## Reformed Dogmatics

Vol. 4. Holy Spirit, Church, New Creation

## Herman Bavinck

MONERGISM EDITOR’S NOTE.

CHAPTER IX. On the Church.

1. § 47. The Essence of the Church.

2. § 48. The Government of the Church.

3. § 49. The Power of the Church.

CHAPTER X. On the Means of Grace.

CHAPTER XI. On the Last Things.

BROADER TABLE OF CONTENTS.

11. FIRST PART.

12. SECOND PART.

13. THIRD PART.

14. FOURTH PART.

15. REGISTER OF MORE OR LESS EXPLAINED SCRIPTURE

PASSAGES.

16. REGISTER OF NAMES.

17. REGISTER OF AFFAIRS.

18. PROJECT GUTENBERG EDITOR'S REMARKS.

“Reformed Dogmatics.” The Dutch Edition transcriptions were taken

from the open-source ebook repository Project Gutenberg, which are listed

under the title “Gereformeerde dogmatiek.” There were no editorial

alterations of these ebooks. The translation process consisted of taking the

transcribed ebooks from Project Gutenberg, and processing them through

Within the books you will see “[1], [2],” etc. These are page number

indicators from the original text. There may also be hyperlink, footnote, or

endnote indicators in the text. None of these are live in this translation but

were live in the Project Gutenberg edition. While of course this will not be

on the same level of quality as the professionally translated edition of this

work now on the market; the hope with this effort, is to offer an edition that

is completely free for those who by regional or financial constraints may

not be able to acquire that set. Being that Project Gutenberg has several

levels of proofing before publishing a text, we have left the Greek and

## MONERGISM EDITOR’S NOTE.

Hebrew as is. Also, one of the main distinctions between the original Dutch

edition (and this edition) and the contemporary professional translation, is

that in the original Dutch edition, it appears all references were included in

the text body. Also, there is a lot of Latin and German that will remain

untranslated. Lastly, some of the Bible Abbreviations within the text may

not have converted to English properly, especially as it relates to so many

different languages used in a single text.

At the end of each book is a Project Gutenberg Editor’s Remarks section.

This will indicate where the Editor’s from Project Gutenberg adjusted the

original Dutch text before publishing their ebooks. Again, these books are

English via AI/API.

May these books bless you to the glory of God.

S.D.G.

Monergism.

## Church.

. The community of those who partake of Christ and his benefits bears

the name of the church. In the strict sense, therefore, there is talk of

this only within the boundaries of Christianity. But that nevertheless does

not take away that, just as there are analogies of priesthood and sacrifice

and altar and all kinds of other elements in dogma and cult, so also there are

analogies of the church in the religions of the peoples. By nature man is

already a social being, a ζωον πολιτικον; he is born out of and in and to the

community and cannot exist a moment without it. Household, society, state,

associations of every kind and for every purpose bind men together and

cause them to live and act in community with one another. Stronger still

than all these institutions and corporations is the bond that unites men in

religion. There lies in religion a mighty social element, Schleiermacher,

Chr. Gl. § 6. A. Dorner, Kirche und Reich Gottes, Gotha 1883 S. 11-17. The

reason for that is not far to seek; deeper than anything else religion is rooted

in the heart of man. It is immediately given with his creation in God’s

image and therefore ineradicably proper to his nature. In that religion man

## § 47. The Essence of the Church.

regulates his relation to God, and this is central and principial. As our

relation to God is, so is that to our fellow men and to all creatures. At the

bottom of all questions lies that of religion. He who in religion agrees with

us, agrees with us in the deepest, holiest, and all-governing convictions

and sooner or later also comes to the same insight on derivative points; but

difference of religious conviction, upon serious reflection, causes one to

diverge ever further in all subordinate questions. What in religion binds

men is stronger than material interest, natural love, or enthusiasm for

science and for art; for religion man has everything, he also has his life

forfeit. For if he loses this, then he loses himself; in religion, according to

each one’s conviction, man’s soul and salvation are at stake. Therefore

every religion also seeks to propagate itself and to act in a missionary

manner. Religion is never a private matter, a subjective opinion, a question

of taste; it always includes the pretension to be the true and saving one, and

therefore seeks entry with others, expansion if possible over the whole of

humanity. It is never a matter of the individual alone, but always also of the

family, the kin, the people, and the state. It therefore always produces a

common dogma and a common cult, as it were borne by the consciousness

that not the single man but humanity is the completed image of God, his

temple and body. Outside the terrain of special revelation, however, the

consciousness has generally been lost of the unity of God as well as of the

unity of humanity. The unity of religion is limited to the tribal or national

fellows; civil and religious community coincide; the state is itself also a

Cultusgemeinschaft. To be sure, religion also reveals itself in part in

independent organization of priesthood, sacrifices, ceremonies, religious

associations and secret societies; the Buddhist religion in Tibet shows so

much agreement with that of Rome that the Jesuit fathers, when they first

came to know it, saw in it a play of the devil. But yet none of the pagan

religions brought it to such an independent organization as that which we

encounter under Christianity in the church. Mohammedanism founded

nothing other than a kind of theocratic state, in which the Arabs are the

lords of the subjected peoples and the Koran is the lawbook also for civil

law. And Buddhism formed only associations of world-fleeing monks, who

exercised a paralyzing pressure on civil society and over against the

state never became independent. Cf. Saussaye, Religionsgesch. I 132.

Pfleiderer, Religionsphilos.3 727 f. Rauwenhoff, Wijsb. v. d. godsd. 835v.

Tiele, Inl. tot de godsdienstwet. Tweede reeks 1899 bl. 132-154. Falke,

Buddha, Mohammed, Christus II 155 f.

However, the Christian church was prepared in the days of the O.

Testament. In the patriarchal period the households of the believers were the

religious congregations and the heads of households the priests; a regulated,

common cult did not yet exist, although in Genesis 4:26 it is already implied

that the Sethites, over against the Cainites, began to call upon and to

proclaim the name of God, and although after the flood a separation came

about between Semites, Japhethites, and Hamites. With Abraham this

separation even received its settlement for centuries. God henceforth let the

Heathen walk in their own ways and established with Abraham and his seed

a covenant, which also outwardly by the sign of circumcision separated the

church from the world and at the foot of Sinai was confirmed and raised to

a national covenant. Under Israel church and state were not one and the

same; there was distinction between priest and king, temple and palace,

religious and civil laws. But both were nevertheless so closely united, that

citizen and believer, nation and people of God coincided and it was the one

Divine law that governed the whole life of Israel. Israel as a people was an

ֵעָדה יהוה or a ָקָהל יהוה. Both these words are used in the O. T. for the

assembly or the congregation of Israel, without difference of meaning. But

after the exile Israel’s national existence underwent a remarkable change;

the Jews ceased to be a people like the other peoples of the earth and

became a religious congregation. In all places in and outside Palestine there

arose gatherings of the believers on the sabbath, Psalms 74:8, Hd. 15:21, in

order to read the law and to be instructed in it; teaching was the principal

component of the worship practiced therein, Mark 1:21, 6:2 etc. These

assemblies, ְכֵנֶסת, συναγωγη, became for the Jews more and more the center

of their religious life and in places with mixed or predominantly Greek

population received an independent organization. The temple at Jerusalem

did indeed continue to exist and was still always honored as the place of [4]

the special presence of God. But the Jews outside Jerusalem nevertheless

gradually obtained a religious service that proceeded apart from temple and

altar, apart from priesthood and sacrifice, and consisted wholly and entirely

in preaching and in prayer. Thereby, already in the days of the O. T., the

Christian congregation was prepared. Just as the two Hebrew, so the Greek

words, συναγωγη and ἐ κκλησια, were originally used interchangeably for

these religious gatherings of the Jews; the LXX renders עדה as a rule by

συναγωγη, and קהל by ἐ κκλησια, except in Ex. Lev. Num. Jos., where also

קהל is usually translated by συναγωγη. But gradually there nevertheless

already arose among the Jews this distinction, that συναγωγη more denotes

the empirical, factual gathering (congregatio, assembly), and ἐ κκλησια

becomes the word for the ideal congregation, as it comprises those called by

God to his salvation (convocatio, congregation). Cf. Schürer, Gesch. des

jüd. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi II3 428-433.

2. From this it is explained that Christian usage of speech continued to

employ the word συναγωγη only of the religious assemblies of the Jews and

of the buildings in which they took place, Matthew 4:23, Hd. 13:43, Op. 2:9, 3:9,

but otherwise began to make use of the word ἐ κκλησια. To be sure, this

word occurs in the N. T. a few times still of popular assemblies, Hd. 7:38,

19:32, 39, 41; but generally it has a religious character and denotes the N.

Testament congregation. In the patristic literature and especially among the

Ebionites the Christian congregation is still sometimes designated by

συναγωγη, but soon this word nevertheless makes way entirely for

ἐ κκλησια, Schürer t. a. p. 432. Sohm, Kirchenrecht 16 f. Cremer s. v. It

was, moreover, Christ himself who first applied the word קהל, ἐ κκλησια to

the congregation which He gathered around himself, Matthew 16:18, 18:17.

Many more recent critics are of the opinion that this word was later put into

Jesus’ mouth, Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. I 210. But there is no ground for

this, and there is nothing surprising in it that Jesus used that word in that

sense. For indeed Jesus appeared with the preaching of the kingdom of

heaven. But He at once presented a wholly different conception of it than

his contemporaries and at first absolutely did not live in the expectation that

the whole people would convert and follow Him. John already separated

the true Israelites from the mass of the people by the baptism of repentance.

And Jesus was not only conscious from the beginning of his sonship, his

messianity and his future suffering, part III 235v.; but He also chose a

number of young men and gathered them around himself; He sent them out

to preach and to win disciples; He gave to his followers other laws than

those that were valid in the circles of the Jewish people, Mt. 5-7, 18:15-35,

20, 28 etc. Thus there gradually came to stand around Him a crowd of

disciples, which distinguished itself and separated itself from the people of

the Jews. And to this crowd Jesus now applied the word קהל, ἐ κκλησια.

They were the true ἐ κκλησια, the genuine people of God, as Israel ought to

have been but now in the rejection of the Messiah showed itself not to be.

For Jesus indeed did not come to create something absolutely new, but to

bring the law and prophets to fulfillment and to restore the true, essential

קהל. If Jesus therefore uses this word in Matthew 16:18 and 18:17 of his

congregation, He therefore also uses it still in a wholly general sense. He

does not say that that קהל, ἐ κκλησια, will be local or will extend over the

whole earth; the later distinction of local and general church is not yet to be

found here. But Jesus says quite in general that He will build his ἐ κκλησια,

in contrast with that of the Jews, not on the law, but on Peter’s confession of

his messianity, and that He will therefore also arrange it independently and

cause it to live according to its own laws. In the disciples whom Jesus

himself gathered around himself, the beginnings of the N.-Test.

congregation are already present. But as long as Jesus was on earth, He

himself remained the personal center and the community of the young men

still receded. They were not yet independent and had to be taught and led

daily by Him. And the Holy Spirit was not yet, because Christ was not yet

glorified. But after Jesus’ departure they at once join together more closely,

Hd. 1:14, and receive on the day of Pentecost in the H. Spirit a principle of

life of their own, which makes them independent over against the people of

the Jews and binds them among themselves most closely. Then the

congregation of Christ is in principle detached from Israel’s national

existence, from priest and law, from temple and altar; it becomes an own,

independent, religious assembly; it takes the place of old Israel as the

people, as the congregation of God.

This ἐ κκλησια at first existed only at Jerusalem. But soon there came also

believers in Samaria, in Antioch, and in many other places among Jews and

Gentiles; and their assemblies too were designated by the name ἐ κκλησια;

they too were there on the spot the people, the congregation of God. Thus

the word gradually acquired distinct meanings. Jesus still uses the word in a

general sense, without thinking of the later distinctions. But after his

departure it is applied to the circle of believers in a particular place, because

these there constitute the people of God. And then it is applied to them,

whether or not they have come together in a particular assembly. In Hd.

the assembly or gathering of the congregation; but elsewhere it occurs

repeatedly of the congregation itself, even if it is not assembled, and thus

one can speak of ἐ κκλησιαι in plurali, Romans 16:4, 1 Corinthians 16:1, Galatians 1:2, 1

Thess. 2:14 etc. The word receives an even narrower meaning when it is

used of a portion of the believers that gathers in a private dwelling at a

particular place. In cities namely, where the number of Christians became

very great, one necessarily had to come to so-called house congregations.

The Jews had in various places, e.g. in Rome, more than one synagogue;

and the Christians were all the more compelled to divide themselves at the

gathering, because in the first period they had no church buildings but

assembled in the dwelling of one of the members of the congregation.

According to Hd. 19:9 the Christians at Ephesus for a time came together in

the perhaps for that purpose rented hall of a certain Tyrannus, but as a rule

they had their meeting place in a private dwelling. With a somewhat

considerable expansion of the congregation they therefore had to come

together in different dwellings and form a kind of house congregations. This

was the case in Jerusalem, where the congregation soon was thousands of

also in Rome, Romans 16:23, Corinth, 1 Corinthians 16:19, Colossae, Philem. 2,

Laodicea, Colossians 4:15. These house congregations were each by itself called

an ἐ κκλησια. But in doing so the unity is not lost sight of for a moment.

For although the believers in the same city sometimes, because of their

great number, come together in different dwellings, they nevertheless form

there on the spot with one another the one ἐ κκλησια, Hd. 5:11, 8:1 etc. If

the reading of Tischendorf in Hd. 9:31 is correct, all the congregations of

Judea, Galilee, and Samaria are there comprehended under the one name of

ἐ κκλησια in singulari. And in Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 12:12-28, 15:9, Galatians 1:13,

Philippians 3:6, Ef. 1:22, 5:32, Colossians 1:18, 24, 25 in the same way all congregations

are taken together as one ἐ κκλησια and described as the body, the bride, the

pleroma of Christ. This unity of all congregations also does not first come

about aposteriori through confession, church order, and synodal connection;

the church is no association of persons, who first have come to faith outside

of it and thereafter have united themselves. But it is an organism, in which

the whole precedes the parts; its unity precedes the multiplicity of the local

congregations and lies in Christ. He is the one who, in the state of exaltation

continuing his mediatorial work, unites and builds up his congregations out

of himself as the head, Ef. 1:23, 4:16, 5:23, Colossians 1:18, 2:19, who gathers

remains with it, Matthew 18:20, 28:20, is most closely united with it, John 15:1v.,

17:21, 23, 1 Corinthians 6:15, 12:12-27, Galatians 2:20, and by his Spirit dwells in it,

Romans 6:5, 8:9-11, 1 Corinthians 6:15v., Ef. 3:17 etc. In so far the assertion of

Sohm, Kirchenrecht S. 20 is correct, that the general ἐ κκλησια precedes the

local congregations; it is indeed not the historical, but yet the logical prius,

Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. II 177; every local congregation is the people of

God, the body of Christ, built on the foundation of Christ, 1 Corinthians 3:11, 16,

12:27, because it there on the spot is the same as what the congregation in

its entirety is, and Christ for it is what he is for the whole congregation,

Zahn, Einl. in das Neue Test. I 355 f. In the different local assemblies of the

believers the one congregation of Christ comes to manifestation. Its essence

lies, both for the whole and for each of the parts in particular, in this, that it

is the people of God, Romans 9:25, 2 Corinthians 6:16, 18, Titus 2:14, Hebr. 8:10,

13:12, 1 Petr. 2:9, 10, consisting of people who are devoted to the Lord [8]

and converted to him, Hd. 5:14, 14:15, who bear the name of disciples,

Cor. 1:2 etc. In the widest sense ἐ κκλησια is the assembly of all the people

of God, on earth not only but also in heaven, Hebr. 12:23, in the past and

present not only but also in the future, John 10:16, 17:20.

3. This spiritual unity of the congregation of Christ also continually comes

to the foreground in the post-apostolic period. The Christians are the saints,

the elect; they have one God, one Christ, one Spirit of grace, one calling,

Clem. 1 Cor. 46. The church is a tower, which with the rock Christ forms

one stone, Herm. Sim. IX 13. 18, from which the stones that are unclean

and black and do not fit are removed, ib. 6. 7; the generation of the

righteous, from which the godless are separated, ib. 17. 18. The Christians

are the soul of the world, Ep. ad Diogn. 6, the true Israel, the blessed people

of God, Just. Dial. c. Tryph. 116. 123. 135; they are all priests, Iren. adv.

haer. IV 8, 3. Tert. de exh. cast. 7, have all received the H. Spirit, Iren. ib.

IV 36, 2 and together form a communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis

et contesseratio hospitalitatis, Tert. de praescr. 20 etc. In addition, one then,

just like Hermas, makes a distinction between true and false members of the

church. With a view to the excommunicated Origen said: ita fit ut interdum

qui foras mittitur intus sit et ille foris, qui intus videtur retineri. And

elsewhere he repeatedly expresses that many are called and few are chosen,

that there are spiritual and fleshly members, that there is tares among the

wheat and the walk of many conflicts with their confession, Seeberg, Der

Begriff der christl. Kirche, Erl. 1885 S. 29. But soon there came in this

conception of the church as communio sanctorum a great change. When in

the second century all kinds of sects and heresies arose, the question

naturally arose, which was the true church. And to that the answer was

given: that which remains with the whole and maintains communion with

the catholic church. Catholic was the church already called by Ignatius,

Smyrn. 8, cf. Murat. and Mart. Polyc. 5. 16. 19, because it encompasses all

believers over the whole earth, in all times and places, and outside it [9]

there is no salvation, Clem. 1 Cor. 57. Ign. Ef. 16. Trall. 7. Phil. 3. Herm. IX

16. This catholicity of the church, however, was no longer conceived

spiritually over against heresy, but was externalized and embodied in a

visible institute. The bishop, descending in a straight line from the apostles

and in possession of the pure tradition, became the criterion of the true

church. The universal church ceased to be a logical prius and was conceived

as a historical prius of all local churches. Thus there came in the concept of

the church a complete reversal. It is not the local churches that together

form a unity, but the catholic church with the episcopate precedes, and the

local churches are parts of the whole and only so long true churches as they

keep to that whole and submit themselves to it. The development of this

catholic concept of the church was promoted by the resistance that it

encountered from the side of heretics. Gnosticism made of the church a

school, in which the πνευματικοι were far exalted above the popular

representations of historical Christianity. Montanism wanted to establish the

church on the foundation of alleged inspiration and prophecy, with denial of

all office and authority; ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus,

Tert. de pudic. 21. Novatianism and Donatism strove for the holiness of the

church at the expense of its catholicity. Against all these errors the church

fathers came forward and laid more and more emphasis on the episcopal

church institute. The church, which is led by the bishops, is the only

preserver and preacher of the truth, Iren. adv. haer. I 10, 2. Tert. de praescr.

28, and therefore the indispensable institute of salvation, the mother of all

believers, the dispenser of grace, the mediatrix of salvation, scala

ascensionis ad Deum. Ubi enim ecclesia, ibi et spiritus Dei, et ubi spiritus

Dei, ibi ecclesia et omnis gratia, spiritus autem gratia, Iren. ib. III 24, 1.

Tert. de or. 2. Clemens, Paed. I 6. Strom. VIII 17. Just as there is only one

God and one Lord, so there is also only one church, one flock, one mother,

from which all believers are born and outside which there is no salvation.

The ray of light cannot be separated from the sun, the branch not from the

tree, the brook not from the spring, Cypr. de unit. ecll. 5. 7. Augustine also

moves in the same circle of thoughts. Although the church by its unity,

catholicity, and majesty had already earlier made a deep impression on him,

he was nevertheless first compelled by his struggle against Donatism

393-411 to reflect more deliberately on its essence. Even then, however, it

is not the doctrine of the church, but the doctrine of grace that remains the

center of his thinking and life, and the doctrine of the church comes to stand

alongside it to a certain extent detached, independent, and unreconciled. For

if God is the sole and absolute cause of grace, as Augustine teaches, then

the church cannot be this. Therefore he at once distinguishes between the

church as corpus verum and the church as corpus permixtum, de doctr. chr.

III 32. There are members of the true church outside the visible church,

such as the angels, Enchir. 29, the murderer on the cross, who received only

the baptism of blood, de bapt. IV 22 and all non-Israelites who before

Christ’s coming have been saved, de civ. XVIII 23. 47, for the Christian

religion is as old as the world, Ep. 102. To the true church also belong those

who even now live godlessly or are entangled in superstition and heresy and

yet are known by God. Namque in illa ineffabili praescientia Dei multi qui

foris videntur intus sunt, et multi qui intus videntur foris sunt. Ex illis ergo

omnibus, qui ut ita dicam intrinsecus et in occulto intus sunt, constat ille

hortus conclusus, fons signatus, puteus aquae vivae, paradisus cum fructu

pomorum, de bapt. V 27. Conversely there are many within the visible

church who do not belong to the electi. There is chaff among the wheat,

there are bad fish among the good, there are plurimae oves foris, plurimi

lupi intus, hom. in Joann. 45. c. lit. Petul. III 3. de bapt. I 10. Multi sunt in

communione sacramentorum cum ecclesia, qui tamen non sunt in ecclesia,

de unit. eccl. 74. Because of this distinction Augustine was accused by the

Donatists that he taught two churches; but he gave in reply that he did not

separate the two, any more than one who in man distinguishes soul and

body, and that according to the word of Christ tares and wheat had to grow

up together. For Augustine the church is not the dispenser of grace, but

nevertheless the circle within which God as a rule dispenses his grace. And

thus he defends it against the Donatists. The church is the mediatrix of

salvation, because in it alone the Spirit, love, perseverance are present.

Outside it there is no salvation. For heretics and schismatics can indeed take

along the word and sacrament, but not regeneration and love, which

through the H. Spirit are bestowed only within the church; hunc spiritum,

quod illi non habeant, qui sunt ab ecclesia segregati, Judas apostolus 1:10

apertissime declaravit. They have the form but lack the essence, just as

severed body parts are indeed a hand, finger, ear etc. but have no life. He

who does not have the church as mother does not have God as father, de

bapt. VII 44. de unit. eccl. 1. c. lit. Petul. III 9. The church is pia mater,

sponsa sine macula et ruga, unica columba, sancta ecclesia; and the church

remains holy, even if the godless in it have the majority, for its holiness, like

its unity and catholicity, lies for Augustine much more in the objective

institute of doctrine, means of grace, and cultus, than in the members of the

church; separation is therefore always unlawful, a proof of pride and

disobedience, exchanging the universal church for a particularistic or even a

national one, c. Cresc. II 37. de unit. eccl. 12. 14. And precisely through this

strong emphasis that Augustine against the Donatists lays on the institute of

the church, he has to no small extent contributed to the development of the

Roman concept of the church. Cf. besides the dogma-historical works of

Harnack, Schwane etc., Seeberg, Der Begriff der chr. Kirche 1-56. Köstlin,

Die Kath. Auffassung v. d. Kirche in ihrer ersten Entw., Deutsche Zeits. für

chr. Wiss. u. chr. Leben 1856. H. Schmidt, Aug. Lehre v. d. Kirche, Jahrb. f.

deutsche Theol. 1861 S. 197-250. Reuter, August. Studien 1887 S. 4-105.

Dorner, Augustinus S. 276-295. Specht, Die Lehre v. d. Kirche nach dem h.

Aug. Paderborn 1892.

In the Middle Ages this concept of the church was worked out practically

in the development of the hierarchy, in the mighty organization of the

ecclesiastical institute, in the struggle of the church with and its elevation

above the state. All the more remarkable is it, that it was treated

theoretically almost not at all. Not theology but jurisprudence then led the

development, Harnack, D. G. III 400. Concerning the doctrine of the church

we find something only in Hugo Vict., de sacr. II 2. Halesius, Summa IV

qu. 4. Thomas, c. Gent. IV 76. S. Theol. I 2 qu. 101 art. 2. II 2 qu. 10 art.

by Wiclef, Hus, the Reformers etc. is the concept of the church on the

Roman side more broadly developed and defended, especially by

Torquemada 1468, Catech. Rom. I c. 10. Canus, Loci theol. IV-VI,

Bellarminus, Disp. de controv. Tom. I and II. Becanus, de ecclesia Christi

itemque de ecclesia Romana 1615. Id. Manuale controv. I 1-5. Bossuet,

Exposition de la doctrine de l’église cath. sur les matières de controverse

1671 etc. In this concept of the church the visible institute stands in the

foreground. Christ namely has founded on earth a church, to which the

visible and the invisible side are inseparably connected. Just as in Christ a

divine and a human nature, in every human being a soul and body, in the

sacrament a sign and a signified thing are united, so there are in the church

a visible and an invisible side. The visibility of the church rests on the

incarnation of the Word. Christ is the causa efficiens, exemplaris and finalis

of the church; He himself lives on in it as prophet, priest and king through

the H. Spirit, and pours out into it all the gifts of his grace. He

communicates these exclusively by means of office and sacrament; the

institute thus precedes the organism; the church is a mother of the believers,

before it is an assembly; the ecclesia docens with its hierarchical

constitution and its grace-effecting sacraments precedes the ecclesia audiens

and stands high above it. To this ecclesia docens then in the first place all

those properties are applicable, which the Roman Christian ascribes to his

church. It is the one, only, solely-Christian, catholic, by regular succession

descending from the apostles, imperishable, infallible church, which

disputes the right of existence of all other so-called churches, is intolerant

by virtue of its nature, tolerates or recognizes no other churches alongside

itself, from which to deviate in doctrine or to separate in life is always sin

and never permitted. For because Christ communicates all grace only

through office and sacrament, therefore the ecclesia docens, the Roman

ecclesiastical institute, is the only mediatrix of salvation, the guardian and

dispenser of all grace for all human beings, the only ark of preservation for

the whole human race. It alone leads the human being to Scripture, to the

person of Christ, to communion with God. The order of salvation is not this,

that God through his Word leads the human being to the church, but

conversely it proceeds from the church and then leads to Scripture and to

Christ. Therefore the church ought to be knowable, pointable-out and even

provable for all; by its properties and marks it must stand out so clearly

to view, that with respect to it no doubt is possible and only willful and

culpable unbelief can fail to recognize and reject it. It is the very first and

principal source of knowledge of the truth and for this reason is treated by

many Roman theologians in the doctrine of the principia. On this ecclesia

docens the ecclesia audiens is completely dependent; it has only a passive

share in all the glorious properties of the church; its only task is, to accept

the supernatural grace from the hand of the priest in the sacrament; faith in

what the church believes, obedience to the hierarchy, submission to the

pope is its greatest virtue and necessary to salvation. Ubi papa, ibi ecclesia.

On the quality of this ecclesia audiens therefore the essence of the church

does not depend. Indeed it is good and useful, that the members of the

church are believers; decor ecclesiae principaliter in interioribus consistit,

Thomas, Sent. IV dist. 15 qu. 3 ad 1. But the ecclesia docens, the objective

institute of salvation remains just as well the true church for that, even if its

members are unbelievers and ungodly. No members of the church of Christ

are all those, who find themselves outside the Roman church, such as the

catechumeni, the excommunicati, the schismatici etc. Their Christian faith,

their pious walk does not benefit them; they are outside the exclusively

saving church. But members of the church are indeed all, who remain in

communion with Rome, even if they are also public unbelievers and

ungodly. These are not actu but potentia de ecclesia; they do not belong to

the soul but to the body of the church; they are not so perfectissime de

ecclesia, as those who believe and live in the Roman church; but they are

nevertheless members of the church and belong to it just as much as the

body belongs to the human being’s essence. In order in any way, more or

less perfectly, to belong to the church, no interna virtus of faith or love is

necessary, but only externa professio fidei et sacramentorum communio.

For the church is even visibilis et palpabilis, ut est coetus populi Romani

vel regnum Galliae aut respublica Venetorum. It is in one word coetus

hominum ejusdem Christianae fidei professione et eorundem

sacramentorum communione colligatus, sub regimine legitimorum

pastorum ac praecipue Christi in terris vicarii Romani pontificis,

Bellarminus, de eccl. mil. III 2. cf. Heinrich, Dogm. Theol. II 163 f.

Perrone, Prael. theol. I 1838 p. 207 sq. Möhler, Symbolik § 36 f. Simar,

Dogm. 576-592. Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogm. IV 279-377. Jansen, Prael. I

325 sq. Concil. Vatic. ed. Lacensis VII Frib. p. 269 sq. 567 sq. enz.

4. To the same extent as this Roman concept of the church was practically

realized in the Middle Ages, it encountered resistance and opposition from

various sides. The catholicizing of the church-idea had in the first centuries

not taken place except under vigorous and persistent protest. Greek

Christendom, although otherwise agreeing with Rome in the doctrine of the

church, never acknowledged the primacy of the pope and thereby resisted

the striving after absolute unity and catholicity. And thus also in the Middle

Ages various sects rose in opposition to the development of the Roman

church-idea. The opposition proceeded from different principles. Among

Cathars, Albigensians, Bulgarians, the followers of Amalric of Bena, the

sects of the new and of the free spirit, it was the fruit of dualistic-

Manichaean or gnostic-pantheistic errors. Among others such as the

Waldensians, Bradwardina, Wiclef, Hus etc., the view of Augustine

continued to operate, according to which the church was an assembly of

praedestinati. But the knowability of this true church was then sought not

objectively in the administration of word and sacrament, but in the holy life,

in life according to the law of Christ, in love, poverty etc.; hence the

transition from the idea of the church to reality was lacking and the attempt

at reformation could not work through or also ended in disappointment,

Harnack, D. G. III 392-419. Only in the sixteenth century was, through the

Reformation, a concept of the church placed over against that of Rome that

was different in principle. Luther found peace for his soul, not in the

sacrament working ex opere operato nor also in good works, but in the

forgiveness of sins through faith alone. And from this standpoint he

attacked the Roman church, rejected priest, sacrifice, monasticism,

infallible church-institute and magically working sacrament, proclaimed the

freedom of the Christian man and conceived the church as an assembly of

believers, as a communio sanctorum, as it was confessed as an object of

faith in the twelve articles. It cost Luther severe struggle to break with the

Roman church and its concept of the church; he had no program of

reformation; at first he was concerned only to oppose the abuses. But he

found and retained his firmness in the justification of the sinner by faith

alone and from there came much further than he had originally thought or

intended. This principle also led him to another conception of the church, to

that which he found in Scripture. The church was not an assembly of

praedestinati without more, nor also of such as walk according to a few

precepts of the sermon on the mount. But it was an assembly of believers,

of people who through faith had received forgiveness of sins and thus were

all children of God, prophets and priests. Of itself it therefore had an

invisible and a visible side. This distinction is according to Seeberg, Der

Begriff der christl. Kirche 91, first made not by Zwingli but by Luther. But

by it he understood not two churches, but two sides of one and the same

church. For Luther the church is no Platonic ideal, no idea without reality,

but for him it exists concretely in people who live and through faith partake

of the forgiveness of sins. On the one side it is invisible, an object of faith,

for what one believes one does not see; on the other side it is visible, for it

becomes manifest and is knowable, not by papacy, bishops, mass vestments

and other externals, but by the pure administration of word and sacrament.

Where this is, one can be certain that there is a church; there are true

believers, even if only among the children in the cradle; Gottes Wort kann

nicht ohne Gottes Volk sein. For there can indeed be unbelievers in a

church, just as there can be foreign constituents in a body, but the essence

of the church is determined by the believers, the whole is named after the

principal part, cf. Köstlin, Luthers Theol. I 317 f. II 534 f. Seeberg t. a. p.

84 f. Gottschick, Hus’, Luthers und Zwingli’s Lehre von der Kirche, Zeits.

f. Kirchengesch. 1886. Accordingly, in the Lutheran symbols the church

was defined as a communio or congregatio sanctorum et vere credentium,

in qua evangelium recte docetur et recte administrantur sacramenta. It is

indeed visible, has offices and institutions, but ecclesia non est tantum

societas externarum rerum ac rituum sed principaliter est societas fidei

et Spiritus Sancti in cordibus, Conf. Aug. en Apol. 7. 8. Smalc. art. 12. Cat.

maj. II 3. The distinction of visible and invisible church thus originally

served only to express over against Rome that the essence of the church lay

in the invisible, in faith, in communion with Christ and his benefits through

the H. Geest, but absolutely not to detract in any way from the visibility,

from the reality of the church. Soon, however, it was used in another sense.

For one could not close one’s eyes to the fact that in the church in hac vita

multi mali et hypocritae admixti sunt, who indeed are socii verae ecclesiae

secundum externos ritus but nevertheless do not form the church and rather

belong to the regnum diaboli, Symb. B. ed. Müller 153. 154. 155. The

church could thus be taken more narrowly or more broadly as ecclesia

stricte et large dicta, ib. 153. Luther sometimes spoke of zwei Kirchen and

Melanchton called this a discrimen duorum corporum ecclesiae, C. R. 21,

507, and later theologians, such as Heerbrand, Chemniz, Hutter, Gerhard

etc. applied to that the distinction of invisible and visible church. Invisible

was the church now called, not because it had a spiritual side and therefore

was an object of faith, but because the circle of believers could not be

known by us; and visible church became the name, not for the manifestation

of the believers in confession and walk, but for the unbelievers, who earlier

by Luther and the confessional writings were reckoned not to the church but

to the regum diaboli. Idea and reality, essence and appearance were thereby

set loosely alongside one another. The believers formed an invisible

ecclesiola in the visible ecclesia. Cf. Gerhard, Loc. XXII 69 sq. Quenstedt,

Theol. IV 493 sq. Hollaz, Examen theol. 1278 sq. Buddeus, Instit. theol.

1207 sq. Schmid, Dogm. der ev. luth. K. 434. 440 f. Schultz. Das protest.

Dogma v. d. unsichtbaren Kirche, Jahrb. f. prot. Theol. 1876 S. 673-690.

Krauss, Das prot. Dogma v. d. uns. Kirche, Gotha 1876 S. 80 f. Seeberg, t.

With the Lutheran doctrine of the church the Reformed agrees in the

main, but it nevertheless exhibits some not unimportant peculiarities. In the

first place, the institute of the church occupies in it a somewhat different

place. Luther did indeed understand by the church the communio

sanctorum, but still sought its unity and holiness more in the objective

institutions of office, word, and sacrament than in the subjective community

of the believers, which often left so much to be desired. Thus the church

became more and more a divine institute, which had to realize the unity and

holiness of the believers. In the same spirit Melanchthon in the Loci of

1543 defined the church as coetus vocatorum and said that we nec alibi

electos ullos somniemus, nisi in hoc ipso coetu visibili. And later Lutheran

dogmaticians found in it a point of difference, that according to their

doctrine the elect are not to be sought extra coetum vocatorum and

according to the Reformed they could also occur outside it. And in fact it is

Reformed doctrine, that God does indeed ordinarily bestow the benefits of

Christ by means of word and sacrament, but nevertheless is not bound to

them and, be it then also rarissime, grants salvation outside the institute of

the church, Calvijn, Inst. IV 16, 19. Ursinus, Expl. catech. qu. 21. Bucanus,

Inst. theol. 400. Gomarus, Theses 30, 29. In the second place, the Reformed

brought the church into the closest connection with election and therefore

often conceived its invisibility differently than the Lutherans. Zwingli at

first did indeed let the invisibility bear upon the ecclesia universalis, which

was spread over the whole earth and therefore could be empirically

perceived by no one, in contrast with the ecclesia particularis, which is

present and visible in a definite place. But later he understood by the

ecclesia invisibilis the collective elect, as it is in the twelve articles an

object of faith and will first at the parousie become visible. And in

distinction from that he called the ecclesia universalis and the ecclesia

particularis a visible (visibilis, sensibilis) assembly of believers, in which

hypocrites can also be, Fidei ratio, Op. IV 8. In his Christianae fidei

expositio of the year 1531 he then again speaks somewhat differently and

says that the church of the believers on earth is invisible, insofar as it

includes only the true believers, and visible, insofar as all belong to it,

quotquot per universum orbem Christo nomen dederunt, Op. IV 58. Calvin

aligns himself with this usage. When he for the first time includes the

expression ecclesia invisibilis in the Institutie of 1543, he understands by it

the collective elect, who are known to God alone, and then

distinguishes the church as universa hominum multitudo in orbe diffusa,

which is visible and also contains hypocrites within itself, but nevertheless

also insofar again is invisible and an object of faith, as we cannot know who

in it are the true believers, Inst. IV 1, 1-9. Invisible, therefore, the church

could already be called in a threefold respect: 1o as ecclesia universalis,

because a particular person cannot perceive the church in other places and

in other times; 2o as coetus electorum, which will first at the parousie be

completed and be visible; 3o as coetus electorum vocatorum, because we in

the church on earth cannot distinguish the true believers. To that there later

still came other points of view, under which the church could be called

invisible, because it is not of this world, because its head Christ and thus

also it itself as his body is invisible, because its greatest part is in heaven,

because it can be temporarily and locally deprived of the administration of

the means of grace, because in times of persecution it hides in deserts and

caves, because it is perceptible indeed in its outward confession but not in

the inward faith of the heart, because the church is never present in one

place and in one time but through the centuries and peoples extends itself,

Polanus, Synt. theol. 531. And visible was then called the church over

against that, because it becomes manifest in confession and walk, or

appears as institute with offices and administrations, or contains not only

true believers but also hypocrites. Confession and dogmatics among the

Reformed now proceeded from this and then from that conception. Some

placed the church as the community of all elect in the foreground and called

this the ecclesia invisibilis, Cat. Genev. bij Niemeyer 135. Scot. I 16.

Westm. Conf. 25. Alsted, Theol. did. schol. 590. But because the elect, who

do not yet live or are not yet called, can be called members of the church

only potentia, others let this idea of the church rest and proceeded from the

church as assembly of all electi et vocati, Basil. I 5. Helv. I 15. Heid.

Catech. 54. Belg. 27. Helv. II 17. Gomarus, Theses theol. disp. 30. Polanus,

Synt. 530. Martyr, Loci 390. Then, however, one had to distinguish

therewith immediately between true believers and hypocrites and therefore

began to speak of ecclesia stricte and latius dicta, of the esse de ecclesia and

the esse in ecclesia, or also of ecclesia invisibilis and visibilis, Ursinus

on qu. 54. Alsted, Theol. did. schol. 598. Heidegger, Corpus theol. XXVI 29

etc. This led in connection with the corruption that entered into the church,

to the distinction of two circles or groups of people in the one church,

Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII 3, 3. 24. and brought Janssonius, van der Eerde

and others in the previous century to it, to place an outward and an inward

covenant alongside each other, to separate the forma externa and interna of

the church and to proclaim the doctrine that also the unregenerate, if they

lived without giving offense, could be true members of the church and had a

lawful claim to its goods and benefits, cf. part III 227. In vain, over against

that, others attempted to maintain the unity of the church, by saying that

invisible and visible church were two sides of the same thing, Synopsis pur.

13. Appelius, De Herformde Leer 1769 p. 300v.; the doctrine corresponded

less and less with life. And this was all the more serious for the Reformed

doctrine concerning the church, because it saw the essence of the church

much less than the Lutherans in the institute. For, and that is a third

distinction, which will later come more clearly to light, the Reformed

sought the mark of the true church indeed also in the pure administration of

word and sacrament, but they usually added to that also church discipline

and the Christian walk; election was the foundation of the church but

became manifest only in faith and good works. Cf. further also concerning

the Reformed doctrine of the church: Beza, Tract. theol. 1582 I 32.

Hyperius, Meth. theol. 529. Bullinger, Huysboeck 1612 fol. 204. Bucanus,

Inst. theol. 455. Gomarus, Op. II 97. 202. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. I p. 1 sq. Moor,

Comm. VI 1-179. M. Vitringa, Doctr. chr. relig. IX etc., cf. Seeberg t. a. p.

5. The change which the Reformation introduced into the Roman concept

of the church also had practical consequences. Uniformity made way once

and for all for pluriformity; different churches appeared after and alongside

one another and gave to religion and church a wholly different form. The

Reformation still tried to keep invisible and visible church in good

connection; but history proved how difficult that was. And in other [20]

churches outside the Reformed and Lutheran the connection was often

completely broken, and the invisible church was sacrificed to the visible or

this to that. Socinianism did indeed still accept the distinction, but

nevertheless spoke almost only of the visible church, because it conceived

the Christian religion as a doctrine fairly acceptable to all, Fock, Der Socin.

690 f. Remonstrantism not only walked in the same track, but also deprived

the church of all independence and left nothing to it but the right of

preaching and admonition, Conf. en Apol. conf. 21. 22. Limborch, Theol.

Christ. VII. With Rationalism the church became an association of men for

the exercise of religion and for the improvement of morals, Wegscheider,

Instit. § 188. Bretschneider, Syst. Entw. 760. Doederlein, Instit. theol.

christ. 1787 S. 716. Kant indicated with the names invisible and visible

church the people of God according to his idea and according to its

empirical appearance; the latter, that is, the church with its statutory faith is

destined to pass over more and more into the rational and moral religion,

into a Kingdom of God on earth, Religion ed. Rosenkranz 119 f. 146 f. With

Hegel the church likewise had only a temporal, transitory significance, for

the state is the true realization of the moral idea, the vernünftlich-sittliche

Substanz. The church has a right to exist only so long as the state does not

yet fully correspond to its idea, Philos. der Rel. Werke XII 279. For the

church as an institution of Christ, from the standpoint of rationalism no

place remains. And from another principle mysticism came to the same

result. Anabaptism proceeded from the absolute antithesis of creation and

re-creation, nature and grace, world and Kingdom of God and therefore

regarded believers as men who in regeneration had become something

wholly different and therefore had to live separated from the world. Its

program was: not reformation but separation; it wanted a separated church,

Menno Simons, Werken 262. For centuries there had been no church, but

only Babel, and Babel had to be left and avoided, ib. 33 v. 289 v. 295. 409

v. In Münster one said that in 1400 years there had been no true Christian,

Goebel, Gesch. d. christl. Lebens I 179. The true church was a church of

saints, who after personal confession had been baptized and by abstention

from oath, war, governmental office and all kinds of other worldly

practices in food and drink, in clothing and intercourse distinguished

themselves from others, De Bres, De wortel, den oorspronck ende het

fundament der Wederd. 1589 bl. 39-45. Cloppenburg, Op. II 233. Goebel t.

a. p. 134 f. The same dualistic principle lies at the foundation of all kinds of

sects that later have appeared within the circle of Protestantism. Labadie

called into being at Middelburg in 1666, just as earlier at Geneva and at

Amiens, conventicles, to which he gave the name of prophecies and in 1669

founded an “evangelical congregation”, which was allowed to consist only

of true believers, and later at Herford distinguished itself by a domestic

family life, by a questionable marriage practice and by community of

goods, Goebel t. a. p. II 181-273. Ritschl, Gesch. d. Piet. I 194-268.

Pietism, both here and in Germany, drew the whole of life together into the

narrow circle of religion, became indifferent to church and office,

sacrament and formulary, gathered the believers in separated societies and

promoted separatism, Ritschl, ib. II 135 f. Zinzendorf organized on 12 Aug.

1729 an apostolic congregation, which in various traits corresponded with

the congregation of Labadie, Goebel, ib. II 271. In England under

anabaptist influence with Robert Browne and John Robinson there arose

Independentism, which lets the church arise wholly and entirely from the

joining together of individual believers, Weingarten, Die

Revolutionskinderen Englands 24 f. After Cromwell’s revolution, tempered

in its enthusiasm, it passed over, as Anabaptism in Mennonitism, into the

religion of the Quakers, who formed a congregation separated from the

world and distinguished in all kinds of externalities. Detached from all the

historical and objective, the church with them became the community of all

who were partakers of the illumination of the H. Spirit, and further the

name for those who gathered together in one place, as it were formed one

family and by virtue of the inner light also outwardly agreed in confession

and life, Barclay, Verantwoording 1757 bl. 212 v. Weingarten ib. 185. 186.

Methodism too is governed by the same antithesis. To be sure, Wesley at

first tried to reform the church itself, but in 1784 he nevertheless proceeded

to separation from the established church; he ordained preachers, placed

them under protection of the Tolerantie-acte and joined the converts

together in societies, which came together daily for prayer, from time to

time held love-feasts, fast-days, watch-nights, prayermeetings etc. and

received as principal task to labor for the conversion of others,

Schneckenburger, Kleinere prot. Kirchenparteien 1863 S. 103 f. The

salvation army of General Booth is the consequence of this Methodism; the

converts no longer form a church but a standing army of Christ, a corps of

evangelists under an officer, separated from the world by special clothing

and manner of life, Kolde, Die Heilsarmee 1885 S. 49 f. No wonder that

under all such phenomena John Darby came to reject openly and decidedly

every church and church form. In his opinion the N. T. dispensation of the

covenant of grace was indeed at first endowed by God with church and

office, but these have already in the apostolic time degenerated through

men’s unfaithfulness and been rejected on God’s part. Therefore all

churches since that time are nothing but Babel, preparations of the

antichrist, wholly and entirely corrupted, to be rejected altogether by the

believers. These must now do nothing else than withdraw from the world,

edify one another in their meetings with their different gifts and in silence

await the return of Christ, Dr. G. J. v. d. Flier, Het Darbisme ’s Grav. 1879.

Art. Plymouthbrüder in Herzog2.

Thus everything seems to point to a dissolution of the church and to a

radical modification of the concept of the church. Yet, over against that,

there is no lack of a powerful reaction. The Russian church, whose supreme

administration rests with the Holy Synod and is bound to the emperor by

means of the procurator, maintains its claim to the name of the only true,

orthodox church and, with suppression of the sects, strives after unity of

faith in the whole empire; Pobedonoszew, the present procurator, is an

advocate of the absolute monarchy and of the state church and defends the

doctrine that the masses find in power the standard of truth, see his

Streitfragen, autor. Uebersetzung, Berlin Deubner 1897. The Roman church

is still the same as it previously was, when it had heretics and schismatics

persecuted and put to death, and in principle can recognize and tolerate no

churches alongside itself; if Roman Catholics speak in the interest of

religious freedom and separation of church and state, they are to be

regarded as friends of both out of calculation, but as enemies of both

out of principle, cf. e.g. Stöckl, Lehrb. d. Philos. III 474. Cathrein,

Moralphilos. II3 555 f. Hettinger, Apol. des Christ. IV2 407 f. In England,

Irvingism first appeared, which wished to reform the church by restoration

of the apostleship, J. N. Köhler, Het Irvingisme, ’s Grav. 1876, and at

present ritualism is spreading in the Anglican church, which more and more

reshapes offices, sacraments, worship, ceremonies according to Roman

doctrine and practice, art. Tractarianismus in Herzog1. Mr. Walter Wash,

Secret History of the Oxford movement 1897. Williams, The crisis in the

church of England. Presb. and Ref. Rev. July 1899 p. 389-412. Even among

the Lutherans many confessionals went back to the objective institute of

church, office, and sacrament and bound to that all communication of grace,

Löhe, Drei Bücher von der Kirche 1845. Kliefoth, Acht Bücher v. d. Kirche

1854. Münchmeyer, Das Dogma v. d. uns. u. sichtb. Kirche 1854. Vilmar,

Theol. der Thatsachen 1876 S. 48 f. Id. Dogmatik II 212. Stahl, Die

Kirchenverfassung nach Lehre u. Recht der Prot. 2e Ausg. 1862 S. 67 f. But

despite all this the church, the longer the more, loses its uniform character.

