THE TRUE AND FALSE CHURCH COMPARED.
We have already stated the importance which we ought to attach to the
ministry of the word and sacraments, and the extent to which our
reverence for it ought to be carried, so as to account it a perpetual
mark and characteristic of the Church. That is to say, that wherever
_that_ exists entire and uncorrupted, no errors and irregularities of
conduct form a sufficient reason for refusing the name of a Church. In
the next place, that the ministry itself is not so far vitiated by
smaller errors, as to be considered on that account less legitimate. It
has further been shown, that the errors which are entitled to this
forgiveness are those by which the grand doctrine of religion is not
injured, which do not suppress the points in which all believers ought
to agree as articles of faith, and which, in regard to the sacraments,
neither abolish nor subvert the legitimate institution of their Author.
But as soon as falsehood has made a breach in the fundamentals of
religion, and the system of necessary doctrine is subverted, and the use
of the sacraments fails, the certain consequence is the ruin of the
Church, as there is an end of a man’s life when his throat is cut, or
his heart is mortally wounded. And this is evident from the language of
Paul, when he declares the Church to be “built upon the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief
corner-stone.”[781] If the foundation of the Church be the doctrine of
the prophets and apostles, which enjoins believers to place their
salvation in Christ alone, how can the edifice stand any longer, when
that doctrine is taken away? The Church, therefore, must of necessity
fall, where that system of religion is subverted which alone is able to
sustain it. Besides, if the true Church be “the pillar and ground of
truth,”[782] that certainly can be no Church where delusion and
falsehood have usurped the dominion.
II. As this is the state of things under the Papacy, it is easy to judge
how much of the Church remains there. Instead of the ministry of the
word, there reigns a corrupt government, composed of falsehoods, by
which the pure light is suppressed or extinguished. An execrable
sacrilege has been substituted for the supper of the Lord. The worship
of God is deformed by a multifarious and intolerable mass of
superstitions. The doctrine, without which Christianity cannot exist,
has been entirely forgotten or exploded. The public assemblies have
become schools of idolatry and impiety. In withdrawing ourselves,
therefore, from the pernicious participation of so many enormities,
there is no danger of separating ourselves from the Church of Christ.
The communion of the Church was not instituted as a bond to confine us
in idolatry, impiety, ignorance of God, and other evils; but rather as a
mean to preserve us in the fear of God, and obedience of the truth. I
know that the Papists give us the most magnificent commendations of
their Church, to make us believe that there is no other in the world;
and then, as if they had gained their point, they conclude all who dare
to withdraw themselves from that Church which they describe, to be
schismatics, and pronounce all to be heretics who venture to open their
mouths in opposition to its doctrine. But by what reasons do they prove
theirs to be the true Church? They allege from ancient records what
formerly occurred in Italy, in France, in Spain; that they are descended
from those holy men, who by sound doctrine founded and raised the
Churches in these countries, and confirmed their doctrine and the
edification of the Church by their blood; and that the Church, thus
consecrated among them, both by spiritual gifts, and by the blood of
martyrs, has been preserved by a perpetual succession of bishops, that
it might never be lost. They allege the importance attached to this
succession by Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and others. To
those who are willing to attend me in a brief examination of these
allegations, I will clearly show that they are frivolous, and manifestly
ridiculous. I would likewise exhort those who advance them, to pay a
serious attention to the subject, if I thought my arguments could
produce any effect upon them; but as their sole object is to promote
their own interest by every method in their power, without any regard to
truth, I shall content myself with making a few observations, with which
good men, and inquirers after truth, may be able to answer their cavils.
In the first place, I ask them, why they allege nothing respecting
Africa, and Egypt, and all Asia. It is because, in all those countries,
there has been a failure of this sacred succession of bishops, by virtue
of which they boast that the Church has been preserved among them. They
come to this point, therefore, that they have the true Church, because
from its commencement it has never been destitute of bishops, for that
some have been succeeded by others in an uninterrupted series. But what
if I oppose them with the example of Greece? I ask them again,
therefore, why they assert that the Church has been lost among the
Greeks, among whom there has never been any interruption of that
succession of bishops, which they consider as the sole guard and
preservative of the Church? They call the Greeks schismatics. For what
reason? Because, it is pretended, they have lost their privilege by
revolting from the Apostolical see. But do not they much more deserve to
lose it, who have revolted from Christ himself? It follows, therefore,
that their plea of uninterrupted succession is a vain pretence, unless
the truth of Christ, which was transmitted from the fathers, be
permanently retained pure and uncorrupted by their posterity.
