(Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4, part 7)
Chapter 6. Of the primacy of the Romish see.
The divisions of this chapter are, - I. Question stated, and an
argument for the primacy of the Roman Pontiff drawn from the Old
Testament refuted, sec. 1, 2. II. Reply to various arguments in
support of the Papacy founded on the words, "Thou art Peter," &c.,
sec. 3-17.
Sections.
1. Brief recapitulation. Why the subject of primacy not yet
mentioned. Represented by Papists as the bond at ecclesiastical
unity. Setting out with this axiom, they begin to debate about
their hierarchy.
2. Question stated. An attempted proof from the office of High
Priest among the Jews. Two answers.
3. Arguments for primacy from the New Testament. Two answers.
4. Another answer. The keys given to the other Apostles as well as
to Peter. Other two arguments answered by passages of Cyprian
and Augustine.
5. Another argument answered.
6. Answer to the argument that the Church is founded on Peter, from
its being said, "Upon this rock I will build my Church."
7. Answer confirmed by passages of Scripture.
8. Even allowing Peter's superiority in some respect, this is no
proof of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Other arguments
answered.
9. Distinction between civil and ecclesiastical government. Christ
alone the Head of the Church. Argument that there is still a
ministerial head answered.
10. Paul, in giving a representation of the Church, makes no mention
of this ministerial head.
11. Even though Peter were ministerial head, it does not follow that
the Pope is so also. Argument founded on Paul's having lived
and died at Rome.
12. On the hypothesis of the Papists, the primacy belongs to the
Church of Antioch.
13. Absurdity of the Popish hypothesis.
14. Peter was not the Bishop of Rome.
15. Same subject continued.
16. Argument that the unity of the Church cannot be maintained
without a supreme head on earth. Answer, stating three reasons
why great respect was paid in early times to the See of Rome.
17. Opinion of early times on the subject of the unity of the
Church. No primacy attributed to the Church of Rome. Christ
alone regarded as the Head of the Universal Church.
1. Hitherto we have reviewed those ecclesiastical orders which
existed in the government of the primitive Church; but afterwards
corrupted by time, and thereafter more and more vitiated, now only
retain the name in the Papal Church, and are, in fact, nothing but
mere masks, so that the contrast will enable the pious reader to
judge what kind of Church that is, for revolting from which we are
charged with schism. But, on the head and crown of the whole matter,
I mean the primacy of the Roman See, from which they undertake to
prove that the Catholic Church is to be found only with them, we
have not yet touched, because it did not take its origin either in
the institution of Christ, or the practice of the early Church, as
did those other parts, in regard to which we have shown, that though
they were ancient in their origin, they in process of time
altogether degenerated, nay, assumed an entirely new form. And yet
they endeavour to persuade the world that the chief and only bond of
ecclesiastical unity is to adhere to the Roman See, and continue in
subjection to it. I say, the prop on which they chiefly lean, when
they would deprive us of the Church, and arrogate it to themselves,
is, that they retain the head on which the unity of the Church
depends, and without which it must necessarily be rent and go to
pieces. For they regard the Church as a kind of mutilated trunk if
it be not subject to the Romish See as its head. Accordingly, when
they debate about their hierarchy they always set out with the
axiom: The Roman Pontiff (as the vicar of Christ, who is the Head of
the Church) presides in his stead over the universal Church, and the
Church is not rightly constituted unless that See hold the primacy
over all others. The nature of this claim must, therefore, be
considered, that we may not omit any thing which pertains to the
proper government of the Church.
2. The question, then, may be thus stated, Is it necessary for
the true order of the hierarchy, (as they term it,) or of
ecclesiastical order, that one See should surpass the others in
dignity and power, so as to be the head of the whole body? We
subject the Church to unjust laws if we lay this necessity upon her
without sanction from the word of God. Therefore, if our opponents
would prove what they maintain, it behaves them first of all to show
that this economy was instituted by Christ. For this purpose, they
refer to the office of high priest under the law, and the supreme
jurisdiction which God appointed at Jerusalem. But the solution is
easy, and it is manifold if one does not satisfy them. First, no
reason obliges us to extend what was useful in one nation to the
whole world; nay, the cases of one nation and of the whole world are
widely different. Because the Jews were hemmed in on every side by
idolaters, God fixed the seat of his worship in the central region
of the earth, that they might not be distracted by a variety of
religions; there he appointed one priest to whom they might all look
up, that they might be the better kept in unity. But now when the
true religion has been diffused over the whole globe, who sees not
that it is altogether absurd to give the government of East and West
to one individual? It is just as if one were to contend that the
whole world ought to be governed by one prefect, because one
district has not several prefects. But there is still another reason
why that institution ought not to be drawn into a precedent. Every
one knows that the high priest was a type of Christ; now, the
priesthood being transferred, that right must also be transferred.