Not only in the Protestant countries, especially in England and America, but

also in Russia the number of sects is expanding, J. Gehring, Die Sekten der

Russischen Kirche 1003-1897. Nach ihrem Ursprunge und inneren

Zusammenhange dargestellt. Leipzig Richter 1898. Even in the Roman

church, which so gladly takes pleasure in the division of Protestantism, in

many respects the unity is more appearance than reality. Believers and

unbelievers stand within its walls just as far from one another as in many

churches of the Reformation. The different orders often stand with one

another on anything but friendly terms. Dieselben Motive besonderer

Frömmigkeit, welche auf katholischem Boden zu neuen Ordensstiftungen

führen, wirken auf protestantischen Boden zur Bildung von Sekten, Ritschl,

Gesch. des Piet. III 303. And Reform-katholicismus and the “Los-van-

Rome” movement show how much discontent in many a heart is hidden

beneath the outward splendor of unity. Faith in the one, infallible, alonesalvific church is, over against the existence and the flourishing of so many

other churches, no longer to be maintained; the doctrine is contradicted as

strongly as possible by life and by history. [24]

While Rome closes its eyes to this development of Christianity and

church, Protestant theology runs the danger, for the sake of history, of

overlooking the divine institution of the church. According to

Schleiermacher the church arose durch das Zusammentreten der einzelnen

Wiedergeborenen zu einem geordneten Auf- und Miteinanderwirken, Chr.

Gl. § 115. Since, however, regeneration is not a magical change but an

ethical renewal, there still always remains in the regenerate a piece of

world, and thus in the church a distinction must be made between the

abiding and the changing and vanishing, ib. 125. 126. To this distinction

Schleiermacher applies the earlier names of invisible and visible church.

Their earlier use was incorrect, for of the invisible church most is not

invisible, since regeneration becomes manifest outwardly in confession and

life, and of the visible church most is not church, since it belongs to the

world. Invisible church indicates not so much persons as workings of the

Spirit in the persons, and visible church makes known that these workings

of the Spirit in all believers still go together with after-workings of sin, ib.

148. The two thus stand to each other in relation as essence and appearance,

as idea and reality, and are in that same sense also conceived by many other

theologians, Nitzsch, Syst. d. chr. Lehre § 186-188. Lange, Dogm. II 1090 f.

Martensen, Dogm. § 191. Müller, Dogm. Abh. 332 f. Thomasius, Christi

Person und Werk II3 505. Frank, Chr. Wahrheit II2 369 f. Kaftan, Dogm.

573. 585. Some in doing so abandon the old names and prefer to speak of

kingdom of God and church, A. Dorner, Kirche und Reich Gottes, Gotha

1883. Krauss, Das prot. Dogma v. d. uns. K. 1876, or also of congregation

and church, Stahl, Kirchenverfassung 67. De la Saussaye in my Theol. van

Ch. d. l. S. 61. Van Oosterzee § 129. One can then still, with Stahl, hold this

visible church to be a foundation of Christ; but most nevertheless think of it

as a product, a necessary form of existence of the congregation, Lipsius,

Dogm. § 859 f. Tiele, Inl. tot de godsdienstwet. II 1899 bl. 141v., or even

judge that the institutional church has had its time, and must pass over into

the state, Strauss, Dogm. II 618. Rothe, Ethik § 124 f. 440 f. 1167 f., or into

the confessing congregation, Rauwenhoff, Wijsb. v. d. godsd. 843.

Pfleiderer, Religionsphilos. 1896 S. 745. Sohm, Kirchenrecht passim.

Chavannes, Qu’est ce qu’une église, Paris Fischbacher 1897.

6. The name ָקָהל, ἐ κκλησια, already by virtue of its derivation from verbs

which mean to call together, denotes an assembly of people who, for one

purpose or another, especially a political or religious purpose, have come

together, or, even if at a particular moment they are not assembled, are

nevertheless mutually united for such a purpose. Under the Old Testament

Israel was the people that had been called together and gathered by God for

his service; and in the New Testament this people of Israel has been

replaced by the congregation of Christ, which is now the holy people, the

chosen race, the royal priesthood of God. The word church, church, kirk,

kirche, chiesa, by which ἐ κκλησια has been translated, does not express this

character of the congregation of Christ as clearly as the original does.

Probably it is derived from κυριακη, scil. ο ἰ κια, or κυριακον, scil. ο ἰ κον and

thus originally meant, not the congregation itself, but the place of its

gathering, the church building, Suicerus s. v. Herzog2 7, 685. At present we

use this word in the same sense of the church building, or in that of

religious worship (e.g. church begins at ten o’clock), or in that of an

instituted group of congregations (the Roman, the Anglican church etc.).

The meaning of the New-Testament word ἐ κκλησια stands in the

background with the word church; in some times the consciousness that

church is the designation of the people of God was almost entirely worn

away. This is also the reason why the word ἐ κκλησια in the Statenvertaling

has been translated not by church, but by congregation; for this word did

bring out again that the essence of the church lies in the communion of

saints. If there were no objections against it, it would deserve consideration

to replace the word church by that of congregation. But society and state

have appropriated this word in the civil sphere, speak of municipality,

municipal council, municipal school, town hall, and have thereby in many

respects made this word unusable for ecclesiastical life. Congregation can

and may indeed be used in the ecclesiastical sphere, but then has a definite

sense and is not as pliable as the word church, which can assume manifold

meanings. For although this word originally indicated the church

building and then also the religious worship and the ecclesiastical institute,

yet the meaning of people of God, of assembly of Christian believers, is not

foreign to it. In that sense it occurs in the twelve articles, in the Ned.

Geloofsbel. art. 27-29, in the Dordsche kerkenorde passim. It only depends

on revivifying this meaning in consciousness. The words congregation and

church can then be used alongside one another but they are never to be

distinguished from one another in such a way that the word congregation

denotes the assembly of believers in a particular place, and the word church

denotes the combining of the congregations into one whole. For church and

congregation are both translations of the same word ἐ κκλησια and therefore

have the same meaning. Both words are names for the assembly of

believers, whether in a particular place, whether in a country, whether over

the whole earth. It is therefore wholly wrong to think, with congregation, of

the true believers, with church, of the apparent believers, to identify both

concepts with those of invisible and visible church, or also to understand by

congregation the assembly of believers and by church the institute. At most

they differ in this, that congregation makes one think more of the

communion of believers among one another, and church more of those

same believers, as they are organized in an institutional way, under office

and ministry of the word. In both cases, however, it is nevertheless the same

assembly of believers that is denoted by it; only the point of view differs

from which it is regarded. While these two words thus possess citizenship

on ecclesiastical terrain, it is quite otherwise with the word

kerkgenootschap. This name has a collegialist aftertaste. It came into use in

this country in 1773 through the first versification of the twelve articles of

faith, was then in the sense of local or general church taken up in the state

regulation of 1798, 1801 and 1805, was in the constitution of 1814 and

1815 replaced by the word religions and religious denominations and

thereafter in the constitution of 1848 and 1887 and also again in the law on

the churchgenootschappen of 10 Sept. 1853 introduced alongside the name

of religious denominations, Heraut 627. The combining of church and

association is a mesalliance and mother of many errors. A church is

precisely not an association, for it does not arise through voluntary

accession of adult persons but out of regeneration by the H. Spirit. Finally it

also deserves no recommendation to replace the word church in the sense of

the people of God by that of kingdom of God. For between the two there is

a not unimportant difference. The kingdom of God, with which Jesus’

preaching begins, is in the first place an eschatological concept for the

approaching Messianic kingdom with all its goods. And also, insofar as this

kingdom is already present here on earth in the hearts through regeneration,

forgiveness and renewal, it consists much more in spiritual goods than in a

community of persons. The kingdom of heaven is or becomes precisely a

possession of the poor in spirit, the pure in heart, the little children and

itself consists in peace, joy, gladness through the H. Spirit. Therefore it is, at

least here on earth, not organized; it is in principle everywhere where the

spiritual benefits of Christ have been bestowed, and is nowhere on earth

rounded off and completed, deel III 233v. But the church is especially a

diesseitig concept, a community of persons, equipped with offices and

ministries and appearing in the visible as the gathered people of God. The

church is thus the means by which Christ distributes the benefits of the

Godsrijk and prepares its completion. And on its way, to cause the Godsrijk

to come, it takes up all kinds of elements that are impure and in fact do not

belong to it (hypocrites and also the old man in the believers), while the

kingdom of God, consisting in goods, is pure and unmixed and includes

only the regenerate. Christ has been given to the congregation as a head,

precisely so that God at the end may appear as King of his people and may

be all in all. Cf. Philippi, Kirchl. Gl. V 3, 203. Frank, Chr. Wahrheit II 375.

Kaftan, Dogm. 584.

Now there is no doubt that, according to Holy Scripture, the essence of

the church lies in this, that it is the people of God. For the church is a

realization of election, and this is an election in Christ unto calling,

justification, glorification, Romans 8:28, unto conformity to the Son of God,

Romans 8:29, unto holiness and salvation, Ef. 1:4v. The blessings which are

bestowed upon the church are in the first place inward and spiritual in

nature and consist in calling and regeneration, in faith and justification, in

sanctification and glorification. They are goods of the kingdom of

heaven, benefits of the covenant of grace, promises for this but above all for

the life to come. On that ground the church is called the body of Christ, 1

Cor. 12:27, Ef. 5:23, Colossians 1:18, the bride of Christ, 2 Corinthians 11:2, Ef. 5:32,

Op. 19:7, 21:2, the sheepfold of Christ, who lays down his life for the sheep

and is known by them, Joh. 10, the building, the temple, the house of God,

Matthew 16:18, Ef. 2:20, 1 Petr. 2:5, built up of living stones, 1 Petr. 2:5, upon

the cornerstone Christ and upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, 1

members of the church are called branches on the vine, Joh. 15, living

stones, 1 Petr. 2:5, elect, called, believers, beloved, brothers and sisters,

children of God, etc., and they who are not this in truth are in Scripture

regarded as chaff with the grain, Matthew 3:12, as weeds among the wheat, Matthew 13:13, as bad fish in the net, Matthew 13:47, as a man without a wedding

garment at the wedding, Matthew 22:11, as called but not chosen, Matthew 22:14, as

bad branches on the vine, John 15:2, as not Israel, though being from Israel,

Romans 2:28, 9:6, as evil persons, who must be put away, 1 Corinthians 5:12, as

vessels unto dishonor, 2 Timothy 2:20, as such as have gone out from us but

were not of us, 1 John 2:19 etc. All this raises it above all doubt, that the

church according to her essence is an assembly of true believers. They who

do not partake of sincere faith may outwardly belong to the church; yet they

do not constitute her essence, her forma, they are in, but not the ecclesia.

This is further confirmed by the manner in which Scripture speaks of the

communion of saints. The believers have one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

one God and Father of all, and so also they have one Spirit, Ef. 4:4-6, in

whose communion they live, by whom they are born again, baptized into

one body and united with Christ, John 3:5, 14:17, Romans 8:9, 14, 16, 1 Cor.

not annul, in the unity, the diversity which exists among the believers, but

He maintains and confirms it. Just as He in creation and preservation

adorned and perfected all things in their manner, part II 295, and

among Israel bestowed all kinds of natural and spiritual gifts, part II 230; so

on the day of Pentecost He communicated Himself with all His charismata

to the church of Christ. These charismata in a broader sense also include the

benefits of grace, which are the portion of all believers, Romans 5:15, 16,

6:23; but in a narrower sense they denote those special gifts which in

different measure and degree have been bestowed upon believers for one

1:6 and especially Romans 12:6-9 and 1 Corinthians 12:12 v. Of all these gifts the H.

Spirit, who takes them all from Christ, John 16:13, 14, Ef. 4:7, is the

distributor; He distributes them to each one, as He likewise wills, yet not

arbitrarily, but in connection with the measure of faith, with the place which

someone occupies in the church, and with the task to which he is called,

φανερωσις του πνευματος, 1 Corinthians 12:7. These gifts are very many in

number. Paul mentions several of them, and by no means intends to give a

complete list. The Roman Catholics speak, just as of seven capital sins,

seven virtues, seven beatitudes, so also gladly, with appeal to Jes. 11:2, 3, of

seven dona Spiritus Sancti, Lombardus, Sent. III dist. 34. Thomas, S. Theol.

I 2 qu. 68. II 2 qu. 8. Bonaventura, Brevil. V 5. Meschler, Die Gabe des h.

Pfingstfestes, 3te Aufl. Freiburg 1896 S. 233 f. Simar, Dogm. 554.

Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogm. VIII 631. But this set of seven does not include

the proper charismata, which are enumerated by Paul and which in Roman

theology are rather discussed under the name of gratiae gratis datae, Simar

ib. 486. And these are not to be limited to a set of seven. To those counted

up by Paul may also still be added those of prayer and thanksgiving, of

admonition and consolation, of liberality and hospitality, etc. A

classification is therefore also difficult to give. Some clearly bear a

supernatural character or were bestowed only in or after conversion, others

display more the nature of natural gifts, which have been heightened and

sanctified by the H. Spirit. The former came especially strongly to the

foreground in the first period, the latter are more proper to the church in its

historical, normal development. But whatever those gifts may be, they all

serve for the benefit of the church. The communio sanctorum is a

sanctorum communicatio, Calvin, Inst. IV 1, 3. The H. Spirit does not

distribute the charismata to the members of the church for the benefit of

themselves, but for the benefit of others. They may not be buried or

neglected, but must be employed willingly and with joy for the benefit and

unto the salvation of the other members, Heid. Cat. 55; they serve for

ο ἰ κοδομη, 1 Corinthians 14:12, Ef. 4:12, and are subordinate to love, which is the

most excellent gift. For this love is yet another than general love of

neighbor; it is the love for the brethren, for the household members of the

faith. Jesus calls this love a new commandment, John 13:34, 35, 15:12,

17:26, because love in Israel did not bear a purely spiritual character but

was interwoven with the bonds of blood, and the love which He now brings

about among His disciples is first completely pure, unmixed, and

independent of earthly relations. The members of Jesus’ church are brothers

15:14, 15, 20:17, Romans 8:29, Hebr. 2:11 etc. They are children of one

family; God is their Father, Ef. 4:6, Christ their firstborn brother, Romans 8:29, Jerusalem, which is above, their mother, Galatians 4:26. And thus they

have to serve one another with all their spiritual and natural gifts. The

church is a communion of saints. Cf. concerning these spiritual gifts the

explanations on the article of faith of the communion of saints and further,

Amesius, Med. Theol. II 2 § 19-23. Voetius, Disp. II 1086-1100. Neander,

Pflanzung u. Leitung d. christl. Kirche5 S. 180 f. Pfleiderer, Der

Paulinismus 242. Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. II 143. 175. Art. Geistesgaben of

Cremer in Herzog3. Lauterburg, Der Begriff des Charisma u. seine

Bedeutung für die prakt. Theol. Gütersloh 1898.

7. So long as we hold fast to this essence of the church, its concept gives

birth to no excessive difficulty. The church is then always, in a broader or in

a narrower sense, the assembly of believers. In the broadest sense it

includes all who through faith in Christ have become saved or will also still

become so. Adam and Eve before the fall do then indeed not yet belong to

it, for they then had no need of a mediator. And the angels also cannot be

reckoned to it, although this was done by many; for Christ is indeed the

Lord of the angels and has through his cross placed all things, also angels

and men, in the right relation to God and to one another; but angels are

nevertheless not created after God’s image, have not fallen and have not

been redeemed by Christ and are thus also no members of the church,

which Christ gathers unto eternal life. The believers do according to Hebr.

12:22 indeed come to the fellowship with the thousands of angels, but these

are clearly distinguished from the πανηγυρις και ἐ κκλησια πρωτοτοκων, vs.

23, cf. deel II 442-445. III 405-408. Members of the church are only men

who through faith in Christ have been preserved. To it therefore belong all

believers who from the paradise promise up to this moment have lived on

earth and have been taken up not into the limbus patrum or into purgatory

but into heaven, Hebr. 12:23. To it belong all believers who now still live on

earth. And to it belong in a certain sense also all those who later still, up to

the end of the ages, will believe in Christ. For the church, also when it is

taken in this broadest sense, is no Platonic state, which exists only in the

imagination and never becomes reality, but it has the guarantee of its

existence now or in the future in the decree of God, in the firmness of the

covenant of grace, in the mediatorship of Christ, in the promise of the H.

Spirit. The greatest part of the members of this church is then, however, at a

given moment not on earth; for from paradise up to the present there have

already been many thousands and millions taken up into heaven and their

number is daily, from moment to moment, increased (ecclesia triumphans),

and there are many who now still do not believe or are even not yet born

and yet infallibly certainly will come to faith. The church, as assembly of

the believers who at a given moment live on earth (ecclesia militans), is

thus only a small part of the church, taken in its broadest sense. Yet it is

good and necessary, to hold fast to the connection of the church on earth

with that in the past and in the future. For it is one assembly, one ἐ κκλησια

of those who are written up in the heavens and who once as a bride without

spot or wrinkle will stand before God’s countenance. And the maintaining

of this unity of the whole church increases the sense of community, steels

the courage and spurs to the struggle. If we further limit ourselves to

that part of the church that is on earth (ecclesia militans), then this can again

be taken more broadly or more narrowly. We can in that case think of all the

believers together, who now in all churches, among all peoples, in all lands

are present (ecclesia universalis), of the believers in one land or in a

province, Hd. 9:31 (ecclesia nationalis, provincialis) or also of the believers

in a particular place, whether city or village (ecclesia particularis, localis).

In that connection it then deserves remark, that the ecclesia universalis

(nationalis) precedes the ecclesia particularis. The church of Christ is an

organism, in which the whole goes before the parts; it has its origin in

paradise, Genesis 3:15, or also before the days of the N. Test. in Jerusalem, Hd.

1:8; the church at Jerusalem was, so long as it alone existed, the ecclesia

universalis, the church of Christ on earth, and the churches, which soon

appeared alongside it, came into being not autochthonously but from

Jerusalem through the preaching of the apostles and evangelists.

Up to this point the concept of the church is clear and plain. But now a

double difficulty arises. The first consists in this, that this concept of church

in Scripture is applied to concrete, historically existing, closed groups of

persons, among whom there are also always unbelievers. In the O. Test. the

whole people was called the people of God, although by no means

everything was Israel that was from Israel. In the churches of the N. Test.

there was also, though to a much lesser degree, chaff among the wheat and

weeds among the grain. And after the apostolic time the churches have

repeatedly become secularized, degenerated, divided, and yet we still all

call them by the name of churches. Theology, like Scripture, has at all times

acknowledged this fact and, following it, has always declared that the

essence of the church was determined not by the unbelievers but by the

believers, above p. 8 f. Augustine clarified this presence of unbelievers in

the church by the scriptural image of chaff and wheat, or also by that of

body and soul, outer and inner man, evil humors in the body; the

unbelievers are in the body of Christ quomodo humores mali, in Seeberg t.

a. p. 45. And thus also spoke the scholastic and Roman theologians.

Bellarmine, e.g., does indeed attempt to show that unbelievers are also

members of the church, but he does not get beyond the assertion that they

are it aliquo modo, de eccles. mil. III 2; they are only de corpore, not

de anima ecclesiae; the boni are pars interior, the mali are pars exterior of

the church; the unbelievers are membra mortua, arida, who are connected

with the church only externa conjunctione; they do not belong to the

kingdom of Christ, quoad fidei professionem, but to the kingdom of the

devil, quantum ad morum perversitatem; they are filii propter formam

pietatis, alieni propter amissionem virtutum; there may not be two churches,

yet there are two partes in the church, ib. III 9. And the Catech. Rom. says

that in the church militant there are duo hominum genera and that according

to Scripture there are bad fish in the net and weeds in the field and chaff on

the threshing floor, foolish among the wise virgins and unclean animals in

the ark, I 10 qu. 6. 7. In theory this does not differ much from the doctrine

of the Reformation; but in practice the situation with the church toward the

end of the Middle Ages looked quite different, and Rome also continually

fosters the idea that outward membership, historical faith, observance of the

commandments of the church and submission to the pope constitute the

essence of the church. Against that the Reformation raised protest and

adopted the distinction between visible and invisible church. Augustine had

already said of the nominal Christians, quum intus videntur, ab illa invisibili

caritatis compage separati sunt, de bapt. III 19 in Seeberg t. a. p. 42; and

actually Rome can have no objection to this distinction and also itself

accepts it, insofar as it distinguishes in the one church duo hominum

genera, duas partes. Bellarmine treats, de eccl. mil. III 10, of the infideles

occulti, and Möhler, Symb. § 49, praises Luther, when he conceives the

church as a community of saints and says that the believers, the

Unsichtbaren, are the bearers of the visible church. But the distinction

between visible and invisible church can be understood differently, above p.

18. Most of these conceptions, however, are to be rejected or at least do not

come under discussion in dogmatics. The church is not to be called invisible

because Christ, because the ecclesia triumphans, because the church

completed at the end of the ages cannot now be observed by us; nor also

because the church on earth in many places and countries is not seen by us

or in times of persecution is hidden or is sometimes deprived of the ministry

of word and sacrament. The distinction between visible and invisible church

is applicable only to the ecclesia militans and then indicates that the

church according to its spiritual side or in its true members is invisible.

Both these meanings have flowed together among Lutherans and Reformed

and also cannot be kept apart from one another. The church is an object of

faith. The inward faith of the heart, regeneration, true conversion, the

hidden communion with Christ, etc., are spiritual goods which are not

perceptible with the natural eye, and which nevertheless bestow upon the

church its proper forma. And to no single human being has God given the

infallible standard into his hands by which he can judge the spiritual life of

others. De intimis non judicat ecclesia. The Lord alone knows those who

are his. Thus it is possible, and it has also always been a fact in the

Christian church, that chaff lay hidden among the wheat and hypocrites

were concealed among the true believers. The name church, used of the

ecclesia militans, of the assembly of believers on earth, therefore has among

all Christians, both Roman and Protestant, always had a figurative sense. It

is so called, not according to the unbelievers who are found in it, but

according to the believers, who form its essential constituent part and give it

its essence. The whole is named after the part. A church is and remains an

assembly of true Christian believers.

8. So understood, the distinction between the visible and invisible church

can be impugned by no one and must rather be acknowledged by all. But

there is still another difficulty connected with the concept of the church.

The assembly of believers on earth is not only charismatic but also

instituted. It is not only itself the property of Christ, but also serves to win

others for Christ. It is coetus, but also mater fidelium; organism but also

institute; end and means at the same time. The relation of the church as

organism to the church as institute is first discussed in the following

paragraph, on the government of the church. For just as the concept of the

state is difficult to define and then only becomes clear when people and

government are distinguished and treated separately within it, so a good

definition of the concept of the church can be given only if one guards

against identifying the assembly of believers with its organization in

the institute, Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII 3, 10. Stahl, Kirchenverfassung

46. Many, however, connect the distinction of the church as organism and

as institute with that of invisible and visible and thereby imperceptibly give

to the latter a sense that does not belong to it. On the one side stand those

who define not only the church according to its idea or the ecclesia

triumphans but also the ecclesia militans on earth as an assembly of the

praedestinati or electi (Wiclef), or of the perfecti (Pelagius according to

August., de haer. 88, the Anabaptists according to Calvin, Inst. IV 1, 8 and

many others), or of those, qui nunquam lapsi sunt (Novatianus), or also of

those members of the church who go to the Lord’s Supper (communicants,

as many in America conceive the church). On the other side are the Roman

Catholics, who shift the center of gravity of the church from the assembly

of believers to the hierarchical institute, to the monarchia externa et

suprema totius orbis and seek its essence much more in the ecclesia docens

than in the ecclesia audiens. And in that direction also go all who, in order

to retain the unbelievers and hypocrites at least to some extent as true

members, define the church as an assembly of the called (Melanchthon,

Löhe, Kliefoth etc.) or of the baptized (Münchmeyer, Delitzsch, Vilmar

etc.). Both these views are one-sided and fall short of the essence of the

church. On the first standpoint the church becomes wholly invisible,

remains an idea, and does not appear in reality. Election as such does not

yet make someone a member of the church on earth. Indeed the elect, who

have not yet come to faith, belong to the church as it exists in the thought

and decree of God; they can even be said, potentia, to belong to the church,

but they are nevertheless actu not yet members of it. And the church also

cannot be defined as an assembly of the perfect, of the non-fallen, or of

communicants, for believers do not attain perfection in this life, are not

guaranteed by the promises of God against every fall, and are not limited to

the number of those who go to the Lord’s Supper. Nor is the second, abovementioned definition in accordance with the essence of the church. For

outward membership, calling, and baptism are no proof of true faith; many

are called who are not elect; many are baptized who do not believe; not

all are Israel who are of Israel. While the former thus do not arrive at any

visible church, the latter neglect the invisible church. Only then do these

two both come into their own, when the church is conceived as an assembly

of believers. For it is sincere, true faith that saves, receives forgiveness of

sins and eternal life. That faith is a matter of the heart, yet it does not

remain shut up within man but reveals itself outwardly in confession and

walk, Romans 10:10, and confession and walk are signs of the inward faith of

the heart, Matthew 7:17, 10:32, 1 John 4:2. It is true that faith and confession are

by no means always in agreement; there is faith, e.g. in the children of

believers, that is not made manifest in deeds, and there is a confessing that

consists in the crying Lord, Lord and is not born from true faith. But

nevertheless the conception of the church as an assembly of believers has

this advantage over its definition as an assembly of the called and baptized,

that it maintains that on which it depends for every person and for the

whole church. Not being called and being baptized decides, but he who

shall have believed and shall have been baptized shall be saved, whereas he

who shall not have believed, even if he was called and baptized, shall be

condemned, Mark 16:16.

From this it follows that the distinction of the church as institute and

organism is a wholly different one than that between visible and invisible

church, and may not be identified with this. For institute and organism are

both designations of the church according to its visible side. In this

connection one must not forget that also institute and organism of the

church, appearing in the visible, have an invisible, spiritual background. For

office and gift, ministry of word and sacrament, brotherly love and

communion of saints all rest on operations that proceed from the glorified

Head of the congregation through the H. Spirit. Rejection therefore is

deserved by the representation as if the institute, as something accidental

and external, had been added in a mechanical manner to the church as

assembly of believers. But yet, when we think of the church as institute and

as organism, we think in the first place of the church according to its visible

side, that is, of the offices and ministries with which it is equipped and of

the communion of saints, as that is manifested in brotherly love. And

precisely in these two the church appears outwardly in visible fashion.

Incorrect therefore is also the opinion that the church becomes visible only

in the institute, in office and ministry, in word and sacrament, in some form

of church government. Even when all this is thought away, the church is

nevertheless visible. For every believer manifests his faith in confession and

walk in every sphere of life and all believers together stand with their faith

and life over against the world. In heaven there is no office and ministry, no

word and sacrament any more and yet the church will be fully visible.

Visibility and invisibility thus distinguish the church from a wholly

different point of view than institute and organism. The latter distinction

tells us in what the church becomes visible and knowable for us; the former

teaches that that visible appearance has an invisible, spiritual side, which is

known with certainty to God alone. Therewith it is now of itself also given

that visible and invisible church are not two churches. This objection was

already raised by the Donatists against Augustine and was later repeated by

the Romanists against the Protestants. But the accusation rests on

misunderstanding. Rome itself acknowledges, as has been shown above,

that there are duo hominum genera in the church, that it has duas partes, and

now indeed tries to show that the unbelievers aliquo modo belong to the

church but yet does not dare to say that they constitute the essence of the

church. In fact it thus stands before the same difficulty as the Reformation.

For that the hypocrites aliquo modo belong to the church is no point of

difference. The Protestants also acknowledge that they are in ecclesia and

belong to the church, as the evil branches belong to the vine and the chaff to

the grain. Only they deny that these give to the church its forma, for sincere

faith is it and nothing else that saves and incorporates into Christ. The

unbelievers therefore are not the essence of the church, they are not the

ecclesia. Invisible and visible church are thus also absolutely not

designations for the group of unbelievers and of believers that are in a

church. In the church discipline over doctrine and life is to be maintained

according to the Lord’s command; but every attempt to separate the

believers and the unbelievers, and to set up an ecclesiola in ecclesia, is

likewise in conflict with the Lord’s command; Matthew 13:30 does not forbid

this, for the field meant there is not the church but the world, vs. 38,

but it follows from it that we are bound to confession and walk and cannot

or may not judge over the heart. Unbelievers therefore no more constitute

the essence of the visible than of the invisible church; they belong to the

church in neither of the two respects, although the right and the competence

are lacking to us to separate them from the believers and to cast them out.

Indeed it can be said still more strongly that also the old man, who remains

in the believers, does not belong to the church. Therewith Schleiermacher is

not yet right when he deems the essence of the church to be situated in

operations of the H. Spirit, for the church is no assembly of operations but

of persons; it is human beings who are reborn by the H. Spirit and brought

to faith and who as such, as new human beings, form the essence of the

church. But yet, the church is an assembly of believers, and all that does not

arise from faith, from the new but from the old man, does not belong to the

church and is therefore once cast out. Visible and invisible church are for

this reason two sides of one and the same church; they are the same

believers, who are considered the one time from the side of faith, which

dwells in the heart and is certainly known to God alone, and the other time

from the side of confession and of life, which is turned toward us and is

perceptible for us. Because the church here on earth is becoming, these two

sides are never, even in the purest church, equal to one another. There are

always unbelievers within, and believers outside the church; multi lupi

intus, multae oves foris. The latter was e.g. under the O. Test. the case with

Naäman the Syrian and still applies now to all who for one reason or

another live outside the communion of the instituted churches and yet

partake of the true faith. But all this nevertheless detracts nothing from the

fact that the essence of the church lies only in the believers.

9. If the church according to its essence is an assembly of true Christian

believers and these are known only to God, the question becomes important

by what the church can be known by us. The Roman Christian therefore has

above all an objection to the Reformation concept of the church, because it

undermines the certainty of the church and thus of the salvation of his soul

and opens the door to doubt, division, indifference. Bellarmine says it

as clearly as possible: necesse est, ut nobis certitudine infallibili constet, qui

coetus hominum sit vera Christi ecclesia, nam cum Scripturae traditiones et

omnia plane dogmata ex testimonio ecclesiae pendeant, nisi certissimi

simus, quae sit vera ecclesia, incerta erunt prorsus omnia. This now is

impossible, if sincere faith alone truly makes someone a member of the

church, for this can never be known by us with certainty, and a cognitio

conjecturalis is insufficient; we have need here of a certitudo infallibilis, de

eccl. mil. III c. 10, for tenemur omnes sub periculo mortis aeternae verae

ecclesiae nos adjungere et in illa perseverare, ib. c. 12. The true church

must therefore be so visibilis and palpabilis, ut est coetus populi Romani,

vel regnum Galliae aut respublica Venetorum, ib. c. 2. Hence Bellarmine

exerts all his powers to prove the truth of the Roman church. He enumerates

no fewer than 15 notae, namely ipsum catholicae ecclesiae nomen,

antiquitas, duratio diuturna, multitudo et varietas credentium, successio

episcoporum, conspiratio in doctrina cum ecclesia antiqua, unio

membrorum inter se et cum capite, sanctitas doctrinae, efficacia doctrinae,

sanctitas vitae primorum patrum, gloria miraculorum, lumen propheticum,

confessio adversariorum, infelix exitus eorum qui ecclesiam oppugnant,

felicitas temporalis, de eccl. mil. IV c. 4-18. The Roman theologians follow

this example, but usually reduce the fifteen notae to the four which are

mentioned in the symbolum Nic.-Const., namely the unitas, sanctitas,

catholicitas and apostolicitas, Perrone, Prael. I 248. Liebermann, Instit.

theol. I 255. Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogm. IV 372. Jansen, Prael. I 659.

Hettinger, Apol. 7te Aufl. IV 411, V 106. In addition, it still deserves

attention that Rome in the proper sense has no notae or criteria by which the

true church can be known. For these presuppose a standard that lies above

the church and according to which it may be judged by everyone. And such

a standard Rome does not have, for Scripture is dependent on the church,

and the church itself is the highest standard for doctrine and life. Notae

ecclesiae in Rome are therefore nothing other than indicia, properties, in

which the church comes to expression and reveals itself. Proofs for the

church are the same as those for Christianity, for both are one in Rome. And

these proofs do not make the proposition that the Roman church is the

true church evidenter veram but nevertheless evidenter credibilem, ib. IV c.

3. Likewise the Vaticanum speaks, III c. 3: Deus per Filium suum

unigenitum Ecclesiam instituit, suaeque institutionis manifestis notis

instruxit, ut ea tamquam custos et magistra verbi revelati ab omnibus posset

agnosci. Ad solam enim catholicam Ecclesiam ea pertinent omnia, quae ad

evidentem fidei christianae credibilitatem tam multa et tam mira divinitus

sunt disposita. Quin etiam Ecclesia per se ipsa, ob suam nempe

admirabilem propagationem, eximiam sanctitatem et inexhaustam in

omnibus bonis foecunditatem, ob catholicam unitatem invictamque

stabilitatem, magnum quoddam et perpetuum est motivum credibilitatis et

divinae suae legationis testimonium irrefragabile. The truth of the church is

therefore not absolutely provable for everyone; for then the church would

not be an articulus fidei and faith would not be free and meritorious.

According to the Vaticanum, there must, alongside the testimony that

proceeds from the church, be added an efficax subsidium ex superna virtute.

In fact Rome thereby adopts the same subjective standpoint as the

Reformation. The motives, however strong, cannot in actual fact move to

faith. It is God’s Spirit alone who can inwardly convince someone firmly

and certainly of the truth of divine revelation. The deepest ground for faith

is also in Rome not Scripture or the church, but the lumen interius. Rome

with its infallible church and its infallible pope has in principle nothing

more than the churches of the Reformation, for church and pope are,

however visible, nevertheless articuli fidei, cf. dl. I 425. 426. 486-489.

The marks which Rome gives for the true church are therefore in no

respect clearer and stronger than the pure administration of the word, which

was acknowledged by the Reformation as a mark of the church. Some of

the marks named by Bellarmine are of very subordinate value. The gift of

miracles is absolutely no conclusive proof for the truth of the doctrine

which someone proclaims, Deuteronomy 13:1, 2, Matthew 7:22, 23, 24:24 etc. cf. part I

429v.; the unhappy end of the enemies and persecutors of the church is for

the most part only a legend, as Roman Catholics now also acknowledge,

Nik. Paulus, Luthers Lebensende, Freiburg 1898; and the earthly prosperity

of the church is always temporary, alternates with persecution and [41]

oppression, and can just as well be adduced as a proof against the truth of

marks everything depends on the sense in which they are understood; the

name catholic is also adopted by Protestant churches and is in itself no more

a proof for the truth of the Roman church than the name Christ, which the

false Christs appropriate to themselves, Matthew 24:24, or the name Israel or

seed of Abraham, in which the Jews boasted, John 8:33, Romans 9:6; antiquity,

historical continuity, and unbroken succession belong not only to Rome but

also to other churches, e.g. the Greek, and in themselves prove no more

anything for the truth of the Roman church than they did for that of the

Jewish community in Jesus’ days; unity and catholicity are pretensions of

Rome, which cannot nullify the fact that millions of Christians live outside

her; there is not only one church, there are many churches, and there is not a

single one that includes all believers. The remaining marks, agreement with

the doctrine of the apostles, holiness of doctrine, renewing power which

proceeds from it, holy life of many of its confessors, by no means belong

only to Rome but also to many other churches, and are subject to the same

objections as those which are raised by the Roman Catholics against the

Protestant marks and will presently be discussed. Cf. Beza, de eccl. cath.

notis, Tract. theol. III 132. Polanus, Synt. p. 532 sq. Amesius, Bellarminus

enervatus II 56-72. Maresius, Syst. theol. XVI 23 sq. Turretinus, Theol. El.

XVIII qu. 13. Mastricht, Theol. VII 1, 34. Moor VI 50. M. Vitringa IX 1 p.

98. Gerhard, Loc. XXII c. 10. 11. Quenstedt, Theol. IV 503.

The Roman church indeed rejoices in her unity and points with selfsatisfaction to the division of Protestantism. But she pays for this joy at a

dear price. In the first place she is compelled to transfer the essence of the

church more and more from the assembly of believers to the institute of the

hierarchy, i.e. in the end to the pope. With more right than Louis XIV could

say: l’état c’est moi, the pope can declare: the church is I. Ubi papa, ibi

ecclesia. If then, as is proper, in the case of the church one thinks not even

of the institute but of the assembly of believers, the division in the Roman

church is not so much less than in the Protestant churches. The

difference is only that Rome, seeking her strength in the celibate hierarchy,

quietly allows all directions and opinions to exist side by side in the church

and deprives her members, even the most unbelieving, of the energy, the

sense of freedom and the sense of truth, to break with the church and their

own untrue position. In the second place Rome pays for that joy with the

dear price of the extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The doctrine of Scripture, that

salvation is bound to faith in Christ, was soon, over against schism and

heresy, so understood that everyone who wished to become partaker of

salvation in Christ had to be connected with the bishop, Ign. ad Eph. 4. 5.

Phil. 3. Trall. 7. Those who wish to be saved must flee into the holy

churches of God, Theoph. ad Autol. II 14. Sola catholica ecclesia est, quae

verum cultum retinet. Hic est fons veritatis, hoc domicilium fidei, hoc

templum Dei; quo si quis non intraverit vel a quo si quis exiverit, a spe

vitae ac salutis aeternae alienus est, Lact., Inst. div. IV 30. The church

fathers often used for the church the image of the ark, and Cyprian in

particular made use of it in order to raise the extra ecclesiam nulla salus

above all doubt, e.g. de unit. eccl. 6 Ep. 69, 2. 74, 11. Augustine had no

other opinion: manifestum est, eum qui non est in membris Christi,

christianam salutem habere non posse, de unit. eccl. 2. Outside the church

someone can take everything with him, sed nunquam nisi in ecclesia

catholica salutem potest invenire, Super gestis e. Emerito. Councils and

popes have confirmed this doctrine. The fourth Lateran council declared in

c. 1 that there is one catholic church of believers, outside which absolutely

no one is saved. Trent said that without the catholic faith it is impossible to

please God, Sess. 5. Boniface VIII pronounced that submission to the pope

was de necessitate salutis. Eugenius IV taught that no one outside the

catholic church can become partaker of eternal life. And Pius IX declared in

the allocution of 9 Dec. 1854: tenendum ex fide est, extra apostolicam

Romanam ecclesiam salvum fieri neminem posse. Rome must therefore be

intolerant; she can recognize no churches alongside herself; she herself is

the only church, the bride of Christ, the temple of the H. Spirit. Yet the facts

have also become too powerful for Rome. Thousands and millions in the

course of the centuries have broken the communion with the Roman

church, Novatians, Donatists, Greek Christians, Arians, Monophysites,

Monothelites, many sects in the Middle Ages and then in the sixteenth

century more than half of Christendom. And although Rome by the

Counter-Reformation has regained much, yet she now counts of the 500

million Christians scarcely half and in numerical strength is going rather

backward than forward. In the face of these facts it is not maintainable that

there is no salvation outside the Roman church. It is difficult for Roman

Catholics themselves to remain faithful to this doctrine; many are inclined

to concessions. They make a distinction between those who consciously,

intentionally, pertinaciter and therefore culpabiliter leave the church, and

those who are carried along and misled, bona fide are outside the church

and voto, desiderio, animo still belong to the church, ad animam ecclesiae.

In that same spirit the thesis of Baius was rejected by the Roman see;

infidelitas pure negativa in his, quibus Christus non est praedicatus,

peccatum est, and Pius IX in the allocution of 9 Dec. 1854 pronounced: pro

certo habendum esse, eos qui verae religionis ignorantia laborant, si ea

invincibilis set. nulla posse hujus rei culpa obstringi. Bellarminus, de eccl.

mil. III c. 3. 6. Perrone, Prael. I 331. Klee, Dogm. I 141. Jansen, Prael. I

344. Schanz, Apol. III 188. Dublanchy, De axiomate: extra ecclesiam nulla

salus, dissertatio theologica. Bar-le-Duc, Contant-Laguerre 1895.

10. For Protestantism the doctrine of the marks of the true church had an

entirely different significance. Through the Reformation the unity of

Western Christendom was broken once and for all, and different churches

came to stand alongside and over against one another. The Reformers had to

demonstrate that the church of Rome was not the true one, and that the

churches of the Reformation corresponded to the essence of the church, as

Scripture defined it. Their reforming act presupposed that the church was

not α ὐ τοπιστος, that it could err and deviate, and that there was a higher

authority to which it too had to submit. And that could be nothing other than

Holy Scripture, the Word of God. Unanimously, therefore, all the Reformers

went back to Scripture, saw in it also the standard of the church, and

accordingly determined the marks by which the true church was to be

distinguished from the false. In the enumeration of those notae there

was indeed some difference. In his writing Von den Concilien und Kirchen

Luther counted seven: pure administration of the word, of baptism, of the

Lord’s Supper, of the keys, lawful election of the ministers, the public

prayer and instruction, and the cross; but elsewhere he named only two,

pure administration of word and sacrament. And so did Melanchthon in the

Conf. Aug. art. 8 and in the Loci, and later Lutheran theologians, Gerhard,

Loc. XXII § 131. Quenstedt, Theol. IV 503; only Melanchthon in the

Examen ordinandorum added to these two yet a third rather hierarchical

mark: obedientia ministerio debita juxta evangelium. Of the Reformed,

some, such as Beza, Sohnius, Alsted, Amesius, Heidanus, Maresius, gave

one mark, the pure administration of the word; others, such as Calvin,

Bullinger, Zanchius, Junius, Gomarus, Mastricht, Marck e. a. two, namely

pure administration of word and sacrament; many, such as Conf. Gall.,

Belg, Scot. I, Hyperius, Martyr, Ursinus, Trelcatius, Walaeus, Amyraldus,

Heidegger, Wendelinus, added as a third yet the right administration of

discipline or the holiness of life. But rightly Alsted, Alting, Maresius,

Hottinger, Heidanus, Turretinus, Mastricht e. a. observed that this was more

a difference in name than in the matter, and that there is actually only one

mark, namely the one and the same word, which is then in various ways, in

preaching, instruction, confession, sacrament, life, etc., administered and

confessed, M. Vitringa IX 1 p. 101-109. That the Reformation rightly

sought the mark of the church in the Word of God is, with Scripture in hand,

beyond any doubt. For, without the word of God there is no church, Spr.

29:18, Jes. 8:20, Jeremiah 8:9, Hosea 4:6; by word and sacrament Christ gathers

his church, Matthew 28:19, which is built on the doctrine of apostles and

prophets, Matthew 16:18, Ef. 2:20; by the word he regenerates, 1 Petr. 1:23, Jak.

1:18, he works faith, Romans 10:14, 1 Corinthians 4:15, he cleanses and sanctifies,

John 15:3, Ef. 5:26. And they who have thus been regenerated and renewed

by the word of God have the calling to confess Christ, Matthew 10:32, Romans 10:9, hear his voice, John 10:27, keep his word, John 8:31, 32, 14:23, test the

spirits, 1 John 4:1, avoid whoever does not bring this doctrine, Galatians 1:8, Titus 3:10, 2 Joh. 9. The word is indeed the soul of the church, Calvin, Inst.

IV 12, 1. All service in the church is a service of the word. God gives his

word to the church, and this one receives it, preserves it, administers it,

teaches it, confesses it before God, before one another, before the world in

word and in deed. In the one mark of the word the others are included as

further applications. Where God’s word is rightly preached, there the

sacrament is also purely administered, the truth of God confessed according

to the intention of the Spirit, conduct and walk ordered according to God’s

testimony. Even Rome cannot deny that God’s word is the mark of the

church. Gerhard, Loc. XXII § 138 cites many church fathers who clearly

and distinctly express this. Thus Tertullian says: those are true churches

which hold what they have received from the apostles, de praescr. 21.

Formerly, says Chrysostom on Matthew 24:15, it could in many ways be shown

which was the church of Christ, but since the heresies have crept in, this

cannot be indicated otherwise than by the Scriptures; for those Scriptures,

he declares, hom. 33 in Act. Ap., are simple and true, so that it is easy to

judge by them which doctrine is the true one. Repeatedly Augustine speaks

in this spirit: Between us and the Donatists the question is, where the

church is. What then shall we do? Shall we seek it in the words of Donatus

or in the words of its head, the Lord Jesus Christ? I think that we ought to

seek it in the words of him who is truth and knows his body best, for he

knows who are his, de unit. eccl. 2. Bellarmine himself defines the church

as an assembly of men bound together by the profession of the same

Christian faith and by the communion of the same sacraments etc., includes

the sanctitas doctrinae among the marks of the church, ib. IV 11, and

concedes that in some cases, if Scripture is accepted as God’s word,

Scripture is better known than the church and proves its truth, ib. IV 2. In

answering the question which are the distinguishing marks of the church,

Rome too must use Scripture as ground of proof, if it does not wish to

remain standing with a sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas, cf.

others also in Gerhard ib. § 139. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII 12, 16.

Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogm. IV 375.

Yet Rome rejects the marks which the Reformation indicated for the true

church. Bellarmine objects to them, in the first place, that the pure

administration of the word at most only points out, where, but not

which the true church is, i.e. who the true believers are, who yet alone

according to the Protestant definition constitute the essence of the church,

the eccl. IV 2. This objection is to a certain extent correct, but in fact also

without difficulty. For it is absolutely not necessary for us to know with

infallible certainty who true believers are; for that, e.g. with J. Müller,

Dogm. Abh. 346 f. to seek out infallible marks, leads onto the false track of

the Donatists. The pure administration of the word is not a mark of the

sincere faith of the individual members but of the church as an assembly of

believers. The promise of God, namely, Jes. 55:11, 2 Corinthians 2:15, 16 etc.

stands surety for us for the fact that the word of God everywhere, where it

is preached, will do its work and will not return empty. Gottes Wort kann

nicht ohne Gottes Volk sein, wiederum Gottes Volk kann nicht ohne Gottes

Wort sein (Luther). Therefore the Reformers named as the first and

principal mark of the church not the confession and the life of the believers,

but the administration of word and sacrament. The believers, after all, who

constitute the essence of the church, become manifest in a twofold way, in

the administration of word and sacrament, which takes place among them,

and in confession and walk, by which they distinguish themselves from the

world and also from other churches, i.e. in the church as institute and in the

church as organism. The nature of the matter entails that the mark which is

derived from the administration of word and sacrament, from the church as

institute, bears a more unerring, firmer, more constant, more durable

character than that which is found in the confession and life of the

believers. Much can be lacking in the latter, without therefore the former

ceasing to exist. The Roman church proves this to a very strong degree, but

it nevertheless also applies to the Protestant churches. However important a

pure confession and a holy walk of the believers may be, the main thing for

each and every one remains the pure administration of word and sacrament.

Therefore this ought to count as the first and principal mark of the church.

But the Reformed nevertheless rightly laid emphasis on the fact that the

church as an assembly of believers becomes manifest not only in the

institute, but also in faith, in fleeing sins, in pursuing righteousness, in love

to God and the neighbour, in the crucifixion of the flesh. Ned. Gel. 29. The

pure administration of the word also includes the application of

ecclesiastical discipline.

Another objection of Bellarmine is that the pure administration of the

Word is far too general and too unclear a mark for the true church to be

judged by it. For the administration of the Word, on the one hand, in true

churches, such as e.g. at Corinth and in Galatia, often still leaves far too

much to be desired as to purity, and, on the other hand, it has not entirely

perished in heretical and sectarian churches. Socinians and Remonstrants

reasoned in the same way and contested the necessity and the usefulness of

marks by which the true church was to be recognized, Cat. Rac. qu. 489.

Episcopius, Disp. III 28 Op. II 2 p. 459. And although Lutherans and

Reformed in the first period very emphatically maintained that they were

the true church, the increasing impurity of their own churches and the

appearance of other churches alongside theirs made it more and more

difficult to maintain this assertion in all its strictness. Yes, from the

beginning the attitude which the Protestant churches adopted toward the

Roman church was quite different than the reverse. Rome can recognize

sects but no churches alongside itself, Hettinger, Apol. d. Christ. V7 118.

But the Protestants, although decisively rejecting the ecclesiastical

hierarchy of Rome, continued fully to recognize the Christian element in

Rome’s church. However corrupt Rome may be, there are nevertheless

vestigia ecclesiae, ruinae dissipatae ecclesiae in, there is still aliqua

ecclesia, licet semirupta, remaining in the papacy, Calvin, Inst. IV 2, 11, cf.

