2. § 48. The Government of the Church.

2. § 48. The Government of the Church.

§ 48. The Government of the Church.

. 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 [60] at the right hand of the Father, part III

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 [61] 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

[62] 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, Joh. 17:3, 1 Joh. 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 [63] 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 his body, Rom. 12:5-8, 1 Cor. 12:25, 28, Ef. 4:11, 12. Therefore 6o the 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 [64] 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 ἐκκλησια 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 ἀποστολος, Hebr. 3:1, and continues this ἀποστολη in the twelve, Joh. 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 ἁλεεις ἀνθρωπων, Mk. 1:17, nevertheless a clear distinction is to be made between their first calling to discipleship, and their second calling to apostleship, Mt. 4:18-22 and 10:1, Mk. 1:16 and 3:14,

Luk. 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, Mt. 26:33, 28:18,

Luk. 24:47, Joh. 20:19, 21, 1 Cor. 15:5, 7, Op. 21:14. Also the name of apostle, ַָׁשלּו, was given to them by Jesus, Luk. 6:13, cf. 11:49, Mt. 23:34,

10:2, Mk. 6:30, Luk. 9:10, 17:5, 22:14, 24:10, because they were sent out by him to preach, Mk. 3:14. Jesus was himself the one sent by the Father,

Joh. 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, Mt. 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 Cor.

11:13. The word ַָׁשלּו occurs, moreover, in LXX only once, 1 Kon. 14:6, and the word ἀποστολος 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, Mt.

10:2, Mk. 3:16, Luk. 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, Rom. 11:13, Gal.

1:16, 2:7-9, Ef. 3:8, 1 Tim. 2:7, 2 Tim. 1:11. But this distinction is 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, Mt. 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, Joh. 17:20, 1 Joh. 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 Cor. 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 Cor. 15:9, Ef.

3:8, 1 Tim. 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, Rom. 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 Cor. 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 the Gentiles are his co-heirs, 1 Cor. 9:1, 15:8, Gal. 1:1, 12, 15, 2:2, Ef. 3:3.

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 Thess. 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

[67] 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 Cor. 8:23, ἀποστολοι ἐκκλησιων. The word apostle thus alongside the narrower also received a broader sense, Hd. 14:4, 14, Rom. 16:7, 1 Cor. 4:6, 9, 9:5, 15:7,

2 Cor. 11:5, 13, 12:11, Gal. 1:19, 1 Thess. 2:6, Op. 2:2 and thus also lived 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, Luk. 4:18, and the apostles by Christ, Luk. 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.

8:5, 12, 40, 11:19, 20, 22, 13:2, 2 Cor. 8:18, 19, 23, Phil. 2:25, 1 Tim. 4:14.

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 Thess. 3:2,

1 Tim. 4:6, 6:11, 2 Tim. 2:24 and have not merely received a charisma, 1 Tim. 4:14, 2 Tim. 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 Tim. 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 ἐκηρυττον and they had power and authority over all churches, Tit. 1:5, and 3o that they participate in the foundational and church-founding labor of the apostles; they are their συνεργοι, 1 Thess. 3:2, συνεκδημοι, Hd. 19:29, συνστρατιωται, Phil. 2:25, συνδουλοι, Col. 1:7, 4:7, who water what the apostles have planted, 1 Cor.

3:6, and with relative independence nevertheless were subject to the apostles, Hd. 19:22, 1 Cor. 4:17, 1 Tim. 1:3, Tit. 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 mentioned before them, Rom. 12:6, 1 Cor. 12:28, 29, Ef. 4:11, sometimes 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, Mt.

23:34, Luk. 11: 49, were brought forth by the H. Spirit, who had been poured out on the day of Pentecost, Hd. 2:17, 18, 1 Cor. 12:10, Op. 1:10 and then occur in great numbers and in almost all congregations, in Jerusalem, Hd. 6:5, 8, 11:27, Antioch, 11:27, 13:1, Caesarea 21:9, 10,

Corinth, 1 Cor. 12, and everywhere, as appears from their mention in Rom.

12:6, 1 Cor. 12:28, Ef. 2:20, 3:5, 4:11, 1 Thess. 5:20. They are concluded 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 [69] 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 Cor. 14:5, 32, but it is nevertheless momentary and

extraordinary, fruit of ἀποκαλυψις, 1 Cor. 14:30; it extends the natural measure of knowing and understanding, comprises both the form and the content of speech, Mt. 10:19, 20, proves itself as truth by its inner, convincing power, 2 Cor. 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 Cor. 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, Joh. 17:6, chosen and called by Himself, Joh. 6:70,

13:18, 15:16, 19, 1 Cor. 1:17, 2 Cor. 5:20, Gal. 1:1, chosen by God to their office, Hd. 10:41. 2o They have been trained and qualified by Jesus Himself for their task, have been earand 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,

Luk. 24:48, Joh. 1:4, 15:27, Hd. 1:21, 22, 26:16, 1 Cor. 9:1, 15:8, 2 Cor.