III. The pretensions of the Romanists, therefore, in the present day,
are no other than those which appear to have been formerly set up by the
Jews, when they were reproved by the prophets of the Lord for blindness,
impiety, and idolatry. For as the Jews boasted of the temple, the
ceremonies, and the priesthood, in which things they firmly believed the
Church to consist; so, instead of the Church, the Papists produce
certain external forms, which are often at a great distance from the
Church, and are not at all necessary to its existence. Wherefore we need
no other argument to refute them, than that which was urged by Jeremiah
against that foolish confidence of the Jews: “Trust ye not in lying
words, saying, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the
temple of the Lord, are these.”[783] For the Lord acknowledges no place
as his temple, where his word is not heard and devoutly observed. So,
though the glory of God resided between the cherubim in the sanctuary,
and he had promised his people that he would make it his permanent seat,
yet when the priests had corrupted his worship by perverse
superstitions, he departed, and left the place without any sanctity. If
that temple which appeared to be consecrated to the perpetual residence
of God, could be forsaken and desecrated by him, there can be no reason
for their pretending that God is so attached to persons or places, or
confined to external observances, as to be constrained to remain among
those who have nothing but the name and appearance of the Church. And
this is the argument which is maintained by Paul in the Epistle to the
Romans, from the ninth chapter to the twelfth. For it had violently
disturbed weak consciences, to observe that, while the Jews appeared to
be the people of God, they not only rejected, but also persecuted, the
doctrine of the gospel. Therefore, after having discussed that doctrine,
he removes this difficulty; and denies the claim of those Jews, who were
enemies of the truth, to be considered as the Church, though in other
respects they wanted nothing that could be requisite to its external
form. And the only reason for this denial was, because they did not
receive Christ. He speaks rather more explicitly in the Epistle to the
Galatians,[784] where, in a comparison between Ishmael and Isaac, he
represents many as occupying a place in the Church, who have no right to
the inheritance, because they are not the children of a free mother.
Hence he proceeds to a contrast of the two Jerusalems, because as the
law was given on Mount Sinai, but the gospel came forth from Jerusalem,
so many who have been born and educated in bondage, confidently boast of
being the children of God and of the Church, and though they are
themselves a spurious offspring, look down with contempt on his genuine
and legitimate children. But as for us, on the contrary, who have once
heard it proclaimed from heaven, “Cast out the bondwoman and her son,”
let us confide in this inviolable decree, and resolutely despise their
ridiculous pretensions. For if they pride themselves on an external
profession, Ishmael also was circumcised. If they depend on antiquity,
he was the first born. Yet we see that he was rejected. If the cause of
this be inquired, Paul tells us that none are accounted children but
those who are born of the pure and legitimate seed of the word.[785]
According to this reason, the Lord declares that he is not confined to
impious priests, because he had made a covenant with their father Levi
to be his angel or messenger.[786] He even retorts on them their false
boasting, with which they were accustomed to oppose the prophets, that
the dignity of the priesthood ought to be held in peculiar estimation.
This he readily admits, and argues with them on this ground, because he
was prepared to observe the covenant, whereas they failed of discharging
the correspondent obligations, and therefore deserved to be rejected.
