3. § 49. The Power of the Church.

3. § 49. The Power of the Church.

§ 49. The Power of the Church.

. The church, no less than the state, does not belong to the original institutions of the human race. The oldest form of society was the family, in which civil and religious life still lay interwoven and stood under the leadership of the father or patriarch, who was prophet, priest, and king in his household. Sin, however, made the institution of church and state necessary for the preservation of the human race. In the command of the death penalty for murder of a human being, Gen. 9:6, God in principle establishes the civil authority; and this, too, soon appears after the towerbuilding under the guidance of God's providence among all peoples into which humanity is divided. As soon as a civil authority arises, there comes of itself also a certain distinction and separation between civil and religious life; alongside the princes there appear priests. Therewith the possibility of conflict is then of itself given; the boundaries are among the peoples each time drawn differently and the bonds laid in diverse ways. While in the East in general the power of the princes is subject to the priesthood, in the West, among Greeks and Romans, religion is a political interest and the priests are

officials of the state. A complete separation occurred nowhere in antiquity; a neutral state is there entirely unknown. The state maintains and protects religion, if need be with banishment and the death penalty (Socrates), for this is the foundation and guarantee of its own existence. Israel, too, was from the outset arranged patriarchally and divided into households, families, clans, and tribes. Under the kings the genealogical division continued to exist and gave to the state constitution a democratic stamp, so that the heads of the tribes etc. in the popular assemblies had to decide on weighty matters. Already under this patriarchal form of government there was distinction between civil and religious interests, between Moses and Aaron, between scribes, ֹׁשְטִרים and judges, ֹׁשְפִתים, on the one side, and priests and Levites on the other side. Only in the supreme court, which was established at Jerusalem and had to judge very difficult cases, did priests also have a seat, Deut. 17:8-13, [133] 19:17, 18. It is therefore incorrect to say that under Israel church and state were one. Both were in laws, institutions, offices, office-bearers, and in part even in members clearly distinguished from each other, cf. Hoedemaker, Church and State in Israel, in the journal Troffel en Zwaard 1898 pp. 208-237. The priests had to serve in the temple, approach God with the offerings of the people, distribute

God's grace and blessing to the people, and instruct it in the law, Lev. 9:22, 10:11, 21:8, Num. 6:22, 16:5, Ezech. 44:23, but they also had to offer for themselves, Lev. 9:7, 16:6, were bound to the law, Deut. 33:10, Jer. 18:18 and for their livelihood dependent on the people, Lev. 23:10, Num. 18:8-32 etc. Also they had no secret doctrine or art, no political or civil power, no hierarchical dominion; Israel has never been a priest-state, the freedom of the people was in every way guaranteed over against the priestly estate. The prophets appeared freely, had to proclaim the word of God, had without

sparing to make Israel's sins known and announce to people and civil authority God's judgments, but they had no other power than the power of the word. Foreigners could through circumcision be incorporated into Israel, Ex. 12:48, and the unclean and lepers remained citizens, even though they were temporarily set apart. Despite the schism the religious unity of the people could in itself very well have remained in existence. But the distinctive feature of Israel's constitution consisted now in this, that all these laws, offices, and institutions were given and maintained by God;

Israel was a theocracy; God was its lawgiver, judge, and king, Jes. 33:22.

There was therefore in no single sphere in Israel place for an independent sovereignty; the king too was not allowed to be a despot, but had to be chosen by God, taken from the midst of the brethren, and bound to God's law, Deut. 17:14-20, 1 Sam. 10:25. Above all offices, institutions, and persons stood the law of God, which regulated the whole life of Israel and had to be kept by all without distinction; Israel had to be a holy people and a priestly kingdom, Ex. 19:3, Deut. 7:6. From that it follows that, without the distinction between civil and religious life being erased, the civil authority nevertheless also on its own terrain had to maintain the law of God. Idolatry, image-worship, [134] sorcery, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking etc., all sins against the first table, were therefore many times punished with death, Ex. 22:18, 20, Lev. 20:2, 6, 27, 24:11-16, Num. 25:5, 7, Deut. 13:1-5,

17:2-7, 18:9-12, 20, 1 Kon. 15:12, 18:40, 2 Kon. 9:7, 24, 33, 10:6, 11, 17, 18v., 11:15, 12:2, 18:4, 2 Chr. 15:13, 17:6, 29:10, 31:1, 34:5, 33. Religion was a national matter, sin was crime, transgression of the first table of the law was breach of the covenant. But in addition it must nevertheless be borne in mind that the law gave only very few, general rules, and often left the execution of the punishment to God himself; that the killing of the

Canaanites, of Agag, of Ahab's house were isolated cases, that Jehu's zeal went much further than God's command, that the reformation of the kings mostly limited itself to the extirpation of the idols and to restoration of the public service of Jahveh, that unbelief and heresy in Israel were not tracked down by any inquisition and occurred frequently, that coercion of conscience was entirely unknown, that foreigners, on condition of refraining from public profanation of Israel's religion, were not only tolerated but also treated with courtesy, that priests and prophets never incited to persecution of the godless but only admonished them to repentance, e.g. also in Ps. 2:10, and from God himself expected the political and religious victory of Israel over all its enemies. Therefore also, when Israel more and more lost its political independence, the religious congregation could continue to exist and organize itself in its own way.

Although the power of priests and high priest after the exile gradually expanded, soon they got in Pharisees and scribes dangerous competitors; in the synagogue religious life became independent, not only over against the state, but also over against temple and priesthood; and that whole life was more and more concentrated around the law, whose instruction was the chief purpose of the synagogue, Mt. 4:23, Mk. 1:21 etc. Hd. 15:21, 2 Tim.

