(Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4, part 3)
Chapter 2. Comparison between the false church and the true.
The divisions of the chapter are, - I. Description of a
spurious Church, resembling the Papacy vaunting of personal
succession, of which a refutation is subjoined, sec. 1-4. II. An
answer, in name of the orthodox Churches, to the Popish accusations
of heresy and schism. A description of the Churches existing at
present under the Papacy.
Sections.
1. Recapitulation of the matters treated in the previous chapter.
Substance of the present chapter, viz.: Where lying and
falsehood prevail, no Church exists. There is falsehood
wherever the pure doctrine of Christ is not in vigour.
2. This falsehood prevails under the Papacy. Hence the Papacy is not
a Church. Still the Papists extol their own Church, and charge
those who dissent from it with heresy and schism. They attempt
to defend their vaunting by the name of personal succession. A
succession which abandons the truth of Christ proved to be of
no importance.
3. This proof confirmed, 1. By examples and passages of Scripture;
2. By reason and the authority of Augustine.
4. Whatever the Papists may pretend, there is no Church where the
word of God appears not.
5. The objection of personal succession, and the charge of heresy
and schism, refuted, both from Scripture and Augustine.
6. The same thing confirmed by the authority of Cyprian. The
anathemas of the Papists of no consequence.
7. The churches of the Papists in the same situation as those of the
Israelites, which revolted to superstition and idolatry under
Jeroboam.
8. The character of those Israelitish churches.
9. Hence the Papists act unjustly when they would compel us to
communion with their Church. Their two demands. Answer to the
first. Sum of the question. Why we cannot take part in the
external worship of the Papists.
10. Second demand of the Papists answered.
11. Although the Papacy cannot properly be called a Church, still,
against the will of Antichrist himself, there is some vestige
of a Church in the Papacy, as Baptism and some other remnants.
12. The name of Church not conceded to the Papacy, though under its
domination there have been some kind of churches. Herein is a
fulfilment of Paul's prophecy, that Antichrist would sit in the
temple of God. Deplorable condition of such churches. Summary
of this chapter.
1. How much the ministry of the word and sacraments should
weigh with us, and how far reverence for it should extend, so as to
be a perpetual badge for distinguishing the Church, has been
explained; for we have shown, first, that wherever it exists entire
and unimpaired no errors of conduct, no defects should prevent us
from giving the name of Church; and, secondly, that trivial errors
in this ministry ought not to make us regard it as illegitimate.
Moreover, we have shown that the errors to which such pardon is due,
are those by which the fundamental doctrine of religion is not
injured, and by which those articles of religion, in which all
believers should agree, are not suppressed, while, in regard to the
sacraments, the defects are such as neither destroy nor impair the
legitimate institution of their Author. But as soon as falsehood has
forced its way into the citadel of religion, as soon as the sum of
necessary doctrine is inverted, and the use of the sacraments is
destroyed, the death of the Church undoubtedly ensues, just as the
life of man is destroyed when his throat is pierced, or his vitals
mortally wounded. This is clearly evinced by the words of Paul when
he says, that the Church is "built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief
corner-stone," (Eph. 2: 20.) If the Church is founded on the
doctrine of the apostles and prophets, by which believers are
enjoined to place their salvation in Christ alone, then if that
doctrine is destroyed, how can the Church continue to stand? The
Church must necessarily fall whenever that sum of religion which
alone can sustain it has given way. Again, if the true Church is the
pillar and ground of the truth," (1 Tim. 3: 15,) it is certain that
there is no Church where lying and falsehood have usurped the
ascendancy.
