CHAPTER II.

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 farther been shewn, 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 the faithful 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 cornerstone." (h) If the foundation of the Church be the doctrine of the prophets, and apostles, which enjoins the faithful 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," (i) 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, so that it was never lost. They allege the importance attached to this succession by Irenaus, 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 ludicrous. 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 VOL. III.

F

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." (k) 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 eleventh. 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 would not receive Christ. He speaks rather more explicitly in the Epistle to the Galatians, (/) 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 first-born 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 invio(4) Jer. vii. 4. (1) Gal. iv.

[BOOK IV.

pure

lable 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 tell us that none are accounted children but those who are born of the and legitimate seed of the word. (m) 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. (n) 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 Caiphas 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 Brutii, 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 farther 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 (n) Mal. ii. 1-9.

(m) Rom. ix. 6—8.