3:15. That law, or taken more broadly, the Old Test. Scripture was foundation, center, source of Israel's religious life; it possessed no other power than that which lay in that Word. Hence it clung to it with anxious meticulousness and all who did not want to live according to it, by the ban

‏ִּגּדּוי‎, ‎‏ַ‏ֵחֶר‎, ‎‏ַׁש ַּמ ָתא removed from its midst and without or with anathemas, for a time or for good excluded outside the congregation, Luk. 6:22, Joh. 9:22,

12:42, 16:2. Cf. Schürer, Gesch. d. jüd. Volkes im Zeitalter J. C. II3 passim, especially 428 f.

2. When Jesus, coming to his own, was not received by his own, he organized his disciples into an ἐκκλησια, which, hoping and suffering, had to await his second coming and the victory over all his enemies. This congregation shows in organization and cultus indeed some agreement with the synagogue, but is nevertheless a still freer and more independent organization of the new life which Christ had brought to light. For there can be no doubt about it, that Christ founded such a congregation and entrusted to it a certain power. For he himself speaks of it as built so firmly upon a rock that the gates of hell will be able to do nothing against it, Mt. 16:18, and furthermore he gives to that congregation offices, ministries, institutions, gifts, Rom. 12:6v., 1 Cor. 12-14, Ef. 4:11, which all point to the fact that it has an own, free, independent existence and a self-standing organization. But this power, which Christ grants to his congregation, bears a special character. It consists in nothing else but also in nothing less than in the power of the keys, which was first allotted by Christ to Peter, Mt. 16:19.

After Peter had first, on account of his confession of Jesus' Messiahship, been called a rock, upon which Christ would build his congregation, he then in verse 19 appointed him as οἰκονομος of the kingdom of heaven and transferred to him the keys of that kingdom. Keys are a sign of dominion,

Jes. 22:22, Luk. 11:52, Openb. 1:8, 3:7, 9:1, 20:1, and here indicate the power of Peter to open and to close the kingdom of heaven, i.e. to determine who will enter it and who not. For his judgment will also be valid in heaven; what he will bind or loose (make loose, set free) will also be reckoned thus by God. In these words no legislative power is bestowed upon Peter, but indeed a judging or judicial one; because he is confessor of Jesus as the Christ, he has in that confession a standard to determine what does or does not belong to the congregation and thus will or will not enter

into the kingdom of heaven. In Mt. 18:18 the congregation in general receives the power to regard an impenitent person as a heathen and tax collector, for its judgment is of force in the heavens. And in Joh. 20:24 all the apostles, on the ground of the gift of the Spirit granted to them in verse

22, receive the power to loose or to retain the sins of men. From this it appears clearly that the power of the congregation and specifically of Peter and the apostles consists in pronouncing a judicial judgment concerning men's relation to the kingdom of heaven according to the standard of the confession of Jesus as the Christ and the gift of the H. Spirit. This power is in the N. T. repeatedly further described. It is no authoritarian, independent, sovereign dominion, Mt. 20:25, 26, 23:8, 10, 2 Cor. 10:4, 5, 1 Petr. 5:3, but a διακονια, λειτουργια. Hd. 4:29, 20:24, Rom. 1:1 etc., bound to Christ, who has all power in heaven and on earth, Mt. 28:18, who is the only head of the congregation, Ef. 1:22 and who as such distributes all gifts and offices, Ef. 4:11; bound to his Word and Spirit, through which Christ himself governs his congregation, Rom. 10:14, 15, Ef. 5:26, and exercised in his name and power, 1 Cor. 5:4. It is therefore indeed a power, an essential all-embracing power, consisting in the ministry of word and sacrament, Mt. 28:19, in the opening and closing of the kingdom of heaven,

Mt. 16:19, in the forgiving or retaining of sins, Joh. 20:20, in the exercise of discipline over the members of the congregation, Mt. 16:18, Rom. 16:17, 1

Cor. 5:4, 2 Thess. 3:6, Tit. 3:10, 2 Joh. 10, 2 Tim. 2:17, Hebr. 12:15-17, Op.

2:14, in the discerning of all things, 1 Cor. 2:15, in the teaching, comforting, admonishing etc. of the brethren, Col. 3:16, in the application of the gifts for the benefit of others, Rom. 12:4-8, 1 Cor. 12:12v., in the doing of miracles, Mk. 16:17, 18 etc. But all this power is spiritual, moral in nature, essentially distinct from all other power which God has granted to men over

men or over other creatures in family, society, state, art, science. For Jesus has appeared in no other way than as Christ, as prophet, priest and king; no other office has he held, no other relation has he assumed. He was no [137] housefather, no scholar, no artist, no statesman; he has honored all ordinances and works of the Father and came only to break the works of the devil, 1 Joh. 3:8. His kingdom did not have its origin in this world, Joh.

18:36. And therefore he acknowledges all authority, high priest, sanhedrin, Herod, Pilate etc., he pays the tax, Mt. 17:24, refuses to be an arbitrator between two brothers who quarrel over an inheritance, Luk. 12:14, commands to give to the emperor what is his, Mt. 22:21, rebukes John, who wants to make fire descend from heaven, Luk. 9:55, and Peter, who cuts off

Malchus' ear, Joh. 18:10, forbids that his young men fight for his name and cause with the sword, Mt. 26:52. The gospel of Christ never binds the struggle against nature as such, it did not come to condemn the world but to save it, Joh. 3:16, 17; it leaves family, marriage, the relation of parents and children, of masters and servants, of government and people untouched; it finds nothing reprehensible in itself and every creature good, if it is taken with thanksgiving and sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, 1 Tim.

4:4; it lets each one remain in the calling in which he was called, 1 Cor.

7:12-24, 1 Thess. 4:11, teaches to respect the government, Rom. 13:1, 1 Tim. 2:2, 1 Petr. 2:13, and even lets slavery continue, 1 Cor. 7:22, Philem.

