Chapter 2: A Comparison of the False Church with the True Church

Of how great value the ministry of the word and Sacraments ought to be with us, and how far the reverence of it ought to proceed, that it be to us a perpetual token whereby to discern the Church, it has been already declared. That is to say, wherever that ministry abides whole and uncorrupted, there the faults or diseases of manners are no impediment, but that it may bear the name of a Church. Then, that the very ministry itself is by small errors not so corrupted, but that it may be esteemed lawful. Moreover, we have showed that the errors that ought so to be pardoned, are those whereby the principal doctrine of religion is not hurt, whereby those chief points of religion that ought to be agreeably held among the faithful are not destroyed, and in the Sacraments, those that do not abolish nor impair the lawful institution of him that ordained them. But as soon as lying is broken into the chief tower of religion, as soon as the sum of necessary doctrine is perverted, and the use of the Sacraments fails — truly the destruction of the Church follows: like as a man's life is at an end, when his throat is thrust through or his heart deadly wounded. And this is clearly proved by the words of Paul, when he teaches that the foundation of the Church is laid upon the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ himself being the head corner stone. If the foundation of the Church be the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, by which the faithful are commanded to repose their salvation in only Christ: then take away that doctrine, and how shall the building stand any longer? Therefore the Church must needs fall down, where that sum of religion falls which is only able to uphold it. Again, if the true Church be the pillar and stay of the truth, it is certain, that there is no Church, where lying and falsehood have usurped the dominion.

Since it is in such case under the Papistry, we may understand how much of the Church is there remaining. In place of the ministry of the word, there reigns a perverse government made of lies mingled together, which partly quenches and partly chokes the pure light. Into the place of the Lord's Supper is entered a most filthy sacrilege: the form of worshipping God is deformed with a manifold and intolerable heap of superstitions: the doctrine, without which Christianity cannot stand, is altogether buried and driven out: the public assemblies are the schools of idolatry and ungodliness. Therefore there is no peril lost in departing from a damnable partaking of so many mischiefs, we be plucked from the Church of Christ. The communion of the Church was not ordained to this end, that it should be a bond whereby we should be entangled with idolatry, ungodliness, ignorance of God, and other kinds of evils: but rather whereby we should be fast held in the fear of God and obedience of truth. They do indeed gloriously set out their Church to us, that there should seem to be no other Church in the world: and afterward, as though the victory were gotten, they decree that all the Schismatics that dare withdraw themselves from the obedience of that Church that they paint out: and that all be heretics that dare once mutter against the doctrine thereof. But by what proofs do they confirm that they have the true Church? They allege out of the ancient chronicles, what in old time was in Italy, in France, in Spain. They say that they fetch their beginning from those holy men that with sound doctrine founded and raised up Churches, and established the same doctrine and edifying of the Church with their blood. And that so the Church has been among them so consecrated both with spiritual gifts, and with the blood of martyrs, and preserved with continual succession of bishops, that it might not fall away. They rehearse how much Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and others esteemed this succession. But how trifling these things be, and how they be but very mockeries, I will make them very easily to understand that will be content a little to weigh them with me. Truly I would also exhort them earnestly to take heed hereto, if I did trust that I might any thing prevail with them by teaching. But forasmuch as they, leaving all regard of truth, do bend themselves to this only purpose, by all the ways that they can, to defend their own cause, I will only speak a few things whereby good men and those that love the truth, may wind themselves out of their subtle cavils. First I ask of them, why they do not allege Africa, and Egypt, and all Asia? Even because in all those countries this holy succession of Bishops has ceased, by means whereof they boast that they have preserved Churches. They come therefore to this point to say, that they therefore have a true Church, because since it first began to be, it has not been destitute of bishops: for in perpetual course they have succeeded one another. But what if I cast Greece in their way? Therefore I ask again of them, why they say that the Church is lost among the Grecians, among whom that succession of Bishops was never interrupted, which in their opinion is the only keeper and preserver of the Church. They make the Grecians Schismatics. But by what right? Because in departing from the Apostolic see, they have lost their privilege: what? Do not they much more deserve to lose it that depart from Christ himself? It follows therefore, that the pretense of succession is but vain, unless the posterity do keep fast and abide in the truth of Christ, which they have received of their fathers from hand to hand.

