Jurieu answers the question, “Where was the Protestant Church before Luther?”
SOURCE [Page 554] Taken from his Pastoral Letters, translated and published in 1689.
‘Tis necessary, they tell you, that the Church be always visible; for she is a city set upon a hill and cannot be hid. How could the Pagans of all ages be able to come into the Church if she had been hidden? The gate of conversion would have been shut to them. Our [theory of] bidden [invited] believers [into the Church] are chimeras. Besides, ’tis necessary that the ministry of the Church be always visible. For you will never persuade us [Catholics] that our ministry has entirely failed; so that it was needful, (as your [Protestant] Confession of Faith says) that God should extraordinarily raise up men to re-establish it. Besides, ’tis of the essence of the Church to be visible; your [Reformed] Church cannot be the true Church, for it was not visible 200 years ago; it was not visible, they say, since it never existed in the first place.
Concerning this, in the first place, [you so-called “converts” who were threatened by fear of torture, prison or death to convert to Catholicism], don’t engage yourselves to maintain that the true Church is invisible, as if this point were necessary to defend your cause, and our Church was hidden before the Reformation. Your Converters quote many places of Scripture, (as the Bishop of Meaux has done in his Instructions to Mademoiselle de Duras) to prove to you, that the Church is a visible Society. Tell them that is to no purpose for we are at an agreement therein with them. They may quote unto you many of our Doctors who have maintained that the true Church was invisible. But know, my Brethren, that this is nothing but a dispute about words, and that we are in accord with them as to its sense. Our Divines mean that the true members of the Church are invisible and not that the Society, in which the true Members of the Church are, is invisible. This is true because there are none but true believers that are true members of the Church: If you hear my voice, then are you my Disciples indeed, [John 8:31]. Now true predestinated believers are visible as men, but they are not visible as believers; for nobody sees true Faith which is in the heart, and the external actions which appear may be equivocal. But the Society where these true members are is visible; for ’tis a Society of men that serve God according to His Word and Laws, which is visible. Understand this by the example of a man: he hath a body and a soul, but the body, in which is his soul, is visible. True believers are the soul of the Church that is invisible; the body of the Church is the external Society, and that is visible. Therefore, as you may say of a man, that he is both visible and invisible; invisible with respect to his soul, visible with respect to his body. So, too, it may be said concerning the Church, that she is both visible and invisible, invisible with respect to her soul, which is true faith and true believers; visible with respect to the Society, in which this soul, i.e., of the true believers, are enclosed. This is so clear and evident that your Converters cannot disallow it. Behold, already one point of sophistry is made void: The Church is visible just as a man is visible.
After this, if they inquire of you, Is this visible Church the Body of Jesus Christ? Distinguish and tell them, She is the Body of Jesus Christ forasmuch as she contains truly righteous persons and true believers; but not because she encloses wicked, hypocritical, and vicious persons. For ’tis impossible that these persons should be the Body of Jesus Christ; otherwise, Jesus Christ would have rotten and stinking members; otherwise, dogs, swine, etc. would be in the communion of Jesus Christ. Now this is absurd, for if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His, [Romans 8:9], and there can be no communion between light and darkness, Christ and Belial, [2 Cor. 6:14]. So that a Christian who hath nothing but a simple profession, with neither virtue nor charity, nor is a lover of the Word, yet is in the Christian Society, he is no true member of Jesus Christ, nor of His Church, be he Priest, Bishop, or Guide thereof. Reflect on this concerning the monstrous doctrines of your Converters, of whom the majority will tell you that to be a true member of the Church it suffices to make profession of the faith and to adhere to lawful Pastors. So that Priests who are Sorcerers and Sodomites, which you have oftentimes seen burnt at Paris, were the true members of Jesus Christ. This [doctrine] is capable of making a man tremble with horror.
They will then say to you, if they were not true members of the Church and of the Body of Jesus Christ, they could not be the guides thereof. Such a one may be an evil man, yet he is, nevertheless, a true Bishop. He must, therefore, be a true member of Jesus Christ and of His Body. Answer them this, which one of the writers of Port Royal says somewhere, Oftentimes those who build Jerusalem and guide it are the citizens of Babylon. Tell them that to be a lawful Pastor and Guide of the Church and be able to administer the Word and Sacraments with authority, it is sufficient to be a member of the external and visible Society. It is not necessary to be a member of the true Church to be an instrument in the hand of God to do His Work. A King may administer Justice and administer it very well by a wicked man who hath inwardly all sorts of inclinations to injustice. They then will respond that a man cannot be the Head and Guide of a Body, without being a member thereof, for the Head is one of its principal members. It must be answered: false Pastors are true members of the visible Society of the Church and that they are also true heads of that Society whereof they are true members: but they are neither Heads nor members of the principal invisible part of the Church who are true Believers and truly righteous persons. They are not, therefore, true Heads but only of that part whereof they are true members, and that sufficeth them for the external administration of the Word and Sacraments, for the truly righteous receive the Word and Sacraments despite the quality of the members of the external Society.
Your Converters will press you further, and tell you, “You do confess the Church is visible because she hath a Body which is an external Society. But is it always visible?” Although you should answer it is not necessary that the Church be always visible, they would not be able to convince you of the contrary: For a man who is visible according to his body, he may be sometimes hidden and thus, be invisible. May not the external Society of the Church which is visible have been hidden in some seasons due to the persecution of Pagans or Heretics? Confess to them that the Church hath been always visible and will be so unto the end of the World. Tis true that the persecutions under the Pagan Emperors were very great, but they never proceeded so far as to utterly destroy all Assemblies of the Church to the degree that there were no visible Societies of Christians; the Christians under persecution were well known, seeing they knew where to find them to make Martyrs of them; the Church was visible in the midst of the flames. She remained visible in the heretical Assemblies of the Arians; for those that held the Truth in those Assemblies were more numerous than those that erred concerning it. If there were any place where the Church become invisible, it was in Papism, for never was there a Church so corrupt and drowned in superstitions, as that. Nevertheless, the Church continued there visible because Christianity and the Fundamentals of the Christian religion did abide there. I do not say that they remained there in their Integrity, but on the contrary. Nevertheless, it sufficeth that they did continue there. ‘Tis necessary, therefore, that you know that wherever Christianity remains perceptible to the senses and visible, the Church remains visible. For it is Christianity that makes the Church. If a Sect becomes so corrupt that Christianity is no longer visible in it, such as the Mohammedans and the Socinians who have rejected the Foundations, the Church is no longer visible among them, unless it be as a dead man who remains visible, yet without life and without soul. So, in the sects which have rejected the Foundations, the Church remains visible, however, they are visible as churches without life, without soul, without salvation. In the sects which preserve Christianity, although they have added many things thereunto, and even such things as overturns the Foundations thereof, the Church doth not fail to remain visible because Christianity is there and can be seen there. If therefore your Converters inquire of you, “Where was your Church before Luther, and Calvin?” Answer them: “She was in in the Christian Societies that were in Æthiopia, in those which were in Egypt, and in Africa, in those which are and were in Asia, in the Greek Church that was at Constantinople, and Antioch, in Muscovy, and the Churches of Russia, and she was even in the Church of Rome itself.” If they ask of you, “Was the Church visible in these Societies, or were the members thereof hidden?” Answer them: “The Church was visible in these Societies, forasmuch as Christianity and the Creed of the Apostles in the true sense thereof, explained in the first six General Councils, were visibly preserved there.” You should then add: “The true members of Jesus Christ and of the Church were hidden and not visible because those that sincerely and truly adhered to true Christianity contained in the Creeds of the Christian Church were not known by name; but that these believers were hidden was not at all peculiar to the corrupt churches because of their corruption; for the case is the same in the purest churches, for the true members of Jesus Christ and of His Body are hidden because we do not know with certainty those which adhere to the Christian faith in sincerity, and with the heart.” Behold, a pure and natural explanation of the true visibility of the Church, and of the perpetuity of that visibility.
