CHAPTER - THE NATURE AND AMOUNT OF CHRIST’S PROMISES OF AN ECCLESIASTICAL PERPETUITY AND PURITY.

Two remarkable prophetic promises stand upon record, as having been personally made by our Blessed Savior himself: the one, before his passion; the other, after it: promises, which involve matter of very serious consideration to all the members of those various Churches which profess to have been Reformed in the sixteenth century.

I. The first of these two promises was made in the course of a conversation with his disciples relative to the opinions which were entertained of him.

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea-Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say, that I, the Son of man, am?

And they said: Some say, that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias or one of the prophets. He saith unto them: But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee: That thou art Peter: and upon this rock, I will build my Church: and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.(Matthew 16:13-18.)

The promise before us obviously contains two distinct clauses.

Of these, the first clause respects The foundation upon which Christ would build his Church: while the second clause respects The perpetuity of the Church when built. 1. With regard to the first clause, the Rock, upon which the Lord here declares that he will found his Church, is, according to the most authoritative, because the most ancient, interpretation, Peter’s heaveninspired Confession that his Master is at once the promised Messiah and the Son of the Living God. Now, in the judgment of the Primitive Church, The Son of the Living God is a phrase, which denotes the proper and essential divinity of Christ: because it exhibits the only-begotten Son of the Father, as being consubstantial with the Father, and thence as being true God from true God begotten not made. Hence the first clause of the promise imports: that Christ would found his Church upon the vital complex doctrine of his human Messiahship and his proper Divinity. 2. From the foundation of the Church thus constituted, the second clause advances to Its perpetuity in such a constitution.

Agreeably to the tenor of this second clause, Christ would not only build his Church upon a doctrine of such vital importance that it might justly be deemed its foundation; but likewise, when viewed as thus doctrinally founded, he would effectually provide, that the gates of Hades should never prevail against it.

For a better understanding of the second clause, it will be proper to observe, that the imagery, which marks it, refers, in point of ideality, to the invisible condition of disembodied spirits previous to the reuniting day of the resurrection: while, in point of poetical machinery, it is clearly borrowed from those large excavated catacombs, which were used for the interment of the dead, and which were securely closed with ponderous doors or gates of solid stone or iron. Hence, when associated with the first clause, the plain import of the second clause will be that A condition of Sepulchral Invisibility, or a state of Utter Disappearance from off the face of the earth, shall never be the lot of the Church which Christ would build upon the complex doctrine of his human Messiahship and his proper essential Divinity.

In other words, its import will be: that, To the very end of time, there shall always be in the worm a Visible Church, holding and teaching the fundamental complex doctrine of the human Messiahship and the true Divinity of its blessed Master-Builder.

II. The second of the two promises was made, either immediately before, or very shortly before, Christ’s ascension to glory.

Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the- Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19,20.) 1. This second promise obviously comprehends all the provisions of the first promise: but, then, in point of spiritual superstructure upon an indispensable foundation, it advances considerably beyond it.

The justice of such a remark will readily appear from the following analysis.

As the first promise laid the foundation of a Visible Church in the complex doctrine of Christ’s Messiahship and Divinity; while it declared, that that Church should never disappear from off the face of the earth: so the second promise, while it similarly announces a condition or a privilege of unfailing perpetuity, harmoniously suspends an admission into the same Church upon a baptism in the name of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, which involves the doctrine of Christ’s Godhead, and which in its ecclesiastical application involves also the doctrine of his Messiahship.

Thus far, therefore, the second promise, in a manner, repeats and confirms the declaration of the first promise.

But here it stops not. On the contrary, it additionally sets forth: that Christ would be always with his Apostles, even unto the end of the world.

Whence, since his promised perpetual presence is chronologically concurrent with the world’s duration, it likewise sets forth: that Christ, even to the end of the world, would be always spiritually present, in the way of ordinary support and assistance and sanction and approbation, with the ministerial successors of the Apostles, no less than with the Apostles themselves.

Now, though a Visible Church may hold sound doctrine, respecting the person and character of Christ: it does not therefore, of necessity, follow, that it must also be sound in every other essential doctrine and in every other enjoined practice of the Gospel; so as to warrant a rationally scriptural belief, that Christ has always continued to be, with itself and its Clergy, with the taught and the teachers, spiritually and approbatively present.

For some visible Branches of the visible Church Catholic may, both in doctrine and in practice, corrupt themselves; while other visible Branches may, both doctrinally and practically, remain in-corrupt: though all, nevertheless, continue to hold the indispensable fundamental doctrine of Christ’s Godhead and Messiahship. Nay, so far as the tenor of the first promise is strictly concerned, that promise would not have failed of its accomplishment, even if the entire Visible Church should have lapsed into grievous errors both of doctrine and of practice, so long as it held the indispensable complex doctrine upon which professedly it was founded.