To whom, then, was it transferred? certainly not to the Pope, as he
dares impudently to boast when he arrogates this title to himself,
but to Christ, who, as he alone holds the office without vicar or
successor, does not resign the honour to any other. For this
priesthood consists not in doctrine only, but in the propitiation
which Christ made by his death, and the intercession which he now
males with the Father, (Heb. 7: 11.)
3. That example, therefore, which is seen to have been
temporary, they have no right to bind upon us as by a perpetual law.
In the New Testament there is nothing which they can produce in
confirmation of their opinion, but its having been said to one,
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," (Matth.
16: 18.) Again, "Simon son of Jonas lovest thou me?" "Feed my lambs"
(John 21: 15.) But to give strength to these proofs, they must, in
the first place, show, that to him who is ordered to feed the flock
of Christ power is given over all churches, and that to bind and
loose is nothing else than to preside over the whole world. But as
Peter had received a command from the Lord, so he exhorts all other
presbyters to feed the Church, (1 Pet. 5: 2.) Hence we are entitled
to infer, that, by that expression of Christ, nothing more was given
to Peter than to the others, or that the right which Peter had
received he communicated equally to others. But not to argue to no
purpose, we elsewhere have, from the lips of Christ himself, a clear
exposition of what it is to bind and loose. It is just to retain and
remit sins, (John 20: 23.) The mode of loosing and binding is
explained throughout Scripture; but especially in that passage in
which Paul declares that the ministers of the Gospel are
commissioned to reconcile men to God, and at the same time to
exercise discipline over those who reject the benefit, (2 Cor. 5:
18; 10: 16.)
4. How unbecomingly they wrest the passages of binding and
loosing I have elsewhere glanced at, and will in a short time more
fully explain. It may now be worth while merely to see what they can
extract from our Saviour's celebrated answer to Peter. He promised
him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and said, that whatever
things he bound on earth should be bound in heaven, (Matth. 16: 19.)
The moment we are agreed as to the meaning of the keys, and the mode
of binding, all dispute will cease. For the Pope will willingly omit
that office assigned to the apostles, which, full of labour and
toil, would interfere with his luxuries without giving any gain.
Since heaven is opened to us by the doctrine of the Gospel, it is by
an elegant metaphor distinguished by the name of keys. Again, the
only mode in which men are bound and loosed is, in the latter case,
when they are reconciled to God by faith, and in the former, more
strictly bound by unbelief. Were this all that the Pope arrogated to
himself, I believe there would be none to envy him or stir the
question. But because this laborious and very far from lucrative
succession is by no means pleasing to the Pope, the dispute
immediately arises as to what it was that Christ promised to Peter.
From the very nature of the case, I infer that nothing more is
denoted than the dignity which cannot be separated from the burden
of the apostolic office. For, admitting the definition which I have
given, (and it cannot without effrontery be rejected,) nothing is
here given to Peter that was not common to him with his colleagues.
- On any other view, not only would injustice be done to their
persons, but the very majesty of the doctrine would be impaired.
They object; but what, pray, is gained by striking against this
stone? The utmost they can make out is, that as the preaching of the
same gospel was enjoined on all the apostles, so the power of
binding and loosing was bestowed upon them in common. Christ (they
say) constituted Peter prince of the whole Church when he promised
to give him the keys. But what he then promised to one he elsewhere
delivers, and as it were hands over, to all the rest. If the same
right, which was promised to one, is bestowed upon all, in what
respect is that one superior to his colleagues? He excels (they say)
in this, that he receives both in common, and by himself, what is
given to the others in common only. What if I should answer with
Cyprian, and Augustine, that Christ did not do this to prefer one to
the other, but in order to commend the unity of his Church? For
Cyprian thus speaks: "In the person of one man he gave the keys to
all, that he might denote the unity of all; the rest, therefore,
were the same that Peter was, being admitted to an equal
participation of honour and power, but a beginning is made from
unity that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one," (Cyprian,
de Simplic. Praelat.) Augustine's words are, "Had not the mystery of
the Church been in Peter, our Lord would not have said to him, I
will give thee the keys. For if this was said to Peter, the Church
has them not; but if the Church has them, then when Peter received
the keys he represented the whole Church," (August. Hom. in Joann.