Therefore the Romanists today allege nothing else but that which it appears that the Jews in old times alleged when they were by the Prophets of the Lord reproved of blindness, ungodliness, and idolatry. For they gloriously boasted of the temple, ceremonies, and priesthoods, by which things, by great reason as they think, they measured the Church. So in place of the Church, they show certain outward appearances that oftentimes are far from the Church, and without which the Church may very well stand. Therefore we need to confute them with no other argument than that with which Jeremiah fought against the foolish presumptuousness of the Jews: that is, that they should not boast in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, it is the temple of the Lord. Inasmuch as the Lord does nowhere acknowledge anything for his, but where his word is heard and reverently observed. So when the glory of God did sit between the Cherubim in the sanctuary, and he had promised them that that should be his steadfast seat: yet when the priests once corrupted the worship of him with perverse superstitions, he removed elsewhere, and left the place without any holiness. If the same temple which seemed to be holily appointed to the perpetual dwelling of God, might be forsaken of God and become unholy: there is no cause why these men should feign to us that God is so bound to persons or places, and so fast tied to outward observations, that he must needs abide with them that have only the title and show of the Church. And this is it about which Paul contends in the Epistle to the Romans, from chapter 9 to chapter 12. For this did sorely trouble weak consciences, that the Jews when they seemed to be the people of God, did not only refuse the doctrine of the Gospel, but also persecute it. Therefore after that he has set out the doctrine, he removes this doubt, and denies that those Jews being enemies of the truth are the Church, however they wanted nothing that otherwise might be required to the outward form of the Church. And therefore he denies it, because they embraced not Christ. But somewhat more expressly in the Epistle to the Galatians, wherein comparing Ishmael with Isaac, he says that many hold place in the Church, to whom the inheritance belongs not, because they are not begotten of the free mother. From where also he descends to the comparison of two Jerusalems. Because as the law was given in mount Sinai, but the Gospel came out of Jerusalem, so many being servilely born and brought up, do without doubting boast themselves to be the children of God and of the Church, yes they proudly despise the natural children of God, when themselves be but bastards. On the other side also, when we hear that it was once pronounced from heaven, Cast out the bondwoman and her son, let us, standing upon this inviolable decree, boldly despise their unsavory boastings. For if they be proud by reason of outward profession, Ishmael was also circumcised: if they contend by antiquity, he was the firstborn, and yet we see that he is put away. If the cause be demanded, Paul assigns it, for that none are accounted children, but they that are begotten of the pure and lawful seed of doctrine. According to this reason God denies that he is bound to wicked priests by this that he covenanted with their father Levi that he should be his angel or interpreter: yes he turns against themselves their false boasting, with which they were wont to rise up against the Prophets, that the dignity of priesthood was to be had in singular estimation. This he willingly admits, and with the same condition he debates with them, because he is ready to keep his covenant, but when they do not mutually perform their part to him, they deserve to be rejected. See what succession avails, unless there be also joined an invitation and evenly continuing course: even to this effect that the successors, as soon as they be proved to have swerved from their origin, be deprived of all honor. Unless perhaps because Caiaphas succeeded many godly bishops (yes there was even from Aaron to him a continual unbroken course of succession) therefore that same mischievous assembly was worthy the name of the Church. But this were not tolerable even in earthly dominions, that the tyranny of Caligula, Nero, Heliogabalus and such others, should be called a true state of commonwealth, for that they succeeded the Brutuses, Scipios, and Camilluses. But especially in the government of the Church there is nothing more foolish, than leaving the doctrine to set the succession in the persons only, but neither did the holy doctors whom they falsely thrust in to us, mean anything less, than to pray that precisely as it were by right of inheritance Churches be there where bishops are successively placed one after another. But whereas it was then out of controversy, that from the very beginning to that age nothing was changed in doctrine, they alleged that which might suffice to make an end of all new errors, that is, that by those was that doctrine opposed, which had been even from the Apostles constantly and with one agreeing consent retained. There is therefore no cause, why they should any longer go forward to deceive by pretending a false color under the name of the Church, which we do reverently esteem as becomes us: but when they come to the definition of it, not only water (as the common saying is) cleaves to them, but they stick fast in their own mire because they put a stinking harlot in place of the holy spouse of Christ. That this putting in of a changeling should not deceive us, beside other admonitions, let us remember this also of Augustine. For speaking of the Church, he says: It is it that is sometimes darkened, and covered with multitude of offenses as with a cloud: sometimes calmness of time appears quiet and free: sometimes is hidden and troubled with wave of tribulations and temptations. He brings forth examples, that oftentimes the strongest pillars either valiantly suffered banishment for the faith, or were hidden in the whole world.

In like manner the Romanists do vex us, and make afraid the ignorant with the name of the Church, whereas they be the deadly enemies of Christ. Therefore although they pretend the temple, the priesthood and the other such outward shows, this vain glittering wherewith the eyes of the simple are dazzled ought nothing to move us to grant that there is a Church where the Word of God does not appear. For this is the perpetual mark wherewith God has marked them that be his. He that is of the truth (says he) hears my voice (John 18:37). Again, I am that good shepherd, and I know my sheep, and am known of them. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me. And a little before he had said, that the sheep follow their shepherd, because they know his voice: but they follow not a stranger, but run away from him, because they know not the voice of strangers. Why are we therefore willfully mad in judging the Church, whereas Christ has marked it with an undoubted sign, which wherever it is seen cannot deceive, but that it certainly shows the Church to be there: but where it is not there remains nothing that can give a true signification of the Church? For Paul recounts that the church was built, not upon the judgments of men, not upon priesthoods, but upon the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets (Ephesians 2:20). But rather Jerusalem is to be separately known from Babylon, and the Church of Christ from the conspiracy of Satan, by that difference wherewith Christ has made them different one from the other. He that is of God (says he) hears the words of God. You therefore do not hear, because you are not of God (John 8:47). In sum, forasmuch as the Church is the kingdom of Christ, and he reigns only by his word: can it be now doubtful to any man, but that those be the words of lying, by which Christ's kingdom is feigned to be without his scepter, that is to say without his holy word?

