Calvin continues his review of the Papacy. He cites Gregory the Great (540-604 AD), to wit, that he, Gregory, reprobated the term "universal bishop" that the Papists in Calvin's time (and our's) affirm. He cites the humble claims of Cyprian. He speaks of Rome's "consummate arrogance." Calvin goes on to review the corruption of the present-day Papacy, something that was evident in Bernard's time. We reviewed that elsewhere with Charles Hardwick's analysis of the 14th and 15th centuries in his "History of the Articles of Religion."
This is free and downloadable at:
http://www.archive.org/stream/institutesofchrindex02calv/institutesofchrindex02calv_djvu.txt
---------------------------
XXI. I shall not treat them with all the severity which they deserve. To this consummate insolence, another person would oppose the declaration of Cyprian among the bishops at the Council of Carthage, of which he was president : " No one of us calls himself bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical fear, constrains his colleagues to the necessity of obeying him." He would object what was decreed at Carthage some time after, " That no one should be called prince of priests, or first bishop.' He
would collect many testimonies from histories, many canons of councils, and various passages from the writings of the fathers, by which the Roman pontiff would be reduced to the rank of other bishops. I pass over these things, however, that I may not appear to lay too much stress upon them. But let the most able advocates of the Roman see answer me, with what face they can dare to defend the title of universal bishop, which they find to have been so often anathematized by Gregory. If the testimony of Gregory be entitled to any credit, they cannot make their pontiff universal bishop without thereby declaring him to be Antichrist. Nor was the title of head any more in use at that time ; for in one of his epistles he says, " Peter is the principal member in the body ; John, Andrew, and James, were heads of particular people. Yet they are all members of the Church under one head. Even the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, are all placed among the members, and no one ever wished himself to be called universal bishop. The arrogant pretensions of the pontiff to the power of commanding are very inconsistent with an observation made by Gregory in another passage. For
when Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, had represented himself as commanded by him, he replies in the following manner:
"I beseech you, let me not hear the word command mentioned again; for I know what I am, and what you are. In station, you are my brethren; in holiness, you are my fathers. Therefore I gave no command, but intended to suggest to you such things as appeared to be useful."
By extending his jurisdiction, as he does, without any limits, the pope does a grievous and atrocious injury, not only to other bishops, but to all other Churches, which he distracts and divides by such conduct, in order to establish his own see upon their ruins. But when he exempts himself from all the judgments of others, and determines to reign in such a tyrannical manner as to have no law but his own pleasure, this is certainly so unbecoming, and foreign from the order of the Church, that it is altogether intolerable, and incapable of any defence. For it is utterly repugnant, not only to every sentiment of piety, but even of humanity.
XXII. But that I may not be obliged to pursue and discuss every particular point, I again appeal to those of my contemporaries, who would be considered as the most able and faithful advocates of the Roman see, whether they are not ashamed to defend the present state of the Papacy, which is evidently a hundred times more corrupt than it was in the times of Gregory and Bernard, but which even then so exceedingly displeased those holy men. Gregory every where complains, that he was excessively distracted with occupations unsuitable to his office; that under the name of being a bishop, he was carried back to the world ; that he was involved in secular cares, to a greater extent than he could remember to have been while he was a layman ; that he was oppressed with the tumult of worldly business, so that his mind was incapacitated for any elevation towards things above ; that he was tossed about with numerous causes like so many waves, and disquieted with the tempests of a tumultuous life, so that he might justly say, " I am come into the depth of the sea." Amidst these worldly avocations, however, he could still instruct the people by pulDlic preaching, give private admonition and reproof to those who required it, regulate his Church, give advice to his colleagues, and exhort them to their duty ; beside these things, he had some time left for writing; yet he deplores his calamity, in being plunged into the depth of the sea. If the administration of that age was a sea, what must be said of the Papacy in its present state ? For what resemblance is there between them? Here we find no sermons preached, no attention to discipline, no concern for the Churches, no spiritual function performed ; in a word, nothing but the world. Yet this labyrinth is praised, as though nothing could be found better constituted, or better administered. What complaints are poured out by Bernard, what lamentations does he utter, when he beholds the vices of his times ? What would he say, then, if he could behold this our iron, or, if possible, worse than iron age ? What impudence is it, not only pertinaciously to defend as sacred and Divine what all the holy fathers have reprobated with one voice, but also to abuse their testimony in vindication of the Papacy, which it is evident was utterly unknown to them ! In the time of Bernard, however, I confess the corruption was so great that there was no great difference between that age and the present; but those who adduce any plea for the existing state of things from the time of Leo, Gregory, and others in that middle period, must be destitute of all shame. This conduct resembles that of any one, who, to vindicate the monarchy of the Roman emperors, should commend the ancient state of the Roman government ; which would be no other than borrowing the praises of liberty to adorn a system of tyranny.
No comments:
Post a Comment