(Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4, part 8)
Chapter 7. Of the beginning and rise of the Romish papacy till it
attained a height by which the liberty of the church was destroyed,
and all true rule overthrown.
There are five heads in this chapter. I. The Patriarchate given
and confirmed to the Bishop of Rome, first by the Council of Nice,
and afterwards by that of Chalcedony, though by no means approved of
by other bishops, was the commencement of the Papacy, sec. 1-4. II.
The Church at Rome, by taking pious exiles under its protection, and
also thereby protecting wicked men who fled to her, helped forward
the mystery of iniquity, although at that time neither the
ordination of bishops, nor admonitions and censures, nor the right
of convening Councils, nor the right of receiving appeals, belonged
to the Roman Bishop, whose profane meddling with these things was
condemned by Gregory, sec. 5-13. III. After the Council of Turin,
disputes arose as to the authority of Metropolitans. Disgraceful
strife between the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople. The vile
assassin Phocas put an end to these brawls at the instigation of
Boniface, sec. 14-18. IV. To the dishonest arts of Boniface
succeeded fouler frauds devised in more modern times, and expressly
condemned by Gregory and Bernard, sec. 19-21. V. The Papacy at
length appeared complete in all its parts, the seat of Antichrist.
Its impiety, execrable tyranny, and wickedness, portrayed, sec.
23-30.
Sections.
1. First part of the chapter, in which the commencement of the
Papacy is assigned to the Council of Nice. In subsequent
Councils other bishops presided. No attempt then made to claim
the first place.
2. Though the Roman Bishop presided in the Council of Chalcedony,
this was owing to special circumstances. The same right not
given to his successors in other Councils.
3. The ancient Fathers did not give the title of Primate to the
Roman Bishop.
4. Gregory was vehement in opposition to the title when claimed by
the Bishop of Constantinople, and did not claim it for himself.
5. Second part of the chapter, explaining the ambitious attempts of
the Roman See to obtain the primacy. Their reception of pious
exiles. Hearing the appeals and complaints of heretics. Their
ambition in this respect offensive to the African Church.
6. The power of the Roman Bishops in ordaining bishops, appointing
councils, deciding controversies, &c., confined to their own
Patriarchate.
7. If they censured other bishops, they themselves were censured in
their turn.
8. They had no right of calling provincial councils except within
their own boundaries. The calling of a universal council
belonged solely to the Emperor.
9. Appeal to the Roman See not acknowledged by other bishops.
Stoutly resisted by the Bishops of France and Africa. The
impudence and falsehood of the Roman Pontiff detected.
10. Proof from history that the Roman had no jurisdiction over other
churches.
11. The decretal epistles of no avail in support of this usurped
jurisdiction.
12. The authority of the Roman Bishop extended in the time of
Gregory. Still it only consisted in aiding other bishops with
their own consent, or at the command of the Emperor.
13. Even the extent of jurisdiction, thus voluntarily conferred,
objected to by Gregory as interfering with better duties.
14. Third part of the chapter, showing the increase of the power of
the Papacy in defining the limits of Metropolitans. This gave
rise to the decree of the Council of Turin. This decree
haughtily annulled by Innocent.
15. Hence the great struggle for precedence between the Sees of Rome
and Constantinople. The pride and ambition of the Roman Bishops
unfolded.
16. Many attempts of the Bishop of Constantinople to deprive the
Bishop of Rome of the primacy.
17. Phocas murders the Emperor, and gives Rome the primacy.
18. The Papal tyranny shortly after established. Bitter complaints
by Bernard.
19. Fourth part of the chapter. Altered appearance of the Roman See
since the days of Gregory.
20. The present demands of the Romanists not formerly conceded.
Fictions of Gregory IX and Martin.
21. Without mentioning the opposition of Cyprian, of councils, and
historical facts, the claims now made were condemned by Gregory
himself.
22. The abuses of which Gregory and Bernard complained now increased
and sanctioned.
23. The fifth and last part of the chapter, containing the chief
answer to the claims of the Papacy, viz., that the Pope is not
a bishop in the house of God. This answer confirmed by an
enumeration of the essential parts of the episcopal office.
24. A second confirmation by appeal to the institution of Christ. A
third confirmation e contrario, viz., That in doctrine and
morals the Roman Pontiff is altogether different from a true
bishop. Conclusion, that Rome is not the Apostolic See, but the
Papacy.
25. Proof from Daniel and Paul that the Pope is Antichrist.
26. Rome could not now claim the primacy, even though she had
formerly been the first See, especially considering the base
trafficking in which she has engaged.
27. Personal character of Popes. Irreligious opinions held by some
of them.
28. John XXII heretical in regard to the immortality of the soul.
His name, therefore, ought to be expunged from the catalogue of
Popes or rather, there is no foundation for the claim of
perpetuity of faith in the Roman See.
29. Some Roman Pontiffs atheists, or sworn enemies of religion.
Their immoral lives. Practice of the Cardinals and Romish
clergy.
30. Cardinals were formerly merely presbyters of the Roman Church,
and far inferior to bishops. As they now are, they have no true
and legitimate office in the Church. Conclusion.