But now whereas they accuse us of schism and heresy, because we both preach a contrary doctrine to them, and obey not their laws, and have our assemblies for Prayers, for Baptism, for the administration of the Supper, and other holy doings, separately from them: it is indeed a very sore accusation, but such as needs not a long or laborious defense. They are called heretics and schismatics, which making a division, do break in pieces the communion of the Church. And this communion is held together with true bonds, that is to say, the agreement of true doctrine, and brotherly charity. Whereupon Augustine puts this difference between heretics and schismatics, that heretics indeed do with false doctrines corrupt the purity of Faith, but the schismatics sometimes even where there is like Faith, do break the bond of fellowship. But this is also to be noted, that this joining of charity so hangs upon the unity of Faith, that Faith ought to be the beginning thereof, the end, and finally the only rule. Let us therefore remember that as often as the unity of the Church is commended to us this is required, that while our minds agree in Christ, our wills also may be joined together with mutual goodwill in Christ. Therefore Paul, when he exhorts us to that goodwill, takes for his foundation that there is one God, one Faith, and one Baptism (Ephesians 4:5). Indeed wherever he teaches us to be of one mind, and of one will, he by and by adds in Christ, or according to Christ: meaning that it is a factious company of the wicked, and not agreement of the faithful, which is without the word of the Lord.

Cyprian also following Paul derives the whole fountain of the agreement of the Church, from the only bishopric of Christ. He afterwards adds the Church is but one, which spreads abroad more largely into a multitude with increase of fruitfulness: like as there be many sunbeams, but one light: and many branches of a tree, but one body grounded upon a fast root: And when many streams do flow from one fountain, although the number seem to be scattered abroad by largeness of overflowing plenty, yet the unity abides in the origin. Take away a beam of the sun from the body, the unity can suffer no division. Break a branch from the tree, the broken branch cannot spring. Cut off the stream from the springhead, being cut off it dries up. So also the Church being overspread with the light of the Lord, is extended over the whole world: yet there is but one light that is spread everywhere. Nothing could be said more fitly to express that indivisible knitting together, which all the members of Christ have one with another. We see how he continually calls us back to the true head. Therefore he pronounces that heresies and schisms do arise hereof, that men do not return to the origin of truth, nor do seek the head, nor keep the doctrine of the heavenly master. Now let them go and cry that we be heretics that have departed from their Church: since there has been no cause of our estranging from them but this one, that they can in no wise abide the pure professing of the truth: but I tell not how they have driven us out with cursings and cruel execrations. Which very same doing does abundantly enough acquit us, unless they will also condemn the Apostles for schismatics, with whom we have all one cause. Christ (I say) did foretell to his Apostles, that the time should come when they should be cast out of the synagogues for his name's sake. And those synagogues of which he speaks, were then accounted lawful Churches. Since therefore it is evident that we be cast out, and we be ready to show that the same is done for the name's sake of Christ — truly the cause ought first to be inquired of, before that any thing be determined about us, either one way or other. However, if they will, I am content to discharge of this point. For it is enough for me, that it behooved that we should depart from them, that we might come to Christ.

But it shall appear yet more certainly, in what estimation we ought to have all the Churches whom the tyranny of that Romish idol has possessed, if it be compared with the old Church of the Israelites, as it is described in the Prophets. There was then a true Church among the Jews and Israelites, when they continued in [reconstructed: observance] of the covenant, for they obtained those things by the benefit of God, whereupon the Church consists. They had the truth of doctrine in the law; the ministry thereof was among the Priests and the Prophets: with the sign of circumcision they entered into religion: by other Sacraments they were exercised to the confirmation of faith. It is no doubt that those titles wherewith the Lord has honored his Church, fitly pertained to their fellowship. After that, forsaking the law of the Lord, they went out of kind to idolatry and superstition, they partly lost that prerogative. For who dare take away the name of the Church from them, with whom God has left the preaching of his word and observation of his mysteries? Again, who dare call that the Church without any exception, where the word of the Lord is openly and freely trodden underfoot; where the ministry thereof, the chief sinew, yea the very soul of the Church, is destroyed?

What then? Will some man say: was there therefore no parcel of the Church remaining among the Jews after that they fell away to idolatry? The answer is easy. First I say that in the very falling away there were certain degrees. For we will not say that there was all one fall of Judah and Israel, at such time as they both first swerved from the pure worshipping of God. When Jeroboam first made calves, against the open prohibition of God, and did dedicate an unlawful place for worshipping, he did utterly corrupt religion. The Jews did first defile themselves with wicked and superstitious manners, before that they wrongfully changed the order in the outward form of religion. For although under Rehoboam they had already gotten themselves many perverse ceremonies: yet because there remained at Jerusalem both the doctrine of the law, and the Priesthood, and the ceremonious usages in such sort as God had ordained them, the godly had there a tolerable state of Church. Among the Israelites to the reign of Ahab, there was no amendment of things, and from there forth they fell from worse to worse. They that succeeded afterward, to the very destruction of the kingdom, partly were like to him, and partly (when they minded to be somewhat better than he) they followed the example of Jeroboam: but they all every one were wicked and idolaters. In Jewry there were now and then diverse changes, while some kings perverted the worshipping of God with false and forged superstitions, some other restored religion that was decayed: until the very priests themselves defiled the temple of God with profane and abominable usages.

