God neither dignifies
with the honour of the priesthood, nor invests with any authority. Let
our adversaries solve this difficulty, if they wish me to submit my
faith to the decrees of men, independently of the word of God.
III. For their supposition, that no truth remains in the Church, unless
it be found among the pastors, and that the Church itself stands, no
longer than it appears in general councils, is very far from having been
always correct, if the prophets have left us any authentic records of
their times. In the days of Isaiah, there was a Church at Jerusalem,
which God had not yet forsaken: nevertheless he speaks of the priests in
the following manner: “His watchmen are blind; they are all ignorant;
they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving
to slumber: they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to
their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.”[947]—Hosea
speaks in a similar manner: “The watchman of Ephraim was with my God;
but the prophet is a snare of a fowler in all his ways, and hatred in
the house of his God.”[948] By thus ironically connecting them with God,
he shows that their priesthood was a vain pretence. The Church continued
also to the time of Jeremiah. Let us hear what he says of the pastors.
“From the prophet even unto the priest, every one dealeth falsely.”[949]
Again: “the prophets prophesy lies in my name; I sent them not, neither
have I commanded them.”[950] And to avoid too much prolixity in reciting
his words, I would recommend my readers to peruse the whole of the
twenty-third and fortieth chapters. Nor were the same persons treated
with less severity by Ezekiel: “There is a conspiracy of her prophets in
the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have
devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they
have made her many widows in the midst thereof. Her priests have
violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things; they have put no
difference between the holy and profane. Her prophets have daubed them
with untempered mortar, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them,
saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken.”[951]
Similar complaints abound in all the prophets, so that there is nothing
of more frequent recurrence.
IV. But it will be said, though such may have been the case among the
Jews, our age is exempt from so great a calamity. I sincerely wish that
it were so; but the Holy Spirit has denounced that the event would be
very different. The language of Peter is clear: “There were false
prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers
among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies.”[952] Observe
how he declares that danger will arise, not from the common people, but
from those who will assume to themselves the name of pastors and
teachers. Besides, how often is it predicted by Christ and his apostles,
that the greatest dangers would be brought upon the Church by its
pastors![953] Paul expressly denounces that Antichrist will “sit in the
temple of God;”[954] by which he signifies, that the dreadful calamity
of which he speaks, will arise from the very persons who will sit as
pastors in the Church. And in another place, he shows that the
commencement of the mischief was then near at hand. For addressing the
bishops of the Church of Ephesus, he says, “I know this, that after my
departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the
flock; also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse
things, to draw away disciples after them.”[955] If the pastors could so
degenerate in a very short space of time, what enormous corruption might
be introduced among them in a long series of years! And not to occupy
much room with an enumeration, we are taught by the examples of almost
all ages, that neither is the truth always maintained in the bosom of
the pastors, nor the safety of the Church dependent on their stability.
They ought, indeed, to be the guardians and defenders of the peace and
safety of the Church, for the preservation of which they are appointed;
but it is one thing to perform a duty which we owe, and another, to owe
a duty which we do not perform.
V. Let no person conclude from what I have said, that I am inclined on
all occasions, and without any discrimination, to weaken the authority
of pastors, and bring it into contempt. I only mean to suggest the
necessity of discriminating between some pastors and others, that we may
not immediately consider persons as pastors because they bear that
title. But the pope and all his bishops, for no other reason but because
they are called pastors, casting off all obedience to the word of God,
disturb and confound every thing at their own pleasure; while they
labour to persuade us that it is impossible for them to be destitute of
the light of truth, that the Spirit of God perpetually resides in them,
and that with them the Church lives and dies. As though the Lord had now
no judgments, to inflict upon the world, in the present day, the same
kind of punishment, with which he once visited the ingratitude of his
ancient people;[956] namely, to smite the pastors with astonishment,
madness, and blindness. And such is their extreme stupidity, they are
not aware that they are acting the same part which was acted by those
who resisted the word of the Lord in ancient times. For thus the enemies
of Jeremiah fortified themselves in opposition to the truth: “Come, and
let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish
from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the
prophet.”[957]
VI. Hence it is easy to reply to another plea in behalf of general
councils. That a true Church existed among the Jews in the time of the
prophets, cannot be denied. But if a general council of the priests had
been convened, what appearance of a Church would such a council have
displayed? We hear what God denounces, not against two or three of them,
but against the whole body: “The priests shall be astonished, and the
prophets shall wonder.”[958] Again: “The law shall perish from the
priest, and counsel from the ancients.”[959] Again: “Night shall be unto
you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you,
that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets,
and the day shall be dark over them.”[960] Now, if these priests and
prophets had all been collected together, what spirit would have
presided in their assembly? This is remarkably exemplified in the
council convoked by Ahab. Four hundred prophets were present. But
because they were assembled with no other intention than to flatter that
impious monarch, Satan was sent by the Lord to be a lying spirit in all
their mouths.[961] There the truth was rejected with one consent;
Micaiah was condemned as a heretic, beaten, and cast into prison.