1. In regard to the antiquity of the primacy of the Roman See,
there is nothing in favour of its establishment more ancient than
the decree of the Council of Nice, by which the first place among
the Patriarchs is assigned to the Bishop of Rome, and he is enjoined
to take care of the suburban churches. While the council, in
dividing between him and the other Patriarchs, assigns the proper
limits of each, it certainly does not appoint him head of all, but
only one of the chief. Vitus and Vincentius attended on the part of
Julius, who then governed the Roman Church and to them the fourth
place was given. I ask, if Julius was acknowledged the head of the
Church, would his legates have been consigned to the fourth place?
Would Athanasius have presided in the council where a representative
of the hierarchal order should have been most conspicuous? In the
Council of Ephesus, it appears that Celestinus (who was then Roman
Pontiff) used a cunning device to secure the dignity of his See. For
when he sent his deputies, he made Cyril of Alexandria, who
otherwise would have presided, his substitute. Why that commission,
but just that his name might stand connected with the first See? His
legates sit in an inferior place, are asked their opinion along with
others, and subscribe in their order, while, at the same time, his
name is coupled with that of the Patriarch of Alexandria. What shall
I say of the second Council of Ephesus, where, while the deputies of
Leo were present, the Alexandria Patriarch Dioscorus presided as in
his own right? They will object that this was not an orthodox
council, since by it the venerable Flavianus was condemned, Eutyches
acquitted, and his heresy approved. Yet when the council was met,
and the bishops distributed the places among themselves, the
deputies of the Roman Church sat among the others just as in a
sacred and lawful Council. Still they contend not for the first
place, but yield it to another: this they never would have done if
they had thought it their own by right. For the Roman bishops were
never ashamed to stir up the greatest strife in contending for
honours, and for this cause alone, to trouble and harass the Church
with many pernicious contests; but because Leo saw that it would be
too extravagant to ask the first place for his legates, he omitted
to do it.
2. Next came the Council of Chalcedony, in which, by concession
of the Emperor, the legates of the Roman Church occupied the first
place. But Leo himself confesses that this was an extraordinary
privilege; for when he asks it of the Emperor Martian and Pulcheria
Augusta, he does not maintain that it is due to him, but only
pretends that the Eastern bishops who presided in the Council of
Ephesus had thrown all into confusion, and made a bad use of their
power. Therefore, seeing there was need of a grave moderator, and it
was not probable that those who had once been so fickle and
tumultuous would be fit for this purpose, he requests that, because
of the fault and unfitness of others, the office of governing should
be transferred to him. That which is asked as a special privilege,
and out of the usual order, certainly is not due by a common law.
When it is only pretended that there is need of a new president,
because the former ones had behaved themselves improperly, it is
plain that the thing asked was not previously done, and ought not to
be made perpetual, being done only in respect of a present danger.
The Roman Pontiff, therefore, holds the first place in the Council
of Chalcedony, not because it is due to his See, but because the
council is in want of a grave and fit moderator, while those who
ought to have presided exclude themselves by their intemperance and
passion. This statement the successor of Leo approved by his
procedure. For when he sent his legates to the fifth Council, that
of Constantinople, which was held long after he did not quarrel for
the first seat, but readily allowed Mennas, the patriarch of
Constantinople, to preside. In like manner, in the Council of
Carthage, at which Augustine was present, we perceive that not the
legates of the Roman See, but Aurelius, the archbishop of the place,
presided, although there was then a question as to the authority of
the Roman Pontiff. Nay, even in Italy itself, an universal council
was held, (that of Aquileia,) at which the Roman Bishop was not
present. Ambrose, who was then in high favour with the Emperor
presided, and no mention is made of the Roman Pontiff. Therefore,
owing to the dignity of Ambrose, the See of Milan was then more
illustrious than that of Rome.
3. In regard to the mere title of primate and other titles of
pride, of which that pontiff now makes a wondrous boast, it is not
difficult to understand how and in what way they crept in. Cyprian
often makes mention of Cornelius, (Cyprian. Lib. 2 Ep. 2; Lib. 4 Ep.
6,) nor does he distinguish him by any other name than that of
brother, or fellow bishop, or colleague. When he writes to Stephen,
the successor of Cornelius, he not only makes him the equal of
himself and others, but addresses him in harsh terms, charging him
at one time with presumption, at another with ignorance. After
Cyprian, we have the judgement of the whole African church on the
subject. For the Council of Carthage enjoined that none should be
called chief of the priests, or first bishop, but only bishop of the
first See. But any one who will examine the more ancient records
will find that the Roman Pontiff was then contented with the common
appellation of brother. Certainly, as long as the true and pure form
of the Church continued, all these names of pride on which the Roman
See afterwards began to plume itself, were altogether unheard of;
none knew what was meant by the supreme Pontiff, and the only head
of the Church on earth. Had the Roman Bishop presumed to assume any
such title, there were right-hearted men who would immediately have
repressed his folly. Jerome, seeing he was a Roman presbyter, was
not slow to proclaim the dignity of his church, in as far as fact
and the circumstances of the times permitted, and yet we see how he
brings it under due subordination. "If authority is asked, the world
is greater than a city. Why produce to me the custom of one city?
Why vindicate a small number with whom superciliousness has
originated against the laws of the Church? Wherever the bishop be,
whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhenium, the
merit is the same, and the priesthood the same. The power of riches,
or the humbleness of poverty, do not make a bishop superior or
inferior," (Hieron. Ep. ad Evagr.)