Op. ed. Schippers VIII 111. 309. IX Epist. 51. 57. Beza, Tract. theol. III

145. 192. Bullinger, Huijsboeck 1612 p. 206. 207. Zanchius, Op. II in the

praef. before the natura Dei. Polanus, Synt. 535. cf. 496. Polanus a

Polansdorf. Part. Theol. p. 196. Junius, Op. II 1018-1023. Alsted, Theol.

schol. 696. Voetius, Desp. causa papatus 699-703. Mastricht, Theol. VII 1,

25. Turretinus XVIII 14, 24. 27. The Reformation was a separation ab

ecclesia Romana et Papali, but not a vera ecclesia, Turretinus, XVIII 15, 8.

Id. de necessaria secessione nostra ab ecclesia Romana, et impossibili cum

ea syncretismo, after his Disp. de satisf. Christi 1691 and other anti-Roman

writings in Vitringa IX 1 p. 116. Moor VI 58. Furthermore, the Reformers

were, or at least soon became, aware of it, that the pure administration

of Word and sacrament could not count as an absolute mark. Calvin warns

most strongly against all arbitrary separation. Even if something is lacking

in the purity of doctrine or of the sacraments, even if the holiness of life and

the faithfulness of the ministers leave far too much to be desired, one may

therefore not at once leave the church. Only when the summa necessariae

doctrinae, the praecipua religionis doctrina is exchanged for falsehood, is

3:6. When later the corruption in the state churches increased and many felt

compelled to separation, most teachers, on the same grounds, resisted

separatism, Voetius, Pol. Eccl. IV 488. Brakel, Red. Godsd. c. 25. V. d.

Waeyen and Witsius, Ernstige betuiginge der Geref. kercke aan hare

afdwalende kinderen 1670. Koelman, Hist. Verhaal nopende der Labadisten

scheuring en velerleye dwalingen met de wederlegging derzelver, 2 parts,

Amst. 1683-84, cf. Hoe oordeelt de H. S. en hoe oordeelen de Geref.

vaderen over Scheiding en Doleantie bij J. Campen te Sneek. All saw

themselves compelled, with Calvin, to acknowledge that in the true church

much impurity in doctrine and life can occur, without this giving a right to

separation, and that in the separated churches much good is often found.

Thus the concept of true and false church underwent an important change.

On the one side one had to concede that a true church in an absolute sense

is impossible here on earth; there is not a single church that absolutely and

in all parts, in doctrine and life, in administration of Word and sacrament,

answers to the demand of God. And on the other side it became clear that a

false church in an absolute sense also cannot exist, because then it would no

longer be a church; even if Rome was a false church, insofar as it was

papal, there were nevertheless still many remnants of the true church in it.

There was thus a distinction between vera and pura ecclesia, Polanus, Synt.

p. 532. Alsted, Theol. schol. 601 sq. Synopsis 40, 37. Maresius XVI 20,

Vitringa IX 1. 79. True church became the name, not for one church to the

exclusion of all others, but for manifold churches, which still held fast the

principal truths of Christianity, the fundamental articles, cf. part I 520v. but

otherwise differed very far from one another in degrees of purity; and false

church became the name of the hierarchical power of superstition or

unbelief, which in the local churches set itself up and ascribed to itself

and its ordinances more power and authority than to the Word of God, Ned.

Gel. 29.

11. This development of the concept of the church, which can be observed

in history itself, has its unmistakable shadow-side; the idea of a single

church institute embracing all believers has thereby been disturbed for

good. Nor can it be denied that the endless division of the confessors of

Christ offers the world a cause of joy and mockery, and gives it a reason for

its unbelief in the One Sent by the Father, because it does not see the unity

of the believers in Christ, John 17:21. We as Christians cannot humble

ourselves deeply enough over the schism and discord that has existed

throughout all centuries in the church of Christ; it is a sin against God, in

conflict with the prayer of Christ, and caused by the darkness of our

understanding and the lovelessness of our heart, cf. Gunning, The unity of

the church 1896. Higher than the church 1897. Account 1898. And it is

understandable that many Christians have again and again allowed

themselves to be seduced into the attempt to bring about or maintain that

fervently desired unity of the church of Christ, either by violent means,

especially by the strong arm of the government, or in an artificial way, by

syncretism and fusion, cf. e.g. J. von Döllinger, Ueber die

Wiedervereinigung der christl. Kirchen, Leipzig Mohr 1897. But on the

other hand we must nevertheless also not forget that the failure of all these

attempts has something to teach us. History is, like nature, a work of God; it

does not proceed outside his providence; Christ by his resurrection and

ascension has been exalted to King at the Father’s right hand and will

remain so until all his enemies have been laid under his feet. He reigns, also

over the divisions and schisms of his church on earth. And his prayer for her

unity did not flow from unfamiliarity with her history nor from inability to

govern her; in and through the division it is daily heard and is being led

toward its complete fulfillment. The deep, spiritual sense in which the unity

of his disciples is conceived by Jesus excludes precisely every violent or

artificial attempt at its introduction. Christ, who prayed for it [50], can also

alone bring it about; his prayer is a guarantee that it already exists in him

and in his time will also become manifest from him in all believers.

Therefore, for a right understanding of the division of the church of Christ,

we have to consider the following: 1o All separation and schism that now

exists in the church of Christ dates in principle already from the apostolic

time. In spite of the fact that the churches for all kinds of reasons then felt

themselves much more spiritually one than is now the case even between

churches of the same confession, they were distinct in many respects. The

apostles at Jerusalem and Paul, the congregations from the Jews and from

the Gentiles, diverged on many and even important points; it came between

Peter and Paul, Galatians 2:11, between Paul and Barnabas, Hd. 15:39, to a

serious difference; heresies and schisms of all kinds already occurred then

as well, 1 Corinthians 1:10, 11:18, 19 etc.; the congregation of Corinth was divided

into parties, silently looked on at the shameful life of one of the brethren,

and for a part did not even believe in so significant a fact as the bodily

resurrection of Christ and the believers; and the congregations of Asia

Minor, a few decades after they were founded by Paul, had sunk far below

the standpoint first taken by them in doctrine and life. 2o These separations

and schisms in the apostolic time therefore do not make so deep an

impression, because in the N. T. we always have to do in the first place with

local churches. There was as yet nothing other than a spiritual bond that

connected all congregations. But when in the church of Christ the hierarchy

developed and this regarded itself as the essence of the church, then it is this

false, unchristian church-idea that throughout all centuries has provoked the

schisms and heresies and has alienated many true believers from itself.

Everywhere where and in the same measure as the hierarchy has developed,

in the Roman, the Greek, the Anglican church, there the sects have again

and again arisen and, if they were not violently suppressed and

exterminated, have pushed back the official church and have many times

grown over her head. The hierarchical church-idea, which is first of all

intent on the unity of Christendom, has precisely throughout all centuries

promoted division and caused schism. And Protestantism denies its

principle if it seeks to maintain the unity of Christendom by any

hierarchical coercion. 3o Precisely because the word is the mark of the

church and there exists no infallible interpretation of that word, to every

human being by Christ himself the freedom has been given to understand

that word for himself, as he sees it. Morally he is thereby of course bound to

Christ, and each will have to answer for himself how he has understood and

practiced the word of Christ. But over against his fellow human beings and

fellow Christians he stands completely free. Rome fears this freedom, and

throws at Protestantism its individualism, subjectivism, and sectarianism.

But what is the weakness of Rome, because it must maintain itself by

hierarchical means, that is the strength of Protestantism, because no

creature but Christ himself governs his church. It is completely true that, if

the word is the mark of the church and is given into the hands of all human

beings, each thereby receives the right to judge concerning the church and,

if he thinks good, to separate from her. But this freedom is completely to be

respected and by no state or church to be hindered. Even the dreadful

misuse that can be made of it and has been made may not for a moment

entice to abolition of the use. 4o The division of the church of Christ has

without doubt in sin its cause; in heaven there is no place for it any more.

But nevertheless not everything is thereby said. God loves diversity in

unity. Diversity existed among all creatures, also when there was as yet no

sin. Through sin it has degenerated and been corrupted, but in itself it is

good and also of significance for the church of Christ. Difference of sex and

age, of character and disposition, of understanding and heart, of gifts and

goods, of place and of century also benefits the truth that is in Christ. He

takes them all into his service and adorns his church with them. Yes, even

though the division of human beings into peoples and languages has had its

occasion in sin, it contains something good that is carried into the

congregation and thus preserved for eternity. Out of many tribes and

languages and peoples and nations Christ gathers his church on earth. 5o If

therefore we again, according to N. T. usage, understand by churches the

local churches in the whole of Christendom, then there are no true and no

false churches in an absolute sense. A church is an assembly of true

Christian believers in a particular place. If somewhere there is no single

believer any more, neither actu nor potentia, then the word of God is also

unknown there, and there is no church any more. And conversely, if the

word of God in a particular place is still known to some extent, it will

certainly do its work and there is a church of Christ, however impure and

mixed it may be. By that no indifferentism and syncretism is meant.

Nothing is indifferent, least of all in the truth that is according to godliness.

It is not so that we can calmly give up and deny the so-called articuli non

fundamentales, if we only accept the articuli fundamentales. While,

however, in relation to others we have to bring into application the word of

Jesus: he who is not against me is for me, we ought for ourselves to hold to

that other word: he who is not for me is against me. There is great

difference in the purity of the confessions and the churches. And toward the

purest we have to take our stand and to strive. Whoever therefore comes to

the conviction that the Protestant church is better than the Roman, and the

Reformed is purer than the Lutheran or Remonstrant or Mennonite, has,

without thereby judging his church as a false one, to leave it and to join

himself to the other. And to remain in one’s own church, in spite of much

impurity in doctrine and life, is duty so long as she does not hinder us from

being faithful to the own confession and she also indirectly does not compel

us to obey human beings more than God. For a church that compels her

members to that would in that same moment reveal herself to the

conscience of her members, insofar as she did that, as a false one, which

ascribes to herself and her ordinances more power and authority than to the

word of God. 6o One ought therefore to be cautious with the names schisma

and haeresie. Without doubt both are great sins; of schisma they are guilty

who, although leaving the foundation of doctrine intact, nevertheless

separate from the church over subordinate points of worship or church

government; haeretici are they who err in the substance of the truth; the

former break the communion of the church, the latter the communion of

doctrine. Yet it is difficult, in practice, to indicate the boundary that

separates lawful and obligatory breaking of communion with some church

or doctrine from unlawful breach. For Rome this is indeed easy, because it

recognizes only one church and one confession and pronounces the

anathema over all that is outside it. But Protestantism can at most indicate

some general rules and must leave the application of them in each concrete

case to the conscience of the believers. The concept of haeresie and schisma

has thereby obtained an elasticity which in usage admonishes to caution.

Since the Reformation the church has passed over into the period of

pluriformity; and this fact compels us to seek the unity of the church much

more in the spiritual bond of faith than in the outward form of government.

Cf. Gladstone, The place of heresy and schism in the modern Christian

Church, Nineteenth Century Aug. 1894 p. 157-194. Kuyper, Encycl. II

12. In accordance herewith, the so-called properties (attributa,

proprietates, adjuncta, affectiones, epitheta, elogia) of the church, from a

Protestant standpoint, also receive an entirely different meaning than at

Rome. Rome has an absolute and exclusive concept of the church; it cannot

acknowledge the ministry of word and sacrament as a mark of the church,

because this also occurs outside the Roman church, albeit in an impure

form; it therefore also cannot make a distinction between marks and

properties of the church, for the properties are precisely the indicia, which

point out the only true church; and finally it must conceive those properties

so sensibly, tangibly, and outwardly, that they apply only to the Roman

church and make this, as the alone saving one, spring to everyone’s eye.

The first property, the unity of the church, does indeed indicate that the

congregation has one Lord, one faith, one baptism, but yet according to

Rome it comes to expression especially in this, that the church founded by

Christ has one visible head in the pope (unitas hierarchica, regiminis) and

can never have another church alongside itself (unitas simultanea) or after

itself (unitas successiva); properly speaking, the pope is the one, sufficient

mark of the true church, cf. Cat. Rom. I 10, 10. Schema const. dogm. de

eccl. Christi and the adnotationes belonging thereto at the Vatican council,

Collectio Lacensis VII 569. 586-588. Bellarminus, de eccl. mil. IV 9. 10.

Scheeben-Atzberger IV 340. Schanz, Apol. d. Chr. III § 6. By this

unity of the church, thus conceived, Rome is obliged, at present, to

pronounce the anathema over half of the whole of Christendom. Even the

thought of Pusey in his Eirenikon and of Palmer, de doctrina christ. I c. 5,

that the Roman, Eastern, and Anglican church together constitute the one

church, cannot be admitted. Outside communion with the pope there is no

salvation. But Protestantism, in the unity of the church, thinks first of all of

the unity of the Head of the congregation, Ef. 1:10, 5:22, of the communion

of all believers through one and the same Spirit, 1 Corinthians 6:17, 12:13, 2 Corinthians 12:11, Ef. 4:4 with Christ and with one another, John 10:16, 15:1, Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 12:12, 13, Ef. 1:22, and then further of the unity of faith, of

love, of hope, of baptism, etc. Ef. 4:3-5. This unity is indeed in the first

place spiritual in nature, but it nevertheless exists objectively and really and

also does not remain wholly invisible. It manifests itself, even if in a very

imperfect manner, outwardly and comes to light, at least to some extent, in

that which all Christian churches have in common with one another. There

is no Christianity above or below, but there is indeed a Christianity present

in the division of faith. Because our eye is directed most to the differences

and schisms in Christendom, we constantly run the danger of failing to

recognize this unity, which nevertheless truly exists. What binds all true

Christians is always still more than what separates them. Under the holiness

of the church Rome understands in the first place the liturgical, ceremonial

holiness, consisting therein that the church as institute possesses the lawful

sacrificial service and the salutary use of the sacraments, through which

God, as by powerful instruments of divine grace, works true holiness in the

believers, and then in the second place the personal holiness, which in the

church is indeed not the portion of all or even of the most, nor need be, but

is nevertheless always found in some, and then again in very different

degrees, Cat. Rom. I 10, 12. Bellarminus, ib. c. 11-15. Scheeben-Atzberger

IV 347. Schanz, Apol. III c. 10. Jansen, Prael. I 452. Because the

Reformation again made the church known as the communion of saints, it

sought holiness not first of all in the supernatural character of the institute

of salvation but in the spiritual renewal of the members of the church.

Holy is the church, because it is a communion of saints. But in doing so the

Reformation nevertheless did not fall into the evil of Donatism, and has

rather in practice neglected this property of the church all too much. Yet that

does not take away that, according to the principle of the Reformation, the

church is holy, because it is a communion of saints. And the believers are

called holy, first of all because they are objectively in Christ, by virtue of

the imputation of his righteousness, reckoned by God as holy, and in the

second place because they, born again of water and Spirit and renewed

according to the inner man, have a desire and longing to walk in sincerity

not only according to some but according to all the commandments of God,

property of the church also is spiritual, yet not wholly and entirely invisible;

although the most holy, so long as they are in this life, still have only a

small beginning of perfect obedience, they nevertheless walk according to

the Spirit and not according to the flesh.

The third property is catholicity. In Rome the church bears this name in

the first place, because it, although forming one whole and a perfect unity,

nevertheless extends over the whole earth, whereas the sects always remain

limited to some country, or part of the world. In the second place it is

catholic, because it, although formerly existing in a less perfect form,

nevertheless has always been on earth from the beginning of the world and

has included within itself all believers from the days of Adam, whereas the

sects always come and go. And in the third place it is so called, because it is

fully partaker of, preserves, and dispenses all truth and grace destined by

God for communication to men, and therefore for all men is the only and

necessary institute unto salvation, whereas the sects always possess only a

part of the truth. Because catholicity in Rome must be a clearly visible mark

of the church, it is especially to be understood in the sense that the church

among all peoples where it exists counts a conspicuous multitude of

members. In the first time this was indeed not yet the case, but soon the

church nevertheless came to great expansion. And now it is the requirement

of catholicity, that the number of members of the true church be indeed not

greater than that of all men living outside it, but nevertheless greater than

the number of members of every sect separately and probably also of

all sects together. Cf. Cat. Rom. I 10, 13. Bellarminus, de notis eccl. c. 4. 7.

Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogm. IV 351. Schanz, Apol. d. Chr. III § 7. Söder,

Der Begriff der Katholicität der Kirche und des Glaubens nach seiner gesch.

Entw. Würzburg 1881. In outward splendour and glory, in spatial extension

and in numerical strength of the members, the Roman Christian thus seeks

an essential mark of the true church. Church fathers, such as Tertullian,

Origen, Augustine, have already begun to exaggerate the spread of

Christianity among the peoples. And still their example is followed by

many Roman Catholics, e.g. in the mission statistics. Yet nowadays one

could not as formerly close one’s eyes to the fact that there are still almost a

thousand million non-Christians and scarcely five hundred million

Christians, that these latter are again divided into about 112 million Greek,

225 million Roman, and 160 million Protestant Christians, and that the

Roman Christians in this century almost everywhere regularly decline in

numerical strength and are being overtaken by the Protestant Christians.

According to this mark of catholicity, which the Roman church itself

indicates, the state of its truth is becoming ever more lamentable. The name

catholic belongs ever less to the Roman church. Roman and catholic are

also in contradiction with one another; just as under the O. T. the

dispensation of grace had Jerusalem as its centre and bound all believers to

that place, so the Roman church in the days of the N. T. makes the faith and

salvation of men dependent on a particular place and on a particular person

and thereby detracts from the catholicity of Christianity. The name of

Roman or Papal church therefore expresses its essence much better than

that of catholic. A catholic church is believed and confessed in the apostolic

symbol and sometimes also in their own confessions by all Protestants,

Ned. Gel. 27. Apol. Conf. Aug. art. 7. 8. One commonly understood by it

the ecclesia universalis, which encompassed all true believers and came to

manifestation more or less purely in the different churches, or also the

church of the N. T., which in distinction from that of the O. T., was destined

for all peoples and places of the earth. The word catholic does not occur in

Scripture. But the texts on which the church fathers appeal for the

catholicity of the church, such as Genesis 12:3, Psalms 2:8, Jes. 2:2, Jeremiah 3:17, Malachi 7:9 etc. prove that its meaning lies especially herein, that Christianity is a

world religion, destined and suited for every people and age, for every

estate and rank, for every place and time. Most catholic is that church which

has expressed this international and cosmopolitan character of the Christian

religion most clearly in its confession and has applied it in practice. The

Reformed have had an eye for it, when they in the different countries and

churches confessed the truth in their own, free, independent way and at the

Synod of Dordrecht invited delegates from the whole Reformed

Christendom, cf. my address on the Catholicity of Christ. and Church,

Kampen 1888. The fourth property of the church is its apostolicity.

According to Rome this belongs to it, because it was founded by the

apostles, corresponds in doctrine, constitution and service with that of the

apostles, but especially because its office-bearers in unbroken line are

successors of the apostles and have received their power and authority from

such as had themselves in their turn received them in lawful succession

from the apostles. The first meaning is thereby wholly subordinate to the

second. The word of the apostles, i.e. Holy Scripture, does not determine

which church is apostolic, i.e. corresponds with the doctrine of the apostles;

but conversely the church descending from the apostles in unbroken

succession decides what is apostolic, what the doctrine of the apostles is.

Yes, even after the promulgation of the dogma of infallibility the apostolic

succession of the office-bearers is wholly and entirely determined by their

communion with the pope. Even if a bishop is partaker of the apostolic

succession, this nevertheless at once becomes void if he breaks communion

with the pope. Conversely kann der Papst vermöge seiner kirchlichen

Vollgewalt jeden Mangel heben, der etwa der formalen Apostolicität irgend

eines Kirchenvorstehers anhaftet. So ist die Einheit mit den Papste

nothwendig, damit ein Vorsteher rechtmässiger Nachfolger der Apostel

werden oder sein kann, es ist aber jene Einheit auch sofort hinreichend, um

die wahre Apostolicität des letztern zu erkennen, Scheeben-Atzberger IV 1

S. 356. The pope makes everything good. Where the pope is, there is the

true church, the pure doctrine, the apostolic succession. Now such an

apostolic succession is not to be found with a single word in Scripture and

in itself no more a guarantee for the purity of doctrine than the hereditary

high-priestly dignity in Caiaphas was a proof for the rightness of his

pronouncements and deeds. And therefore the Protestants rightly said that

not the successio locorum et personarum but the successio doctrinae was a

distinguishing property of the true church. If this latter was lacking, the

former could not make any church into a true church; and if it was present,

the former was of very subordinate significance.

Among the properties of the church there finally also belong the

indefectibilitas and the infallibilitas. Jesus has promised to his church, that

the gates of hell would not be able to prevail against her and that He would

preserve her until the end of the world, Matthew 16:18, 28:20, Ef. 4:11-13, 1

Tim. 3:15. The Romanists infer from this, that their church, the papal, will

remain until the end of the world, and not only that, but also that that papal

church will always remain the catholic, which by the multitude of her

members and by her outward splendor will be visible and knowable to

everyone, Bellarminus, de eccl. milit. c. 11. 13. 16. De notis eccl. c. 5. 6.

Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogm. IV 1 S. 359. But for this assertion sufficient

ground is lacking. Not only has the church in different times, e.g. of Noah,

Abraham, Elijah, Christ etc. been limited to a few persons, but time and

again also particular churches in particular countries, e.g. in Asia Minor,

have perished. Yes, the N. T. says clearly, that in the last of the days the

corruption will increase and the church will be exposed to all kinds of

promise therefore does indeed guarantee, that there will always be an

assembly of believers on earth, which Socinians and Remonstrants wrongly

deny, Moor IV 122, but it does not in the least imply, that a particular

church in a particular country will always remain and by her size and glory

will be knowable to everyone. And likewise it is with the infallibility of the

church. The Roman church has long hesitated, to give an answer to the

question, in whom finally the infallibility rests and has finally decided it at

the Vatican council in favor of the pope. The pope guarantees, that the

ecclesia docens cannot err in docendo. But the H. Scripture nowhere

connects infallibility to a particular person or to a particular, local church.

There is indeed an infallibility of the church, which the Protestants also

gladly acknowledge, but this infallibility belongs to the church as an

assembly of true believers and consists in this, that Christ as King of his

church will see to it, that there will always on earth be an assembly of

believers, however small and inconspicuous then also, which will confess

his name. Cf. on the properties of the church from the Prot. side: Martyr,

Loci Comm. p. 226. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII qu. 5 sq. Heidegger, Corp.

Theol. XXVI 16 sq. Maresius, Exeg. conf. Belg. art. 27. Witsius, Exerc. in

Symb. 24. Vitringa IX 1 p. 81. Mastricht, Theol. VII 1, 9. Quenstedt, Theol.

IV 482. 497. Thomasius, Christi Person u. Werk II 543. Philippi, Kirchl. Gl.

V 3 S. 16 f. Hase, Handb. d. prot. Polemik I c. 1. Van Oosterzee, Dogm. §

. With the church as an assembly of believers, a government is

indispensable. Just as with the temple a master builder, with the field a

sower, with the vineyard a husbandman, with the net a fisherman, with the

flock a shepherd, with the body a head, with the family a father, with the

kingdom a king belongs, so also the church is not to be conceived without

an authority that bears and leads her, cares for and protects her. In an even

more special sense than in the political sphere, this authority rests with God,

who is not only the Creator of all things but also the Saviour of the

congregation; the congregation is as the people of God, both under the New

and under the Old Covenant, a theocracy, the Lord is her judge, lawgiver,

and king, Jes. 33:22. But just as God in the civil sphere has transferred

sovereignty to the government, so He has appointed Christ as king in the

church. Designated from eternity already as mediator, this one has exercised

his prophetic, priestly, and kingly office from paradise onward, continued it

in the days of the O. Test. and during his walk on earth, and now completes

it in heaven, where He is seated at the right hand of the Father, part III

## § 48. The Government of the Church.

408-424. And this activity of Christ does not presuppose the congregation,

unless then as conceived and willed in God’s eternal counsel, but precedes

her and has her as product; the congregation is built as a temple on Christ as

the rock, born as a body out of Him as the head; the king is here before his

people. But also in another sense the church is not conceivable without

government. True, Christ could have exercised his office without any

service of men; if it pleased Him, He could distribute his spiritual and

heavenly blessings without help of institutions and persons. But this has not

thus seemed good to Him. It has been his good pleasure, without

transferring his sovereignty in the least to men, nevertheless in its exercise

to make use of their service and through them to preach the gospel to all

creatures. And also in this sense the church has never been without

government; she was always in one way or another organized and

institutionally arranged. That was necessitate hypothetica necessary,

because the congregation here on earth is a becoming congregation. In

heaven every office and every means of grace falls away, because the

kingdom of God is completed and God is all in all. But on earth this is

different; the church as an assembly of believers is itself used by Christ as

an instrument to bring others into his congregation; through her Christ

administers his mediatorial office in the midst of the world. Thus the church

from the beginning appears in a twofold form; she is an assembly of the

people of God in passive and active sense, is at the same time a coetus and a

mater fidelium, or by another designation at the same moment organism and

institute. As already said above p. 36, this distinction is a wholly different

one than that between invisible and visible church. It is a distinction in the

visible church and says that the church as an assembly of believers becomes

manifest to us in a twofold way, in offices and means of grace as institute,

and in communion of faith and of life as organism. With this distinction the

question is always raised concerning the priority. Some represent it thus,

that the institute of the church with office and ministry always precedes the

church as an assembly of believers and thus lay the emphasis on the mater

fidelium. Others judge that the church as an assembly of believers

takes the first place and then itself, by the pressure of circumstances,

arranges itself institutionally in one way or another. Indeed, in this the

principled difference between Protestantism and Romanism is then sought.

Confusing the distinction of the church as institute and organism with that

in visible and invisible church, Schleiermacher says that Protestantism das

Verhältniss des Einzelnen zur Kirche abhängig macht von seinem

Verhältniss zu Christo, while Romanism conversely das Verhältniss des

Einzelnen zu Christo abhängig macht von seinem Verhältniss zur Kirche,

Chr. Gl. § 24. And according to Möhler, with Rome the visible church

precedes the invisible, but with the Lutherans this precedes that, Symbolik §

48. But this whole representation is far from to be regarded as complete and

correct. For 1o from the days of Tertullianus onward, de orat. 2. de monog.

7. adv. Marc. V 4 the church has been called by all Christians not only a

coetus but also a mater fidelium. The Protestants are in this in agreement

with the Roman Catholics, and Calvin even lays very strong emphasis on it,

Inst. IV 1, 4. And that was the church according to their conviction, not

because she freely and independently organized herself into an institute and

gave herself a government of her own, but because Christ had thus arranged

her. The institute of the church is absolutely not, at least not according to

the Reformed confession, a product of the congregation, but an institution

of Christ. And that this conviction rests on good, scriptural grounds, will

become clear in what follows. 2o The church as an assembly of believers

does not come into being, as Schleiermacher, Chr. Gl. § 115 says, durch das

Zusammentreten der einzelnen Wiedergeborenen. For the question remains

unanswered here, whence those regenerate ones are. For these do not come

about because the H. Spirit regenerates men atomistically and unvermittelt

(not: unmittelbar) and then joins them together. But the H. Spirit is in all his

workings, also in that of regeneration, bound to Christ, from whom He

takes everything. And Christ is on earth only there where his word is. God’s

word and God’s people belong together. True, little children are many times

regenerated without their having been able personally to hear the preaching

of the word. But these are then little children who are born in the covenant

of grace, who live in the communion of the church and who receive inward

calling, which proceeds from Christ through the H. Spirit. 3o The

difference between Rome and the Reformation on this point does not

consist in the priority of visible or invisible church, of institute or organism,

of communion with the church or communion with Christ; at least it does

not consist in that without sharper determination; but it lies herein, that

Rome binds salvation to priest and sacrament and the Reformation to the

preaching of the word. According to Rome the gratia infusa is

communicated only through baptism and this is thus absolutely necessary.

According to the Reformation the word is the first and principal means of

grace and faith therefore sufficient unto salvation. And that word works as

means of grace absolutely not only when it is ministered officially in the

assembly of believers, but also when it is brought to us in family and

school, through upbringing and instruction. God’s people are where God’s

word is, but that people and that word can be and are also many times

where there is no priest and no pope, no pastor and no presbyter. 4o Also

according to the Reformation the church as an assembly of believers does

not come into being unvermittelt, out of a working of the Spirit detached

from the word. Between Christ and the individual man there certainly does

not stand, as with Rome, the priest and the sacrament, the ecclesia docens,

but yet indeed the word of Christ, for communion with Christ is according

to the testimony of Scripture bound to communion with the word of the

apostles, John 17:3, 1 John 1:3. As it is in the natural, so it is also in the

spiritual. Every man is a product of the community and the individual

believer is born out of the bosom of the congregation. The ecclesia

universalis precedes the ecclesia particularis and the individual fideles, just

as in every organism the whole precedes the parts. A mother is therefore

indeed the church of Christ, but she is this absolutely not only as institute

but also as organism. The believers together are at the same time producer

and product; in visibili ecclesia invisibilis colligitur et formatur; invisibilis

in visibili haeret ac continetur, Synopsis pur. theol. 40, 34; through the

church Christ gathers his church. 5o By taking this standpoint, the

Reformation avoided both the hierarchy of the Roman Catholics and the

enthusiasm of the Anabaptists, and caused the truth, which is present in

both, to come into its right. On the one hand no binding of the working

of the H. Spirit to priest and sacrament and on the other hand no working of

the H. Spirit outside Christ and his word! The church as assembly becomes

manifest in both, institute and organism; she has as mark the pure

administration of the word and the confession and the walk of the believers;

she is arranged institutionally and charismatically. The office does not

suppress the gifts but organizes them and keeps them in the right track, and

the gifts do not set the office aside but make it powerful and fruitful.

Irvingianism and Darbyism both contain a truth that ought to be

acknowledged. Offices and gifts are together bestowed by Christ on his

congregation unto the perfecting of the saints and unto the building up of

question concerning the priority of the institute or the organism of the

church itself already testifies of one-sidedness. Both are given with one

another and continually work upon one another. In the state people and

government are always most closely connected with one another; one can

indeed conduct investigation into the origin in some people of one or

another form of government; one can indeed show that the political

government was first instituted on account of sin, but everywhere where

men are, there is also a certain form of government; Adam was at once

created as head of humanity. And so also the form of government of the

church has by no means always been the same, but a government has never

been lacking to her, neither in the invisible, in which Christ is her head, nor

also in the visible, in which she always partook of a certain organization.

2. Holy Scripture sets this in a clear light. When Adam has fallen and

hides himself from the face of the Lord, it is God himself who seeks out the

man and calls him, preaches to him the promise of the gospel and thereby

founds his church. With Noah he establishes his covenant, imparts to him a

treasure of blessings in it, and seals it with the bow in the clouds. Abram he

calls out of Ur of the Chaldeans, makes him his covenant-partner and gives

him the sign of circumcision. In the patriarchal period the households were

the churches of the believers; the heads of households were the priests, who

communicated the promises to their children and brought to God offerings

of worship and thanks. The people of Israel received at Sinai not only a

civil but also a religious organization and was made manifest as the people

of God in priesthood and sacrifice, in tabernacle and altar, in all kinds of

laws and institutions. When at the beginning of the N. Test. John the Baptist

appears, he preaches the baptism of repentance unto forgiveness of sins, and

thereby separates the people of God from sinful Israel. Jesus takes over this

preaching and this baptism of John, later adds the Lord’s Supper to it,

gathers an ἐ κκλησια around himself, governs it himself directly, as long as

he is on earth, and appoints a number of twelve apostles, who presently will

appear as his witnesses. The institution of the apostleship is especially a

powerful proof for the institutional character which Christ gave to his

church on earth. Christ is himself the ἀ ποστολος, Hebr. 3:1, and continues

this ἀ ποστολη in the twelve, John 20:21. This number of twelve did not

form itself gradually of itself, but was expressly called and appointed by

Jesus himself. With them, although Jesus from the beginning knew whom

he would choose as apostles and therefore could already at once say to them

that he would make them ἁ λεεις ἀ νθρωπων, Mark 1:17, nevertheless a clear

distinction is to be made between their first calling to discipleship, and their

second calling to apostleship, Matthew 4:18-22 and 10:1, Mark 1:16 and 3:14,

Luke 6:1 and 13-16. By many, such as Schleiermacher, Volkmar, Harnack,

Seufert, Holtzmann etc., this special calling to the apostolic office by Jesus

is indeed denied. But the facts are in conflict with this assertion. The

number of twelve apostles was nevertheless already established in the

Christian churches long before the appearance of Paul, Matthew 26:33, 28:18,

apostle, ַָׁשלּו, was given to them by Jesus, Luke 6:13, cf. 11:49, Matthew 23:34,

by him to preach, Mark 3:14. Jesus was himself the one sent by the Father,

John 3:34, Hebr. 3:1 and for the execution of his work had need of

witnesses, who made known among the whole people of Israel the gospel

that appeared in him, Matthew 10:6. This naming by Jesus is confirmed by the

fact that the word apostle from the beginning has been an official title, so

much so even that the word ψευδαποστολος [65] could be formed, 2 Corinthians 11:13. The word ַָׁשלּו occurs, moreover, in LXX only once, 1 Kon. 14:6,

and the word ἀ ποστολος occurs rarely in profane Greek. Yet these facts of

Scripture concerning the apostleship seem to be contradicted by other data.

In the first place it is uncertain who must be reckoned to this number of

twelve apostles. Even if the difference between the four apostolic lists, Matthew 10:2, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:14, Hd. 1:13 is resolved in the sense that Lebbeus

Thaddeus and Judas Jacobi are identified, then there still remains that Judas

fell away and was replaced by Matthias, Hd. 1:15-26, and later Paul was

still added to the number of twelve. The relation of Paul to the twelve is in

that respect far from clear. Paul indeed repeatedly makes this distinction,

that the apostles at Jerusalem would proclaim the gospel among Israel and

he himself among the Gentiles, Hd. 9:15, 13:47, 22:21, Romans 11:13, Gal.

nevertheless very relative; for Paul in his proclamation of the gospel always

turned first to the Jews, Hd. 13:5, 14, 46 etc. and the twelve apostles

received from Christ after his resurrection the express commission to

preach the gospel to all nations, Matthew 28:19, Hd. 10:42, and have also

fulfilled that commission in greater or lesser measure. Not only the church

from the Jews, but the whole New-Testament church rests on the foundation

of apostles and prophets, Ef. 2:20, Op. 21:14 and through their word has

fellowship with Christ, John 17:20, 1 John 1:3. The apostleship of Paul,

however, bears a character very distinct from that of the twelve. Paul indeed

maintains with all power the divine origin, the independence and the

genuineness of his apostolic office over against all opponents, Gal. 1-2, 1

Cor. 1:10-4:21, 2 Corinthians 10:13. But nevertheless, he did not associate with

Jesus during his walk on earth, he persecuted the church of God, he was

called by the exalted Christ in an extraordinary way and at an unusual time,

he was the foremost of sinners and the least of the apostles, 1 Corinthians 15:9, Ef.

3:8, 1 Timothy 1:15. His apostleship, however independent and excellent, has

been a means to lay the apostleship of the twelve as the foundation of the

whole church. Paul by his apostleship did not limit or undermine the [66]

apostleship of the twelve but on the contrary confirmed and extended it. He

paved the way in the Gentile world for the apostleship of the twelve,

removed from it on the one hand all the Jewish element that still continued

to cling to its bearers and on the other hand grafted the Gentiles as wild

branches into the tame olive tree of Israel, Romans 11:24. Upon Christ as

cornerstone and the apostles as foundation Paul built the one church, the

one people of God, the spiritual Israel. Therewith in principle a second

objection is also already resolved, which is raised against the appointment

and naming of the twelve apostles by Jesus. It is namely a fact that the word

apostle, probably already in Jerusalem, H. 14:4, 14, 2 Corinthians 11:13, Op. 2:2,

but then especially by Paul, has been used in a broader sense and has also

been applied to others than the number of twelve. Paul had to do that for

that reason, because he knew himself to be a called servant of Jesus Christ,

equal in office and honor to the other apostles. He was apostle in another

sense than the apostles in Jerusalem, called in another way and at a later

time and charged with a special task. But one thing he had in common with

the apostles in Jerusalem; he was a called apostle of Jesus Christ, who had

to thank a special revelation of Christ and not men for his calling, his

gospel, even specifically also the peculiar content of his gospel, namely that

But for his missionary labor he had need of help. Besides the apostles Jesus

had already also sent out another seventy, in order in the cities and villages

where he would come to prepare his coming, Luk. 10. When the church in

Jerusalem was scattered by the persecution, Philip, one of the seven men

chosen in Hd. 6, went to preach the gospel among the Samaritans, Hd. 8:5,

to the eunuch of the queen Candace, 8:26, cf. 11:20, and further as far as

Caesarea, 8:40, 21:8. And so Paul in his missionary labor made use of men

such as Barnabas, Mark, Luke, Silas, Tychicus, Aristarchus, Epaphras,

Apollos, Timothy, Titus and others, who as his συνεργοι, 1 Thessalonians 3:2 stood

at his side. These assistant missionaries of the apostles were now by Paul

sometimes also called apostles, because they, although not directly by Jesus

Christ, yet under the guidance of the H. Spirit were sent by the church

to proclaim the gospel in other places, Hd. 13:2, 3, cf. 2 Corinthians 8:23,

ἀ ποστολοι ἐ κκλησιων. The word apostle thus alongside the narrower also

on later in the post-apostolic period, e.g. in the Didache c. 11. Elsewhere

these apostolic helpers bear the name of evangelists, Hd. 21:8, Ef. 4:11, 2

Tim. 4:5, because they, just as Christ by the Father, Luke 4:18, and the

apostles by Christ, Luke 9:1, 6, thus in their turn under the guidance of the

Spirit were set apart by the church for the proclamation of the gospel, Hd.

They therefore correspond with the apostles in the narrower sense in three

respects, 1o in that they also are servants of God or of Christ, 1 Thessalonians 3:2,

1 Timothy 4:6, 6:11, 2 Timothy 2:24 and have not merely received a charisma, 1

Tim. 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6, but truly by virtue of a special calling and

appointment bear an office, under a definite name, Hd. 21:8, with a rank

and place of their own, Ef. 4:11, and with a special task, 2 Timothy 4:5; 2o that

their office is not limited to a local church, but extends to all churches, to

the ecclesia universalis, Hd. 13:4v., so that according to the ancient-church

explanation πανταχου περιιοντες ἐ κηρυττον and they had power and

authority over all churches, Titus 1:5, and 3o that they participate in the

foundational and church-founding labor of the apostles; they are their

συνεργοι, 1 Thessalonians 3:2, συνεκδημοι, Hd. 19:29, συνστρατιωται, Philippians 2:25,

συνδουλοι, Colossians 1:7, 4:7, who water what the apostles have planted, 1 Corinthians 3:6, and with relative independence nevertheless were subject to the

apostles, Hd. 19:22, 1 Corinthians 4:17, 1 Timothy 1:3, Titus 1:5 etc. and in part worked

alone, in part also in company with the apostles, ib. and Hd. 11:30, 12:25,

13:2 etc. In the post-apostolic period the office disappears entirely and the

name since Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius becomes customary for the

writers of the four gospels, who as it were make the persons of the

evangelists superfluous. Cf. concerning the evangelists: Suicerus s. v.

Witsius, Misc. Sacra I 315 II 564. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. III 364-369. [68]

Mastricht, Theol. VII 2, 18. Lechler, Die neut. Lehre v. h. Amte 1857 S. 220

f. Philippi, Kirchl. Gl. V 3, 277. Sohm, Kirchenrecht 42. Zöckler, Diakonen

und Evangelisten, München Beck 1893.

Besides the evangelists, prophets also appear in the N. T., who are even

without being connected with the apostles, Ef. 2:20, 3:5, and thus stand

above them in rank and honour. They had been promised by Jesus, Matthew 23:34, Luke 11:49, were brought forth by the H. Spirit, who had been

poured out on the day of Pentecost, Hd. 2:17, 18, 1 Corinthians 12:10, Op. 1:10

and then occur in great numbers and in almost all congregations, in

Corinth, 1 Cor. 12, and everywhere, as appears from their mention in Rom.

with John, the apostle, Op. 1:1, and then disappear entirely from the

congregation as an estate. To be sure, the apostolic fathers still speak of

prophets, Hermas, Mand. 11 Vis. 3. Didache 11. 15, but in doing so they

think of such men, who travelled about and spoke in various congregations

about the Christian truth but in doing so had to be carefully examined and

distinguished from the false prophets; the time for prophecy was past.

Montanism and other enthusiastic tendencies of earlier and later times did

indeed attempt to revive prophecy; Rome asserts that the prophetic gift still

continues, Bellarminus, de notis eccl. c. 15; Zwingli and many after him

introduced so-called prophecies, in which Scripture was explained for the

people, art. Prophezei in Herzog2 and Dr. H. H. Kuyper, De opleiding tot

den dienst des Woords bij de Gereformeerden 1891 bl. 104v. But all that is

essentially distinct from the prophecy as it existed in the first Christian

churches. This is distinguished by the following: 1o the N. T. prophets can

indeed be called office-bearers, but their office is nevertheless much more

charismatic than that of prophets and apostles. They are not called and

appointed immediately by Christ nor also by his congregation, but receive a

special charisma from the H. Spirit, and are consequently called to fulfil a

special task in the congregation of Christ. 2o With the apostles and

evangelists they have in common that they hold an office which applies

to the whole church of Christ on earth and thus also cooperate in the

founding of the congregation, Ef. 2:20, but while the evangelists especially

help the apostles in their missionary and instituting work, the prophets stand

at their side in their edifying, building up, teaching activity. 3o N. T.

prophecy is indeed conscious and therefore highly to be esteemed above

glossolalia, 1 Corinthians 14:5, 32, but it is nevertheless momentary and

extraordinary, fruit of ἀ ποκαλυψις, 1 Corinthians 14:30; it extends the natural

measure of knowing and understanding, comprises both the form and the

content of speech, Matthew 10:19, 20, proves itself as truth by its inner,

convincing power, 2 Corinthians 2:14-17, and served especially to procure

acceptance for the gospel, which was proclaimed by the apostles, which to

the Jews was an offence and to the Greeks a folly, and was not yet

accessible in the written Word for the whole church, among believers and

unbelievers, and thus to build up the congregation through teaching,

admonition, consolation, 1 Corinthians 14:3, in the grace and knowledge of the

Lord Jesus Christ. Cf. on the N. T. prophets: Voetius, Pol. Eccl. III 369 cf.

Disp. Sel. II 1036 sq. Witsius, Misc. Sacra I 282 sq. Neander, Geseh. d.

Pflanzung u. Leitung der chr. K5. 182 f. Bonwetsch, Die Prophetie im ap. u.

nachap. Zeitalter, Zeits. f. k. Wiss. u. k. Leben 1884 S. 408 f. Burger, art. in

Herzog2 12, 265. Zöckler, t. a. p. 71 f. Weiszäcker, Das apost. Zeitalter, 584

f. enz.

But however closely prophets and evangelists are related to the actual

apostles, they are nevertheless essentially distinct from them. The apostles

form a circle of their own, their office bears an altogether special character,

and is recognizable by the following features. 1o The apostles are given to

Christ by the Father, John 17:6, chosen and called by Himself, John 6:70,

office, Hd. 10:41. 2o They have been trained and qualified by Jesus Himself

for their task, have been ear- and eyewitnesses of His words and deeds,

have beheld the Word of life with the eyes and touched it with the hands,

and have received their gospel not from any man but from Christ Himself,

partake of the H. Spirit in a special measure, who instructs them and leads

2:10-13, 7:40, 1 Petr. 1:12. 4o Equipped with that Spirit, John 20:22, Hd.

1:8, Ef. 3:5, they appear publicly as witnesses of Jesus, specifically of His

testimony is sealed by God with signs and wonders and rich spiritual

2:4. 6o To this their testimony the church of all ages is bound. There is no

communion with Christ except through communion with the word and the

persons of the apostles, John 17:20, Galatians 1:7-9, 1 John 1:3; they are the

foundation of the church, Matthew 16:18, 1 Corinthians 3:10, Ef. 2:20, Op. 21:14; their

word, preserved for us in the Scriptures of the N. T., is medium gratiae, John 20:31, 1 Corinthians 1:18v., 15:2, 1 John 1:1-4. 7o Their office is therefore not

limited to a time and not to a local congregation, but it remains and extends

to the whole church. It is the only one that is instituted directly by Christ

and includes within itself all competencies and activities that are distributed

in the later offices, the pastoral, presbyteral, diaconal, even also the

evangelizing and prophetic activity. From the outset the apostles therefore

also enjoy in the church of Christ a generally recognized authority. They are

not only the overseers of the congregation at Jerusalem, but they are the

founders, the fathers, 1 Corinthians 4:15 and leaders of the whole church, have

oversight over the believers at Samaria, Hd. 8:14, visit the congregations,

Hd. 9:32, 11:22, institute offices, Hd. 6:2, take decisions in the H. Spirit,

etc. and are still authoritative with their word for the whole of Christendom;

apostolicity is a property and characteristic of the church of Christ. Cf.

part I 334v. and further Voetius, Pol. Eccl. III 351-363. Burmannus, Exerc.

Acad. II 104 sq. Spanheim, Op. II 289 sq. Moor VI 250 e. a. bij Walch,

Bibl. theol. III 444. Philippi, Kirchl. Cl. V 3, 258. Gloël, Der H. Geist in der

Heilsverkündigung des Paulus, Halle 1888 S. 325 f. W. Seufert, Der

Ursprung u. die Bedeutung des Apostolates in de chr. K. der ersten 2 Jahrh.

Leiden 1887. Köppel, Der Ursprung des Apost., Stud. u. Krit. 1889 S. 257-

331. Erich Haupt, Zum Verständniss des Apost. Halle Niemeijer 1896. Art.

Apostel van Schmidt in Herzog3.

Among the apostles Peter stands at the top. Simon or Simeon, son of John

or Jonas, brother of Andrew, originating from Bethsaida, John 1:45, but

probably since his marriage living in Capernaum, Mark 1:29, already at his

first meeting received from Jesus the promise that he would later be called

Κηφας, gr. form for the hebr. word ֵּכף with the aram. article, the rock, ἡ

πετρα, as masc. proper name Πετρος, John 1:43. Without doubt Jesus

thereby alluded to his faithful character, which in spite of his sanguine,

mobile nature was proper to him and came out most clearly at Caesarea

Philippi, when, over against the people, who with their earthly-minded

expectations saw themselves disappointed in Jesus and left Him, he held

fast the confession of Jesus’ Messiahship and openly uttered it in the name

of his fellow-disciples, Matthew 16:13 to 20, Mark 8:27-29, Luke 9:18-20, John 6:66-69. On this occasion Jesus then also reminded him of the name which

He had already given him earlier, Matthew 16:18. By his bold and steadfast

confession of Jesus as the Christ Peter showed himself to be the rock, on

which Christ would build his church so firmly and solidly that the gates of

Hades would not surpass it in power. According to Launoi 17 church fathers

thought of Peter in connection with the rock, 8 of the apostles, 44 of Peter’s

faith and 16 of Christ, in Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogm. IV 411; later the

Roman Catholics have for the most part made the rock refer to Peter and the

Protestants to his confession. But there is here no dilemma. The words “this

petra” cannot refer to anything other than the person of Peter, but a rock he

is and has proved himself to be by his confession of Jesus as the Christ, a

confession which he owes not to himself but to the revelation of the

Father. Precisely for that reason Jesus promises him that He will build his

church on him as confessor of his Sonship and Messiahship. Christ thus

presents himself as the builder of his church and Peter the confessor as the

rock on which his church will rest. In Matthew 21:42, Hd. 4:11, 1 Corinthians 3:10, Ef.

