RA Blogs the Institutes. 4.5.6-4.6.9

Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.5.6-4.6.9.

Preliminarily, we began to blog Calvin's Institutes after a foolish and snarky comment was made by Presbyterian Pastor about Prayer Books at www.reformation21.org. Such punditry might lead multitudes to think Calvin tossed liturgies. Calvin, from our view, is much to cautious for that from our readings. Secondly, as Dr. Phil Ryken has worked through this section, we get one brief acknowledgement that Calvin looked favourably upon the development, godly uses, and behaviours of ancient Bishops. It's an acknowledgement they are not likely--in a post-Reformation world--to allow. There is no argument for Presbyterianism iure divino thus far in Calvin. Let the Puritan-type Presbyterians take note of this. Similarly, let the Anglican-Puritans and tradition-worshippers, e.g. Anglo-Romanists and Lambeth worshippers, take note of our earlier comments that episcopacy was an arrangement, iure humano. It is an adjustable arrangement. In this respect, we take note of the lack of discussion of these points by the recent Manglican Conference at Bedford, TX.

Episcopacy may be "ancient and desireable," but it is not a divine institution, but one adopted for good order, discipline, and other issues that Calvin outlined previously. Notably, the English Reformers did not make it a mark or note of a True Church.

As we come to this section, 4.5.6-4.6.9, two things stand out. First, Calvin will deal with the manifold abuses in the Papacy. Second, he will deal with the futile claims of Petrine supremacy.

The corruptions to which Calvin refers were long-noted by streams of others. For the larger history, we refer you to Hardwick's Thirty-nine Articles. (If needed, email me and I can send that to you. The introduction is a splendid recall of the known abuses for at least one century before the Reformation in Germany, Switzerland, England, etc. We are reminded of Wycliffe, Hus and Savanarola as but three voices amongst thousands of others. By no means were Churchmen ignorant of the abuses until Luther and Calvin.)

Calvin draws attention to the following. (1) Benefices conferred for prices, reasons of kinship, allowing "children and babblers" to enter holy orders. (2) Bishops with courts like Princes, with youths often holding 5-7 benefices, several abbacies, bishoprics and archbishropics. This will be repeated further in Calvin's arguments, again and again. His recurring rejoinder is that the Word, Sacrament and Discipline has disappeared and the "mask" of holy orders remains. (3) He comments adversely, here and again, on "idle monks," an office unknown in the New Testament or ancient church. (4) The issue of mendicant orders dishonour the "High" office of preaching and teaching. Calvin does not have a "Low" view of preaching or an educated clergy. The mendicants, canons, deans, chaplains, provosts, and others have cast off the "Word, Sacraments, and Discipline of the Church" with "nefarious infamy" and as something "burdensome" to their true calling. This is the glue of Calvin's arguments: the Word, Sacraments, and Church Order (discipline in doctrine and life).

We take a break in Calvin's line of argument to observe (unlike www.reformation21.org) that Calvin observes that "Bishops and parish priests" had a "godly and excellent office." No impugnment of that "godly and excellent office." One almost senses that if Bishops were faithful expositors of Scripture and were rightly administering the sacraments, with maintenance of personal godliness and corporate discpline, Calvin would admit the legitimacy of the iure humano arrangement. You won't hear that from the Presbyterians at www.reformation21.org.

Calvin notes that corruption made advances in the times of Gregory the Great and were advanced during the days of Bernard (someone Calvin often cites approvingly).

A few quotes from Gregory the Great. "The world is full of priests, but in the harvest a worker is rarely found; for indeed we take upon us the priestly office but do not fulfil the work of that office." Or again, "Because they do not have the bowels of charity, they wish to seem lords; they do not recognize themselves as fathers at al. They change the place of humility into pride of lordship."

This scribe interrupts to note that the entire English system of Bishops as Lords, Eminences, and the like should have been reformed. We still hear Anglo-Papalist Bishops called "Your Eminence." We still see many acting like lords without accountability to competent Presbyteries. It's all quite tawdry, unseemly, lordly and self-serving.

Another from Gregory the Great. "But we, O pastors, what do we do, who obtain pay and are not laborers?"