4. The controversy concerning the title of universal bishop
arose at length in the time of Gregory, and was occasioned by the
ambition of John of Constantinople. For he wished to make himself
universal, a thing which no other had ever attempted. In that
controversy, Gregory does not allege that he is deprived of a right
which belonged to him but he strongly insists that the appellation
is profane, nay, blasphemous, nay, the forerunner of Antichrist.
"The whole Church falls from its state, if he who is called
universal falls," (Greg. Lib. 4 Ep. 76.) Again, "It is very
difficult to bear patiently that one who is our brother and fellow
bishop should alone be called bishop, while all others are despised.
But in this pride of his, what else is intimated but that the days
of Antichrist are already near? For he is imitating him, who,
despising the company of angels, attempted to ascend the pinnacle of
greatness," (Lib. 4 Ep. 76.) He elsewhere says to Eulogies of
Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch: "None of my predecessors ever
desired to use this profane term: for if one patriarch is called
universal, it is derogatory to the name of patriarch in others. But
far be it from any Christian mind to wish to arrogate to itself that
which would in any degree, however slight, impair the honour of his
brethren," (Lib. 4 Ep. 80.) "To consent to that impious term is
nothing else than to lose the faith," (Lib. 4 Ep. 83.) "What we owe
to the preservation of the unity of the faith is one thing, what we
owe to the suppression of pride is another. I speak with confidence,
for every one that calls himself, or desires to be called universal
priest, is by his pride a forerunner of Antichrist, because he acts
proudly in preferring himself to others," (Lib. 7 Ep. 154.) Thus,
again, in a letter to Anastasius of Antioch, "I said, that he could
not have peace with us unless he corrected the presumption of a
superstitious and haughty term which the first apostate invented;
and (to say nothing of the injury to your honour) if one bishop is
called universal, the whole Church goes to ruin when that universal
bishop falls," (Lib. 6 Ep. 188.) But when he writes, that this
honour was offered to Leo in the Council of Chalcedony, (Lib. 4 Ep.
76, 80; Lib. 7 Ep. 76;,) he says what has no semblance of truth;
nothing of the kind is found among the acts of that council. And Leo
himself, who, in many letters, impugns the decree which was then
made in honour of the See of Constantinople, undoubtedly would not
have omitted this argument, which was the most plausible of all, if
it was true that he himself repudiated what was given to him. One
who, in other respects, was rather too desirous of honour, would not
have omitted what would have been to his praise. Gregory, therefore,
is incorrect in saying, that that title was conferred on the Roman
See by the Council of Chalcedony; not to mention how ridiculous it
is for him to says that it proceeded from that sacred council, and
yet to term it wicked, profane, nefarious, proud, and blasphemous,
nay, devised by the devil, and promulgated by the herald of
Antichrist. And yet he adds, that his predecessor refused it, lest
by that which was given to one individually all priests should be
deprived of their due honour. In another place, he says, "None ever
wished to be called by such a name; none arrogated this rash name to
himself, lest, by seizing on the honour of supremacy in the office
of the Pontificate, he might seem to deny it to all his brethren,"
(Gregor. Lib. 4 Ep. 82.)
5. I come now to jurisdiction, which the Roman Pontiff asserts
as an incontrovertible proposition that he possesses over all
churches. I am aware of the great disputes which anciently existed
on this subject: for there never was a time when the Roman See did
not aim at authority over other churches. And here it will not be
out of place to investigate the means by which she gradually
attained to some influence. I am not now referring to that unlimited
power which she seized at a comparatively recent period. The
consideration of that we shall defer to its own place. But it is
worth while here briefly to show in what way, and by what means, she
formerly raised herself, so as to arrogate some authority over other
churches. When the churches of the East were troubled and rent by
the factions of the Asians, under the Emperors Constantius and
Constans, sons of Constantine the Great; and Athanasius, the
principal defender of the orthodox faith, had been driven from his
see, the calamity obliged him to come to Rome, in order that by the
authority of this see he might both repress the rage of his enemies,
and confirm the orthodox under their distress. He was honourably
received by Julius, who was then bishop, and engaged those of the
West to undertake the defence of his cause. Therefore, when the
orthodox stood greatly in need of external aid, and perceived that
their chief protection lay in the Roman See, they willingly bestowed
upon it all the authority they could. But the utmost extent of this
was, that its communion was held in high estimations and it was
deemed ignominious to be excommunicated by it. Dishonest bad men
afterwards added much to its authority, for when they wished to
escape lawful tribunals, they retook themselves to Rome as an
asylum. Accordingly, if any presbyter was condemned by his bishop,
or if any bishop was condemned by the synod of his province, he
appealed to Rome. These appeals the Roman bishops received more
eagerly than they ought, because it seemed a species of
extraordinary power to interpose in matters with which their
connection was so very remote. Thus, when Eutyches was condemned by
Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople, he complained to Leo that the
sentence was unjust. He, nothing loth, no less presumptuously than
abruptly, undertook the patronage of a bad cause, and inveighed
bitterly against Flavianus, as having condemned an innocent man
without due investigation: and thus the effect of Leo's ambition
was, that for some time the impiety of Eutyches was confirmed. It is
certain that in Africa the same thing repeatedly occurred, for
whenever any miscreant had been condemned by his ordinary judge, he
fled to Rome, and brought many calumnious charges against his own
people. The Roman See was always ready to interpose. This dishonesty
obliged the African bishops to decree that no one should carry an
appeal beyond sea under pain of excommunication.