2:20, Op. 21:14, cf. 1 Petr. 2:4-6 the same image is used, but it is applied in

another way. There, namely, the apostles are thought of as the builders, who

by their preaching have founded the church on Christ as the foundation. But

here in Matthew 16:18 Christ is the builder, who builds his church on the

confessing Peter. And this promise Christ has fulfilled; Peter is the first

among the apostles, the principal founder of the church, the leader and

commander of all the confessors of Christ through the centuries. Therefore

he is always named first in the apostolic lists, Matthew 10:2, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:14, Hd. 1:13, he belongs with John and James to the intimate circle of

friends of Jesus, who may follow him when the others must remain behind,

Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37, 13:3, 14:33, is the spokesman and representative of the

disciples, Matthew 16:17, 17:24, 18:21, 26:40, after Jesus’ ascension comes to

the fore as first witness among the apostles, Hd. 1:15, 2:14, 3:1v., 4:8, 5:3,

29, 8:14, 10:5v., 12:3v., 15:7v., and is honored as primus inter pares also by

Paul, Galatians 1:18, 2:7-9. Cf. art. Petrus in Herzog2 and the litt. cited there.

3. Thus the church has never lacked a government; and she has not

procured it for herself but has received it from God. Institute and organism

of the church have time and again been called into being by God

simultaneously and in connection with one another. Of the apostolate it can

even be said that it preceded the church of the N. T.; the apostles were the

founders of the congregation, as it were the patriarchs of the people of God

in the days of the N. T. But this apostolate has not been continued and, as an

office for the building of the church, was by the nature of the case not

susceptible of any continuation; it lives on for us only in the apostolic word,

which remains the foundation of the church and brings into fellowship with

the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ, 1 John 1:3. As soon as the

apostles had founded congregations in various places, they instituted in

those congregations offices which differed essentially from theirs and did

not come into being without the cooperation of the congregations

themselves. There is a great difference between the extraordinary offices of

apostles, evangelists, and prophets, which were instituted temporarily for

the founding of the church, and the ordinary offices of presbyters and

deacons, which arose from the churches themselves under apostolic

guidance. These latter offices presuppose the churches, in the same way as

the government presupposes the people. They therefore could not be

instituted directly and immediately by Christ, like the apostolic office, but

could arise only when the congregations had been founded and had need of

a regular leadership. This took place already quite soon in the church of

Jerusalem. This, through the extraordinary Pentecost blessing, soon

received a very great expansion and was thousands of souls strong, Hd.

necessary, which also came into being under the guidance of the apostles. In

the first place, this congregation of thousands of souls, in spite of its unity,

was in one way or another subdivided. For it could not assemble in one

building but had to meet in parts in private dwellings. Without doubt the

first house-congregations arose in Jerusalem, such as we also encounter

elsewhere in the apostolic time, above bl. 6. For we read that the believers

assembled not only in the temple, but also κατ’ ο ἰ κον (not: from house to

house, but: at home, in different houses), Hd. 2:46, 5:42, among others in

the house of Mary and of James, Hd. 12:12, 17. In order that everything

might take place decently and in order, all kinds of regulation were needed

for these gatherings; and perhaps in that connection the example of the

Jewish synagogues with their elders, officials, and servants and also with

their Scripture reading, preaching, prayer, and blessing had some, although

certainly not very strong, influence, Schürer, Gesch. des jüd. Volkes im

Zeitalter J. Chr. 3te Aufl. II 437-459. The designation of ο ἱ νεωτεροι, which

occurs in Hd. 5:6, 10, already points to such a regulation; the article

indicates that the younger members of the congregation, just like the ַהָּזִגים,

ὑ πηρεται, Luke 4:20 in the synagogues, were the self-evidently designated

ones to perform some subordinate services [74]. It is not improbable that, as

such, they stood over against the older members of the congregation, ο ἱ

πρεσβυτεροι. Under Israel the old of days were honored for their grayness

and wisdom. From their midst the governing persons of the civil

community and in later time also the caretakers and overseers of the

synagogues were appointed. Thus there were also from the outset elders in

the Christian congregation, that is, men and women who were not only

older in age, but who had personally known or met Jesus, who had heard

his words and had been witnesses of his miracles, who already before the

day of Pentecost had confessed Him as the Messiah or perhaps had even

belonged to the seventy, sent out by Jesus to the cities and villages of

Palestine, Luke 10:1, and who for all this quite naturally stood in high

esteem among those who later were added to the congregations. They held

no office but nevertheless by their knowledge and godliness occupied a

considerable place in the congregation of Christ. Between πρεσβυτεροι and

ἐ πιστοποι therefore a distinction must be made. Proofs for that are: 1o that

the name πρεσβυτερος, to designate the office of overseer, is gradually

more closely defined and replaced by that of ἐ πισκοπος, Hd. 20:28, Phil.

Tim. 3 about the offices, nevertheless still in 1 Tim. 5 indicates the attitude

which Timothy is to adopt toward various members of the congregation,

older and younger, men and women, cf. 1 Petr. 5:5; 3o that the apostolic

Vis. II 4. III 1 clearly speak of an order of elders, which continues to exist

in the congregation alongside the actual office-bearers and lays claim to

respectful obedience; and that 4o the well-known text, 1 Timothy 5:17, without

assuming this distinction, as will appear presently, yields no good sense.

Probably, therefore, we must represent it to ourselves thus, that the twelve

apostles could by no means get through the work in the great congregation

at Jerusalem, and therefore quite soon, just as they made use of the

νεωτεροι for lower services, so they made use of some of the πρεσβυτεροι

for higher services in the congregation. When and how this happened is not

reported to us in Acts. The first time we find the πρεσβυτεροι [75]

5:14, without anything being related about their origin. It is not impossible

that such a taking into service of the πρεσβυτεροι by the apostles already

took place before Hd. 6, i.e. before the institution of the diaconal office; ο ἱ

νεωτεροι in Hand. 5:6, 10 points to a distinction from ο ἱ πρεσβυτεροι. But

in any case the book of Acts teaches us that soon in various congregations

under the guidance of the H. Spirit men were appointed who had to keep

oversight over the congregation, and who at first indeed, because they as a

rule were chosen from the elders, bore the name of ο ἱ πρεσβυτεροι but later

with a view to their sphere of work received that of ἐ πισκοποι. Episcopi are

thus such presbyteri as were designated for a particular service in the

congregation; all episcopi are thus presbyteri, but by no means all

presbyteri were episcopi; presbyteri formed an order, episcopi bore an

office. When, however, as at first happened many times, the episcopi were

called presbyteri, then there was no difference in the name; presbyteri and

episcopi were then the same persons and bearers of one and the same office,

presbyterial or episcopal office was first instituted in Jerusalem and in the

congregations from the Jews, Hebr. 13:7, 17, 24, Jak. 5:14, but then also in

those from the Gentiles. According to Hd. 14:23 Paul and Barnabas

appointed elders in every congregation. Now in the letters to Rome and

Corinth Paul indeed does not mention this office in so many words. But

5:1, Op. 4:4, 10, 5:6, 8v. prove that the office of elder was a known,

generally occurring, apostolic institution. And for reinforcement there is

added to that the testimony of Clemens Romanus, 1 Cor. 42, that the

apostles, preaching in the country and in the cities, appointed the first

converts as overseers and deacons over those who thereafter would become

believers.

The task that had been entrusted to these elders becomes clear from the

description of their office. The name of presbyters sheds no light on it, and

therefore gives way to another, especially to that of overseers, Hd.

bears that name. And furthermore they are called προισταμενοι, Romans 12:8,

ποιμενες, Ef. 4:11, who are to care for the congregation not for filthy gain

nor with domination but with a willing mind, are to govern it as the flock of

the Lord, and therefore must meet various requirements, specifically also

the requirement that they rule their own house well, Hd. 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:1-

7, Titus 1:5-9, 1 Petr. 5:1-3. From this description it appears that the office of

elder was in the first place charged with the oversight, the government, and

the leadership of the congregation. Naturally, for that some knowledge of

the truth was also necessary; according to Hd. 15:4, 22, 23 they even had to

judge and decide together with the apostles at the assembly in Jerusalem

concerning the weighty question that was brought onto the agenda by the

conversion of the Gentiles regarding the relation to the Mosaic law. But the

office of overseer was nevertheless originally not a teaching office, but a

governing office. Besides, in the first time there was as yet no urgent need

for a separate teaching office. Apostles, evangelists, and prophets first

furthermore the charisma of teaching was granted to many who held no

The διδασκαλια was at first free, just as in the synagogue it was permitted

to everyone to explain a portion of Scripture, Luke 4:16. But gradually it

was brought into a closer relation with the episcopal office. When the

congregations expanded, the need for word and sacrament could no longer

be met by apostles, evangelists, and prophets; there was need of a local and

permanent office that was charged with the care for that. Nor in the long run

was it acceptable to leave the didaskalie entirely free, for this freedom gave

rise to all kinds of abuses. Thus everything pressed toward entrusting the

didaskalie to the office of overseer and thus securing a permanent place in

the congregation. From Hebr. 13:7 we learn that ἡ γουμενοι are at the same

time the proclaimers of the word of God. When Paul in Ef. 4:11 [77] says

that Christ has given some as apostles and some as evangelists and then

furthermore also some as shepherds and teachers, then by that he teaches

clearly that these two last-mentioned persons do not hold an essentially

distinct office but perform activities in the congregation that are closely

connected and yet mutually differ. Probably in the first time more than one

or even all elders were authorized for the administration of word and

sacrament. But in that too a change soon had to come. Indeed the

requirement remained for all overseers that they must be διδακτικοι,

capable of teaching, 1 Timothy 2:2. But especially two circumstances brought it

about that among the overseers a distinction arose between those who were

charged only with the government, and others who were also charged with

the teaching. In the first place the requirements became heavier and heavier

for those who had to proclaim the word of truth in the congregation; the

apostles and evangelists died off; the extraordinary gifts ceased; all kinds of

errors and heresies arose within and outside the congregation; the capability

to teach consisted not only in instruction and admonition, but also in

refutation of the opponents, 2 Timothy 3:16, Titus 1:9; training, preparation,

study became necessary for the exercise of this office in the congregation.

Besides, the Jewish scribes already had their schools; Jesus had himself

trained his disciples and made them fit for their service; Paul had instructed

Timothy and charged him to hand on this teaching as a precious treasure to

trustworthy men, who in their turn would again be capable of teaching

others, 2 Timothy 2:2. And in addition there came now in the second place still

the precept of Jesus, that the laborer in the service of the word is worthy of

his wages, Matthew 10:10, Luke 10:7; a precept that in the Christian

congregations was generally recognized and followed, Romans 15:27, 1 Corinthians 2:6. Indeed this had first of all reference to the apostles and evangelists, but

it nevertheless further applied also to those who labored in the word and the

teaching and devoted their life to it. Necessity of training and provision for

livelihood were the cause that the service of the word was entrusted not to

all but only to some overseers. The famous passage, [78] 1 Timothy 5:17, 18

raises this above all doubt. The πρεσβυτεροι there, cf. verse 1, are not

overseers, for then Paul would make a contrast between such overseers as

rule poorly and others who rule well and would consider the former still

worthy of some honor but the latter worthy of a double honor. But

πρεσβυτεροι are older members of the congregation in general, who as such

have a claim to honor. From them Paul distinguishes the καλως προεστωτες

πρεσβυτεροι, such elders who at the same time rule well, who are

προισταμενοι, Romans 12:8, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, i.e. who hold the office of

overseers; and these now, because they belong to the older members of the

congregation and at the same time are overseers, are worthy of a double

honor. And from them are then again distinguished ο ἱ κοπιωντες ἐ ν λογ ῳ

και διδασκαλι ᾳ , those overseers who specifically labor in the word and the

teaching and for that according to Scripture have a claim to wages. Thus

according to this passage there is therefore clearly a distinction between

overseers to whom only the government, and others to whom at the same

time the teaching and as a consequence of that also the administration of the

sacrament is entrusted. And still within the limits of the N. T. we then

encounter in the Asia Minor congregations this situation, that among the

overseers only a single one is charged with the service of the word; he is the

ἀ γγελος, the envoy, who on Christ’s behalf has to teach and lead the

congregation and is responsible for its spiritual and moral condition, Op.

Besides this office of overseer, distinguished into that of ruling and

teaching elder, a second was soon instituted. In Jerusalem, namely,

according to Hd. 6, there was soon dissatisfaction among the Christians

converted from the Greek proselytes, that their widows, in the private

charity already being practiced at that time, were being set back and

neglected by the Christians brought in from the Jews. Thereupon the

apostles called the whole congregation together, and declared there that they

did not think it good, with a reduction of the labor in the word itself, to

devote themselves to the care for the poor. The congregation therefore had

to look out for seven men and elect them, and the apostles would then

appoint them to this service of mercy and, after prayer, lay hands on them.

Clearly it appears from this that the apostles, although they indicate the

number and the requirements of the διακονοι, assign the right and the

authority to choose these men to the congregation. The apostles

themselves were indeed expressly appointed by Christ; but Matthias was

nevertheless already designated as twelfth apostle by lot from a pair that

had been drawn up by the 120 assembled believers. According to Hd. 13:1-

3, Paul and Barnabas were set apart for the work of evangelists by the

prophets and teachers present in the congregation at Antioch. Timothy was

chosen for this same service by prophetic indication, in the presence of

many witnesses and with laying on of hands by Paul and the presbyterium,

mention of an evangelist who has been appointed by the congregations. The

prophets and teachers were naturally not chosen by the congregations,

because they appeared freely, and had more a gift than an office; but they

were judged by the congregations in a wholly different way than the

not venturesome, that the election of the overseers, still much less than that

of the evangelists, took place outside the congregation. The words in Hd.

that the apostles appointed certain persons in each congregation as elders,

but do not indicate how they did this; and Titus 1:5 cf. 2 Timothy 2:2 sheds no

light on that either. But from post-apostolic writings we know that in the

choice of an episcopus the congregation was consulted directly or

indirectly, Did. 15. Clemens, 1 Cor. 44. Polycarpus, Phil. 11. cf. Ign. Philad.

10. Const. Apost. VIII 4. And concerning the deacons the N. T. reports to us

in Hd. 6 very clearly that they were designated by the congregation. There

is, however, great difference of opinion about the nature of the office that

was instituted here by the apostles. Some think that it was an extraordinary

office, which soon ceased to exist; others judge that it included within itself

the later office of elders and deacons, and still others hold that in Hd. 6 the

institution of the presbyterial office is narrated. All these opinions are based

on the fact that some of those chosen in Hd. 6, such as Philippus, also

appear as preachers of the gospel, Hd. 8:5, 26v., 21:8, and that the

presbyters in Jerusalem also receive gifts from the congregation at

Antioch in the service of the brethren in Judea, Hd. 11:30. This latter proof,

however, has little force; in Hd. 11:30 there is mention of an entirely

exceptional case, namely, not of the distributing of the naturalia, which

were laid on the tables by the congregation at Jerusalem itself for its poor,

but of the remitting of monies, which in Antioch on a special occasion were

brought together for the brethren in Judea and were now handed over by the

hand of Barnabas and Saulus to the presbyters. But, as appears from Galatians 2:1, nothing came of this journey; we therefore do not know how and where

those monies were remitted, nor also by whom they were actually received

and distributed. And as for Philippus, he was in Jerusalem one of the seven,

but, after the persecution broke out and the congregation was scattered, he

appeared in Samaria and elsewhere as an evangelist and remained so; he did

not later return to Jerusalem but settled in Caesarea, Hd. 21:8. By contrast,

everything argues for the view that in Hd. 6 we have the institution of the

later so-called diaconate. In the first place, the name comes into

consideration; διακονια in the N. T. denotes every office and gift which,

bestowed by the Lord, is employed in the service and for the benefit of the

congregation; every member of the congregation is a δουλος of Christ and

with all that he is and has a διακονος of the brethren; there are therefore

various διακονιαι, 1 Corinthians 12:5, especially ministry of the word, Hd. 6:4,

20:24, 1 Timothy 1:12, and ministry of mercy to the poor, the sick, strangers,

etc., Romans 12:7, 1 Corinthians 12:28, 1 Petr. 4:11. Without doubt there was now in

the congregation at Jerusalem from the beginning such a service of mercy;

there was a διακονια καθημερινη, Hd. 6:1, which perhaps did stand under

the supervision of the apostles but was nevertheless left to private persons.

But the apostles introduced order here by the institution of a special office.

There must now be a reason why the later diaconate was designated in

particular by the name of διακονια. That reason is to be found nowhere else

than in Hd. 6. There it is declared that the service of mercy in a special

sense is a διακονια, because it is a service of the tables, διακονειν

τραπεζαις. In the second place, precisely that which elsewhere in the N.

Test. is more specifically designated by the name of διακονια is assigned to

the seven men. For in the διακονια in Hd. 11:29, Romans 12:7, 1 Corinthians 12:5, 2

Cor. 8:4, 9:1, 12, 13, Op. 2:19 and further everywhere where there is

mention of the office of deacons and deaconesses, we have to think

especially of the service of mercy. And this is entrusted in Hd. 6 to the

seven men. They must see to it that the widows of the Greek Christians are

no longer passed over, and are therefore in general charged with the service

of the tables. By these tables are to be understood not the tables in the

houses of the widows nor also the exchange tables of the bankers, Matthew 21:12, but simply the tables of the Lord. In every meeting place of the

congregation there was a table or there were several tables, at which one sat

down, in order together as members of the congregation to use the lovefeast, ἀ γαπη, and the Lord’s Supper. On those tables the richer members of

the congregation laid down their gifts, mostly consisting in naturalia, so that

the poorer members might also enjoy them and later still be served. Those

tables were tables of the Lord; what was laid on them belonged to the Lord;

what one used at those tables was the Lord’s food and drink; and what

remained of it and was distributed was the Lord’s gift. The seven men in

Jerusalem were now designated to serve those tables, i.e. to be helpful at the

meals and further to distribute the gifts of the Lord honestly among the

saints according to their needs. In the third place, the proposition that Hd. 6

relates the origin of the diaconate is supported by the fact that the

requirements set for it are so high and in this respect correspond with those

in 1 Timothy 3:8-10, 12. Why precisely seven men were elected in Jerusalem,

we do not know; perhaps because the large congregation met in seven

meeting places and in each of these needed a deacon. But in any case they

had to be men who had the testimony in the congregation that they were

πληρεις πνευματος και σοφιας; and therefore the congregation first had to

look out for them in an investigating and electing manner. So Paul also

wants the deacons first to be tested and to meet the many requirements

which largely correspond with those for the overseers. Hatch and Sohm go

too far when they infer from this that the requirements for presbyter and

deacon are scarcely to be distinguished. For while, e.g., for the elder the

emphasis falls on the διδακτικον ε ἰ ναι, for the deacon purity of conscience

in relation to the content of the faith is required, 1 Timothy 3:9. But

otherwise the religious and moral requirements for elder and deacon are

virtually the same. Presbytery and diaconate stand, as appears from Hd. 6

and 1 Tim. 3, in close connection. In the fourth place, there is little ground

for the assertion that the diaconate arose only later approximately

simultaneously with the episcopal office. From the διακονια, Romans 12:7 and

the ἀ ντιληψεις, 1 Corinthians 12:28 little may be inferred. But everything argues

for the view that with the presbytery the diaconate also was transplanted by

the apostles from the Jerusalem congregation into other congregations. Just

as elders were needed, so elsewhere also there soon had to arise a need for

deacons for the service of the tables. In Philippians 1:1 they are therefore

mentioned in passing as something quite ordinary alongside and after the

elders; in 1 Tim. 3 Paul enumerates their requirements, and in Romans 16:1, 2,

1 Timothy 3:11, 5:9, 10 there is mention of deaconesses. The apostolate may

thus, as an extraordinary office, precede the church as an assembly of

believers; the offices of teacher, elder, and deacon presuppose the

congregation, which has the right to designate and elect their bearers. Cf. on

the organization of the church in the days of the N. T. Rothe, Die Anfänge

der christl. Kirche 1837. Lechler, Die neut. Lehre vom h. Amte 1857.

Neander, Gesch. der Pflanzung u. Leitung d. christl. Kirche durch die

Apostel5, Gotha 1862. Hatch, Die Gesellschaftsverfassung d. chr. Kirche

im Alt. Aus d. Engl. von A. Harnack, Giessen 1883. Harnack, Lehre der 12

Apostel, Texte und Unters. II 1. 2. 1884. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Leipzig 1892.

Loening, Die Gemeindeverfassung des Urchrist. Halle 1888. Loofs, Die

urchr. Gemeindeverfassung mit spez. Bez. auf Loening u. Harnack, Stud. u.

Krit. 1890 S. 619. Weiszäcker, Das apost. Zeitalter d. chr. K2. 1890.

Lechler, Das apost. und nachapost. Zeitalter3 1885. Zöckler, Diakonen und

Evangelisten, München 1893. Moeller-v. Schubert, Lehrb. d. Kirchengesch.

I2 1897 S. 88. Kurtz, Lehrb. der Kirchengesch. 13te Aufl. 1899 § 31.

4. This aristocratic-presbyterial church polity did not continue to exist for

long, but soon passed over into a monarchical-episcopal one. How that

came about, we do not know; for conjectures and suppositions there is

therefore a wide field here, cf. Karl Sell, Forschungen der Gegenwart

über Begriff und Entstehung der Kirche, Zeits. f. Theol. u. Kirche v.

Gottschick, 1894 S. 347-417. But certainly various circumstances directed

the church in this direction. In the first place, it lay at hand that the churches

at the beginning could not yet strictly distinguish between the extraordinary

(apostles, evangelists, prophets) and the ordinary (episcopi, diaconi) offices.

The offices resting on a charisma of apostle (in the broader sense of

evangelist), prophet, and teacher continued, even after the twelve apostles

and Paul had died, still on in the congregations, Did. 11 sq. Hermas, Mand.

11. Euseb. H. E. III 37. But when these ceased and degenerated more and

more, so that between true and false it became ever more difficult to

distinguish, then the evangelizing, prophetic, and didaskalic activity was

bound to the office of the episcopi; they became the true evangelists,

prophets, and teachers, Did. 15. As always, so also then, little by little the

stream of free life was led into the bed of a fixed organization. In the second

place, the conditions which, according to the N. T. and the apostolic fathers,

existed in the congregations, teach us clearly that the first Christians were

far from being able to take up into themselves the truth of the gospel in all

its richness and purity. Especially the ideas of Paul were mixed with all

kinds of foreign, Jewish and heathen constituents. Justification by faith was

nowhere taught purely. Faith in God’s revelation in Christ retained

significance only as a motive for a moral life, often already ascetically

colored; the gospel became a new law, the observance of which bestowed

eternal life, the ἀ φθαρσια. This whole moral, legalistic direction worked to

the advantage of the elevation of the office as organ of the divine revelation,

stamped obedience and submission to the ecclesiastical authority (μαθετε

ὑ ποτασσεσθαι, Clem. 1 Cor. 57) as the first Christian duty, and heresy and

schism as the most dreadful of all sins. In the third place, the appearance of

all kinds of heretical and sectarian directions made organization and

consolidation of the Christian congregations urgently necessary. The

question of the true church acquired practical importance. And the answer

to that ran: the true church is that which holds to the whole, to the catholica

ecclesia, and this is where the bishop is, Ign. Smyrn. 8. This change in

the government did not come about in all churches at the same time. The

Didache does not yet know it; it does not speak of presbyteri, but only of

episcopi and diaconi, who must be men worthy of the Lord and must fulfill

the service of the prophets and teachers, c. 15. Hermas names apostles,

episcopi, teachers and deacons alongside one another, without making

mention of presbyteri, Vis. III 5, but seems to presuppose at the head of

each congregation a college composed of presbyteri, II 4, and thus still

makes no official distinction between presbyteri and episcopi. About the

time in which the Shepherd of Hermas was written, that is in any case in the

first half of the second century, the monarchical episcopate therefore did not

yet exist in Rome. It has, moreover, also not arisen in Rome, as Sohm S.

157-179 asserts, and also not in the West but in the East. The first letter of

Clement, written from Rome at the end of the first century, does indeed say

that the apostles appointed the first converts as episcopi and diaconi and

that it is sin to dismiss them when they fulfill their service in an

irreproachable manner, but does not yet know the distinction of episcopi

and presbyteri and uses both names interchangeably, c. 42. 44. 47. On the

other hand, the monarchical episcopate developed very quickly in the East;

the letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who under Trajan about 110-115

died in Rome as a martyr, are for that an unimpeachable witness, and would

remain so even in the case of inauthenticity, since they then nevertheless

cannot be younger than the years 130-140. Ignatius speaks repeatedly, up to

13 times, of episcopi, presbyteri and deacons as of three distinct officebearers; he sees in the episcopus a messenger of Christ, Ef. 6, a χαρις θεου,

Magn. 2, a likeness of God or of Christ, Magn. 7. Trall. 2. 3. Smyrn. 8; and

he urges unceasingly, in the interest of the unity of the church, that the

members of the congregation unite with the bishop according to God’s

command, do nothing ecclesiastical outside him, and avoid all heresy and

schism most strictly. Yet the episcopal idea in Ignatius still stands only at

the beginning of its development; the bishop is no bearer of the tradition, no

priest of the N. Testament, no successor of the apostles, he is always

surrounded by the council of presbyters and deacons, as Christ by his

apostles, he bears an office in a local church and has no authority outside it.

In the congregations of Asia Minor, in Paul’s days, Acts 14:23, 20:17, Phil.

but several episcopi stood at the head. According to 1 Timothy 4:14 they

already together formed a college, a presbyterium. And one among them

stepped, according to Revelation 1:20v., so much into the foreground that he could

be designated as ἀ γγελος and be regarded as representative of the whole

congregation. Probably the development of the monarchical episcopate

attached itself to that. The presbyter who was charged with the leadership of

the assemblies and perhaps also, in distinction from all fellow officebearers, alone with the ministry of the word, was little by little regarded as

bearer of a special office. He alone was episcopus, while all others were

only presbyters. In this way it would also be explainable that Ignatius

presupposes the monarchical episcopate already as long existing, that

Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. III 23, 6 speaks of John as

ὁ που μεν ἐ πισκοπους καταστησων, and that this episcopate was already

soon, about the middle of the second century, introduced everywhere. If one

had not thought to rest in it on an apostolic tradition, the rapid spread would

be almost inexplicable. The new thing that meets us in Ignatius then

consists in this, that he uses the name episcopus exclusively for him who at

first was only primus inter pares, that he indeed still always holds this

episcopus in connection with but yet also already far elevates him above the

presbyteri and deacons, that he repeatedly compares him with God or with

Christ, and that he demands for him from the members of the congregation

an almost unlimited obedience. In this direction the development of that

episcopate continued. If in a congregation only one bishop might be, then it

spoke for itself that in a great congregation, with many church buildings,

that church obtained a certain precedence, to which the bishop was bound;

that the rural congregations founded from the cities became branches of the

mother congregation and a διοικησις (dioecesis, only since the 9th century;

before that time παροικια), of the bishop; that he alone could perform the

actual ecclesiastical acts, e.g. the eucharist, the ordination, the absolution,

etc. Therewith in principle the whole earlier relation was reversed; in

the apostolic time there were first congregations, assemblies of believers, in

which by the apostles episcopi and deacons were appointed, who were

chosen with the consent of the congregations and were subject to their

judgment. But now it was reversed; the true church, doctrine, baptism,

eucharist, communion with God is there where the bishop is, as Ignatius

says time and again and Irenaeus, Cyprian and others after him work out.

The struggle against the gnosis, which appealed to the tradition and thereby

sought to prove its right and truth, made it therewith necessary to set the

genuine, apostolic tradition over against it. And this was found in the

bishops as successors of the apostles and bearers of the tradition. They had

been appointed by the apostles in the congregations, had succeeded one

another in regular succession and therefore were bearers of the charisma

episcopate as continuation of the apostolate and of its inviolable authority in

the church was completed in that since the second half of the second

century the distinction of clergy and laity was introduced. Clerus, κληρος,

lot, inheritance, property, originally designated the congregation of Christ

as the inheritance or property of God, Deuteronomy 4:20, 9:29, 1 Petr. 2:5, Ignat.

Eph. 11, 2. Trall. 12, 3. Phil. 5, 1. But gradually the use of this word was

restricted, and first applied only to the presbyters, Tert. de monog. 12. de

exhort. cast. 7. Cypr. Ep. 15, 1, then also to the deacons, Clem. Alex. Quis

dives 42, Tert. de fuga 11. 12. Hippol. Philos. IX 12 and finally also to all

the ordines minores (acoluthi, exercistae, lectores, ostiarii), which arose at

the beginning of the third century, Cypr. Ep. 29. 34, 4. 59, 9. All these

servants of the church nevertheless gradually became more and more

independent of the congregation and were made into officials of the bishop

and then with him as clergy, as ecclesia docens set over against the laity, the

ecclesia audiens, which had nothing more to say but only still to listen and

to obey, cf. Cremer s. v. Harnack D. G. I 383 Sohm, Kirchenrecht I 157-

247. Thus arose the episcopal system of church government, which sees in

the bishop the lawful successor of the apostles and the spiritual prince of the

believers. According to that system various Christian churches are

constituted, the Greek church and many other Eastern churches and sects,

Hofmann, Symbolik § 44. 55. 62v.; further the Roman church, which

however has advanced from the episcopal system to the papal and therefore

was always opposed by the adherents of the pure episcopal system, such as

the men of the reforming councils, the Gallicans, the Jansenists, the

Febronians, the Old Catholics, Conc. Trid. sess. 23 c. 4 and can. 6.

Bellarminus, de membris ecclesiae militantis, Controv. II 2. Petavius, de

eccl. hierarchia, in 5 books, Theol. dogm. Paris. 1870 VIII 97-406. C.

Pesch, Prael. dogm. I prop. 33. Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogm. IV 1 S. 480.

Simar, Dogm. 624. Conc. Vatic. sess. 4 prooem.; and finally the Anglican

church, which in the first period by the mouth of Cranmer, Parkington,

Whitgift, Usher and others still defended the episcopal system only as a

permissible and useful jus ecclesiasticum, but later, especially after the

archbishops Bancroft and Laud, defended it as a jus divinum, Richard

Hooker, The laws of ecclesiastical polity 1593 etc., reprinted several times,

best ed. by Keble, Oxford 1845. Joseph Hall, Episcopacy by divine right

asserted 1640. Makower, Die Verfassung der Kirche von England, Berlin

1894. Art. Anglik. Kirche in Herzog3.

But the Roman church did not remain standing with the episcopal system

but developed it further into the papal system. Rome had already for

centuries been the world-city and also immediately assumed an important

place in the Christian church. Paul was indeed not the founder of the

congregation there, but nevertheless very much desired to see her, and

addressed to her his greatest and most important letter, Romans 1:9v., 15:22v.

Later he spent there a time, as did Peter likewise, and both found there

martyrdom. Because of her beneficence and helpfulness with respect to

other, weak congregations she soon became famous, Ign. Rom. Euseb. H. E.

IV 23, 10. VII 5, 2. According to the first letter of Clement she bore a

motherly care for the congregation of Corinth. With all the great questions

which in the second and third century were brought to the order of the day

by Gnosticism and Montanism, she was involved and laid the greatest

weight in the scale. There, about the middle of the second century, the first

list of bishops was drawn up; there the idea of the succession of the

bishops and of their apostolic dignity arose. Roman and catholic were from

the outset connected with one another and developed hand in hand,

Harnack, D. G. I 400 f. The congregation of the world-city became the

centre of the Christian church. The central significance which Rome had in

the pagan empire was transferred to the congregation and raised her to head

of all Christendom. This principate of the congregation at Rome, however,

in the first period still bore no ecclesiastical-legal, but only a moralreligious character. Rome was prima inter pares; all other congregations

stood equal with her; all bishops had with that of Rome equal rank. Irenaeus

indeed says in the famous passage, adv. haer. III 3, that every church and all

believers must agree with the church of Rome propter potiorem

principalitatem, because in her the apostolic tradition has been preserved

pure, but he nevertheless adduces the church of Rome by way of example,

ascribes principalitas to all churches founded by the apostles, and says only

that Rome possesses a potior principalitas, because she is the greatest, the

oldest, the best-known church, founded by the apostles Paul and Peter. Nor

does he speak with a word of the primacy of Peter nor also of the bishop of

Rome; all emphasis he lays on the church of Rome. Later he also contested

the excommunication which Victor I had pronounced over the Asia Minor

Quartodecimans, with the result that this one had to revoke it, Euseb. H. E.

V 24. This opposition may have concerned a matter of discipline, it

nevertheless proves the frankness and independence of Irenaeus and others

over against the bishop of Rome. Likewise Tertullian places all churches

founded by the apostles, Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi etc. on one line, even

though he also says that Carthage has in Rome her authority and that the

apostles in Rome totam doctrinam cum sanguine suo profuderunt, de

praescr. 36, cf. 20. de virg. vel. 2; in his Montanist period he contested the

edict of Calixtus concerning the readmission of the lapsed, called him

mockingly pontifex maximus, episcopus episcoporum, and saw in that a farreaching presumption, de pudic. 1. 13. 21. Cyprian also still stands on the

same standpoint; all bishops are equal, partake of one and the same

episcopal dignity, are as it were one bishop, stand at the head of the church

and must mutually preserve caritas animi, collegii honor, vinculum

Therefore in the conflict over heretical baptism he still resisted the bishop

of Rome, Stephen, Ep. 71-74; preserving unity, each bishop is nevertheless

to a certain extent independent and responsible to God alone, Ep. 72, 3. But

the above-mentioned new conception of the episcopate had by the nature of

the case to benefit Rome. The centre of gravity had been shifted from the

congregation to the bishop. This one was regarded as successor of the

apostles, as bearer of the treasure of truth and of apostolic power. If this was

so, which bishop could then make more claims and assert more rights than

the bishop of Rome? No church stood equal with that of Rome in power

and esteem; she left them all behind her and strove past them all, the

churches of Palestine and Asia Minor, soon also those of Antioch and

Alexandria. And the bishops of Rome knew how to make use of their

position and gradually began to vindicate what at first was moral influence

as a right. Yet it did not come so quickly to recognition of this right.

Tertullian still denied that Matthew 16:18 gave the bishop of Rome any power

over other churches, because it contained only a promise to Peter, de pudic.

21. Cyprian indeed laid strong emphasis on the unity of the church and also

made it rest on the identity of episcopal power, but in the cathedra Petri at

Rome he nevertheless saw of that power no more than a symbolic unity, de

unit. 4. The Synod at Nicaea in canon 6 still placed the bishops of Rome,

Alexandria and Antioch equal, granted to the latter two in their provinces

the same ἐ ξουσια as the bishop of Rome already possessed in Italy, ἐ πειδη

these and also still for other churches the primacy belonging to her, τα

πρεσβεια or τα πρωτεια. After the development of episcopal power in the

third century followed that of archiepiscopal or metropolitan dignity in the

fourth century; not Rome alone, but many churches alongside her had a

certain precedence or primacy in their provinces; the bishops in the course

of the fourth century were subjected to the archbishops. The East always

continued to resist the all-dominating primacy of the bishop of Rome. [90]

Alongside Alexandria and Antioch, since the middle of the fourth century

Constantinople rose more and more in ecclesiastical power. The council of

Constantinople in 381 can. 2 says that the bishop of Alexandria possesses

ecclesiastical power only in Egypt, that Antioch retains the rights which

according to Nicaea belong to it and that the bishops of the East will govern

only the East. And after it has thus limited the power of the bishop of

Alexandria to Egypt, it adds in can. 3, τον Κονσταντινου πολεως ἐ χειν τα

Ῥ ωμην. After the bishop of Rome, not that of Alexandria, even though he

also has the oldest rights and the oldest letters, but that of Constantinople

shall have the precedence of honour, not on the ground of any ecclesiastical

or spiritual prerogative, but only for the political consideration that

Constantinople is the new Rome. The West was left to the bishop of Rome,

but the East refused to bow before him and came more and more to stand

under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. The council of Chalcedon 451 can.

28 recognized the precedence, τα πρεσβεια, of the older Rome, because it

was the imperial city, δια το βασιλευειν την πολιν ἐ κεινην, but ascribed

equal precedence, τα ἰ σα πρεσβεια, to the holy see of the new Rome. In

spite of the protests of Rome, Constantinople maintained its rights. The

papal power of the bishop of Rome rested for a great part on the political

prestige of the city; these same claims could therefore Constantinople as

second Rome assert. The bishop of Rome has therefore never been shepherd

of all Christendom; he became the head only of Western, Latin

Christendom. And this he became by right only in the fourth century.

Already the later by the church not recognized synod of Sardica 343

charged the bishop of Rome with the decision whether, in case a bishop had

been deposed by a synod, a new synod would or would not be convened. In

the year 380 emperor Theodosius issued the famous edict, whereby he

commanded, cunctos populos, quos clementiae nostrae regit

temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum Petrum

apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat.

With the church fathers of the fourth and fifth century there is no doubt [91]

any more that they consider communion with and subjection to Rome

necessary for the essence of the church. From the church at Rome all rights

of ecclesiastical communion proceed, inde enim in omnes venerandae

communionis jura dimanant, Ambros. Ep. cl. 2 ep 2. Ecclesiae salus in

summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet, Hier. c. Lucif. 9. With him rests the

unadulterated tradition of the fathers, he is lux mundi, sal terrae, aurea vasa

et argentea, Hier. Ep. 15 ad Dam. Roman is the standard of the catholic; if

Rufinus holds to the faith of Rome, he is catholic; si Romanam responderit,

ergo catholici sumus, Hier. c. Ruf. 1, 4. When Innocentius I has confirmed

the decisions of the synod of Carthage and Milevis against Pelagianism and

has condemned Pelagius and Coelestius, Augustine says: causa finita est,

utinam aliquando finiatur et error! Ep. 132 de script. Clearly and

consciously Leo I 440-461 then develops this primacy of the Roman see in

various letters and raises it to the rank and value of a religious dogma,

which in Matthew 16:18 possessed its scriptural ground, cf. bij Heinrich, Dogm.

When development had progressed so far, the question naturally had to

arise, to what the pope owed so eminent a place and such a high authority.

In the Old Catholic period, even after the introduction of the monarchical

episcopate, the emphasis always fell on the local church; the church at

Rome had been founded by Peter and Paul, and therefore had the purest

tradition; all churches, in order to be Christian and catholic, had to agree

with it in faith, Iren. adv. haer. III 3. The bishop was therefore dependent on

his congregation; he was chosen by it and in all weighty matters, especially

in excommunication, took counsel with it. Cyprian expressly says in his

letters to the Carthaginian presbyterium, that he wishes to do nothing sine

difficult cases the counsel and help of delegates from neighboring

congregations were invoked, Hd. 15:2, Const. Apost. c. 1, Clemens, 1 Cor.

63. Cypr. Ep. 17, 3; the oldest ecclesiastical assemblies were congregational

assemblies, at most assisted by delegates from neighboring congregations.

But when the bishop was regarded as successor of the apostles and

precisely thereby was distinguished from all, then he could no longer [92]

be chosen by the congregation nor be dependent on it; he had to receive his

office from above in the way of succession, and thus be appointed and

ordained by a synod of bishops or by a chapter; he no longer had to consult

with the congregation but was sovereign and determined everything alone,

at most after consultation with the chapter gradually developing out of the

presbyterate. And what thus since the fourth century took place in the local

or diocesan churches, repeated itself on a larger scale in the universal

church. Out of the episcopate there arose in the course of time the papal

system, and the old congregational assemblies expanded into synods and

councils, which at first also still were composed of presbyters, deacons,

lectores but then subsequently only of bishops as representatives of the

congregations. These synods did not regard themselves as infallible; in the

fourth century a subsequent synod repeatedly annuls what the previous one

had established; and from that time until the 9th century they also bore a

political character, were imperial synods and were convoked by the

emperor, officially or unofficially led and confirmed. But the pope rose in

power; as bishop of Rome and archbishop of Italy he already had power to

convoke and lead provincial and national synods, just as other bishops

possessed that right elsewhere; since the 12th century he knew how to

expand these provincial and national synods, just as the bishop of

Constantinople had already done that with his συνοδοι ἐ νδημουσαι for the

Greek church, into ecumenical synods of the whole Western church. The

ecumenical councils of Western Christendom thus developed out of the

Roman synods, and were therefore convoked, led, and confirmed by the

pope. To be sure, the reforming councils in the 15th century, under the

influence of the humanistic theory of the superiority of the people,

attempted to make themselves, as assemblies of delegates of the whole

church, independent of the pope and to place themselves as infallible above

him. But the pope knew how to maintain himself also over against and

above the ecumenical synods and therefore had to be partaker of a

prerogative that was granted to no other bishop. After from the days of

Irenaeus onward for a long time agreement in faith with the church at Rome

was already regarded as necessary for the essence of the Christian churches,

because there with the lawful succession the charisma veritatis certum

rested, it was gradually expressed ever more clearly that this indefectibilitas

of the church of Rome had its ground in a special gift, which was bestowed

by the Holy Spirit upon the bishop of Rome, as successor of Peter. At first

the emphasis was still placed on the church at Rome; this could not fall

away, because it had been founded by the apostles Peter and Paul and was

continually led by their lawful successors. Thus Irenaeus says of the

presbyteri, that they cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum

secundum placitum Patris acceperunt, adv. haer. IV 26. But this gave no

sufficient guarantee, especially when many churches in spite of their

apostolic foundation fell away with their lawfully succeeding bishops and

wholly disappeared. Therefore, ever more the ground for the indefectibilitas

of the church at Rome was sought in this, that at its head stood a bishop

who, as successor of Peter, who also among the apostles occupied an

altogether special place, was partaker of a special gift and guidance of the

Holy Spirit. Augustine derived the unshakableness of Peter’s faith from the

intercession of Christ, Luke 22:32, de corr. et gr. 8. Ephraem Syrus said in

his panegyric on Peter, Paul and Andrew: lucerna Christus, candelabrum est

Petrus, oleum autem subministratio S. Spiritus. Leo the Great spoke in his

letter to the bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Vienna of a mirabile

munus gratiae, by which the building of the eternal temple is confirmed

upon the firmness of Peter, and declared elsewhere, that the chair of Peter

tanta divinitus soliditate munita est, ut eam neque haeretica unquam

perrumpere pravitas, nec pagana potuerit superare perfidia. Pope Hormisdas

testified in his libellus of the year 516, that the truth of the promise of

Christ to Peter is confirmed by the facts, quia in sede apostolica immaculata

est semper catholica servata religio. Likewise Pope Agatho declared in a

writing to the emperors of the year 680, that the church at Rome by the

grace of God and the protection of Christ has never deviated from the way

of truth and also by virtue of the promise of the Lord will never deviate

from it. It was therefore no longer a novelty, when Gregory VII in his

Dictatus Papae pronounced: Romana ecclesia nunquam erravit, nec in

perpetuum Scriptura testante errabit, and Boniface VIII in the bull

Unam Sanctam 1302 decreed: subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae

creaturae declaramus, definimus et pronunciamus esse de necessitate

salutis, cf. bij Heinrich, Dogm. Theol. II 357 f. With this practice and theory

of the popes the theologians agreed. Some, such as Bede, Alcuin,

Paschasius, Radbertus, Damiani, Anselmus, Lombardus, Sent. IV dist. 24

etc. still speak only in passing and with a few words about the authority of

the pope; indeed that is still the case with Thomas, C. Gent. IV 76. S. Theol.

4 etc. (cf. Leitner, Der h. Thomas v. Aq. über das unfehlbare Lehramt des

Papstes 1872) and Bonaventura, Breviloquium adjectis illustrationibus ex

aliis operibus ejusdem S. Doct. depromptis opera et studio Ant. Mar. de

Vicetia, Frib. 1881 VI c. 12. But the various attempts that from the 14th to

the 16th century were employed for reformation of the church brought

Rome to self-consciousness. Papalism proper or curialism emerged,

expressed the plenitudo potestatis and the infallibility of the pope clearly

and developed it many times to its ultimate consequences. Canus, Loci

theol. lib. 6. Bellarminus, de summo pontifice, in Tom. I zijner Controv. p.

188-255. Becanus, Manuale Controv. I c. 4. Theol. Wirceb. ed. 3 Paris.

1880 I 267 sq. Joseph de Maistre, Du pape 1819. Perrone, Prael. Theol.

1843 VIII 295-536. Heinrich, Dogm. Theol. II 163-476. Scheeben, I 220 f.

IV 397-458. Simar, Dogm. 598 f. Jansen, Prael. Theol. I 512-658. Ermann,

De Paus, Utrecht 1899 etc. On 18 July 1870 the constitutio dogmatica de

ecclesia Christi was adopted at the Vatican council, and thereby determined:

1o that the primatus jurisdictionis in universam Dei ecclesiam was

promised and entrusted immediately and directly by Christ to Peter; 2o that

this primacy of Peter continues in the bishop of Rome as his successor; 3o

that this primacy of the pope consists in plena et suprema potestas

jurisdictionis in universam ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et

mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen ecclesiae per totum

orbem diffusae pertinent, so that he is judex supremus fidelium, in all

matters that concern the churches has the highest decision, raised above

everyone’s judgment and subject to no council; 4o that in this primacy is

also included suprema magisterii potestas, so that the pope indeed

receives no new revelations and only under the guidance of the Holy Spirit

purely preserves and explains the transmitted revelation, but nevertheless

does this in such a way that he, when he speaks ex cathedra and as

Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians establishes a doctrine concerning

faith or morals, by divine support is partaker of infallibility, from himself

and not first as a consequence of the consent of the church. Cf. Acta et

decreta sacr. conc. rec. Collectio Lacensis VII Friburg 1890 p. 262-498.

5. Although this hierarchical church government in its origin is much

older than earlier Protestants were inclined to acknowledge and even goes

back to the beginning of the second century; although by the logical course

of its development and by the imposing character of its appearance it never

fails to make an impression; it is nevertheless in principle and essence in

direct conflict with the government which Christ has bestowed upon his

church. For, in the first place, the distinction between clergy and laity,

which lies at the foundation of this hierarchy, is nowhere taught in the N. T.

and is most decisively contradicted by the organization of the church of the

first century. Rome does indeed appeal, besides to the convenientia, to the

priesthood of the N. T., to the offices which Christ has instituted in his

church, and to the power which He has entrusted to it. But this does not

prove what must be proved. Scripture very certainly distinguishes between

shepherds and flock, builders and temple, planters and fieldwork, teachers

and disciples, leaders and followers, etc.; if by the names clergy and laity no

other than this distinction were meant, they could be used without harm.

But usage has attached to them a wholly different sense. Clergy has in the

Roman church become the name of a special class of ecclesiastical persons,

who by tonsure and ordination are separated from all others, form a distinct

estate of “clergy,” are in a wholly special sense the property of God, are

equipped with an absolute sovereign power over the people, and for the

laity serve as necessary and indispensable mediators of salvation, Cat. Rom.

II 7, 13. Now such an estate Scripture does not know. Even to the Old

Testament the antithesis of clergy and laity is not applicable; the whole

people was clergy, property and inheritance of the Lord, a priestly kingdom,

was not appointed but by virtue of descent from Aaron was called to this

service, was nevertheless most strictly bound to the law of God, Leviticus 10:11

and subjected to the judgment of the prophets, Jes. 28:7, Jeremiah 1:18, 2:26,

6:13, Ezech. 22:26, Hosea 4:9 etc.; Israel was a theocracy but no hierarchy.

Much less is there in the N. T. still any mention of a clergy: the H. Spirit has

been poured out upon all, Hd. 2:17, and now all are πνευματικοι, Rom.

a royal priesthood, 1 Petr. 2:5, 9, a congregation of saints and called ones,

Romans 1:7, a people and property of God, 2 Corinthians 6:16, 1 Petr. 2:10, Hebr.