Now let the Papists if they can, however much they extenuate their own faults, deny that among them the state of religion is as corrupt and defiled as it was in the kingdom of Israel under Jeroboam. But they have a grosser idolatry: and in doctrine they are not one drop purer: unless perhaps even in it also they be more impure. God, yea all men that are endued but with a mean judgment, shall be witnesses with me, and the thing itself also declares, how herein I tell nothing more than truth. Now when they will drive us to the communion of their Church, they require two things of us: first, that we should communicate with all their prayers, sacraments, and ceremonies: then that whatever honor, power, and jurisdiction Christ gives to his Church, we should give the same to their Church. As to the first point, I grant that all the Prophets that were at Jerusalem, when things were there very much corrupted, did neither severally sacrifice, nor had assemblies to pray severally from other men. For they had a commandment of God, whereby they were commanded to come together into Solomon's temple: they knew that the Levitical priests, however they were unworthy of that honor, yet because they were ordained by the Lord, ministers of the holy ceremonies, and were not as then deposed, did yet still rightfully possess that place. But (which is the chief point of this question) they were not compelled to any superstitious worshipping, yea they took in hand to do nothing but that which was ordained by God. But among these men, I mean the Papists, what like thing is there? For we can scarcely have any meeting together with them, wherein we shall not defile ourselves with open idolatry. Truly the principal bond of their communion is in the mass, which we abhor as the greatest sacrilege. And whether we do this rightly or wrongfully, shall be seen in another place. At this present it is enough to show that in this behalf we are in other case than the Prophets were, which although they were present at the ceremonies of the wicked, were not compelled to behold or use any ceremonies but such as were instituted by God. And, if they will needs have an example altogether like, let us take it out of the kingdom of Israel. After the ordinance of Jeroboam, circumcision remained, the sacrifices were offered, the law was accounted holy, the same God was called upon whom they had received of their Fathers: but for the forged and forbidden forms of worshipping, God disallowed and condemned all that was there done. Show me one Prophet, or any one godly man that once worshipped or sacrificed in Bethel. For they knew that they could not do it, but that they should defile themselves with some sacrilege. We have then thus much, that the communion of the Church ought not so far to be of force with the godly, that if it should degenerate to profane and filthy usages, they should forthwith of necessity follow it.

But about the other point we contend yet more earnestly. For if the Church be so considered to be such, whose judgment we ought to reverence, whose authority to regard, whose warnings to obey, with whose chastisements to be moved, whose communion in all things we ought religiously to observe: then we cannot grant them a Church but that we must of necessity be bound to subjection and obedience to it. Yet we will willingly grant them that which the Prophets granted to the Jews and Israelites of their time: when things were there in as good, indeed or in better state. But we see how everywhere they cry out, that their assemblies are unholy, to which it is no more lawful to consent than it is to deny God. And truly if those were Churches, it follows therefore that in Israel Elijah, [reconstructed: Micah] and such other: in Judea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea and other of that sort, whom the Prophets, priests and people of that time hated and detested worse than any uncircumcised men, were strangers from the Church of God. If those were Churches, then the Church was not the pillar of truth, but the stay of lying: not the tabernacle of the living God, but the receptacle of idols. Therefore it was needful for them to depart from the consent of those assemblies, which was nothing else but a wicked conspiracy against God. In like manner if any man acknowledge the assemblies at these days being defiled with idolatry, superstition and wicked doctrine, to be such in whose full communion a Christian man ought to continue even to the consent of doctrine, he shall greatly err. For if they be Churches then they have the power of the keys. But the keys are inseparably knit with the word, which is from there quite driven away. Again, if they be Churches, then the promise of Christ is of force among them, whatever you bind, etc. But they contrariwise do banish from their communion all such as do profess themselves not feignedly the servants of Christ. Therefore either the promise of Christ is vain, or at least in this respect they are not Churches. Finally instead of the ministry of the word they have schools of ungodliness and a sink of all kinds of errors. Therefore either in this respect they are not Churches, or there shall remain no token whereby the lawful assemblies of the faithful may be severally known from the meetings of Turks.

But as in the old time there yet remained among the Jews certain peculiar prerogatives of the Church, so at this day also we take not from the Papists such steps as it pleased the Lord to have remaining among them after the dissipation of the Church. The Lord had once made his covenant with the Jews. That same rather being upheld by the steadfastness of itself did continue with [reconstructed: striving] against their ungodliness, than was preserved by them. Therefore (such was the assuredness and constancy of God's goodness) there remained the covenant of the Lord, neither could his faithfulness be blotted out by their unfaithfulness: neither could Circumcision be so profaned with their unclean hands, but that it still was the sign and sacrament of that covenant. Whereupon the children that were born of them, the Lord called his own, which unless it were by special blessing, belonged nothing to him. So when he has left his covenant in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, England: since those provinces have been oppressed with the tyranny of Antichrist, yet that his covenant might remain inviolable, first he there preserved Baptism, the testimony of his covenant, which being consecrated by his own mouth retains its own force notwithstanding the ungodliness of man: then, with his Providence he has wrought that there should remain other remnants, lest the Church should be utterly destroyed. And as oftentimes buildings are so pulled down, that the foundations and ruins remain: so he has not suffered his Church either to be overthrown by Antichrist from the very foundation, or to be laid even with the ground (however to punish the ingratitude of men that had despised his word, he suffers horrible shaking and dissipation to occur) but even after the very wasting he willed that the building half pulled down should yet remain.