6. Be this as it may, let us consider what right or authority
the Roman See then possessed. Ecclesiastical power may be reduced to
four heads, viz., ordination of bishops, calling of councils,
hearing of appeals, (or jurisdiction,) inflicting monitory
chastisements or censures. All ancient councils enjoin that bishops
shall be ordained by their own Metropolitans; they nowhere enjoin an
application to the Roman Bishop, except in his own patriarchate.
Gradually however, it became customary for all Italian bishops to go
to Rome for consecration, with the exception of the Metropolitans,
who did not allow themselves to be thus brought into subjection; but
when any Metropolitan was to be ordained, the Roman Bishop sent one
of his presbyters merely to be present, but not to preside. An
example of this kind is extant in Gregory, (Lib. 2 Ep. 68, 70,) in
the consecration of Constantius of Milan, after the death of
Laurence. I do not, however, think that this was a very ancient
custom. At first, as a mark of respect and good will, they sent
deputies to one another to witness the ordination, and attest their
communion. What was thus voluntary afterwards began to be regarded
as necessary. However this be, it is certain that anciently the
Roman Bishop had no power of ordaining except within the bounds of
his own patriarchate, that is, as a, canon of the Council of Nice
expresses it, in suburban churches. To ordination was added the
sending of a synodical epistle, but this implied no authority. The
patriarchs were accustomed, immediately after consecration, to
attest their faith by a formal writing, in which they declared that
they assented to sacred and orthodox councils. Thus, by rendering an
account of their faith, they mutually approved of each other. If the
Roman Bishop had received this confession from others, and not given
it, he would therein have been acknowledged superior; but when it
behoved to give as well as to receive, and to be subject to the
common law, this was a sign of equality, not of lordship. Of this we
have an example in a letter of Gregory to Anastasius and Cyriac of
Constantinople, and in another letter to all the patriarchs
together, (Gregor. Lib. 1 Ep. 24, 25; Lib. 6 Ep. 169.)
7. Next come admonitions or censures. These the Roman Bishops
anciently employed towards others, and in their turn received.
Irenaeus sharply rebuked Victor for rashly troubling the Church with
a pernicious schism, for a matter of no moment. He submitted without
objecting. Holy bishops were then wont to use the freedom as
brethren of admonishing and rebuking the Roman Prelate when he
happened to err. He in his turn, when the case required, reminded
others of their duty, and reprimanded them for their faults. For
Cyprian, when he exhorts Stephen to admonish the bishops of France,
does not found on his larger power, but on the common right which
priests have in regard to each other, (Cyprian. Lib. 3 Ep. 13.) I
ask if Stephen had then presided over France, would not Cyprian have
said, "Check them, for they are yours?" but his language is very
different. "The brotherly fellowship which binds us together
requires that we should mutually admonish each other," (Cyprian. ad
Pomp. Cont. Epist. Steph.) And we see also with what severity of
expressions a man otherwise of a mild temper, inveighs against
Stephen himself when he thinks him chargeable with insolence.
Therefore, it does not yet appear in this respect that the Roman
Bishop possessed any jurisdiction over those who did not belong to
his province.
8. In regard to calling of councils, it was the duty of every
Metropolitan to assemble a provincial synod at stated times. Here
the Roman Bishop had no jurisdiction, while the Emperor alone could
summon a general council. Had any of the bishops attempted this, not
only would those out of the province not have obeyed the call, but a
tumult would instantly have arisen. Therefore the Emperor gave
intimation to all alike to attend. Socrates, indeed, relates that
Julius expostulated with the Eastern bishops for not having called
him to the Council of Antioch, seeing it was forbidden by the canons
that any thing should be decided without the knowledge of the Roman
Bishop, (Tripart. Hist. Lib. 4). But who does not perceive that this
is to be understood of those decrees which bind the whole Church? At
the same time, it is not strange if, in deference both to the
antiquity and largeness of the city, and the dignity of the see, no
universal decree concerning religion should be made in the absence
of the Bishop of Rome, provided he did not refuse to be present. But
what has this to do with the dominion of the whole Church? For we
deny not that he was one of the principal bishops though we are
unwilling to admit what the Romanists now contend for, viz., that he
had power over all.
9. The fourth remaining species of power is that of hearing
appeals. It is evident that the supreme power belongs to him to
whose tribunal appeals are made. Many had repeatedly appealed to the
Roman Pontiff. He also had endeavoured to bring causes under his
cognisance, but he had always been derided whenever he went beyond
his own boundaries. I say nothing of the East and of Greece, but it
is certain, that the bishops of France stoutly resisted when he
seemed to assume authority over them. In African the subject was
long disputed, for in the Council of Milevita, at which Augustine
was present, when those who carried appeals beyond seas were
excommunicated, the Roman Pontiff attempted to obtain an alteration
of the decree, and sent legates to show that the privilege of
hearing appeals was given him by the Council of Nice. The legates
produced acts of the council drawn from the armoury of their church.