12:1v., Gal. 1:12, Ef. 3:2-8, [70] 1 Tim. 1:12, 1 Joh. 1:1-3 etc. 3o They

partake of the H. Spirit in a special measure, who instructs them and leads them into all truth, Mt. 10:20, Joh. 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, 13, 14, 20:22, 1 Cor.

2:10-13, 7:40, 1 Petr. 1:12. 4o Equipped with that Spirit, Joh. 20:22, Hd.

1:8, Ef. 3:5, they appear publicly as witnesses of Jesus, specifically of His resurrection, Hd. 1:8, 21, 22, 2:14, 32, 3:15, 4:8 etc., are reliable witnesses,

Luk. 1:2, Joh. 19:35, 21:24, 1 Cor. 7:25, 1 Petr. 5:1,2 Petr. 1:16, Hebr. 2:3, Op. 1:3, 22:18, 19, and proclaim God's Word, Joh. 1:14, 20:31, 1 Cor. 2:13,

2 Cor. 2:17, Gal. 1:7, 1 Thess. 2:13, 1 Joh. 1:1-4, Op. 22:18, 19. 5o Their testimony is sealed by God with signs and wonders and rich spiritual blessing, Mt. 10:1, 9, Mk. 16:15v., Hd. 2:43, 3:2, 5:12-16, 6:8 etc., Rom.

12:4-8, 15:18, 19, 1 Cor. 12:10, 28, 15:10, 2 Cor. 11:5, 23, Gal. 3:5, Hebr.

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, Joh. 17:20, Gal. 1:7-9, 1 Joh. 1:3; they are the foundation of the church, Mt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:10, Ef. 2:20, Op. 21:14; their word, preserved for us in the Scriptures of the N. T., is medium gratiae, Joh.

20:31, 1 Cor. 1:18v., 15:2, 1 Joh. 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 Cor. 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,

Hd. 15:22, 28, appear with apostolic authority, 1 Cor. 4:21, 5:2, 2 Cor. 2:9, give binding commands, 1 Cor. 7:40, 1 Thess. 4:2, 11, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6, 14 etc. and are still authoritative with their word for the whole of Christendom;

[71] 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. 257331. 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, Joh. 1:45, but probably since his marriage living in Capernaum, Mk. 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, Joh. 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, Mt. 16:13 to 20, Mk. 8:27-29, Luk. 9:18-20, Joh.

6:66-69. On this occasion Jesus then also reminded him of the name which He had already given him earlier, Mt. 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 [72] 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 Mt. 21:42, Hd. 4:11, 1 Cor. 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 Mt. 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, Mt. 10:2, Mk. 3:16, Luk.

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,

Mt. 17:1, Mk. 5:37, 13:3, 14:33, is the spokesman and representative of the disciples, Mt. 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, Gal. 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 [73] Son Jesus Christ, 1 Joh. 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.

2:41, 47, 4:4, 21, 32, 5:14, 6:1. This naturally made organization urgently 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' οἰκον (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 οἱ 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, ὑπηρεται, Luk. 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, οἱ 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, Luk. 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 ἐπιστοποι 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 ἐπισκοπος, Hd. 20:28, Phil.

1:1, 1 Tim. 3:2, Tit. 1:7, 1 Petr. 2:25; 2o that Paul, after having spoken in 1 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 fathers, Clemens, 1 Cor. 1, 3. 3, 3. 21, 6. 47, 6. 57, 1. 63, 3, 4 and Hermas,

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 Tim. 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] mentioned is Hd. 11:30, 14:23, 15:2, 6, 22, 16:4, 20:17, 28, 21:18, Jak.

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; οἱ νεωτεροι in Hand. 5:6, 10 points to a distinction from οἱ 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 οἱ πρεσβυτεροι but later with a view to their sphere of work received that of ἐπισκοποι. 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,

Hd. 20:17, 28, 1 Tim. 3:1, 4:14, 5:17, 19, Tit. 1:5, 7, 1 Petr. 5:1, 2. This 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 various passages, Hd. 20:17, 28, Rom. 12:8, 16:5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 1 Cor. 1416, 16:15, 16, Phil. 1:1, 1 Thess. 5:12-14, 1 Tim. 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9, 1 Petr.