2. Since this is the state of matters under the Papacy, we can
understand how much of the Church there survives. There, instead of
the ministry of the word, prevails a perverted government,
compounded of lies, a government which partly extinguishes, partly
suppresses, the pure light. In place of the Lord's Supper, the
foulest sacrilege has entered, the worship of God is deformed by a
varied mass of intolerable superstitions; doctrine (without which
Christianity exists not) is wholly buried and exploded, the public
assemblies are schools of idolatry and impiety. Wherefore, in
declining fatal participation in such wickedness, we run no risk of
being dissevered from the Church of Christ. The communion of the
Church was not instituted to be a chain to bind us in idolatry,
impiety, ignorance of God, and other kinds of evil, but rather to
retain us in the fear of God and obedience of the truth. They,
indeed, vaunt loudly of their Church, as if there was not another in
the world; and then, as if the matter were ended, they make out that
all are schismatic who withdraw from obedience to that Church which
they thus depicts that all are heretics who presume to whisper
against its doctrine, (see sec. 5.) But by what arguments do they
prove their possession of the true Church? They appeal to ancient
records which formerly existed in Italy, France, and Spain,
pretending to derive their origin from those holy men, who, by sound
doctrine, founded and raised up churches, confirmed the doctrine,
and reared the edifice of the Church with their blood; they pretend
that the Church thus consecrated by spiritual gifts and the blood of
martyrs was preserved from destruction by a perpetual succession of
bishops. They dwell on the importance which Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Origin, Augustine, and others, attached to this succession, (see
sec. 3.) How frivolous and plainly ludicrous these allegations are,
I will enable any, who will for a little consider the matter with
me, to understand without any difficulty. I would also exhort our
opponents to give their serious attention, if I had any hope of
being able to benefit them by instruction; but since they have laid
aside all regard to truth, and make it their only aim to prosecute
their own ends in whatever way they can, I will only make a few
observations by which good men and lovers of truth may disentangle
themselves from their quibbles. First, I ask them why they do not
quote Africa, and Egypt, and all Asia, just because in all those
regions there was a cessation of that sacred succession, by the aid
of which they vaunt of having continued Churches. They therefore
fall back on the assertion, that they have the true Church, because
ever since it began to exist it was never destitute of bishops,
because they succeeded each other in an unbroken series. But what if
I bring Greece before them? Therefore, I again ask them, Why they
say that the Church perished among the Greeks, among whom there
never was any interruption in the succession of bishops - a
succession, in their opinion, the only guardian and preserver of the
Church? They make the Greeks schismatic. Why? because, by revolting
from the Apostolic See, they lost their privilege. What? Do not
those who revolt from Christ much more deserve to lose it? It
follows, therefore, that the pretence of succession is vain, if
posterity do not retain the truth of Christ, which was handed down
to them by their fathers, safe and uncorrupted, and continue in it.
3. In the present day, therefore, the pretence of the Romanists
is just the same as that which appears to have been formerly used by
the Jews, when the Prophets of the Lord charged them with blindness,
impiety, and idolatry. For as the Jews proudly vaunted of their
temple, ceremonies, and priesthood, by which, with strong reason, as
they supposed, they measured the Church, so, instead of the Church,
we are presented by the Romanists with certain external masks, which
often are far from being connected with the Church and without which
the Church can perfectly exist. Wherefore, we need no other argument
to refute them than that with which Jeremiah opposed the foolish
confidence of the Jews, namely, "Trust ye not in lying words,
saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple
of the Lord are these," (Jer. 7: 4.) The Lord recognises nothing as
his owns save when his word is heard and religiously observed. Thus,
though the glory of God sat in the sanctuary between the cherubim,
(Ezek. 10: 4,) and he had promised that he would there have his
stated abode, still when the priests corrupted his worship by
depraved superstitions, he transferred it elsewhere, and left the
place without any sanctity. If that temple which seemed consecrated
for the perpetual habitation of God, could be abandoned by God and
become profane, the Romanists have no ground to pretend that God is
so bound to persons or places, and fixed to external observances,
that he must remain with those who have only the name and semblance
of a Church. This is the question which Paul discusses in the
Epistle to the Romans, from the ninth to the twelfth chapter. Weak
consciences were greatly disturbed when those who seemed to be the
people of God not only rejected, but even persecuted the doctrine of
the Gospel. Therefore, after expounding doctrine, he removes this
difficulty, denying that those Jews, the enemies of the truth, were
the Church, though they wanted nothing which might otherwise have
been desired to the external form of the Church. The ground of his
denial is, that they did not embrace Christ. In the Epistle to the
Galatians, when comparing Ishmael with Isaac, he says still more
