menu_book Chapter 13

institutes of the christian religion book for by john calvin translated by henry beverage chapter seven part three nineteen but though we were to concede to the roman pontiff of the present day the eminence and extent of jurisdiction which his see had in the middle ages as in the time of leo and gregory what would this be to the existing papacy i am not now speaking of worldly dominion or of civil power which will afterwards be explained in their own place chapter eleven sections eight through fourteen but what resemblance is there between the spiritual government of which they boast and the state of those times the only definition which they give of the pope is that he is the supreme head of the church on earth and the universal bishop of the whole globe the pontiffs themselves when they speak of their authority declare with great superciliousness that the power of commanding belongs to them that the necessity of obedience remains with others

that all their decrees are to be regarded as confirmed by the divine voice of peter that provincial synods from not having the presence of the pope are deficient in authority that they can ordain the clergy of any church and can summon to their see any who have been ordained elsewhere innumerable things of this kind are contained in the farrago of gratian which i do not mention that i may not be tedious to my readers the whole comes to this that to the roman pontiff belongs the supreme cognizance of all ecclesiastical causes whether in determining and defining doctrines or in enacting laws or in appointing discipline or in giving sentences it were also tedious and superfluous to review the privileges which they assumed to themselves in what they call reservations but the most intolerable of all things is their leaving no judicial authority in the world to restrain and curb them when they licentiously abuse their immense power no man they say is entitled to alter the judgment of this see on account of the primacy of the roman church again the judge shall not be judged either by the emperor or by kings or by the clergy or by the people

It is surely imperious enough for one man to appoint himself the judge of all, while he will not submit to the judgment of any. But what if he tyrannizes over the people of God, if he dissipates and lays waste the kingdom of Christ, if he troubles the whole church, if he convert the pastoral office into robbery? Nay, though he should be the most abandoned of all, he insists that none can call him to account. The language of pontiffs is, God has been pleased to terminate the causes of other men by men, but the prelate of this see he has reserved unquestioned for his own judgment. Again, the deeds of subjects are judged by us, ours by God only. 20. And in order that edicts of this kind might have more weight, they falsely substituted the

names of ancient pontiffs, as if matters had been so constituted from the beginning, while it is absolutely certain that whatever attributes more to the pontiff than we have stated to have been given to him by ancient councils, is new and of recent fabrication. Nay, they have carried their effronteries so far as to publish a rescript under the name of Anastasius, the patriarch of Constantinople, in which he testifies that it was appointed by ancient regulations, that nothing

should be done in the remotest provinces without being previously referred to the Roman sea. Besides its extreme folly, who can believe it credible that such an eulogium on the Roman sea proceeded from an opponent and rival of its honour and dignity? And doubtless it was necessary that those antichrists should proceed to such a degree of madness and blindness that their iniquity might be manifest to all men of sound mind who will only open their eyes. The decretal epistles

collected by Gregory IX, also the clementines and extravagance of Martin, breathe still more plainly and in more bombastic terms bespeak this boundless ferocity and tyranny, as it were, of barbarian kings. But these are the oracles out of which the Romanists would have their papacy to be judged. Hence have sprung those famous axioms which have the force of oracles throughout the papacy in the present day, that is, that the pope cannot err, that the pope is superior to

councils, that the pope is the universal bishop of all churches and the chief head of the church on earth. I say nothing of the still greater absurdities which are babbled by the foolish canonists in their schools, absurdities, however, which Roman theologians not only assent to, but even applaud in flattery of their idol. 21. I will not treat with them on the strictest terms. In opposition to their great insolence, some would quote the language which Cyprian used

to the bishops in council over which he presided. Quote, None of us styles himself bishop of bishops, or forces his colleagues to the necessity of obeying by the tyranny of terror. Some might object what was long after decreed at Carthage, let no one be called the prince of priests or first bishop, and might gather many proofs from history and canons from councils