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, [76] especially to that of overseers, Hd.

20:28, Phil. 1:1, 1 Tim. 3:2, Tit. 1:7, just as Christ himself also, 1 Petr. 2:25, bears that name. And furthermore they are called προισταμενοι, Rom. 12:8,

1 Thess. 5:12, κυβερνησεις, 1 Cor. 12:28, ἡγουμενοι, Hebr. 13:7, 17, 24, 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 Tim. 3:17, Tit. 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 appeared as teachers, Hand. 13:1, 1 Cor. 14:3, 1 Tim. 2:7, 2 Tim. 1:11, and furthermore the charisma of teaching was granted to many who held no office in the congregation of Christ, Rom. 12:7, 1 Cor. 12:8, 28, 29, 14:26.

The διδασκαλια was at first free, just as in the synagogue it was permitted to everyone to explain a portion of Scripture, Luk. 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 ἡγουμενοι 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 Tim. 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 Tim. 3:16, Tit. 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 Tim. 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, Mt. 10:10, Luk. 10:7; a precept that in the Christian congregations was generally recognized and followed, Rom. 15:27, 1 Cor.

9:6, 11, 14, 2 Cor. 11:7-9, Gal. 6:6, 1 Thess. 2:6, 1 Tim. 5:17, 18, 2 Tim.

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 Tim. 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, Rom. 12:8, 1 Thess. 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 οἱ κοπιωντες ἐν λογῳ και διδασκαλιᾳ, 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 ἀγγελος, the envoy, who on Christ's behalf has to teach and lead the congregation and is responsible for its spiritual and moral condition, Op.

1:20v.

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 [79] 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. 13:13, 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,

1 Tim. 1:18, 4:14, 6:12, 2 Tim. 1:6, 2:2. In 2 Cor. 8:19 cf. vs. 23 there is 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 apostles and were subject to them, 1 Cor. 2:15, 12:10, 14:29, 1 Thess. 5:1921, 1 Joh. 2:20, 27, Op. 2:2, 6, 14, 15, 20, 3:1v. The supposition is therefore 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.

14:23, χειροτονησαντες δε αὐτοις κατ' ἐκκλησιαν πρεσβυτερους, say only that the apostles appointed certain persons in each congregation as elders, but do not indicate how they did this; and Tit. 1:5 cf. 2 Tim. 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 [80] 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 Gal.

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 Cor. 12:5, especially ministry of the word, Hd. 6:4,

20:24, 1 Tim. 1:12, and ministry of mercy to the poor, the sick, strangers, etc., Rom. 12:7, 1 Cor. 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, Rom. 12:7, 1 Cor. 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, Mt.

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, ἀγαπη, 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 Tim. 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 εἰναι, for the deacon purity of conscience

[82] in relation to the content of the faith is required, 1 Tim. 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, Rom. 12:7 and the ἀντιληψεις, 1 Cor. 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 Phil. 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 Rom. 16:1, 2,

1 Tim. 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, [83] 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 ἀφθαρσια. 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 ὑποτασσεσθαι, 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 [84] 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 [85] 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.

1:1, Tit. 1:5 and also later still, Clement, 1 Cor. 42, 4. 44, 2. 4. 6, not one but several episcopi stood at the head. According to 1 Tim. 4:14 they already together formed a college, a presbyterium. And one among them stepped, according to Rev. 1:20v., so much into the foreground that he could be designated as ἀγγελος 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 ὁπου μεν ἐπισκοπους 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 [86] 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 veritatis certum, Iren. adv. haer. III 2, 2. 3, 1, 2. IV 26, 2, cf. 1 Clem. 42, 2.

44, 2. Cypr. Ep. 66, 4. 75, 16. de unit. 4. This wholly new conception of the 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, Deut. 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 157247. 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 [87] 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, Rom. 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 [88] 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 [89] preserve caritas animi, collegii honor, vinculum fidei et concordia sacerdotii, Ep. 43, 5. 49, 2. 55, 24. 73, 26. de unit. eccl. 5.

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 Mt. 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 ἐξουσια as the bishop of Rome already possessed in Italy, ἐπειδη και τῳ ἐν τῃ Ῥωμῃ ἐπισκοπῳ τουτο συνηθες ἐστιν and maintained for 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 ἐχειν τα πρεσβεια της τιμης μετα τον της Ῥωμης ἐπισκοπον, δια το εἰναι αὐτην νεαν

Ῥωμην. 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 ἐκεινην, but ascribed equal precedence, τα ἰσα 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 Mt. 16:18 possessed its scriptural ground, cf. bij Heinrich, Dogm.