11. Even when it commands to obey God more than men, it preaches only passive resistance, Hd. 4:19, 5:29. But nevertheless, though averse to all revolution, it is all the more set on reformation. It never binds against nature as such, but indeed everywhere and always, on every terrain and down into the most hidden corners, it undertakes the struggle against sin and the lie.

And thus it preaches principles which, not by a revolutionary but by a moral

and spiritual way, work through everywhere and reform and renew everything. While it, according to Jesus' command, must be preached to all creatures, Mk. 16:15, it is a power of God unto salvation for each one who believes, Rom. 1:16; a two-edged sharp sword, which penetrates to the division of soul and spirit, Hebr. 4:12; a leaven, which leavens everything,

Mt. 13:33; a principle that recreates everything; a power that conquers the world, 1 Joh. 5:4. [138] 3. This apostolic doctrine of ecclesiastical power remained recognized for a considerable time in the Christian church. It did not at first occur to anyone that the poor, small congregation would one day become a worldchurch, which would prescribe laws to princes and peoples. All that was desired was to be able, under the pagan government, to lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. But when the church came to esteem and dominion, its power too was conceived in a wholly different way. The development of episcopate and tradition, of the priestand sacrifice-idea, brought with it that ordination was regarded as a sacramental act, which, performed by the bishop, communicated the spirit of office and granted right and competence to perform the ecclesiastical ceremonies. And although the power of the keys, bestowed upon Peter in Mt. 16:18, by combination with Mt. 18:18 and Joh. 20:23 was in the first period understood of the forgiveness of sins, Cypr. de unit. eccl. 4. Ep. 75, 16, it gradually acquired, especially through the sacrament of penance, a juridical character. The power of the church is therefore according to Rome twofold: potestas ordinis and potestas jurisdictionis, of which the latter is then again distinguished into jurisdictio fori interni (sacramentalis) and fori externi

(legifera, judiciaria en coactiva), Thomas, S. Theol. II 2 qu. 39 art. 3.

Catech. Rom. II 7, 6. Conc. Vat. ed. Lacensis col. 570. Klee, Kath. Dogm.

I2 162. Dieringer, Kath. Dogm.4 619. 715. Liebermann, Inst. Theol. I8 290.

Simar, Dogm. 593. Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogm. IV 1 S. 317 f. Schell, Kath.

Dogm. III 1 S. 396. Jansen, Prael. theol. I 380 sq. enz. For a correct understanding of this power ascribed by Rome to the church, the following must be taken into account. 1o The potestas docendi is sometimes treated separately by later theologians and naturally, according to Rome, also belongs to the church. But properly it is a part of the potestas jurisdictionis.

The Catech. Rom. II 7, 7 could give rise to the supposition that the potestas docendi belongs under the potestas ordinis, because it says that this not only contains the power to administer the eucharist, sed ad eam accipiendam hominum animos praeparat et idoneos reddit; but the Conc. Vatic. IV c. 3. 4 expressly brings the magisterium under the potestas jurisdictionis. The ministry of the word is with Rome jurisprudence, culminating in the infallible decisions of the pope; it is not preaching [139] but a proclamation of dogmata, which as such bind the conscience, oblige to faith, i.e. to assensus, and, if need be, can be imposed with coercion, Richter-DoveKahl, Kirchenrecht 305. Achelis, Prakt. Theol. I2 79. 2o The potestas ordinis, the power to administer the sacraments, is obtainable only through the sacramentum ordinis conferred by the bishop, which communicates the spirit of office and impresses a character indelebilis, and is therefore inalienable, Thomas, S. Theol. II 2 qu. 39 art. 3; even heretics and schismatics, who were once ordained in Rome by the bishop, retain this power; it therefore also stands by itself, and is wholly independent of the ministry of the word. The sacerdotium can with Rome also exist without preaching of the gospel. Si quis dixerit..., sacerdotium... non esse potestatem aliquam consecrandi et offerendi verum corpus et sanguinem

Domini et peccata remittendi et retinendi, sed officium tantum et nudum

ministerium praedicandi evangelium, vel eos, qui non praedicant, prorsus non esse sacerdotes, anathema sit, Conc. Trid. sess. 23 de sacr. ordinis can.

1. 3o In accordance herewith, with Rome the forgiveness of sins is not bestowed in the preaching of the word, which has only praeparatory significance, but in the sacrament, which contains grace in itself and pours it into the recipient ex opere operato. Specifically it is communicated in baptism and, for the sins committed after baptism, in the sacrament of penance. Discipline was namely in the first Christian church very strict.

When experience taught that by no means all who had become Christians walked worthily of their calling and often fell into carnal sins and, during the persecutions, especially also into denial of the gospel, the admonitions increased to make confession of sins in the midst of the congregation, especially before the use of the Lord's Supper, Did. 4:14, Clemens, 1 and 2

Cor. passim. Over the return of such fallen and excluded persons into the bosom of the church a long struggle arose. Montanism, Novatianism and Donatism wanted, for such fallen persons, specifically for those who had made themselves guilty of denial, murder or fornication, to close the door of the church and to leave them to God's grace, cf. Hebr. 6:4-6, 10:26, 1

Joh. 5:16. But Hermas, Mand. IV 1, already said in the case of adultery that one repentance was possible. In [140] Tertullian's time a distinction was already made between venial and mortal sins; the perpetrators of the former underwent, even if they were temporarily excluded from the congregation, only a castigatio, no damnatio, Tert. de pudic. 7; those who made themselves guilty of the latter, especially of idolatry, adultery or murder, were, in case of repentance, nevertheless as it were again admitted into the forecourt of the church. The development of the catholic church-idea (as institute of salvation), the concentration of all ecclesiastical power in the

bishop, the doctrine of the meritoriousness of good works (satisfactio, meritum) benefited the readmission of fallen and banished persons by means of penance. The bishop of Rome, Callistus, proclaimed in 217 that he also forgave the sins of fornication in those who repented. A council at Carthage 252 granted to all fallen persons, in case of penitence, the reconciliatio or absolutio, Cypr. ep. 57, although the returning person also had to pass through various stages before he was received into the full communion of the church (προσκλαυσις, ἀκροασις, ὑποπτωσις, συστασις).

