Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)
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?