12:22-24. Nowhere does the N. T. make mention of a special priestly office,

to be exercised by the ministers of the church, or of a special offering, to be

offered by them; the office in the church of Christ is no magisterium but a

ministerium, no ἱ εραρχια but a ἱ εροδουλεια, a διακονια, ο ἰ κονομια, which

all entirely excludes dominion over the inheritance of the Lord (των

κληρων, 1 Petr 5:3, i.e. the congregations entrusted to the presbyters for

Luther’s doctrine of the general priesthood of believers in Köstlin, Luthers

Theol. I 316. 376. II 538. Gerhard, Loci Theol. Loc. 23 § 37. Calvijn, Inst.

Bellarminus enervatus III c. 1. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. III p. 2. Cappellus, Synt.

thesium theol. in Acad. Salmur. III p. 272-279. M. Vitringa IX 1 p. 423-437.

Art. Geistliche by Caspari in Herzog3.

Secondly, nevertheless, Holy Scripture teaches very clearly that Christ in

his church not only distributes gifts, but has also instituted definite offices,

extraordinary ones such as those of apostle, prophet, and evangelist, and

ordinary ones such as those of elder and deacon. Concerning the episcopate

there is in addition the greatest difference. Greeks, Roman Catholics (also

Gallicans and Old Catholics) and Anglicans hold this to be an office which

is essentially and jure divino distinct from the presbyterate, by lawful and

uninterrupted succession descends from the apostleship and

specifically possesses the potestas magisterii, jurisdictionis and ordinis; the

bishops properly have only the teaching office, the power to preach and to

administer the sacraments, and in doing so they make use of the priests

(pastors) as their vicarii, and have the exclusive right of mission and

ordination; patriarchs, metropolitans, archbishops bear no other office but

are distinguished from the bishops only by an accidental power, by

jurisdiction over a larger territory, etc. Proofs from Holy Scripture for this

distinction are to be derived only from the offices which were held by

Timothy, Titus, and others, and from the ἀ γγελος in the seven Asia Minor

churches, Op. 1:20. But Timothy and many others were in that first time

called by the apostles to the extraordinary office of evangelist, above p. 66;

and the angels of the churches were no others than the first among their

equals, as the pastores now, so that the singularis in Openb. 2:10, 23, 24

also alternates with the pluralis. Bellarminus, de membris eccl. milit. I c.

14, Petavius, de eccl. hierarchia I c. 2 and others therefore also do not

mention Scriptural arguments, but appeal to the tradition in Irenaeus,

Tertullianus, Eusebius etc., who say that the apostles appointed a bishop in

various churches and provide the bishop-lists of some churches. But even if

the monarchical episcopate also arose very soon in the church, there is

nevertheless clearly to be seen in it a deviation from the ordinances of the

apostles. For the N. T. still knows nothing of an official distinction between

ἐ πισκοπος, and πρεσβυτεροs. Although the name πρεσβυτεροι in the first

time probably had a broader meaning, and sometimes also indicated the old

and venerable members of the church, as an official name it was

nevertheless identical with that of the ἐ πισκοποι. For there were in the

churches many ἐ πισκοποι, Hd. 20:17, 28, Philippians 1:1; and this επισκοπειν was

1:5, 7, 1 Petr. 5:1-3; Peter therefore also calls himself a πρεσβυτερος, 1 Petr.

5:1; of a special institution of the episcopate alongside the presbyterate the

N. T. therefore also knows nothing; apart from the extraordinary offices of

apostle, prophet and evangelist, there are only two ordinary offices, that of

deacons and that of πρεσβυτεροι, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1, 8, [98] ποιμενες και

testimonies of Scripture are so strong that not only Aerius in the 4th

century, the Waldensians, Wycliffe, the Reformers etc., called the

presbyteral and episcopal office identical, but also many church fathers,

such as Theodoretus, Chrysostomus, Epiphanius and others, saw themselves

compelled to the acknowledgment that in the N. T. the names of presbyter

and episcopus were used interchangeably; and Hieronymus, Ep. 65 ad

Evagrium and Comm. on Titus 1:5 even says that presbyteri and episcopi

were originally equal, but that later one from among them was set over the

others, in schismatis remedium, in Petavius, Dissert. eccles. I c. 1-3, cf. also

Lombardus, Sent. IV dist. 24, 9. The Roman Catholics cannot come to

terms with Scripture on this point. According to Hd. 20:17, 28, Philippians 1:1

there were undoubtedly several episcopi in one church; but the Roman

Catholics cannot acknowledge this and therefore say that the apostles

sometimes at the same time gave the presbyteri the episcopal ordination

(Petavius) or that under that term the episcopi of the neighboring churches

are at the same time included (Franzelin), or that the names of presbyteri

and episcopi were not yet distinguished, Scheeben, Dogm. IV 395. Ermann,

de Paus, 2e ged. 96. In the last case, however, the alleged difference

between the presbyteral and episcopal office is not maintainable. To this

testimony of Scripture there then still comes the lesson of history, that the

Roman episcopate is the root of the hierarchy, opens the way to the papacy,

brings with it the inequality of the churches and makes the believers

slavishly dependent on the offices. Also all this is utterly in conflict with

Scripture. A hierarchy does not exist in the church of Christ, Luke 22:25, 26,

2 Corinthians 1:24, 1 Petr. 5:3; a diocesan, cathedral, patriarchal or metropolitan

church does not exist, for all churches are in the N. T. equal and each has its

own ἐ πισκοποι; and nowhere are the believers commanded to investigate

the legitima successio of their ministers but to examine the Scripture, to

remain in the doctrine etc., John 5:39, Hd. 17:11, 1 Timothy 4:13-16, 2 Timothy 1:13, 14, 3:14-17; lawful succession does not guarantee the purity of

doctrine, John 8:39, Romans 2:28, 9:6, and would make salvation dependent on

certain persons and on an impractical, fallible and often even

impossible historical investigation. For these reasons the episcopate was

unanimously rejected by the Reformers. The Lutherans indeed were

prepared to recognize the right that it had acquired secundum

ecclesiasticam politiam, if only the essential thing in the episcopal office

remained the ministerium verbi et sacramentorum resting on divine right,

Symb. Bücher ed. Müller p. 62. 205. 286. 340. The name of bishop was also

sometimes retained and transferred to the territorial lord, or also in some

both Reformed and Lutheran churches one from a circle of ministers was

charged under the name of bishop or superintendent with the inspection

over a group of churches. Calvin and many others, Knox, a Lasco, Saravia,

Tilenus, Scultetus, Bochartus, Spanheim etc. had no overriding objection to

that, M. Vitringa IX p. 210 sq. But this was nevertheless something

essentially different from the episcopal office in the Roman church, which

according to the council of Trent differs essentially from the presbyterate,

rests on divine right and in the 17th century was also introduced and

defended in the Anglican church. Cf. Calvijn, Inst. IV 3, 8. 4, 2 sq. 5, 1 sq.

Beza, Responsio ad tractationem de ministrorum evangelii gradibus ab

Hadriano Saravia editam, 1592. Thomas Cartwright, † 1603, A directory for

church government 1644. William Bradshaw, † 1618, English Puritanism,

containing the main opinions of the rigidest sort of those called Puritans in

the realm of England 1604. David Calderwood, Altare Damascenum seu

politica ecclesiastica obtrusa ecclesiae Scoticanae 1621. Robert Parker, De

politica ecclesiastica Christi 1616. Smectymnus, an answer to Hall’s

Episcopacy by Stephen Marshal, Edmund Calamy, Thomas Young,

Matthew Newcomen and William Spurstow 1641. Blondel, Apologia pro

sententia Hieronymi de episcopis et presbyteris, 1646. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. III

832-869. Maresius, Examen quaestionis de episcoporum origine 1657.

Cappellus, Synt. thes. theol. in acad. Salm. III 296. Buddeus, de origine et

potestate episcoporum, Misc. Saera I 131. M. Vitringa IX 1 p. 141-229.

Thirdly, according to Holy Scripture it is established that the apostleship

was an exceptional, temporary, and unrenewable office in the church of the

N. T. Even if the episcopate were an office different from the presbyterate,

it would nevertheless absolutely not follow from this, that it was

identical with the apostleship and was its continuation. Naturally it can

indeed in a good sense be said that the episcopi or presbyteri are successors

of the apostles, for these appointed them in all the churches which they

founded, and entrusted the care of those churches to them. But that does not

remove the great and essential distinction between the two. Even from the

Roman side this distinction cannot be erased. For the apostles shared in a

wholly special guidance of the H. Spirit, and bore an office that extended to

the whole church, indeed to the whole world, Matthew 28:20. But their

successors, even if they should have been bishops in the Roman sense, by

no means have such an office; they are also according to Rome not

infallible and they have care only over a small part of the church, over a

dioecese, Schwane D. G. IV 267. 285. 294. Simar, Dogm. 612. Heinrich,

Dogm. II 247. Ermann, De Paus, 2e gedeelte 89v. Yet the distinction is still

stronger; the apostles were ear- and eyewitnesses of Jesus’ words and deeds,

they were called immediately by Christ himself to their office, received the

H. Spirit in a special measure, had an entirely unique task, namely to lay the

foundation of the church and in their word to offer the abiding means of

communion between Christ and his church. In all this they are distinguished

from all others, they stand high above all their successors, and they occupy

an office that is intransferable and unrenewable. The extraordinary gifts in

which they were permitted to share are bestowed on no other ministers in

the church. As apostles in the proper sense they have no successors, even

though it is also the case that the guidance of the church, to which they

were called, is also in another way and in a more limited circle entrusted to

others after them.

Fourthly, in Scripture no proof is to be found that the primacy of Peter

was again essentially distinguished from the apostleship which he had in

common with the same. Roman theologians also acknowledge that all that

Scripture relates of the precedence of Peter above the other apostles is still

not able to prove his primatus jurisdictionis over the other apostles,

Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogm. IV 405. The sedes doctrinae for this doctrine

are only Matthew 16:18, Luke 22:32 and John 21:15-17. But these also do not

contain what Rome derives from them. Matthew 16:18 teaches that Peter by his

confession is the rock, upon which Christ builds his church. This is of

course figurative language and, without the figure, nevertheless indicates no

less but also no otherwise than that Christ would make use of the person of

Peter as the faithful confessor, in order to gather his church. In the church as

the building of God the believers are the living stones, which are built up

upon the apostles as the foundation stones. That place Peter occupies in the

building of God, and he not alone, but all the apostles with him. For Peter

made the confession of Jesus’ Messiahship in the name of all, Matthew 16:15,

16; even if he uttered it first and most clearly, he nevertheless gave

expression to what unconsciously lived in the heart of all; and not only

Peter but all the apostles by this confession, which they soon proclaimed in

the midst of the world, laid the foundation of the church of Christ; in

figurative speech, therefore, they all with Peter were the rock on which

Christ built his church, or also is, with another application of the same

figure, Christ the rock, which the apostles together by their proclamation

laid as foundation of the congregation, Hd. 4:11, Romans 9:33, 1 Corinthians 3:10,

11, Ef. 2:20, 1 Petr. 2:5, 6, Op. 21:14. The power of the keys, which Peter

already receives because of his stout confession in Matthew 16:19, is granted to

all the apostles in 18:18, John 20:23. The special enabling and guidance of

the H. Spirit was not only the portion of Peter but likewise of all the

maintenance of the apostleship as an exceptional and non-transferable

office the Reformation does far more justice to all these texts, also to Matthew 16:18, than Rome. The apostles are and remain the founders of the church;

they are by their confession the rock of the congregation; no communion

with Christ except through communion with their testimony! As to the other

passage, Luke 22:32, Jesus says there to his disciples that Satan will try to

bring them all, ἱ μας in plur., to denial of their Master, but that He will pray

specifically for Peter, περι σου in sing., that his faith may not cease. Peter

would need this before all, because he would deny his Master first and most

strongly. That his faith then does not cease, he will have to thank solely to a

wholly special intercession of Jesus. And if he then by that prayer of Jesus

will be preserved and will rise again from his fall, then he, taught by

the trial and confirmed in his faith, will be able precisely to strengthen his

brethren, if these later perhaps should once waver in their faith. Just as of

Paul with the same word, στηριζω, it is said that he strengthened the

Petr. 5:10, so here it is promised to Peter that he later will serve his brethren

for encouragement, perseverance, confirmation. Of this glorious, spiritual

support legalistic Rome makes a primatus jurisdictionis! In John 21:15-17

finally Peter is restored to the rank which he formerly had occupied with

and under the apostles. He receives no new office, proceeding above that

which he formerly possessed. For the address with the name of Simon, son

of Jonah, the threefold question and the circumstances in which this event

took place, prove irrefutably that Peter is only restored to the rank which he

had forfeited by his denial of Jesus, thus to the apostleship and to the

primatus honoris, which had already been bestowed upon him earlier. And

thus also, when Jesus again entrusts to him the care and guidance of his

flock in general and of the sheep in particular, no other activity is assigned

to him than that which lay enclosed in the apostleship as such and thus also

belonged to all the other apostles, Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15, 2 Corinthians 11:28. The

precedence which Peter enjoyed among the apostles therefore also in no

way at all removed the fact that he is rebuffed by Jesus, whom he wished to

keep back from his impending suffering, as a satan and stumbling-block,

Matthew 16:23, is humbled for his self-exaltation above the other apostles, John 21:15, is rebuked by Paul for his insincerity in Antioch, Galatians 2:11, is sent

with John by the other apostles to Samaria, Hd. 8:14, had absolutely no

jurisdiction over Paul, Galatians 2:6, 9, is never in Scripture mentioned

separately as head and prince of the apostles, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ef. 2:20, 4:11,

Op. 21:14, and himself ascribes the preservation of the believers solely to

the power of God, calls himself a συμπρεσβυτερος and warns against

exercising dominion over the congregations, 1 Petr. 1:5, 5:1, 3.

Fifthly. But even if Scripture were to ascribe to Peter a primacy in the

Roman sense, which, however, is by no means the case, then nothing

would thereby yet be gained for the primacy of the bishop of Rome. For to

this end a great deal more still has to be proved, namely 1o that Peter was in

Rome, 2o that he there held the office of bishop and primate, and 3o that he,

with awareness and intent, transferred these two offices to one definite

successor. Now it has, in recent times by Baur and Lipsius, been contested

without right, that Peter was in Rome. If 1 Petr. 5:13 does not already

decide, where according to many by Babylon Rome must be meant, then

the testimony of tradition, from the earliest time on, with Clemens Rom.,

Ignatius, Marcion, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Canon Murat., Cajus,

Tertullianus, Hippolytus, Origenes, Lactantius etc. is so established and

unanimous, that its truth reasonably cannot be doubted. Also it may be

considered established, that Peter in the year 64 under Nero died as a

martyr, whether in the same year with or a couple of years before Paul. Op.

18:20, cf. 17:6, 19:2 points to it, that Rome has shed the blood of apostles,

and the named early-Christian writers all say unanimously, that Peter and

Paul in Rome, sometimes with the more precise determination of time,

under Nero, underwent martyrdom. But absolutely unprovable is, that Peter

stayed 20 to 25 years in Rome, that he was bishop of the congregation there

and primate of the whole church, and that Linus succeeded him in

episcopate and primacy. For, 1o Acts 12:17 reports, that Peter left

Jerusalem, not long before the death of Herod, vs. 23, who died in the year

44. That he then went to Rome is nothing but a supposition and lacks all

ground. But if this were also so, then thereby nothing other than a short visit

to Rome could be thought of, just as he then according to Harnack perhaps

also was in Corinth, 1 Cor. 1-3, 9:5; in any case Peter at the synod in Hd.

15, that is in the year 47, was back in Jerusalem. 2o In the letter which Paul

from Corinth about the year 54-58 wrote to the congregation at Rome, not a

single word is made mention of Peter’s stay and work at Rome; likewise

this does not happen in the letters to Philemon, Colossae, Ephesus, which

Paul probably, nor in that to Philippi, which he certainly wrote from Rome

in the years 57-58 or 61-63; and Peter too in his first letter, which he

from Babylon, 1 Petr. 5:13, that is perhaps Rome, wrote, makes with no

word mention of Paul, so that Zahn supposes, that Peter was precisely in

Rome between the first and second imprisonment of Paul, when this one

was on a journey to Spain, and there in the year 64 under Nero and a couple

of years before Paul underwent martyrdom. No longer than half a year or a

year, therefore, did Peter stay in Rome. 3o In agreement with these facts the

oldest tradition always names Peter and Paul alongside each other and says,

that not Peter alone, but Peter and Paul founded and confirmed the

congregation at Rome, Clemens 1 Cor. 5. Cajus and Dionysius of Corinth

with Euseb. Hist. eccl. II 25, 7. 8. Ignatius, ad Rom. 4. Iren. adv. haer. III 1,

1. 3, 1-3. Tert. de praescr. 36. Of a stay of many years and of an episcopate

of Peter at Rome these old histories know nothing. On the contrary,

according to the letter of Clemens from the years 93-95, the Pastor of

Hermas written in Rome about 100 or 135-145, and the letter of Ignatius to

the Romans, at that time, that is in any case about the end of the first

century, in Rome the monarchic episcopate did not yet exist, but the

congregation was led by a college of presbyters or episcopi. From the

bishop lists with Hegesippus, Irenaeus, the Murat. fragment, Hippolytus,

Tertullianus, Epiphanius it appears, that at the end of the second and even at

the beginning of the third century one still did not regard Peter as bishop of

Rome. The usual representation then was still this, that Peter and Paul had

founded the congregation and had entrusted to Linus the service of the

episcopate, Iren. adv. haer. III 3. And from Linus as first bishop the

following are then indicated as second, third etc., in such a way, that the

apostles Peter and Paul as ε ὐ αγγελιζομενοι και θεμελιουντες την

ἐ κκλησιαν, ib. III 1, 1 preceded them all, and the bishops after them came

and succeeded one another ἀ πο των ἀ ποστολων, i.e. from the time of the

apostles on, Iren. I 27, 1. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. V praef., 28, 3. Epiph. haer. 42,

1. 4o Only in the time of Victor or Zephyrinus, 180-217, is this old tradition

so altered, that Paul more and more lost his share in the founding and

confirming of the congregation at Rome and Peter was presented

exclusively as the institutor of the episcopate and thereafter also as the first

bishop of Rome. According to Tertullianus, de pudic. 21 Calixtus

already called himself bishop on the chair of Peter. Stephanus asserted, per

successionem cathedram Petri habere, Cypr. Ep. 71, 3. 75, 17. And

Cyprianus designated the chair of the bishop at Rome continuously as the

cathedra Petri, Ep. 55, 8. 59, 14. About that same time there also first arose

the legend, that Peter had labored 20 or 25 years long in Rome and had

been bishop there for so long. Eusebius in his church history still does not

speak of Peter as bishop and still names Peter and Paul alongside each

other, III 2, but names III 4, 9 Peter alone and says II 14, 6, that Peter

already under emperor Claudius came to Rome, in order to combat Simon

Magus. Here at the same time the origin of the legend is discovered.

Already before the middle of the second century it was held in Rome as a

fact, that Simon Magus under Claudius had come to Rome. The Acta Petri,

which arose about 160, taught in connection with Hd. 8, that Peter and

Simon Magus had fought much with each other. These traditions were

combined and thus gave birth to the legend, that Peter under Claudius had

come to Rome and there until his death in 64, thus about twenty years, had

lived. And Eusebius and Hieronymus made it into a constituent part of the

Roman tradition. Cf. Herzog2 11, 375 f. Hase, Protest. Polemik5 S. 150 f.

Kattenbusch, Vergl. Conf. 90 f. Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristl.

Litteratur bis Eusebius I 1897 passim, especially S. 171 f. 240 f. 703 f. Th.

Zahn, Einl. in das N. T. I 1897 II 1899 passim, especially II 17-27. Erbes,

Die Todestage der Apostel Paulus und Petrus und ihre röm. Denkmäler,

Leipzig Hinrichs 1899, who thinks, that Paul on 22 Febr. 63 was put to

death, that Peter, having heard of that, came to Rome and in the following

year there died as a martyr.

Sixthly, the Roman Catholics, although finding support in the tradition

after Irenaeus, are in no small embarrassment in face of the oldest

testimonies originating from the first and second century. But even if these

testimonies were more favorable and more to their advantage, they must

nevertheless all acknowledge that the primacy of the bishop of Rome is

built on a historical presupposition, namely on this, that Peter was in Rome,

that he there held the office of bishop and primate and transferred this

to his successor. Now this tradition, even supposing that it confirmed all

this, is nevertheless only a historical testimony, which, also according to

Rome, can lay claim not to infallible certainty but only to high probability.

The primacy of the bishop of Rome, the ecclesiastical dignity of the pope,

and thus the truth of the Roman church and the salvation of the Roman

church members is built on a historical probability, which can at any

moment be nullified by new testimonies. Eternity here hangs by a spider’s

web. But besides that, for Rome yet another difficulty presents itself. The

tradition in Julius Africanus, Origen, Eusebius, etc. relates that Peter, before

his journey to Rome, in the second year of the emperor Claudius was in

Antioch and there instituted the episcopate, Harnack, t. a. p. 118. 705. Let

this tradition now in itself be unreliable, for the Roman Catholics it is

nevertheless difficult to deny its truth, because they would then assume the

appearance of measuring with two measures. But even apart from this

tradition, it is most probable that, just as the other apostles, so also Peter

instituted the episcopate in various congregations. Why then is specifically

the bishop of Rome the successor of Peter and the heir of the primacy?

Peter was according to Rome nevertheless also primate when he stayed at

Jerusalem, at Antioch and elsewhere. With him, therefore, in any case there

existed no indissoluble bond between his primacy and the episcopate of the

congregation at Rome. He could therefore just as well have transferred that

primacy to another bishop than that of Rome. Did he, if he, which is very

probable, also elsewhere appointed episcopi in congregations, indeed

transfer the episcopate but expressly reserve the primacy, until he could

pass this on to the bishop of Rome? And why then did he do so? On what

authority did he act thus? What proof is there that Linus is the successor of

Peter, not only in the apostleship but also in the primacy? A historical,

ecclesiastical right, that it has always been understood thus, is not sufficient

for this, for it concerns precisely the foundation on which the whole Roman

church rests. There must be a divine right for it. But this is not there; Christ

has not spoken a word of Peter’s episcopate at Rome nor of his successor

there; Peter himself has, neither according to Scripture nor according to

tradition even in the remotest degree indicated that the episcopus at

Rome was his only, true successor. The connection of the primacy with the

Roman episcopate thus rests only on the fact that Peter was in Rome and on

the unhistorical presupposition that he there held the office of bishop and

primate. Even if this latter were historically correct, then it still did not give

what it must give. For then the strictly necessary proof was still lacking,

that Peter consciously, intentionally, by virtue of apostolic authority and

divine commission, wished to transfer and actually transferred this

episcopate and this primacy to his successor at Rome. That is, the primacy

of the Roman bishop over the whole church hangs in the air; it can point to

no jus divinum on which it rests; and it does not even have a reliable,

historical foundation. The Roman theologians must therefore, in spite of

themselves, acknowledge that the primacy of the Roman bishop neben einer

unmittelbar göttlichen Grundlage, nämlich der Einsetzung des Primates als

einer dauernden Institution (which however is also unprovable), auch eine

menschlich vermittelte Grundlage von geschichtlicher Natur possesses,

Scheeben-Atzberger, Kath. Dogm. IV 1 S. 425. Therefore finally the Roman

theologians among themselves are also not unanimous about the nature of

the connection of primacy and Roman episcopate. Some, such as

Dominicus Soto, Banner, Mendoza e. a. are of the opinion that that

connection is only ex jure ecclesiastico and that the primacy of the Roman

episcopal see can be transferred to another. Ballerini, Veith e. a. leave the

question undecided and consider it most difficult to answer. But Cajetanus,

Canus, Suarez etc. are of the judgment that Peter, after he had instituted the

episcopate in Antioch, received a special divine revelation and by virtue of

this bound the primacy inseparably to the episcopate at Rome, Schwane, D.

G. IV 300. 303. 311. 341 and further Bellarminus, de Rom. pontif. lib. II.

Theol. Wirceb. ed. Paris. 1880 I 267-306. Perrone, Prael. theol. Lov. 1843

VIII 295-419. Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogm. IV 424-435. Jansen, Prael. I

512-582. Hettinger, Apol. des Christ. IV 1897 S. 499-618. W. Esser, Des h.

Petrus Aufenthalt, Episkopat und Tod zu Rom., Breslau 1889. Joseph

Hollweck, Der apost. Stuhl und Rom, Mainz 1895. Although this dispute

has not yet been formally brought to a decision, popes, councils,

theologians speak mostly in favor of the latter opinion; involuntarily they

always proceed from the insoluble connection of both. By the Syllabus of

Pius IX prop. 35 it has been decided that those entitled to vote may not

transfer the primacy from the city of Rome and its bishop to another city

and bishop. Only the question remains whether the pope himself would be

allowed to do this; and this is naturally to be decided only by the infallible

one himself. The Roman Christian is therefore obliged to believe that

communion with the local church at Rome is necessary to salvation. The socalled catholic church is in truth Roman church; that is its name and its

essence.

6. The Roman hierarchy, the further it developed, provoked all the more

serious resistance and opposition. In the Middle Ages various sects arose,

which rejected Rome as Babylon and the pope as the antichrist. And in the

century of the Reformation this opposition spread over the whole of

Western Christendom. By an understandable reaction many came to reject

every church institute, or to see in it only a free, arbitrary creation of the

congregation, or also silently to concede all government of the church to the

Christian civil authority, above p. 20v. Even among the Lutherans the

independent government of the church did not come into its own. To be

sure, Luther originally proceeded from the general priesthood of believers

and from the church as communion of saints. But his standpoint was also

here too anthropological for him to be able to derive, from the confession of

the kingship of Christ, a government of his own for his church. The form of

church government he regarded to a certain extent as an external, indifferent

matter; if need be, a papal or episcopal government was good for him,

provided only that it did not place any hindrance in the way of the

proclamation of the gospel, Art. Smalc. II 4. The church becomes visible

only in word and sacrament but absolutely not in any way of organization

or form of government; Christ rules in his church only through the

preaching office. This conviction, joined to his view of the civil authority as

praecipuum membrum ecclesiae, brought Luther to call upon the civil

authority already in his writing An den christl. Adel deutscher Nation 1520

to undertake the work of reformation. In 1526 he even requested the Elector

of Saxony to take the work of visitation in hand. On 27 Aug. 1526 at Speyer

the reformation was placed under the protection of princes and estates. And

from 1527 onward the government of the church rested in the hands of the

territorial civil authority. The ordo ecclesiasticus (the pastores) did indeed

retain the administration of word and sacrament, the ordo oeconomicus (the

congregation) received the right of consensus and approbatio; but the ordo

politicus (the civil authority) obtained the whole externa gubernatio, that is,

the right to appointment, maintenance, dismissal of the pastores, to the

founding of churches and schools, to regulation of religious exercises, to

reformation of doctrine etc., and exercised this power under Melanchthon’s

inspiration since 1529 through consistoria. The grounds on which the

Lutherans conceded this extensive right over the church to the civil

authority were various. But whether the civil authority was regarded as

substitute of the bishops, or it was supposed that it had silently received this

power from the church, or it was honored as the principal member of the

church, it always nevertheless came down to this, that the church was

almost deprived of all government of its own. But all these systems of

church government, which during and after the Reformation have arisen in

many Protestant churches, do not correspond to what Scripture teaches

concerning this. For, 1o however closely under Israel the religious and the

civil life was connected, there was nevertheless already then also

distinction; alongside the kings there existed the priests, who assumed an

independent position and were called to a task of their own. Much more

independent has the congregation as the people of God still become in the

days of the N. Test. For not only was it then detached from the national

relations of Israel but it also received on the day of Pentecost in the H.

Spirit an independent principle of life, which grants it, over against state

and society, a character of its own and an independent existence. 2o The

essence of the church consists in this, that it is an assembly of believers in

Christ. As such it is not and cannot be a foundation of men. It arises not by

the will of the flesh nor by the will of man, but by birth from God. It is no

product of human association nor of the good pleasure of the state, but is in

its origin and essence a miracle, fruit of a special, gracious activity of

God and therefore also by virtue of its nature independent, autonomous,

free over against all favor or disfavor of men. 3o Already from this it

follows that the congregation must have a government of its own. It has a

life of its own, bears in that life a special law of life, which God has laid in

it, and for that naturally also demands a free, independent expression. It is

not correct to say that the manner of organization and the form of

government for the church of Christ is an indifferent matter. So loose and

indifferent do essence and form, the invisible and the visible, the internal

and the external never stand alongside or over against each other. It is true

that the church first of all comes to expression in the administration of word

and sacrament, in the purity of doctrine and of life, but the government of

the church does not bypass all this, but stands in very close connection with

it. Precisely in order that word and sacrament may be administered purely

and doctrine and life may be ordered accordingly, a good government is

needed. The confession is the main thing but the church order is the means

to maintain the confession. And just as an impure confession also falsifies

the government, so from a bad government there proceeds a corrupting

influence upon the confession. 4o Christ has therefore bestowed upon his

congregation a government of its own. He himself called, equipped, and

ordained the apostles, who are the foundation of the church. And these

apostles in their turn under his guidance instituted the ordinary offices of

overseers and deacons, so that the congregations of Christ in their absence

and after their death would not be deprived of government. These ordinary

offices too have their origin in God, Hd. 20:28, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ef. 4:11 and

have not ended in the apostolic time but have been instituted for the purpose

that they would remain until the end of this dispensation, Hd. 14:23, 1 Tim.

3, Titus 1:5. Scripture is not a church order but it nevertheless contains

principles of church government, which cannot be neglected without harm

to the spiritual life. 5o Therefore it is also not good to say that the

congregation of Christ itself can give itself a government according to the

demand of circumstances or can silently or intentionally assign this to the

Christian civil authority. For although in a certain sense it can be said that

the congregation itself gives itself its government and establishes the

institute of the church, because the apostles in instituting the ordinary

offices consulted the congregations and these designated the persons

for those offices, yet that is only in a certain sense the case. It is always

Christ who calls to the offices and equips; the congregations can and may

designate the persons, but in doing so they are not independent and

autonomous but bound to the ordinances of the Lord; they may not proceed

arbitrarily and according to their own insight in the establishment of the

institute, but in that too they have to ask what the Lord wills that they shall

do. Therefore it is also not free to the congregations to abolish the offices or

to assign the government to the Christian civil authority. For even if it is

true that under a Christian civil authority and in a Christian society there

will come more and more agreement and cooperation with the church in the

standard, in the assessment, and in the maintenance of doctrine and life, yet

even then the task of church and state remains essentially distinct. The same

sin is punished differently in the church than in the state; the discipline

which the former exercises differs as heaven from the punishment which

the latter imposes. The care of the poor, the oversight over the flock, the

administration of word and sacrament, the calling and election of the

ministers remains the inalienable right and the precious duty of the

congregation.

The Reformed have seen this, thanks to their deep sense of the

sovereignty of God. He who proceeds one-sidedly from the goodness or the

love or the fatherhood of God does not arrive at that. But he who places not

one of God’s virtues but all those virtues together in the foreground and

proceeds from God as God, cannot do otherwise than place every creature

in dependence and humility under Him. God is sovereign, always and

everywhere, in nature and grace, in creation and re-creation, in world and

church. His ordinances and rights are the rule of our life, for man is His

creature, subject to Him and obligated to absolute obedience. In the church

this naturally led to the glorious confession of the kingship of Christ. For

just as God in civil life, on account of sin, had instituted the government, so

He has anointed His Son as king over Zion, the mountain of His holiness,

and has given Him to the church as a Head over all things, Ps, 2:6, Ef. 1:20,

Philippians 2:9-11. Christ is not only prophet, who instructs by His word and

example; not only priest, who reconciles by His offering, but He is

also king, who preserves and protects His own, who to that end is clothed

with power in heaven and on earth, and in a far truer sense is king than any

worldly prince. He is that not only according to His divine but equally

according to His human nature; the man Christ Jesus has been exalted at the

Father’s right hand. And He was all this not only from eternity and in the

days of the O. Test., and during His stay on earth, but He is all this still

today and unto the end of the ages; He is yesterday and today the same and

into eternity. Yes, He is it now in the state of exaltation in a much richer

sense than He was in the state of humiliation and in the time that preceded

it. For indeed He was from eternity anointed as king and exercised this

office together with that of prophet and priest immediately after the fall and

unto the death of the cross. But on account of His humiliation God has

highly exalted Him and given Him a name above every name. By the

resurrection He has been ordained and appointed as Son of God in power,

has He κυριος become, has He received all power in heaven and on earth,

and now reigns, until He shall have completed the kingdom and shall have

laid all enemies under His feet, deel III 415v. This kingship of Christ falls

into two parts. It is on the one hand a regnum potentiae, Psalms 2:8, 9, 72:8,

3:22, Op. 17:14. In order that Christ may in truth be king over His people,

whom He redeems, protects, and preserves, He must have power in heaven

and on earth, over Satan and world. It is a kingship of power, subordinate to

and means for His kingship of grace. It does not lie in it that the Father has

relinquished the government of the world, and that all authority in creation

now descends from Christ and is exercised in His name. But God has

granted to the Mediator Christ, on the ground of His perfect obedience, the

right and the power to gather His people together out of the world, to

protect them against all enemies, and to subject those enemies themselves

completely to Himself. God governs the world in such a way that Christ

may claim the Gentiles as His inheritance and the ends of the earth as His

possession. In the exaltation the Father has acknowledged and appointed

His Son as a κληρονομος παντων, Hebr. 1:2. But on the other hand

the kingship of Christ is a regnum gratiae, Psalms 2:6, Jes. 9:5, 6, Jeremiah 30:9,

And because this kingship bears an entirely different character than that of

the princes of the earth, Christ in the N. T. is called much more head than

king of the church, deel III 421. For it is indeed a kingdom of grace, in

which Christ rules through His Word and Spirit. His Word comes to us out

of the past, binds us to the historical person and the work of Christ

accomplished in time, and asks of us faith in the sense of assensus, cognitio.

But He who descended is the same also who ascended far above all

heavens, who is seated at God’s right hand and with His Godhead, majesty,

grace, and Spirit dwells in us and never departs from us. It is the living

Christ, exalted at the right hand of God, who with consciousness and

freedom gathers His church, conquers His enemies, and leads world history

toward the day of His parousie. He is still in heaven active as mediator, and

through His Spirit on earth present in church and office, in word and

sacrament. Also the application of salvation is His work. He is the acting

one, and offices and ministries are nothing but means in His almighty hand.

It is therefore absurd to think that He would have transferred the

government of His church to any man, to a bishop or pope, to an institute or

sacrament. He is and remains the Lord from heaven, who precisely to that

end has been exalted to head of the church, in order that He Himself might

rule and fill all things, deel III 409. 449. This kingship of Christ was the

Materialprinzip of Reformed church government. It was already expressed

by Zwingli, and developed and maintained by Calvin; it found a place in

almost all confessional writings and from the 16th century on to the present

day was the driving force for combating all human dominion in the church

of Christ and for the recovery and preservation of her freedom and

independence. Cf. Helv. I 18. Helv. II 17. Gall. 30. Belq. 31. Scot. 16.

Westm. 25. 30. Calvijn, Inst. II 15, 3-5. Martyr, Loci 403. Bucanus, Inst.

theol. 464. Synopsis pur. theol. disp. 41. M. Vitringa IX 125 enz. cf. Rieker,

Grundsätze ref. Kirchenverf. Leipzig 1899 S. 105 f. [114]

7. The kingship of Christ over his church consists in this, that He gathers

and governs his own by Word and Spirit and shelters and preserves them in

the salvation acquired, Heid. Cat. 31. 54. The church has its foundation and

unity in the counsel of God, in the covenant of grace, in the person of

Christ, but it must, as consisting of human beings, be gathered and brought

in by Word and by Spirit. This gathering takes place through Christ and

proceeds from Him. Even though He makes use therein of offices and

means of grace, He is nevertheless the one who distributes the benefits of

the covenant and thereby founds his congregation. He himself builds the

congregation upon the rock of the confessing apostles, Matthew 16:19 and these

are the ones who, as instruments in his hand, build the congregation upon

Him as the foundation, 1 Corinthians 3:11. Christ is the vine, and the believers are

the branches, which proceed from Him, draw sap, and bear fruit, Joh. 15.

Christ is the head, and the congregation is the body, which is joined

together out of Him and obtains its growth, Ef. 4:16, Colossians 2:19. Christ is the

Shepherd, and the believers are the sheep, who are brought in by Him and

joined together into one flock, John 10:16. Christ is the Lord, who adds

those who are being saved to the congregation, Hd. 2:47. Because the

congregation is an organism, the head precedes the members and the

ecclesia universalis precedes the ecclesia particularis. The church in its

entirety does not come into being through the atomistic joining together of

different parts. But the ecclesia catholica is there first, it has its subsistence

in Christ, came in the days of the N. T. first to manifestation in the church at

Jerusalem and then spread from there to other places. Every ecclesia

particularis (localis) is, in the place where it appears, a manifestation of the

ecclesia catholica, of the people of God. Already by virtue of its origin it

stands with this in indissoluble connection. For no single local church arises

autochthonously out of the unconscious, but was planted by the seed of the

word, which another church caused to be sown there in that place. Indeed,

according to the doctrine of Holy Scripture every local church is

independent, an ecclesia completa, however small and insignificant it may

be. There are no mother churches in the sense that the one church would be

permitted to rule over the other; neither Jerusalem nor Rome has any claim

to such a government. All churches stand equal, because they all,

even if the one was also founded by the other in a mediate way, in the same

way, i.e. directly and absolutely, are dependent on Christ and bound to his

word. Therefore the Reformed have not only broken the connection of their

churches with those at Rome but have also put an end to the diocese and the

parish. A diocese, for its part, is the ecclesiastical territory of a bishop, who,

connected to the principal church, from there governs the whole circle of

believers. And a parish designates the group of believers in a certain place

only as object of the activity of the parochus. Both concepts point to the fact

that bishop and parochus are sent to the believers from outside, and stand

high above them as regents. But this is not the case. Every church is

independent, chooses and calls its ministers and stands in the church

federation, into which it was received, completely equal with all other

churches. Sometimes, e.g. with the churches of the Huguenots in France, it

has the appearance as if the federation has arisen wholly freely by

confederation. But that is nevertheless not the Reformed view, which on

this point decidedly stands over against that of the Independents. In the

description of the essence of the church all Reformed theologians

proceeded from the ecclesia universalis and thus descended to the ecclesiae

particulares, M. Vitringa IX 60. These latter are local manifestations of the

one mystical body of Christ, are therefore spiritually one, stand by virtue of

their historical origin in connection with one another and are obliged, on the

Lord’s part, to maintain fellowship with all who partake of the same faith.

Every local church is therefore at the same time an independent

manifestation of the body of Christ and a part of a greater whole; an

ecclesia particularis, which arises out of and stands spiritually and

historically in connection with the ecclesia catholica, cf. Rieker, Grundsätze

ref. Kirchenverf. 80 f. And what holds for every local church is also

applicable to each of its members in particular. No single church and no

single living member owes his origin to his own will or to the work of

human beings. Christ has called and gathered him, be it also by means of

the ministry of the word, and him not only but all who are members of the

congregation. Thus it is then not we, but it is Christ alone, who

determines who are members of the congregation and with whom we have

to live in fellowship. It does not stand at our pleasure whether or not to join

this or that church; but it is a due duty of all believers, to join themselves to

that church which comes to manifestation most purely as the church of

Christ, Ned. Gel. 28. Here too the Reformed stand over against the

Independents. The believers do not divide themselves arbitrarily into

conventicles and congregations and do not themselves select with whom

they wish to gather together. But in a certain place all believers belong

together and are there together the people of God and the congregation of

Christ. Just as it is God who ordains the times and the determinations of

each one’s dwelling, Hd. 17:26, so it is also Christ who, joining himself to

this ordinance of the Father, gathers the believers locally and causes them to

appear as an independent ecclesia. Nature and grace were also on this point

not torn apart by the Reformed, nor set hostilely over against one another,

for grace restores nature and the gospel is the fulfillment of the law. Yet

with this unity of the local church the so-called parish formation is not in

conflict. Various congregations in the N. T., Jerusalem, Rome, Corinth etc.,

were each in itself a unity; that at Jerusalem stood under the same college of

apostles and appointed in its entirety seven deacons, and those at Rome,

Corinth, Colossae received from Paul letters, in which all believers in the

same place are by him comprehended as a unity. But that nevertheless did

not take away that those congregations at their gatherings came together in

different buildings and thus again formed distinct house congregations. And

to that every church must come, which expands to a membership of

thousands of souls. Just as then it is permitted and obligatory to come

together in different buildings, so it is also, in the interest of the spiritual

well-being, the government and the care of the believers, commanded, to

connect to each group of believers, which gathers in a certain building, a

certain number of ministers, elders and deacons. To the unity of the church

this need do no harm, since that can express itself in the consistory, in the

administration, in the calling of ministers etc. And sometimes, with the

great expansion of many cities in the present time, parts of cities are more

different from one another in character than nearby villages or

hamlets and the churches that have been formed there.

In these local churches Christ pours out all kinds of gifts, not only saving

gifts of regeneration, conversion, faith, etc., but also spiritual gifts, which

are known under the name of charismata, above p. 29. In the apostolic time

there was a rich distribution of them; but although they have in part

changed in nature and operation, they are also now still bestowed by the H.

Spirit upon the believers, in order that with them they might serve one

another and manifest themselves as one body. The congregation is not

immature, it is no ecclesia audiens or ordo oeconomicus, which has only to

listen and to be silent. But it partakes of the anointing of the Holy One,

consists of many members, who all have need of one another, and may not

neglect the gifts bestowed upon it. Every congregation is and must be an

army of salvation, which under Christ wages war against devil, world, and

flesh and knows no soldiers at rest or in non-activity; a communion of

saints, in which all suffer and rejoice with one another and willingly and

with joy employ their special gifts for the benefit and unto the salvation of

the other members. And just as all believers have a gift, so they also all

stand in the office. They have not only in the church as organism but also in

the church as institute a calling and task, which is imposed upon them on

the Lord’s behalf. The apostles do indeed precede the church, are its

founders and bind it to them, i.e. to God’s word. But they do not appoint

office-bearers beforehand and not arbitrarily, but first found congregations

and then have elders and deacons elected by those congregations

themselves. Therefore the general office of believers precedes the special

office of overseer and caretaker of the poor. For Christ is in the midst,

where two or three are gathered in his name, Matthew 18:19, 20. He has acquired

the H. Spirit for all, who dwells in all believers as his temple, Hd. 2:17, 1

Cor. 6:19, Ef. 2:22 etc., so that they, anointed with that Spirit, are a holy,

royal priesthood, 1 Petr. 2:5, 9; prophets, who proclaim the virtues of God,

confess his name, and know all things, Matthew 8:38, 10:32, 1 John 2:20, 27;

priests, who present their bodies as a living, holy, to God well-pleasing

who fight the good fight, overcome sin and world and death and shall one

Christians, anointed ones, Hd. 11:26, 26:28, 1 Petr. 4:16, cf. Heid. Cat. vr.

32. This prophetic, priestly, and kingly activity of the believers may be

called the exercise of an office. For already in general man is not there for

himself, but for God’s will. God created him after his image, in order that

he might know, love, and glorify Him, and thus as prophet, priest, and king

might serve Him. But specifically Christ has been appointed by the Father

as mediator, as servant of the Lord, as prophet, priest, and king, in order to

bring about again and to complete this work, which man had neglected and

disrupted. And to that end the believers are now also called. As anointed

ones, who partake of communion with Christ, they are called to the same

work, service, and struggle, John 12:26, 14:12. From the moment of their

calling the believers are no longer even their own but belong to Christ; they

are his servants, have to do his will and to accomplish his work. They are

the salt of the earth, the light of the world and have in and with respect to

the church specifically a threefold task. In the first place they are obliged to

join the church. They do not stand on their own, but are members of the

body of Christ and thus have to seek and maintain communion with it. In

the second place they are in that congregation called to all kinds of activity,

to the application of the gifts for the benefit of others, to suffering with and

rejoicing with the brethren, to visiting the assemblies of the believers, to

proclaiming the Lord’s death, to having oversight over one another, to

serving and distributing in mercy etc. And finally they are each in his own

way and in his own measure also obliged to the formation and reformation

of the church. If there are believers anywhere in the world, and there exists

no opportunity for ministers from elsewhere to lead the election to the

offices instituted by Christ and to lay hands on the elected, then they

themselves have the right, to elect and ordain office-bearers together in the

name of the Lord. Thus it happened in fact at Mainz and at Paris in 1555,

cf. Lechler, Gesch. d. Synodal- und Presb. Verfassung, 1854 S. 65. 66.

Doumergue, Jean Calvin 1899 I 232; thus the Reformed judged, Voetius,

Desp. Causa Papatus p. 268 sq., and thus was also the opinion of Luther,

Köstlin, Luthers Theol. I 327. The office does not, after all, depend on any

succession, it does not arise by transfer; it rests on the gift and the calling of

Christ and on the designation of his congregation. And that congregation is

itself mature and partakes of the gifts of the H. Spirit; the gifts necessary for

the office are not essentially different from those which are bestowed upon

all believers; therefore it can designate from its midst those who are

adorned in special measure with official gifts and call and elect them in

Christ’s name to the office. But from that it also follows that the believers

themselves, if need be, may proceed to the reformation of the church. If a

church in its offices and ministries shows that it ascribes more authority to

itself and its ordinances than to the word of God and clearly manifests itself

as a false church, then the believers have the holy office and the guilty duty,

to separate themselves and again to live ecclesiastically according to the

Lord’s word, Ned. Gel. art. 28. 29.

8. On the basis of these gifts and this office of all believers Christ has also

instituted special offices in the church. The apostles indeed rendered

ministerial service in this, but it is nevertheless Christ who gives these

offices, and makes the persons fit for them and chooses them. In the Roman

church, however, Richer maintained, de ecclesiastica et politica potestate

1611, that Christ had entrusted all power primarie, proprie et essentialiter to

the church and then instrumentaliter, ministerialiter et quoad exsecutionem

to pope and bishops, Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogm. IV 404. Luther in the first

period inferred from the general priesthood of believers that the

administration of word and sacrament had actually been granted to all but

was exercised, for the sake of order, by one of them, Köstlin, Luthers Theol.

I 327. Reformed writers sometimes express themselves as if the power of

the ministers actually belongs to the congregation and is exercised by them

in its name, Amesius, Med. I 35, 6. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII qu. 24, 7. 8.

19. 26. More than once the image is used that, just as the human being sees

through the eye and hears through the ear, so the congregation

performs the instituted activities through the offices. And in more recent

times the conception is general that the office is an organ of the

congregation. All this is only partly correct. In Matthew 18:17 Jesus does indeed

give the power of the keys to the whole congregation, but He uses this word

there still in an entirely general sense, without making mention of the

organization that would later be introduced. As soon as this is there, we see

that the power of the keys rests with the apostles and then with the

overseers. The power can also in general be called bestowed on the church,

because it serves to its salvation and welfare, and thus, if not formaliter,

then at least finaliter has been bestowed on it. It is toti quidem ecclesiae ad

illius aedificationem destinata, but proprie a solis ejus ministris tractanda,

Maresius, Syst. Theol. XVI 70, cf. against Richer Petavius, de eccl. hier. III

c. 14-16. The offices in the church of Christ are not a ruling but a serving

power; they exist for the sake of the congregation, 1 Corinthians 3:22, Ef. 4:12;

Paul even calls himself with his fellow-servants δουλους ὑ μων δια Ιησουν,

2 Corinthians 4:5. The goal of the church as institute lies in the gathering of the

elect, in the building up of the body of Christ, in the perfecting of the saints

and thus in the glorification of God, Ef. 4:11. God certainly could also have

led his people to salvation without any means of church or office, word or

sacrament. But his good pleasure has been to gather his elect through the

service of men; the church has the salus electorum as its goal; the offices

are necessitate hypothetica necessary, Gall. 25. Belg. 30. Helv. II 18.