The African bishops resisted and maintained, that credit was not to
be given to the Bishop of Rome in his own cause; accordingly, they
said that they would send to Constantinople, and other cities of
Greece, where less suspicious copies might be had. It was found that
nothing like what the Romanists had pretended was contained in the
acts, and thus the decree which abrogated the supreme jurisdiction
of the Roman Pontiff was confirmed. In this matter was manifested
the egregious effrontery of the Roman Pontiff. For when he had
fraudulently substituted the Council of Sardis for that of Nice, he
was disgracefully detected in a palpable falsehood; but still
greater and more impudent was the iniquity of those who added a
fictitious letter to the Council, in which some Bishop of Carthage
condemns the arrogance of Aurelius his predecessor, in promising to
withdraw himself from obedience to the Apostolic See, and making a
surrender of himself and his church, suppliantly prays for pardon.
These are the noble records of antiquity on which the majesty of the
Roman See is founded, while, under the pretext of antiquity, they
deal in falsehoods so puerile, that even a blind man might feel
them. "Aurelius, (says he,) elated by diabolical audacity and
contumacy, was rebellious against Christ and St Peter, and,
accordingly, deserved to be anathematised." What does Augustine say?
and what the many Fathers who were present at the Council of
Milevita? But what need is there to give a lengthened refutation of
that absurd writing, which not even Romanists, if they have any
modesty left them, can look at without a deep feeling of shame? Thus
Gratian, whether through malice or ignorance, I know not, after
quoting the decree, That those are to be deprived of communion who
carry appeals beyond seas, subjoins the exception, Unless, perhaps,
they have appealed to the Roman See, (Grat. 2, Quest. 4, cap.
Placuit.) What can you make of creatures like these who are so
devoid of common sense, that they set down as an exception from the
law the very thing on account of which, as every body sees, the law
was made? For the Council, in condemning transmarine appeals, simply
prohibits an appeal to Rome. Yet this worthy expounder excepts Rome
from the common law.
10. But (to end the question at once) the kind of jurisdiction
which belonged to the Roman Bishop one narrative will make manifest.
Donates of Casa Nigra had accused Cecilianus the Bishop of Carthage.
Cecilianus was condemned without a hearing: for, having ascertained
that the bishops had entered into a conspiracy against him, he
refused to appear. The case was brought before the Emperor
Constantine, who, wishing the matter to be ended by an
ecclesiastical decision, gave the cognisance of it to Melciades, the
Roman Bishop, appointing as his colleagues some bishops from Italy,
France, and Spain. If it formed part of the ordinary jurisdiction of
the Roman see to hear appeals in ecclesiastical causes, why did he
allow others to be conjoined with him at the Emperor's discretion?
nay, why does he undertake to decide more from the command of the
Emperor than his own office? But let us hear what afterwards
happened, (see August. Ep. 162, et alibi.) Cecilianus prevails.
Donates of Casa Nigra is thrown in his calumnious action and
appeals. Constantine devolves the decision of the appeal on the
Bishop of Arles, who sits as judge, to give sentence after the Roman
Pontiff. If the Roman See has supreme power not subject to appeal,
why does Melciades allow himself to be so greatly insulted as to
have the Bishop of Arles preferred to him? And who is the Emperor
that does this? Constantine, who they boast not only made it his
constant study, but employed all the resources of the empire to
enlarge the dignity of that see. We see, therefore, how far in every
way the Roman Pontiff was from that supreme dominion, which he
asserts to have been given him by Christ over all churches, and
which he falsely alleges that he possessed in all ages, with the
consent of the whole world.
11. I know how many epistles there are, how many rescripts and
edicts in which there is nothing which the pontiffs do not ascribe
and confidently arrogate to themselves. But all men of the least
intellect and learning know, that the greater part of them are in
themselves so absurd, that it is easy at the first sight to detect
the forge from which they have come. Does any man of sense and
soberness think that Anacletus is the author of that famous
interpretation which is given in Gratian, under the name of
Anacletus, viz., that Cephas is head? (Dist. 22 cap. Sacrosancta.)
Numerous follies of the same kind which Gratian has heaped together
without judgement, the Romanists of the present day employ against
us in defence of their see. The smoke, by which, in the former days
of ignorance, they imposed upon the ignorant, they would still vend
in the present light. I am unwilling to take much trouble in
refuting things which, by their esteems absurdity, plainly refute
themselves. I admit the existence of genuine epistles by ancient
Pontiffs, in which they pronounce magnificent eulogiums on the
extent of their see. Such are some of the epistles of Leo. For as he
possessed learning and eloquence, so he was excessively desirous of
glory and dominion; but the true question is, whether or not, when
he thus extolled himself, the churches gave credit to his testimony?
It appears that many were offended with his ambition, and also
resisted his cupidity. He in one place appoints the Bishop of
Thessalonica his vicar throughout Greece and other neighbouring
regions, (Leo, Ep. 85,) and elsewhere gives the same office to the
Bishop of Arles or some other throughout France, (Ep. 83.) In like
manner, he appointed Hormisdas, Bishop of Hispala, his vicar
throughout Spain, but he uniformly makes this reservation, that in
giving such commissions, the ancient privileges of the Metropolitans
were to remain safe and entire. These appointments, therefore, were
made on the condition, that no bishop should be impeded in his
ordinary jurisdiction, no metropolitan in taking cognisance of
appeals, no provincial council in constituting churches. But what
else was this than to decline all jurisdiction, and to interpose for
the purpose of settling discord only, in so far as the law and
nature of ecclesiastical communion admit?