And in 316 the Donatists were condemned, who asserted that no one excommunicated or worthy of excommunication could administer the sacrament, Moeller-v. Schubert, Kirchengesch. I 96. 133. 278. 298. 358.

415 and the literature cited there. In the penance, which gradually was conceived as a sacrament and consisted of three parts (confessio oris, contritio cordis en satisfactio operis), the church created for itself the possibility of receiving again into its full communion all who after baptism had fallen into lesser or greater sins. It was a secunda post naufragium tabula after baptism, Trid. IV c. 2. The whole discipline with Rome was absorbed into this systematized penance, and this penance became an actus judicialis, a court of law, in which the priests sit as praesides and judices, hear the confession of the mortalia crimina, determine the punishment in a casuistic manner according to the standard of the libri poenitentiarii, and in the name of Christ grant the forgiveness of sins (absolution) not conditionally and declaratorily but absolutely, categorically and peremptorily. This juridical character of penance is also expressed in this, that this sacrament may be administered only to those who are baptized, because the church possesses jurisdiction over no one except those who by baptism stand under its power; that the believers may receive this sacrament

only from the hand [141] of that priest whose subditi they are according to ecclesiastical, i.e. papal, disposition; and that higher clergy, bishops etc. and especially the pope, reserve to themselves certain, scandalous cases, in which they alone can judge and decide, as e.g. in the application of ban and interdict over princes and lands in the Middle Ages by the popes, Conc.

Trid. XIV. Cat. Rom. II 5, 32 sq. 4o In order to be able to exercise this jurisdiction in foro interno, the Roman church further claims to possess the potestas jurisdictionis in foro externo (potestas regiminis), distinguished into potestas legislativa, judiciaria and coactiva. Christ indeed gave to the church, in order that it might be faithful to its calling, first of all a legislative power; it may bind and loose, forbid or permit, impose moral obligations or annul them; and whatever it determines is valid in heaven; it is just as much as if God himself commands it; it therefore binds the consciences and obliges to unconditional obedience, Mt. 16:19, 18:18, Joh.

20:21, 23, Hd. 15:27-29, 41, 1 Cor. 11:4-7, 14:26, 2 Cor. 8, 10:6, 8, 1 Tim.

3, Tit. 1:5, Hebr. 13:7, 17. This legislative power of itself includes the judicial, since the former could not exist without the latter; Christ gave this power to the congregation in Mt. 18:15-17 and the apostles exercised it, Hd.

5:1-10, 1 Cor. 5:3, 11-13, 1 Tim. 5:19, 20. And finally the church also has an executive and coercive power, and can impose not only spiritual punishments, as Donatists, Waldensians, Albigensians etc. asserted, but also temporal and bodily ones, and that not only on the authority of or by means of the state, but also itself from its own authority and directly. Rome grounds this power on Mt. 16:19, 18:18, 28:19, 1 Cor. 4:18-21, 5:4-5, 2 Cor.

10:6, 8, 13:2, 3, 1 Tim. 1:20, has taught it many times expressly, Denzinger, Enchir. symb. et defin. n. 1367. 1546. 1572. Conc. Vatic. coll. Lac. VII 570.

577, and also applied it frequently, cf. Perrone, Prael. Theol. Lov. 1843 VII

275. Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogm. IV 1 S. 322. Jansen, Prael. theol. I 390 enz. 5o Finally Rome teaches that this ecclesiastical power, essentially distinct from all earthly power, is fully independent and sovereign. To be sure it says that this power with respect to Christ is a ministering one, a ministerium; but over against all earthly authority and power it is completely autonomous. With this doctrine of [142] the independence of ecclesiastical power it struck a wholly different path than the church of the East. There, through Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian I, the church became more and more an organ in the state; the emperor therefore could indeed not do with the church whatever he wished, for he was bound to the dogma, and no αρχιερευς but only εὐσεβης, protector of orthodoxy, yet he was nevertheless just as much as of the state the ruling head of the church.

In the Russian church this view still prevails today. In 1721 Peter the Great placed the supreme administration over the church in the hands of a permanent Holy Synod, which through the intermediary of the procurator is bound to the Czar. However much the power of the Czar in comparison with that of the Byzantine emperors is in many respects limited and weakened, it is nevertheless he who through the Synod governs the church, regulates the religious affairs of his people, determines the measure of freedom for his Roman Catholic and Protestant subjects; the orthodox dogma in Russia is still always in a formal sense constitutional law and heresy a state crime, cf. Pobedonoszew, Streitfragen der Gegenwart. Autor.

Uebersetzung. Berlin 1897. Herzog2 5, 425 f. Kattenbusch, Vergl.