Voetius, Pol. I 17. III 213. Vitringa, IX 131 sq. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII

qu. 22. But nevertheless, although the offices in that sense exist for the

congregation, they are nevertheless not its organ, and have not received

their power from it. For in the O. T. Moses and Aaron, priests and prophets

were called and appointed by the Lord; in the N. T. the apostles, Paul

included, were chosen and made fit directly by Christ himself. False

prophets and apostles precisely have no mission from God’s side and come

only in their own name, Jeremiah 32:21, 32, John 5:43, but the true servants

appeal to their mission from God’s side and derive from that their power

and authority, Jes. 6:8, Jeremiah 1:4, Hosea 1:1, Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:1 etc. Therefore,

although they are also in the service of the congregation, they are

nevertheless called διακονοι Χριστου, Colossians 1:7, Hd. 20:24, 1 Timothy 1:12,

δουλοι Χριστου, Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:10, 2 Petr. 1:1, ὑ πηρεται Χριστου, Hd.

being the mouth of God and envoys on behalf of Christ, on Christ’s behalf

beseech that one let oneself be reconciled with God, 2 Corinthians 5:20, and

without pleasing men, proclaim the gospel that has been entrusted to them,

1 Thess., 2:4 and dispense the mysteries of Christ, 1 Corinthians 4:1. Therefore as

overseers and caretakers they also stand above the congregation, are its

ἐ πισκοποι, προισταμενοι, ἡ γουμενοι, are responsible for its spiritual

welfare, and have a claim to its esteem and obedience. And this holds not

only for the extraordinary but also for the ordinary offices. These too are

is no preaching without sending, Romans 10:15. No one may take this honor

to himself, except he who is called by God, John 10:1, 2, Hebr. 5:4. Even if

it is the case that all believers are called to proclamation of the gospel, Hd.

8:4, 13:15, 1 Corinthians 14:26; to do this with power and authority in the Lord’s

name, as an odor of life unto life or an odor of death unto death, requires a

special sending and commission.

The way by which Christ places his servants in office runs through

vocation, examination, and ordination. Since the calling no longer, as to

prophets and apostles, comes to someone in an extraordinary manner, it is

knowable only from the concurrence of the inward and the outward calling.

The inward calling, which therefore is indeed to be distinguished from the

supernatural and extraordinary, consists 1o in the bestowal of the gifts

which are required for the office, 2o in the pure, sincere, and steadfast

desire which makes someone strive after the office, and 3o in the clearing of

the ways which lead to the office, Gerhard Loc. XXIII cap. 3, Voetius Pol.

Eccl. III 529. Moor VI 282. Alting, Theol. probl. nova I 15. Brakel, Red.

Godsd. XVII 12. Vitringa IX 298. This inward, subjective calling must

receive its mark and seal in the outward calling by the congregation, since

also in this sphere error and deception are not excluded, Ned. Gel. art. 31.

Therefore this outward calling does not stand over against the inward, but it

proceeds just as much as this does from Christ. He alone can call and

calls in truth. But this outward calling is mediate and takes place through

the congregation in Jesus’ name. Scripture leaves no doubt about this, Hd.

1:23, 6:2-6, 2 Corinthians 8:19, cf. above bl. 79. In the first centuries the

congregation also exercised this right in fact; even the bishop was chosen

Achelis, Lehrb. d. prakt. Theol. 12 S. 147 and older litt. with Vitringa IX

308-310. The election of the pope, the bishop of Rome, by the cardinals, i.e.

originally the presbytery of the local congregation there, is still a remnant of

the former usage. But gradually the right of the congregation was restricted

and finally in the Roman hierarchy was assigned to the pope, and under the

influence of a humanistic constitutional law by Erastians and Remonstrants

to the government. Even in the Reformed churches there was great

difference about this. Although in theory one maintained that the right to

call ministers of the word rested with the congregation, in practice this was

often very restricted and ceded to the consistory or to patrons or to the

government or to mixed colleges, Calvijn, Inst. IV 3, 11-15. Voetius, Pol.

Eccl. III 557 sq. 580 sq. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII qu. 24. M. Vitringa IX

311-321. Moor VI 288-298. On the other hand, however, the error of

Grotius, Pufendorf e. a. is also to be avoided, as if the choice of church

ministers were a natural right of the believers, just as the right to elect an

administration rests with the members of an association, cf. M. Vitringa IX

310. For the church is not an association that comes into being by the will

of men, but a foundation of Christ. All power which accrues to the

congregation has therefore been bestowed upon it by Christ; it is not a right

but a gift. The congregation is not a democracy, in which the people govern

themselves. But Christ governs in it, and the choice of the congregation has

no other significance than that it observes the gifts and points out the

persons whom Christ has destined for the office. Hence the congregation

does indeed choose, but that choice stands under the guidance of those who

are already in their office, of apostles, evangelists etc., Hd. 1:15, 6:2, 14:23,

Titus 1:5, and later of neighboring bishops, Sohm, t. a. p. Furthermore, the

choice is not absolutely free, but bound to conditions and requirements,

which have been indicated by Christ for the office, Hd. 1:21, 6:3, 1

Tim. 3. And finally someone is not yet in the office when he has been

chosen by the congregation, but thereafter hands must be laid upon him,

Hd. 6:6 etc. Choice by the congregation and guidance by the consistory

therefore ought to go together in the calling to an office in the congregation

of Christ, whether the consistory in the calling bind itself to a nomination

by the congregation or to a choice by the congregation from a nomination

of the consistory.

But with the choice by the congregation and the calling by the consistory

(vocatio stricte sic dicta), the external calling is not yet finished. It

continues in the testing, the investigation or examination. Naturally this is

not absolutely necessary; if the congregation knows with certainty that he

whom it calls possesses the required gifts, further investigation is

superfluous. But the congregation is not infallible and can be mistaken; it

does not itself distribute the gifts but can only observe to whom Christ has

bestowed gifts for his service. In order now to proceed in this as safely as

possible, after the calling it still institutes a testing, intended to provide the

congregation with the certainty that the one called possesses the required

gifts. Already Paul therefore required, 1 Timothy 3:30, that the deacons —and

the και ο ὑ τοι δε proves that this was also already customary among the

presbyters— should be tested in some way unknown to us and thereafter, if

they proved blameless in doctrine and life, should serve. On that rested the

right, of which the church later made use, to set a probationary period

before the acceptance of the office or also to administer an examination,

Bingham, Origines eccles. or the Antiq. of the Christ. Church, London 1843

II 225. In this country the Reformed churches, after the university at Leiden

had been founded, ceded the right of administering the (peremptory)

examination to the professors and contented themselves with their

testimonium academicum, Syn. Midd. vr. 3. ’s Gr. art. 18. But gradually

they succeeded everywhere, except in Groningen, in taking away from the

professors the right to administer the peremptory and the praeparatoir

examination, with great difficulty and not without much resistance, even

from Voetius and Maccovius, and in retaining it for themselves. Leaving

aside the question whether the churches do not do well, when in

administering the examinations in the classes they make use of the [124]

assistance of the professors, the right to institute such an investigation

belongs, according to Holy Scripture, the Reformed confession, and also

according to the nature of the case, to the churches. Let the school

administer its examinations, but the churches retain the right to call, to test,

to send, to give authority for the administration of word and sacrament. The

proper, ecclesiastical examination is therefore the peremptory examination;

the praeparatoir, although already mentioned ’s Grav. art. 18, is of

subordinate significance, was only introduced gradually especially as a

result of the Remonstrant disputes, and according to Voetius’ testimony, Pol.

Eccl. III 517, was only in 1669 generally in use. It served only to allow

those examined provisionally to practise for a time in delivering

propositions under the guidance of a minister and consistory.

With the vocation and examination there finally comes also the

ordination, which takes place especially through the laying on of hands.

This was in use among Israel in blessing, Genesis 48:14, Leviticus 9:22, offering,

Exodus 29:10, Leviticus 1:4, accusation, Leviticus 24:14, in the consecration of Levites,

Numbers 8:10, in appointment to an office, Numbers 27:18-23, later also in the

installation of judges and the promotion of teachers, Schürer, Gesch. des

jüd. Volkes II3 199. Jesus laid hands on, in order to heal, Matthew 8:15, 9:18,

Mark 5:23 cf. 2 Kon. 4:34, 5:11 and to bless, Matthew 19:15, (Luke 24:50), and

the people attached great value to that, Matthew 9:18, Mark 5:23, 7:32, but

nowhere do we read that He thus also did so in the appointment to an office.

His apostles He appointed only with the word, without any ceremony, Matthew 10:1v., 28:19. In the appointment of Matthias, Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Luke

etc. there is nowhere any mention made of a laying on of hands; a general

usage in the introduction to an ecclesiastical office it certainly was not. But

the laying on of hands took place in healing, Hd. 9:12, 17, in the

communication of the gift of the Spirit, Hd. 8:17-19, in the appointment of

deacons, 1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6; according to 1 Timothy 5:22 it was generally

in use in the ordination to an ecclesiastical office and according to Hebr. 6:2

it belongs to the first principles of the doctrine of Christ. Yet it was not a

real communication of the spiritual gifts of office. For Hd. 6:3 teaches that

the deacons, who were chosen, beforehand already had to be full of the H.

Spirit and of wisdom. In Hd. 13:3 the laying on of hands does not

take place in the ordination, but in the sending out of Barnabas and Paul,

who beforehand already stood in office. According to 1 Timothy 1:18, 4:14 the

appointment of Timothy as evangelist was confirmed by prophetic

testimonies and by laying on of hands of the presbyterium. And indeed in 2

Tim. 1:6 the gift of office is thought of as having taken place δι ἐ πιθεσεως,

but 1 Timothy 4:14 says that it was bestowed δια προφετειας and μετα

ἐ πιθεσεως; a proof of that, that prophecy and laying on of hands were not

the origin of the gifts, but the means by which they were transferred into the

service of the congregation and destined for that. From the apostles this

usage of laying on of hands passed over into the Christian church, which

applied it in baptism, in healing, in the readmission of the fallen and

heretics, in marriage, in penance and in ordination. In the last case the right

to apply it was in later time granted only to the bishop and understood as

the conferral of a special gift of office. Over against Gnosticism and

Montanism, indeed, the truth of the church was thereby demonstrated, that

the bishops in the congregations, which were founded by the apostles, were

the guardians of the pure tradition. They had received this themselves from

the apostles and handed it on uninjured to their successors. The successio ab

initio decurrens, demonstrated with 2 Timothy 2:2, provided the guarantee for

that, for the office included the communication of a special spirit of office,

which the office-bearer retains even if he is personally ever so godless. The

laying on of hands was in the ancient church certainly customary in the

ordination to presbyter, deacon and the lower offices, always went together

with prayer and was still for a long time understood as a symbolic sign of

the communication of the gift of office. Manus impositio, quid est aliud nisi

oratio super hominem? Aug. de bapt. 3, 16. But gradually it was regarded as

a sacrament, which ex opere operato imparted a character indelebilis, Trid.

23 c. 7. de ref. c. 3. 10. Cat. Rom. II 7, 29. Bellarminus, de clericis I 14. The

Lutherans rejected it at first, but later took it up again and sometimes

attached great value to it, Apol. Conf. art. 13, cf. Herzog2 11, 80. The

Reformed judged unanimously that the laying on of hands was no command

of Christ and thus not absolutely necessary. But while some considered it

useful, venerable and worthy of imitation, Calvin, Inst. IV 3, 16. 14,

20. 19, 31, Aretius, Spanheim, Koelman, Pligt der ouderl. en diakenen 1889

bl. 53v., others held it to be an adiaphoron and discouraged its use out of

fear of superstition, Syn. Emden art. 16. Dordr. 1574 art. 24 Midd. 1581 art.

4. Dordr. 1578 art. 5. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. III 452. 579. Moor V 352-356. VI

327-331. M. Vitringa IX 209. 353-357. It is not an essential element of the

ordination, for neither with Jesus himself, nor with the apostles, nor also

with the elders, Hd. 14:23, 20:28, is any mention made of it. Nor can and

may it be understood as a mechanical communication of a special spirit of

office. For it does not bestow but presupposes according to Scripture the

charismata required for the office. It is also not identical with the election or

calling to the office but follows upon it and therefore cannot be anything

other than a public designation of the one who is called to an office, and a

solemn introduction and appointment to that office. Just as marrying before

the government is not the essence of marriage and the coronation does not

make the king, so also the ordinatio, with or without laying on of hands, is

no communication of the office or of a spirit of office. It is only the solemn,

public declaration before God and his congregation, that the one called is

sent by lawful way and consequently from God’s side, that he possesses the

required gifts and as such must be received, acknowledged and honored by

the congregation. Cf. Sohm, Kirchenrecht 56 f. Art. Handauflegung en

Ordination in Herzog. Zahn, Einl. in das N. T. I 465. Achelis, Lehrb. der

prakt. Theol. Leipzig 1898 I 139-173.

9. On the number of offices which Christ has instituted in his church,

there exists in the Christian church great difference. In the apostolic time,

from the nature of the case, the boundary between extraordinary and

ordinary offices, and thus also between offices and gifts, was not yet

sharply drawn. But the hierarchical development, which with the rise of the

episcopate made a beginning, robbed the congregation of all freedom and

independence and separated the offices from it by a broad gulf. The

members of the congregation became the laici, who, excluded from all

government and for their salvation absolutely dependent on priest and

sacrament, have nothing to do but to listen and to obey. And separated

from them by a special character and a particular official spirit, high above

them stand the clerici, who form a separate estate, propagate themselves by

succession, and can also belong to the class of the clergy even without a

definite service in the congregation. These clerici are divided into two

ranks, ordines minores (non sacri) and ordines majores (sacri). The ordines

minores, to which the acoluthi, exorcistae, lectores and ostiarii belong, were

at first voluntary services of members of the congregation but were in the

first half of the third century in Rome organized into lower offices, because

they stood in relation to the holy and had a share in it in lesser or greater

degree; although often only in name, they are also now still preparation for

the higher offices, Sohm, Kirchenrecht 128. Moeller-von Schubert,

Kirchengesch. I 370. Wieland, Die genet. Entw. der sogen. ordines minores

in den 3 ersten Jahrh., Freiburg Herder 1897 en daarbij Schürer’s Theol. Lit.

Z. 1898 n. 1. Already with the ordines minores the striving comes to light,

to detach them from the congregation and to incorporate them into the

ecclesiastical hierarchy. But much stronger is this the case with the ordines

majores. These comprise the three offices of bishop, presbyter and deacon,

but of these three actually only the episcopal office has remained. In this

episcopate indeed all kinds of distinctions of jurisdiction and dignity have

been introduced, so that one speaks of archbishops, patriarchs,

metropolitans etc., but these distinctions make no infringement on the unity

and the essence of the episcopal office. Even the papal office is essentially a

bishop’s office, only extended to the whole church and thereto equipped

with special gifts, differing from the ordinary bishop’s office not

hieratically but only hierarchically. This episcopal office is in the Roman

church actually the one, true office. After it in the second century had

developed out of the presbyterate, it drew doctrine, tradition, jurisdiction to

itself, separated itself from the congregation by succession, tonsure,

celibacy, and gradually made presbyters and deacons into its organs. Still

within the circle of the N. Test. we find at the head of the congregation a

council of presbyters, a presbyterium, 1 Timothy 4:14, and such a council

remained, even after one of them had raised himself to bishop, for a long

time still existing around him. But this council lost more and more [128]

every bond with the congregation, became a chapter of the bishop and

served, in order under him by virtue of an authorization granted by him to

act as ministers of the holy, especially of the sacrament. Likewise the

diaconate soon changed wholly in character. When the priest- and sacrificeidea found entrance, the διακονειν τραπεζαις, Hd. 6:2, was no longer

understood of the care of the needy but of auxiliary service at the eucharist.

The bishop became high priest, the presbyters became priests and the

deacons became levites, who, leaving the care of the poor to private persons

and monastic orders, stood at the bishop’s side in the administration of the

mass. While in this way presbyters and deacons were wholly and entirely

separated from the congregation and made into organs of the bishop, he

himself is specifically distinguished from all others by one power. The

episcopal office is a priestly office, but connected with the power to

propagate it, with the vis generativa sacerdotii; it guarantees the

continuance of the sacerdotium and thus the propagation of the church. The

bishop is the punctum saliens in the church; laymen, deacons, presbyters

can be temporarily lacking but the bishop cannot; where he is, there is the

church, for he is the bearer of the doctrine, the propagator of the priesthood.

The presbyters are also priests, authorized to administer the sacraments, but

they may not ordain, they lack the vis generativa sacerdotii, their priesthood

is unfruitful, they are servants and helpers of the bishop, because he cannot

be everywhere and cannot do everything. Presbytery and diaconate are at

Rome extensions of the episcopate; they are three degrees in the one

sacerdotium, not co- but subordinated. The presbyter is also deacon, the

bishop is also presbyter; each time the official gift rises one step higher,

until it culminates in the bishop, or, as the following paragraph will

indicate, in the pope. Cf. Thomas, S. Theol. suppl. qu. 34-40. Lombardus e.

a. op Sent. IV dist. 24. Bonav., Brevil. VI 12. Conc. Trid. sess. 23. Cat.

Rom. II c. 7. Bellarminus, de clericis I c. 11 sq. Dens, Theol. VII 50 sq.

Oswald, Die dogm. Lehre v. d. h. Sakr. II2 315-335. Seydl, Der Diakonat,

Regensburg 1884. Vering, Lehrb. des kath. orient. und prot. Kirchenrechts3,

Freiburg 1893 S. 558 f., enz.

Over against this hierarchy Luther contented himself with the restoration

of the original preaching office. Indeed he deemed for the exercise of

discipline a council of elders and for the care of the poor a council of

deacons necessary. But these offices were nevertheless, on account of the

inopportuneness of the times, not restored; they were also not so necessary

as the episcopal, clerical preaching office, the Pfarramt, which is the

principal office and through which Christ in particular governs his church.

The office of elders and of deacons were therefore in the Lutheran church

replaced by consistory and churchwardenship; the Roman ordines made

room for the ordo ecclesiasticus, politicus and oeconomicus. Cf. Köstlin,

Luthers Theol. II 538 f. Conf. Aug. and Apol. art. 5. 14. 28. Gerhard, Loc.

XXIII especially § 232. 233. Sohm, Kirchenrecht 460-542. Achelis, Lehrb.

d. prakt. Theol. I2 60 f. By contrast, presbyterial church government is due

to Calvin. Indeed there were already before him, inter alia by

Oecolampadius at Basel in 1530, attempts tried, in order for the benefit of

ecclesiastical discipline to institute the office of elders, but Calvin

nevertheless was the first to carry this out and to make the office of elders a

mark of Reformed church government, Lechler, Gesch. der Presb. u. Syn.

Verfassung, Leiden 1854 and art. Presbyter in Herzog2. In doing so he

proceeded from the word of God. For even if it is also the case that Calvin’s

character and circumstances opened his eye for the significance of the

offices in Holy Scripture, yet presbyterial church government was by him

not derived from any abstract principle but from the word of God and

introduced into the church on its authority. In more recent times one has

indeed begun to speak of a Gemeindeprinzip and has built up from it a kind

of presbyterial and diaconal offices; a congregation had a right to govern

itself, just as in the political sphere the people little by little obtain more

influence on the government, thus Stahl and many younger church

ordinances in Rieker, Grundsätze ref. Kirchenverf. 130 f., and likewise a

congregation had organs, i.e. deacons and deaconesses, necessary for the

exercise of the work of the inner Mission, Paul Wurster, Die Lehre v. d.

inneren Mission, Berlin 1895 S. 128 f. But this is an entirely different

conception than that which one finds in Calvin and the Reformed. Even if it

is also the case that they urge the government of the church with this, that it

otherwise no more than a people or a society can exist, Calvin, Inst. IV 11,

1. a Lasco, Op. II 45; yet they derive the offices not from the congregation

but from the institution of Christ. The church as communion of the

saints is not autonomous; it is not free, to arrange itself or not, thus or

otherwise, but it is also on this point bound to the word of God and finds

therein the principles indicated and the lines drawn, which it has to follow

in the government of the church. It was a general conviction that the

government of the church in substance had to rest on a jus divinum, Calvin,

Westm. synod in Neal, Historie der Purit. II 1 bl. 182v. But in doing so one

nevertheless did not lose from sight that Scripture was no lawbook, nor

descended into all sorts of particulars and left very much to the freedom of

the churches, Syn. Wezel I 9. 10. Emden 19-21. Westm. I 6. Even about the

offices which Christ had instituted in his church there was no small

difference. In the first place there were those who had no objection against

an episcopate in the sense of a superintendency, a Lasco, Op. II 51. 57.

Knox, First Book of Discipline, cf. Saravia, Scultetus, Bochartus, Spanheim

Jr., Tilenus, Forbesius a Corse e. a. in M. Vitringa IX 210 sq. Then there

was difference over whether the office of doctor, conceived as a

professorship in theology, formed a separate, ecclesiastical office or

whether it, because of no apostolic institution, could only in a broader sense

be so called, cf. my address on the Doctorenambt, Kampen 1899. Next,

apart from the doctorate, some spoke rather of three offices pastor,

presbyter and deacon, Calvin, Ordonn. eccl. Syn. Wezel c. 2. 4. 5. Emden

13. 14. Dordr. 12v. Midd. 2. ’s Grav. 2. Dordr. 2; others named two offices,

presbyter and deacon and then divided the first into teaching- and rulingeldership, a Lasco Op. II 51 and many Scottish and American church

orders, in Rieker, Grundsätze ref. Kirchenverf. 104; there were even those

who found presbyterial church government indeed useful but not necessary

by virtue of a jus divinum and rejected the distinction of teaching- and

ruling-elders, Cappellus, Theses Salm. III 330. Burmannus, Synopsis VIII

7, 41v. e. a. in M. Vitringa IX 235 sq. Further, the distinction of deacons

into those for poor and for sick was indeed introduced by Calvin, Inst. IV 3,

9 but only seldom adopted, Zanchius, Op. IV 767. Syn. Wezel. c. 5; and by

others the office of deaconesses restored, Junius, Op. I 1567. [131]

Walaeus, Op. I 466. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. II 508 sq. 529; and also according to

some in Hd. 6 the institution of the diaconate was not reported and this

office therefore not of divine origin, Cappellus e. a. in M. Vitringa IX 277

sq. And finally there was still difference over the manner of election, over

holding an office without a definite service in the congregation, Heidegger,

Corpus Theol. II 571, over the usefulness of the laying on of hands, both in

general and especially at the confirmation of elders and deacons, Voetius,

Pol. Eccl. III 466, over the repetition of the confirmation upon

reappointment of elders and deacons, Moor VI 329, M. Vitringa IX 361,

over the duration of the eldership, Rutgers in de Heraut 944-948 etc. The

treatment of all these subjects belongs in church law. But so much may

safely be said, that the Reformed, by the restoration of the office of elders

and the office of deacons alongside that of the minister of the word, have

most purely grasped the thought of Scripture and have most powerfully

recognized the rights of the congregation. Over the church Christ alone is

king; its government in the invisible is strictly monarchical. And king was

he not only in the past, but he is it still. From heaven he governs his

congregation on earth by his Word and his Spirit, by his prophetic, priestly

and kingly activity. These three offices he continues on earth, not

exclusively but nevertheless also by means of the offices which he has

instituted. In the visible his government is not democratic nor monarchical

nor oligarchical, but aristocratic-presbyterial. It is the ἀ ριστοι, the best, not

in money and goods but in spiritual gifts, whom he himself qualifies and

has the congregation designate for his service. Through them he provides

for the spiritual and for the material interests of his congregation. Through

the teaching office he instructs, through the office of elders he leads,

through the diaconal office he cares for his flock; and through all three he

proves himself to be our highest prophet, our eternal king and our merciful

high priest. [132]

. The church, no less than the state, does not belong to the original

institutions of the human race. The oldest form of society was the

family, in which civil and religious life still lay interwoven and stood under

the leadership of the father or patriarch, who was prophet, priest, and king

in his household. Sin, however, made the institution of church and state

necessary for the preservation of the human race. In the command of the

death penalty for murder of a human being, Genesis 9:6, God in principle

establishes the civil authority; and this, too, soon appears after the towerbuilding under the guidance of God’s providence among all peoples into

which humanity is divided. As soon as a civil authority arises, there comes

of itself also a certain distinction and separation between civil and religious

life; alongside the princes there appear priests. Therewith the possibility of

conflict is then of itself given; the boundaries are among the peoples each

time drawn differently and the bonds laid in diverse ways. While in the East

in general the power of the princes is subject to the priesthood, in the West,

among Greeks and Romans, religion is a political interest and the priests are

## § 49. The Power of the Church.

officials of the state. A complete separation occurred nowhere in antiquity; a

neutral state is there entirely unknown. The state maintains and protects

religion, if need be with banishment and the death penalty (Socrates), for

this is the foundation and guarantee of its own existence. Israel, too, was

from the outset arranged patriarchally and divided into households,

families, clans, and tribes. Under the kings the genealogical division

continued to exist and gave to the state constitution a democratic stamp, so

that the heads of the tribes etc. in the popular assemblies had to decide on

weighty matters. Already under this patriarchal form of government there

was distinction between civil and religious interests, between Moses and

Aaron, between scribes, ֹׁ ש ְטִרים and judges, ֹׁ ש ְפִתים, on the one side, and

priests and Levites on the other side. Only in the supreme court, which was

established at Jerusalem and had to judge very difficult cases, did priests

also have a seat, Deuteronomy 17:8-13, [133] 19:17, 18. It is therefore incorrect to

say that under Israel church and state were one. Both were in laws,

institutions, offices, office-bearers, and in part even in members clearly

distinguished from each other, cf. Hoedemaker, Church and State in Israel,

in the journal Troffel en Zwaard 1898 pp. 208-237. The priests had to serve

in the temple, approach God with the offerings of the people, distribute

God’s grace and blessing to the people, and instruct it in the law, Leviticus 9:22,

10:11, 21:8, Numbers 6:22, 16:5, Ezech. 44:23, but they also had to offer for

themselves, Leviticus 9:7, 16:6, were bound to the law, Deuteronomy 33:10, Jeremiah 18:18

and for their livelihood dependent on the people, Leviticus 23:10, Numbers 18:8-32

etc. Also they had no secret doctrine or art, no political or civil power, no

hierarchical dominion; Israel has never been a priest-state, the freedom of

the people was in every way guaranteed over against the priestly estate. The

prophets appeared freely, had to proclaim the word of God, had without

sparing to make Israel’s sins known and announce to people and civil

authority God’s judgments, but they had no other power than the power of

the word. Foreigners could through circumcision be incorporated into

Israel, Exodus 12:48, and the unclean and lepers remained citizens, even though

they were temporarily set apart. Despite the schism the religious unity of

the people could in itself very well have remained in existence. But the

distinctive feature of Israel’s constitution consisted now in this, that all

these laws, offices, and institutions were given and maintained by God;

Israel was a theocracy; God was its lawgiver, judge, and king, Jes. 33:22.

There was therefore in no single sphere in Israel place for an independent

sovereignty; the king too was not allowed to be a despot, but had to be

chosen by God, taken from the midst of the brethren, and bound to God’s

law, Deuteronomy 17:14-20, 1 Samuel 10:25. Above all offices, institutions, and

persons stood the law of God, which regulated the whole life of Israel and

had to be kept by all without distinction; Israel had to be a holy people and

a priestly kingdom, Exodus 19:3, Deuteronomy 7:6. From that it follows that, without

the distinction between civil and religious life being erased, the civil

authority nevertheless also on its own terrain had to maintain the law of

God. Idolatry, image-worship, sorcery, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking

etc., all sins against the first table, were therefore many times punished with

was a national matter, sin was crime, transgression of the first table of the

law was breach of the covenant. But in addition it must nevertheless be

borne in mind that the law gave only very few, general rules, and often left

the execution of the punishment to God himself; that the killing of the

Canaanites, of Agag, of Ahab’s house were isolated cases, that Jehu’s zeal

went much further than God’s command, that the reformation of the kings

mostly limited itself to the extirpation of the idols and to restoration of the

public service of Jahveh, that unbelief and heresy in Israel were not tracked

down by any inquisition and occurred frequently, that coercion of

conscience was entirely unknown, that foreigners, on condition of

refraining from public profanation of Israel’s religion, were not only

tolerated but also treated with courtesy, that priests and prophets never

incited to persecution of the godless but only admonished them to

repentance, e.g. also in Psalms 2:10, and from God himself expected the

political and religious victory of Israel over all its enemies. Therefore also,

when Israel more and more lost its political independence, the religious

congregation could continue to exist and organize itself in its own way.

Although the power of priests and high priest after the exile gradually

expanded, soon they got in Pharisees and scribes dangerous competitors; in

the synagogue religious life became independent, not only over against the

state, but also over against temple and priesthood; and that whole life was

more and more concentrated around the law, whose instruction was the

chief purpose of the synagogue, Matthew 4:23, Mark 1:21 etc. Hd. 15:21, 2 Timothy 3:15. That law, or taken more broadly, the Old Test. Scripture was

foundation, center, source of Israel’s religious life; it possessed no other

power than that which lay in that Word. Hence it clung to it with anxious

meticulousness and all who did not want to live according to it, by the ban

‏ִּגּדּוי‎, ‎‏ַ‏ֵחֶר‎, ‎‏ַׁשַּמָתא removed from its midst and without or with anathemas, for a

time or for good excluded outside the congregation, Luke 6:22, John 9:22,

12:42, 16:2. Cf. Schürer, Gesch. d. jüd. Volkes im Zeitalter J. C. II3 passim,

especially 428 f.

2. When Jesus, coming to his own, was not received by his own, he

organized his disciples into an ἐ κκλησια, which, hoping and suffering, had

to await his second coming and the victory over all his enemies. This

congregation shows in organization and cultus indeed some agreement with

the synagogue, but is nevertheless a still freer and more independent

organization of the new life which Christ had brought to light. For there can

be no doubt about it, that Christ founded such a congregation and entrusted

to it a certain power. For he himself speaks of it as built so firmly upon a

rock that the gates of hell will be able to do nothing against it, Matthew 16:18,

and furthermore he gives to that congregation offices, ministries,

institutions, gifts, Romans 12:6v., 1 Cor. 12-14, Ef. 4:11, which all point to the

fact that it has an own, free, independent existence and a self-standing

organization. But this power, which Christ grants to his congregation, bears

a special character. It consists in nothing else but also in nothing less than in

the power of the keys, which was first allotted by Christ to Peter, Matthew 16:19.

After Peter had first, on account of his confession of Jesus’ Messiahship,

been called a rock, upon which Christ would build his congregation, he then

in verse 19 appointed him as ο ἰ κονομος of the kingdom of heaven and

transferred to him the keys of that kingdom. Keys are a sign of dominion,

power of Peter to open and to close the kingdom of heaven, i.e. to

determine who will enter it and who not. For his judgment will also be valid

in heaven; what he will bind or loose (make loose, set free) will also be

reckoned thus by God. In these words no legislative power is bestowed

upon Peter, but indeed a judging or judicial one; because he is confessor of

Jesus as the Christ, he has in that confession a standard to determine what

does or does not belong to the congregation and thus will or will not enter

into the kingdom of heaven. In Matthew 18:18 the congregation in general

receives the power to regard an impenitent person as a heathen and tax

collector, for its judgment is of force in the heavens. And in John 20:24 all

the apostles, on the ground of the gift of the Spirit granted to them in verse

22, receive the power to loose or to retain the sins of men. From this it

appears clearly that the power of the congregation and specifically of Peter

and the apostles consists in pronouncing a judicial judgment concerning

men’s relation to the kingdom of heaven according to the standard of the

confession of Jesus as the Christ and the gift of the H. Spirit. This power is

in the N. T. repeatedly further described. It is no authoritarian, independent,

a διακονια, λειτουργια. Hd. 4:29, 20:24, Romans 1:1 etc., bound to Christ,

who has all power in heaven and on earth, Matthew 28:18, who is the only head

of the congregation, Ef. 1:22 and who as such distributes all gifts and

offices, Ef. 4:11; bound to his Word and Spirit, through which Christ

himself governs his congregation, Romans 10:14, 15, Ef. 5:26, and exercised

in his name and power, 1 Corinthians 5:4. It is therefore indeed a power, an

essential all-embracing power, consisting in the ministry of word and

sacrament, Matthew 28:19, in the opening and closing of the kingdom of heaven,

Matthew 16:19, in the forgiving or retaining of sins, John 20:20, in the exercise of

discipline over the members of the congregation, Matthew 16:18, Romans 16:17, 1

2:14, in the discerning of all things, 1 Corinthians 2:15, in the teaching, comforting,

admonishing etc. of the brethren, Colossians 3:16, in the application of the gifts

for the benefit of others, Romans 12:4-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12v., in the doing of

miracles, Mark 16:17, 18 etc. But all this power is spiritual, moral in nature,

essentially distinct from all other power which God has granted to men over

men or over other creatures in family, society, state, art, science. For Jesus

has appeared in no other way than as Christ, as prophet, priest and king; no

other office has he held, no other relation has he assumed. He was no [137]

housefather, no scholar, no artist, no statesman; he has honored all

ordinances and works of the Father and came only to break the works of the

devil, 1 John 3:8. His kingdom did not have its origin in this world, John 18:36. And therefore he acknowledges all authority, high priest, sanhedrin,

Herod, Pilate etc., he pays the tax, Matthew 17:24, refuses to be an arbitrator

between two brothers who quarrel over an inheritance, Luke 12:14,

commands to give to the emperor what is his, Matthew 22:21, rebukes John, who

wants to make fire descend from heaven, Luke 9:55, and Peter, who cuts off

Malchus’ ear, John 18:10, forbids that his young men fight for his name and

cause with the sword, Matthew 26:52. The gospel of Christ never binds the

struggle against nature as such, it did not come to condemn the world but to

save it, John 3:16, 17; it leaves family, marriage, the relation of parents and

children, of masters and servants, of government and people untouched; it

finds nothing reprehensible in itself and every creature good, if it is taken

with thanksgiving and sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, 1 Timothy 4:4; it lets each one remain in the calling in which he was called, 1 Cor.

Tim. 2:2, 1 Petr. 2:13, and even lets slavery continue, 1 Corinthians 7:22, Philem.

11. Even when it commands to obey God more than men, it preaches only

passive resistance, Hd. 4:19, 5:29. But nevertheless, though averse to all

revolution, it is all the more set on reformation. It never binds against nature

as such, but indeed everywhere and always, on every terrain and down into

the most hidden corners, it undertakes the struggle against sin and the lie.

And thus it preaches principles which, not by a revolutionary but by a moral

and spiritual way, work through everywhere and reform and renew

everything. While it, according to Jesus’ command, must be preached to all

creatures, Mark 16:15, it is a power of God unto salvation for each one who

believes, Romans 1:16; a two-edged sharp sword, which penetrates to the

division of soul and spirit, Hebr. 4:12; a leaven, which leavens everything,

Matthew 13:33; a principle that recreates everything; a power that conquers the

3. This apostolic doctrine of ecclesiastical power remained recognized for

a considerable time in the Christian church. It did not at first occur to

anyone that the poor, small congregation would one day become a worldchurch, which would prescribe laws to princes and peoples. All that was

desired was to be able, under the pagan government, to lead a quiet and

peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. But when the church came to

esteem and dominion, its power too was conceived in a wholly different

way. The development of episcopate and tradition, of the priest- and

sacrifice-idea, brought with it that ordination was regarded as a sacramental

act, which, performed by the bishop, communicated the spirit of office and

granted right and competence to perform the ecclesiastical ceremonies. And

although the power of the keys, bestowed upon Peter in Matthew 16:18, by

combination with Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23 was in the first period

understood of the forgiveness of sins, Cypr. de unit. eccl. 4. Ep. 75, 16, it

gradually acquired, especially through the sacrament of penance, a juridical

character. The power of the church is therefore according to Rome twofold:

potestas ordinis and potestas jurisdictionis, of which the latter is then again

distinguished into jurisdictio fori interni (sacramentalis) and fori externi

(legifera, judiciaria en coactiva), Thomas, S. Theol. II 2 qu. 39 art. 3.

Catech. Rom. II 7, 6. Conc. Vat. ed. Lacensis col. 570. Klee, Kath. Dogm.

I2 162. Dieringer, Kath. Dogm.4 619. 715. Liebermann, Inst. Theol. I8 290.

Simar, Dogm. 593. Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogm. IV 1 S. 317 f. Schell, Kath.

Dogm. III 1 S. 396. Jansen, Prael. theol. I 380 sq. enz. For a correct

understanding of this power ascribed by Rome to the church, the following

must be taken into account. 1o The potestas docendi is sometimes treated

separately by later theologians and naturally, according to Rome, also

belongs to the church. But properly it is a part of the potestas jurisdictionis.

The Catech. Rom. II 7, 7 could give rise to the supposition that the potestas

docendi belongs under the potestas ordinis, because it says that this not only

contains the power to administer the eucharist, sed ad eam accipiendam

hominum animos praeparat et idoneos reddit; but the Conc. Vatic. IV c. 3. 4

expressly brings the magisterium under the potestas jurisdictionis. The

ministry of the word is with Rome jurisprudence, culminating in the

infallible decisions of the pope; it is not preaching but a proclamation

of dogmata, which as such bind the conscience, oblige to faith, i.e. to

assensus, and, if need be, can be imposed with coercion, Richter-Dove-

Kahl, Kirchenrecht 305. Achelis, Prakt. Theol. I2 79. 2o The potestas

ordinis, the power to administer the sacraments, is obtainable only through

the sacramentum ordinis conferred by the bishop, which communicates the

spirit of office and impresses a character indelebilis, and is therefore

inalienable, Thomas, S. Theol. II 2 qu. 39 art. 3; even heretics and

schismatics, who were once ordained in Rome by the bishop, retain this

power; it therefore also stands by itself, and is wholly independent of the

ministry of the word. The sacerdotium can with Rome also exist without

preaching of the gospel. Si quis dixerit..., sacerdotium... non esse

potestatem aliquam consecrandi et offerendi verum corpus et sanguinem

Domini et peccata remittendi et retinendi, sed officium tantum et nudum

ministerium praedicandi evangelium, vel eos, qui non praedicant, prorsus

non esse sacerdotes, anathema sit, Conc. Trid. sess. 23 de sacr. ordinis can.

1. 3o In accordance herewith, with Rome the forgiveness of sins is not

bestowed in the preaching of the word, which has only praeparatory

significance, but in the sacrament, which contains grace in itself and pours

it into the recipient ex opere operato. Specifically it is communicated in

baptism and, for the sins committed after baptism, in the sacrament of

penance. Discipline was namely in the first Christian church very strict.

When experience taught that by no means all who had become Christians

walked worthily of their calling and often fell into carnal sins and, during

the persecutions, especially also into denial of the gospel, the admonitions

increased to make confession of sins in the midst of the congregation,

especially before the use of the Lord’s Supper, Did. 4:14, Clemens, 1 and 2

Cor. passim. Over the return of such fallen and excluded persons into the

bosom of the church a long struggle arose. Montanism, Novatianism and

Donatism wanted, for such fallen persons, specifically for those who had

made themselves guilty of denial, murder or fornication, to close the door

of the church and to leave them to God’s grace, cf. Hebr. 6:4-6, 10:26, 1

John 5:16. But Hermas, Mand. IV 1, already said in the case of adultery that

one repentance was possible. In Tertullian’s time a distinction was

already made between venial and mortal sins; the perpetrators of the former

underwent, even if they were temporarily excluded from the congregation,

only a castigatio, no damnatio, Tert. de pudic. 7; those who made

themselves guilty of the latter, especially of idolatry, adultery or murder,

were, in case of repentance, nevertheless as it were again admitted into the

forecourt of the church. The development of the catholic church-idea (as

institute of salvation), the concentration of all ecclesiastical power in the

bishop, the doctrine of the meritoriousness of good works (satisfactio,

meritum) benefited the readmission of fallen and banished persons by

means of penance. The bishop of Rome, Callistus, proclaimed in 217 that

he also forgave the sins of fornication in those who repented. A council at

Carthage 252 granted to all fallen persons, in case of penitence, the

reconciliatio or absolutio, Cypr. ep. 57, although the returning person also

had to pass through various stages before he was received into the full

communion of the church (προσκλαυσις, ἀ κροασις, ὑ ποπτωσις, συστασις).

And in 316 the Donatists were condemned, who asserted that no one

excommunicated or worthy of excommunication could administer the

415 and the literature cited there. In the penance, which gradually was

conceived as a sacrament and consisted of three parts (confessio oris,

contritio cordis en satisfactio operis), the church created for itself the

possibility of receiving again into its full communion all who after baptism

had fallen into lesser or greater sins. It was a secunda post naufragium

tabula after baptism, Trid. IV c. 2. The whole discipline with Rome was

absorbed into this systematized penance, and this penance became an actus

judicialis, a court of law, in which the priests sit as praesides and judices,

hear the confession of the mortalia crimina, determine the punishment in a

casuistic manner according to the standard of the libri poenitentiarii, and in

the name of Christ grant the forgiveness of sins (absolution) not

conditionally and declaratorily but absolutely, categorically and

peremptorily. This juridical character of penance is also expressed in this,

that this sacrament may be administered only to those who are baptized,

because the church possesses jurisdiction over no one except those who by

baptism stand under its power; that the believers may receive this sacrament

only from the hand of that priest whose subditi they are according to

ecclesiastical, i.e. papal, disposition; and that higher clergy, bishops etc. and

especially the pope, reserve to themselves certain, scandalous cases, in

which they alone can judge and decide, as e.g. in the application of ban and

interdict over princes and lands in the Middle Ages by the popes, Conc.

Trid. XIV. Cat. Rom. II 5, 32 sq. 4o In order to be able to exercise this

jurisdiction in foro interno, the Roman church further claims to possess the

potestas jurisdictionis in foro externo (potestas regiminis), distinguished

into potestas legislativa, judiciaria and coactiva. Christ indeed gave to the

church, in order that it might be faithful to its calling, first of all a

legislative power; it may bind and loose, forbid or permit, impose moral

obligations or annul them; and whatever it determines is valid in heaven; it

is just as much as if God himself commands it; it therefore binds the

consciences and obliges to unconditional obedience, Matthew 16:19, 18:18, Joh.

3, Titus 1:5, Hebr. 13:7, 17. This legislative power of itself includes the

judicial, since the former could not exist without the latter; Christ gave this

power to the congregation in Matthew 18:15-17 and the apostles exercised it, Hd.

an executive and coercive power, and can impose not only spiritual

punishments, as Donatists, Waldensians, Albigensians etc. asserted, but also

temporal and bodily ones, and that not only on the authority of or by means

of the state, but also itself from its own authority and directly. Rome

Enchir. symb. et defin. n. 1367. 1546. 1572. Conc. Vatic. coll. Lac. VII 570.

577, and also applied it frequently, cf. Perrone, Prael. Theol. Lov. 1843 VII

275. Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogm. IV 1 S. 322. Jansen, Prael. theol. I 390

enz. 5o Finally Rome teaches that this ecclesiastical power, essentially

distinct from all earthly power, is fully independent and sovereign. To be

sure it says that this power with respect to Christ is a ministering one, a

ministerium; but over against all earthly authority and power it is

completely autonomous. With this doctrine of the independence of

ecclesiastical power it struck a wholly different path than the church of the

East. There, through Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian I, the church

became more and more an organ in the state; the emperor therefore could

indeed not do with the church whatever he wished, for he was bound to the

dogma, and no αρχιερευς but only ε ὐ σεβης, protector of orthodoxy, yet he

was nevertheless just as much as of the state the ruling head of the church.

In the Russian church this view still prevails today. In 1721 Peter the Great

placed the supreme administration over the church in the hands of a

permanent Holy Synod, which through the intermediary of the procurator is

bound to the Czar. However much the power of the Czar in comparison

with that of the Byzantine emperors is in many respects limited and

weakened, it is nevertheless he who through the Synod governs the church,

regulates the religious affairs of his people, determines the measure of

freedom for his Roman Catholic and Protestant subjects; the orthodox

dogma in Russia is still always in a formal sense constitutional law and

heresy a state crime, cf. Pobedonoszew, Streitfragen der Gegenwart. Autor.

Uebersetzung. Berlin 1897. Herzog2 5, 425 f. Kattenbusch, Vergl.

Confessionskunde I 374-393. While thus in the East Caesaropapism came

to development, the church in the West, organized in the pope, knew not

only to maintain its autonomy against but many times also to extend its

supremacy over the state. The emperorship became in Charlemagne a

Christian, a Roman institution, and from that time on was many times

subordinate to the pope. And this was not only practice but also became

more and more theory. State, (family, society, art, science, all the earthly)

and church relate according to Rome as nature and grace, flesh and spirit,

bonum naturale and bonum supernaturale, the temporal and the eternal, the

earthly and the heavenly. As the moon receives its light from the sun, so

princes have their worldly power to thank the pope for, who indeed as vicar

of Christ has all power in heaven and on earth, (Alvarus, Pelagius e. a.); or

in any case the pope as head of Christendom also has summa potestas

disponendi de rebus temporalibus omnium Christianorum, Bellarminus, de

Rom. Pontif. V 6. 7. Indeed a worldly territory for the exercise of his

sovereign power is for him decidedly necessary. Even if the state is

within its own domain free and autonomous, it is nevertheless less than the

church, bound to its pronouncement and, everywhere where the spiritual

intervenes in the natural, subject to the church. The state must be Christian,

i.e. Roman, may recognize no other as the true one than the Roman, and is

obliged, if the church demands it and it does not itself do so, to persecute

and punish heretics. Cf. Augustine’s letter to Vincentius contra Donat. et

Rogat. de vi corrigendis haereticis, id. to Bonifacius de moderate coercendis

haereticis, further c. Epist. Parmeniani I 16. Contra literas Petiliani,

especially lib. II. Contra Gaudentii Denatistarum episcopi epistolam I 20 II

17. Thomas, de regimine principum. Bellarminus, de Rom. Pontif. V. de

membris eccl. III. Hergenröther, Kath. Kirche und Christl. Staat in ihrer

geschichtl. Entw. 1872. Hammerstein, Kirche und Staat, Freiburg 1883.

Stöckl, Lehrb. d. Philos. III6 451-480. Cathrein, Moralphilosophie II3 529

f. Hansjakob, Die Toleranz und die Intoleranz der Kath. Kirche 2e Aufl.

Freiburg 1899 enz.

4. This power, granted by Rome to the church, culminates and also finds

the guarantee for its stability and continuance in the power of the pope. For

according to the Conc. Vatic. IV c. 3. 4 he bears the following properties: 1o

It is not merely a primatus honoris nor also only an office of supervision

and guidance, but an authority of legislation, government, and jurisdiction

independent of the bishops, a potestas jurisdictionis. 2o It is not an

extraordinary, temporary, but an ordinary, enduring power, which God gives

him and which he can exercise always and not only in some extraordinary

cases. 3o It is an immediate power, both as to origin, since Christ gives it,

and as to its use, since the pope can exercise it not only through the bishops

but also through himself or his legates, without asking permission or

authorization from anyone, and thus can have immediate, free intercourse

with all bishops and believers. 4o It is not a limited, but a plena et suprema

potestas, extending itself extensively over the whole church, containing

intensively all power which is necessary for the guidance and government

of the church, and absolutely sovereign, subject to no laymen, bishops,

council, but only to God. 5o All members of the church, whether

individually or together, all bishops, each for himself or assembled in

synod and council, owe absolute obedience to the pope, not only in matters

of faith and morals, but also in those of discipline and government of the

church. Haec est catholicae veritatis doctrina, a qua deviare, salva fide

atque salute, nemo potest. 6o A part of this power is the teaching office,

concerning which it is determined that the pope, when he speaks ex

cathedra, is infallible by divine assistance.