Jeremiah received the same treatment, and other prophets experienced
similar injustice.
VII. But one example, which is more memorable than the rest, may suffice
as a specimen of all. In the council which the chief priests and
Pharisees convened at Jerusalem against Christ, what was there wanting
in point of external form? For if there had then been no Church at
Jerusalem, Christ would never have united in their sacrifices and other
ceremonies. A solemn summons was issued; the high priest presided; all
the priests attended; yet there Christ was condemned, and his doctrine
rejected. This act proves that the Church was not contained in that
council. But, it will be said, there is no danger of such a circumstance
happening to us. Who has assured us of this? For to be too confident in
a matter of such great importance, is culpable stupidity. But while the
Spirit has expressly predicted, by the mouth of Paul, that there shall
come an apostasy, which cannot take place without the pastors being the
first to revolt from God,[962] why do we wilfully shut our eyes to our
own ruin? Wherefore it is by no means to be conceded, that the Church
consists in the assembly of the pastors, respecting whom God has nowhere
promised that they should always be good, but, on the contrary, has
denounced that they would sometimes be wicked. Now, when he warns us of
a danger, his design is to make us more cautious.
VIII. What, then, it will be said, shall the decisions of councils have
no authority? Yes, certainly; for I am not contending that all councils
ought to be condemned, or that all their acts ought to be rescinded and
cancelled at once. Still I shall be told, that I degrade their
authority, so as to leave it to the option of every individual to
receive or reject whatever a council shall have determined. By no means;
but whenever a decree of any council is brought forward, I would wish,
first, that a diligent inquiry should be made, at what time, for what
cause, and with what design it was held, and what kind of persons were
present; secondly, that the subject discussed in it should be examined
by the standard of the Scripture; and this in such a manner that the
determination should have its weight, and be considered as a precedent
or case formerly decided, but that it should not preclude the
examination which I have mentioned. I sincerely wish that every person
would observe the method recommended by Augustine in his third book
against Maximinus. For, with a view to silence the contentions of that
heretic respecting the decrees of councils, he says, “I ought not to
object to you the Council of Nice, nor ought you to object to me the
Council of Ariminum, to preclude each other’s judgment by a previous
decision. I am not bound by the authority of the latter, nor you by that
of the former. Let cause contend with cause, and argument with argument,
on the ground of scriptural authorities, which exclusively belong to
neither party, but are common to both.” The consequence of such a mode
of proceeding would be, that councils would retain all the majesty which
is due to them, while at the same time the Scripture would hold the
preëminence, so that every thing would be subject to its standard. Upon
this principle, those ancient councils, such as the Council of Nice, of
Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, that of Chalcedon, and others like
them, which were held for the condemnation of errors, we cheerfully
receive and reverence as sacred, as far as respects the articles of
faith which they have defended; for they contain nothing but the pure
and natural interpretation of the Scripture, which the holy fathers,
with spiritual prudence, applied to the discomfiture of the enemies of
religion who arose in those days. In some of the succeeding councils,
likewise, we discover a true zeal for piety, and evident proofs of
sense, learning, and prudence. But as the progress of the world is
generally from worse to worse, it is easy to see, from the more recent
councils, how much the Church has gradually degenerated from the purity
of that golden age. Even in these more corrupt ages, I doubt not, the
councils have been partly composed of some bishops of a better
character; but the same observation may be applied to their acts, which
was formerly made in a way of complaint against the decrees of the Roman
senate, by the senators themselves. Where opinions prevail according to
their number, and not according to the weight of argument by which they
are supported, the better part of the assembly must of necessity be
frequently overcome by the majority. And councils have certainly issued
many impious decrees. It is unnecessary here to produce particular
examples, as well because this would carry us to too great a length, as
because it has already been done by others with a diligence which
scarcely admits of any addition.