The Bishop of Meaux and your other Converters will seem to you very well pleased in this, that you confess the Church is visible and always visible. Behold, they will declare one point gained: “For if the Church be always visible, ’tis of necessity that there be a succession in the ministry, a train of legitimate Pastors. There will always be Teachers with whom Jesus Christ will teach, and the true Teaching will never cease in the Church.” These are Monsieur de Meaux, that great Converter’s own words: That is to say, from the perpetual visibility of the Church, he draws these three conclusions: (1) That pure and true Teaching hath never ceased in the Church. (2) There will always be a series and train of legitimate Pastors. (3) That Jesus Christ will always teach with these Pastors, i.e., they must be Infallible.
I intreat you, my Brethren, to attend to what I shall say concerning these three consequences:
(1) These gentlemen suppose that the Church cannot be perpetual and perpetually visible without being pure, and without continuing pure, and exempt from corruption in the faith. The Church is always visible; therefore, pure preaching must always remain there. Can a man argue more pitifully? ’tis just as if I should say, ‘Whilst man hath a soul in his Body, he must be always sound, and hail,’ as if health were inseparable from life. Where have they found that purity, with respect to faith, is inseparable from visibility? And because the Church is always visible, doth it follow that she is always sound? If the nature of the Church consisted in an indivisible point, that in order for it to exist it must remain in a perfect state of pure faith in which there was no kind of error, ‘tis true, the Church would perish, cease to be, and by consequence cease to be visible as soon as its Christian doctrine should become mingled with any strange and foreign doctrine; and indeed ’tis the supposition of your Converters. But ’tis the most foolish dream that ever entered into the mind of man, as well as most contrary to the Word of God and experience that ever was asserted. It is the most contrary to the Scripture, for it says: There shall be in the Church thorns and thistles mingled with the good grain. Wolves will creep in and destroy the flock. That there must be heresies. That men will build upon the foundation wood, bay, stubble. And that even the Son of Perdition will sit in the Church and Temple of God. It is also the most contrary to experience because for the space of 1300 or 1400 years, which way soever we cast our eyes, we behold Christianity everywhere spoiled by false and strange doctrines. Lay this down, therefore, as an indisputable fact, that the Church must always be visible, that she must always subsist, but not that she must always subsist pure and undefiled. The Church began to be corrupt considerably in the fourth Age; and in two Ages the corruption became such that Antichristianity, which is the highest degree of the corruption of Christianity, proceeded and came out from thence.
But in the midst of this great corruption, Christianity nevertheless preserved itself; it remained very visible, and by consequence the Church also continued visible: for yet once more [I reiterate] the Church remains everywhere where Christianity remains; and the Church remains visible everywhere where Christianity remains visible. Remember, therefore, that Popery is a very high and extreme corruption of Christianity, but ’tis not the annihilation of it, for we must well distinguish betwixt annihilation and extreme corruption. If the Church of Rome had rejected the foundations, as the Turks and the Socinians have done, she would have annihilated Christianity, the Church would have been no more visible than a dead Body is visible. But because she hath only added an infinite number of false, superstitious and idolatrous doctrines, whilst she hath retained the fundamentals, she hath only corrupted Christianity. But Christianity in the midst of those corruptions hath not failed to remain visible to those which search after it with diligence and attention. Imagine you an egg not broken, which swims in dirty and stinking water; ’tis the perfect emblem of the Roman Religion. The egg whole and not broken is the Christian Creed preserved in its integrity in the sense of the Church. The filthy and stinking Water where this egg swims is the heap of superstitions, errors, and idolatries of Popery. The Egg remains visible in the midst of this filthy Water, and even the opposition of the blackness of the Mire to the whiteness of the Egg make it in some sense more visible. The Body of Christianity is also visible in the heap of Popish errors; and to him that will give attention thereunto, it may be said, that the true Christianity which doth continue in the Roman Religion, serves to discover and make the ugliness of Popery more horrible. The mud and the stinking water which encompasseth this egg is visible, as well as the egg. ‘Tis the light of the day which manifests the one and the other. The corruption introduced by Popery in the Roman Religion is visible as well as Christianity. ‘Tis the light of the day, i.e. the light of the Word of God which manifests both: for the Word of God manifests Christianity in the Romish Religion by the fair conformity of the three Creeds; that of the Apostles, that of Nicaea, and of Athanasius with the Revelation [of Scripture]. This same word manifests Antichristianity, the mud and the dirt of Popery, by the frightful dissimilitude and unlikeness which is between Popery and the Revelation [of Scripture]. It seems to me that one must be very stupid not to perceive all this, and not to see that the Church may always endure, and always be even visible, although it be not necessary that she always continues in perfect purity.
Not being able to proceed at this time to the examination of the two last consequences which your Converters draw from the perpetual visibility of the Church, I will conclude by answering a question which they put unto you, and one which it may be you put unto yourselves: Can a man be saved in Communions which you compared to a great basin full of dirt and stinking water, in which swims a good egg, clean, and remains in its integrity? This respects those who desire to save themselves in the Roman Church because she retains the ‘egg,’ the Creed of Christians, in its perfection. You may well think that we should have a great many things to say to them, if we would say all, and were willing to repeat what we have said concerning it in our Seventeenth Letter. But in this place I shall only answer that it does not follow, that a man may be saved in a communion which retains the ‘egg’ of Christianity, whilst he swims in the dung which compasses the egg and nourishes himself with it. A man plunged in a hideous mire — who receives the stinking dirt in his mouth — because he sees some fruits useful for nourishment that swim in this slime, can he live thereby? Yea, suppose that he eats of these fruits, if at the same time he eats this corrupt slime, will he die e’re a whit less? If this man finds an Art to separate the slime from the nourishments which swim there, so that he takes nothing but the nourishments, I do confess that he may live. In like manner, if a Christian can live in the Roman Communion, and separate the good from the bad, he may be saved. But this is what we maintain to be impossible for an adult. These corrupt and dirty communions are therefore saving to only those who partake in Christianity without any participation in the corruption thereof. For example, we ought not to call in doubt the salvation of Infants who die in the Church of Rome, for they have eaten the egg and God hath communicated to them His Grace by their Baptism or their birth because they were born within the borders of Christianity. As for the adults, if they can eat the egg, and not swallow the dung, if they can partake in pure Christianity, without taking part in its corruption, they may, I do confess, they can live and be saved in that Communion. But this is the difficulty, or rather impossibility: Who can live in the Roman Communion, without assisting at the false Sacrifice of the Mass, without worshiping bread, consenting to the invocation of Saints and the worship of Images? This is sufficient for now to correct the mistaken belief of our discontented Indifferents, who wrongly convince themselves they can be saved as they currently are.
FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS
In our preceding Letter, we have explained how the Church is visible always; and we have refuted one of the consequences which the Converters draw from thence. Behold another of them, unto which it behooves us to answer: The Church, say they, is always visible, therefore ’tis necessary that she should always have a succession of lawful Pastors. This is designed to make you [new converts] confess, (1) That the Pastors of the Church of Rome are lawful Pastors and have always been so. (2) And by consequence we are separated from lawful Pastors, in addition to a lawful Ministry. From this axiom, that the Church is always visible, it follows that there hath always been true Preaching in some points, i.e., in fundamental Articles. In like manner, it doth follow that there hath been always true Pastors in some things and in some respect: but it doth not follow, that the Ministry which is legitimate in some things is so in everything; for you must know, that the Ministry depends only upon the doctrine. If the Christian doctrine be wholly corrupt, and annihilated in a Society, the Ministry is void, nor is there anything lawful there. If the Doctrine is pure and Christian in all its parts, the Ministry is entirely legitimate in all respects. To conclude, if the doctrine is partly Christian, and partly Antichristian, the Ministry is partly lawful and partly unlawful. This is the condition of the Ministry of the Church of Rome; in that Church there is Christianity and Antichristianity, Christianity in the Creeds, and Antichristianity in the superstitions and idolatrous additions. The pastors of that Church are commissioned to preach both Christianity and Antichristianity; their ministry is legitimate because they are authorized to preach Christianity, but their mission is entirely illegitimate since they are also commissioned to preach Antichristianity. Thus, their ministry is void, for nothing legitimate can be preached against the truth.
If you well understand this, you will easily answer the question proposed unto you: ‘Why do you separate from a true and lawful Ministry?’ Answer, we do not separate from the Ministry of the Roman Church because it teaches Truth when preaching the three Creeds, nor in that which it lawfully hath. In this respect we are united, for we hold the same doctrine, and by consequence the same Ministry. We separate from the Ministry of the Church of Rome with respect to the commission she gives her Pastors to make the Body of Jesus Christ and teach Idolatry; now this part of her Ministry is void, vain, criminal and illegitimate.
The third false consequence which your Converters draw from the perpetual visibility of the Church is that Jesus Christ will always teach with these visible Pastors. If Monsieur de Meaux, and those like him, understand thereby that Jesus Christ ought to guide them by a Spirit of Infallibility, the supposition is false, and there is no necessity of adding anything to make the falseness evident. For I have proved that perpetual visibility doth not signify that the Church must necessarily always be pure and infallible. This is true in its Pastors, as well as in its other members; for the Pastors have no privilege of being infallible, any more than the other parts of the Church. If you desire that I should add something thereon, it shall be only this: ‘Tis that the Church is like a man who, after he hath been young and sound, becomes old and diseased. This man is visible with his gray hairs, rotten teeth and wrinkles, just as he was visible when he had his fresh complexion and lively color, with the air of his countenance brisk & vigorous. In like manner the Church hath been young, sound and pure, in the Ages close to the Apostolic Age. However, by little and little she is grown old, and at last has become deformed through corruption, yet she remains visible in her old age and corruption, just as she was visible in her youth and purity: so that neither her youth nor her old age, neither her purity nor her corruption, are signified by her visibility. The case iş the same concerning the perpetuity of the Ministry. They claim the Ministry is perpetual, therefore ’tis incorruptible. You must deny that consequence without scruple, for ’tis false. But some will say, ‘Does not the Lord teach with those Pastors which follow one another in the order of Ages?’ Answer Ye: because these Pastors teach the three Creeds conformably to the Holy Scriptures; Jesus Christ teaches with them, and they with Jesus Christ. But because they teach idolatrous and superstitious doctrines beyond the three Creeds, they teach against Jesus Christ. My Brethren, what I have said unto you in this, and the preceding Letter, is sufficient to make you understand what is the perpetual visibility of the Church. Read it, and read it again, until you understand, and profess it well, and you will easily answer these two sophisms which your adversaries put upon you.
Their first [argument] is that if the Church hath not been always visible; the Pagans for a thousand, or twelve hundred years before Luther’s Reformation, had no door open to their conversion. For how should they be converted, and how should they find the Church, if she were invisible? Now ’tis a prodigy contrary to all reason and probability that God for the space of so many Ages, should hold the door of the Church closed and hidden: Besides, this is contrary to History and experience, which teaches us that the major part of the Northern Nations, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, and many Provinces of Germany, did not receive the Christian faith until the eighth Age, i.e., since the time that Antichristianity was mixed with the Christian doctrine: For, according to us Protestants, the Roman Church began to be Antichristian before the sixth Age. [Thus, the Roman Church was not corrupt when we say it was, since she was responsible for the conversion of many before Luther’s Reformation.] This may seem a difficulty which they propose to you; to which you ought to answer that according to what we have told you, we do not teach that the Church became invisible by the Antichristianity which entered there; she remains visible, though corrupt. Christianity hath not failed to continue in its integrity [when preaching the three Creeds] in Popery, therefore, the Church remains entirely there. I have told you [new converts] that Christianity and the Church are the same thing. As long as Christianity continued visible through the Books of the Old and New Testament, as well as in the three Creeds which the providence of God hath preserved in Popery, the door of conversion hath always been open to the Pagan Nations: for Jesus Christ crucified and His true Mysteries have not failed to preserve their force and efficacy, despite all the Darkness which the bastard Mysteries of Antichristianity have brought in thither.
There hath been conversion and perversion in the Pagan Nations, which have joined themselves to the Church of Rome since the eighth Age. There hath been Conversion, for they have entertained one God in three Persons, one God Creator of Heaven and Earth, one Jesus the Eternal Son of God, the Word made flesh, who died and rose again for the sins of men, who will come to Judge the living and the dead, and having raised men from their graves will send some men to everlasting Torments, and some to the Kingdom of Heaven. This is Christianity, so by receiving this they became converts to Jesus Christ. There hath been perversion also; for by receiving a Vicar of Jesus Christ, a Vice-God upon Earth, a Sovereign to all the World, a Master of Kings as if his subjects, of Crowns, as if Shepherd [of the world by his] Crooks; by adoring bread, Angels, Saints, relics and images the Nations have done nothing else but changed their ancient Paganism for a new one. But however it be, the perversion has not hindered their conversion; and that they have entertained Antichristianity hinders not their embrace of Christian doctrine also. So that the Gate of conversion to Christianity was never shut. But the question is: whether this Gate be saving? Whether these conversions be profitable, or whether we ought to say of the Missionaries of the Roman Church what Christ Jesus said of the Pharisees: they compass sea and land to make Proselytes, whom they made twofold more children of hell than themselves? The question is whether the Antichristianity which they have embraced hath more power to destroy them than the Christianity which they have received hath to save them? It behooves you to answer that these people who are joined to the Church of Rome since the eighth Age, have some portion and lot with her ancient members; that God doth nothing in vain; that He hath not converted so many men to Christianity and then to destroy them all: though it be a corrupt Christianity, which in the times when there were no churches, which were not as corrupt as the Church of Rome, it may be granted that God did preserve unto Himself children in these corrupt Societies; that in these Pagan Nations which are joined to the Church of Rome, God had his Elect, and that he found means to save these Elect from among the Nations by the Christianity which they had embraced, and that he gave them the grace to separate the Antichristianity, and not to be hurt or injured thereby. How this was done is not for us to precisely determine. These are the depths of the ways of God. We will say the same concerning the conversions which the Roman Church hath made in the Indies: that God saves His Elect from among these Nations by the Christianity which the Missionaries cause them to embrace, and defends them from the wounds and hurts which the Antichristianity that is joined unto it might do unto them, by ways known only to His profound Wisdom. We might believe this, say I, were it not for the report that the Papists themselves make unto us of the Christianity which the Jesuits teach the Indians and Chinese which is honestly no more than Paganism. This is the question which must be answered to overcome the first apparent difficulty.