"We have fallen into outward busyness, and we undertake one thing, but perform another. We forsake the ministry of preaching; and to add to our punishment, as I see, we are called `bishops,' who have the name of an honorable office, but not its power."

Calvin observes that the office of preaching was not practiced by one in one hundred bishops. He asks, what would Gregory the Great say if he were to return and assess the bishops in Calvin's time?

Calvin's resumes the argument about incessant corruptions, including the "bragging of apostolic succession" while many are "rude asses" without learning. This scribe does not find the language offensive in the least, as a retired military man. He comments about priests being commonly known as "notorious in excess, effeminacy, and voluptuousness."

But Calvin does not throw the baby out with the wash. He says, their legitimacy (Romanists) is "neither from Christ, nor His apostles, nor from the fathers, nor from the ancient church." One sees that Calvin does not argue against the place of legitimate bishops and even archbishops, e.g. Gregory the Great.

Rather, what is on offer, are deacons who don't collect and distribute alms, Bishops living with kingly magnificence and munificence, Bishops who "seize the booty," Bishops with high culinary delicacies of table, splendor of apparel, retinues of servants and retainers, large palaces, estates, buildings, and lordships. This continued in the Church of England without reform. In Hanoverian England, a commoner referred to a "Bishop and his six," a reference to the carriage with six horses, shorthand for the same observations made by Calvin. One remembers the saintly but virile English Reformer, John Wycliffe, with similar observations. We've also see suggestions that even Archbishop Whitgift of Canterbury began to adopt some of these lordly behaviours in the late 16th century as preferrments came his way.

Calvin asks what ancient Bishops would have said about all this. He calls Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouise, Acacius, and Ambrose of Milan. Would they not have called for reform as Calvin is doing? Citing a Synod of Acquilea, a Bishop was to have a small house not far from the Church to the end that he might fulfill his office. Again, no impugnment of Godly Bishops is made by Calvin. An argument might be had that Calvin--himself--acted as a Bishop at Geneva, even if without the title.

We argued previously that "functional" bishops operate in other ecclesiastical communions. What else is R.C. Sproul but a functional leader without the title? Or Al Mohler for Baptists? Or Superintendents amongst Methodists and Lutherans? Or Superintendants amongst the Assemblies of God? But these are questions brought in as an aside to Calvin's argument.

After reviewing the corruptions of holy orders, Calvin unmasks the Petrine claim of Roman supremacy with their claim that all submit to it--or her.

He notes that nowhere in the New Testament is there a word about Peter's supremacy over the apostles. The "keys" of Matt.16.16-19 were given to all the apostles. We bring a few quotes from Cyprian and Augustine.

Cyprian. "In the person of one man the Lord gave the keys to all, to signify unity of all; the rest were the same as Peter was, endowed with the equal share of both the honor and of the power; but the beginning farose from unity that the church of Christ may be shown to be one."

Augustine. "If the mystery of the church had not been in Peter, the Lord would have said to him, `I shall give you the keys'; for if this was to to Peter alone, the church does not have them. But if the church have them, Peter, when he received the keys was the symbol of the whole church."

Again, from Augustine. "After all had been asked, only Peter answers, `Thou are Christ,' and it is said to him, `I shall give you the keys,' as if he alone received the power of binding and loosing; since, being one, he said the former for all and received the latter with all, impersonating unity itself. Hence, one for all, because the unity is in all."

Christ is the Cornerstone and the Church is built on the apostles and prophets (Eph.2.20) of which Christians are "living stones" laid upon the Chosen Stone, Christ.

Calvins asks to gather all the Scriptures together. He notes that Peter is one among twelve. Peter speaks to church leaders as "fellow elders." (1 Peter 5.1-2) In Acts 11.11-13, after his ministry to Cornelius, he called to account by his ministerial colleagues acting as co-equals. In Acts 8.14, Peter is bidden to go to Samaria at the behest of ministerial colleagues. Galatians 1 and 2 demonstrates that Paul was everybit the equal of Peter. (Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, wondered why Protestants didn't make more of Galatians in our times. He was right, but Calvin doesn't miss it.)

Lord willing, to be continued.