Hence we may perceive the immense importance and absolute necessity of the second promise.

Christ declares: not only, as in the first promise, that His Church shall never disappear from off the face of the earth: but likewise that He himself WILL BE SPIRITUALLY PRESENT, with his Apostles and their ministerial successors, always, even unto the end of the world.

But, where erroneous doctrine, in vital essentials, prevails; and where a line of doctrinally dependent practice, directly opposed to Holy Scripture, is inculcated and adopted: it certainly seems, even though the fundamental tenet of Christ’s Godhead and Messiahship be still soundly maintained, nothing less than a contradiction in terms to say, that Christ is there always SPIRITUALLY PRESENT.

Consequently, unless an inquirer be prepared boldly to assert, that the Visible Church, in no one of its branches, has ever lapsed into vitally erroneous doctrine and practice, we are compelled, by the stubborn necessity of historical facts, to interpret Christ’s second promise partially, not universally.

By the joint consent, therefore, as we may well say, both of the Romanist and of the Reformed, the second promise can only be understood as intimating: that Christ would so be SPIRITUALLY PRESENT with his Apostles and their successors, that, always and even to the end of the world, there should never, in the worst of times, be wanting some one Visible Church or Churches, which, whatever might be the condition of other Branches of the Catholic Church, should evince that SPIRITUAL PRESENCE, by a faithful adherence to all the grand essential doctrines of Christianity, and by a due rejection of all those tenets and practices that on full evidence stand directly opposed to the teaching and temper of the Gospel. 2. That such is the true explanation of the second promise, is certain: both from matter of Fact, as I have already hinted; and, likewise from the concurrent voice of prophecy. (1.) In regard to mere historical matter of fact, if Christ meant to intimate, that he would so be always spiritually present with his apostles and their successors as to preclude the possibility of even any one particular Church ever falling into mortal error either doctrinal or practical: then, plainly, there never could have been such a thing as an ecclesiastical lapse into heresy.

But both the Romanist and the Reformed equally admit and even contend, that this circumstance has actually occurred. For the Romanist contends; that the national Churches of England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, and many others, have thus lapsed: while the Reformed contends; that such a lapse, both doctrinal and practical, is justly chargeable upon the Church of Rome and all the Churches which are in communion with her.

Hence, by common consent based upon the undeniable necessity of facts, it is, on all sides, fully allowed: that The second promise can only relate to some Branch or Branches of the Universal Church, and can in no wise be extended to the entire Universal Church itself.

Nor can the Romanist be permitted to draw back from this acknowledgment, on the plea: that the Catholic Church, meaning his own particular Church, never fell into error either doctrinal or practical; and that those Communities, which differ from her, are not to be esteemed Churches. For, even if, for the sake of argument, we were to admit this absurd assumption; still the real state of the case will remain just as it was: because it cannot be denied, that the Reformed Churches, which in the estimation of a Romanist have fallen into heresy, were once in communion with the Church of Rome, and therefore once, also in the estimation of a Romanist, real Churches. Whence it clearly follows: that, on the very principles of Romanism itself, branches of the true Church may lapse; and thus may show, even practically, that Christ has not always been present with them. (2.) In like manner, so far as the concurrent voice of prophecy is concerned, exactly the same result is brought out.

It matters not, in regard to the present question: how St. Paul’s prophecy of a great apostasy from sound faith, immediately associated with a sitting of some eminent apostate in the temple of God, and therefore obviously associated with error and heresy within the very pale of a Visible Church, is specifically expounded; or how the apocalyptic prediction of the two witnesses, defined to be two candlesticks, and thence of necessity representing two Churches, is actually interpreted. (2 Thessalonians 2:3,4. Revelation 11:1-4. Compare Revelation 11:4 with Revelation 1:20.) Let the true application of these oracles be what it may, their general drift and purport are so plain, as to enforce alike the agreement of the Romanist and of the Reformed: for both parties concur in believing, that they foretell a season, when, on account of the widely spread apostasy and degeneracy of mankind (I use the words of the popish Bishop Walmesley), all Christian Churches should be reduced to a single Church, all faithful ministers of god should become so few as to officiate at one altar, and all good and zealous Christians should make up so small a number that they might well be represented as collected in only a single temple paying their adoration to god: while the great multitude of those, who, for want of the spirit of religion, enter not into the temple, stand unmeasured, as it were, in the outer court. But it is clear, that no such general apostasy either could or can occur, unless there were many apostates: and it is equally clear, that there could never be such a multitude of apostates, who yet, under their predicted head the Man of Sin, should take possession of the very temple of God or (in a manner) of almost the entire Visible Church, unless whole Churches and Districts lapsed into heresy and misbelief and impiety.

Such apostate Churches, however, were once, by the very terms of the proposition, true and sincere Churches.