and many passages from ancient writers, which bring the Roman pontiff into due order. But these I omit, that I may not seem to press too hard upon them. However, let these worthy defenders of the Roman see tell me with what face they can defend the title of universal bishop, while they see it so often anathematized by Gregory. If effect is to be given to his testimony, then they, by making their pontiff universal, declare him to be Antichrist. The name of head

was not more approved. For Gregory thus speaks, quote, Peter was the chief member in the body, John, Andrew, and James, the heads of particular communities. All, however, are under one head members of the church. Nay, the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all perfecting the body of the Lord, are constituted members. None of them ever wished to be styled universal. When the pontiff arrogates to himself the power of ordering,

he little accords with what Gregory elsewhere says. For Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, having said that he had received an order from him, he replies in this manner, This word order I beg you to take out of my hearing, for I know who I am and who you are. In station you are my brethren, in character my fathers. I therefore did not order, but took care to suggest what seemed useful. When the Pope extends his jurisdiction without limit, he does

great and atrocious injustice not only to other bishops, but to each single church, tearing and dismembering them, that he may build his see upon their ruins. When he exempts himself from all tribunals, and wishes to reign in the manner of a tyrant holding his own caprice to be his only law, the thing is too insulting and too foreign to ecclesiastical rule to be on any account submitted to. It is altogether abhorrent, not only from pious feeling, but also from common sense.

22. But that I may not be forced to discuss and follow out each point singly, I again appeal to those who, in the present day, would be thought the best and most faithful defenders of the Roman see, whether they are not ashamed to defend the existing state of the papacy, which is clearly a hundred times more corrupt than in the days of Gregory and Bernard, though even then these holy men were so much displeased with it. Gregory everywhere complains that he was distracted

above measure by foreign occupations, that under color of the episcopate he was taken back to the world, being subject to more worldly cares than he remembered to have ever had when a laic, that he was so oppressed by the trouble of secular affairs as to be unable to raise his mind to things above, that he was so tossed by the many billows of causes and afflicted by the tempests of a tumultuous life, that he might well say, I am come into the depths of the sea.

It is certain that amid these worldly occupations he could teach the people in sermons, admonish in private, and correct those who required it, order the church, give counsel to his colleagues, and exhort them to their duty. Moreover, some time was left for writing, and yet he deplores it as his calamity that he was plunged into the very deepest sea. If the administration of that time was a sea, what shall we say of the present papacy? For what resemblance is there between the periods? Now there are no sermons, no care for discipline, no zeal for churches, no spiritual function, nothing in short but the world. And yet this

labyrinth is lauded as if nothing could be found better ordered and arranged. What complaints also does Bernard pour forth, what groans does he utter, when he beholds the vices of his own age? What then would he have done on beholding this iron, or, if possible, worse than iron, age of ours? How dishonest, therefore, not only obstinately to defend as sacred and divine what all the saints have always with one mouth disapproved, but to abuse their testimony in favour of the papacy,

which, it is evident, was altogether unknown to them, although I admit, in respect to the time of Bernard, that all things were so corrupt as to make it not unlike our own. But it betrays a want of all sense of shame to seek any excuse from that middle period, namely from that of Leo, Gregory, and the like, for it is just as if one were to vindicate the monarchy of the Caesars by lotting the ancient state of the Roman Empire. In other words, were to borrow the praises of

liberty in order to eulogize tyranny. 23. Lastly, although all these things were granted, an entirely new question arises when we deny that there is at Rome a church in which privileges of this nature can reside, when we deny that there is a bishop to sustain the dignity of these privileges. Assume, therefore, that all these things are true, though we have already extorted the contrary from them, that Peter was by the words of Christ constituted head of the universal

church, and that the honour thus conferred upon him he deposited in the Roman see, that this was sanctioned by the authority of the ancient church and confirmed by long use, that supreme power was always with one consent devolved by all on the Roman pontiff, that while he was the judge of all causes and all men, he was subject to the judgment of none. Let even more be conceded to them if they will, I answer in one word that none of these things avail if there not be a church and