12. In the time of Gregory, that ancient rule was greatly
changed. For when the empire was convulsed and torn, when France and
Spain were suffering from the many disasters which they ever and
anon received, when Illyricum was laid waste, Italy harassed, and
Africa almost destroyed by uninterrupted calamities, in order that,
during these civil convulsions, the integrity of the faith might
remain, or at least not entirely perish, the bishops in all quarters
attached themselves more to the Roman Pontiff. In this way, not only
the dignity, but also the power of the see, exceedingly increased,
although I attach no great importance to the means by which this was
accomplished. It is certain, that it was then greater than in former
ages. And yet it was very different from the unbridled dominion of
one ruling others as he pleased. Still the reverence paid to the
Roman See was such that by its authority it could guide and repress
those whom their own colleagues were unable to keep to their duty;
for Gregory is careful ever and anon to testify that he was not less
faithful in preserving the rights of others, than in insisting that
his own should be preserved. "I do not," says he, "under the
stimulus of ambition, derogate from any man's right, but desire to
honour my brethren in all things," (Gregor. Lib. 2 Ep. 68.) There is
no sentence in his writings in which he boasts more proudly of the
extent of his primacy than the following: "I know not what bishop is
not subject to the Roman See, when he is discovered in a fault,"
(Leo, Lib. 2, Epist. 68.) However, he immediately adds, "Where
faults do not call for interference, all are equal according to the
rule of humility." He claims for himself the right of correcting
those who have sinned; if all do their duty, he puts himself on a
footing of equality. He, indeed, claimed this right, and those who
chose assented to it, while those who were not pleased with it were
at liberty to object with impunity; and it is known that the greater
part did so. We may add, that he is then speaking of the primate of
Byzantium, who, when condemned by a provincial synod, repudiated the
whole judgement. His colleagues had informed the Emperor of his
contumacy, and the Emperor had given the cognisance of the matter to
Gregory. We see, therefore, that he does not interfere in any way
with the ordinary jurisdiction, and that, in acting as a subsidiary
to others, he acts entirely by the Emperor's command.
13. At this time, therefore, the whole power of the Roman
Bishop consisted in opposing stubborn and ungovernable spirits,
where some extraordinary remedy was required, and this in order to
assist other bishops, not to interfere with them. Therefore, he
assumes no more power over others than he elsewhere gives others
over himself, when he confesses that he is ready to be corrected by
all, amended by all, (Lib. 2 Ep. 37.) So, in another place, though
he orders the Bishop of Aquileia to come to Rome to plead his cause
in a controversy as to doctrine which had arisen between himself and
others, he thus orders not of his own authority, but in obedience to
the Emperor's command. Nor does he declare that he himself will be
sole judge, but promises to call a synod, by which the whole
business may be determined. But although the moderation was still
such, that the power of the Roman See had certain limits which it
was not permitted to overstep, and the Roman Bishop himself was not
more above than under others, it appears how much Gregory was
dissatisfied with this state of matters. For he ever and anon
complains, that he, under the colour of the episcopates, was brought
back to the world, and was more involved in earthly cares than when
living as a laic; that he, in that honourable office, was oppressed
by the tumult of secular affairs. Elsewhere he says, "So many
burdensome occupations depress me, that my mind cannot at all rise
to things above. I am shaken by the many billows of causes, and
after they are quieted, am afflicted by the tempests of a tumultuous
life, so that I may truly say I am come into the depths of the sea,
and the flood has overwhelmed me." From this I infer what he would
have said if he had fallen on the present times. If he did not
fulfil, he at least did the duty of a pastor. He declined the
administration of civil power, and acknowledged himself subject,
like others, to the Emperor. He did not interfere with the
management of other churches, unless forced by necessity. And yet he
thinks himself in a labyrinth, because he cannot devote himself
entirely to the duty of a bishop.
14. At that time, as has already been said, the Bishop of
Constantinople was disputing with the Bishop of Rome for the
primacy. For after the seat of empire was fixed at Constantinople,
the majesty of the empire seemed to demand that that church should
have the next place of honour to that of Rome. And certainly, at the
outset, nothing had tended more to give the primacy to Rome, than
that it was then the capital of the empire. In Gratian, (Dist. 80,)
there is a rescript under the name of Pope Lucius, to the effect
that the only way in which the cities where Metropolitans and
Primates ought to preside were distinguished, was by means of the
civil government which had previously existed. There is a similar
rescript under the name of Pope Clement, in which he says that
patriarchs were appointed in those cities which had previously had
the first flames. Although this is absurd, it was borrowed from what
was true. For it is certain, that in order to make as little change
as possible, provinces were distributed according to the state of
matters then existing, and Primates and Metropolitans were placed in
those cities which surpassed others in honours and power.
Accordingly, it was decreed in the Council of Turin, that the cities
of every province which were first in the civil government should be
the first sees of bishops. But if it should happen that the honour
of civil government was transferred from one city to another, then
the right of the metropolis should be at the same time transferred
thither. But Innocent, the Roman Pontiff, seeing that the ancient
dignity of the city had been decaying ever since the seat of empire
had been transferred to Constantinople, and fearing for his see,
enacted a contrary law, in which he denies the necessity of changing
metropolitan churches as imperial metropolitan cities were changed.