Yet, in the day of their apostatic heresy and impiety, whatever may be the precise nature of their too evident lapse from sound faith and from scriptural practice, they assuredly cannot be said to have enjoyed the promised perpetual presence of Christ. Therefore the second promise must inevitably be interpreted with the limitations which have been specified.

Its import, consequently, will be this: that, With one Branch or other of the Catholic Church, so that, either singly or severally, a succession of Witnesses to the truth may be kept up, Christ will be present always, even to the very end of the world; providentially precluding a total lapse into gross and deadly error either of faith or of practice; though not interfering to such an extent, as to produce a perfect agreement at all times in points unessential.

This incapability of falling universally into mortal error, which is promised by Christ to his Church, and which in truth of necessity enters into the very idea of a Church in the legitimate acceptation of the term, Bossuet, we may note, would transmute into perfect infallibility, vesting it exclusively in the single Church of Rome. 7 CHAPTER - THE POSITION, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE ROMANIST AND OF THE REFORMED, AS PRODUCED BY THE TENOR OF CHRIST’S PROMISES The promises of our lord to his Church place both the Romanist and the Reformed in a situation of some difficulty or at least of some delicacy: for, upon each party alike, they impose the necessity of showing, in some visible Church or Churches from the primitive ages down to the present, a perpetuity of sound doctrine and of sound dependent practice such as may warrant the belief of Christ’s continual approving spiritual presence.

I. On this point, the Romanist usually displays a considerable measure of triumphant confidence. 1. His own Church, he urges, has stood forth, confessedly and notoriously, as a Visible Church, from the time of the Apostles down to the present time.

Now, to this Church was promised, specially and peculiarly, an exemption from any taint of heresy, when Christ declared that he would build his Church upon a Rock. For the rock in question, is Peter himself, in the first instance: but, in the second instance, it is Peter viewed as transmitting his high prerogative to his canonical Successors the Bishops of Rome.

The Church of Rome, thus divinely constituted as the center of unity and as the standard of orthodoxy, has always sincerely professed the genuine truth of the Gospel, both in its influential faith and in its dependent practice: and, through the promised superintending agency of Christ, has never been permitted to depart from soundness, either doctrinal or practical.

Hence the very position, undeniably occupied by the Church of Rome, is in itself a direct proof: that Both her faith and her practice exhibit the real mind of the Gospel. For, if her faith and her practice be contrary to the Gospel: then the promise of Christ, made to Peter and his successors, will have failed of its accomplishment. 2. Such is the case of perpetuity, as respects soundness of faith and of practice, which is made out by the Romanist on behalf of his Church. With it, no doubt, he himself is perfectly satisfied: but, to the Reformed, it appears in no better light, than that of a mere string of inconsistencies suspended from a purely gratuitous assumption.

That the Roman Church has been a Visible Church from the apostolic age to the present, is readily admitted: for, in truth, it is a simple fact of history.

But the assumption, on which is constructed the entire argument in favor of her complete purity both doctrinal and practical, I mean the wholly gratuitous assumption, that the Rock on which Christ promised to build His Church, is Peter conjointly with His successors the Bishops of Rome: this assumption is positively disallowed; because, when examined, it rests upon no evidential foundation.

We have already seen: that, according to the oldest extant interpretation of the text, I mean that of Justin Martyr, the Rock denotes Peter’s confession of Christ’s human Messiahship and proper Divinity. In this interpretation, he is followed by Chrysostom and Hilary: and, though Athanasius and Jerome and Augustine pronounce the Rock to be Christ himself; their exposition, proceeding on the principle that Christ is at once both true God and true Man, is still virtually the same as the more ancient exposition preserved by Justin. 1 Some of the early fathers, no doubt, such as Tertullian and Cyprian and Chrysostom himself in another passage of his writings, suppose Peter to have been intended by the Rock. 2 But absolutely not one of the most ancient ecclesiastics, by which expression I mean those who flourished during the three first centuries, ever imagines the rock to be Peter conjointly with his Successors at Rome. Nay, (what is altogether fatal to the common Popish assumption), when, toward the end of the second century or the beginning of the third, the then Roman Bishop ventured to apply the text to himself as the successor of Peter, Tertullian plainly told him: that, in advancing such a groundless pretense, he was a palpable usurper; inasmuch as, if Peter were the Rock on which Christ would build his Church, the promise was addressed to Peter personally, and not to Peter conjointly, either with him or with any other in the line of the Apostle’s alleged Successors. 3 To argue, therefore, that the truth of the Gospel has always been professed by the whole society of the Roman Church, on the ground, that our Lord, in his address to Peter, constituted that particular Church the center of unity and the standard of orthodoxy, is plainly nothing more, than to assert its doctrinal and practical soundness on the strength of a mere gratuitous assumption.