50.) Again, "All were asked, but Peter alone answers, Thou art the
Christ; and it is said to him, I will give thee the keys; as if he
alone had received the power of loosing and binding; whereas he both
spoke for all, and received in common with and being, as it were the
representative of unity. One received for and because there is unity
in all," (Hom. 124.)
5. But we no where read of its being said to any other, "Thou
art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church!" (Matth. 16:
10;) as if Christ then affirmed any thing else of Peter, than Paul
and Peter himself affirm of all Christians (Eph. 2: 20; 1 Peter 2:
5.) The former describes Christ as the chief corner-stone, on whom
are built all who grow up into a holy temple in the Lord; the latter
describes us as living stones who are founded on that elect and
precious stone, and being so joined and compacted, are united to our
God, and to each other. Peter (they say) is above others, because
the name was specially given to him. I willingly concede to Peter
the honour of being placed among the first in the building of the
Church, or (if they prefer it) of being the first among the
faithful; but I will not allow them to infer from this that he has a
primacy over others. For what kind of inference is this? Peter
surpasses others in fervid zeal in doctrine, and magnanimity,
therefore, he has power over them: as if we might not with greater
plausibility infer, that Andrew is prior to Peter in order, because
he preceded him in time, and brought him to Christ, (John 1: 40,
42;) but this I omit. Let Peter have the pre-eminence, still there
is a great difference between the honour of rank and the possession
of power. We see that the Apostles usually left it to Peter to
address the meeting, and in some measure take precedence in
relating, exhorting, admonishing, but we no where read any thing at
all of power.
6. Though we are not yet come to that part of the discussion, I
would merely observe at present, how futilely those argue who, out
of the mere name of Peter, would rear up a governing power over the
whole Church. For the ancient quibble which they at first used to
give a colour, viz., The Church is founded upon Peter, because it is
said, "On this rock," &c., is undeserving of notice, not to say of
refutation. Some of the Fathers so expounded! But when the whole of
Scripture is repugnant to the exposition, why is their authority
brought forward in opposition to God? nay, why do we contend about
the meaning of these words, as if it were obscure or ambiguous when
nothing can be more clear and certain? Peter had confessed in his
own name, and that of his brethren, that Christ was the Son of God,
(Matth. 16: 16.) On this rock Christ builds his Church, because it
is the only foundation; as Paul says, "Other foundation than this
can no man lay," (1 Cor. 3: 11.) Therefore I do not here repudiate
the authority of the Fathers, because I am destitute of passages
from them to prove what I say, were I disposed to quote them; but as
I have observed, I am unwilling to annoy my readers by debating so
clear a matter, especially since the subject has long ago been fully
handled and expounded by our writers.
