natural and most simple signification; and I added that the word Church so naturally signified the visible Church, that the Reformed the devisers of the chimera of an invisible Churchnever, throughout their confession of faith, used the word Church in this sense, but solely to express the visible Church, invested with the sacraments, with the word, and with all the public ministry. See the passages of the confession of faith I have related, with the consequences I have drawn from them.*

I was not the first who made this remark; it was a National Synod of the "Reformed." After having preached so much about the invisible Church, and having, when pressed upon the succession, grounded on this foundation the invisible succession of which they made use,-the Reformed teachers wondered they had not spoken one single word of it in their confession of faith, where, on the contrary, the word Church is always taken for the visible Church. Surprised at this language, so natural to Christians, but so little in unison with the principles of their Reformation, they enacted the following decree in the year 1603, in the Synod of Gap, in the chapter which has for its title "On the Confession of Faith." It is by this all the synods begin; and the first thing that is done in them is to review this confession of faith, which gave occasion to the printers to reprint it with this title, forbidden in the synods :†"The confession of Faith of the Reformed Churches, revised and CORRECTED by the National Synod." But let us come to the decree of Gap, of which these are the words:" the provinces shall be exhorted to consider, in the Provincial Synods, in what terms the 25th article of the confession of faith ought to be couched; forasmuch as being to express what we believe touching the Catholic Church, of which mention is made in the creed, there is nothing in the said confession that can be taken but for the militant and visible Church as also in the 29th article they shall see whether it be fit to add the word 'pure' to the expression' true Church,' which is in the said article; and, in general, all shall come prepared on the matters of the Church."

We have related the substance of this 25th article. In the same place may be seen the 26th, 27th, and 28th articles; and as for the 29th article, it says, that "the true Church ought to be governed according to the policy which our Lord Jesus Christ established; that is, that there be pastors, overseers, and deacons, to the end the pure doctrine may have its course, and the assemblies be held in the name of God."

The addition of the word "pure Church," which they deli

*

Page 15.

Synod of Privas, 1612.

+ Page 15.

berated about adding to that of "true," is founded on a doctrine of the pretended Reformed, which says that a true Church may not be pure, because with the essential truths it may have errors mixed. I say even gross and considerable errors against faith: and this is one of the mysteries of the new Reformation which M. Claude will explain for us by-and-by, but it is not to our present purpose. The important matter to note is, that these people, who say they are sent of God to revive the pure doctrine of the gospel, having to explain, as themselves declare in their confession of faith," the Church, of which mention is made in the creed," had, after all, spoken only of the militant and visible Church. I could easily assign the reason: it is, that this Church, of which mention is made in the creed, is indeed the visible Church; it is that the word Church naturally involves this visibility, and the word Catholic, far from derogating from it, presupposes it; it is because, in a confession of faith, men often speak rather according to the natural ideas the words bear with them, than according to the refinements and evasions they invent to escape out of a difficulty. Thus, the invisible Church never occurred to our Reformed when they framed their confession of faith; the sense of visible Church appeared only in it; there seemed to be nothing in this but what was natural, until the year 1603. In 1603, they were roused as from a slumber; they began to find it strange that a Church which grounded her succession on the idea of an invisible Church, and of a Church of the predestinate, should not have said one word about it in her confession of faith, but have left it as a settled point that the natural signification of the word Church always imported a visible society; so that, correctly speaking, the succession of the Church could no longer be shown without showing the succession of her visibility; a thing utterly impossible for the new Reformation. It was this inclined the whole synod to reconsider this article, and to exhort the provinces "to come prepared upon the matters of the Church," which had never been well understood amongst the new Reformed, which are not yet understood, and which will make Catholics of all those that can understand them. But this was a very delicate matter-this reconsidering of the article of the Church. It was sounding an alarm: it was too plainly pointing out a flaw, and furnishing the printers with a still better reason than ever for entitling the formulary, "The Confession, revised and CORRECTED." So, in the Synod of Rochelle, held in 1607, it was resolved, "not to add or expunge any thing in the 25th and 29th articles, nor to meddle afresh with the subject of the Church." By the decision of this synod, the visible Church alone appears in the "Reformed"

confession of faith; the invisible Church has no part in it, and one draws from it what consequences he can.

That which I draw is a serious one: for if the Church appears only as visible, in the "Reformed" confession of faith, and if, besides, they assert this confession of faith as conformable to Scripture in every point, they must tell us that this manner of explaining the Church is derived from Scripture, and that from the Scripture it has passed naturally into the ordinary language of Christians, into confessions of faith, and consequently into the creed, which is not only the best authorized of all the confessions of faith, but also the most simple.