Confessionskunde I 374-393. While thus in the East Caesaropapism came to development, the church in the West, organized in the pope, knew not only to maintain its autonomy against but many times also to extend its supremacy over the state. The emperorship became in Charlemagne a

Christian, a Roman institution, and from that time on was many times subordinate to the pope. And this was not only practice but also became more and more theory. State, (family, society, art, science, all the earthly) and church relate according to Rome as nature and grace, flesh and spirit, bonum naturale and bonum supernaturale, the temporal and the eternal, the earthly and the heavenly. As the moon receives its light from the sun, so princes have their worldly power to thank the pope for, who indeed as vicar of Christ has all power in heaven and on earth, (Alvarus, Pelagius e. a.); or in any case the pope as head of Christendom also has summa potestas disponendi de rebus temporalibus omnium Christianorum, Bellarminus, de

Rom. Pontif. V 6. 7. Indeed a worldly territory for the exercise of his sovereign power is for him decidedly necessary. [143] Even if the state is within its own domain free and autonomous, it is nevertheless less than the church, bound to its pronouncement and, everywhere where the spiritual intervenes in the natural, subject to the church. The state must be Christian, i.e. Roman, may recognize no other as the true one than the Roman, and is obliged, if the church demands it and it does not itself do so, to persecute and punish heretics. Cf. Augustine's letter to Vincentius contra Donat. et

Rogat. de vi corrigendis haereticis, id. to Bonifacius de moderate coercendis haereticis, further c. Epist. Parmeniani I 16. Contra literas Petiliani, especially lib. II. Contra Gaudentii Denatistarum episcopi epistolam I 20 II 17. Thomas, de regimine principum. Bellarminus, de Rom. Pontif. V. de membris eccl. III. Hergenröther, Kath. Kirche und Christl. Staat in ihrer geschichtl. Entw. 1872. Hammerstein, Kirche und Staat, Freiburg 1883.

Stöckl, Lehrb. d. Philos. III6 451-480. Cathrein, Moralphilosophie II3 529 f. Hansjakob, Die Toleranz und die Intoleranz der Kath. Kirche 2e Aufl.

Freiburg 1899 enz.

4. This power, granted by Rome to the church, culminates and also finds the guarantee for its stability and continuance in the power of the pope. For according to the Conc. Vatic. IV c. 3. 4 he bears the following properties: 1o

It is not merely a primatus honoris nor also only an office of supervision and guidance, but an authority of legislation, government, and jurisdiction independent of the bishops, a potestas jurisdictionis. 2o It is not an extraordinary, temporary, but an ordinary, enduring power, which God gives him and which he can exercise always and not only in some extraordinary cases. 3o It is an immediate power, both as to origin, since Christ gives it, and as to its use, since the pope can exercise it not only through the bishops but also through himself or his legates, without asking permission or authorization from anyone, and thus can have immediate, free intercourse with all bishops and believers. 4o It is not a limited, but a plena et suprema potestas, extending itself extensively over the whole church, containing intensively all power which is necessary for the guidance and government of the church, and absolutely sovereign, subject to no laymen, bishops, council, but only to God. 5o All members of the church, whether individually or together, all bishops, [144] each for himself or assembled in synod and council, owe absolute obedience to the pope, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those of discipline and government of the church. Haec est catholicae veritatis doctrina, a qua deviare, salva fide atque salute, nemo potest. 6o A part of this power is the teaching office, concerning which it is determined that the pope, when he speaks ex cathedra, is infallible by divine assistance.

After all that was previously said about the doctrine of Scripture and the oldest ecclesiastical testimonies, it needs no further demonstration that this entire papal system rests on an unscriptural foundation. The consensus

patrum, namely after Irenaeus, the doctrine and practice of popes and councils, the agreement of the later theologians, as they are more broadly set forth in Roman dogmatics, e.g. in Heinrich, Dogm. II 323 f., cannot make good this defect. However much this papal edifice, by its strict unity, often also charms many Protestants, yet it is to the same degree religiously and ethically weak as it politically and juridically impresses. For 1o the nature and character of infallibility are insufficiently determined. Rome has not dared to go so far as to ascribe to the pope the same infallibility as to the apostles. This lay and lies indeed on the line. One would expect that the apostles had communicated the apostolic authority to the episcopi whom they appointed, and Peter in particular to the bishop at Rome. But this is not so. The pope is infallible, yet not by inspiration, but by assistance of the H.

Spirit, by a special care of God, whereby the church is guarded from error and preserved in the truth. And his infallibility does not consist in this, that he receives new revelations and can present a new doctrine, but it consists only herein, that he can faithfully preserve and explain the revelation handed down by the apostles. And also it is not to be understood in the sense that the words spoken by the pope ex cathedra are, in a literal sense,

God's Word, but only that they contain this materially, Heinrich, Dogm. II 220-245. Jansen, Prael. theol. I 616. 2o Although infallibility is a special gift, it is nevertheless not always proper to the pope, and not in his person, nor also as writer, as orator, as judge, as legislator, as administrator, nor also as secular prince, bishop of Rome, metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province of Rome or [145] as patriarch of the West, but only as pope, as head of the whole church. However, there is no unanimity about this.

Especially with a view to the case of Pope Honorius, earlier theologians and even Innocentius III, in Schwane D. G. III 535, conceded that the pope

privatim could fall into heresy, and then jure divino ex ipso facto was deposed as pope (Paludanus, Turrecremata, Alphonsus de Castro, Sylvester e. a.) or could be deposed by a judicial sentence of a council (Cajetanus,

Canus e. a.) This, however, had its questionable side and endangered the unlimited sovereignty and inviolability of the pope. Therefore others, such as Pighius, Bellarminus, Suarez e. a., could better reconcile themselves to the probable and pious opinion that divine providence will also preserve the pope personally from heresy, Heinrich, Dogm, II 257. Scheeben-Atzberger,