7. And yet, in truth, none can solve this question better than
scripture, if we compare all the passages in which it shows what
office and power Peter held among the apostles how he acted among
them, how he was received by them, (Acts 15: 7.) Run over all these
passages, and the utmost you will find is, that Peter was one of
twelve, their equal and colleague, not their master. He indeed
brings the matter before the council when anything is to be done,
and advises as to what is necessary, but he, at the same time,
listens to the others, not only conceding to them an opportunity of
expressing their sentiments but allowing them to decide; and when
they have decided he follows and obeys. When he writes to pastors,
he does not command authoritatively as a superior, but makes them
his colleagues, and courteously advises as equals are wont to do, (1
Pet. 5: 1.) When he is accused of having gone in to the Gentiles,
though the accusation is unfounded, he replies to it, and clears
himself, (Acts 11: 3.) Being ordered by his colleagues to go with
John into Samaria, he declines not, (Acts 8: 14.) The apostles, by
sending him, declare that they by no means regard him as a superior,
while he, by obeying and undertaking the embassy committed to him,
confesses that he is associated with them, and has no authority over
them. But if none of these facts existed, the one Epistle to the
Galatians would easily remove all doubt, there being almost two
chapters in which the whole for which Paul contends is, that in
regard to the honour of the apostleship, he is the equal of Peter;
(Gal. 1: 18; 2: 8.) Hence he states, that he went to Peter, not to
acknowledge subjection, but only to make their agreement in doctrine
manifest to all; that Peter himself asked no acknowledgement of the
kind, but gave him the right hand of fellowship, that they might be
common labourers in the vineyard; that not less grace was bestowed
on him among the Gentiles than on Peter among the Jews: in fine,
that Peter, when he was not acting with strict fidelity, was rebuked
by him, and submitted to the rebuke, (Gal. 2: 11.) All these things
make it manifest, either that there was an equality between Paul and
Peter, or, at least, that Peter had no more authority over the rest
than they had over him. This point, as I have said Paul handles
professedly, in order that no one might give a preference over him,
in respect of apostleship, to Peter or John, who were colleagues not
masters.
8. But were I to concede to them what they ask with regard to
Peter, viz., that he was the chief of the apostles, and surpassed
the others in dignity, there is no ground for making an universal
rule out of a special example, or wresting a single fact into a
perpetual enactment, seeing that the two things are widely
different. One was chief among the apostles, just because they were
few in number. If one man presided over twelve, will it follow that
one ought to preside over a hundred thousand? That twelve had one
among them to direct all is nothing strange. Nature admits, the
human mind requires, that in every meeting, though all are equal in
power, there should be one as a kind of moderator to whom the others
should look up. There is no senate without a consul, no bench of
judges without a president or chancellor, no college without a
provost, no company without a master. Thus there would be no
absurdity, were we to confess that the apostles had conferred such a
primacy on Peter. But an arrangement, which is effectual among a few
must not be forthwith transferred to the whole world, which no one
man is able to govern. But (say they) it is observed that not less
in nature as a whole, than in each of its parts, there is one
supreme head. Proof of this it pleases them to derive from cranes
and bees, which always place themselves under the guidance of one,
not of several. I admit the examples which they produce; but do bees
flock together from all parts of the world to choose one queen? Each
queen is contented with her own hive. So among cranes, each flock
has its own king. What can they prove from this, except that each
church ought to have its bishop? They refer us to the examples of
states, quoting from Homer, "ouk agaton polukoiranie", "a many-
headed rule is not good;" and other passages to the same effect from
heathen writers in commendation of monarchy. The answer is easy.
Monarchy is not lauded by Homer's Ulysses, or by others, as if one
individual ought to govern the whole world; but they mean to
intimate that one kingdom does not admit of two kings, and that
empire, as one expresses it, (Lucan. Lib. 1,) cannot bear a partner.
9. Be it, however, as they will have it, (though the thing is
most absurd; be it,) that it were good and useful for the whole
world to be under one monarchy, I will not, therefore, admit that
the same thing should take effect in the government of the Church.
Her only Head is Christ, under whose government we are all united to
each other, according to that order and form of policy which he
himself has prescribed. Wherefore they offer an egregious insult to
Christ, when under this pretext they would have one man to preside
over the whole Church, seeing the Church can never be without a
head, "even Christ, from whom the whole body fitly joined together,
and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the
effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of
the body," (Eph. 4: 15,16.) See how all men, without exception, are
placed in the body while the honour and name of Head is left to
Christ alone. See how to each member is assigned a certain measure,
a finite and limited function, while both the perfection of grace
and the supreme power of government reside only in Christ. I am not
unaware of the cavilling objection which they are wont to urge,
viz., that Christ is properly called the only Head, because he alone
reigns by his own authority and in his own name; but that there is
nothing in this to prevent what they call another ministerial head
from being under him, and acting as his substitute. But this cavil
cannot avail them, until they previously show that this office was
ordained by Christ. For the apostle teaches, that the whole
subministration is diffused through the members while the power
flows from one celestial Head; or, if they will have it more
plainly, since Scripture testifies that Christ is Head, and claims
this honour for himself alone, it ought not to be transferred to any
other than him whom Christ himself has made his vicegerent. But not
only is there no passage to this effect, but it can be amply refuted
by many passages.