expressly, that many hold a place in the Church to whom the
inheritance does not belong, because they were not the offspring of
a free parent. From this he proceeds to draw a contrast between two
Jerusalems, because, as the Law was given on Mount Sinai, but the
Gospel proceeded from Jerusalem, so many who were born and brought
up in servitude confidently boast that they are the sons of God and
of the Church; nay, while they are themselves degenerate, proudly
despise the genuine sons of God. Let us also, in like manner, when
we hear that it was once declared from heaven, "Cast out the
handmaid and her son," trust to this inviolable decree, and boldly
despise their unmeaning boasts. For if they plume themselves on
external profession, Ishmael also was circumcised: if they found on
antiquity, he was the first-born: and yet we see that he was
rejected. If the reason is asked, Paul assigns it, (Rom. 9: 6,) that
those only are accounted sons who are born of the pure and
legitimate seed of doctrine. On this ground God declares that he was
not astricted to impious priests, though he had made a covenant with
their father Levi, to be their angel, or interpreter, (Mal. 2: 4;)
nay, he retorts the false boast by which they were wont to rise
against the Prophets, namely, that the dignity of the priesthood was
to be held in singular estimation. This he himself willingly admits:
and he disputes with them, on the ground that he is ready to fulfil
the covenant, while they, by not fulfilling it on their part,
deserve to be rejected. Here, then, is the value of succession when
not conjoined with imitation and corresponding conduct: posterity,
as soon as they are convicted of having revolted from their origin,
are deprived of all honour; unless, indeed, we are prepared to say,
that because Caiaphas succeeded many pious priests, (nay, the series
from Aaron to him was continuous,) that accursed assembly deserved
the name of Church. Even in earthly governments, no one would bear
to see the tyranny of Caligula, Nero, Heliogabalus, and the like,
described as the true condition of a republic, because they
succeeded such men as Brutes, Scipio, and Camillus. That in the
government of the Church especially, nothing is more absurd than to
disregard doctrines and place succession in persons. Nor, indeed was
any thing farther from the intention of the holy teachers, whom they
falsely obtrude upon us, than to maintain distinctly that churches
exist, as by hereditary right, wherever bishops have been uniformly
succeeded by bishops. But while it was without controversy that no
change had been made in doctrine from the beginning down to their
day, they assumed it to be a sufficient refutation of all their
errors, that they were opposed to the doctrine maintained
constantly, and with unanimous consent, even by the apostles
themselves. They have, therefore, no longer any ground for
proceeding to make a gloss of the name of Church, which we regard
with due reverence; but when we come to definition, not only (to use
the common expression) does the water adhere to them, but they stick
in their own mire, because they substitute a vile prostitute for the
sacred spouse of Christ. That the substitution may not deceive us,
let us, among other admonitions, attend to the following from
Augustine. Speaking of the Church, he says, "She herself is
sometimes obscured, and, as it were, beclouded by a multitude of
scandals; sometimes, in a time of tranquillity, she appears quiet
and free; sometimes she is covered and tossed by the billows of
tribulation and trial." - (August. ad Vincent. Epist. 48.) As
instances, he mentions that the strongest pillars of the Church
often bravely endured exile for the faith, or lay hid throughout the
world.
4. In this way the Romanists assail us in the present day, and
terrify the unskilful with the name of Church, while they are the
deadly adversaries of Christ. Therefore, although they exhibit a
temple, a priesthood, and other similar masks, the empty glare by
which they dazzle the eyes of the simple should not move us in the
least to admit that there is a Church where the word of God appears
not. The Lord furnished us with an unfailing test when he said,
"Every one that is of the truth hearth my voice," (John 18: 37.)
Again, "I am the good shepherds and know my sheep, and am known of
mine." "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow
me." A little before he had said, when the shepherd "putteth forth
his own sheep he goes before them, and the sheep follow him; for
they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will
flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers," (John 10:
14, 4, 5.) Why then do we, of our own accord, form so infatuated an
estimate of the Church, since Christ has designated it by a sign in
which is nothing in the least degree equivocal, a sign which is
every where seen, the existence of which infallibly proves the
existence of the Church, while its absence proves the absence of
every thing that properly bears the name of Church? Paul declares
that the Church is not founded either upon the judgements of men or
the priesthood, but upon the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets,
(Eph. 2: 20.) Nay, Jerusalem is to be distinguished from Babylon,
the Church of Christ from a conspiracy of Satan, by the
discriminating test which our Saviour has applied to them, "He that
is of God, hears God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye
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 there be any
doubt as to the falsehood of those statements by which the kingdom
of Christ is represented without his sceptre, in other words,
without his sacred word?