Dogm. IV 1 S. 450. 3o The Vaticanum says, with an expression perhaps first used by Melchior Canus, in Schwane D. G. IV 302, that the pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. This seems to draw a boundary, but is in practice a very unusable criterion. For the system requires that no one can determine whether a pope has spoken ex cathedra, except the pope himself alone. And thus a pope always has it in his hand to reject his own pronouncements or those of other popes, by saying that they are not, or also, in order to declare them binding, by saying that they are indeed spoken ex cathedra. And he can even later say that he or a predecessor, thinking to have spoken ex cathedra, nevertheless in fact did not do so. 4o The infallible teaching office is a component of the plena et suprema potestas jurisdictionis in universam ecclesiam. It is true that the Vaticanum, sess. IV c. 3, does not expressly declare that the pope, in exercising this entire power, is at all times infallible. But it nevertheless says that, with respect to it, cujuscumque ritus et dignitatis pastores atque fideles, tam seorsim singuli quam simul omnes, officio hierarchicae subordinationis veraeque obedientiae obstringuntur, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen ecclesiae pertinent. Whether the pope in all this is therefore fallible or infallible, all, without distinction,

without any right of criticism, (neque cuiquam de ejus licere judicare judicio) must obey the pope unconditionally, and that on pain of not [146] less than the salvation of their souls. 5o In the Conc. Vatic. sess. IV c. 4, infallibility is indeed expressly ascribed only to the pope, when he speaks ex cathedra and as shepherd and teacher of all Christians defines doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa ecclesia tenendam. But absolutely nothing can be inferred from this, that otherwise he is not. For how could, otherwise, in c. 3, even in matters of discipline, government, jurisdiction, absolute and unconditional obedience to the pope be demanded? But however this may be, in matters of faith and morals the pope is certainly infallible. And what belongs thereto, the Roman theologians further elaborate. The pope is infallible when he deals with the truths of revelation in Scripture, with the truths of tradition, with the truths of the divine institutions, sacraments, church, ecclesiastical constitution and government, with the truths of natural revelation. But even with this the boundary of his infallibility is still far from being reached. In order to be infallible in all this, he must also be so, say the theologians, in judging the sources of the truths of faith and in the interpretation thereof, that is, in the determination of the authority of Scripture, of tradition, of the councils, of the popes, of the patres, of the theologians; in making use of and applying natural truths, representations, concepts and expressions; in judging and rejecting errors and heresies, in ascertaining even the facta dogmatica; in the prohibition of books, in matters of discipline, in the approbation of orders, in the canonization of saints, etc. Faith and morals encompass almost everything, and all that the pope says about them is infallible. The term ex cathedra in fact draws no boundary at all. For this expression does not indicate that only those pronouncements are infallible in which ex cathedra is literally

mentioned, for then all earlier papal determinations would be excluded from it. It therefore indicates only something material. But who then determines whether the pope speaks ex cathedra? Practically and by the people his pronouncement will always be understood as infallible, even if only out of fear that one might possibly once reject an infallible pronouncement. And theoretically only the pope can infallibly say when he ex cathedra, infallibly speaks, Heinrich, Dogm. II 554-654. Moreover, why is the pope infallible?

Because he himself declares it? But that is a circulus [147] vitiosus.

Because the council declares it? But the council is fallible, also in this declaration. Where then is, for the Roman Christian, the so highly praised certainty? 6o The Vaticanum has drawn up the result of a long historical process. In the first Christian time all apostles, all congregations, and also all episcopi were equal to one another in rank; at most there was a primatus homoris but in no respect a primatus jurisdictionis. But gradually the church and the bishop at Rome knew how to subject all other churches and bishops to itself. Yet the independence of the latter within their own sphere remained for a long time still preserved to a certain extent. Toward the end of the 13th century the controversy arises about the relation of the episcopal and the papal power, Schwane D. G. III 549. Some then still attempt to maintain the independence of the former in the sense that the bishop, though subordinate to the pope, nevertheless has received the power belonging to him within his sphere from God, ex jure divino, and is only designated by the pope as bearer of that power; thus Henricus of Ghent,

Alphonsus de Castro, bishop of Bruges † 1558, Vitoria, 1480-1544, father of neo-scholasticism at the university at Salamanca, Petrus Guerrero, bishop of Granada, and many other Spanish and French bishops at the council at Trent, who in the 7th canon of the 23rd session wanted the words to be

included: episcopos jure divino institutos presbyteris esse superiores, Schwane, D. G. IV 292 f. There arose at the council over this quaestie the most vehement debates, which lasted the whole winter of the year 1562 and until beyond the middle of the following year. On 15 July 1563, in can. 6-8, the episcopal power was indeed more closely described, but the question whether it was ex jure divino or ex jure ecclesiastico was intentionally left undecided. There stood, moreover, on the other side a strong party, with Lainez, the Jesuit general, at the head, who asserted that the bishop received the potestas ordinis indeed immediately from God, but obtained the potestas jurisdictionis only by free transfer from the side of the pope; the latter was thus in so far de jure ecclesiastico, and could by the pope at pleasure be limited, altered, or taken away, for the pope had his full power over the whole church alone and immediately from God. This opinion, after Trent, through the influence of the Jesuits, gained more and more ground, it achieved victory over Gallicanism and was elevated to a dogma at the Vatican council. It is true that in sess. IV c. 3 it is said that the power of the pope makes absolutely no infringement on the ordinaria ac immediata potestas jurisdictionis of the bishops but rather confirms, strengthens, and maintains it; yet the pope has the full, entire legislative, governing, and judicial power over the whole church, he can without anyone's interposition or mediation freely communicate (communicare) with all the shepherds and flocks of the whole church, and all are without distinction and unconditionally subject to him. Bishops, councils, the whole church, all believers are fallible of themselves and only infallible with and through him. The pope is the root, the firmness, the foundation of the unity, authority, and infallibility of bishops, councils, church fathers, theologians, of all believers and of the whole church. He alone receives all power and

authority and infallibility directly from God. A single expression still recalls the old, catholic conception; thus e.g. when in the Conc. Vatic. IV c. 4 it is said that the pope ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam voluit, but immediately it is precisely inferred from that that the definitiones of the pope are infallible ex sese and not ex consensu ecclesiae. 7o Still further goes this power of the pope. Although the popes up to the 8th century were subjects of the Roman empire and their spiritual office did not at all include the possession of secular power, yet very soon in the Roman church the thought arose that the pope, in order to be able to be independent in the spiritual sphere, must also be sovereign in the secular. And after the abolition of the ecclesiastical state in 1870 this thought has come still more to the foreground and has been expressed with stronger emphasis. Pius IX and Leo XIII have not failed repeatedly to declare that the pope as universal bishop cannot be subject of a particular prince nor bear a certain nationality,