IX. Now, what need is there to enumerate the repugnances between
councils and councils, and how decrees passed by one have been rescinded
by another? Here it must not be alleged, that where there is such
variance between two councils, one or the other is not legitimate. For
how shall we determine this? The only way I know, is to ascertain from
the Scriptures that its decrees are not orthodox; for there is no other
certain rule of decision. It is now about nine hundred years ago, that
the Council of Constantinople, assembled under the emperor Leo, decreed
that all images placed in churches should be thrown down and broken in
pieces. Soon after, the Council of Nice, which the empress Irene
convened in opposition to the former, decreed that they should be
restored. Which of these two shall we acknowledge as a legitimate
council? This character has generally been attributed to the latter,
which gave images a place in the Churches. But Augustine declares that
this cannot be done without imminent danger of idolatry. Epiphanius, a
more ancient writer, expresses himself in terms of much greater
severity; he says that it is abominable wickedness for images to be seen
in the temples of Christians. Would the fathers who speak in this manner
approve of that council, if they were now living? But if the accounts of
historians be true, and credit be given to the acts themselves, that
council not only admitted of images, but determined that they were to be
worshipped. Now, it is evident that such a decree must have originated
from Satan. What shall we say to their perversions and mutilations of
the Scripture, which demonstrate that they held it all in contempt, as I
have already proved? We shall never be able to discriminate between the
numerous councils, which dissent from and contradict each other, unless
we examine them all by the word of God, which is the universal standard
for men and angels. On this ground, we reject the second Council of
Ephesus, and receive the Council of Chalcedon, because the latter
council condemned the impiety of Eutyches, which the former had
sanctioned. This judgment of the Council of Chalcedon was formed from
the Scriptures by holy men, whom we imitate in forming our judgment, as
the word of God which enlightened them continues to give light to us.
Now, let the Romanists go and boast, as they are accustomed to do, that
the Holy Spirit is inseparably attached to their councils.
X. Even in the earliest and purest councils, however, there is something
to complain of—either that the bishops who composed them, though men of
learning and prudence, being perplexed with the subjects immediately
before them, did not extend their views to many other things; or that
while they were occupied with more weighty and serious concerns, things
of inferior moment escaped their notice; or merely that, being men, they
were liable to ignorance and error; or that they were sometimes hurried
into precipitancy by the violence of their passions. Of the truth of the
last observation, which seems the severest of all, there is a remarkable
example in the Council of Nice; the dignity of which has been
universally and justly held in the highest veneration. For though the
principal article of our faith was endangered, and they had to contend
with Arius, the enemy of it, who was there in readiness for the
contest,—though it was of the greatest importance that harmony should be
maintained among those who came with a design to confute the error of
Arius,—notwithstanding that, careless of such great dangers, forgetful
of gravity, modesty, and every thing like good manners, dropping the
controversy between them, as if they had assembled with an express view
to the gratification of Arius, they began to counteract themselves with
intestine dissensions, and to direct against each other the pen which
ought to have been employed against Arius. The foulest accusations were
heard, defamatory libels were circulated, and there would have been no
end of the contentions till they had murdered one another, if it had not
been for the interference of the emperor Constantine, who protested that
a scrutiny into their lives was a thing beyond his cognizance, and
repressed this intemperate conduct with praise rather than with censure.
In how many instances is it probable that errors were committed by other
succeeding councils? Nor does this require any long proof; for whoever
peruses their acts, will discover many infirmities, not to mention any
thing worse.
XI. And Leo, the Roman pontiff, hesitates not to bring a charge of
ambition and inconsiderate temerity against the Council of Chalcedon,
which he at the same time acknowledges to have been orthodox in points
of doctrine. He does not deny it to have been a legitimate council, but
he unequivocally asserts that it was possible for it to err. It may be
thought, perhaps, that I betray a want of judgment in taking pains to
point out such errors; since our adversaries confess that councils might
err in things not essential to salvation. This labour, however, is not
unnecessary. For though they find themselves obliged to confess this in
words, yet when they obtrude upon us the decision of every council on
every subject, without any discrimination, as an oracle of the Holy
Spirit, they require of us, in fact, more than they had first assumed.
What is the language of such conduct, but that councils cannot err, or
that, if they do err, it is unlawful for us to discover the truth, or to
refuse assent to errors? And I intend to draw no other conclusion from
these facts, than that the Holy Spirit governed pious and Christian
councils in such a manner, as at the same time to permit them to betray
something of human infirmity, that we might not place too much
confidence in men. This sentiment is far more favourable than that of
Gregory of Nazianzum, “that he never saw a good end of any council.” For
he who affirms that all without exception terminated ill, leaves them
but little authority. It is unnecessary here to take distinct notice of
provincial councils, since it is easy to judge from the general
councils, what authority they ought to possess in framing articles of
faith, and receiving whatever kind of doctrine they pleased.