See, then, what such succession is worth, unless it be connected with a
continual imitation and conformity. Without this, the descendants, who
are convicted of a departure from their predecessors, must immediately
be deprived of all honour; unless, indeed, because Caiaphas was the
successor of many pious priests, and there had been an uninterrupted
series even from Aaron to him, that execrable assembly be deemed worthy
to be called the Church. But it would not be tolerated even in earthly
governments, that the tyranny of Caligula, Nero, Heliogabalus, and
others, should be called the true state of the republic, because they
succeeded the Bruti, the Scipios, and the Camilli. But in regard to the
government of the Church, nothing can be more frivolous than to place
the succession in the persons, to the neglect of the doctrine. And
nothing was further from the intentions of the holy doctors, whose
authority they falsely obtrude upon us, than to prove that Churches
existed by a kind of hereditary right, wherever there has been a
constant succession of bishops. But as it was beyond all doubt that,
from the beginning even down to their times, no change had taken place
in the doctrine, they assumed, what would suffice for the confutation of
all new errors, that they were repugnant to the doctrine which had been
constantly and unanimously maintained even from the days of the
apostles. They will gain nothing, therefore, by persisting to disguise
themselves under the name of the Church. The Church we regard with
becoming reverence; but when they come to the definition, they are
miserably embarrassed, for they substitute an execrable harlot in the
place of the holy spouse of Christ. That we may not be deceived by such
a substitution, beside other admonitions, let us remember this of
Augustine; for, speaking of the Church, he says, “It is sometimes
obscured and beclouded by a multitude of scandals; sometimes it appears
quiet and unmolested in a season of tranquillity, and is sometimes
disturbed and overwhelmed with the waves of tribulations and
temptations.” He produces examples, that those who were its firmest
pillars, have either undauntedly suffered banishment on account of the
faith, or secluded themselves from all society.
IV. In the same manner, the Romanists in the present day harass us, and
terrify ignorant persons with the name of the Church, though there are
no greater enemies to Christ than themselves. Although they may pretend
therefore to the temple, the priesthood, and other similar forms, this
vain glitter, which dazzles the eyes of the simple, ought by no means to
induce us to admit the existence of a Church, where we cannot discover
the word of God. For this is the perpetual mark by which our Lord has
characterized his people: “Every one that is of the truth heareth my
voice.”[787] And, “I am the good Shepherd, and know my sheep, and am
known of mine.” “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me.” He had just before said, “The sheep follow their shepherd;
for they know his voice; and a stranger will they not follow, but will
flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.”[788] Why,
then, do we wilfully run into error in forming a judgment of the Church,
since Christ has designated it by an unequivocal character, that
wherever it is discovered, it infallibly assures us of the existence of
a Church, and wherever it is wanting, there is no real evidence of a
Church left. For Paul declares the Church to be founded, not upon the
opinions of men, not upon the priesthood, but upon the “doctrine of the
apostles and prophets.”[789] And Jerusalem is to be distinguished from
Babylon, the Church of Christ from the synagogue of Satan, by this
difference, by which Christ has discriminated them from each other: “He
that is of God, heareth God’s words; ye therefore hear them not, because
ye are not of God.”[790] In fine, as the Church is the kingdom of
Christ, and he reigns only by his word, can any person doubt the
falsehood of those pretensions, which represent the kingdom of Christ as
destitute of his sceptre, that is, of his holy word?
V. With respect to the charge which they bring against us of heresy and
schism, because we preach a different doctrine from theirs, and submit
not to their laws, and hold separate assemblies for prayers, for
baptism, for the administration of the Lord’s supper, and other sacred
exercises, it is indeed a most heavy accusation, but such as by no means
requires a long or laborious defence. The appellations of heretics and
schismatics are applied to persons who cause dissension, and destroy the
communion of the Church. Now, this communion is preserved by two
bonds—agreement in sound doctrine, and brotherly love. Between heretics
and schismatics, therefore, Augustine makes the following
distinction—that the former corrupt the purity of the faith by false
doctrines, and that the latter break the bond of affection, sometimes
even while they retain the same faith. But it is also to be remarked,
that this union of affection is dependent on the unity of faith, as its
foundation, end, and rule. Let us remember, therefore, that, whenever
the unity of the Church is enjoined upon us in the Scripture, it is
required, that, while our minds hold the same doctrines in Christ, our
wills should likewise be united in mutual benevolence in Christ.
Therefore, Paul, when he exhorts us to it, assumes as a foundation, that
there is “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.”[791] And when he
inculcates our being “like-minded, and having the same love, being of
one accord, of one mind,”[792] he immediately adds, that this should be
in Christ, or according to Christ; signifying that all union which is
formed without the word of the Lord, is a faction of the impious, and
not an association of believers.