Jansen, Prael. theol. I 657, Hase, Prot. Polem. 254; and their pronouncements bind the Roman believers. Even if the idea of an ecclesiastical, of a priestly state, is entirely out of date; even if the existence of such a state detracts from the unity of Italy; even if the pope cannot [149] be ecclesiastical head and secular sovereign at the same time without church or state or both suffering damage thereby; even if the spiritual power absolutely does not need political sovereignty; even if the pope for centuries had no political territory and even if he after the otherwise in itself unlawful robbery of the ecclesiastical state in 1870 has not lost influence, no more than the German bishops since they have ceased to be imperial princes; even if the independence of the pope vis-à-vis the king of Italy is more than sufficiently guaranteed by the guarantee of 13 May 1871 and by the power

of the Roman princes and peoples; all this matters little, Rome does not abandon the demand that the pope again become a secular prince. This, however, is still only a small part of the whole demand. With appeal to Mt.

28:18 and Luk. 22:38 and in imitation of Bonifacius VIII in the bull Unam Sanctam many Romans have gone much further and have said that the pope is the actual sovereign of the whole world and transfers the secular power at his pleasure to princes and kings as his ministri and vicarii. This was, however, too extreme for many. They contested the opinion that the pope is sovereign over the unbelieving part of the world, for Christ entrusted to Peter only the care over the sheep, and those who are outside, God judges; nor was the pope a secular prince over the Christian peoples, for nowhere was such a political power entrusted to the pope, and Christ gave to Peter only the keys of the kingdom of heaven; the pope has even no temporalis jurisdictio nor secular power directe or jure divino, for Christ is a spiritual king and has a spiritual kingdom. But even if these thus rejected the direct secular power, they nevertheless continued to speak of a potestas indirecta and ascribed to the pope not merely a potestas directiva in secular matters, but also in the interest of the kingdom of God a summa potestas disponendi de rebus temporalibus omnium Christianorum; for the feeding of the sheep also requires power over the wolves. The secular power is, after all, subject to the church as the body to the spirit; unbelieving princes who seduce their subjects to heresy may be resisted and deposed; Christian princes as such are subject to Christ, must promote the faith and protect the church; as also many kings in the days [150] of the O. Test. and in the history of the church have acted, Bellarminus, de Rom. Pontif. lib. V. But even with this theory of the potestas indirecta the pope retains the right to demand, in the interest of the kingdom of God, indefinite obedience from all princes, in case of

disobedience to depose them and to release the subjects from their oath of obedience, to assign non-Roman peoples and lands to Roman princes, to declare political laws and rights powerless, etc. Even if many Romans nowadays give the appearance as if all these rights belonged to the popes only temporarily and accidentally in the Middle Ages, the Syllabus of 1864 declares in n. 23 expressly that the popes and councils never overstepped the boundaries of their power nor usurped rights of the princes nor ever erred in decision in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of the rights may be suspended by the circumstances, there is no doubt that the rights themselves are inalienable. Rome does not change. Cf. Fr. v. Schulte, Die

Macht der römischen Päpste über Fürsten, Länder, Völker und Individuen 3te Aufl. Giessen 1896. 8o From all this the all-dominating place appears which the pope occupies in the life of the Roman Christian. The Roman church is a monarchy, a realm, a state with a spiritual prince at the head.

From the days of Augustine onward the church is by preference presented as a state and a realm, in which all dogmata count as laws and rights, which bind men upon the salvation of their soul. Bonifacius VIII therefore said of the pope that he jura omnia in scrinio pectoris sui censetur habere, in Schulte t. a. p. 66. The government in this state is absolutely monarchical; after the council of 1870 it is even no longer, as one formerly said, tempered by the aristocracy of the bishops; for the bishops are fallible, and derive their power from him; indeed, according to the express determination of the Vaticanum the pope can communicate immediately with all shepherds and flocks and thus, with complete bypassing of the bishop, directly appoint or dismiss every priest, every chaplain, decide every process, immediately chastise every layman, etc., the bishops are in principle entirely deprived of sovereignty in their own sphere. Nor is this monarchical government of the

pope in principle any longer constitutional, [151] for Scripture and tradition are subject to his infallible interpretation; la tradizione son io, therefore Pius

IX said to Cardinal Guidi, in Schulte t. a. p. 80; the pope determines, if necessary, what doctrine of Scripture and tradition is. By his infallibility the pope in the Roman church is the sole, absolute sovereign, source of all ecclesiastical and even directly or indirectly of all secular power. Therefore since the 9th century, in distinction from all other bishops, he is called Papa,

Schwane D. G. I 543, not merely successor and substitute of Peter but vicarius Christi, vicarius Dei, Schwane III 536. 538, pater spiritualis omnium patrum, imo omnium fidelium, hierarcha praecipuus, sponsus unicus, caput indivisum, pontifex summus, fons et origo, regula cunctorum principatuum ecclesiasticorum, Bonav. Brevil. VI 12. The pope is the church, is Christianity, is the kingdom of God itself. Le pape et l'église, c'est tout un, said Fr. de Sales. Ubi papa, ibi ecclesia. The primacy of the pope is summa rei christianae, Bellarminus, de Rom. Pontif. in the preface.

