Calvin continues his review of the Papacy. Calvin has spoken of Rome's "consummate arrogance." Calvin will call Rome the "kingdom of Antichrist," something few evangelicals would confess today. However, Papists have transferred to themselves powers, names, titles, attributes and works that belong to Christ alone. Such has been arrogance, that the Vaticanists have removed themselves from the title of "True Church," inasmuch as the LORD has cut them off from the marks of the true churches, discerned by Scripture. The wickedness in behaviour and heretical doctrines are in gross contrast to apostolic and primitive Christianity. Calvin cites the apostasy of Pope John XXII, something confronted by the French Churches. The Papists in Calvin's time had descended to widespread impurity, debauchery, and obscenity, including that persecutive of True Churchmen.
As an excellent parallel, we recommend a close read of the Smalcald Articles, 1537, at: http://bookofconcord.org/treatise.php
This is not something you'll hear sermons on by weak clerics of our time. They're un-dependable, inaccurate, afraid, insipid, and silent...in large part, not all, but in large part. I rebuke such children masquerading as clerics.
Imagine Billy Graham speaking of JP2 as a "great leader." Or TBN's Benny Hinn saying the same thing. Or Anglicans conducting ecumenical chats without any sense of history, theology or exegesis. Or James Packer with ECT? It goes downhill from there.
Although the Institutes should be on everyone's shelf and read again and again, Calvin is free and downloadable at:
http://www.archive.org/stream/institutesofchrindex02calv/institutesofchrindex02calv_djvu.txt
----------------------------------------------
XXV. Some persons think ns too severe and censorious, when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak, and whose language we adopt. And lest any one should object, that we improperly pervert to the Roman pontiff those words of Paul, which belong to a different subject, I shall briefly show that they are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy. Paul says, that Antichrist " sitteth in the temple of God." In another place, also, the Holy Spirit, describing his image in the person of Antiochus, declares that his kingdom will consist in " speaking great words," or blasphemies, " against the Most High." Hence we conclude, that it is rather a tyranny over the souls of men, than over their bodies, which is erected in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ. And in the next place, that this tyranny is one which does not abolish the name of Christ or of his Church, but rather abuses the authority of Christ, and conceals itself under the character of the Church, as under a mask. Now, though all the heresies and schisms which have existed from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist, yet when Paul predicts an approaching apostasy, he signifies by this description that that seat of abomination shall then be erected, when a universal defection shall have seized the Church, notwithstanding many members, dispersed in different places, persevere in the unity of the faith. But when he adds, that even in his days '' the mystery of iniquity " did " already work " in secret what it was afterwards to effect in a more public manner, he gives us to understand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by one man, nor to terminate with one man. Now, when he designates Antichrist by this character, — that he would rob God of his honour in order to assume it to himself, — this is the principal indication which we ought to follow in our inquiries after Antichrist, especially where such pride proceeds to a public desolation of the Church. As it is evident therefore that the Roman pontiff has impudently transferred to himself some of the peculiar and exclusive prerogatives of God and Christ, it cannot be doubted that he is the captain and leader
of this impious and abominable kingdom.
XXVI. Now, let the Romanists go and object antiquity against us ; as if, in such a subversion of every thing, the honour of the see could remain, where no see exists. Eusebius relates that God, in order to make way for his vengeance, removed the Church from Jerusalem to Pella. What we are informed did hajipen once, may have happened oftener. Therefore to attach the honour of the primacy to any particular place, so that he who is in fact the most inveterate enemy of Christ, the greatest adversary of the gospel, the desolater and destroyer of the Church, the most cruel murderer and butcher of all the saints, must nevertheless be accounted the vicar of Christ, the successor of Peter, the chief prelate of the Church, merely because he occupies what was anciently the first see, is a thing extremely ridiculous and absurd. I forbear to remark the immense difference between the pope's chancery, and a well regulated administration of the Church ; though this one thing is sufficient to remove every difficulty on this subject. For no man in his sound senses will include the episcopal office in lead and in bulls, much less in that school of frauds and chicaneries, in which the pope's spiritual government consists. It has justly been remarked, therefore, that the Roman Church which is boasted of, has long ago been converted into a secular court, which is all that is now to be seen at Rome. Nor am I here accusing the vices of individuals, but proving that the Papacy itself is diametrically opposite to the legitimate order of the Church.
XXVII. But if we proceed to persons, it is Avell known what kind of men we shall find sustaining the character of vicars of Christ. Julius, and Leo, and Clement, and Paul, will be pillars of the Christian faith, and the principal oracles of religion, who never knew any thing of Christ, except what they had learned in the school of Lucian. But why do I enumerate three or four pontiifs, as though it were doubtful what kind of religion the pontiifs and the whole college of cardinals have professed long ago, and profess in the present day? For of the secret theology which prevails among them, the first article is, that there is no God ; the second, that all that is written and preached concerning Jesus Christ is falsehood and imposture ; the third, that the doctrine of a future life, and that of the final resurrection, are mere fables. This opinion, I confess, is not entertained by all, and is expressed by few of them ; yet it long ago began to be the ordinary religion of the pontiffs. Though this is notorious to all who are acquainted with Rome, yet the Roman theologians persist in boasting that the possibility of error in the pope has been prevented by the privilege of Christ, because he said to Peter, "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." What can they gain by such impudent mockery, except it be to convince the whole world of their having arrived at such an extreme of presumption, that they neither fear God nor regard men?