Whereas therefore we will not simply grant to the Papists the title of the Church, we do not therefore deny that there be Churches among them: but only we contend of the true and lawful ordering of the Church: which is required in the communion both of the sacraments which are the signs of profession, but also specially of doctrine. Daniel and Paul foretold that Antichrist should sit in the temple of God. With us we account the bishop of Rome the captain and standard bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom. Whereas his seat is placed in the temple of God, thereby is meant that his kingdom shall be such as cannot abolish the name of Christ nor of his Church. Hereby therefore appears, that we do not deny but that even under his tyranny remain Churches: but such as he has profaned with ungodliness full of sacrilege, such as he has afflicted with outrageous dominion, such as he has corrupted and in manner killed with evil and damnable doctrines, as with poisoned drinks: such wherein Christ lies half buried, the Gospel overwhelmed, godliness banished, the worshipping of God in a manner abolished: such finally wherein all things are so troubled, that therein rather appears the face of Babylon than of the holy city of God. In a sum, I say that they be Churches, in respect that the Lord there marvelously preserves the remnants of his people however they were dispersed and scattered abroad, in respect that there remain some tokens of the Church, specially these tokens, the effectualness whereof neither the craft of the Devil, nor the maliciousness of man can destroy. But on the other side because these marks are blotted out, which in this discourse we ought principally to have respect to, I say that every one of their assemblies and the whole body lacks the lawful form of a Church.

We have already shown how highly we must value the ministry of Word and sacraments — and how far our reverence for it must extend — so that it may serve as a permanent mark by which the church is recognized. That is: wherever this ministry remains whole and uncorrupted, no faults or weaknesses of character can prevent it from bearing the name of a church. And the ministry itself is not so corrupted by minor errors that it can no longer be regarded as legitimate. We have also shown that the errors to be tolerated are those that do not damage the core doctrine of religion, do not destroy those essential points that the faithful must hold in common, and — in the case of the sacraments — do not abolish or undermine the institution as the Lord ordained it. But as soon as falsehood breaks into the central stronghold of religion, as soon as the sum of necessary doctrine is corrupted, and as soon as the proper use of the sacraments breaks down — then the destruction of the church follows. Just as a person's life ends when his throat is cut or his heart fatally pierced. This is clearly proven by Paul's words when he teaches that the foundation of the church is laid on the doctrine of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Himself as the cornerstone. If the foundation of the church is the doctrine of the prophets and apostles — by which the faithful are commanded to rest their salvation in Christ alone — then remove that doctrine, and how can the building stand? The church must inevitably fall when the core of religion that alone holds it up collapses. If the true church is the pillar and foundation of truth, it is certain that no church exists where lies and falsehood have seized control.

Since this is precisely the condition under the papacy, we may understand how much of the church remains there. In place of the ministry of the Word, a corrupt government of mingled lies now reigns — partly extinguishing and partly smothering the pure light. In place of the Lord's Supper, the most disgraceful sacrilege has been introduced. The form of worship toward God is disfigured by a countless and intolerable heap of superstitions. The doctrine without which Christianity cannot stand has been altogether buried and driven out. The public assemblies have become schools of idolatry and ungodliness. There is therefore no danger that in departing from such a ruinous fellowship we are being torn away from the church of Christ. The communion of the church was not established to be a chain binding us to idolatry, ungodliness, ignorance of God, and every kind of evil — but rather to hold us firm in the fear of God and obedience to the truth. They do indeed display their church before us in the most glorious terms, as if no other church in the world existed. Then, as if victory were already theirs, they declare as schismatics all who dare withdraw from obedience to their church, and as heretics all who dare raise even a murmur against its doctrine. But by what proofs do they establish that they have the true church? They appeal to ancient chronicles to show what once existed in Italy, France, and Spain. They say they trace their beginning from those holy men who founded and built up churches with sound doctrine, and confirmed that same doctrine and the building of the church with their blood. They claim the church was thus consecrated among them with spiritual gifts and the blood of martyrs, and preserved through an unbroken succession of bishops so that it might never fall away. They cite how highly Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and others valued this succession. But how hollow these claims are — how thoroughly empty — I will show easily to anyone willing to weigh them with me. I would also urge those men earnestly to consider this if I had any hope of making headway with them through teaching. But since they have abandoned all concern for truth and are bent only on defending their own cause by every means available, I will say only what is needed for good people who love the truth to untangle themselves from these clever evasions. First, I ask them: why do they not cite Africa, Egypt, and all of Asia? Simply because in all those regions this so-called holy succession of bishops — through which they claim the churches have been preserved — has long since ceased. It comes down to this, then: they claim to have the true church because, from the beginning, they have never been without bishops succeeding one another in a continuous line. But what if I point to Greece? I ask again: why do they say the church is lost among the Greeks, when that succession of bishops was never interrupted among them — the same succession they regard as the sole preserver of the church? They call the Greeks schismatics. But by what right? Because in departing from the apostolic see they have forfeited their privilege. But do those who depart from Christ Himself not deserve to forfeit it far more? The claim of succession is therefore worthless unless the descendants continue to hold fast and abide in the truth of Christ that they received from their fathers, handed down from generation to generation.