After all that was previously said about the doctrine of Scripture and the

oldest ecclesiastical testimonies, it needs no further demonstration that this

entire papal system rests on an unscriptural foundation. The consensus

patrum, namely after Irenaeus, the doctrine and practice of popes and

councils, the agreement of the later theologians, as they are more broadly

set forth in Roman dogmatics, e.g. in Heinrich, Dogm. II 323 f., cannot

make good this defect. However much this papal edifice, by its strict unity,

often also charms many Protestants, yet it is to the same degree religiously

and ethically weak as it politically and juridically impresses. For 1o the

nature and character of infallibility are insufficiently determined. Rome has

not dared to go so far as to ascribe to the pope the same infallibility as to the

apostles. This lay and lies indeed on the line. One would expect that the

apostles had communicated the apostolic authority to the episcopi whom

they appointed, and Peter in particular to the bishop at Rome. But this is not

so. The pope is infallible, yet not by inspiration, but by assistance of the H.

Spirit, by a special care of God, whereby the church is guarded from error

and preserved in the truth. And his infallibility does not consist in this, that

he receives new revelations and can present a new doctrine, but it consists

only herein, that he can faithfully preserve and explain the revelation

handed down by the apostles. And also it is not to be understood in the

sense that the words spoken by the pope ex cathedra are, in a literal sense,

God’s Word, but only that they contain this materially, Heinrich, Dogm. II

220-245. Jansen, Prael. theol. I 616. 2o Although infallibility is a special

gift, it is nevertheless not always proper to the pope, and not in his person,

nor also as writer, as orator, as judge, as legislator, as administrator, nor also

as secular prince, bishop of Rome, metropolitan of the ecclesiastical

province of Rome or as patriarch of the West, but only as pope, as

head of the whole church. However, there is no unanimity about this.

Especially with a view to the case of Pope Honorius, earlier theologians and

even Innocentius III, in Schwane D. G. III 535, conceded that the pope

privatim could fall into heresy, and then jure divino ex ipso facto was

deposed as pope (Paludanus, Turrecremata, Alphonsus de Castro, Sylvester

e. a.) or could be deposed by a judicial sentence of a council (Cajetanus,

Canus e. a.) This, however, had its questionable side and endangered the

unlimited sovereignty and inviolability of the pope. Therefore others, such

as Pighius, Bellarminus, Suarez e. a., could better reconcile themselves to

the probable and pious opinion that divine providence will also preserve the

pope personally from heresy, Heinrich, Dogm, II 257. Scheeben-Atzberger,

Dogm. IV 1 S. 450. 3o The Vaticanum says, with an expression perhaps

first used by Melchior Canus, in Schwane D. G. IV 302, that the pope is

infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. This seems to draw a boundary, but

is in practice a very unusable criterion. For the system requires that no one

can determine whether a pope has spoken ex cathedra, except the pope

himself alone. And thus a pope always has it in his hand to reject his own

pronouncements or those of other popes, by saying that they are not, or

also, in order to declare them binding, by saying that they are indeed spoken

ex cathedra. And he can even later say that he or a predecessor, thinking to

have spoken ex cathedra, nevertheless in fact did not do so. 4o The

infallible teaching office is a component of the plena et suprema potestas

jurisdictionis in universam ecclesiam. It is true that the Vaticanum, sess. IV

c. 3, does not expressly declare that the pope, in exercising this entire

power, is at all times infallible. But it nevertheless says that, with respect to

it, cujuscumque ritus et dignitatis pastores atque fideles, tam seorsim singuli

quam simul omnes, officio hierarchicae subordinationis veraeque

obedientiae obstringuntur, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed

etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen ecclesiae pertinent. Whether the

pope in all this is therefore fallible or infallible, all, without distinction,

without any right of criticism, (neque cuiquam de ejus licere judicare

judicio) must obey the pope unconditionally, and that on pain of not [146]

less than the salvation of their souls. 5o In the Conc. Vatic. sess. IV c. 4,

infallibility is indeed expressly ascribed only to the pope, when he speaks

ex cathedra and as shepherd and teacher of all Christians defines doctrinam

de fide vel moribus ab universa ecclesia tenendam. But absolutely nothing

can be inferred from this, that otherwise he is not. For how could,

otherwise, in c. 3, even in matters of discipline, government, jurisdiction,

absolute and unconditional obedience to the pope be demanded? But

however this may be, in matters of faith and morals the pope is certainly

infallible. And what belongs thereto, the Roman theologians further

elaborate. The pope is infallible when he deals with the truths of revelation

in Scripture, with the truths of tradition, with the truths of the divine

institutions, sacraments, church, ecclesiastical constitution and government,

with the truths of natural revelation. But even with this the boundary of his

infallibility is still far from being reached. In order to be infallible in all

this, he must also be so, say the theologians, in judging the sources of the

truths of faith and in the interpretation thereof, that is, in the determination

of the authority of Scripture, of tradition, of the councils, of the popes, of

the patres, of the theologians; in making use of and applying natural truths,

representations, concepts and expressions; in judging and rejecting errors

and heresies, in ascertaining even the facta dogmatica; in the prohibition of

books, in matters of discipline, in the approbation of orders, in the

canonization of saints, etc. Faith and morals encompass almost everything,

and all that the pope says about them is infallible. The term ex cathedra in

fact draws no boundary at all. For this expression does not indicate that

only those pronouncements are infallible in which ex cathedra is literally

mentioned, for then all earlier papal determinations would be excluded from

it. It therefore indicates only something material. But who then determines

whether the pope speaks ex cathedra? Practically and by the people his

pronouncement will always be understood as infallible, even if only out of

fear that one might possibly once reject an infallible pronouncement. And

theoretically only the pope can infallibly say when he ex cathedra, infallibly

speaks, Heinrich, Dogm. II 554-654. Moreover, why is the pope infallible?

Because he himself declares it? But that is a circulus vitiosus.

Because the council declares it? But the council is fallible, also in this

declaration. Where then is, for the Roman Christian, the so highly praised

certainty? 6o The Vaticanum has drawn up the result of a long historical

process. In the first Christian time all apostles, all congregations, and also

all episcopi were equal to one another in rank; at most there was a primatus

homoris but in no respect a primatus jurisdictionis. But gradually the church

and the bishop at Rome knew how to subject all other churches and bishops

to itself. Yet the independence of the latter within their own sphere

remained for a long time still preserved to a certain extent. Toward the end

of the 13th century the controversy arises about the relation of the episcopal

and the papal power, Schwane D. G. III 549. Some then still attempt to

maintain the independence of the former in the sense that the bishop,

though subordinate to the pope, nevertheless has received the power

belonging to him within his sphere from God, ex jure divino, and is only

designated by the pope as bearer of that power; thus Henricus of Ghent,

Alphonsus de Castro, bishop of Bruges † 1558, Vitoria, 1480-1544, father

of neo-scholasticism at the university at Salamanca, Petrus Guerrero, bishop

of Granada, and many other Spanish and French bishops at the council at

Trent, who in the 7th canon of the 23rd session wanted the words to be

included: episcopos jure divino institutos presbyteris esse superiores,

Schwane, D. G. IV 292 f. There arose at the council over this quaestie the

most vehement debates, which lasted the whole winter of the year 1562 and

until beyond the middle of the following year. On 15 July 1563, in can. 6-8,

the episcopal power was indeed more closely described, but the question

whether it was ex jure divino or ex jure ecclesiastico was intentionally left

undecided. There stood, moreover, on the other side a strong party, with

Lainez, the Jesuit general, at the head, who asserted that the bishop received

the potestas ordinis indeed immediately from God, but obtained the potestas

jurisdictionis only by free transfer from the side of the pope; the latter was

thus in so far de jure ecclesiastico, and could by the pope at pleasure be

limited, altered, or taken away, for the pope had his full power over the

whole church alone and immediately from God. This opinion, after Trent,

through the influence of the Jesuits, gained more and more ground, it

achieved victory over Gallicanism and was elevated to a dogma at the

Vatican council. It is true that in sess. IV c. 3 it is said that the power of the

pope makes absolutely no infringement on the ordinaria ac immediata

potestas jurisdictionis of the bishops but rather confirms, strengthens, and

maintains it; yet the pope has the full, entire legislative, governing, and

judicial power over the whole church, he can without anyone’s interposition

or mediation freely communicate (communicare) with all the shepherds and

flocks of the whole church, and all are without distinction and

unconditionally subject to him. Bishops, councils, the whole church, all

believers are fallible of themselves and only infallible with and through

him. The pope is the root, the firmness, the foundation of the unity,

authority, and infallibility of bishops, councils, church fathers, theologians,

of all believers and of the whole church. He alone receives all power and

authority and infallibility directly from God. A single expression still recalls

the old, catholic conception; thus e.g. when in the Conc. Vatic. IV c. 4 it is

said that the pope ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor

ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam

voluit, but immediately it is precisely inferred from that that the definitiones

of the pope are infallible ex sese and not ex consensu ecclesiae. 7o Still

further goes this power of the pope. Although the popes up to the 8th

century were subjects of the Roman empire and their spiritual office did not

at all include the possession of secular power, yet very soon in the Roman

church the thought arose that the pope, in order to be able to be independent

in the spiritual sphere, must also be sovereign in the secular. And after the

abolition of the ecclesiastical state in 1870 this thought has come still more

to the foreground and has been expressed with stronger emphasis. Pius IX

and Leo XIII have not failed repeatedly to declare that the pope as universal

bishop cannot be subject of a particular prince nor bear a certain nationality,

Jansen, Prael. theol. I 657, Hase, Prot. Polem. 254; and their

pronouncements bind the Roman believers. Even if the idea of an

ecclesiastical, of a priestly state, is entirely out of date; even if the existence

of such a state detracts from the unity of Italy; even if the pope cannot [149]

be ecclesiastical head and secular sovereign at the same time without

church or state or both suffering damage thereby; even if the spiritual power

absolutely does not need political sovereignty; even if the pope for centuries

had no political territory and even if he after the otherwise in itself unlawful

robbery of the ecclesiastical state in 1870 has not lost influence, no more

than the German bishops since they have ceased to be imperial princes;

even if the independence of the pope vis-à-vis the king of Italy is more than

sufficiently guaranteed by the guarantee of 13 May 1871 and by the power

of the Roman princes and peoples; all this matters little, Rome does not

abandon the demand that the pope again become a secular prince. This,

however, is still only a small part of the whole demand. With appeal to Matthew 28:18 and Luke 22:38 and in imitation of Bonifacius VIII in the bull Unam

Sanctam many Romans have gone much further and have said that the pope

is the actual sovereign of the whole world and transfers the secular power at

his pleasure to princes and kings as his ministri and vicarii. This was,

however, too extreme for many. They contested the opinion that the pope is

sovereign over the unbelieving part of the world, for Christ entrusted to

Peter only the care over the sheep, and those who are outside, God judges;

nor was the pope a secular prince over the Christian peoples, for nowhere

was such a political power entrusted to the pope, and Christ gave to Peter

only the keys of the kingdom of heaven; the pope has even no temporalis

jurisdictio nor secular power directe or jure divino, for Christ is a spiritual

king and has a spiritual kingdom. But even if these thus rejected the direct

secular power, they nevertheless continued to speak of a potestas indirecta

and ascribed to the pope not merely a potestas directiva in secular matters,

but also in the interest of the kingdom of God a summa potestas disponendi

de rebus temporalibus omnium Christianorum; for the feeding of the sheep

also requires power over the wolves. The secular power is, after all, subject

to the church as the body to the spirit; unbelieving princes who seduce their

subjects to heresy may be resisted and deposed; Christian princes as such

are subject to Christ, must promote the faith and protect the church; as also

many kings in the days of the O. Test. and in the history of the church

have acted, Bellarminus, de Rom. Pontif. lib. V. But even with this theory

of the potestas indirecta the pope retains the right to demand, in the interest

of the kingdom of God, indefinite obedience from all princes, in case of

disobedience to depose them and to release the subjects from their oath of

obedience, to assign non-Roman peoples and lands to Roman princes, to

declare political laws and rights powerless, etc. Even if many Romans

nowadays give the appearance as if all these rights belonged to the popes

only temporarily and accidentally in the Middle Ages, the Syllabus of 1864

declares in n. 23 expressly that the popes and councils never overstepped

the boundaries of their power nor usurped rights of the princes nor ever

erred in decision in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of the rights

may be suspended by the circumstances, there is no doubt that the rights

themselves are inalienable. Rome does not change. Cf. Fr. v. Schulte, Die

Macht der römischen Päpste über Fürsten, Länder, Völker und Individuen

3te Aufl. Giessen 1896. 8o From all this the all-dominating place appears

which the pope occupies in the life of the Roman Christian. The Roman

church is a monarchy, a realm, a state with a spiritual prince at the head.

From the days of Augustine onward the church is by preference presented

as a state and a realm, in which all dogmata count as laws and rights, which

bind men upon the salvation of their soul. Bonifacius VIII therefore said of

the pope that he jura omnia in scrinio pectoris sui censetur habere, in

Schulte t. a. p. 66. The government in this state is absolutely monarchical;

after the council of 1870 it is even no longer, as one formerly said,

tempered by the aristocracy of the bishops; for the bishops are fallible, and

derive their power from him; indeed, according to the express determination

of the Vaticanum the pope can communicate immediately with all shepherds

and flocks and thus, with complete bypassing of the bishop, directly appoint

or dismiss every priest, every chaplain, decide every process, immediately

chastise every layman, etc., the bishops are in principle entirely deprived of

sovereignty in their own sphere. Nor is this monarchical government of the

pope in principle any longer constitutional, for Scripture and tradition

are subject to his infallible interpretation; la tradizione son io, therefore Pius

IX said to Cardinal Guidi, in Schulte t. a. p. 80; the pope determines, if

necessary, what doctrine of Scripture and tradition is. By his infallibility the

pope in the Roman church is the sole, absolute sovereign, source of all

ecclesiastical and even directly or indirectly of all secular power. Therefore

since the 9th century, in distinction from all other bishops, he is called Papa,

Schwane D. G. I 543, not merely successor and substitute of Peter but

vicarius Christi, vicarius Dei, Schwane III 536. 538, pater spiritualis

omnium patrum, imo omnium fidelium, hierarcha praecipuus, sponsus

unicus, caput indivisum, pontifex summus, fons et origo, regula cunctorum

principatuum ecclesiasticorum, Bonav. Brevil. VI 12. The pope is the

church, is Christianity, is the kingdom of God itself. Le pape et l’église,

c’est tout un, said Fr. de Sales. Ubi papa, ibi ecclesia. The primacy of the

pope is summa rei christianae, Bellarminus, de Rom. Pontif. in the preface.

Without pope no church, no Christianity, Veuillot in Hase, Prot. Polemik5

187. Submission to the pope is for all men necessary unto salvation,

(Bonifacius VIII). The pope is mediator of salvation, the way, the truth, and

the life. There is lacking only that he is worshipped, but that too is a

quaestie of time, Harnack D. G. III 652. Indeed, Scheeben-Atzberger,

Dogm. IV 1 S. 427 says it rightly, if the primacy of the pope is not God’s

work, then it is a blasphemische und diabolische Usurpation. Cf. Luther,

von dem Papstthum zu Rom. 1520, cf. Köstlin, Luthers Theol. I 317. Art.

Smalc. 4 and Tract. de potestate et primatu papae, in Müller, Symb. B. 306.

328. Calvijn, Inst. IV c. 4-11. Amesius, Bellarminus enervatus, I lib. 3.

Chamier, Panstr. Cath. II lib. 2. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. III 775 sq. Id. Disp. II

684-882. Id. Desperata Causa Papatus, Amst. 1635. Heidegger, Corp. Theol.

Loc. 72, 2. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII qu. 16-20. Id. de necessaria

secessione nostra ab eccl. rom. especially disp. 5: de tyrannide romana.

Moor, Comm. VI 195 sq. J. von Döllinger, Das Papstthum. Neubearbeitung

von Janus, Der Papst und das Concil, von J. Friedrich, München Beck 1894.

Langen, Das Vatik. Dogma von dem Universalepisc. u. der Unfehlb. des

Papstes, 3 Theile, Bonn 1871-73. Dr. W. Joos, Die Bulle Unam

Sanctam und das Vatik. Autoritätsprinzip, 2e Aufl. Schaffh. 1897.

Bungener, Pape et concile au 19e siècle, Paris 1870. Gladstone, Rome and

the newest fashion in religion 1875. Hase, Handbuch der Prot. Polemik5,

Leipzig 1891. Tschackert, Evang. Polemik gegen die röm. Kirche, Gotha

1885. D. Snijder, Rome’s principal doctrines and intentions explained for

the protestant. Gor. 1890. The dogma of the infallibility of the pope etc.,

from the German by D. Snijder, Rott. 1899.

5. Against this degeneration of ecclesiastical power the Reformation rose

in opposition. It again confessed that the church was a communio

sanctorum, and that it had received from Christ a power which was

essentially distinct from that in the state. Christi Reich is nicht ein leiblich

oder weltlich, irdisch Regiment, wie andere Herren und Könige auf Erden

regieren, sondern ein geistlich, himmlisch Regiment, das da gehet nicht

über zeitlich Gut, noch was dies Leben betrifft, sondern über Herzen und

Gewissen, wie man vor Gott leben soll, seine Gnade erlangen, Luther bij

Sohm, Kirchenrecht 464, 488, cf. further Köstlin, Luthers Theol. II 486 f.

553 f. Likewise Calvin made a distinction between church and state as

between soul and body, the future and the present life, and ascribed to the

church its own offices, power, and jurisdiction, Inst. IV 1-11. 20, cf.

Lobstein, Die Ethik Calvins 1877 S. 115 f. The power of the church

therefore did not consist in any corpus juris canonici, which was publicly

burned by Luther at Wittenberg on 10 December 1520, but solely and alone

in the ministry of God’s word. Because Christ is the only head of the

church, in the church only the word of God can and may rule, not by

coercion but only by love and free obedience, Luther bij Sohm,

Kirchenrecht 464. 468; the ministry of word and sacrament is the only form

of church government, the sum total of all ecclesiastical power, the entire

power of the keys, which then, however, according to the Lutherans also

included lawful calling, obedience to the overseers, judgment of doctrine

and life, exercise of discipline, exclusion of the ungodly from the

congregation, etc., Conf. en Apol. Aug. art. 14. 20. 28 Smalc. art. de

potestate et primatu papae. Sohm has clearly brought to light this distinction

in the power which is ascribed to the church by Rome and by Luther.

It is true that he goes too far when he, in the opinion that all law is coercion,

human dominion and earthly power, deems all church law to be in conflict

with the essence of the church, cf. Rutgers, Het kerkrecht, inzoover het de

kerk met het recht in verband brengt, Amst. 1894. But nevertheless he

shows clearly that the great difference concerning the power of the church

between Rome and Protestantism is connected with the political, juridical,

or the spiritual, ethical conception of Christianity. And he himself often

acknowledges that the congregation of Christ, although a community of

saints, nevertheless demands order, already in the earliest time possessed a

certain order, 51 f., and also according to Luther and the Lutherans cannot

exist without office, lawful calling, care of souls, discipline, ban,

government, 471. 476. 486. 494. 519 f. All power in the church is directly

or indirectly ministry of the word; every regulation that it makes is

subordinate and serviceable to that. Thus the Reformed also understood it;

all power in the church rests originally with Christ, who by God has been

anointed as king over Zion, and therefore bears a spiritual character, for his

kingdom is not of this world. Insofar as Christ in the exercise of that power

makes use of organs, these are not autonomous, independent, sovereign, but

bound to Him, i.e. to his word. Every office in the congregation of Christ is

a διακονια, ministerium, without legislative, judicial, and executive power

in itself, but only able to minister what lies contained and enclosed in the

word of Christ. In fact, therefore, there is in the church no other power than

the power of the keys, the ministry of word and sacrament, which then,

however, was usually again distinguished into potestas doctrinae, potestas

disciplinae and potestas ordinis or regiminis, Calvijn, Inst. IV c. 8-12.

Martyr, Loci Comm. 405 sq. Polanus, Synt. Theol. VII 10 sq. Junius, theses

theol. 46. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII 29 sq. etc.

Although there was such agreement in the fundamental ideas, yet in the

elaboration and application an important difference between Lutherans and

the Reformed soon came to light. In the first place, Luther took over from

the Roman church the official ministry of the word to the individual and

was thus set on maintaining confession. Although he conceived the

preaching of the gospel as forgiveness of sins, also dass ein

christlicher Prediger nimmer das Maul aufthun kann, er muss eine

Absolution sprechen, Sohm t. a. p. 488, yet this was not enough for him;

absolution also had to be applied individually by the pastor in the

confession, not indeed necessary but nevertheless highly useful, Köstlin,

Luthers Theol. II 528. Caspari, art. Beichte in Herzog3. Conf. Aug. 11. 25

en Apol. Conf. Catech. minor I 5. Appendix I ad Catech. maj. Art. Smalc.

III 8. Gerhard, Loc. XV 97-117. Quenstedt, Theol. III 584. 598. Harnack,

Prakt. Theol. II 463 f. en daar aangeh. litt. Gandert, Zur Revision des

Beichtwesens in der ev. Kirche, Wittenberg 1898. But this private

confession ran up against insurmountable difficulties, against the

insufficient number of pastors, against the confession fee, against the

uncertain meaning of absolution, etc., and gradually fell into disuse.

Although now the Reformed found the mutual confession of misdeeds

useful, they let the official ministry of the word and thus also the

proclamation of the forgiveness of sins, i.e. absolution, take place only in

the public assembly of the believers, retained from confession as an

ecclesiastical institution only the regular, or sometimes in preparation for

the Lord’s Supper customary, confession of sins, and otherwise replaced

private confession by the personal house visitation, Zwingli bij Zeller, Das

theol. System Zwingli’s 153. Calvijn, Inst. III 4. IV 1, 22. Martyr, L. C. 274.

Amesius, Bellarminus enervatus III 481. Rivetus, Op. III 316. M. Vitringa

III 127 sq. Biesterveld, Het Huisbezoek, Kampen 1900.

In the second place, discipline in the Lutheran church had a different

course than in the Reformed. Luther himself indeed desired application of

discipline in the congregation of Christ; although he rejected the Roman

ban and removed all civil punishment from ecclesiastical discipline, yet

such a congregation was his ideal, which after repeated admonition

removed the evil from its midst, Köstlin, Luthers Theol. II 530 f. 560 f.

Herzog2 8, 14. 13, 588. Th. Harnack, Prakt. Theol. II 497 f. Dieckhoff,

Luthers Lehre v. d. kirchl. Gewalt, Berlin 1865, de Luthersche

absence of the presbyterial office and the exercise of ecclesiastical

discipline only by the pastor led to such abuses that it soon completely

came to nothing and, insofar as it remained, was left to the mixed

consistories [155]. Practically this yielded the same result as the doctrine of

Zwingli, Erastus, the Remonstrants, the Rationalists, and many newer

theologians, according to which the congregation has transferred its power

to exercise discipline, since the government has become Christian, to that

government. In contrast, for Calvin ecclesiastical discipline was a matter of

life; for the right of the church to remove the evil from its midst he fought

in Geneva for twenty years; he first obtained it in the year 1555, Choisy, La

théocratie à Genève 166. Discipline was not allowed to be the soul of the

church, yet it was its nerve. And this view of the obligatoriness, necessity,

and usefulness of ecclesiastical discipline became the property of the

Reformed, and distinguished them from Roman Catholics and Lutherans on

the one side, but on the other side also from Anabaptists and Mennonites,

who by their antithesis of nature and grace sometimes applied the ban

excessively strictly and deprived it of its spiritual character. Cf. Calvijn,

Inst. IV 12. Martyr, L. C. 411. Zanchius, Op. IV 736. Junius, Theses Theol.

47. Bucanus, Instit. theol. 581. Mastricht, Theol. VII 6. Synopsis pur. theol.

48. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII qu. 32. Maresius, Syst. Theol. XVI 79-87.

Voetius, Pol. Eccl. IV 841 sq. Conf. Gall. 27. Belg. 29. Cat. Heid. 83-85.

Helv. II 18 enz.

In the third place, the relation of Christianity to natural life was

determined differently by Luther than by Calvin. All Reformers agreed in

this, that they freed natural life from the pressure and power of the church,

which at Rome coincides with Christianity, as a supranatural addition to

nature, yet otherwise grants to that natural life a large scope. Protestantism

set over against that the confession that the whole world, although lying in

evil, is nevertheless in itself holy and good, a work of God, the Almighty,

the Creator of heaven and earth; it exchanged the quantitative antithesis of

natural and supernatural for the qualitative, ethical antithesis of sin and

grace. But in that there was nevertheless a great difference among the

Reformers. Zwingli never wholly overcame the medieval dualism of flesh

and spirit, of humana and divina justitia. Luther often limited the work of

Christ so much to the religious-ethical domain that the natural came to

stand alongside it as detached; the gospel changed only the outward, the

disposition, the heart, but did not work renewing and reforming upon the

whole natural life. Hence the contempt with which Luther often spoke

about reason, philosophy, jurisprudence; hence the harsh judgment that the

Formula Concordiae pronounced over the natural man as lapis, truncus aut

limus; hence the Lutheran distinction and separation between the sensuous

and the spiritual as duo hemisphaeria, quorum unum inferius, alterum

superius, cf. mijne rede over de Kathol. van Christ. en Kerk 1888 bl. 28v.,

en over de Algemeene Genade 1894 bl. 24v. From that it is also to be

explained that the Lutheran church, provided it only had the pure ministry

of word and sacrament, was fairly indifferent to every other power

bestowed by Christ upon the church. It knew better and confessed that the

church must have its own overseers and deacons, its own government and

discipline. But in practice it at once and almost without struggle ceded all

that to the government. If need be it could concede a monarchical (papal)

and episcopal government, recognize many ceremonies as adiaphora, leave

discipline to the consistories, and entrust the whole external government of

the church to the government. The church kept for itself only the preaching

office, the ministry of word and sacrament, but otherwise became a

territorial and a state church, in which the government as substitute of the

Roman episcopate, or as praecipuum membrum ecclesiae, or as

plenipotentiary of the church had almost everything to say, cf. above bl.

108. Köstlin, Luthers Theol. II 555 f. Lechler, Die neut. Lehre v. h. Amte

1857 S. 223 f. 230 f. Sohm, Kirchenrecht 542 f. en voorts Melanchton, Loci

Comm. de magistr. civil. Gerhard, Loc. XXIV. Quenstedt, Theol. IV 420-

450. Hollaz, Ex. 1352-1366. Baier, Comp. 639-649. Buddeus, Inst. Theol.

1267-1286. In substance this again entirely corresponded with the power

which Zwingli, Erastus, the Remonstrants etc. assigned to the government

in relation to the church. But the Reformed set themselves in principle

against this. Just as God had appointed the government in the state as

sovereign, so He anointed Christ as King of his church. Both, state and

church, were thus in origin, nature, government, essentially distinct from

one another; to transfer the power of the church to the government was an

assault on the kingship of Christ. But this distinction was nevertheless

never meant by the Reformed as a separation. On the contrary, just as the

church distributes its spiritual goods for the salvation of the whole natural

life in family and society, in art and science, so also the government in a

Christian land has the precious calling to protect the true church, to support

it in its expansion and propagation, to ward off and eradicate all idolatry

and false religion and to overthrow the kingdom of the antichrist. They

could not teach otherwise, because they believed that the government was

instituted by God himself on account of sin, for its restraint; that as such it

was bound to God’s law and word; that not only the second but also the first

table of the law had to be maintained on its terrain and in its manner; that

Holy Scripture was a book not exclusively with religious-ethical content,

valid only for the church, but a word of God, going out to all men and

spreading light over all creature and life; that the government under the O.

Test. was charged by God with such a task in a special way; that Christian

truth was universal and catholic, clear and plain, and thus also knowable for

the government. Cf. De Geref. belijdenisschriften bij Niemeyer 9. 32. 54.

over ketterstraf, Op. ed. Amst. VIII 510-567, cf. Choisy, La théocratie à

Genève au temps de Calvin, 1898. Bloesch, Gesch. d. Schweiz.-ref.

Kirchen, Bern 1899 I 227 s. Beza, de haereticis a civili magistratu

puniendis, Tract. Theol. I 85-169. Zanchius, Op. IV 580-587. Martyr, L. C.

473. Bullinger, Huisboek II 7. Junius, Op. I 544. Bogerman, in de diss. van

der Tuuk 1868 bl. 32v. Trigland, Antapol. c. 29. Kerckel. Gesch. passim,

vooral bl. 440v. Rhetorford, Examen Arminianismi c. 19. Revius, in de diss.

van Posthumus Meyjes, 1895 bl. 151-171. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. I 124 sq. en

passim. Disp. sel. II 692-809. III 206. Synopsis pur. theol. 50. Mastricht,

Theol. VII 7, 14. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII qu. 34. Moor VI 470-518.

Vitringa IX 1. 700 sq.

But life proved stronger than doctrine; the absolute standpoint was

gradually weakened. Already in the 16th century some Anabaptists and

Socinians demanded that the government should refrain from all

interference in matters of religion and specifically from the punishment of

heresy [158]. The Reformed doctrine, accordingly, also ran up against many

practical objections. In theory, to be sure, state and church were indeed

distinct, but in fact the state was often subject to the pronouncements of the

church, and bound to its confession. By virtue of the close union with the

church and the obligation which it had assumed, the government came to

acts of violence and coercion, for which it itself usually had an aversion,

which gave it a bad name among many noble-minded persons, loaded upon

it the appearance of Roman tyranny, and were in conflict with the Protestant

demand for freedom of conscience and of religion. So long as in a country

one confession bound all citizens or at least the great majority, the union of

church and state was still maintainable; but when gradually the Roman

church revived and in Protestantism all manner of churches and confessions

arose, to whom one could not deny the Christian character, then it became

impossible even for the strictest, to maintain the confessional character of

the state and the demand for the punishment of heresy. In England this first

came clearly to light in the 17th century. Not only Roman Catholics and

Episcopalians there contended with one another for precedence, but soon

the Presbyterians, Independents, Quakers, Levellers, and Deists appeared

one after another. Thus one advanced, led by the facts, gradually from the

confessional to the general Christian and from there to the deistic character

of the state, and tolerance and moderation became the watchword of the

eighteenth century. Roger Williams, the “arch-individualist,” was the first

who in the 17th century expressed the demand for separation in church and

state and desired absolute freedom of religion for everyone, also for heretics

and Jews, and put these principles into practice in his colony in Rhode

Island. On the Christian side and on the revolutionary side this theory found

more and more assent. Some states in America applied it since 1776, the

French Revolution carried it through in many countries. Nevertheless it

exists nowhere purely and consistently, and everyone in practice shrinks

back from its consequences.

6. That Christ has granted to his church on earth a certain power is

scarcely open to any doubt. In general already it is an undeniable truth that

nothing can exist without order and rule, that being without form is

unthinkable, that a proper ὑ λη everywhere and in every domain is nothing

but a philosophical abstraction. A family cannot exist without a head, a

people not without government, an association not without administration,

an army not without a general, etc.; anarchy is impossible. To say that

Christ founded a church without any organization, government, or power is

an assertion that arises from mystical-philosophical principles but takes

account neither of the teaching of Scripture nor of the reality of life. The

question that divides, then, is actually not this, whether the church of Christ,

in order to exist, needs a certain power and government, for all agree to

that, whether they let the congregation give this government to itself or

assign it to the civil government. But the difference runs over this, whether

Christ himself in his word, of course not in all sorts of particulars but in

principles and main matters, has granted to his church a power and

government, which therefore also constitutes and may constitute an article

of our faith and a part of our confession, Ned. Gel. art. 30-32. Yet this

difference too is decided by Holy Scripture as strongly and clearly as

possible. Christ has indeed said that his kingdom is not of this world, but he

is not in that sense a spiritual king, that he absolutely does not concern

himself with the outward and earthly. On the contrary, he has assumed full

human nature and has come into the world, not to condemn it, but to save it;

he has planted his kingdom in that world and ensured that it can exist in it

and, as a leaven, can work renewingly in all spheres of life. His work was to

break the works of the devil everywhere, and to bring the right and the

honor of God to recognition; insofar as sin has destroyed and corrupted

everything, his reconciling and redeeming activity extends intensively.

Therefore he does not merely bring some people individually by his Spirit

to faith, so that they would then freely unite and serve one another with the

received gifts of the Spirit. But he founds a congregation, a church, and

arranges it from the outset in such a way that it can exist, propagate and

expand, and accomplish its task on earth. For clarification one may and

must distinguish between the essence and the government of the church.

But this distinction must never be understood as if the believers had

originally been deprived of all government and power. On the contrary, the

previous paragraph has brought to light that the church from the first

moment of its existence after the fall onward has had a certain organization,

first in the patriarchal families, then in the people of Israel, and since

Christ’s coming to earth in the various extraordinary and ordinary offices

which he instituted in his congregation, Mark 3:14, Luke 10:1, Hd. 20:28, 1

Cor. 12:28, Ef. 4:11. Every office, however, includes a power, a right, a

competence. It is true that there are many gifts in the congregation, which,

bestowed by the H. Spirit, manifest themselves as διακονιαι of Christ and as

ἐ νεργηματα of God the Father and serve the congregation mutually for

edification, 1 Corinthians 12:4v. But nevertheless Christ attached to the offices

which he instituted in his congregation a special power, ἐ ξουσια, consisting

in the preaching of the gospel, Matthew 10:7, Mark 3:14, 16:15, Luke 9:2, etc., in

the administration of the sacraments, Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15, Luke 22:19, 1

Cor. 11:24-26, in the doing of all kinds of miracles, Matthew 10:1, 8, Mark 3:15,

16:18, Luke 9:1, 10:9, 19 etc., in the retaining or forgiving of sins, Matthew 16:19, 18:18, John 20:23, in the shepherding of the flock, John 21:15-17, Hd.

20:28, in the exercise of discipline, Matthew 18:17, 1 Corinthians 5:4, in the serving of

the tables, Hd. 6:2, in the right to live from the gospel, Matthew 10:10, 9:4v., 2

Thess. 3:9, 1 Timothy 5:18. This description, which Scripture gives of the

power of the church, indicates not only its indubitable existence, but also its

complete independence and distinctiveness over against all other power in

the world. There is manifold power and authority on earth, in family,

society, state, art, science, etc. But ecclesiastical power is in essence distinct

from all these and over against them completely autonomous. For all that

other power is derived from God as Creator of heaven and earth, Romans 13:1, but this ecclesiastical power has its origin directly in God as the

Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ef. 4:11, Hd. 20:28, and is

therefore with respect to all other earthly power completely free and

independent. Whoever with Caesareopapism or Erastianism curtails this

power of the church, restricts it and assigns it to the civil government,

infringes the honor of Christ and falls short with respect to the rights

and freedoms granted to the church. Independent must this power of the

church remain over against all other earthly power, because it is wholly of

its own kind, cannot be taken over or exercised by any other power, and

thus by such a transfer is deprived of its nature and destroyed. For all the

power that Christ has granted to his church, ministry of word and

sacrament, exercise of discipline, service of the tables, etc., has besides its

own origin also its own organ, its own nature, its own goal. It is bound to

offices which Christ alone has instituted in his congregation, to which he

alone grants and can grant the gifts, whom he alone calls and sends; no one

takes this honor to himself except he who is called by God, Romans 10:15,

Hebr. 5:4. Further, this power is spiritual. That does not mean that it is

invisible and wholly inward, for Christ is indeed a spiritual king but rules

over soul and body both, his word and sacrament address the whole human

being, the service of mercy even has chiefly to relieve bodily needs. But

when the power of the church is called spiritual, thereby it is made known

that it is bestowed by the H. Spirit of God, Hd. 20:28, can be exercised only

in the name of Christ and the power of the H. Spirit, John 20:22, 23, 1 Corinthians 5:4, concerns exclusively people as believers, 1 Corinthians 5:12, and only in a

spiritual, moral way, not with coercion and punishment in money, goods, or

life, but through conviction, faith, willingness, freedom, love and thus only

with spiritual weapons, 2 Corinthians 10:4, works and can work, Mark 16:16, John 8:32, 2 Corinthians 3:17, Ef. 6:7 etc. Finally this power also has its own goal; it

tends, although for unbelievers it also brings an aggravation of judgment, to

salvation, to edification and not to overthrow, to the perfecting of the saints

and the building up of the body of Christ, Matthew 10:13, Mark 16:16, Luke 2:34,

By all this ecclesiastical power is generically distinct from all political

power. Already under the O. Test. state and church, though closely

connected, were nevertheless not one and the same. Much more clearly,

however, Christ has expressed the distinction between his kingdom and the

kingdoms of the world, Matthew 22:21, John 18:36; he himself refused all

earthly power, Luke 12:13, 14, John 6:15, and forbade to his disciples

everything that savored of worldly dominion, Matthew 20:25, 26, 1 Petr. 5:3.

Between church and state and the power of both there is therefore all

manner of difference; in origin not only, as was already remarked above,

but further also in organs, for the offices in the congregation of Christ are

all διαχονιαι, but the political government is sovereign, and has, though a

servant of God, nevertheless right and power to issue laws and to demand

submission to them; in kind and nature, for the power of the church is

spiritual, but the power of the political government is natural, earthly,

worldly, extends over all subjects, without any other quality than that they

are subjects, and regulates only their earthly interests; in goal, for

ecclesiastical power tends to the building up of the body of Christ, but

political power has its destination in this life and strives after the bonum

naturale et commune; in means, for the church has no other than spiritual

weapons, but the government bears the sword, has the right over life and

death and may demand obedience with coercion and violence. As unlawful

therefore on the one side it is to assign ecclesiastical power to the civil

government, so sinful it is also on the other side to change ecclesiastical

power into a political one. Romanism and Anabaptism are both guilty of

that, because both proceed from the antithesis of nature and grace. Only

Anabaptism makes that antithesis absolute and thereby destroys nature;

Rome takes it relatively and suppresses nature. In the Middle Ages, when

the Roman church possessed sole dominion, this striving came to light more

clearly; but in principle it has not changed, and still it is driven by the same

desire, to make the clergy as much as possible free from political

subordination, to draw all kinds of civil matters within its circle and subject

them to its judgment; to shine through outward splendor and pomp, to

expand possession of capital and real property, to exercise political

influence at courts; to demand on the ground of Matthew 28:18 and according to

the theory of the two swords for the pope, if not the direct then at least the

indirect power over the whole world, etc., cf. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. I 115. Not

only, however, is the Roman church always out to make all earthly,

political power subservient to itself; worse still is that it deprives

ecclesiastical power itself of its spiritual character and changes it into a

political dominion. First, this becomes manifest in this, that the Roman

church ascribes to itself, i.e. to the pope, the highest legislative power.

Formerly this power was still limited by Scripture and tradition, by bishops

and councils; the government was a monarchy tempered by aristocracy. But

since the promulgation of the dogma of infallibility this relation has been

reversed. The pope is in a formal sense absolute monarch. By virtue of the

alleged assistance of the H. Spirit he determines infallibly what must be

believed and done. There is no higher appeal; what he binds or looses is

bound or loosed in heaven; what he says has as much authority as if it were

spoken by Christ himself. The dogmas and laws which he promulgates bind

the conscience, and oblige to faith and obedience on forfeiture of eternal

salvation. From the civil government there is appeal to God, but the

sovereignty of the pope is the very highest; God himself speaks through his

mouth. Second, the Roman church ascribes to itself, i.e. to the pope, the

highest judicial power. Ecclesiastical power is twofold, potestas ordinis and

potestas jurisdictionis; the potestas docendi, even if it is mentioned

separately, properly belongs to the potestas jurisdictionis. Therein is

included that the administration of word and sacrament in Rome is not

proclamation of the gospel, but a legal transaction and a pronouncement.

All the baptized belong not in a moral, spiritual sense but by right, in a

juridical sense, with an unchangeable and inalienable right to the pope; they

are his sheep, whom he may, if necessary, bring back into the sheepfold by

force, even if perhaps he cannot do it because of the circumstances of time.

Nach dem Rechte der katholischen Kirche gehören eigentlich alle Getauften

zur Kirche, also auch zur Parochie, aber in Ermangelung von

Zwangsmitteln fehlt gegenüber Andersgläubigen die Durchführbarkeit

dieses Anspruchs, Vering, Lehrb. des kath. orient, u. prot. Kirchenrechts3

603. And all the Roman church members come under the preaching and to

the sacrament of penance, in order to hear their judgment. The confessional

is a court, the priest a judge; after having heard the accusations which the

penitent brings against himself, he pronounces the sentence; he binds

and looses, not deprecatively and conditionally, but by virtue of the spirit of

office that dwells in him, peremptorily and absolutely; as he judges, God

judges in heaven. Third, Rome, i.e. the pope, lays claim to the highest

executive and coercive power. The distinction between ecclesiastical and

civil punishment has no value for Rome. If the church judges it useful and

is able to do so, it applies the latter just as well as the former. It is true, it

did not carry out the death penalty, for ecclesia non sitit sanguinem. But

otherwise it left no means untried to compel disobedient children to

submission. And Rome was inventive. Monetary penalty, penance, prison,

inquisition, rack, assassination, ban, interdict, release of subjects from

obedience to the prince, etc. have all served. That was and is in principle

still the conception of ecclesiastical power in Rome.

The Reformers, over against that, again conceived the potestas

ecclesiastica in the sense of Scripture as a spiritual power. Thus the potestas

docendi, the ministry of word and sacrament, naturally came to stand in the

foreground. The Lutherans even let, at least in practice, the whole

ecclesiastical power be absorbed in it; they had only pastores, no presbyters

and deacons. But the Reformed also restored these offices and therefore,

alongside the potestas docendi, also adopted the potestas jurisdictionis. The

word jurisdictio, however, although Calvin, Inst. IV 11 adopted it, found no

general approval. Coccejus on 1 Cor. 5 rejected it; Maresius, Syst. Theol.

15, 75 f. 16, 70 a said that there was, purely and correctly speaking, no

jurisdictio in the church and that the word in the ecclesiastical sphere might

only be conceived analogice; all acknowledged that the jurisdictio in the

church was of an entirely different nature than in the state and bore a

spiritual character, Voetius, Pol. IV 798, and many avoided the word and

preferred rather to speak of potestas gubernans, ordinans, disciplinaris etc.

Furthermore, some distinguished a twofold, but others a threefold power.

The power of the church, namely, was not exhausted in the ministry of word

and sacrament and in the exercise of discipline; it also had the right and the

competence, in the interest of order, to make laws and to take measures of

all kinds. Thus, alongside and often between the potestas docendi

(doctrinae, scientiae, dogmatica, ordinis) and the potestas disciplinae [165]

(critica, jurisdictionis, correptionis) there also came to stand the potestas

directionis (regiminis, ordinis, diatactica, legislativa,) Calvin, Inst. IV 8, 1.

Bucanus, Inst. 519. Maresius, Syst. Theol. 16, 70. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. I 118.

Vitringa IX 1 p. 457. Remarkable is that, with this power of the church, the

diaconate was never brought up for discussion. Yet Christ has also bestowed

in that a power upon his church, which is of the greatest significance. A

threefold power therefore exists, in connection with the offices of pastor,

presbyter, and deacon and further in connection with the threefold office of

Christ, the prophetic, kingly, and priestly office, to be distinguished in his

church: the potestas docendi, the potestas gubernans (of which the potestas

disciplinae is a component part), and the potestas misericordiae.

7. The potestas docendi has its origin and ground in the prophetic office,

to which Christ has been anointed and which He Himself still always

exercises through His Word and Spirit. He has not transferred it to any man,

and has appointed no pope or bishop, no pastor or teacher as His agent and

substitute; but He is still always our highest prophet, who from heaven

teaches His church through Word and Spirit. Yet in doing so He, as a rule,

makes use of men as His organs, not only of the office-bearers in the

narrower sense but of all believers and of each one of them according to the

grace that has been given to him. The church itself is prophetess, and all

Christians are partakers of the anointing of Christ and called to confession

of the Lord’s name. The office does not suppress the gifts but only guides

them. There are many charismata, which belong to the potestas docendi of

the church, wisdom, knowledge, prophecy etc. 1 Corinthians 12:8v. Christ instructs

and teaches through the father in the family, through the teacher at the

school, through the presbyter at the house visitation, through all the

believers in their mutual intercourse and in their dealings with others. But

He does it especially in a distinct manner, officially, with expressly granted

charge and authority, in the public assemblies of the people of God, through

the minister of the Word. Under the potestas docendi this official ministry

of the Word is now chiefly to be understood. In two respects this service

must be maintained in its independence. First, with respect to the [166]

Roman church, which makes the word subordinate to the sacrament, the

homilist to the liturgist, the preaching to the cultus, the potestas docendi to

the potestas jurisdictionis. According to Scripture, however, the word takes

precedence, and the sacrament is added to it as an appendage and seal; there

is no sacrament without word, but there is a word without sacrament. The

sacrament follows the word; he who administers the word therefore need

not always, 1 Corinthians 1:14-17, but can and may nevertheless administer the

sacrament, and is also then a minister of the word, of the visible word,

which is added to the audible. Second, this official ministry of the word is

independent over against all instruction of the word that takes place by the

believers among one another or outwardly, and even essentially distinct

from the application which the presbyter has to make of the word at the

visitation of the members of the church. Certainly the official ministry of

the word in the assemblies of the church can and may also be conceived as

a feeding of the flock. Scripture leads us in this. The Lord is the shepherd of

is called the shepherd of the flock, Ezekiel 34:23, John 10:11, 14, Hebrews 13:20,

1 Peter 2:25, 5:4, Revelation 7:17. And under Him as the ἀ ρχιποιμην, 1 Peter 5:4,

His ministers also bear the name of shepherds, ποιμενες, pastores, Isa.

Acts 20:28, 1 Corinthians 9:7, Ephesians 4:11, 1 Peter 5:2, cf. the Form. of the Reformed

churches for the confirmation of ministers of the word. But since the two

activities of feeding and teaching, of governing and laboring in the word

and the doctrine, were separated and each received its own organ, Ephesians 4:11, 1 Timothy 5:17, the name of teacher has become the characteristic title of

the minister of the word. By his preparation and training, by his entire

devotion to labor in the word, by the power to live from the gospel, by his

official ministry of word and sacrament in the assembly of the believers he

is distinguished from the overseer, the ruling elder, who is specially charged

with the ποιμαινειν, Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2. Yet this teaching must not be

understood in an intellectualistic sense; rather, with the above-mentioned

Formulary it is thus to be interpreted, that the ministers of the Lord will set

forth the word thoroughly and sincerely to their people and

appropriate it, both in general and in particular, to the profit of the hearers,

with instructing, admonishing, comforting and rebuking, according to each

one’s need, proclaiming conversion to God and reconciliation with Him

through faith in Jesus Christ and refuting with Holy Scripture all errors and

heresies that strive against this pure doctrine. More closely, there is

enclosed in this potestas docendi the right and duty of the church, 1º to care

for the training of her future ministers or to supervise that training

accurately, to call, to examine, to send, to confirm, to maintain her

ministers, through their service to have the word of God preached both to

believers and unbelievers, and thus to confirm, to extend and to propagate

the church of God among the human race; 2º to administer the word of God

by means of the office in different form according to each one’s need,

specifically in the form of milk to the young, and in that of solid food to the

adult members of the church, but further always in such a way that the full

counsel of God, the whole richness of His word is unfolded and, in

accordance with the needs of each people and land, of each century and

time, of each church and of all believers in particular, developed and

preserve the word of God, to translate it, to explain it according to the rule

of faith, to defend it against all combating of the lie, 1 Timothy 1:3, 4, 2 Timothy 1:13, Titus 1:9-11, 13, 14 and thus to build up the church on the foundation of

apostles and prophets, Ephesians 2:20 and to cause it to be a στυλος και

ἑ δραιωμα της ἀ ληθειας, 1 Timothy 3:15, i.e. a pillar and foundation, which

bears the truth, displays it before everyone’s eye and makes it known to all.

Directly from this flows the competence of the churches to confess the

truth which it believes and to maintain it in its midst as confession. From

the side of the Remonstrants in the preface to their Confession and Apology,

of the Baptists, Congregationalists, Quakers, cf. Schaff, Creeds I 834. 852.