Theol. II 325 f.

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 consilio vestro et sine consensu plebis, Ep. 14, 4. 17, 1. 3. 19, 2 etc. In 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 ἐνδημουσαι 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 [93] 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, Luk. 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 [94] 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.

II 2 qu. 1 art. 10. qu. 11 art. 2. Sent. IV dist. 7 qu. 3 art. 1. dist. 20 qu. 1 art.

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 [95] 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; [96] the whole people was clergy, property and inheritance of the Lord, a priestly kingdom, a holy people, Ex. 19:5, 6, Deut. 7:6, 14:2, 26:18, 32:9, 1 Kon. 8:51, 53, Ps.

135:4, Jes. 19:25, 41:8, Jer. 12:7, 8, Joel 2:17 etc.; the priesthood, which 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, Lev. 10:11 and subjected to the judgment of the prophets, Jes. 28:7, Jer. 1:18, 2:26,

6:13, Ezech. 22:26, Hos. 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.

8:14, 1 Cor. 2:15, 3:1, Gal. 5:25, 6:1, partakers of the anointing, 1 Joh. 2:27, a royal priesthood, 1 Petr. 2:5, 9, a congregation of saints and called ones,

Rom. 1:7, a people and property of God, 2 Cor. 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 ἱεραρχια but a ἱεροδουλεια, a διακονια, οἰκονομια, 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 care) altogether, Mt. 20:25, 26, 1 Cor. 3:5, 4:1, 2 Cor. 4:1, 2, Ef. 4:12. Cf.

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.

IV 4, 9. 12, 1. Comm. on 1 Petr. 5:3. Junius, Op. II 1181. Amesius, 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 [97] 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 ἀγγελος 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 ἐπισκοπος, 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 ἐπισκοποι. For there were in the churches many ἐπισκοποι, Hd. 20:17, 28, Phil. 1:1; and this επισκοπειν was precisely entrusted to πρεσβυτεροι, Hd. 20:17, 28, 1 Tim. 3:1-7, 5:17, Tit.

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, Phil. 1:1, 1 Tim. 3:1, 8, [98] ποιμενες και διδασκαλοι, Ef. 4:11, 1 Tim. 5:17, κυβερνησεις, 1 Cor. 12:28, προισταμενοι, Rom. 12:8, 1 Thess. 5:12, ἡγουμενοι, Hebr. 13:7, 17. These 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 Tit. 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, Phil. 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, Luk. 22:25, 26,

2 Cor. 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 ἐπισκοποι; 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., Joh. 5:39, Hd. 17:11, 1 Tim. 4:13-16, 2 Tim.

1:13, 14, 3:14-17; lawful succession does not guarantee the purity of doctrine, Joh. 8:39, Rom. 2:28, 9:6, and would make salvation dependent on certain [99] 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, [100] 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, Mt. 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 earand 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 Mt. 16:18, Luk. 22:32 and Joh. 21:15-17. But these also do not contain what Rome derives from them. Mt. 16:18 teaches that Peter by his confession is the rock, [101] 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, Mt. 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, Rom. 9:33, 1 Cor. 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 Mt. 16:19, is granted to all the apostles in 18:18, Joh. 20:23. The special enabling and guidance of the H. Spirit was not only the portion of Peter but likewise of all the apostles, Mt. 10:20, Joh. 14:26, 15:26, 16:13, 20:22, Hd. 1:8, Ef. 3:5. By the maintenance of the apostleship as an exceptional and non-transferable office the Reformation does far more justice to all these texts, also to Mt.

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, Luk. 22:32, Jesus says there to his disciples that Satan will try to bring them all, ἱμας 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 [102] 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 disciples, Hd. 18:23, cf. Rom. 1:11, 16:25, 1 Thess. 3:2, 13, 2 Thess. 3:3, 1

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 Joh. 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, Mt. 28:19, Mk. 16:15, 2 Cor. 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,

Mt. 16:23, is humbled for his self-exaltation above the other apostles, Joh.

21:15, is rebuked by Paul for his insincerity in Antioch, Gal. 2:11, is sent with John by the other apostles to Samaria, Hd. 8:14, had absolutely no jurisdiction over Paul, Gal. 2:6, 9, is never in Scripture mentioned separately as head and prince of the apostles, 1 Cor. 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, [103] 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, [104] 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 εὐαγγελιζομενοι και θεμελιουντες την ἐκκλησιαν, ib. III 1, 1 preceded them all, and the bishops after them came and succeeded one another ἀπο των ἀποστολων, 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 [105] 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 [106] 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 [107] 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, [108] 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 [110] 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 Cor. 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, Tit. 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 [111] 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,

Phil. 2:9-11. Christ is not only prophet, who instructs by His word and example; not only priest, who reconciles by His [112] 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, Ps. 2:8, 9, 72:8,

110:1-3, Mt. 28:18, 1 Cor. 15:27, Ef. 1:21, Phil. 2:9-11, Hebr. 1:6, 1 Petr.