The Romanists of today are doing nothing other than what the Jews plainly did in ancient times when the Lord's prophets reproved them for blindness, ungodliness, and idolatry. The Jews boasted gloriously of the temple, the ceremonies, and the priesthood — treating these things as the definitive measure of the church. In the same way, the Romanists hold up certain outward appearances that often have little to do with the church, and without which the church can stand perfectly well. We need no other argument to refute them than the one Jeremiah used against the foolish pride of the Jews: they must not boast in deceptive words, saying, 'The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, this is the temple of the Lord!' (Jeremiah 7:4). For the Lord acknowledges nothing as His unless His word is heard and reverently obeyed there. When the glory of God sat enthroned between the cherubim in the sanctuary, and He had promised it would be His permanent dwelling place — yet when the priests corrupted His worship with perverse superstitions, He withdrew elsewhere and left the place stripped of all holiness. If even that temple — sanctified to be God's permanent dwelling — could be forsaken by God and become unholy, then there is no reason for these men to pretend that God is so bound to particular persons or places, or so tied to outward forms, that He must remain wherever there is only the title and outward appearance of the church. This is the very point Paul argues in Romans, from chapter 9 through chapter 11. It was deeply troubling to weak consciences that the Jews — who appeared to be the people of God — not only rejected the teaching of the Gospel but actively persecuted it. After setting out his doctrine, Paul removes this stumbling block by denying that those Jews who are enemies of the truth constitute the church — even though they had everything that might otherwise be required for the outward form of the church. His reason for denying it is simple: they did not embrace Christ. In the letter to the Galatians, even more plainly, he compares Ishmael with Isaac and says that many hold a place in the church to whom the inheritance does not belong, because they are not born of the free mother. From there he moves to the comparison of the two Jerusalems. Just as the law was given at Mount Sinai but the Gospel came out of Jerusalem — so many who are born and raised in slavery boast without hesitation that they are children of God and of the church, and in their arrogance they actually despise the true children of God, while they themselves are only illegitimate offspring. On the other side, when we hear the word pronounced from heaven, 'Drive out the slave woman and her son' (Galatians 4:30), let us, standing on this inviolable decree, boldly disregard their empty boasting. If they are proud because of their outward profession — Ishmael too was circumcised. If they plead antiquity — he was the firstborn. Yet we see that he was driven out. The reason? Paul gives it: only those are counted as children who are born from the pure and lawful seed of doctrine. Accordingly, God denies that He is bound to wicked priests by His covenant with their father Levi, in which He promised that Levi should be His messenger and interpreter. In fact, God turns their very boasting against them — the boasting by which they used to rise up against the prophets, claiming that the dignity of the priesthood was to be held in the highest honor. God grants this freely — and holds them to it — for He is ready to keep His covenant. But since they fail to fulfill their part of it, they deserve to be rejected. So much for the claim of succession — unless it is matched by a faithful following and an unbroken continuation of truth: meaning that successors, the moment they are shown to have departed from their origin, are stripped of all honor. Unless perhaps — because Caiaphas succeeded many godly bishops, and there was from Aaron to him an unbroken line of succession — that wicked assembly deserved to be called a church. But this would not be tolerated even in earthly governments — no one would call the tyranny of Caligula, Nero, or Heliogabalus a true republic simply because they succeeded the Brutuses, Scipios, and Camilluses. How much more foolish, then, in the government of the church, to abandon doctrine and place all weight of succession on persons alone. Nor did the holy doctors these men falsely invoke mean anything of the sort — they were not arguing that succession of bishops in an unbroken line is what makes a church. At that time it was beyond dispute that doctrine had been unchanged from the beginning. Their point, therefore, was simply that against newly arising errors, the doctrine that had been consistently and unanimously handed down from the apostles should prevail. There is no reason, therefore, for them to continue deceiving others by hiding under the false cover of the name of the church — a name we do rightly revere. But when they come to define what the church actually is, they find themselves not just muddled but completely mired down — for they put a shameless harlot in place of the holy bride of Christ. So that this substitution does not deceive us, among other warnings let us also remember this from Augustine, who speaks of the church: 'It is sometimes darkened and covered over with a multitude of offenses as by a cloud. Sometimes, in times of peace, it appears calm and free. Sometimes it is hidden and tossed about by waves of tribulation and temptation.' He gives examples showing that the strongest pillars of the church have at times either bravely endured exile for the faith or remained hidden throughout the world.

In the same way, the Romanists intimidate us and frighten the uninstructed with the name of the church, while being the deadly enemies of Christ. Though they display the temple, the priesthood, and other such outward appearances — this empty glitter, which dazzles the eyes of the simple, should not move us for a moment to grant that there is a church where the Word of God does not appear. For this is the permanent mark by which God has distinguished His own. 'Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice' (John 18:37). Again: 'I am the good shepherd. I know My own and My own know Me.' 'My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.' Just before this He had said that the sheep follow their shepherd because they know his voice, but they will not follow a stranger — they run from him because they do not recognize his voice. Why then should we be willfully blind in judging what constitutes the church, when Christ has marked it with a sure sign that wherever it appears cannot deceive, but unmistakably shows that the church is there — and where it is absent, nothing remains that can truly indicate the church? For Paul says the church was built not on human authority or priestly offices, but on the doctrine of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20). Jerusalem must therefore be distinguished from Babylon, and the church of Christ from the assembly of Satan, by that very distinction by which Christ has separated them. 'He who is of God hears the words of God,' He says. 'The reason you do not hear them is that you are not of God' (John 8:47). In short — since the church is the kingdom of Christ, and He reigns only by His word — can anyone still doubt that claims that set up His kingdom without His scepter, that is, without His holy word, are simply lies?