10. Paul sometimes depicts a living image of the Church, but
makes no mention of a single head. On the contrary we may infer from
his description, that it is foreign to the institution of Christ.
Christ, by his ascension, took away his visible presence from us,
and yet he ascended that he might fill all things: now, therefore,
he is present in the Church and always will be. When Paul would show
the mode in which he exhibits himself, he calls our attention to the
ministerial offices which he employs: "Unto every one of us is given
grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ;" "And he gave
some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some,
pastors and teachers." Why does he not say, that one presided over
all to act as his substitute? The passage particularly required this
and it ought not on any account to have been omitted if it had been
true. Christ, he says, is present with us. How? By the ministry of
men whom he appointed over the government of the Church. Why not
rather by a ministerial head whom he appointed his substitute? He
speaks of unity, but it is in God and in the faith of Christ. He
attributes nothing to men but a common ministry, and a special mode
to each. Why, when thus commending unity, does he not, after saying,
"one body, one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your
callings one Lord, one faith, one baptisms" (Eph. 4: 4,) immediately
add, one Supreme Pontiff to keep the Church in unity? Nothing could
have been said more aptly if the case had really been so. Let that
passage be diligently pondered, and there will be no doubt that Paul
there meant to give a complete representation of that sacred and
ecclesiastical government to which posterity have given the name of
hierarchy. Not only does he not place a monarchy among ministers,
but even intimates that there is none. There can also be no doubt,
that he meant to express the mode of connection by which believers
unite with Christ the Head. There he not only makes no mention of a
ministerial head, but attributes a particular operation to each of
the members, according to the measure of grace distributed to each.
Nor is there any ground for subtle philosophical comparisons between
the celestial and the earthly hierarchy. For it is not safe to be
wise above measure with regard to the former, and in constituting
the latter the only type which it behaves us to follow is that which
our Lord himself has delineated in his own word.
11. I will now make them another concession, which they will
never obtain from men of sound mind, viz., that the primacy of the
Church was fixed in Peter, with the view of remaining for ever by
perpetual succession. Still how will they prove that his See was so
fixed at Rome, that whosoever becomes bishop of that city is to
preside over the whole world? By what authority do they annex: this
dignity to a particular place, when it was given without any mention
of place? Peter, they say, lived and died at Rome. What did Christ
himself do? Did he not discharge his episcopates while he lived, and
complete the office of the priesthood by dying at Jerusalem? The
Prince of pastors, the chief Shepherd, the Head of the Church, could
not procure honour for a place, and Peter, so far his inferior,
could! Is not this worse than childish trifling? Christ conferred
the honour of primacy on Peter. Peter had his See at Rome,
therefore, he fixed the seat of the primacy there. In this way the
Israelites of old must have placed the seat of the primacy in the
wilderness, where Moses, the chief teacher and prince of prophets,
discharged his ministry and died.
12. Let us see, however, how admirably they reason. Peter, they
say, had the first place among the apostles; therefore, the church
in which he sat ought to have the privilege. But where did he first
sit? At Antioch, they say. Therefore, the church of Antioch justly
claims the primacy. They acknowledge that she was once the first,
but that Peter, by removing from it, transferred the honour which he
had brought with him to Rome. For there is extant, under the name of
Pope Marcellus, a letter to the presbyters of Antioch, in which he
says, "The See of Peter, at the outset, was with you, and was
afterwards, by the order of the Lord, translated hither." Thus the
church of Antioch, which was once the first, yielded to the See of
Rome. But by what oracle did that good man learn that the Lord had
so ordered? For if the question is to be determined in regular forms
they must say whether they hold the privilege to be personal, or
real, or mixed. One of the three it must be. If they say personal,
then it has nothing to do with place; if real, then when once given
to a place it is not lost by the death or departure of the person.
It remains that they must hold it to be mixed; then the mere
consideration of place is not sufficient unless the person also
correspond. Let them choose which they will, I will forthwith infer,
and easily prove, that Rome has no ground to arrogate the primacy.
