Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)
CHAPTER II.01
The True And False Church Compared - Reading 01
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 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] [782]
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.