a bishop at Rome. They must of necessity concede to me that she is not a mother of churches, who is not herself a church, that he cannot be the chief of bishops who is not himself a bishop. Would they then have the apostolic see at Rome? Let them give me a true and lawful apostleship. Would they have a supreme pontiff? Let them give me a bishop. But how? Where will they show me any semblance of a church? They, no doubt, talk of one, and have it ever in their mouths. But surely

the church is recognized by certain marks, and bishopric is the name of an office. I am not now speaking of the people, but of the government which ought perpetually to be conspicuous in the church. Where, then, is a ministry such as the institution of Christ requires? Let us remember what was formerly said of the duty of presbyters and bishops. If we bring the office of cardinals to that test, we will acknowledge that they are nothing less than presbyters. But I should like

to know what one quality of a bishop the Pope himself has. The first point in the office of a bishop is to instruct the people in the Word of God. The second and next to it is to administer the sacraments. The third is to admonish and exhort to correct those who are in fault and restrain the people by holy discipline. Which of these things does he do? Nay, which of these things does he pretend to do? Let them say, then, on what ground they will have him to be regarded

as a bishop, who does not even in semblance touch any part of the duty with his little finger. 24. It is not with a bishop as with a king. The latter, though he does not execute the proper duty of a king, nevertheless retains the title and the honour. But in deciding on a bishop, respect is had to the command of Christ, to which effect ought always to be given in the church. Let the Romanists then untie this knot. I deny that their pontiff is the Prince of Bishops,

seeing he is no bishop. This allegation of mine they must prove to be false if they would succeed in theirs. What then do I maintain? That he has nothing proper to a bishop, but is in all things the opposite of a bishop. But with what shall I here begin? With doctrine or with morals? What shall I say, or what shall I pass in silence, or where shall I end? This I maintain, while in the present day the world is so inundated with perverse and impious doctrines,

so full of all kinds of superstition, so blinded by error and sunk in idolatry, there is not one of them which has not emanated from the papacy, or at least been confirmed by it. Nor is there any other reason why the pontiffs are so enraged against the reviving doctrine of the gospel, why they stretch every nerve to oppress it, and urge all kings and princes to cruelty, than just that they see their whole dominion tottering and falling to pieces,

the moment the gospel of Christ prevails. Leo was cruel and Clement sanguinary, Paul is truculent. But in assailing the truth, it is not so much natural temper that impels them as the conviction that they have no other method of maintaining their power. Therefore, seeing they cannot be safe unless they put Christ to flight, they labor in this cause as if they were fighting for their altars and hearts, for their own lives and those of their adherents.

What then? Shall we recognize the apostolic sea, where we see nothing but horrible apostasy? Shall he be the vicar of Christ, who, by his furious efforts in persecuting the gospel, plainly declares himself to be antichrist? Shall he be the successor of Peter, who goes about with fire and sword, demolishing everything that Peter built. Shall he be the head of the church, who, after dissevering the church from Christ, her only true head, tears and lacerates her members?

Rome, indeed, was once the mother of all the churches, but since she began to be the seat of Antichrist, she ceased to be what she was. 25. To some we seem slanderous and petulant when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who think so perceive not that they are bringing a charge of intemperance against Paul, after whom we speak, nay, in whose very words we speak. But lest any one object that Paul's words have a different meaning, and are rested by us

against the Roman pontiff, I will briefly show that they can only be understood of the papacy. Paul says that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God, 2 Thessalonians 2.4. In another passage, the Spirit, portraying him in the person of Antiochus, says that his reign would be with great swelling words of vanity, Daniel 7.25. Hence we infer that his tyranny is more over souls than bodies, a tyranny set up in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ.