Behold their second [argument]: If you confess, say they, that the Church is always visible, the Church of Luther and Calvin cannot be the true Church, for it was not visible two hundred years ago, having no existence in the world. When you shall have made a dissection of this difficulty, you will find it the most pitiful one that ever was made. Know then, my Brethren, when we say the Church was always visible, we understand the Church Universal, and not any particular Church. By the Universal Church must be understood Christianity dispersed through all Nations in the East, West, North, and South, in all places where they retain the Books of the Old and New Testament, with the three Creeds, which are an abridgment of them. This Church is always visible, for God cannot permit that she perish wholly, nor yet that she be wholly hidden; but the particular churches of which the Universal Church is made up and formed, neither have, nor can have this privilege of necessarily being always visible. For experience makes us see that God permits that they perish wholly: For example, the great Churches of Africa, of Carthage, and Numidia, &c. Where were the Cyprians, the Augustines, the Saints Fulgentii, that is to say, the prime Lights of the Church? These churches, say I, are nonexistent; therefore, they are not visible. Perpetual visibility was not affixed unto them. At present you must consider that the defect of invisibility may be found in a particular church for one of two reasons: either because she no longer exists or because she is not yet in existence. The churches of Africa are invisible because they are no more; and the Protestant churches were invisible two hundred years ago because they were not yet. Understand, I intreat you, the folly of the objection which they make unto you by this: The true Church is always visible; the Church of St. Austin and St. Cyprian is no longer visible, therefore, they were not the true Church. Can anything be more foolish and ridiculous than this? You very well understand what you ought to answer: that when the Church of St. Austin was in the world it was visible, and it was then the true Church, but after it was extinct and abolished by the Invasions of the Saracens and the Moors, how can you wish or desire it should remain visible?
So, when they tell you the true Church is always visible, but the Church of Luther and Calvin was not visible two hundred years ago, therefore, it is not the true Church, you can answer that a man can say nothing more absurd, and that a Church is far from being visible, when it is not yet in existence. Ah, based on that statement they will say to you: the novelty of your Church is proof of its falseness. For a new Church cannot be a true Church. Another absurdity: The Church of China, erected by the Roman Missions is about a hundred years old. I reason against that just as they reason against us: A new Church which was not visible a hundred years ago, cannot be a true Church, for the true Church is ancient and always visible. However, the Church of China is new, and was not existent a hundred years ago, therefore it is not a true Church. I desire that they would tell me the difference, unless it be that the Church of China newly came out of the bosom of Paganism, and that ours has newly come out of the bosom of Antichristianism. He must be a little cracked in the crown not to perceive by this example that the new erection of a particular Church ought to be no prejudice unto it. Nothing can prejudice it but new doctrine: If a new Society teaching a new doctrine doth arise in a new Church, then, in that case, that Church is worth nothing. But they will say, ‘Behold, this is exactly your own state and case, for you are a new Church that teaches new things.’ That’s the question; that’s what we deny and which must be examined to know whether we teach new things. We must therefore come to the Foundation to see if we teach the ancient religion of Christ and His Apostles, and not ridiculously amuse ourselves in disputing about circumstances concerning a new Church, of its new establishment, of its perpetual visibility, &c. For if we teach the true and ancient religion of Jesus Christ, all that they say regarding these things are illusions. And if on the contrary, our doctrine be not that of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, though we were as old as the world, and had been always as visible as the sun, we should, nevertheless, be a false Church. This is, therefore, that to which I will stand and confess. We are not to search the character of perpetual visibility in any particular Church, but only as it agrees to Christianity in general, as the Church Universal agrees. Before our Reformation the Church was not visible in our Society because it did not yet exist, but it was visible in the Greek Church, in the Armenian, Coptic, Abyssinian, and Ethiopian Churches, because all these preserved Christianity entire in the three Creeds. When we came into the world, the Church became visible in our Society, as it was before in others, with this difference: the Church and Christianity were visible before our Reformation, as the egg whereof we have spoken was visible in the midst of that dirty, unclean, and filthy water in which it swam; but that in our Church Christianity is as visible as the Sun, disengaged from dark clouds and fogs. My Brethren, if you take pains to read and meditate deeply, and do so more than once upon what I have said unto you, I tell you frankly, I shall no longer fear on your behalf [your believing] the sophism concerning perpetual visibility.
True Marks of the Church not found in Popery
Dear Brethren in our Lord, Grace and Peace be given to you, from our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Before we pass to another part of the controversy about the Church and leave the question concerning its perpetual visibility, and after examination of the visibility of the Church in general, ’tis needful that we take cognizance of the visibility of the Roman Church in particular: ‘Tis needful that you say to your Converters, “Since it is true that the Church is always visible, and that you are the Church, help us to see her; in and by what is the Roman Church visible?” If they show you great Churches full of men that pray and worship, who hear Vespers and Mattins, who prostrate themselves before wafers and images, you will answer, “This does not shew me the Church. For if I were at Constantinople, a Turk would shew me his Mosques all full of Worshippers, which cry, there is but one God, and Mahomet is his Prophet. Tell them, “If you would please go to London, I will show you the Church in England, as you show it to me in France; I will show you great Churches full of men, which pray and worship, who prostrate themselves before God, who pray and understand what they pray for. ‘Tis unavoidable therefore, that you show me not men and heaps of stones which are called Churches but rather show me sensible and visible marks which prove Popery is the true religion of Jesus Christ, and that the Church of Rome is the true Church.” Add to this, that the marks which they give you ought to be suitable to your capacity, i.e., the capacity of plain persons without learning. For the space of twelve or fifteen Years the Popish Doctors of France have changed the controversy this way. The business [of the ministry] is not to instruct the learned, ’tis acknowledged on both sides that the multitude and greater part of the Church is composed of men without learning, of plain people who must be saved as well as the more able. From henceforth therefore it is necessary to furnish a means to the common people, to inform them of the truth in matters of controversy, and a means altogether suitable to their weakness. Particularly in this controvery: Whether the Church of Rome hath certain and evident marks of her truth which make her visible. For tis an important affair, and which the weakest ought to understand. It is certain that a Church cannot be seen visible by its qualities, other than by the means which they call her ‘marks;’ of this we are at an agreement.