13. However, be it so. Let the primacy have been (as they
vainly allege) transferred from Antioch to Rome. Why did not Antioch
retain the second place? For if Rome has the first, simply because
Peter had his See there at the end of his life, to which place
should the second be given sooner than to that where he first had
his See? How comes it, then, that Alexandria takes precedence of
Antioch? How can the church of a disciple be superior to the See of
Peter? If honour is due to a church according to the dignity of its
founder, what shall we say of other churches? Paul names three
individuals who seemed to be pillars, viz., James, Peter, and John,
(Gal. 2: 9.) If, in honour of Peter, the first place is given to the
Roman See, do not the churches of Ephesus and Jerusalem where John
and James were fixed, deserve the second and third places? But in
ancient times Jerusalem held the last place among the Patriarchates,
and Ephesus was not able to secure even the lowest corner. Other
churches too have passed away, churches which Paul founded, and over
which the apostles presided. The See of Mark, who was only one of
the disciples, has obtained honour. Let them either confess that
that arrangement was preposterous, or let them concede that it is
not always true that each church is entitled to the degree of honour
which its founder possessed.
14. But I do not see that any credit is due to their allegation
of Peter's occupation of the Roman See. Certain it is that the
statement of Eusebius, that he presided over it for twenty-five
years, is easily refuted. For it appears from the first and second
chapters of Galatians, that he was at Jerusalem about twenty years
after the death of Christ, and afterwards came to Antioch. How long
he remained here is uncertain; Gregory counts seven, and Eusebius
twenty-five years. But from our Saviour's death to the end of Nero's
reign, (under which they state that he was put to death,) will be
found only thirty-seven years. For our Lord suffered in the
eighteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. If you cut off the twenty
years, during which, as Paul testifies, Peter dwelt at Jerusalem,
there will remain at most seventeen years; and these must be divided
between his two episcopates. If he dwelt long at Antioch, his See at
Rome must have been of short duration. This we may demonstrate still
more clearly. Paul wrote to the Romans while he was on his journey
to Jerusalem, where he was apprehended and conveyed to Rome, (Rom.
15: 15, 16.) It is therefore probable that this letter was written
four years before his arrival at Rome. Still there is no mention of
Peter, as there certainly would have been if he had been ruling that
church. Nay, in the end of the Epistles where he enumerates a long
list of individuals whom he orders to be saluted, and in which it
may be supposed he includes all who were known to him, he says
nothing at all of Peter. To men of sound judgement, there is no need
here of a long and subtle demonstration: the nature of the case
itself, and the whole subject of the Epistle, proclaim that he ought
not to have passed over Peter if he had been at Rome.
15. Paul is afterwards conveyed as a prisoner to Rome. Luke
relates that he was received by the brethren but says nothing of
Peter. From Rome he writes to many churches. He even sends
salutations from certain individuals, but does not by a single word
intimate that Peter was then there. Who, pray, will believe that he
would have said nothing of him if he had been present? Nay, in the
Epistle to the Philippians, after saying that he had no one who
cared for the work of the Lord so faithfully as Timothy he complains
that "all seek their owns" (Phil. 2: 20.) And to Timothy he makes
the more grievous complaint, that no man was present at his first
defence, that all men forsook him, (2 Tim. 4: 16.) Where then was
Peter? If they say that he was at Rome, how disgraceful the charge
which Paul brings against him of being a deserter of the Gospel! For
he is speaking of believers, since he adds, "The Lord lay it not to
their charge." At what time, therefore, and how long, did Peter hold
that See? The uniform opinion of authors is, that he governed that
church until his death. But these authors are not agreed as to who
was his successor. Some say Linus, others Clement. And they relate
many absurd fables concerning a discussion between him and Simon
Magus. Nor does Augustine, when treating of superstition, disguise
the fact, that owing to an opinion rashly entertained, it had become
customary at Rome to fast on the day on which Peter carried away the
palm from Simon Magus, (August. ad Januar. Ep. 2.) In short, the
affairs of that period are so involved from the variety of opinions,
that credit is not to be given rashly to any thing we read
concerning it. And yet, from this agreement of authors, I do not
dispute that he died there, but that he was bishop, particularly for
a long period, I cannot believe. I do not, however, attach much
importance to the point, since Paul testifies, that the apostleship
of Peter pertained especially to the Jews, but his own specially to
us. Therefore, in order that that compact which they made between
themselves, nay, that the arrangement of the Holy Spirit may be
firmly established among us, we ought to pay more regard to the
apostleship of Paul than to that of Peter, since the Holy Spirit, in
allotting them different provinces, destined Peter for the Jews and
Paul for us. Let the Romanists, therefore, seek their primacy
somewhere else than in the word of God, which gives not the least
foundation for it.