M. Claude answers us, "that custom changes, and that in process of time words often depart from their first and natural signification;" and that besides, though it should be true, as I have said, that the word Church, taken simply, should signify the visible Church, the word "universal" would change this signification. But he shall not escape us by this subterfuge: for we have still an argument left to overwhelm the whole socalled Reformation. Here it is, taken from the very principles laid down by themselves. The word Church ought to be taken, in the "confession of faith" of the "Reformed" as it is naturally taken in Scripture: else, on a fundamental article of the Christian religion, this confession of faith would not be, as it pretends it is, conformable to the Holy Scripture. Now, in this confession of faith, the word Church is taken for a visible society;-this proposition is acknowledged in the Synod of Gap, as we have just seen. Therefore, it is thus that the word Church is naturally taken in Scripture. But it is taken in the creed in the same sense in which it is taken in Scripture:-this M. Claude and Protestants will not deny :-therefore equally both in Scripture and in the creed is it taken for a visible Church; and the term Catholic or universal, inserted in the creed, as M. Claude admits, to distinguish the whole body of the Church truly Christian, spread over the whole earth, " from all false Churches and all particular Churches," instead of rendering the Church invisible, makes her so much the more visible, as it more visibly separates her from all false Churches, and expressly brings within her bosom all particular Churches, so visible and so remarkable by their common profession of faith and their common government.

But without disputing any further, we need only hearken to M. Claude and hear his concessions, in his manuscript answer, concerning the Church's perpetual visibility. And would to God I could here transcribe the whole of this work! A multitude of things in favor of our doctrine would appear, which I

cannot make well understood until it shall be public. However, it is not for me to publish it and I have deemed it sufficient to transcribe at length, forasmuch as is necessary, the passages you are going to see, such as I found them in the Duke of Chevreuse's manuscript, acknowledged, as I have said,* by M. Claude himself.

Now, if he be found to speak of the Church after a manner unprecedented in the so-styled Reformation, no exception should be taken against his doing so; for two reasons. First, because, in fact, he has taught the same doctrine in his other works, though he has here explained it more fully and in better order than ever. Secondly, because he pretends to say nothing new: a circumstance at which we ought to rejoice; there being nothing more desirable than to witness the number of principles and articles increase whereon we may agree. Let us, therefore, enter with all our heart into this charitable design: let us see in what M. Claude agrees with us, and let us relate his doctrine in the same order that he states it in his third and fourth questions, and afterwards in his eleven inferences.

The first concession I find is :-"That it is manifest that, though the true Church be mixed with the wicked in one and the same confession, it is nevertheless visible in the mixture, as the good grain with the tares in one and the same field, and as the good fishes with the bad in one and the same net." This goes well. Let us proceed: "This mixture hinders indeed the just discernment of persons, but it hinders not the discernment or the distinction of the classes of persons, even with certainty. We know not certainly who in particular are true believers or who are hypocrites: but we certainly know that there are true believers, as there are hypocrites; which is sufficient to constitute the visibility of the true Church." I hear this with joy: assuredly we shall get on. M. Claude concedes already as "manifest," that there will be always a visible body, of which one may say: "There are the true believers."

I continue to read his answer, and I find that he blames me for charging the Reformed with not believing that the body" in which," according to St. Paul, "God has placed some, apostles; some, teachers; some, pastors ;" &c., is the Church of Christ. Right glad am I to be reprehended, provided we advance! So then, it is a settled thing that the body of Jesus Christ, which is the Church, shall always be composed of pastors, of teachers, of preachers, and also of people: it is then, consequently, always very visible, and the succession of pastors, as well as that of people, ought to be manifest in it.

Supra, page 63.

M. Claude here confirms his discourse by a passage of M. Mestresat, who determines "that we must not seek the Church of God, out of the visible state of the ministry and the word." So much the better; and I am overjoyed that M. Claude finds in his Church many followers of this doctrine. I was afraid the ministers were unwilling to acknowledge the visible Church to be spoken of in the passage of St. Paul to the Ephesians, where the Church is represented to us "without spot and without blemish ;" and I had set myself to prove that this Church, described by St. Paul, was the visible Church, because it was "washed by baptism and by the word." M. Claude enters into my view at once. He says, that in this passage we must understand, indeed, "the Church which is already in heaven, but also the visible Church, which is on earth, as making together but one and the same body;" and here again he cites M. Mestresat. I receive this doctrine; and should any of our Reformed, be it M. Claude himself, ever object to me, that I must not rely so much on the Church's visibility, since there is at least a part of this Church which is invisible-that is to say, that which is in heaven, I will answer, that this ought to give us no concern, since, after all, according to this doctrine of M. Mestresat and M. Claude, being in communion with the visible part of the Church, I am sure to be so also with the invisible part, which is already in heaven with Jesus Christ; so that it is certain that all is finally reduced to the visibility.

M. Claude passes then to the objections that may be made and he decides, at once, "that the visibility of the Church is a visibility of the ministry." He must, therefore, as he acknowledges a perpetual visibility in the Church, end by showing us a succession in the ministry, and, in one word, a line of lawful pastors.

He objects to himself, that "the ministry is common to the good and the bad;" whence it seems one might draw an inference against his doctrine, that good and bad compose the Church—and he answers, "that if the ministry be actually common to the good and the bad, this is only by accident and through the fraud of the enemy; that, of right, it belongs only to the true believers, and that the supernatural destination is only for them." All this is clear, except the expression, "the ministry, of right, belongs only to the true believers." For, as one might understand by this, that none but true believers are lawful pastors, each individual might find himself burdened with the difficult task of examining whether pastors are really

Eph. v. 27.