We must therefore see whether the Church of Rome hath those marks which may make the weakest perceive she is a true Church. I will not here engage you in that labyrinth of disputes which the Doctors of the Church of Rome have formed about the marks of that Church. ‘Tis their manner to bury the truth under a prodigious heap of useless words and obscure questions. I will not examine the sixteen marks which Bellarmine has given, nor the forty which others have produced. You cannot read those Books, nor are they those which they put into your hands; for since that time, they have become more able in Sophistry. Mr. Nicholas [Sanders], who is the last that hath labored on this subject, has employed three chapters to prove, even to the weakest and simplest that the Church of Rome is quite visible. In the first of these three chapters, he says, “A man may prove the Church to the weakest by Scripture.” In the second, “A man may prove the Church to the weakest by Tradition.” And in the third, “The Church of Rome is not unfurnished with exterior marks which make her known to be the true Church to the weak.” Behold three sources of visibility for the Roman Church: (1) Tradition. (2) Exterior Marks. (3) The Scripture. As this is one of the Books which your Converters put into your hands, I do intreat you to give attention to what I now lay upon you.
I begin with Tradition. They understand by Tradition, the testimony of the Fathers, Councils, and Authors of all Ages; therefore, the meaning is they can prove the Church of Rome is the true Church by the testimony of the Greek and Latin Fathers, and by the Councils of the Greek and Latin Church. And at first, this is a contradiction that stares you in the face. “It may be proved to the weak,” says he, “by the Fathers and the Greek and Latin Councils that the Church of Rome is the true Church.” And how can a man prove to the weak a truth by the testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers? For the weak understand neither Latin nor Greek, nor have they the means nor time to turn over the leaves or read and examine these great volumes. Behold the way, nothing more remains than to employ two means, the first is a principle founded on a Rule of St. Austin, that all Customs that are found universally established, whose origin and beginning we know not, may be very justly ascribed to the Apostles. The second means is included in the syllogism which Mr. Nicholas makes. Scripture and Tradition teach there hath always been one Church in the world, visible and successive, and that this Church is infallible for the instruction of believers in the truths of Faith.
Now the Church of Rome is this only visible Church. Therefore, the Church of Rome is the infallible Church, and to her alone belongs [authority] to instruct men in the truths of Faith.
And behold how Mr. Nicholas sheds a light upon the first axiom which makes the Church of Rome visible to the weak. “All the Traditions concerning which the heretics dispute,” says he, “have their certain epochs or beginnings which are not disputed by them. The Calvinists agree, that in the fourth Age men called upon Saints, adored relics and observed Lent; that in the seventh Age they worshiped images; in the eleventh they believed Transubstantiation: The weak have no need to assure themselves of this matter of fact by way of examination, for ’tis confessed on both sides. Apply the principle of St. Austin, that all customs found universally established in one Age, and whose beginning we know not, may be justly attributed to the Apostles. Now the customs of invoking Saints, worshiping images, observing Lent, and worshiping the Sacrament are found generally established in some Ages, as the Calvinists confess, yet we know not where to find their origin. Therefore, they ought to be referred to the Apostles.” A man cannot possibly tell how many illusions there are in his axiom which are unworthy of an honest man, yea, especially a man of a good understanding. First, ’tis to scoff at mankind, to say, ’tis a proper light to make the Church visible to the weak. For this method of reasoning doth necessarily suppose: (1) That a person must know [for a fact] this pretended Rule is St. Austin’s, on which the Papists support themselves, is St. Austin’s. (2) That the Ministers all consent to the truth of this rule. (3) That they confess that upon certain times, the customs of worshiping images, praying to Saints, &c., were generally received. (4) That from thence it follows, that these customs, generally established in some Ages, ought to be referred to the Apostles. All this is disputed, and there are large Books written on the subject, which the weak cannot read, and this requires an examination which is above the capacity of those who are not educated men. This is what we have proved invincibly in our Answer to Mr. Nicholas. Secondly, it is to be observed that this fine principle upon which this pretended evidence is founded, viz. the Rule of St. Austin is false, especially if it be applied to all Ages. It hath been observed, that the Fathers of the fourth Age were very much inclined to support the novelties which crept into the Church upon the authority of the Apostles, and to make all things pass as Apostolic, the beginning whereof the people were not able to see. It is therefore false that all customs which are found established in a certain Age, although we are not able to find their beginning in a distinct manner, nevertheless, they ought to be ascribed to the Apostles. For example, the custom of adoring the Sacrament of the Eucharist was not generally established in the Latin Church until the twelfth Age. Although we could not find the origin of this idolatry, it remains an impiety to attribute it to the Apostles. There are certain practices which are insensibly established little by little, the first point of whose origin cannot be precisely observed. It doth not follow, therefore, that we must ascribe its origin to the Apostles. We must attribute nothing to the Apostles, but what is in their writings. Thirdly, I observe there is a faulty and shameful falseness in the application of the Rule. Mr. Nicholas pretends that the customs which are found generally established in certain Ages ought to be referred to the Apostles, and for this reason: the custom of falling prostrate before images must be referred to them, because this custom is found generally established in the eighth Age. I do maintain, that Mr. Nicholas does demeaningly betray his conscience in this example, for he is persuaded as well as I and all those Roman Catholics in France, who are men of knowledge and understanding, that they do know that the Apostles did not establish image-worship; and these Gentlemen do not refuse to confess it when they are not in dispute. Fourthly, I say, this reasoning makes a supposition which is altogether false: ’tis that we are not able to find the origin of those customs which are generally established in certain Ages. This is false; the custom of praying to Saints is found established in the fifth Age. In our preceding Letters we have shown the origin and birth thereof. In like manner, we find in all the following Ages the birth of image worship, of Purgatory, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Real Presence, and Transubstantiation. They make a bitter dispute with us about it which is unworthy of honest men. Show us, they say, who was the first Heretic who taught either the invocation of Saints, or the worship of images, or those other false worships which we condemn. I answer: I have no need to name their Author, seeing I have shown the Age of their birth. I prove, for example, by an invincible proof, they did not invocate Saints in the three first Ages of the Church. I find the invocation of Saints afterwards, about the end of the fourth Age. Is not this to observe the point of its birth? Of what significance does the name of the first Author matter in this case? Besides, superstitious and idolatrous practices did not have one single Author, they had many; tis the dull-witted and ill instructed people who introduced Superstitions and who introduced them gradually, little by little. But for speculative Heresies, ’tis the learned who give them birth, for which reason ’tis easy to mark both their Authors, as well as the precise time of their origin. Fifthly, to conclude, I observe in this light, which Mr. Nicholas forms to make the Church of Rome visible, there is no more sound judgment than there is of honesty. For even if all that he says were solid and his method would prove the Invocation of Saints, the Adoration of Relics, Lent, &c., were Apostolical Traditions, this would not prove that which ought to be proved here, viz. that the Church of Rome is the only true Church. For it must be known, that the Greek Church, which according to the Papists is schismatical and in which a man cannot secure his salvation, do also invocate Saints, worship images, and observe Lent. ‘Tis therefore necessary to find in Tradition evident proof that the Church of Rome is the true Church, with the exclusion of all other Sects; and this reasoning of Mr. Nicholas doth not prove either, directly nor indirectly.