Then his nature is such that he abolishes not the name either of Christ or the Church, but rather uses the name of Christ as a pretext, and lurks under the name of the Church as under a mask. But though all the heresies and schisms which have existed from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist, yet when Paul foretells that defection will come, he by the description intimates that that seed of abomination will be erected when a kind of universal defection

comes upon the church, though many members of the church scattered up and down should continue in the true unity of the faith. But when he adds that in his own time the mystery of iniquity, which was afterwards to be openly manifested, had begun to work in secret, we thereby understand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by one man, nor to terminate in one man. Moreover, when the mark by which he distinguishes Antichrist is, that he

would rob God of his honour and take it to himself, he gives the leading feature which we ought to follow in searching out Antichrist, especially when pride of this description proceeds to the open devastation of the Church. Seeing then it is certain that the Roman pontiff has impudently transferred to himself the most peculiar properties of God and Christ, there cannot be a doubt that he is the leader and standard-bearer of an impious and abominable kingdom.

26. Let the Romanists now go and oppose us with antiquity, as if, amid such a complete change in every respect, the honour of the sea can continue where there is no sea. Eusebius says that God, to make way for his vengeance, transferred the church which was at Jerusalem to Pella. What we are told was once done, may have been done repeatedly. Hence it is too absurd and ridiculous so to fix the honour of the primacy to a particular spot, so that he who is in fact

the most inveterate enemy of Christ, the chief adversary of the gospel, the greatest devastator and waster of the church, the most cruel slayer and murderer of the saints, should be, nevertheless, regarded as the vice-regent of Christ, the successor of Peter, the first priest of the church, merely because he occupies what was formerly the first of all sees. I do not say how great the difference is between the chancery of the pope and well-regulated order in the church,

although this one fact might well set the question at rest. For no man of sound mind will include the episcopate in lead and bulls, much less in that administration of captions and circumscriptions in which the spiritual government of the Pope is supposed to consist. It has therefore been elegantly said that that vaunted Roman church was long ago converted into a temporal court, the only thing which is now seen at Rome. I am not here speaking of the vices of individuals,

but demonstrating that the papacy itself is diametrically opposed to the ecclesiastical system. 27. But if we come to individuals, it is well known what kind of vicars of Christ we shall find. No doubt Julius and Leo, and Clement and Paul, will be pillars of the Christian faith, the first interpreters of religion, though they knew nothing more of Christ than they had learned in the school of Lucian. But why give the names of three or four pontiffs, as if there were any

doubt as to the kind of religion professed by pontiffs, with their college of cardinals and professors in the present day? The first head of the secret theology which is in vogue among them is, that there is no God. Another, that whatever things have been written and are taught concerning Christ are lies and imposture. A third, that the doctrine of a future life and final resurrection is a mere fable. All do not think, few speak thus, I confess it. Yet it is long since this

began to be the ordinary religion of pontiffs, and though the thing is notorious to all who know Rome, Roman theologians cease not to boast that by special privilege our Saviour has provided that the Pope cannot err, because it was said to Peter, I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. Luke 22.32. What prey do they gain by their effrontery but to let the whole world understand that they have reached the extreme of wickedness, so as neither to fear God nor regard

man. 28. But let us suppose that the iniquity of these pontiffs whom I have mentioned is not known, as they have not published it either in sermons or writings, but betrayed it only at table or in their chamber, or at least within the walls of their court. But if they would have the privilege which they claim to be confirmed, they must expunge from their list of pontiffs John XXII, who publicly maintained that the soul is mortal, and perishes with the body till the day of

resurrection. And to show you that the whole sea with its chief props then utterly fell, none of the cardinals opposed his madness, only the faculty of Paris urged the king to insist on a recantation. The king interdicted his subjects from communion with him unless he would immediately recant, and published his interdict in the usual way by a herald. Thus necessitated, he abjured his error. This example relieves me from the necessity of disputing