Accordingly, the assertions of Bossuet, that The truth of the Gospel has always been professed by the whole Society of which the Roman Church claims to be the head, and that This Society has never been permitted to fall away from sound doctrine which is a virtual conferring upon it of the privilege of Infallibility; assertions which he attempts to link in what he calls an inviolable chain: these assertions are contradicted by absolute matter of fact. 4 For, in numerous instances both of faith and of practice the Roman Church, which may be characterized by its love of innovation much more fitly than by its pretended immutability, has apostatized from the Primitive Church and both the nature and the amount of this apostasy may readily be ascertained by any one, who will take the trouble to examine the yet extant works of the early ecclesiastical writers. Hence, when it is found, that the Romanists, by introducing the groundless novelty of transubstantiation, have thence, by a sort of necessary consequence, fallen into the rank idolatry of worshipping, as God, the merely symbolical creatures of bread and wine; when it is further found, that, in their addresses to the Virgin and the Saints, they have repeatedly besought them to grant gifts and graces which god alone can bestow, even turning, with blasphemous impiety, the whole book of Psalms into a series of prayers and thanksgivings to the mother of our Lord, by changing throughout, the name Jehovah into the name Mary, and the compellation Lord into the compellation Lady; when it is also found, that they have subverted the very foundation of evangelical faith, by alleging, in the way of justification, not only the meritoriousness of human works, but the possibility that frail man can assist his fellow by placing to his account an imagined surplus of supererogatory deserts: when it is found, in short, that these and many other matters, both doctrinal and practical, which might easily be named, now characterize and have long characterized the Roman Church and the Churches in communion with her; the Reformed deem it morally impossible, if there be any truth and consistency in Scripture, that Christ approvingly should have always been present with a Society, while it was thus teaching, and while it was thus practicing. Were the adoption of any such monstrous notion rendered imperative in Holy Writ; a circumstance, which would make the Bible contradict the Bible: they would be driven into inevitable infidelity.

On these perfectly intelligible grounds, they admit, indeed, the perpetuity of the Roman Church, as a visible society, professing to be Christian by that maintenance of Peter’s confession without which a Church would cease to be even externally a Church: but they cannot admit its sound theological and spiritual perpetuity; because they cannot believe, unless they cease to believe the unambiguous declarations of Scripture itself, that Christ has been always present with it, sanctioning and approving, doctrines fundamentally heretical, and practices essentially idolatrous. Thus, so far as respects the tenor of Christ’s second promise, they deny the perpetuity of the Roman Church, inasmuch as it has notoriously and flagrantly departed from the well recorded faith and practice of the Primitive Church: nor do they perceive, how the justice of their denial can be disproved, so long as scripture and ecclesiastical history lie open to the perusal of mankind.

II. But, while the Reformed, under this aspect, deny the perpetuity of Christ’s presence with the Church of Rome, they may fairly be called upon to establish the perpetuity of a Church or Churches, which, by the maintenance of their own doctrine in all grand essentials, shall connect them with the Primitive Church, and thus show, that, in their case, neither of the two promises of Christ has failed of its accomplishment. 1. This call they answer, by the adduction of the two ancient protesting Churches of Southern France and Piedmont: the members of which, at least in comparatively modern times, have generally borne the names, respectively, of Albigenses and Vallenses: the former title being derived from the town of Albi in Languedoc, the latter from the valleys of the Cottian Alps.

Through these Churches, either severally or concurrently or unitedly, they suppose the succession of a pure Church to have been preserved: and thus, either, in this country or in that country, in this Church, or in that Church, they maintain, that Christ’s promise of his perpetual spiritual presence with some one or other visible Church has been amply and exactly fulfilled. 2. But here an objection is made.

According to the ingenious and acute Bossuet, the Albigenses were the theological and in a measure also the natural descendants of the Paulicians of Armenia; Manicheans themselves, sprung from an old stock of Manicheans while the Vallenses or Valdenses were a body of mere comparatively modern sectaries; who, about the year 1160 or 1170, owed alike both their name and their origin to Peter Valdo of Lyons; and who, in doctrine, differed originally but little from the Church of Rome, being, at first, a community of Donatistical Schismatics, rather than a synagogue of Heretical Speculatists. If, then, the Albigenses were Manicheans; and if the Vallenses were but a sort of modern popish schismatics’ it is quite clear, on the doctrinal principles of the Reformed Churches, that their communions could not have preserved the required perpetuity of Christ’s spiritual presence in some Visible Church, between the early uncorrupted ages of primitive Christianity and the later age of the great Reformation from Popery.

But, if the doctrinal perpetuity of the Reformed cannot be established; then they are forthwith brought to the somewhat formidable dilemma; either that their system of faith and practice must be deemed erroneous; or else that in their case at least, whatever may be the case of the Romanists, the promise of Christ has failed to be accomplished.