864. and of many others, it has been objected against this that the drawing

up of binding confessions is in conflict with the all-sufficiency of Scripture,

destroys Christian freedom, introduces an unbearable tyranny, cuts off

further investigation and continuing development [168]. Scripture, however,

clearly imposes upon the churches the duty to be a pillar and ground of the

truth and to confess it before all men, to avoid such as deviate from the

doctrine of the truth, and to maintain the word of God over against all

opponents. The church has almost from the beginning, i.e. from the

beginning of the second century onward, been a confessional church, which

had its unity in the rule of faith common to all, i.e. in the baptismal

confession, in the original, later somewhat expanded, apostolic symbol, and

furthermore was repeatedly in the course of the centuries compelled by

heresy and slander to a broader development of the truth, cf. Zahn,

Glaubensregel und Taufbekenntniss in der alten Kirche, in zijne Skizzen aus

dem Leben der alten Kirche 1898 S. 238-270. Id. Das apost. Symbolum

1893. Kattenbusch, Das apost. Symbol I 1894. Kunze, Glaubensregel, H.

Schrift und Taufbekenntniss, Leipzig 1899. A church also cannot exist in a

world full of lies and deceit without a rule of faith, becomes, as history

especially in this century teaches, without a firm confession a prey to all

kinds of error and confusion and subject to the tyranny of prevailing

directions and opinions. With such a confession the church also does not

detract from the perfection of Holy Scripture, but expresses nothing other

than what is contained in that Scripture; the confession does not stand

alongside, much less above, but deep beneath Holy Scripture; this alone is

α ὐ τοπιστος, unconditionally binding to faith and obedience, unchangeable,

but the confession is and remains always examinable and revisable by

Scripture; it is no norma normans, but at most norma normata, no norma

veritatis, but norma doctrinae in aliqua ecclesia receptae, subordinate,

fallible, a work of men, an imperfect expression of what the church has

taken up from Scripture as divine truth into its consciousness and now on

the authority of God’s word confesses over against all error and falsehood.

Nor does the church with this confession compel anyone nor does it bind

investigation, for it leaves everyone free to confess otherwise and to

conceive the truth of God in another sense; it listens attentively to the

objections which may possibly be raised against its confession on the

ground of God’s word and examines them according to the requirement of

its confession itself; only it refuses and must refuse to lower itself to a

debating society or philosophical association, in which today counts

as truth what yesterday was a lie, for it is not like a wave of the sea, but like

a rock, pillar and ground of the truth. Cf. deel I 25 and furthermore still

(Dunlop) A collection of confessions of faiths, cathechisms, directories,

books of discipline etc. of publick authority in the church of Scotland, I

Edinb. 1719 preface p. V-CXLIV.

8. Christ is not only prophet, He is also king, who still continually from

heaven personally governs His church. But in doing so He nevertheless

makes use of men and thus to that extent gave to His church a potestas

gubernationis. In a broader sense, under that is to be understood all the

guidance and care which the believers together exercise with respect to one

another. In the church the word of Esau does not apply: am I my brother’s

keeper? All are one another’s members, suffer and rejoice with one another,

have the ability and the calling, also mutually to teach, to admonish, to

comfort, to edify one another, Romans 15:14, Colossians 3:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:11. There

are gifts of guidance, of government, which Christ through the H. Spirit

distributes to the church and which He does not nullify by the offices but

keeps in the right track, Romans 12:8, 1 Corinthians 12:28. And among those gifts

love stands at the top, which causes the one to go before the other in

appreciation and esteem, Romans 12:10, Philippians 2:3, 1 Petr. 5:5. But nevertheless

Christ as king of His church in the presbyterate has also instituted a definite

office, through which He governs His church. This governing, however,

bears a spiritual character, because Christ is king in the kingdom of grace,

and is in Scripture called a ποιμαινειν, John 21:15-17, Hd. 20:28, 1 Petr. 5:2;

everything that makes one think of earthly power and political dominion is

excluded from it, 2 Corinthians 1:24, 1 Petr. 5:2, 3. In a broader sense this

ποιμαινειν also includes the work of the teacher, but there is nevertheless a

great difference between the public proclamation and the personal,

individual application of the word, between the tending of the flock in

general and the caring for each of the sheep in particular. The believers are

indeed called, to take heed to one another, unto the sharpening of love and

of good works, Hebr. 10:24, but in order that not a single sheep of the flock

remain uncared for, Christ has nevertheless entrusted to a definite office the

feeding of the sheep. That He has thereby provided for an essential

need of His church appears from this, that, when the presbyterate gradually

disappeared, in confession a human surrogate for this official service was

instituted. Undoubtedly therefore confession contains something good, Jak.

5:16, Calvin, Inst. III 1, 13, but it cannot weigh up against the well-ordered

service of the presbyterate. For it introduces an unlawful coercion of

conscience, makes the believers dependent on the absolution of the priest,

imposes in the confession of all special sins, particularly of the mortal sins,

a duty impossible to fulfil, makes grace and salvation at every moment

uncertain and unstable, compels to a casuistic and quantitative treatment of

sin and punishment, and gives occasion to all kinds of immoral practices.

Scripture therefore nowhere speaks of such a forced confession. But what it

says to us in example and precept is this, that Nathan goes to David and

Elijah to Ahab and Isaiah to Hezekiah, to speak with them personally about

their sins; that Christ goes through the land preaching and blessing, that He

knows all His sheep by name and lets none be lost, John 10:3, 28, that He

charges Peter and all the apostles not only with the feeding of the flock but

also with the feeding of the sheep, John 21:15-17, that He commands His

disciples, to preach the gospel in cities, villages, and houses, Matthew 10:11, 12,

that Paul visits the brethren in every city, Hd. 15:36, strengthens the

churches, Hd. 15:41 in public and from house to house, δημοσι ᾳ και κατ’

ο ἰ κους, preaches conversion to God and faith in Christ, Hd. 20:20, 21, cf.

Calvin, Inst. IV 1, 22. Moreover, the need for such a continual spiritual care

lies of itself enclosed in the condition of the church of Christ in this

dispensation. Even if the church has once been planted, it is not at once

perfect; on the contrary it has struggle from within and without, is prey to

all kinds of attacks of sin and falsehood, and runs every moment danger, to

stray to the right or to the left. The church is a field, which must continually

be weeded, a tree, which in its time must be pruned, a flock, which must

always be led and fed, a house, at which one must always build, a bride,

who must be prepared in order to be presented as a pure virgin to her

husband. There are sick, dying, tried, sorrowful, assailed, tempted,

doubting, fallen, imprisoned etc., who have need of teaching and

instruction, admonition and comfort. And even apart from this, the church

ought to grow up in the knowledge and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ; the

children must become youths, the youths men, the men fathers in Christ,

and for that have need of guidance and care. The teachers too are weak and

sinful men and ought to stand under oversight; if the council of elders and

the assembly of neighbouring churches does not do this, the church

becomes a plaything of the pastor or else a superintendency or episcopate

becomes necessary. In one word, the teachers sow the word, the elders seek

the fruit. Cf. further on the presbyterate: Calvin, Inst. IV 1, 22. 12, 2.

Martyr, Loci p. 392b. Zanchius, Op. IV 730. Bullinger, Huysboeck, Dec. 5

serm. 3. Junius, Op. I 1563. Bucanus, Inst. theol. 493. Mastricht, Theol. VII

2, 22. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. III 436-479. VI 92-109. M. Vitringa IX 229.

Renesse, Van het regeerouderlingschap 1659. Koelman, Ambt en pligt der

ouderlingen 1765. Nieuwe werken van Th. Harnack, Prakt. Theol. II 291-

350. Id. in Zöcklers Handb. der theol. Wiss. III 503-537. Achelis, Prakt.

Theol. II 177-323. H. A. Koestlin, Die Lehre von der Seelsorge, Berlin

1895. Kuyper, Enc. III 524. Biesterveld, Het huisbezoek, Kampen 1900

enz.

9. To the activity of the overseers belongs in particular also ecclesiastical

discipline, potestas disciplinae. Hebrew has for discipline the word מּוָסר,

which properly means adstrictio, constrictio and in Greek is translated by

νουθετημα, διδασκαλια, νομος, σοφια and in the N. T. is rendered especially

by the word παιδεια. Both words, like the Dutch word tucht, from tien,

trekken, in general indicate that something that is young, tender, small,

weak is reared with care. But since in general and especially among human

beings this rearing must always at the same time counteract abnormal

development, the word tucht acquires the secondary meaning of reproof,

chastisement, correction. Almost never do the words denote instruction,

teaching alone, cf. however Hd. 7:22, 22:3, but always such an upbringing

and instruction as proceed by way of reproof and chastisement. Thus God

brings up his children, Hebr. 12:5-11, and Christ his church, Op. 3:19,

by means of Scripture, which is useful προς διδασκαλιαν, προς ἐ λεγμον,

such a discipline Christ has also instituted in his church. In the O. T. there

did not yet exist an ecclesiastical discipline properly so called, although

Adam too was banished from paradise and although in Israel the

uncircumcised, lepers, and the unclean were kept away from the sanctuary,

Lev. 5v., Ezech. 44:9, for for unintentional sins there was always

atonement, for sins with a high hand there stood extermination, and the

cherem was at the same time a civil punishment. Only when Israel became

a church did the exclusively ecclesiastical punishment arise, the separation

from the congregation of believers, Ezra 10:8, and this ban is still applied by

the Jews in some cases, Gunning, De Chasidim bl. 55. Perhaps in

connection with this synagogal discipline, Christ ordained discipline in his

church. In Matthew 16:19 He gives the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter,

in Matthew 18:18 to the church, in John 20:23 to the apostles, so that they have

the power, on the basis of the confession of Christ and under the guidance

of the Spirit, to bind and to loose, to retain someone’s sins or to forgive.

Only because Christ gives this power to his church is it authorized to

exercise discipline. In Matthew 18:15-17 He then indicates how this discipline

must be exercised. God does not will that one of the little ones who believe

in Jesus should be lost. Matthew 18:1-14. If therefore someone has been

offended or unjustly treated by his brother, then he must first by personal

rebuke, then by rebuke in the presence of two or three witnesses, and

thereafter by rebuke on the part of the whole church, attempt to win him;

and only if all that is of no avail, then he, the offended one (σοι, vs. 17, in

sing.) may regard him as a heathen and tax collector, then he has tried

everything with him, and he is free from his blood. Such a judgment then

has force in heaven. This is the ordinary way along which discipline in the

church, according to Jesus’ command, must proceed. But from that is to be

distinguished the discipline which God himself, which Christ, and which

also the apostles sometimes exercise in his name and power. God can visit

sins in the church, e.g. the unworthy use of the Lord’s Supper, with sickness

and death, 1 Corinthians 11:30. Ananias and Sapphira, because of their lying

against the Spirit of God, fell down dead at Peter’s feet, Hd. 5. Paul

punished Elymas, Hd. 13:11, with blindness. In 1 Cor. 5 Paul commands the

church, while it, together with his spirit, which has already pronounced

judgment over the incestuous man in its midst, vs. 3, assembled and thus

bound with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, in Christ’s name to deliver

such a one to Satan, so that he, struck by this one in his body, might thus

nevertheless be saved again in spirit in the day of Christ. Paul at the same

time reproaches the Corinthians vs. 2 that they had not already earlier

removed him from their midst and thus presupposes that they had the right

and the obligation to do so. And precisely because they had not done that,

but had borne with the sinner and thus had shared in his sin, therefore he

now deems a radical measure necessary. He himself as apostle has already

passed judgment for himself, and now demands that the church, in full

assembly, immediately, without further admonition, according to the

authority now granted to it by the apostle, indeed according to the power of

Christ himself, in his name judge the evil one; and not merely simply place

him outside the church, as in vs. 2 was demanded of it, but specifically

deliver him to Satan for bodily affliction. Here therefore there is mention,

not of ordinary excommunication, as e.g. in Matthew 18:17, but of a special,

apostolic act of power. This is also evident from 1 Timothy 1:20, 2 Timothy 2:17,

where Paul as apostle, entirely alone, without the church, in the same way

delivers Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan, so that they would be

disciplined not to blaspheme any more. There is therefore a great difference

between these extraordinary punishments and the ordinary exercise of

discipline, which is entrusted to the church. Of this latter Paul spoke in 1

Cor. 5:2 and more closely still in vs. 9-13. There he says namely that in an

earlier letter, which thus preceded this “first” letter, he admonished them

not to associate, i.e. to have no intercourse, with fornicators. But the

Corinthians had misunderstood that and from it inferred that they were not

at all to have any dealings, not even in civil life, with fornicators, the

covetous, robbers, idolaters outside the church. But that was not the

apostle’s intention; that would have been an impossible demand,

tantamount to this, that they had to go out of the world [174]. Only had he

desired that they should have no intercourse with a fornicator etc., if such a

one was called a brother and was a member of the church. Yes, in that case

he wishes that they will also hold no meal with such a fallen brother, neither

go to eat with him nor invite him to eat, not associate with him in a friendly

and brotherly way, but that they, while they leave those who are outside to

God’s judgment, will remove such an evil one, who associates in their

circle, from their midst, cf. 2 Corinthians 2:5-10. Likewise Paul elsewhere speaks

of the right and the duty of the church, to take heed of and to avoid,

ἐ κκλινειν, those who cause dissension and offense, Romans 16:17; in Jesus’

name to withdraw, to separate, στελλεσθαι ἀ πο, from every brother who

walks disorderly, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14; after a first and second, i.e. after repeated

admonition, to withdraw from, not to have to do with (παραιτεισθαι, to have

oneself excused from something or someone by entreaties, to let go, to

dismiss) a heretical man, who (as a member of the church, or perhaps also

from outside) breaks the unity of the faith in the church, Titus 3:10. John says

the same; if someone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, then

you may not receive him into your house as a brother, not associate with

him in a friendly and brotherly way, and not greet and welcome him as a

brother. 2 Joh. 10. And finally in Op. 2:2 the church of Ephesus is praised

because it does not tolerate the evil; in Op. 2:14, 20, 24 those of Pergamum

and Thyatira are rebuked because they tolerate heretical teachings and

heathen abominations. Cf. Meyer, Die Lehre des N. T. von der

Kirchenzucht, Zeits. f. kirchl. Wiss. u. kirchl. Leben 1881.

This doctrine of Holy Scripture has been applied most purely in the

exercise of discipline of the Reformed churches. According to it, indeed, 1º

not impersonal things, writings, buildings, countries, but always persons are

the object; and not men in general, for those who are outside, God judges, 1

Cor. 5:10, no dead persons, no class or group of men, but always definite,

individual persons, who are members of the congregation either only by

baptism, or also by confession. 2º The cause of discipline is not all kinds of

weaknesses into which believers fall, nor also such dreadful sins which the

Christian government punishes, although the church then follows and

its discipline is not superfluous, Calv. Inst. IV 11, 3. Bucanus 539, but such

sins as arouse offence in the midst of the congregation and are not or are

very mildly punished by the government, Mastricht, Theol. VII 6, 8. 3º With

these sins, to which ecclesiastical discipline is applicable, a distinction must

be made between hidden and public sins. The former are dealt with

according to the rule of Mt. 18, and first acquire the character of public sins

when private admonitions do not avail and thus the whole congregation, or

its representation in the consistory, becomes involved in it. 4º With these

sins that have become public through obstinacy and with those that are

public from the outset by their character (e.g. murder, adultery) the

procedure is as follows: as soon as the transgressor shows sincere

repentance, all ecclesiastical discipline in the narrower sense ceases. The

Lord’s Supper may then still be withheld, in order that the offence may be

removed from the congregation and the sincerity of the confession of guilt

may come to light; but there is no longer any question of discipline. He who

confesses his sin finds with God and thus also with his congregation mercy.

The discipline that leads to cutting off always begins only after

unrepentance and obstinacy have been shown. In order that the

congregation may be fully convinced of this and not lightly proceed to the

removal of the evil one from its midst, the consistory begins with

admonitions. If the transgressor hardens himself against these, there follows

first, with withholding of the Lord’s Supper, the making known of the sin

without the name of the sinner in the midst of the congregation; thereafter

the making known of the sin with the name of the sinner, yet not except

after a well-grounded advice of the classis; subsequently the making known

that he, if he remains persistent, will be cut off; and finally the cutting off

itself with the form for the ban. The time that must elapse between all these

admonitions and disciplinary measures is not to be determined, since it is

connected with the nature of the sin, the conduct of the transgressor, the

offence within and outside the congregation. 5º The punishments that the

church applies in this are purely spiritual. They do not consist and may not

consist in a monetary fine, bodily chastisement, branding, torture,

imprisonment, dishonour, banishment, death penalty, etc., as Rome asserts,

nor also in dissolution of family, civil, political relations, as the Anabaptists

taught; likewise not in exclusion from the public religious services, as

the Christian church in the first period applied this. For the weapons of the

congregation are not fleshly but spiritual and therefore powerful before

God, 2 Corinthians 10:4. But the discipline of the congregation is a serious test

whether someone who has misbehaved and hardens himself against all

admonition can and may still be regarded as a brother. Excommunication is

therefore in the end nothing else but also nothing less than a renunciation of

brotherly intercourse and brotherly communion; a withdrawing of the

congregation; a finally, with sorrow, letting go of him who presented

himself as a brother but proved not to be a brother. It is no handing over to

Satan, which in the N. T. occurs only as an apostolic act, no condemnation

or cursing, no ἀ ναθεμα, which in the N. Test. is never, not even in Romans 9:3, used of ecclesiastical discipline, cf. Cremer s. v., but only and yet also

nothing less than a solemn declaration of the congregation in Jesus’ name,

that the sinner has become public as not being a sincere brother in Christ,

and thus a placing of him outside the congregation and its communion, so

that God alone may judge him. 6o Excommunication is an ultimate remedy,

in order that the one removed from brotherly intercourse may come to

repentance. Even the apostolic handing over to Satan still had this meaning,

1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:20. Even if the congregation may regard the expelled

one also as a heathen and tax collector, because it has expended all effort on

him, without fruit; even if it had to cast him out, in order itself to have no

fellowship in his sins, 1 Corinthians 5:6, 7, 11:30; yet the hope remains that he may

still be a brother, who by admonition will be set right from his error, 2

Thess. 3:14. 7o Therefore readmission into the congregation always

remains possible, Matthew 16:18, 18:18, John 20:23, 2 Corinthians 2:5-10; but in that

case prior public confession is necessary, which in all other cases may be

required only with all caution and according to the judgment of the whole

consistory. Cf. Calvin, Inst. IV 12. Ursinus, Explic. Cat. qu. 83-85.

Zanchius, Op. IV 736. Polanus, Syst. Theol. p. 544. Martyr, Loci 411.

Junius, Theses Theol. 47. Bucanus, Instit. theol. 531. Heidegger II p. 600.

Synopsis pur. theol. disp. 48. Voetius, Pol. IV 770-982. Mastricht, Theol.

VII c. 6. Moor VI 400-422. M. Vitringa IX 1 p. 498-573 etc. From

more recent times: Scheele, Die Kirchenzucht 1852. Fabri, Kirchenzucht im

Sinne und Geiste des Evang. 1854. Art. Bann, Kirchenzucht,

Schlüsselgewalt, Gerichtsbarkeit in Herzog. Müller, Dogm. Abh. 496 f.

Vilmar, Von der christl. Kirchenzucht 1872. Id. Kirchenzucht u. Lehrzucht

10. In the third place Christ is also priest and still exercises this office

from heaven in his church by intercession and blessing. Just as as prophet

he teaches his own and as king he governs them, so as priest he shows them

the riches of his mercy. When he was on earth, he went about the cities and

villages, not only teaching in the synagogues and preaching the gospel of

the kingdom, but also healing every disease and every infirmity among the

people, Matthew 9:35. And this was no incidental and accidental activity but a

principal component of the work which the Father had commissioned him

to do, Matthew 8:17, John 5:36, 9:3, 4 etc. The fullness of his power and the

riches of his mercy were made manifest in it; the works of sin and Satan

were broken by it; the consequences of sin in the physical world were

thereby initially removed; they issued forth and received their seal and

consummation in the resurrection, which was the victory over death and the

principle of the renewal of all things. When, then, he sends out his disciples,

he gives them not only the charge to preach the gospel, but just as certainly

and emphatically, to cast out the unclean spirits and to heal every disease

disciples fulfilled that charge, not only during Jesus’ stay on earth but also

after his ascension, Hd. 5:16, 8:7 etc. Indeed, according to Jesus’ own

promise, Mark 16:17, 18, in the first period many extraordinary gifts of

healings and workings of powers were bestowed upon the believers, Hd.

of teaching and the gifts of governing, so it also went with those of mercy.

The extraordinary condition of the church gradually became normal. And

although the gifts were not suppressed or destroyed, they nevertheless were

gradually more and more connected with the office. Teaching was

entrusted to the didaskalos, governing to the presbyter, and likewise the

service of mercy to the deacon, Hand. 6. And the gifts themselves, though

remaining gifts of the H. Spirit, acquired a more simple and ordinary

character. Rome does indeed claim that the miraculous power continues

with her, part I 270, but more beautiful than those miracles on which she

prides herself are the works of mercy, which bear powerful witness to her

faith and love. For when the diaconate in the Christian church gradually

changed entirely in character, the treasure of love and mercy which Christ

pours out in his church has revealed itself richly in private charity. Although

the regulation of the service of mercy in Rome leaves far too much to be

desired, nevertheless she takes first place among the Christian churches in

works of love. For the Reformed church has indeed restored the office of

deacon, but she has not properly regulated its place and service and has not

brought its activity to development. This development, to which the need of

the times at present presses, can in the main not take place otherwise than in

this direction: 1o that the office of deacon be honored more than hitherto as

an independent organ of the priestly mercy of Christ, 2o that love and

mercy as the Christian virtues par excellence be recognized and practiced,

3o that deacons be charged to move all members of the congregation,

especially the well-to-do, in the name of Christ to mercy, and to warn and to

guard against the sin of greed, which is a root of all evil, 4o that the

diaconate not kill private charity, but awaken, regulate, and lead it, 5o that

the bearers of this office, if necessary, in large congregations make use of

the help of deaconesses, in the same way as the other two offices make use

of catechism teachers and comforters of the sick, 6o that they distribute

their gifts, in Christ’s name, as taken from the tables of the Lord, upon

which they have been laid down by the congregation and bestowed upon

Christ himself, Matthew 25:40, 7o that they extend their help to all poor, sick,

strangers, prisoners, idiots, insane persons, widows, orphans, in a word to

all miserable and needy persons who are in the midst of the congregation,

and meet them in their suffering with word and with deed, 8o that the

service of mercy obtain a much broader place on the agenda of all

ecclesiastical assemblies than has hitherto been the case, 9o that the

deacons together with ministers and elders be delegated to the broader

assemblies of the churches and in all matters concerning the service of

mercy obtain a decisive vote, 10o that in these assemblies the service of

mercy be regulated according to general principles, with due regard to the

difference of congregational circumstances; that for general needs it be

undertaken in common, and from the local congregation be extended to the

support of other churches, and furthermore also to the rendering of help to

poor, oppressed fellow believers abroad, and 11o that this diaconal labor in

its independence remain maintained and not be absorbed into or mixed with

the work of the inner Mission, or also with state poor relief, which bears an

entirely different character. Cf. Calvin, Inst. IV 3, 9. Musculus, Loci Comm.

425. Bullinger, Huysboeck V 3. Zanchius, Op. IV 765. Junius, Op. I 1566.

Bucanus, Inst. 494. Voetius, III 496-513. M. Vitringa IX 272-296. G.

Uhlhorn, Die christl. Liebesthätigkeit, Stuttgart 1882-’90. Bonwetsch, das

Amt der Diakonie in der alten Kirche, 1890. Seesemann, Das Amt der

Diakonissen in der alten Kirche, 1891. Schäfer, Diakonik in Zöcklers

Handb. der theol. Wiss. III 538-572. Achelis, Prakt. Theol. II 324-451.

Wurster, Die Lehre v. d. inneren Mission, Berlin 1895. Kuyper, Enc. III

11. This authority, bestowed by Christ upon his church, comes together in

the local church in the consistory. Every local church is, according to the N.

Test., independent, an ecclesia completa, and therefore bears, just as much

as the church as a whole, the name of temple of God, 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17, 2 Corinthians 6:16, bride, 2 Corinthians 11:2, or body of Christ, 1 Corinthians 12:27. The believers do

not stand by themselves but form a unity, and thus also the office-bearers in

a local church do not remain standing separately alongside one another but

unite into a council of the church. Traces of that are already present in the

N. Test. In Jerusalem the believers, after they had been incorporated into the

church by baptism, came together from time to time, continuing steadfastly

in the teaching of the apostles, in the fellowship, in the breaking of bread, in

the prayers, Hd. 1:14, 2:41v., 5:12 etc.; and they stood under the

leadership of the college of the apostles, who were soon assisted therein by

the presbyters, Hd. 6:2, 15:2, 6, 22. All kinds of circumstances, the gifts of

the H. Spirit, in particular those of didaskalie, prophecy and glossolalie, the

gatherings of the believers, the administration of word and sacrament, the

collection of the offerings, the care of the poor etc., made leadership and

regulation and thereby also counsel and deliberation of themselves

necessary. At first the apostles provided as much as possible for all those

needs, took measures and made determinations, Hd. 15:28v., 1 Corinthians 11:4-6,

34, 14:27v., 16:1, 1 Tim. 3 etc. For everything had to take place in the

church of Christ decently and with order, in peace and unto edification, 1

Cor. 14:26, 33, 40. But when the office of elders had been instituted, these

were charged with the leadership and government of the church; and these

soon formed among themselves a college, πρεσβυτηριον, 1 Timothy 4:14.

Under the leadership of such a college the church, however, in the first

times enjoyed a great measure of independence; in weighty matters it was

regularly consulted. In Hd. 1 the disciples come together for the choosing of

an apostle; in Hd. 6 the church chooses the deacons; in Hd. 15 it attends the

meeting of apostles and elders; in 1 Cor. 5 it exercises discipline. The first

synods were gatherings of the local church. But also the local churches all

together form a unity. They also all together bear the singular name of

ἐ κκλησια; they all stand under the apostles, to whom the leadership and

government of the whole church has been entrusted; they are with one

another one in Christ, thus one in doctrine, in faith, in baptism, in love; they

greet one another, Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, serve one

2:10, and have one another read the letters which they receive from the

apostles, Colossians 4:16. It therefore lay in the nature of the case that these

congregations, which were spiritually one, would, as the case might be,

deliberate with one another about matters of general importance. The first

example of that occurs in Hd. 15, on the occasion of the question whether

the Gentiles could be saved without circumcision. The church of Antioch

sent Paul and Barnabas and some others to Jerusalem, in order to exchange

thoughts about this important question with the apostles and elders there

and to come to unanimity. The apostles and elders therefore held with

these delegates from Antioch a meeting, 15:6, which perhaps was also

attended by the church, 15:12, 22 (in verse 25, however, και ο ἱ before

ἀ δελφοι must probably be omitted). After much ζητησις, investigation,

disputation, not merely an advice was given, but in the H. Spirit a decision

was taken, which bound the brethren in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, was

communicated to them by letter and by Judas and Silas also orally, in a

meeting of the church, was explained, Hd. 15:22-31. All these meetings, of

which the N. T. reports, were meetings of the local church, only in Hd. 15

attended by delegates from elsewhere. This custom was later, already in the

second century as well, imitated. In weighty matters, such as appointment

and deposition of a bishop, excommunication, absolution of mortal sins

etc., not only did the presbyterium give its leadership but also the church its

consent. Cyprian still says that from the beginning of his episcopate he did

nothing without the counsel of his presbyterium and the consent of the

church, Ep. 14, 4. At the synods of the second and third century therefore

not only bishops but also presbyters, deacons and ordinary members of the

church are present. Even the council of Nicaea was, besides by bishops,

also attended by presbyters, deacons and members, who took part in the

debates. And the delegates who at church meetings were invited from

neighboring churches were in the first time absolutely not only bishops but

also sometimes presbyters, deacons or other members of the church. But the

development of the hierarchical idea brought with it that the consent of the

church was asked ever less, that presbyters and deacons were detached from

the church and changed into advisers and helpers of the bishop, and that the

synods were gradually held only by bishops. Further, in the second and

third century all church meetings, attended by delegates from neighboring

churches, were equal in rank; there was as yet no hierarchy of ecclesiastical

assemblies; there were as yet no provincial, metropolitan, ecumenical

councils; all assemblies of the churches took place in the name of Christ,

made decisions in the H. Spirit, and were valid for the whole of

Christendom (concilium universale, catholicum). But in that too there

came change. Already in the third century there are here and there definite

provincial synods, i.e. meetings of bishops held in a particular province. In

the fourth century there came, as a consequence of the great disputes that

divided the church, synods of bishops from different provinces in addition.

And the council of Nicaea, although absolutely no representation of the

whole of Christendom, because it was attended only by a few bishops from

the West, was nevertheless convened by the emperor from all sides. Thus

there gradually came an ordering of rank of provincial, national, patriarchal,

ecumenical councils, Sohm, Kirchenrecht 247-344. But the characteristic

mark of an ecumenical council is difficult to indicate. It cannot lie in the

fact that it was convened by the pope, for from the fourth to the tenth

century it was convoked by the emperor; nor also in the general validity and

the great significance of its decisions, for often the canons of ecumenical

councils have been rejected and those of provincial synods accepted; nor

also in the fact that an ecumenical council represents the whole of

Christendom, for this has by no means always been the case with the socalled councils. Toward the end of the Middle Ages the theory did indeed

arise that a council was ecumenical and infallible only when it consisted of

delegates of all churches. But this theory was of revolutionary origin, led in

practice to all kinds of difficulties, and was also never accepted by Rome.

For Rome a council is ecumenical only when its decisions have been

approved by the pope and thereby obtain an infallible character binding the

whole of Christendom, Bellarminus, de conciliis et ecclesia lib. I II.

Heinrich, Dogm. II 476 f. Scheeben, Dogm. I 230 f. Vering, Kirchenrecht

613 f. etc.

In the Protestant churches the synodal church government first came to

development on French soil. In the Lutheran church synods did indeed

arise, but these consisted only in assemblies of pastores. Zwingli in 1528 at

Zurich instituted synods, which were convened by the council, consisted of

the preachers of city and country and a few members of the council, and

especially had to consider complaints against the doctrine and life of the

preachers, Mörikofer, Ulr. Zwingli, Leipzig 1869 [183] II 118 f. Calvin

likewise determined in the Ordonnances ecclesiastiques, that the preachers

had to come together every three months, in order to watch over one

another’s doctrine and life, and moreover in 1546 introduced an annual

visitation, Kampschulte, Joh. Calvin I 408. Franz Lambert in 1526 designed

for Hesse a church order, in which both congregational meetings and

synods, consisting of the preachers and delegates appointed by the

congregations, were included, but this church order did not come into

effect, Lechler, Gesch. d. Presb. n. Syn. Verf. 14 f. A synodal church

government came only in France, where the churches expanded strongly

and, from need of unity, on the 26th of May 1559 for the first time came

together in synod at Paris and united themselves in a common confession

and church order, Lechler ib. 69. Remarkable in this connection is, that the

general synod first arose, that this introduced the provincial synods, and that

later, in 1572, between these and the church councils the classis was still

inserted, ib. 81, cf. likewise in Scotland 97. Such a synodal church

government was then later also introduced in other Reformed churches, in

Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, Germany, the Netherlands, Scotland, England,

America etc. But there soon came opposition against it from two sides. The

Remonstrants, aligning themselves with Zwingli and Erastus, assigned

ecclesiastical power to the civil government and inferred from that, that

synods were indeed permitted but not commanded and were not necessary

for the being or well-being of the church, and that, when they were held, the

right to convoke, to delegate, to establish the agenda, to preside belonged to

the civil government, Uitenbogaert, Tractaat van ’t ampt ende auctoriteit

enz. 1610 bl. 107v. cf. Limborch, Theol. Chr. VII 19. And the Independents,

under the influence of the Anabaptist error, went still further, held every

group of believers to be independent, and rejected every binding classical or

synodal connection, Robinson bij Kist en Roijaards, Ned. Arch. voor Kerk.

Gesch. VIII 1848 bl. 371v. Neal, Historie der rechtz. Puriteinen II 1 bl. 96.

The grounds that can be brought against the synodal church government are

indeed not devoid of weight. For the local churches in the N. T. are all

completely independent with respect to one another; of a lawful, binding

classical or synodal connection there is not a word. Such a connection

seems also to be wholly in conflict with the independence of the local

churches, because it introduces assemblies that stand above the local

churches and act with authority over against these, and thus in the church of

Christ again introduces an unlawful hierarchy and tyranny. And in addition

there then comes still, that the history of the synods does not always bear

favorable witness to their usefulness, and often makes them appear as the

cause of all kinds of strife and division, so that Gregorius Naz. could

already say, μηδεμιας συνοδου τελος ε ἰ δον χρηστον; and the proverb not

without reason runs: omne concilium parit bellum. But over against that,

other considerations nevertheless place the necessity and usefulness of the

synods clearly in the light. 1o In the N. T. there is as yet no classical or

synodal connection of the churches, but there was then also no need for it,

because the apostles themselves lived, assisted the congregations with

counsel, and also cared for them through evangelists as their substitutes. 2º

The congregations were also then already in all kinds of ways connected to

one another by spiritual bonds, and obtained the right, not only to assemble

themselves, but also to send delegates to other congregations and there to

ask for a decision in certain disputes; Hd. 1, 6, 15, 21 show, that synods in a

wholly general sense are juris divini permissivi. 3º Synods are not decidedly

necessary ad esse ecclesiae and are also not expressly commanded by God’s

Word, but they are permitted and necessary ad bene esse ecclesiae. 4º The

necessity lies in this, that the unity of doctrine, discipline, and cultus, to

which the congregation is called; the order, peace, and love, which it has to

preserve; and the common interests that are entrusted to it (such as training,

calling, sending of ministers; mission among the heathen; support of needy

churches etc.) cannot otherwise than by means of synods come into their

right. 5º Synods are not a pedestal for but an undermining of all hierarchy;

they maintain the independence of the local churches and preserve it from

confusion, division, hierarchy of the pastor, domination of a few members;

they confirm the freedom of the individual members, by giving them a

support in the connection with other churches and allowing appeal to

broader assemblies. 6º Nor are they a cause of division and strife, but a

means, to bring disputes, which there in the church here on earth

always again arise over doctrine, discipline, service, to decision in a

peaceful way, through careful investigation and ample discussion. 7o In

order that they answer to their purpose, synods ought always to be

assemblies of churches, whose members (pastores, presbyters, deacons or

ordinary members) are delegates of churches and bound to credentials of

churches, which are convened by the churches themselves and not by civil

government, pope etc. and are led by ecclesiastical persons chosen thereto,

and which freely and independently, without interference of the civil

government, judge and decide on ecclesiastical matters. 8o The

ecclesiastical assemblies (local, classical, provincial, general, oecum.) are

not essentially different from one another. The one assembly is not per se

higher, weightier, less exposed to error, or more assured of the guidance of

the H. Spirit than the other. For each church and each group of churches is

independent over against the other; and all of them are in the same measure

bound to the Word and partakers of the promise of the Spirit. In the

ecclesiastical assemblies no representatives of the people but ecclesiastical

office-bearers come together, who on Christ’s behalf are called to the

government of his church. They are therefore distinguished, not by a

different kind or higher but only by greater power, which is brought

together there and extends over a wider area. 9o The authority of all

ecclesiastical assemblies is no other than that of the churches themselves; it

is subject to the Word of Christ. Christ is the only one who in the churches

and in their various assemblies has authority; his Word alone decides; what

seems good to the H. Spirit in and through the members, that alone is

binding in the church of Christ. But also these its decisions taken according

to God’s Word and in the H. Spirit the church cannot maintain otherwise

than by moral means. It has no ruling, coercive but only a serving power.

Cf. Calvijn, Inst. IV c. 9. Polanus, Synt. 541. Bullinger, Van de Conciliën,

Dordr. 1611. Martyr, Loci Comm. 407. Junius, Op. II 1029. Theses Salmur.

III 505. Amyraut, Du gouvernement de l’Eglise contre ceux qui veulent

abolir l’usage et l’autorité des synodes, Saumur 1653. Heidegger, Corp.

Theol. II 613. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII qu. 33. Synopsis pur. theol. disp.

49. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. IV 114-272. Oration of C. Vitringa on the Synods

etc., translated from the Latin by S. H. van Idsinga, Harl. 1741. Moor

VI 439-461. M. Vitringa IX 1 p. 574-653. Ch. Hodge, Discussions on

Church polity, New-York 1878 p. 364-456. Karl Lechler, Die neut. Lehre v.

h. Amte 1857 S. 254-275. Stahl, Die Kirchenverfassung u. s. w. 332 f.

12. Thus the church stands in the midst of the world with an origin,

essence, activity, and goal of its own. It is in every respect distinct from that

world, but yet never stands alongside it separated. To be sure, various

tendencies in Christendom have placed church and world over against each

other in an absolute, ethical antithesis, and have identified creation and recreation with sin and grace. But these tendencies, however powerful they

may at times have been, have nevertheless never governed the history of

Christianity, and could always only lead a sectarian life alongside the

churches. Apart from these tendencies, there are only two ways in which in

principle the relation of church and world can be determined, the Roman

and the Protestant, the supranatural and the ethical. Rome does not regard

the natural as sinful like Anabaptism and does not arrive at avoidance and

separation, but it does teach that the natural is of a lower order, easily

becomes a cause of sin, and therefore needs the rein of the supernatural.

Just as the image of God as a donum supernaturale was added to natural

man, so from above grace comes mechanically to nature, the church to the

world, the higher to the lower morality; whoever wishes to live according to

Rome’s ideal must become an ascetic, suppress the natural and devote

himself entirely to religion; whoever cannot do that, is granted the

necessary latitude for the natural, and finds in the supernatural the boundary

that determines it. Quite different was the relation which Protestantism

adopted between church and world. It replaced the quantitative,

supranaturalistic antithesis with the ethical. The natural was not of a lower

order but was in its kind just as good and pure as the supernatural, for it was

created by that same God who in re-creation revealed himself as Father of

the Lord Jesus Christ. Only it had been corrupted by sin and therefore had

to be reconciled and renewed by the grace of Christ. Grace therefore here

does not serve to avoid, to suppress, to kill the natural, but precisely to free

it from its sinful corruption, and to make it truly natural again. It is true that

Luther in the application of these principles stopped halfway, left the

natural untouched and limited Christianity all too much to the ethicalreligious domain. But Calvin, the man of action, who came after Luther and

therefore could mirror himself in Luther, continued the work of the

Reformation and sought to reform the whole of life by Christianity.

Avoidance is the word of the Anabaptists; asceticism that of the Romans;

renewal and sanctification that of the Protestant, specifically of the

Reformed Christian. This latter view is without doubt the richest and most

beautiful. For there is but one God in both creation and re-creation. The

God of creation, of the Old Testament, is no lower God than that of recreation, than the Father of Christ, than the God of the N. Covenant. Christ,

the mediator of the N. Covenant, is also the one through whom God created

all things. And the H. Spirit, who is author of regeneration and

sanctification, is the same who in the beginning hovered over the waters

and adorned the heavens. Creation and re-creation therefore cannot stand

over against each other as lower and higher. They are both good and pure,

both glorious works of the one and triune God. Further, sin, which has

entered into the world, has indeed corrupted everything, not only the

spiritual, the ethical-religious life but also all the natural, the body, the

family, society, the whole world. But it is nevertheless no substance, no

materia, but forma, and thus not identical with the created, but dwelling in

and on the created and always to be loosened from it and removed by the

grace of God. Substantially and materially creation after the fall is the same

as before that time; it remains a work of God, and as such to be honoured

and praised. For the recovery of that fallen world God now indeed brings

the powers of grace into that creation. But that grace too is no substance or

materia, enclosed in word or sacrament and distributed by the priest, but it

is a renewing, re-creating power. It is not per se supernatural, but it bears

that character only because of sin, and thus bears it in a certain sense

accidentally and temporarily, in order to restore creation. This grace is

distributed in a twofold form, as common grace for restraint, as special

grace for renewal. Both have their unity in Christ, who is king in the

regnum potentiae and gratiae; both are directed against sin; both bring and

keep creation and re-creation in connection with each other. The world too

after the fall is not left to itself, and not stripped of all grace, but it is borne

and spared by common grace, guided and preserved for special grace in

Christ. Separation and suppression are therefore unlawful and impossible.

Human being and Christian are not two beings. Creation is taken up and

restored in re-creation. The man who is born again is substantially no other

than he was before regeneration. Incorporated into the church, he

nevertheless remains in the world, and has only to keep himself from the

evil one. Just as Christ, the Son of God, from Mary assumed full human

nature and thereby regarded nothing human and nothing natural as foreign

to himself, so the Christian is nothing other than the reborn, renewed and

therefore the true man. The same people who are Christians are and remain

in the same calling with which they are called; they remain members of the

family, citizens of society, subjects of the government, practitioners of

science and art, men or women, parents or children, masters or servants etc.

The relation that must exist between church and world is therefore in the

first place of an organic, moral, spiritual nature. Christ is prophet, priest,

king even now, and he works through his Word and Spirit upon the whole

world. Through him there proceeds from everyone who believes in him a

renewing, sanctifying influence in family, society, state, vocation, business,

art, science etc. The spiritual life is destined to make the natural and moral

life again correspond to the law of God in full depth and extent. Along this

organic way Christian truth and Christian life are carried into all circles of

natural life, so that family and family life are restored in honour, the woman

is again regarded as the equal of the man, science and art are Christianized,

the level of moral life is raised, society and state are reformed, laws and

institutions, morals and customs are stamped Christian. But there is [189]

yet another regulation of the relation of church and world, which is much

more difficult and about which the greatest difference of opinion exists.

Christ rules his church namely also through offices and institutions; and the

question is whether the relation of the church to the various domains of

natural life is also to be regulated officially and institutionally. Papalism and

Caesareopapism stand here over against each other. Caesareopapism

regulates the relation in such a way that the church is subjected to the

Christian state and has to conduct itself according to its laws. There is some

truth in this; the relation of the church to the state is a wholly different one

since this has become Christian. Before the government was Christian, for

example, many more sins fell under Christian discipline than after that time.

Attendance at pagan feasts, idolatry, worship of the emperor, Sabbath

profanation, perjury, blasphemy, marriages in a forbidden degree,

abominable sins of fornication, adultery etc., were indeed recognized and

punished as sins by the church but not by the state. Since the government

has been Christianized, there has come much greater agreement in moral

conception and assessment. In many a case the church can therefore wait

for the handling of scandalous transgressions by the judiciary and has no

need of its own court. But nevertheless too much is inferred from that when

all power is taken from the church and assigned to the Christian

government. For essentially the power of the church has remained the same,

even though its exercise has also been importantly altered. For the

administration of word and sacrament is the inalienable right of the church;

further, there always remain many sins, such as Sabbath profanation,

fornication, drunkenness, swearing etc., which are not punished at all by the

government or only, when they are very public and scandalous, are

punished moderately; and finally the church also has, with those sinners

whom the government punishes, a task of its own, for the government is

satisfied with the punishment, but the church seeks to convince, to bring to

repentance and to save, Calvin, Inst. IV 11, 4. On the other side stands the

papal system, which indeed deserves praise insofar as it maintains the

independence and freedom of the church, but otherwise, if not the whole

world, then at least the whole baptized Christendom in all its circles of life

and relations, wishes to subject judicially and legally to the pope; family,

society, state, art, science etc. must be ecclesiastical, for ecclesiastical

is identical with Christian, Roman, papal. This claim of Rome is not meant

morally and spiritually, so that everyone who does not submit to the pope

stands guilty before God; but it bears precisely this character, that everyone

who refuses obedience to the pope also stands guilty before this vicarius

Christi in law and legally, can be punished by him, if he judges it useful and

has the power to do so, and can be compelled to obedience not only with

spiritual and moral means but also with bodily and civil punishments. From

this papal tyranny the courage of faith and the strength of spirit of Luther

and Calvin have freed us. Their mighty act of reformation consisted in this,

that they restored Christianity in its religious-ethical significance, as

religion of grace, and freed the natural, not from this Christianity, but from

the jurisdiction of the Roman church. From that it followed of itself that the

connection between church and world, apart from the above-mentioned

organic way, could only be established contractually. It is true that Calvin

held with tooth and nail that the government was subjected to God’s word,

to maintain the two tables of the law, and to listen to the church as

interpreter of God’s word and had also to punish civilly various sins over

which the church exercised discipline. He did draw the boundary line

between church and state clearly and sharply but he drew it differently than

we; the domain on which both had something to say was much greater than

is now determined by us; the government as Christian also had on its terrain

and in its measure to watch for the honour of God, for the flourishing of his

church, for the expansion of his kingdom. But nevertheless, the relation

between church and state was contractual and free. The church could do

nothing other than preach the word of God, testify in his name of his

commandments; but if the government or whoever then also refused to

listen, then the church, then Calvin himself, then every Christian had no

power and also no right any more to coercion. Then nothing remained but

resistentia negativa, passive resistance, Calvin, Inst. IV 20, 29, cf. for others

Moor VI 513. Such a resistance too was an act, for as Doumergue, Calvin le

fondateur des libertés modernes, Montauban 1898 p. 14 so beautifully says,

c’est la soumission, mais du corps et non de l’âme. Humilié devant le Dieu,

qui le châtie, le calviniste reste le juge inexorable du despote qui

l’oppresse. Il y a des soumissions plus mortelles à la tyrannie que des

révoltes! But all right to coercion and punishment was nevertheless taken

from the church over against the government and over against every human

being and Christianity in its purely spiritual power restored and honoured.

The government remained, like every human being, for its unbelief, for its

rejection of God’s word, for its transgression of his commandments, for the

persecution and suppression of his church, accountable only to God. If,

however, the government freely and independently made profession of the

Christian, of the Reformed religion —as indeed as its duty and calling was

always preached— then it followed from that that it in its quality and in its

domain had to promote this religion and had to ward off and root out heresy

and idolatry. The error lay there not in this, that to the Christian government

the promotion of God’s honour and service was assigned, but that the

boundaries of state and church were wrongly drawn and unbelief, heresy

etc. were regarded as a state crime. In the century of the Reformation this

could indeed not be otherwise. But since the task of the government has

been limited, the peoples have become free and mature, the churches split

and divide more and more, and all kinds of tendencies in thought and life

have appeared, the distinction between crime and sin is more clearly seen

and all coercion as precisely in conflict with the Christian confession is

recognized by ever more people. In the regulation of the relation between

church and state the following is therefore to be maintained: 1º that the

church, even though by its pluriformity its testimony is weakened, cannot

desist from the demand that all creatures, art, science, family, society, state

etc. submit to the Lord’s word; 2º that this demand is only a preaching, a

moral testimony and may never be urged directly or indirectly by coercion

or punishment; 3º that a Christian, Reformed government has the calling to

promote God’s honour, to protect his church and to cast down the kingdom

of the antichrist; 4º that it however never can or may do this except with

means that are in accordance with the nature of the gospel of Christ, and

only on that terrain that is entrusted to it for safeguarding; 5º that it, itself

owing account to him for its attitude with respect to God’s word, may not

intervene in the rights of the individual human being nor also in those of

family, society, art, science and thus is not responsible for what within these

domains happens against God’s word and law; 6º that it has to draw the

boundaries between sin and crime according to the demand of the gospel

and in accordance with the guidance of God’s providence in the history of

the peoples; which boundaries however do not coincide with those between

the first and the second table of the law, for many sins against the second

table fall outside the supervision and punishment of the government, and

many others against the first table (perjury, Sabbath profanation) are also

punishable for the Christian government; 7º that fixed boundaries cannot be

indicated by anyone in the abstract, because they vary with people and with

century and can only be determined to some extent in their direction by the

testimony of the national conscience.