Calvin’s view, hardly traditional as shall be shown, nonetheless
contrasts sharply with Luther’s, who coupled his own opinions about the
authority of Scripture with the priesthood of all believers. Together these
underpinned Luther’s doctrine of the right of private interpretation.^163
Yet even this doctrine had a prerequisite, the tacit perspicuity of
Scripture; that the Scriptures possessed a clarity that anyone using the
Scriptures (a shepherd or a plowboy were usual examples),^164 could
know as much as any bishop. On this point the Reformers were not
univocal in definition, for example, the above quote by Calvin, and
Luther’s later fears about popular Bible reading. But the necessity of this
doctrine alone preserved them from dependence on a magisterial
institution which dictated what the Bible taught. Calvin’s conciliar
authority must be seen as merely pedagogical in nature, possessing a
magisterial authority, but not a judicial one. This distinction is
fundamental. Had both been wedded in a council, then of necessity the
reforms sought and the doctrines preached by the Reformers could not
be maintained, all not only lacking conciliar authority as to the veracity
of their content, but also any jurisdiction of constraint upon the
conscience. In the end, Calvin’s view on councils becomes tautological,
thus casting the matter back to the individual: ‘Such a definition, upon
which the pastors of the church ... agree, will have much more weight
than if each one, having conceived it separately ... should teach it to the
people, or if a few private individuals should compose it.’^165
Consequently the source of authority then devolved to the Scriptures.
In the Ad ScipionemJewel returns to the question of the authority of
regional councils, even over general councils. He touches on it quickly
though, for his real aim is to show that the papacy had never had
THE STRUGGLE FOR THE ELIZABETHAN CHURCH 99
enim plus ponderis habebit eiusmodi definitio in quam communiter Ecclesiarum Pastores,
invocato Christi Spiritu, consenserint, quam si quisque seorsum domi conceptam populo
traderet, vel pauci homines privati eam conficerent ... Atque ita nos ipse pietatis sensus
instituit, ut siquis turbet Ecclesiam domate inusitato, atque eo res perveniat, ut sit
periculum a graviore dissidio, conveniant primum Ecclesiae: quaestionem propositam
examinent: demum, iusta discussione habita, definitionem ex Scriptura sumptam
proferant, quae et dubitationem in plebe tollat, et os obstruat improbis et cupidus
hominibus, ne pergere amplius audeant. Sic exorto Arrio coacta est Nicaena Synodus, quae
sua authoritate et sceleratos impii hominis conatus fregit, et pacem restituit Ecclesiis quas
vexaverat, et aeternam Christi divinitatem contra sacrilegum eius dogma asservit.’ Joannis
Calvini,Opera Selectaed. Petrus Barth. Guilelmus Niesel, 1559. Lib IV. Cap IX.13, p. 161.
(^163) Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation, Past and Present(Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1996), p. 189 ff. Though dated, see also Frederic W. Farrar, History of Interpretation
(E.P. Dutton, 1886, Grand Rapids, 1961), pp. 322–41.
(^164) ‘And as for the understanding of it, doubt not, for God will give knowledge to whom
he will give knowledge of the Scriptures, as soon to a shepherd as a priest’. Robert
Plumpton, in Dickens, English Reformation, p. 72.
(^165) Calvin,Institutes, p. 1176. [Emphasis added.]