5. As to their charge of heresy and schism, because we preach a
different doctrine, and submit not to their laws and meet apart from
them for Prayer, Baptism, the administration of the Supper, and
other sacred rites, it is indeed a very serious accusation, but one
which needs not a long and laboured defence. The name of heretics
and schismatics is applied to those who, by dissenting from the
Church, destroy its communion. This communion is held together by
two chains, viz., consent in sound doctrine and brotherly charity.
Hence the distinction which Augustine makes between heretics and
schismatics is, that the former corrupt the purity of the faith by
false dogmas, whereas the latter sometimes, even while holding the
same faith, break the bond of union, (August. Lib. Quaest. in Evang.
Matth.) But the thing to be observed is, that this union of charity
so depends on unity of faith, as to have in it its beginning, its
end, in fine, its only rule. Let us therefore remember, that
whenever ecclesiastical unity is commended to us, the thing required
is, that while our minds consent in Christ, our wills also be united
together by mutual good-will in Christ. Accordingly, Paul, when he
exhorts us to it, takes for his fundamental principle that there is
"one God, one faith, one baptism," (Eph. 4: 5.) Nay, when he tells
us to be "of one accord, of one mind," he immediately adds, "Let
this mind be in you which has also in Christ Jesus," (Phil. 2: 2,
5;) intimating, that where the word of the Lord is not, it is not a
union of believers, but a faction of the ungodly.
6. Cyprian, also, following Paul, derives the fountain of
ecclesiastical concord from the one bishopric of Christ, and
afterwards adds, "There is one Church, which by increase from
fecundity is more widely extended to a multitude, just as there are
many rays of the sun, but one light, and many branches of a tree,
but one trunk upheld by the tenacious root. When many streams flow
from one fountain, though there seems wide spreading numerosity from
the overflowing copiousness of the supply, yet unity remains in the
origin. Pluck a ray from the body of the sun, and the unity sustains
no division. Break a branch from a tree, and the branch will not
germinate. Cut off a stream from a fountain, that which is thus cut
off dries up. So the Church, pervaded by the light of the Lord,
extends over the whole globe, and yet the light which is everywhere
diffused is one," (Cyprian, de Simplicit. Praelat.) Words could not
more elegantly express the inseparable connection which all the
members of Christ have with each other. We see how he constantly
calls us back to the head. Accordingly, he declares that when
heresies and schisms arise, it is because men return not to the
origin of the truth, because they seek not the head, because they
keep not the doctrine of the heavenly Master. Let them now go and
clamour against us as heretics for having withdrawn from their
Church, since the only cause of our estrangement is, that they
cannot tolerate a pure profession of the truth. I say nothing of
their having expelled us by anathemas and curses. The fact is more
than sufficient to excuse us, unless they would also make
schismatics of the apostles, with whom we have a common cause.
Christ, I say, forewarned his apostles, "they shall put you out of
the synagogues," (John 16: 2.) The synagogues of which he speaks
were then held to be lawful churches. Seeing then it is certain that
we were cast out, and we are prepared to show that this was done for
the name of Christ, the cause should first be ascertained before any
decision is given either for or against us. This, however, if they
choose, I am willing to leave to them; to me it is enough that we
behaved to withdraw from them in order to draw near to Christ.
7. The place which we ought to assign to all the churches on
which the tyranny of the Romish idol has seized will better appear
if we compare them with the ancient Israelitish Church, as
delineated by the prophets. So long as the Jews and Israelites
persisted in the laws of the covenant, a true Church existed among
them; in other words, they by the kindness of God obtained the
benefits of a Church. True doctrine was contained in the law, and
the ministry of it was committed to the prophets and priests. They
were initiated in religion by the sign of circumcision, and by the
other sacraments trained and confirmed in the faith. There can be no
doubt that the titles with which the Lord honoured his Church were
applicable to their society. After they forsook the law of the Lord,
and degenerated into idolatry and superstition, they partly lost the
privilege. For who can presume to deny the title of the Church to
those with whom the Lord deposited the preaching of his word and the
observance of his mysteries? On the other hand, who may presume to
give the name of Church, without reservation, to that assembly by
which the word of God is openly and with impunity trampled under
foot - where his ministry, its chief support, and the very soul of
the Church, is destroyed?