VI. Cyprian, also, after the example of Paul, deduces the origin of all
ecclesiastical concord from the supreme bishopric of Christ. He
afterwards subjoins, “There is but one Church, which is widely extended
into a multitude by the offspring of its fertility; just as there are
many rays of the sun, but the light is one; and a tree has many
branches, but only one trunk, fixed on a firm root. And when many rivers
issue from one source, though by its exuberant abundance the stream is
multiplied into numerous currents, yet the unity of the fountain still
remains. Separate a ray from the body of the sun, and its unity sustains
no division. Break off a branch from a tree, and the broken branch can
never bud. Cut off a river from the source, and it immediately dries up.
So the Church, overspread with the light of the Lord, is extended over
the whole world: yet it is one and the same light which is universally
diffused.” No representation could be more elegant to express that
inseparable connection which subsists between all the members of Christ.
We see how he continually recalls us to the fountain-head. Therefore he
pronounces the origin of heresies and schisms to be, that men neither
return to the source of truth, nor seek the Head, nor attend to the
doctrine of the heavenly Master. Now, let the Romanists exclaim that we
are heretics, because we have withdrawn from their church; while the
sole cause of our secession has been, that theirs cannot possibly be the
pure profession of the truth. I say nothing of their having expelled us
with anathemas and execrations. But this reason is more than sufficient
for our exculpation, unless they are determined to pronounce sentence of
schism also against the apostles, with whom we have but one common
cause. Christ, I say, foretold to his apostles, that for his name’s sake
they should be cast out of the synagogues.[793] Now, those synagogues,
of which he spoke, were then accounted legitimate Churches. Since it is
evident, then, that we have been cast out, and we are prepared to prove
that this has been done for the name of Christ, it is necessary to
inquire into the cause, before any thing be determined respecting us,
either on one side or the other. But this point I readily relinquish to
them. It is sufficient for me that it was necessary for us to withdraw
from them, in order to approach to Christ.
VII. But it will be still more evident, in what estimation we ought to
hold all the Churches who have submitted to the tyranny of the Roman
pontiff, if we compare them with the ancient Church of Israel, as
delineated by the prophets. There was a true Church among the Jews and
the Israelites, while they continued to observe the laws of the
covenant; because they then obtained from the favour of God those things
which constitute a Church. They had the doctrine of truth in the law;
the ministry of it was committed to the priests and prophets; they were
initiated into the Church by the sign of circumcision; and were
exercised in other sacraments for the confirmation of their faith. There
is no doubt that the commendations, with which the Lord has honoured his
Church, truly belonged to their society. But after they deserted the law
of the Lord, and fell into idolatry and superstition, they partly lost
this privilege. For who would dare to refuse the title of a Church to
those among whom God deposited the preaching of his word, and the
observance of his mysteries? On the other hand, who would dare to give
the appellation of a Church, without any exception, to that society,
where the word of God is openly and fearlessly trampled under foot;
where its ministry, the principal sinew, and even the soul of the
Church, is discontinued?
VIII. What, then, it will be said, was there no particle of a Church
left among the Jews from the moment of their defection to idolatry? The
answer is easy. In the first place, I observe, that in this defection
there were several degrees. Nor will we maintain the fall of Judah, and
that of Israel, to have been exactly the same, at the time when they
both began to depart from the pure worship of God. When Jeroboam made
the calves, in opposition to the express prohibition of God, and
dedicated a place which it was not lawful to use for the oblation of
sacrifices, in this case religion was totally corrupted. The Jews
polluted themselves with practical impieties and superstitions, before
they made any unlawful changes in the external forms of religion. For
though they generally adopted many corrupt ceremonies in the time of
Rehoboam, yet as the doctrine of the law, and the priesthood, and the
rites which God had instituted, were still preserved at Jerusalem,
believers had in that kingdom a tolerable form of a Church. Among the
Israelites, there was no reformation down to the reign of Ahab, and in
his time there was an alteration for the worse. Of the succeeding kings,
even to the subversion of the kingdom, some resembled Ahab, and others,
who would be a little better, followed the example of Jeroboam; but all,
without exception, were impious idolaters. In Judah there were various
changes; some kings corrupted the worship of God with false and
groundless superstitions, and others restored religion from its abuses;
till, at length, the priests themselves polluted the temple of God with
idolatrous and abominable rites.