XXVIII. But let US suppose the impiety of those pontiffs, whom I have mentioned, to be concealed, because they have not pubhshed it by sermons or by writings, but only betrayed it in their chambers and at their tables, or at least within the walls of their palaces. But if they wish to establish this privilege to which they pretend, they must expunge from the number of the pontiffs John the Twenty-second, who publicly maintained that souls are mortal, and that they perish together with the bodies till the day of resurrection. And to show that the whole see, with its principal pillars, Avas then entirely overturned, not one of the cardinals resisted this capital error ; but the university of Paris urged the king of France to compel the pope to a retraction. The king interdicted his subjects from all communion with him, unless he should speedily repent ; and he caused this to be proclaimed, in the usual manner, by a herald. Compelled by necessity, the pontiff abjured his error. This example renders it unnecessary for me to dispute any longer against the assertion of our adversaries, that the see of Rome and its pontiffs cannot err respecting the faith, because Christ said to Peter, " I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." John certainly fell from the true faith in so disgraceful a manner, that he might furnish to posterity a signal proof, that those who succeed Peter in his bishopric are not all Peters. The argument itself, however, is too puerile to need any answer. For if they are determined to apply to Peter's
successors every thing that was said to Peter, it will follow that they are all Satans, because the Lord also said to Peter, " Get thee behind me, Satan ; thou art an offence unto me." It will be as easy for us to retort this passage against them, as it is for them to object the other against us.
XXIX. But it affords me no pleasure to contend with them in such fooleries, and therefore I return from the digression. To confine Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and the Church, to one particular place, so that whoever presides there, even though he be a devil, must, nevertheless, be deemed the vicar of Christ, and the head of the Church, because that place was formerly the see of Peter, I maintain to be not only impious and dishonourable to Christ, but altogether absnrd and repugnant to common sense. The Roman pontiffs for a long time have either been totally indifferent to religion, or have shown themselves its greatest enemies. They are no more made the vicars of Christ, therefore, by the see which they occupy, than an idol is to be taken for God. because it is placed in his temple.
Now, if a judgment is to be formed on their conduct, let the pontiffs answer for themselves in what part of it they can at all be recognized as bishops. In the first place, the mode of life generally pursued at Rome, not only without any opposition from them, but with their connivance, and even tacit approbation, is altogether disgraceful to bishops, whose duty it is to restrain the licentiousness of the people by a rigid discipline. I will not, however, be so severe against them as to charge them with the faults of other persons. But while both themselves and their families, with almost the whole college of cardinals, and the whole host of their clergy, are so abandoned to all kinds of debauchery, impurity, and obscenity, and to every species of enormity and crime, that they resemble monsters rather than men, they prove themselves to have no just claim to the character of bishops. They need not be afraid, however, that I shall proceed to a further disclosure of their turpitude. For it is unpleasant to meddle with such abominable pollution, and it is necessary to spare chaste ears. Besides, I conceive, I have more than sufficiently proved what I intended, that even if Rome had anciently been the head of all Churches, yet at the present day she is not worthy of being accounted one of the smallest toes of the Church's feet.
XXX. With respect to the cardinals, as they are called, I know not how it has come to pass that they have so suddenly risen to such high dignity. In the time of Gregory, this title was exclusively applied to bishops ; for whenever he mentions cardinals, he speaks of them not only as belonging to the Church of Rome, but to any other Churches ; so that, in short, a cardinal priest is no other than a bishop. I find no such title at all in the writers of any preceding age ; and at that time, I observe, they were far inferior to bishops, to whom they are now so far superior. This passage of Augustine is well known : " Though, according to the titles of honour which have long been used in the Church, a bishop is superior to a presbyter, yet Augustine is in many things inferior to Jerome." He clearly makes not the least distinction between a presbyter of the Roman Church and those of other Churches, but places them all alike below the bishops. And this order was so long observed, that in the Council of Carthage, when two legates attended from the Roman see, one a bishop, the other a presbyter, the presbyter was obliged to take the lowest seat. But not to go too far into antiquity for examples, we have the acts
of a council held under Gregory at Rome, at which the presbyters sat in the lowest place, and subscribed separately ; and the deacons were not allowed to subscribe at all. And, indeed, the priests had no other oflice at tliat time, than to attend and assist the bishop in the ministry of the word and the administration of the sacraments. Now, their condition is so changed, that they are become the cousins of kings and emperors. And there is no doubt but tliey rose by degrees, together with their head, till they reached their present high dignity. This also I have thought proper to suggest by the way in a few words, that the reader may more fully understand, that the Roman see, in its present circumstances, is widely different from its ancient state, under the pretext of which it is now maintained and defended. But whatever they may have been in former times, since they have now no true and legitimate office in the Church, and only retain a mere name and useless mask of one, and since every thing belonging to them is quite contrary to it, it was necessary that what Gregory often forebodes should actually befall them : " I say it with tears, I denounce it with groans, that since the sacerdotal order is fallen within, it will not long be able to stand without." Or rather it was necessary that what Malachi declares of similar characters should be fulfilled in them : " Ye are departed out of the way ; ye have caused many to stumble at the law ; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. Therefore ha/e I also made you contemptible and base before all the people." (e) I now leave it to all pious persons to consider the nature of the lofty fabric of the Roman hierarchy, to which the Papists, with nefarious impudence, and without any hesitation, sacrifice even the word of God itself, Avhich ought to have been held venerable and sacred by heaven and earth, by men and angels.
No comments:
Post a Comment