The 2d light which Mr. Nicholas forms to make the Church of Rome visible, is drawn from the external marks, which make her known as the true Church to the weak and ignorant. These external marks, according to him, may be reduced to two: Miracles and Sanctity. Now this Sanctity and these Miracles which must make the Roman Church visible are either those of the present, or those of past Ages. Mr. Nicholas searches for the visibility of the Church of Rome more in the Miracles of the first Ages than in those of his. And behold how he reasons: the Church of the two or three first Ages had marks sufficiently evident of the Divine Spirit whereby she was animated; that is to say, the miraculous Holiness of her Members and the Miracles which were done there. These made her sufficiently visible and sufficiently supported her authority. Now, if the Church of the three first Ages had the character of both authority and evidence, we cannot refuse it being the Church of the fourth Age, for ’twas the same Church. She possessed all the advantages of the three first Ages. That is to say, in addition to her Miracles and her Prodigies of Sanctity which belonged to her by right of succession, she also had those which were her own which were not inferior. For she had her Martyrs, her Prodigies of Sanctity and her Miracles, and these Miracles were done in that same Church that prayed to Saints and worshiped relics, according to the confession of the Ministers. These Prodigies of Sanctity and Miracles did yet continue in those Ages in which the Ministers do confess they had Images and believed Transubstantiation. For example, the Age of St. Bernard, which is the 12th. This St. Bernard wrought Miracles and taught all that which is believed in the Church of Rome. Follow on from Age to Age, and you will come even to the Church of the present Age, who hath right to attribute to herself not only the Miracles of the Apostles, but all those which have been wrought since, and above all, those which were done by the relics of Saints in the fourth and fifth Ages. Just as the Miracles which St. Austin reports to have been done by the Relics of St. Stephen in Africa; those of St. Martyn in France, and those of the Anchorites in Egypt and Syria.
[N. B. “Viewed as Living Saints, Anchorites were Christian recluses, primarily in the medieval period, who voluntarily withdrew from the world to live in permanent, strict solitude. Walled into small cells—often called anchorholds—attached to churches, they dedicated their lives to prayer, contemplation, and spiritual guidance, often serving as trusted advisors to their local communities.”]
Not to enter into a long dispute on the subject of this pretended mark of the Church of Rome, I answer three or four things briefly, to which I pray give attention.
1. That this pretended fountain of light [allegedly] fit and proper to make the Church of Rome visible, is not for the simple and uneducated. For to see the solidity of the foundation thereof, they must examine the history of the pretended Miracles which were done in the fourth and fifth Ages. They must see what we have said in opposition to it; they must examine circumstances to see if there is no reason to believe that all these stories of Miracles are either frauds or fictions. They must also examine the History, to see whether these pretended Prodigies of Sanctity are not Fables or the disorders of sick and melancholic minds. They must, therefore, be able to understand Latin and Greek, and to read great and large Volumes. To offer this as a light suitable to the capacity of the weak and unlearned is to scoff and deride them.
2. I say the Miracles of the Apostles, which are certain, and the Prodigies of the Sanctity of the three first Ages, do not belong by right of succession to the Church of the fourth and fifth Age, but only so far as she inherits the Doctrine of the Apostles. These Miracles were effectual to prove the Divinity of the Christian Religion to Pagans. But they are worth nothing to prove novelties, as are the invocation of Saints, and the worship of Relics, which are purely Pagan practices. With far greater reason the Church of Rome hath no right by succession to the Miracles of the Apostles, to prove her worship, her idolatries and superstitions. We have as much right as she to these Miracles of the Apostles. They are truly and properly also our Miracles. They are commonly good for us all against the ungodly and against Infidels to prove there is one God in three Persons, that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the true Redeemer of the World. But they are nothing to prove our additions, corruptions and our alterations, if it be so, that either the one or the other of the Christian Sects, whether Popery or Calvinism, have introduced them into the Church. The matter is clear: the Miracles of the Apostles belong to us, but only so far as we have inherited their Doctrine.
3. As to the Miracles of the fourth and fifth Age which were done in the times when they prayed to Saints, and worshipped relics, we say they were false Miracles. It is to be observed, that from the death of the Apostles, until the end of the fourth Age, nothing was spoken of Miracles in the Church, or so little, and in so doubtful a manner, that it doth not deserve to be reckoned for anything. For it was not until the Devil desired to set up the worship of Creatures that he poured out a Lying Spirit and a Spirit of Credulity which began to entertain discourses of Miracles. ‘Tis a thing of importance, press your Converters thereon. Why did these Miracles cease for the space of well-nigh two hundred years; or at least why were they so rare? And why did they begin again exactly at the time when the worship of relics grew famous? Do we not see clearly that ’tis a wile of the Devil? Hath God any interest to be served by Bones and Ashes? Was it necessary that He should begin again to do Miracles at that time? And if it were of use to persuade the truth of the Religion which the Martyrs declared to the Pagans, why did God not work Miracles by the Bones of the Martyrs for the first three Ages? This would have been much more profitable when Paganism was rampant, and the Church persecuted and oppressed. Wherefore did not the Bones of Polycarp, of whom the believers of Smyrna speak with so much love, work miracles? Why did so many Martyrs, whose relics they had and whose anniversaries they observed in the time of St. Cyprian, not work signs and wonders? Your Converters will never be able to answer this. Therefore, you must be persuaded that these pretended Miracles done by the Relics of St. Stephen, St. Gervais, St. Protais, St. Martyn, &c. were Illusions of the Devil, whom God permitted to work false Miracles, or they are the deceptions of peasants and lewd Superstitionists; or to conclude, stories of the commoners and Fables which honest men received as Truths upon hearsay. And as to the Miracles which are ascribed to the Anchorites of Egypt, and Syria, I know not how Mr. Nicholas is not ashamed to draw from them a Light to make his Church visible. They are Fables for the most part so gross that the falseness of them stares in the face of the most ignorant. The Lives of St. Paul the Hermite, of Hilarion, and others written by St. Jerome, that of St. Anthony the Great, composed, as they say, by Athanasius, are written with such little modesty and judgment that any man ought to be ashamed of them.
The judicious Readers that would preserve respect for the Authors of those Lives, say that the Fathers composed them not as Histories, but as pious Romances to divert Christians from reading the Pagan Fables. We see in the Lives of those solitary persons of the Desert, such as found Centaurs in the Woods, Satyrs, Men half Horses and half Goats, who spoke to them and prayed them to intreat the common Saviour to have pity on them, and to give them part in the common Salvation with them. We see Hermites who were in perpetual contests with the Devil, always tempted, and often beaten by him. We see them herded among the Beasts. We read in one word almost all the impertinencies of our new Legends. This makes it evident that this Fabulous Spirit entered the Christian Religion at the same time as the Spirit of Superstition and Idolatry.
4. I say that although it should be true, that these Miracles wrought in the Age of the establishment of the worship of Saints and relics, should be true Miracles, it would not be a Light for the Roman Church, any more than for the Greek, who also worship Saints and relics. ‘Tis therefore needful that we have Miracles from the Church of Rome, since she was separate from the Greek Church, and that it would appear that this Gift of Miracles has departed from all other Churches to affix itself to the Church of Rome alone. However, the Greek Schismatics also have their Saints, their Legends, and their Miracles, as well as the Latin Church. [Thus, the argument for Miracles as a mark of the true Church can also be used by the Greek Church.] Besides, we maintain that all the Miracles of the Church of Rome, including those of St. Bernard, as well as others, are Legends, Tales, or Illusions of the Evil Spirit.
5. To conclude, I maintain that every person who hath no other foundation for his Faith than that of Miracles is a false Believer. I have said it elsewhere: Miracles are not designed principally to prove Truth; they are appointed to awaken men’s minds, to oblige them to give attention to the Truth.