XII. But our Romanists, when they find all the supports of reason fail
them in the defence of their cause, have recourse to that last and
wretched subterfuge—That although the persons themselves betray the
greatest stupidity in their understandings and pleas, and act from the
most iniquitous motives and designs, still the word of God remains,
which commands us to obey our governors.[963] But what if I deny that
such persons are our governors? For they ought not to arrogate to
themselves more than belonged to Joshua, who was a prophet of the Lord
and an excellent pastor. Now, let us hear with what language he was
inaugurated into his office by the Lord: “This book of the law shall not
depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night:
turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest
prosper whithersoever thou goest.”[964] We shall consider them as our
spiritual governors, therefore, who deviate not from the word of God,
either to the right hand or to the left. If the doctrine of all pastors
ought to be received without any hesitation, why have we such frequent
and earnest admonitions from the mouth of the Lord himself, not to
listen to the speeches of false prophets? “Hearken not,” says he by
Jeremiah, “unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you; they
make you vain; they speak a vision of their own hearts, and not out of
the mouth of the Lord.”[965] Again: “Beware of false prophets, which
come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening
wolves.”[966] The exhortation given us by John would also have been
useless: “Try the spirits, whether they are of God;”[967] though from
this examination the very angels are not exempted, much less Satan with
all his falsehoods. How are we to understand this caution of our Lord?
“If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”[968] Does
it not sufficiently declare, that it is of the highest importance what
kind of pastors are heard, and that they are not all entitled to the
same attention? Wherefore there is no reason why they should overawe us
with their titles, to make us partakers of their blindness, while we
see, on the contrary, that the Lord has taken peculiar care to deter us
from suffering ourselves to be seduced by the error of other men, under
whatever mask or name it may be concealed. For if the answer of Christ
be true, all blind guides, whether they are denominated priests,
prelates, or pontiffs, can do nothing but precipitate their followers
into the same ruin with themselves. Impressed, therefore, by these
warnings, both of precepts and of examples, no names of pastors,
bishops, or councils, which are as capable of being falsely claimed as
rightly assumed, ought ever to prevent us from examining all the spirits
by the rule of the Divine word, in order to “try whether they are of
God.”
XIII. Having proved that the Church has received no power to frame any
new doctrine, let us now speak of the power which our opponents
attribute to it in the interpretation of the Scripture. We have not the
least objection to admit, that if a controversy arise respecting any
doctrine, there is no better or more certain remedy than to assemble a
council of true bishops, in which the controverted doctrine may be
discussed. For such a decision, formed by the common consent of the
pastors of the Churches, after an invocation of the Spirit of Christ,
will have far greater weight, than if every one of them separately were
to maintain it in preaching to his people, or if it were the result of a
private conference between a few individuals. Besides, when bishops are
collected in one assembly, they deliberate together with greater
advantage on what they ought to teach, and the manner in which their
instructions should be conveyed, so as to guard against offence arising
from diversity. In the third place, Paul prescribes this method of
determining respecting doctrines. For while he attributes to every
distinct Church a power “to judge,”[969] he shows what ought to be the
order of proceeding in more important cases; namely, that the Churches
should undertake the common cognizance of them. And so the dictate of
piety itself teaches us, that if any one disturb the Church with a new
doctrine, and the matter be carried so far as to cause danger of a more
grievous dissension, the Churches should first assemble, should examine
the question proposed to them, and after a sufficient discussion of it,
should announce a decision taken from the Scriptures, which would put an
end to all doubt among the people, and shut the mouths of refractory and
ambitious persons, so as to check their further presumption. Thus, when
Arius arose, the Council of Nice was assembled, and by its authority
defeated the pernicious attempts of that impious man, restored peace to
the Churches which he had disturbed, and asserted the eternal deity of
Christ in opposition to his sacrilegious dogma. Some time after, when
Eunomius and Macedonius raised new contentions, their frenzy was opposed
with a similar remedy by the Council of Constantinople. The impiety of
Nestorius was condemned in the first Council of Ephesus. In short, this
has been the ordinary method of the Church from the beginning, for the
preservation of unity, whenever Satan has begun to make any attempt
against it. But let it be remembered, that neither every age, nor every
place, can produce an Athanasius, a Basil, a Cyril, and other such
champions of the true doctrine, as the Lord raised up at those periods.