further with my opponents, when they say that the Roman see and its pontiffs cannot err in the faith, from its being said to Peter, I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. Certainly by this shameful lapse he fell from the faith, and became a noted proof to posterity that all are not Peter's who succeed Peter in the episcopate, although the thing is too childish in itself to need an answer, for if they insist on applying everything that was said to Peter to the successors of Peter,

it will follow that they are all Satan's, because our Lord once said to Peter, get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me. It is as easy for us to retort the latter saying as for them to adduce the former. 29. But I have no pleasure in this absurd mode of disputation, and therefore return to the point from which I digressed. To fix down Christ and the Holy Spirit and the church to a particular spot, so that every one who presides in it, should he

be a devil, must still be deemed vice-regent of Christ and the head of the church, because that spot was formerly the see of Peter, is not only impious and insulting to Christ, but absurd and contrary to common sense. For a long period the Roman pontiffs have either been altogether devoid of religion, or been its greatest enemies. The see which they occupy, therefore, no more makes them the vicars of Christ, then it makes an idol to become God when it is placed in the temple of

God. 2 Thessalonians 2.4. Then, if matters be inquired into, let the popes answer for themselves what there is in them that can make them be recognized for bishops. First, the mode of life at Rome, while they not only connive and are silent, but also tacitly approve, is altogether unworthy of bishops, whose duty it is to curb the license of the people by the strictness of discipline. But I will not be so rigid with them as to charge them with the faults of others.

But when they with their household, with almost the whole college of cardinals, and the whole body of their clergy, are so devoted to wickedness, obscenity, uncleanness, iniquity, and crime of every description, that they resemble monsters more than men, they hear and betray that they are nothing less than bishops. They need not fear that I will make a farther disclosure of their turpitude, for it is painful to wade through such filthy mire, and I must spare modest ears.

But I think I have amply demonstrated what I proposed, that is, that though Rome was formerly the first of churches, she deserves not in the present day to be regarded as one of her minutest members. 30. In regard to those whom they call cardinals, I know not how it happened that they rose so suddenly to such a height. In the time of Gregory the name was applied to bishops only, for whenever he makes mention of cardinals he assigns them not only to the Roman church,

but to every other church, so that, in short, a cardinal priest is nothing else than a bishop. I do not find the name among the writers of a former age. I see, however, that they were inferior to bishops whom they now far surpass. There is a well-known passage in Augustine, quote, although, in regard to terms of honour which custom has fixed in the church, the office of bishop is greater than that of presbyter, yet in many things Augustine is

inferior to Jerome. Here certainly he is not distinguishing a presbyter of the Roman church from other presbyters, but is placing all of them alike under bishops. And so strictly was this observed, that at the Council of Carthage, when two legates of the Roman sea were present, one a bishop and the other a presbyter, the latter was put in the lowest place. but not to dwell too much on ancient times we have account of a council held at rome under gregory at which the presbyters sit in the lowest place and subscribe by themselves while deacons do not subscribe at all

indeed they had no office at that time unless to be present under the bishop and assist him in the administration of word and sacraments so much is their lot now changed that they have become associates of kings and caesars and there can be no doubt that they have grown gradually with their head until they reached their present pinnacle of dignity this much it seemed proper to say in passing that my readers may understand how very widely the roman see as it now exists differs from the ancient see under which it endeavours to cloak and defend itself but whatever they were formerly as they have no true and legitimate office in the church they only retain a colour and empty mask nay as they are in all respects the opposite of true ministers the thing which gregory so often writes must of necessity have befallen them his words are weeping i say groaning i declare it when the sacerdotal order has fallen within it cannot long stand without nay rather what malachi says of such persons must 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 have i also made you contemptible and base before all the people malachi two eight and nine i now leave all the pious to judge what the supreme pinnacle of the roman hierarchy must be to which the papists with nefarious effrontery hesitate not to subject the word of god itself that word which should be venerable and holy in earth and heaven to men and angels and of section thirteen