8. What then? (some one will say;) was there not a particle of
the Church left to the Jews from the date of their revolt to
idolatry? The answer is easy. First, I say that in the defection
itself there were several gradations; for we cannot hold that the
lapses by which both Judas and Israel turned aside from the pure
worship of God were the same. Jeroboam, when he fabricated the
calves against the express prohibition of God, and dedicated an
unlawful place for worship, corrupted religion entirely. The Jews
became degenerate in manners and superstitious opinions before they
made any improper change in the external form of religion. For
although they had adopted many perverse ceremonies under Rehoboam,
yet, as the doctrine of the law and the priesthood, and the rites
which God had instituted, continued at Jerusalem the pious still had
the Church in a tolerable state. In regard to the Israelites,
matters which, up to the time of Ahab, had certainly not been
reformed, then became worse. Those who succeeded him, until the
overthrow of the kingdom, were partly like him, and partly (when
they wished to be somewhat better) followed the example of Jeroboam,
while and without exceptions were wicked and idolatrous. In Judea
different changes now and then took place, some kings corrupting the
worship of God by false and superstitious inventions, and others
attempting to reform it, until, at length, the priests themselves
polluted the temple of God by profane and abominable rites.
9. Now then let the Papists, in order to extenuate their vices
as much as possible, deny if they can, that the state of religion is
as much vitiated and corrupted with them as it was in the kingdom of
Israel under Jeroboam. They have a grosser idolatry, and in doctrine
are not one whit more pure, rather perhaps they are even still more
impure. God, nay, even those possessed of a moderate degree of
judgement, will bear me witness, and the thing itself is too
manifest to require me to enlarge upon it. When they would force us
to the communion of their Church, they make two demands upon us -
first, that we join in their prayers, their sacrifices, and all
their ceremonies; and, secondly, that whatever honour, power, and
jurisdiction, Christ has given to his Church, the same we must
attribute to theirs. In regard to the first, I admit that all the
prophets who were at Jerusalem, when matters there were very
corrupt, neither sacrificed apart nor held separate meetings for
prayer. For they had the command of God, which enjoined them to meet
in the temple of Solomon, and they knew that the Levitical priests,
whom the Lord had appointed over sacred matters, and who were not
yet discarded, how unworthy soever they might be of that honour,
were still entitled to hold it, (Exod. 29: 9.) But the principal
point in the whole question is, that they were not compelled to any
superstitious worship, nay, they undertook nothing but what had been
instituted by God. But in these men, I mean the Papists, where is
the resemblance? Scarcely can we hold any meeting with them without
polluting ourselves with open idolatry. Their principal bond of
communion is undoubtedly in the Mass, which we abominate as the
greatest sacrilege. Whether this is justly or rashly done will be
elsewhere seen, (see chap. 18; see also Book 2, chap. 15, sec. 6.)
It is now sufficient to show that our case is different from that of
the prophets, who, when they were present at the sacred rites of the
ungodly, were not obliged to witness or use any ceremonies but those
which were instituted by God. But if we would have an example in all
respects similar, let us take one from the kingdom of Israel. Under
the ordinance of Jeroboam, circumcision remained, sacrifices were
offered, the law was deemed holy, and the God whom they had received
from their fathers was worshipped; but in consequence of invented
and forbidden modes of worship, everything which was done there God
disapproved and condemned. Show me one prophet or pious man who once
worshipped or offered sacrifice in Bethel. They knew that they could
not do it without defiling themselves with some kind of sacrilege.
We hold, therefore, that the communion of the Church ought not to be
carried so far by the godly as to lay them under a necessity of
following it when it has degenerated to profane and polluted rites.