Let it also be recollected what happened at the second Council of
Ephesus, in which the heresy of Eutyches prevailed. Flavianus, a bishop
of irreproachable memory, was banished, together with other pious men,
and many similar enormities were committed, because it was Dioscorus, a
factious and ill-disposed man, and not the Spirit of the Lord, that
presided in that council. But that council, it will be said, was not the
Church. I admit it: for I am firmly persuaded of this, that the truth is
not extinct in the Church, though it may be oppressed by one council,
but that it is wonderfully preserved by the Lord, to arise and triumph
again in his own time. But I deny it to be an invariable rule, that
every interpretation which may have been approved by a council is the
true and certain sense of the Scripture.
XIV. But the Romanists have a further design in maintaining that
councils possess the power of interpreting the Scripture, and that
without appeal. For it is a false pretence, when every thing that has
been determined in councils is called an interpretation of the
Scripture. Of purgatory, the intercession of saints, auricular
confession, and similar fooleries, the Scriptures contain not a single
syllable. But, because all these things have been sanctioned by the
authority of councils, or, to speak more correctly, have been admitted
into the general belief and practice, therefore every one of them is to
be taken for an interpretation of Scripture. And not only so; but if a
council determine in direct opposition to the Scripture, it will still
be called an interpretation of it. Christ commands all to drink of the
cup which he presents to them in the sacred supper.[970] The Council of
Constance prohibited it to be given to the laity, and determined that
none but the priest should drink of it. Yet this, which is so
diametrically repugnant to the institution of Christ, they wish us to
receive as an interpretation of it. Paul calls “forbidding to marry” a
“doctrine of devils;”[971] and the Holy Spirit, in another place,
pronounces that “marriage is honourable in all, and the bed
undefiled.”[972] The prohibition, which they have since denounced, of
the marriage of priests, they wish us to consider as the true and
natural interpretation of the Scriptures, though nothing can be imagined
more repugnant to it. If any one dare to open his mouth to the contrary,
he is condemned as a heretic, because the determination of the Church is
without appeal, and the truth of its interpretation cannot be doubted
without impiety. What further requires to be urged against such
consummate effrontery? The mere exhibition of it is a sufficient
refutation. Their pretensions to confirm the Scripture by the authority
of the Church, I purposely pass over. To subject the oracles of God to
the authority of men, so as to make their validity dependent on human
approbation, is a blasphemy unworthy of being mentioned; beside which, I
have touched on this subject already. I will only ask them one question:
If the authority of the Scripture be founded on the approbation of the
Church, what decree of any council can they allege to this point? I
believe, none at all. Why, then, did Arius suffer himself to be
vanquished at Nice by testimonies adduced from the Gospel of John?
According to the argument of our opponents, he was at liberty to reject
them, as not having yet received the approbation of any general council.
They allege an ancient catalogue, which is called the Canon of
Scripture, and which they say proceeded from the decision of the Church.
I ask them again, in what council that canon was composed. To this they
can make no reply. Yet I would wish to be further informed, what kind of
a canon they suppose it to be. For I see that the ancient writers were
not fully agreed respecting it. And if any weight be attached to the
testimony of Jerome, the two books of the Maccabees, the history of
Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and other books, will be considered as
apocryphal; to which our opponents will by no means consent.
Footnote 944:
Matt. xviii. 20.
Footnote 945:
Deut. iv. 2. Rev. xxii. 18, 19.
Footnote 946:
Mal. ii. 5-7.
Footnote 947:
Isaiah lvi. 10, 11.
Footnote 948:
Hosea ix. 8.
Footnote 949:
Jer. vi. 13.
Footnote 950:
Jer. xiv. 14.
Footnote 951:
Ezek. xxii. 25, 26, 28.
Footnote 952:
2 Peter ii. 1.
Footnote 953:
Matt. xxiv. 11, 24.
Footnote 954:
2 Thess. ii. 4.
Footnote 955:
Acts xx. 29, 30.
Footnote 956:
Zech. xii. 4.
Footnote 957:
Jer. xviii. 18.
Footnote 958:
Jer. iv. 9.
Footnote 959:
Ezek. vii. 26.
Footnote 960:
Micah iii. 6.
Footnote 961:
1 Kings xxii. 6, 22, 24, 27.
Footnote 962:
2 Thess. ii. 3. 1 Tim. iv. 1.
Footnote 963:
Heb. xiii. 17.
Footnote 964:
Joshua i. 7, 8.
Footnote 965:
Jer. xxiii. 16.
Footnote 966:
Matt. vii. 15.
Footnote 967:
1 John iv. 1.
Footnote 968:
Matt. xv. 14.
Footnote 969:
1 Cor. xiv. 29.
Footnote 970:
Matt. xxvi. 27.
Footnote 971:
1 Tim. iv. 1, 3.
Footnote 972:
Heb. xiii. 4.