But the authority of a synod is justly to be preferred to the
opinion of one individual, and Innocent himself should be suspected
in his own cause. However this be, he by his caveat shows the
original rule to have been, that Metropolitans should be distributed
according to the order of the empire.
15. Agreeably to this ancient custom, the first Council of
Constantinople decreed that the bishop of that city should take
precedence after the Roman Pontiff, because it was a new Rome. But
long after, when a similar decree was made at Chalcedony, Leo keenly
protested, (Socrat. Hist. Trop. Lib. 9 cap. 13.) And not only did he
permit himself to set at nought what six hundred bishops or more had
decreed, but he even assailed them with bitter reproaches, because
they had derogated from other sees in the honour which they had
presumed to confer on the Church of Constantinople, (in Decr. 22,
Distinct. cap. Constantinop.) What, pray, could have incited the man
to trouble the world for so small an affair but mere ambition? He
says, that what the Council of Nice had once sanctioned ought to
have been inviolable; as if the Christian faith was in any danger if
one church was preferred to another; or as if separate Patriarchates
had been established on any other grounds than that of policy. But
we know that policy varies with times, nay, demands various changes.
It is therefore futile in Leo to pretend that the See of
Constantinople ought not to receive the honour which was given to
that of Alexandria, by the authority of the Council of Nice. For it
is the dictate of common sense, that the decree was one of those
which might be abrogated, in respect of a change of times. What
shall we say to the fact, that none of the Eastern churches, though
chiefly interested, objected? Proterius, who had been appointed at
Alexandria instead of Dioscorus, was certainly present; other
patriarchs whose honour was impaired were present. It belonged to
them to interfere, not to Leo, whose station remained entire. While
all of them are silent, many assent, and the Roman Bishop alone
resists, it is easy to judge what it is that moves him; just because
he foresaw what happened not long after, that when the glory of
ancient Rome declined, Constantinople, not contented with the second
place, would dispute the primacy with her. And yet his glamour was
not so successful as to prevent the decree of the council from being
ratified. Accordingly, his successors seeing themselves defeated,
quietly desisted from that petulance, and allowed the Bishop of
Constantinople to be regarded as the second Patriarch.
16. But shortly after, John, who, in the time of Gregory,
presided over the church of Constantinople, went so far as to say
that he was universal Patriarch. Here Gregory, that he might not be
wanting to his See in a most excellent cause, constantly opposed.
And certainly it was impossible to tolerate the pride and madness of
John, who wished to make the limits of his bishopric equal to the
limits of the empire. This, which Gregory denies to another, he
claims not for himself, but abominates the title by whomsoever used,
as wicked, impious, and nefarious. Nay, he is offended with
Eulogies, Bishop of Alexandria, who had honoured him with this
title, "See (says he, Lib. 7 Ep. 30) in the address of the letter
which you have directed to me, though I prohibited you, you have
taken care to write a word of proud signification by calling me
universal Pope. What I ask is, that your holiness do not go farther,
because, whatever is given to another more than reason demands is
withdrawn from you. I do not regard that as honour by which I see
that the honour of my brethren is diminished. For my honour is the
universal honour of the Church, and entire prerogative of my
brethren. If your holiness calls me universal Pope, it denies itself
to be this whole which it acknowledges me to be." The cause of
Gregory was indeed good and honourable; but John, aided by the
favour of the Emperor Maurice, could not be dissuaded from his
purpose. Cyriac also, his successor, never allowed himself to be
spoken to on the subject.
17. At length Phocas, who had slain Maurice, and usurped his
place, (more friendly to the Romans, for what reason I know not, or
rather because he had been crowned king there without opposition,)
conceded to Boniface III what Gregory by no means demanded, viz.,
that Rome should be the head of all the churches. In this way the
controversy was ended. And yet this kindness of the Emperor to the
Romans would not have been of very much avail had not other
circumstances occurred. For shortly after Greece and all Asia were
cut off from his communion, while all the reverence which he
received from France was obedience only in so far as she pleased.
She was brought into subjection for the first time when Pepin got
possession of the throne. For Zachary, the Roman Pontiff, having
aided him in his perfidy and robbery when he expelled the lawful
sovereign, and seized upon the kingdom, which lay exposed as a kind
of prey, was rewarded by having the jurisdiction of the Roman See
established over the churches of France. In the same way as robbers
are wont to divide and share the common spoil, those two worthies
arranged that Pepin should have the worldly and civil power by
spoiling the true prince, while Zachary should become the head of
all the bishops, and have the spiritual power. This, though weak at
the first, (as usually happens with new power,) was afterwards
confirmed by the authority of Charlemagne for a very similar cause.
For he too was under obligation to the Roman Pontiff, to whose zeal
he was indebted for the honour of empire. Though there is reason to
believe that the churches had previously been greatly altered, it is
certain that the ancient form of the Church was then only completely
effaced in Gaul and Germany. There are still extant among the
archives of the Parliament of Paris short commentaries on those
times, which, in treating of ecclesiastical affairs, make mention of
the compacts both of Pepin and Charlemagne with the Roman Pontiff.
Hence we may infer that the ancient state of matters was then
changed.