16. Let us now come to the Primitive Church that it may also
appear that our opponents plume themselves on its support, not less
falsely and unadvisedly than on the testimony of the word of God.
When they lay it down as an axiom, that the unity of the Church
cannot be maintained unless there be one supreme head on earth whom
all the members should obey; and that, accordingly, our Lord gave
the primacy to Peter, and thereafter, by right of succession, to the
See of Rome, there to remain even to the end, they assert that this
has always been observed from the beginning. But since they
improperly wrest many passages, I would first premise, that I deny
not that the early Christians uniformly give high honour to the
Roman Church, and speak of it with reverence. This, I think, is
owing chiefly to three causes. The opinion which had prevailed, (I
know not how,) that that Church was founded and constituted by the
ministry of Peter, had great effect in procuring influence and
authority. Hence, in the East, it was, as a mark of honour,
designated the apostolic See. Secondly as the seat of empire was
there, and it was for this reason to be presumed, that the most
distinguished for learning, prudence, skill, and experience, were
there more than elsewhere, account was justly taken of the
circumstances lest the celebrity of the city, and the much more
excellent gifts of God also, might seem to be despised. To these was
added a third cause, that when the churches of the East, of Greece
and of African were kept in a constant turmoil by differences of
opinion, the Church of Rome was calmer and less troubled. To this it
was owing, that pious and holy bishops, when driven from their sees,
often retook themselves to Rome as an asylum or haven. For as the
people of the West are of a less acute and versatile turn of mind
than those of Asia or Africa, so they are less desirous of
innovations. It therefore added very great authority to the Roman
Church, that in those dubious times it was not so much unsettled as
others, and adhered more firmly to the doctrine once delivered, as
shall immediately be better explained. For these three causes, I
say, she was held in no ordinary estimation, and received many
distinguished testimonies from ancient writers.
17. But since on this our opponents would rear up a primacy and
supreme authority over other churches, they, as I have said, greatly
err. That this may better appear, I will first briefly show what the
views of early writers are as to this unity which they so strongly
urge. Jerome, in writing to Nepotian, after enumerating many
examples of unity, descends at length to the ecclesiastical
hierarchy. He says, "Every bishop of a church, every archpresbyter,
every archdeacon, and the whole ecclesiastical order, depends on its
own rulers." Here a Roman presbyter speaks and commends unity in
ecclesiastical order. Why does he not mention that all the churches
are bound together by one Head as a common bond? There was nothing
more appropriate to the point in hand, and it cannot be said that he
omitted it through forgetfulness; there was nothing he would more
willingly have mentioned had the fact permitted. He therefore
undoubtedly owns, that the true method of unity is that which
Cyprian admirably describes in these words: "The episcopate is one,
part of which is held entire by each bishop, and the Church is one,
which by the increase of fecundity, extends more widely in numbers.
As there are many rays of the sun and one light, many branches of a
tree and one trunk, upheld by its tenacious roots and as very many
streams flow from one fountain, and though numbers seem diffused by
the largeness of the overflowing supply, yet unity is preserved
entire in the source, so the Church, pervaded with the light of the
Lord, sends her rays over the whole globe, and yet is one light,
which is everywhere diffused without separating the unity of the
body, extends her branches over the whole globe, and sends forth
flowing streams; still the head is one, and the source one,"
(Cyprian, de Simplic. Praelat.) Afterwards he says, "The spouse of
Christ cannot be an adulteress: she knows one house, and with chaste
modesty keeps the sanctity of one bed." See how he makes the
bishopric of Christ alone universal, as comprehending under it the
whole Church: See how he says that part of it is held entire by all
who discharge the episcopal office under this head. Where is the
primacy of the Roman See, if the entire bishopric resides in Christ
alone, and a part of it is held entire by each? My object in these
remarks is, to show the reader, in passing, that that axiom of the
unity of an earthly kind in the hierarchy, which the Romanists
assume as confessed and indubitable, was altogether unknown to the
ancient Church.
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume 4
(continued in part 8...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09: cvin4-07.txt
.