Mr. Nicholas joins to the Miracles and Prodigies of Sanctity of the Ancients, which make the Church of Rome allegedly visible, the Sanctity of the present Church of Rome, her Reformed Orders, her great Men, the Trappist Nuns, etc., and concludes that although a man should have regard to nothing but the Sanctity of the morals of the Church of Rome, she is thereby distinguished from all other Societies, and that she hath in persons of eminent piety, obvious Marks of the Spirit of God which will animate and inspire her to the end of the world. Mr. Nicholas, speaking of all preceding Ages, did always join Miracles with Sanctity. At present he prostrates himself before Miracles and why is this? He knows very well his Church pretends to have the Gift of Miracles today. And there is not a place eminent for devotion as are the famous Ladies of Argillières, of Montserrat, of Loretto, where they do not pretend to see Miracles. [Capuchin priest] Father Marco d’Aviano ran all the world over to make it evident that the Gift of Miracles did not die with the Apostles. Mr. Nicholas dares not produce modern day miracles because he well perceives that all these Miracles are suspected. Obviously, he himself hath not much faith in them. And so, by this silence, Mr. Nicholas doth tacitly consent that at this day the Roman Church doth no Miracles. If it be claimed that she does, I would like to know why it is the Roman Church works no Miracles today when she had never more need of them to convert so many ill converted Heretics who cry out so loudly of the violence which they have suffered by the sending of the Dragoons?
The Miracles whereof they tell us, as done at present, may very well be Juggles or Fables, according to what Mr. Nicholas lets us think by saying nothing of them. And for the same astute reasoning, may not all those of the past seven or eight hundred years also be accounted for impostures? These [so-called] Miracles of the Church of Rome, and of Popery, surely deserve more of our attention and scrutiny. But in the meanwhile, I pray give attention to this: It is if they reckon the Miracles which are found in the Legends from the fifth Age, wrought expressly to support the invocation of Saints, adoration of relics, worship of images, and of Purgatory, it will be found that God hath wrought, without hyperbole, a thousand times more Miracles for the establishment of these false doctrines, these wicked worships, than he hath wrought to confirm the Christian religion. We told you a while ago that a Monk had allegedly raised fifty-two dead persons, as did others in their proportion. Now judge if it was probable that these new doctrines, supposing they were true, should be so important that to confirm them God should work a thousand times more wonders than He hath wrought to establish the faith of the greatest Mysteries of the Christian religion. As to the Article [mark] of Holiness of the Church of Rome at this day, whereof Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Arnold put forth as evidence for her, I can destroy it by making appear the enormous corruptions which are yet seen in her most considerable parts of Spain and Italy. I can prove the disorders of her Clergy, and of her Monks; I can prove that these prodigious austerities which they claim as the effects of the Spirit of God are but the effects of the Spirit of Hypocrisy or Fanaticism. But to the end that I may not trouble those that pride themselves of the virtue and piety in the Roman Church, I will say that if there be piety in some of the Members of that Church, they owe it not to Popery and Antichristianism, but to the remainders of Christianity which continue in that Communion.
I come to the third Light by which Mr. Nicholas would make the Church visible: the Holy Scripture. To conclude, behold he now comes to the only place from whence the true Light can be drawn. It is false, saith he, that this present Author hath believed that the point concerning the [identity of the only true] Church cannot be proved by the Scriptures, and that the proofs are not accommodated to the capacity of the common man. We have shown Mr. Nicholas how much absurdity there is in what he says here, that a man may prove the point concerning the Church by the Scripture after a manner fitted to the capacity of the common man; and yet we know not how to prove the other Articles of Faith which are controverted after the same manner. It hath been made evident that this controversy concerning the Church is the most difficult of all. It hath been represented to him, that to decide this controversy by the Scripture, according to the method which he hath employed against us, it is necessary that an ignorant man should be able to compare the Translations with the Originals, and by consequence, that he should understand Greek and Hebrew, that he may be able to read the Commentaries of the Ancients, and the Moderns, and by consequence, that he should be able to understand Latin. All this is as necessary to determine one single controversy as it is to determine one hundred. We have proved to him that it is false to say that a man may very well prove the Sovereign Authority of the Church by Scripture, but that he cannot prove thereby the Trinity or Incarnation, and on that subject he is reduced to an eternal silence. For which reason we shall not press him farther on an Article which he grants us by his silence. But it is necessary to acquaint you, that his affirmation is entirely false and rash, viz. that the Holy Scripture furnishes sufficient Light to common men to make them see that the Roman Church is the true Church. These Gentlemen either mean that Scripture clearly proves there should always be a visible, infallible Church on Earth, or they mean that Scripture points to the Church of Rome as the true Church, excluding all other Christian groups. Or they mean that Scripture makes the Roman Church clear because it holds and teaches all the doctrines and practices this Church approves.
As to the first sense, although it should be true, Popery would gain nothing thereby; although they should prove even by the Scripture that there ought always to be a visible and infallible Church upon Earth, this would not prove that this must be the Church of Rome: For the Greek Church pretends to be that Church which is built upon the rock, and against which the gates of bell cannot prevail – to the exclusion of the Latine Church – and ’tis that in which we ought to observe the perpetual illusion of the Roman Doctors. They oppress you [new converts] with Sophisms to convince you that there ought to be a Judge, an infallible Interpreter of Scripture, a Church that cannot err. Answer them in one word: ‘Although all this which you say should be true, it would be no advantage to you; we must seek this Church, and this infallible interpreter elsewhere, for ’tis certain you have erred, [and, therefore, are not infallible].’
I come to the second sense, viz., that the Scripture sheds a Light which renders the Church visible because it shows, with the finger, the Roman Church as the true Church to the exclusion of all others. Now this is a falsehood discernible to all the world. The Holy Scripture speaks not one word of the Church of Rome, or of her Infallibility. ‘Tis true there is an Epistle addressed to the Church of Rome, but St. Paul so little thought of her as infallible that he speaks to her as a Church that would fall, or at least as one that might be cut off from the true Olive, and from the root of Jesus Christ, [Romans 11].
There remains only the third sense in which your Converters can say that the Scripture sheds a Light which makes the Church of Rome visible: ‘Tis that the doctrine of the Scripture is found perfectly conformable to that of the Church of Rome. This they must say, if they will say anything that is solid: for the truth is, there is not any mark of the Church, but this, viz. her conformity to the Holy Scripture. Leave alone, therefore, all the pretended heap of Marks of the Church, which are either false, or equivocal, and remember to keep this last point close to you. Tell your Converters, to make your Church visible to me I must see it conformable to the Scripture; and there you will reduce them to extremities. ‘Tis here that we have an evident proof that Popery is an Antichristian religion. Behold, a proof to which all the subtilty of Hell can never oppose. For we say every Society and every Religion which hath nothing conformable with the Law of Jesus Christ, is not the true Religion. Now Popery hath nothing conformable to the Law of Jesus Christ, therefore, it hath nothing of Christianity.