18. From that time, while everywhere matters were becoming
daily worse, the tyranny of the Roman Bishop was established, and
ever and anon increased, and this partly by the ignorance, partly by
the sluggishness, of the bishops. For while he was arrogating
everything to himself, and proceeding more and more to exalt himself
without measure, contrary to law and right, the bishops did not
exert themselves so zealously as they ought in curbing his
pretensions. And though they had not been deficient in spirit, they
were devoid of true doctrine and experience, so that they were by no
means fit for so important an effort. Accordingly, we see how great
and monstrous was the profanation of all sacred things, and the
dissipation of the whole ecclesiastical order at Rome, in the age of
Bernard. He complains (Lib. 1 de Consider. ad Eugene.) that the
ambitious, avaricious, demoniacal, sacrilegious, fornicators,
incestuous and similar miscreants, flocked from all quarters of the
world to Rome, that by apostolic authority they might acquire or
retain ecclesiastical honours: that fraud, circumvention, and
violence, prevailed. The mode of judging causes then in use he
describes as execrable, as disgraceful, not only to the Church, but
the bar. He exclaims that the Church is filled with the ambitious:
that not one is more afraid to perpetrate crimes than robbers in
their den when they share the spoils of the traveller. "Few (says
he) look to the mouth of the legislator, but all to his hands. Not
without cause, however: for their hands do the whole business of the
Pope. What kind of thing is it when those are bought by the spoils
of the Church, who say to you, Well done, well done? The life of the
poor is sown in the highways of the rich: silver glitters in the
mire: they run together from all sides: it is not the poorer that
takes it up, but the stronger, or, perhaps, he who runs fastest.
That custom, however, or rather that death, comes not of you: I wish
it would end in you. While these things are going on, you, a pastor,
come forth robed in much costly clothing. If I might presume to say
it, this is more the pasture of demons than of sheep. Peter,
forsooth, acted thus; Paul sported thus. Your court has been more
accustomed to receive good men than to make them. The bad do not
gain much there, but the good degenerate." Then when he describes
the abuses of appeals, no pious man can read them without being
horrified. At length, speaking of the unbridled cupidity of the
Roman See in usurping jurisdiction, he thus concludes, (Lib. 3 de
Council.,) "I express the murmur and common complaint of the
churches. Their cry is that they are maimed and dismembered. There
are none, or very few, who do not lament or fear that plague. Do you
ask what plague? Abbots are encroached upon by bishops, bishops by
archbishops, &c. It is strange if this can be excused. By thus
acting, you prove that you have the fulness of power, but not the
fulness of righteousness. You do this because you are able; but
whether you also ought to do it is the question. You are appointed
to preserve, not to envy, the honour and rank of each." I have
thought it proper to quote these few passages out of many, partly
that my readers may see how grievously the Church had then fallen,
partly, too, that they may see with what grief and lamentation all
pious men beheld this calamity.
19. 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, (chap. 11 sec. 8-14;) 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 cognisance 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 assume
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 (say they) is entitled to alter the
judgement 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 judgement of any. But what if
he tyrannises 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 judgement." 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 effrontery
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
See. Besides its extreme folly, who can believe it credible that
such an eulogium on the Roman See proceeded from an opponent and
rival of its honour and dignity? But 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 Extravagants 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,
viz., 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 the council over which he
presided: "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 anathematised 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: "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," (Gregor.
Lib. 4 Ep. 83.) 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,"
(Gregor. Lib. 7 Ep. 30.) 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 every where complains (Lib. 1 Ep.
5; item, Ep. 7, 25, &c.) that he was distracted above measure by
foreign occupations: that under colour of the episcopates 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 at 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 Caesar by lauding the ancient state of
the Roman empire; in other words, were to borrow the praises of
liberty in order to eulogise 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 judgement 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 be not 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 recognised 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 wars 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 faults 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 labour in this cause as if they were fighting for
their altars and hearths, for their own lives and those of their
adherents. What then? Shall we recognise the Apostolic See 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, alter 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 wrested 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 Thess. 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, (Dan. 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 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 seat 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, (see Calv. in 2 Thess. 2: 3; Dan.
7: 9.) 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
See can continue where there is no See. Eusebius says that God, to
make way for his vengeance, transferred the Church which was at
Jerusalem to Pella, (Euseb. Lib. 3 cap. 5.) 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,
as 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 vicegerent 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 Lucia. 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, pray, 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 See 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 Peters who succeed Peter in the
episcopates; although the thing is too childish in itself to need an
answer: for if they insist on applying every thing that was said to
Peter to the successors of Peter, it will follow, that they are all
Satans, 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 vicegerent 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, than it
makes an idol to become God, when it is placed in the temple of God,
(2 Thess. 2: 4.) Then, if manners be inquired into, let the Popes
answer for themselves, what there is in them that can make them be
recognised 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 bishop, 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 herein
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 viz.,
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 age
of Gregory, the name was applied to bishops only, (Gregor. Lib. 2
Ep. 15, 77, 79; Ep. 6, 25.) 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:
"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," (August. ad
Heron. Ep. 19.) Here, certainly, he is not distinguishing a
presbyter of the Roman Church from other presbyters, but placing all
of them alike after bishops. And so strictly was this observed that
at the Council of Carthage, when two legates of the Roman See 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. And, 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
Cedars. 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," (Gregor. Lib. 4 Ep. 55, 56; Lib. 5
Ep. 7.) 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," (Mal. 2: 8, 9.) 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.
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume 4
(continued in part 9...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09: cvin4-08.txt
.