Now they accuse us of schism and heresy because we preach a doctrine contrary to theirs, do not submit to their laws, and hold our own assemblies for prayer, baptism, the administration of the Supper, and other holy exercises, separately from them. This is indeed a serious accusation — but one that requires neither a long nor a laborious defense. Heretics and schismatics are those who, by causing division, break apart the communion of the church. That communion is held together by its true bonds: agreement in sound doctrine and brotherly love. On this point Augustine draws this distinction between heretics and schismatics: heretics corrupt the purity of faith with false doctrines, while schismatics — sometimes even where the faith is the same — break the bond of fellowship. But it must also be noted that this bond of love depends so entirely on the unity of faith that faith ought to be its beginning, its end, and its only governing rule. Let us remember, therefore, that whenever we are called to the unity of the church, what is required is this: that while our minds agree in Christ, our wills should also be joined together in mutual goodwill in Christ. When Paul calls us to that goodwill, he grounds it on the fact that there is one God, one faith, and one baptism (Ephesians 4:5). And whenever he urges us to be of one mind and one will, he immediately adds the phrase 'in Christ' or 'according to Christ' — making clear that any gathering not grounded in the word of the Lord is a faction of the wicked, not the fellowship of the faithful.

Cyprian, following Paul, traces the entire source of the church's unity back to the sole sovereignty of Christ. He then adds: 'The church is one, which spreads more widely into a multitude by the fruitfulness of its increase — just as there are many sunbeams but one light, many branches on a tree but one trunk rooted in the ground. When many streams flow from one spring, though the abundance of the overflow seems to scatter widely, the unity remains at the source. Cut off a ray from the body of the sun, and the unity allows no division. Break a branch from the tree, and the broken branch cannot bud. Cut off a stream from its spring, and what is cut off dries up. So also the church, flooded with the light of the Lord, extends its rays over the whole world — yet it is one light that is spread everywhere.' Nothing could express more fittingly that indissoluble union which all the members of Christ have with one another. We see how consistently he calls us back to the true Head. He therefore declares that heresies and schisms arise when people do not return to the source of truth, do not seek the Head, and do not keep the doctrine of the heavenly Master. Now let them go and cry that we are heretics who have departed from their church — when the only reason for our separation was that they could not in any way endure the pure profession of truth. I will not even mention how they drove us out with curses and violent condemnations. That very act more than sufficiently acquits us — unless they are also willing to condemn the apostles as schismatics, since our cause is one with theirs. Christ Himself foretold to His apostles that the time would come when they would be cast out of the synagogues for His name's sake. And those synagogues He spoke of were at that time recognized as lawful churches. Since it is evident that we have been driven out, and we are ready to show that this happened for the sake of Christ's name — the cause ought to be investigated before any verdict is rendered against us. In any case, if they insist, I am content to let this point go. It is enough for me that it was necessary for us to depart from them in order to come to Christ.

What judgment we should make of all the churches that have come under the tyranny of that Roman idol will become even clearer when we compare them with the ancient church of the Israelites, as the prophets describe it. There was a true church among the Jews and Israelites as long as they continued in the observance of the covenant — for God granted them the things on which the church depends. They had the truth of doctrine in the law. The ministry of that doctrine was among the priests and prophets. Through circumcision they entered into religion. Through other sacraments they were exercised and confirmed in faith. Without doubt the honorable titles with which the Lord dignified His church rightly belonged to their fellowship. After that — having forsaken the Lord's law and given themselves over to idolatry and superstition — they partly lost those privileges. For who would dare to strip the name of church from those with whom God still left the preaching of His word and the observance of His sacraments? But equally — who would dare to call it the church without qualification, where the word of the Lord is openly and freely trampled underfoot, where the ministry of the word — the chief sinew, indeed the very soul of the church — has been destroyed?

What then? Will someone ask: was there therefore no remnant of the church among the Jews after they fell away into idolatry? The answer is straightforward. First, I say that even within the falling away there were degrees. We will not say that Judah and Israel fell in exactly the same way when they both first departed from the pure worship of God. When Jeroboam made golden calves in open defiance of God's command and dedicated an unlawful place for worship, he utterly destroyed religion. The Jews first defiled themselves with wicked and superstitious practices before they wrongly altered the outward form of religion. For although under Rehoboam they had already adopted many corrupt ceremonies, because the doctrine of the law, the priesthood, and the religious ceremonies as God had ordained them still remained in Jerusalem, the godly there had a tolerable condition of church. Among the Israelites, from the reign of Ahab onward, there was no improvement, and from there they fell from bad to worse. Those who followed — right up to the destruction of the kingdom — were either like Ahab or, when they tried to be somewhat better than he was, followed the example of Jeroboam. But all of them, every one, were wicked and idolatrous. In Judah there were periodic changes: some kings corrupted the worship of God with false and invented superstitions, while others restored religion that had fallen into decay — until the very priests themselves defiled God's temple with profane and abominable practices.