IX. Now, however the Papists may extenuate their vices, let them deny,
if they can, that the state of religion is as corrupt and depraved among
them, as it was in the kingdom of Israel, in the time of Jeroboam. But
they practise a grosser idolatry, and their doctrine is equally, if not
more, impure. God is my witness, and all men who are endued with
moderate judgment, and the fact itself declares, that in this I am
guilty of no exaggeration. Now, when they try to drive us into the
communion of their Church, they require two things of us—first, that we
should communicate in all their prayers, sacraments, and ceremonies;
secondly, that whatever honour, power, and jurisdiction, Christ has
conferred upon his Church, we should attribute the same to theirs. With
respect to the first point, I confess that the prophets who were at
Jerusalem, when the state of affairs there was very corrupt, neither
offered up sacrifices apart from others, nor held separate assemblies
for prayer. For they had the express command of God, that they were to
assemble in the temple of Solomon; and they knew that the Levitical
priests, because they had been ordained by the Lord as ministers of the
sacrifices, and had not been deposed, however unworthy they might be of
such honour, still retained the lawful possession of that place. But,
what is the principal point of the whole controversy, they were not
constrained to join in any superstitious worship; on the contrary, they
engaged in no service that was not of Divine institution. But what
resemblance is there to this among the Papists? We can scarcely assemble
with them on a single occasion, without polluting ourselves with open
idolatry. The principal bond of their communion is certainly the mass,
which we abominate as the greatest sacrilege. Whether we are right or
wrong in this, will be seen in another place. It is sufficient, at
present, to show that, in this respect, our case is different from that
of the prophets, who, though they were present at the sacrifices of
impious persons, were never compelled to use, or to witness, any
ceremonies but those which God had instituted. And if we wish to have an
example entirely similar, we must take it from the kingdom of Israel.
According to the regulations of Jeroboam, circumcision continued,
sacrifices were offered, the law was regarded as sacred, the people
invoked the same God whom their fathers had worshipped; yet, on account
of novel ceremonies invented in opposition to the Divine prohibitions,
God disapproved and condemned all that was done there. Show me a single
prophet, or any pious man, who even once worshipped or offered sacrifice
at Bethel. They knew that they could not do it without contaminating
themselves with sacrilege. We have established this point, therefore,
that the attachment of pious persons to the communion of the Church,
ought not to be carried to such an extent, as to oblige them to remain
in it, if it degenerated into profane and impure rites.
X. But against their second requisition, we contend upon still stronger
ground. For if the Church be held in such consideration that we are
required to revere its judgment, to obey its authority, to receive its
admonitions, to fall under its censures, and scrupulously and uniformly
to adhere to its communion, we cannot allow their claim to the character
of the Church, without necessarily obliging ourselves to subjection and
obedience. Yet we readily concede to them what the prophets conceded to
the Jews and Israelites of their time, when things among them were in a
similar, or even in a better state. But we see how they frequently
exclaim, that their assemblies were iniquitous meetings,[794] a
concurrence in which were as criminal as a renunciation of God. And
certainly, if those assemblies were Churches, it follows that Elijah,
Micaiah, and others in Israel, were strangers to the Church of God; and
the same would be true of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and others of that
description in Judah, whom the false prophets, priests, and people of
their day, hated and execrated as if they had been worse than any
heathens. If such assemblies were Churches, then the Church is not the
pillar of truth, but a foundation of falsehood, not the sanctuary of the
living God, but a receptacle of idols. They found themselves under a
necessity, therefore, of withdrawing from all connection with those
assemblies, which were nothing but a conspiracy against God. For the
same reason, if any one acknowledges the assemblies of the present day,
which are contaminated with idolatry, superstition, and false doctrine,
as true Churches, in full communion with which a Christian man ought to
continue, and in whose doctrine he ought to coincide, this will be a
great error. For if they be Churches, they possess the power of the
keys; but the keys are inseparably connected with the word, which is
exploded from among them. Again, if they be Churches, that promise of
Christ must be applicable to them—“Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven.”[795] On the contrary, all who sincerely profess
themselves to be the servants of Christ, they expel from their
communion. Either, therefore, the promise of Christ must be vain, or in
this respect they are not Churches. Lastly, instead of the ministry of
the word, they have schools of impiety, and a gulf of every species of
errors. Either, therefore, in this respect they are not Churches, or no
mark will be left to distinguish the legitimate assemblies of believers
from the conventions of Turks.