10. With regard to the second point, our objections are still
stronger. For when the Church is considered in that particular point
of view as the Church, whose judgement we are bound to revere, whose
authority acknowledge, whose admonitions obey, whose censures dread,
whose communion religiously cultivate in every respect, we cannot
concede that they have a Church, without obliging ourselves to
subjection and obedience. Still we are willing to concede what the
Prophets conceded to the Jews and Israelites of their day, when with
them matters were in a similar, or even in a better condition. For
we see how they uniformly exclaim against their meetings as profane
conventicles, to which it is not more lawful for them to assent than
to abjure God, (Isa. 1: 14.) And certainly if those were churches,
it follows, that Elijah, Micaiah, and others in Israel, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Hosea, and those of like character in Judah, whom the
prophets, priests, and people of their day, hated and execrated more
than the uncircumcised, were aliens from the Church of God. If those
were churches, then the Church was no longer the pillar of the
truth, but the stay of falsehood, not the tabernacle of the living
God, but a receptacle of idols. They were, therefore, under the
necessity of refusing consent to their meetings, since consent was
nothing else than impious conspiracy against God. For this same
reason, should any one acknowledge those meetings of the present
day, which are contaminated by idolatry, superstition, and impious
doctrine, as churches, full communion with which a Christian must
maintain so far as to agree with them even in doctrine, he will
greatly err. For if they are churches, the power of the keys belongs
to them, whereas the keys are inseparably connected with the word
which they have put to flight. Again, if they are churches, they can
claim the promise of Christ, "Whatsoever ye bind," &c.; whereas, on
the contrary, they discard from their communion all who sincerely
profess themselves the servants of Christ. Therefore, either the
promise of Christ is vain, or in this respect, at least, they are
not churches. In fine, instead of the ministry of the word, they
have schools of impiety, and sinks of all kinds of error. Therefore,
in this point of view, they either are not churches, or no badge
will remain by which the lawful meetings of the faithful can be
distinguished from the meetings of Turks.
11. Still, as in ancient times, there remained among the Jews
certain special privileges of a Church, so in the present day we
deny not to the Papists those vestiges of a Church which the Lord
has allowed to remain among them amid the dissipation. When the Lord
had once made his covenant with the Jews, it was preserved not so
much by them as by its own strength, supported by which it withstood
their impiety. Such, then, is the certainty and constancy of the
divine goodness, that the covenant of the Lord continued there, and
his faith could not be obliterated by their perfidy; nor could
circumcision be so profaned by their impure hands as not still to be
a true sign and sacrament of his covenant. Hence the children who
were born to them the Lord called his own, (Ezek. 16: 20,) though,
unless by special blessing, they in no respect belonged to him. So
having deposited his covenant in Gaul, Italy, Germany, Spain, and
England, when these countries were oppressed by the tyranny of
Antichrist, He, in order that his covenant might remain inviolable,
first preserved baptism there as an evidence of the covenant; -
baptism, which, consecrated by his lips, retains its power in spite
of human depravity; secondly, He provided by his providence that
there should be other remains also to prevent the Church from
utterly perishing. But as in pulling down buildings the foundations
and ruins are often permitted to remain, so he did not suffer
Antichrist either to subvert his Church from its foundation, or to
level it with the ground, (though, to punish the ingratitude of men
who had despised his word, he allowed a fearful shaking and
dismembering to take place,) but was pleased that amid the
devastation the edifice should remain, though half in ruins.
12. Therefore while we are unwilling simply to concede the name
of Church to the Papists we do not deny that there are churches
among them. The question we raise only relates to the true and
legitimate constitution of the Church, implying communion in sacred
rites, which are the signs of profession, and especially in
doctrine. Daniel and Paul foretold that Antichrist would sit in the
temple of God, (Dan. 9: 27; 2 Thess. 2: 4;) we regard the Roman
Pontiff as the leader and standard-bearer of that wicked and
abominable kingdom. By placing his seat in the temple of God, it is
intimated that his kingdom would not be such as to destroy the name
either of Christ or of his Church. Hence, then, it is obvious, that
we do not at all deny that churches remain under his tyranny;
churches, however, which by sacrilegious impiety he has profaned, by
cruel domination has oppressed, by evil and deadly doctrines like
poisoned potions has corrupted and almost slain; churches where
Christ lies half-buried, the gospel is suppressed, piety is put to
flight, and the worship of God almost abolished; where, in short,
all things are in such disorder as to present the appearance of
Babylon rather than the holy city of God. In one word, I call them
churches, inasmuch as the Lord there wondrously preserves some
remains of his people, though miserably torn and scattered, and
inasmuch as some symbols of the Church still remain - symbols
especially whose efficacy neither the craft of the devil nor human
depravity can destroy. But as, on the other hand, those marks to
which we ought especially to have respect in this discussion are
effaced, I say that the whole body, as well as every single
assembly, want the form of a legitimate Church.
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume 4
(continued in part 4...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09: cvin4-03.txt
.