I intreat you to give attention to this: If a Sect of the Turks, calling themselves Mahometans, had no authority among them similar to the Quran, which is the Law of Mahomet, would you not tell them that they lie? If the Jews, calling themselves Jews, should re-establish a worship which is nothing like the worship prescribed by Moses, would anyone believe it when they say they are of the religion of Moses? Every religion hath its Books, and every Sect (to shew that ’tis of such a religion) ought to prove its conformity with those Books. Common sense says thus: If, therefore, Popery has nothing similar to the Christian Scriptures, ’tis clear it is not Christianity. Now this is it which we take for granted, and which we are ready to prove before all sorts of Judges, even Jews and Pagans, viz. that Popery hath no conformity with the Scripture, which is the common authoritative Law of Christians. To be convinced of this, my Brethren, first separate Christianity from Popery in the Roman Church, and don’t suffer yourselves to be blinded by what your Converters say unto you:
‘Are not we Christians? Do we not believe one God in three Persons, one Jesus crucified for the sins of men, one Resurrection, one Paradise, and one Hell? Does not the Scripture teach all this? Is not our religion therefore conformable to Revelation?’
Answer them thereon: ‘Yea, you are Christians in all you believe with us; but you are Antichristians by what you believe without us. It is true these points whereof you speak are in the Scripture, but ’tis my [Protestant] religion rather than yours; I acknowledge you have preserved the fundamentals of true Christianity, but this means nothing when compared with your [true] religion, which is Popery, for the Christian Scriptures do not authorize a lawful Purgatory, invocation of Saints, adoration of images and relics, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the adoration of the Sacrament, the Latin Tongue in the worship of God, a Communion without the Cup, a Head of the Church besides Jesus Christ. Behold Popery, which we maintain hath no conformity with the Scriptures. Indeed, when your Converters attempt to prove their doctrines by the Scripture, it seems they have renounced common sense, as well as faith and honesty. To understand this, there is no need to examine any controversial Books, as they would gladly [attempt to] persuade you, there needs no more but open eyes to read the Scriptures. For example: When they endeavor to prove the Pope is the Sovereign Head of the Church, the Center of Unity, the Mouth that utters Oracles, and him to whom we must adhere if we will be saved, and they produce for us as their entire proof these words, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; feed my Sheep. When, I say, they produce this and nothing else to prove the most important point of Popery, which is the Authority of the Pope, I do maintain that he must be stricken with a Spirit of Stupidity to regard this as proof. He must, I dare say, be abandoned to a Spirit of Reprobation to suppose that the Scripture that tells us of Pastors and Teachers as guides of the Church, should not speak one word of this great Office of Pope and Sovereign Pastor.
Or when for [the authority for practicing] the Sacrifice of the Mass [which they claim] propitiatory for the living and the dead, they produce for us, as proof from the holy Scriptures, these Texts: Melchizedek offered bread and wine [Gen. 14]; They shall offer to my Name a pure sacrifice from the rising of the Sun to the going down of the same [Malachi 1:11]; Sovereign wisdom bath prepared her victuals, and mingled her wine [Proverbs 9:2]; We have an Altar of which they have no right to partake, which serve the Tabernacle [Heb. 13:10]; Do this in remembrance of me [Luke 22:19]. When they produce these passages for the entire proof of the Sacrifice of the Mass, are you not tempted to believe they do not speak seriously? For nothing seems more contrary to sound common sense.
To prove we must invocate Saints, they refer us to those words of Jacob, The Angel which delivered me from all evil, keep the lads [Gen. 48:16]; and those of Eliphaz to Job, And to which of the Saints wilt thou turn thy self? [Job 5:1], that is to say, ‘of the Saints which are upon Earth;’ and those of Daniel, Have mercy upon Israel, for the sake of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob [Daniel 9].
To prove we must prostrate ourselves before images and worship relics, they produce those words of God to Moses, Pluck off thy shoes, for the place where thou standest is holy ground [Exod. 3:5]; and those of David, Worship before his footstool [Psalm 99:5]; and those of St. Paul to Timothy, From thy childhood thou hast learnt the holy Scriptures [2 Tim. 3:15].
Here is nothing to be laughed at, instead we ought to pour out tears of blood for the fact that [professing] Christians should fall into so prodigious a Stupidity, and into so great a lack of common sense. Now if the Mahometans should use the same type of arguments to prove their religion by their Quran, should we not take them for nothing less than mad men? Your Converters cannot tell you I mislead you concerning their principal proofs drawn from Scripture, for as to those points whereof we speak unto you they have no other, and the case is the fame in all other Articles of Popery – their Faith concerning the Eucharist is no exception. For the words, This is my Body, although they should signify a real Presence, do not signify Transubstantiation by any means in the world. Tis a truth so evident, that [Saint] Cajetan, and many other Doctors after him have confessed it. Is it not a shame, that on an Article so important as is the Adoration of the Sacrament when they should produce proofs from Scripture they cannot produce so much as one, but the words, This is my Body; which do not speak one word concerning worship. When they ought to prove the Power which is given to the Church to take away the Cup, again they quote, This is my Body. This is fitting speech to mock men, not willing to confess plainly that which is truth, i.e., ‘our religion hath no conformity to the Holy Scripture.’
My Brethren, that I may make you fully understand the truth that Popery hath no kind of bond, union, or conformity with the Scripture, observe these two things: First, That Popery treats the Scripture as a declared Enemy. It disputes its perfection, its clarity, its sufficiency and its authority. It produces vast Volumes to prove it’s obscurity; that ’tis a Nose of Wax, that ’tis a Sword with two edges, that it hath been a pretext (by its obscurity) of all Heresies, that it contains not half the things that are necessary for salvation; that it hath no authority without the testimony of the Church; that it must be interpreted according to the Voice of the Church and her Practices; that it contains a hundred things capable of raising scruples and giving scandal. You have heard of the famous Cardinal Perron, who collected all that seems ridiculous to the profane which is contained in the Scripture, as the Jawbone of Sampson’s Ass, and other similar things to make it lose its authority. They also add that the Scripture is maimed and half lost, corrupted by the Jews or Heretics, and to top it all off, the Popes, the Councils, the Doctors, the Inquisitors, and the Parliaments, have even forbidden the reading of it by the people, as if it is a dangerous Book. Is not this to declare themselves, in both doctrine and action, enemies of the Scripture? The other reflection which I wish you would make is that the Church of Rome looks on the Scripture as her Enemy; Popery is always on its guard against the Holy Scripture, always prepared to give a [repelling] push [away], always drawing back and recoiling, always answering, always distinguishing; sometimes distinguishing Sacrifice into bloody and unbloody, sometimes distinguishing adoration/worship into Dulia and Latria, sometimes the Head of the Church, into Principal and Ministerial, sometimes the Essence of the Body of Jesus Christ into natural and sacramental, sometimes Mediators into Mediators of Intercession and of Redemption; always to repel the Scripture, and always to serve their best interests. Is it not, therefore, very clear that Popery is in perfect opposition with the Scripture? It attacks it as an Enemy by a hundred false accusations; it defends itself against it as if it were an Enemy by hundreds of imaginary distinctions to ward off the blows the Scripture gives it. To attack and defend is all that Enemies do to one another. Observe well, my Brethren, in the instructions which your Converters give you in these last times, the Scripture doth not enter among them. They are ashamed of the proof which their Doctors have heretofore drawn from the Scripture to support their Doctrines. On this very day they beat and press upon you by nothing but the pretended authority of the Church, and passages of the Fathers which you never read.
From all this I conclude that Popery, insofar as it has the quality of true religion, and the Church of Rome the quality of the true Church, are by no means visible, seeing they are destitute of that Light which alone can make the true Church visible, viz. conformity with the Holy Scripture.
END
Be First to Comment