Now let the papists, if they can — however much they minimize their own faults — deny that the condition of religion among them is as corrupt and defiled as it was in the kingdom of Israel under Jeroboam. In fact, their idolatry is grosser than his, and in doctrine they are not one drop purer — if indeed they are not even more impure. God — and indeed all who have even ordinary good judgment — will bear witness with me, and the facts themselves show that I am saying nothing but the truth. Now when they drive us to the communion of their church, they require two things of us. First, that we share in all their prayers, sacraments, and ceremonies. Second, that whatever honor, power, and jurisdiction Christ gives to His church, we should give to theirs. As for the first point — I grant that all the prophets who were in Jerusalem, even when things there were deeply corrupted, did not sacrifice separately or pray in separate assemblies from other people. They had a commandment from God to gather at Solomon's temple. They knew that the Levitical priests — however unworthy of the honor — had been ordained by the Lord as ministers of the holy ceremonies and had not been formally removed from office, so they still legitimately held that position. But — and this is the main point — the prophets were not compelled to engage in any superstitious worship. They did nothing except what God had ordained. But what resemblance is there among these men — the papists? We can hardly attend any gathering with them without defiling ourselves with open idolatry. The chief bond of their communion is the mass, which we abhor as the greatest sacrilege. Whether we are right or wrong in this will be examined in another place. For now, it is enough to show that our situation is different from that of the prophets, who — though present at the ceremonies of the wicked — were not compelled to witness or participate in any ceremonies except those instituted by God. And if they need a directly comparable example, let them take one from the kingdom of Israel. After Jeroboam's ordinance, circumcision remained, sacrifices were still offered, the law was still held sacred, and the same God their fathers had known was still called upon — but because of the invented and forbidden forms of worship, God rejected and condemned everything done there. Show me one prophet, or one godly person, who ever worshipped or sacrificed at Bethel. They knew they could not do so without defiling themselves with some sacrilege. We have established this much, then: the communion of the church should not have such a hold on the godly that if it descends into profane and wicked practices, they are therefore required to follow it.

The second point is even more serious. For if the church is considered to be the body whose judgment we must reverence, whose authority we must respect, whose warnings we must obey, whose discipline must move us, and whose communion we must faithfully maintain in all things — then we cannot grant them the name of church without being obligated to full subjection and obedience to it. Yet we are perfectly willing to grant them what the prophets granted to the Jews and Israelites of their own time — when things there were in an equally good or even better condition. But we see how everywhere the prophets cried out that those assemblies were unholy, and that consenting to them was no more permissible than denying God. And truly, if those assemblies were churches, it follows that in Israel, Elijah, Micah, and others like them — and in Judah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and their kind, whom the prophets, priests, and people of that time hated and despised more than any uncircumcised outsider — were strangers to the church of God. If those were churches, then the church was not the pillar of truth but the support of lies — not the tabernacle of the living God but the den of idols. It was therefore necessary for them to depart from agreement with those assemblies, which were nothing other than wicked conspiracies against God. In the same way, if anyone today acknowledges the assemblies defiled with idolatry, superstition, and corrupt doctrine as bodies in whose full communion a Christian ought to remain — even extending to agreement in doctrine — he is making a serious mistake. For if they are churches, they hold the power of the keys. But the keys are inseparably bound to the word — which has been completely driven out from among them. Again, if they are churches, then Christ's promise has force among them: 'Whatever you bind...' But in fact they expel from their communion all who sincerely profess to be servants of Christ. Therefore either Christ's promise is meaningless — or at the very least they are not churches in this respect. Finally, in place of the ministry of the word they have schools of ungodliness and a cesspool of every kind of error. Therefore either they are not churches — or there will no longer remain any mark by which the lawful assemblies of the faithful can be distinguished from the gatherings of unbelievers.

But just as certain marks of the church still remained among the Jews in ancient times, so today we do not strip the papists of those marks that the Lord was pleased to preserve among them after the church was devastated. The Lord had once made His covenant with the Jews. That covenant survived in spite of their wickedness — maintained by its own steadfastness rather than being preserved by them. Therefore — such was the certainty and constancy of God's goodness — the Lord's covenant remained. Their faithlessness could not blot out His faithfulness. They could not so defile circumcision with their unclean hands as to make it cease to be the sign and sacrament of that covenant. Accordingly, the Lord called the children born from them His own — which, apart from His special blessing, they had no right to claim. In the same way, since He has left His covenant in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and England — though those countries have been crushed under the tyranny of antichrist — He has worked to keep that covenant inviolable. First, He preserved baptism there, the testimony of His covenant, which — consecrated by His own mouth — retains its power regardless of human wickedness. Beyond that, in His providence He has ensured that other remnants survive, so that the church would not be utterly destroyed. Just as buildings that are torn down still leave foundations and ruins behind — so He has not permitted His church to be completely overthrown and leveled from its very foundation by antichrist. Though in punishment for the ingratitude of those who despised His word He has allowed terrible shaking and devastation, He has still willed that even after the wasting, the half-demolished building should remain.

When we refuse to grant the papists the title of church without qualification, we are not therefore denying that there are any churches among them. We are only contending about the true and proper ordering of the church — which is required both in the communion of the sacraments as signs of profession, and especially in doctrine. Daniel and Paul foretold that antichrist would sit in the temple of God (2 Thessalonians 2:4; Daniel 9:27). We regard the bishop of Rome as the captain and standard-bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom. When it is said that his throne is placed in the temple of God, it means that his kingdom will be of such a nature that it cannot abolish the name of Christ or of His church. From this it is clear that we do not deny that even under his tyranny, churches remain — but churches that he has profaned with ungodliness full of sacrilege, afflicted with outrageous domination, corrupted and nearly killed with evil and damnable doctrines as with poisoned drinks. Churches in which Christ lies half buried, the Gospel is smothered, godliness is banished, and the worship of God has been largely abolished. Churches, in short, in which everything is so disordered that they present more the face of Babylon than of the holy city of God. In summary: I say they are churches in the sense that the Lord marvelously preserves among them the remnants of His people, however dispersed and scattered, and in the sense that certain marks of the church remain — marks whose power neither the cunning of the devil nor the wickedness of people can destroy. But on the other side, because the marks to which we must give chief attention in this discussion have been erased — I say that every one of their congregations, and the whole body together, lacks the legitimate form of a church.