Tracts & Letters (Vol 3) - Calvin - VIII - Tract 2 continued

Required reading
Tracts and Letters (Volume 3) by John Calvin (Available from Amazon or free here) - Continue Tract II (The Adultero-German Interim) by starting 'John Calvin on the true method of giving peace to Christendom and reforming the church' and reading up to the paragraph beginning 'Now, to leave everything else, if they wish the Roman Pontiff" to be recognised as Head of the whole Church, they must, in the first place, give us a true bishop; for who is to have pre-eminence among bishops but one, and an excellent one in the order of bishops?' (Page 374 in the Banner edition).

My summary
Today we continue the 'Interim, or declaration, of religion of his imperial majesty Charles V' by starting Calvin's rebuttal entitled, 'The true method of giving peace to Christendom and reforming the church'.

Firstly Calvin says that there can be no terms of peace with the Roman Catholic church when it mingles the figments of men with the pure truth of God.

Then he discusses at length justification by faith.  He says that you must get this doctrine right as it carries along with it almost the whole sum of Christian doctrine.

Next Calvin moves onto the matter of spiritual worship: 'There are two principal branches. First, we must hold that the spiritual Worship of God does not consist either in external ceremonies, or any other kind of works whatsoever ; and, secondly, that no Worship is legitimate unless it be so framed as to have for its only rule the will of him to whom it is performed.'  Thus he condemns Roman Catholic doctrines such as works of supererogation, virginity and papal succession.

What grabbed me
I liked Calvin's points about the lack of reasoning behind the pope claiming his power stems from Rome: 'Let us grant, moreover, that a perpetuity of Primacy in the Church was sanctioned in Peter. Why should the Seat of Primacy be found at Rome rather than elsewhere ? The reason they allege is, that it was the See of Peter ; just as if one were to place the principal See of the Jewish Church in the desert, because there Moses the greatest of Prophets, and Aaron the High-Priest, performed their office even till death. But let the reason be good. What of Antioch ? They prefer Rome because Paul died there. But there are probable grounds for inferring that what they say of the Roman Episcopate of Peter is fabulous. Paul salutes several private individuals when he writes to the Church of Rome. Three years after he is carried thither a prisoner ; Luke relates that he was received by the brethren ; — still there is no mention of Peter. Paul writes various Epistles from prison : he mentions the names of certain persons of no mean rank ; — there is no place for Peter among them. If he were there, such silence would be a marked insult ! Then, when he complains that at his first defence no man stood by him, would he not affix the stigma of extreme perfidy on Peter if he was then the Pastor of the city ? Again, when, in another place, he glances at all whom he had with him, who can believe that Peter was of the number? And yet this is almost the whole time which they assign to his Roman See.

But without raising that question. If Rome obtains the Primacy because it was Peter's last See, why does not Antioch hold the second place at least among the Patriarchates ? Why were James and John, who appeared to be pillars along with Peter, unable to acquire the next dignity for their Sees ? How preposterous was the mode of distribution, when they preferred Alexandria, the see of Mark, who was only one of the disciples, to Ephesus and Jerusalem ? But I desist from comparing Apostles together. Where did the Lord and Master of all, before whose splendour all other dignity vanishes away, perform the office of High-Priest, both in teaching and dying, but at Jerusalem ? Shall Jerusalem then be no See of Christ, and Rome seize upon the honour ? To this we add, that the apostleship of Peter was specially to the Jews, as Paul testifies, and therefore properly has no reference to us. Let us leave it to the Jews, then, whose question it is, to debate about this succession. '

Using Rome for the throne of the pope is simply not based on Biblical evidence.

And Calvin is right to suggest that if you are going to claim authority because of a particular city, then it should be Jerusalem.  Surely the city of Jesus is much more important than any city belonging to Peter and Paul!

Next week's reading
Continue Tract II (The Adultero-German Interim) by continuing 'John Calvin on the true method of giving peace to Christendom and reforming the church' and reading up to the paragraph beginning 'I have already shewn in what sense Meclhisedec is said to have offered bread' (Page 307 in the Banner edition).

Now it's your turn
Please post your own notes and thoughts in the comments section below.