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 [113] on the other hand the kingship of Christ is a regnum gratiae, Ps. 2:6, Jes. 9:5, 6, Jer. 30:9,

Ezech. 37:24, Luk. 1:33, Joh. 18:33, Ef. 1:22, 4:15, 5:23, Col. 1:18, 2:19.

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, Mt. 16:19 and these are the ones who, as instruments in his hand, build the congregation upon Him as the foundation, 1 Cor. 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, Col. 2:19. Christ is the Shepherd, and the believers are the sheep, who are brought in by Him and joined together into one flock, Joh. 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. [115] 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, [116] 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 [117] 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, Mt. 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, Mt. 8:38, 10:32, 1 Joh. 2:20, 27; priests, who present their bodies as a living, holy, to God well-pleasing sacrifice, Rom. 12:1, 1 Petr. 2:5, 9, Hebr. 13:16, [118] Op. 1:6, 5:10; kings, who fight the good fight, overcome sin and world and death and shall one day reign with Christ, Rom. 6:12, 13, 1 Tim. 1:18, 19, 2 Tim. 2:12, 4:7, 1

Joh. 2:13, 14, Op. 1:6, 2:26, 3:21, 20:6, and therefore bear the name of 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, Joh. 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, [119] Gesch. d. Synodalund 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 [120] 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 Mt. 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 ædificationem 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 Cor. 3:22, Ef. 4:12;

Paul even calls himself with his fellow-servants δουλους ὑμων δια Ιησουν, 2 Cor. 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, Jer. 32:21, 32, Joh. 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, Jer. 1:4, Hos. 1:1, Rom. 1:1, Gal. 1:1 etc. Therefore, although they are also in the service of the [121] congregation, they are nevertheless called διακονοι Χριστου, Col. 1:7, Hd. 20:24, 1 Tim. 1:12, δουλοι Χριστου, Rom. 1:1, Gal. 1:10, 2 Petr. 1:1, ὑπηρεται Χριστου, Hd.

26:16, 1 Cor. 4:1, δουλοι θεου, Hd. 16:17, συνεργοι θεου, 1 Cor. 3:9, who, 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 Cor. 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 Cor. 4:1. Therefore as overseers and caretakers they also stand above the congregation, are its ἐπισκοποι, προισταμενοι, ἡγουμενοι, 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 given by Christ, Mt. 9:38, 23:34, Hd. 20:28, 1 Cor. 12:5, 28, Ef. 4:11. There is no preaching without sending, Rom. 10:15. No one may take this honor

to himself, except he who is called by God, Joh. 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 Cor. 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 [122] 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 Cor. 8:19, cf. above bl. 79. In the first centuries the congregation also exercised this right in fact; even the bishop was chosen by the congregation, cf. Sohm, Kirchenrecht 59. 229. 271. 275. 282. 285,

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,

Tit. 1:5, and later of neighboring bishops, Sohm, t. a. p. Furthermore, the choice is not absolutely free, but bound to conditions and requirements,

[123] 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 Tim. 3:30, that the deacons —and the και οὑτοι 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, Gen. 48:14, Lev. 9:22, offering, Ex. 29:10, Lev. 1:4, accusation, Lev. 24:14, in the consecration of Levites,

Num. 8:10, in appointment to an office, Num. 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, Mt. 8:15, 9:18,

Mk. 5:23 cf. 2 Kon. 4:34, 5:11 and to bless, Mt. 19:15, (Luk. 24:50), and the people attached great value to that, Mt. 9:18, Mk. 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, Mt.

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 Tim. 4:14, 2 Tim. 1:6; according to 1 Tim. 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. [125] 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 Tim. 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 ἐπιθεσεως, but 1 Tim. 4:14 says that it was bestowed δια προφετειας and μετα ἐπιθεσεως; 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 Tim. 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, [126] 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. [127] 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 Tim. 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 priestand 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 cobut 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 [129] 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 [130] 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,

Inst. IV 3, 1. 4, 1. Conf. Gall. 25. 29. Belg. 30. Helv. II 18, especially the 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 teachingand 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 teachingand 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 ἀριστοι, 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]

↑ Back to top