XI. Nevertheless, as in former times the Jews continued in possession of
some peculiar privileges of the Church, so we refuse not to acknowledge,
among the Papists of the present day, those vestiges of the Church which
it has pleased the Lord should remain among them after its removal. When
God had once made his covenant with the Jews, it continued among them,
rather because it was supported by its own stability in opposition to
their impiety, than in consequence of their observance of it. Such,
therefore, was the certainty and constancy of the Divine goodness, the
covenant of the Lord remained among them; his faithfulness could not be
obliterated by their perfidy; nor could circumcision be so profaned by
their impure hands, but that it was always the true sign and sacrament
of his covenant. Hence the children that were born to them, God calls
his own,[796] though they could not have belonged to him but by a
special benediction. So after he had deposited his covenant in France,
Italy, Germany, Spain, and England, when those countries were oppressed
by the tyranny of Antichrist, still, in order that the covenant might
remain inviolable, as a testimony of that covenant, he preserved baptism
among them, which, being consecrated by his lips, retains its virtue in
opposition to all the impiety of men. He also, by his providence, caused
other vestiges of the Church to remain, that it might not be entirely
lost. And as buildings are frequently demolished in such a manner as to
leave the foundations and ruins remaining, so the Lord has not suffered
Antichrist either to subvert his Church from the foundation, or to level
it with the ground; though, to punish the ingratitude of men who
despised his word, he has permitted a dreadful concussion and
dilapidation to be made; yet, amidst this devastation, he has been
pleased to preserve the edifice from being entirely destroyed.
XII. While we refuse, therefore, to allow to the Papists the title of
the Church, without any qualification or restriction, we do not deny
that there are Churches among them. We only contend for the true and
legitimate constitution of the Church, which requires not only a
communion in the sacraments, which are the signs of a Christian
profession, but above all, an agreement in doctrine. Daniel and Paul had
predicted that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God.[797] The head
of that cursed and abominable kingdom, in the Western Church, we affirm
to be the Pope. When his seat is placed in the temple of God, it
suggests, that his kingdom will be such, that he will not abolish the
name of Christ, or the Church. Hence it appears, that we by no means
deny that Churches may exist, even under his tyranny; but he has
profaned them by sacrilegious impiety, afflicted them by cruel
despotism, corrupted and almost terminated their existence by false and
pernicious doctrines, like poisonous potions; in such Churches, Christ
lies half buried, the gospel is suppressed, piety exterminated, and the
worship of God almost abolished; in a word, they are altogether in such
a state of confusion, that they exhibit a picture of Babylon, rather
than of the holy city of God. To conclude, I affirm that they are
Churches, inasmuch as God has wonderfully preserved among them a remnant
of his people, though miserably dispersed and dejected, and as there
still remain some marks of the Church, especially those, the efficacy of
which neither the craft of the devil nor the malice of men can ever
destroy. But, on the other hand, because those marks, which we ought
chiefly to regard in this controversy, are obliterated, I affirm, that
the form of the legitimate Church is not to be found either in any one
of their congregations, or in the body at large.
Footnote 781:
Ephes. ii. 20.
Footnote 782:
1 Tim. iii. 15.
Footnote 783:
Jer. vii. 4.
Footnote 784:
Gal. iv.
Footnote 785:
Rom. ix. 6-8.
Footnote 786:
Mal. ii. 1-9.
Footnote 787:
John xviii. 37.
Footnote 788:
John x. 4, 5, 14, 27.
Footnote 789:
Ephes. ii. 20.
Footnote 790:
John viii. 47.
Footnote 791:
Ephes. iv. 5.
Footnote 792:
Phil. ii. 2, 5.
Footnote 793:
John xvi. 2.
Footnote 794:
Isaiah i. 13, 14.
Footnote 795:
Matt. xviii. 18.
Footnote 796:
Ezek. xiv. 20.
Footnote 797:
Dan. ix. 27. 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.