Without pope no church, no Christianity, Veuillot in Hase, Prot. Polemik5 187. Submission to the pope is for all men necessary unto salvation,

(Bonifacius VIII). The pope is mediator of salvation, the way, the truth, and the life. There is lacking only that he is worshipped, but that too is a quaestie of time, Harnack D. G. III 652. Indeed, Scheeben-Atzberger,

Dogm. IV 1 S. 427 says it rightly, if the primacy of the pope is not God's work, then it is a blasphemische und diabolische Usurpation. Cf. Luther, von dem Papstthum zu Rom. 1520, cf. Köstlin, Luthers Theol. I 317. Art.

Smalc. 4 and Tract. de potestate et primatu papae, in Müller, Symb. B. 306.

328. Calvijn, Inst. IV c. 4-11. Amesius, Bellarminus enervatus, I lib. 3.

Chamier, Panstr. Cath. II lib. 2. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. III 775 sq. Id. Disp. II 684-882. Id. Desperata Causa Papatus, Amst. 1635. Heidegger, Corp. Theol.

Loc. 72, 2. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII qu. 16-20. Id. de necessaria secessione nostra ab eccl. rom. especially disp. 5: de tyrannide romana.

Moor, Comm. VI 195 sq. J. von Döllinger, Das Papstthum. Neubearbeitung von Janus, Der Papst und das Concil, von J. Friedrich, München Beck 1894.

Langen, Das Vatik. Dogma von dem Universalepisc. u. der Unfehlb. des Papstes, 3 Theile, Bonn 1871-73. Dr. W. Joos, Die Bulle [152] Unam

Sanctam und das Vatik. Autoritätsprinzip, 2e Aufl. Schaffh. 1897.

Bungener, Pape et concile au 19e siècle, Paris 1870. Gladstone, Rome and the newest fashion in religion 1875. Hase, Handbuch der Prot. Polemik5,

Leipzig 1891. Tschackert, Evang. Polemik gegen die röm. Kirche, Gotha 1885. D. Snijder, Rome's principal doctrines and intentions explained for the protestant. Gor. 1890. The dogma of the infallibility of the pope etc., from the German by D. Snijder, Rott. 1899.

5. Against this degeneration of ecclesiastical power the Reformation rose in opposition. It again confessed that the church was a communio sanctorum, and that it had received from Christ a power which was essentially distinct from that in the state. Christi Reich is nicht ein leiblich oder weltlich, irdisch Regiment, wie andere Herren und Könige auf Erden regieren, sondern ein geistlich, himmlisch Regiment, das da gehet nicht über zeitlich Gut, noch was dies Leben betrifft, sondern über Herzen und

Gewissen, wie man vor Gott leben soll, seine Gnade erlangen, Luther bij Sohm, Kirchenrecht 464, 488, cf. further Köstlin, Luthers Theol. II 486 f.

553 f. Likewise Calvin made a distinction between church and state as between soul and body, the future and the present life, and ascribed to the church its own offices, power, and jurisdiction, Inst. IV 1-11. 20, cf.

Lobstein, Die Ethik Calvins 1877 S. 115 f. The power of the church therefore did not consist in any corpus juris canonici, which was publicly

burned by Luther at Wittenberg on 10 December 1520, but solely and alone in the ministry of God's word. Because Christ is the only head of the church, in the church only the word of God can and may rule, not by coercion but only by love and free obedience, Luther bij Sohm,

Kirchenrecht 464. 468; the ministry of word and sacrament is the only form of church government, the sum total of all ecclesiastical power, the entire power of the keys, which then, however, according to the Lutherans also included lawful calling, obedience to the overseers, judgment of doctrine and life, exercise of discipline, exclusion of the ungodly from the congregation, etc., Conf. en Apol. Aug. art. 14. 20. 28 Smalc. art. de potestate et primatu papae. Sohm has clearly brought to light this distinction in the power which is ascribed to the church by Rome and by [153] Luther.

It is true that he goes too far when he, in the opinion that all law is coercion, human dominion and earthly power, deems all church law to be in conflict with the essence of the church, cf. Rutgers, Het kerkrecht, inzoover het de kerk met het recht in verband brengt, Amst. 1894. But nevertheless he shows clearly that the great difference concerning the power of the church between Rome and Protestantism is connected with the political, juridical, or the spiritual, ethical conception of Christianity. And he himself often acknowledges that the congregation of Christ, although a community of saints, nevertheless demands order, already in the earliest time possessed a certain order, 51 f., and also according to Luther and the Lutherans cannot exist without office, lawful calling, care of souls, discipline, ban, government, 471. 476. 486. 494. 519 f. All power in the church is directly or indirectly ministry of the word; every regulation that it makes is subordinate and serviceable to that. Thus the Reformed also understood it; all power in the church rests originally with Christ, who by God has been

anointed as king over Zion, and therefore bears a spiritual character, for his kingdom is not of this world. Insofar as Christ in the exercise of that power makes use of organs, these are not autonomous, independent, sovereign, but bound to Him, i.e. to his word. Every office in the congregation of Christ is a διακονια, ministerium, without legislative, judicial, and executive power in itself, but only able to minister what lies contained and enclosed in the word of Christ. In fact, therefore, there is in the church no other power than the power of the keys, the ministry of word and sacrament, which then, however, was usually again distinguished into potestas doctrinae, potestas disciplinae and potestas ordinis or regiminis, Calvijn, Inst. IV c. 8-12.

Martyr, Loci Comm. 405 sq. Polanus, Synt. Theol. VII 10 sq. Junius, theses theol. 46. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII 29 sq. etc.

Although there was such agreement in the fundamental ideas, yet in the elaboration and application an important difference between Lutherans and the Reformed soon came to light. In the first place, Luther took over from the Roman church the official ministry of the word to the individual and was thus set on maintaining confession. Although he conceived the preaching of the gospel [154] as forgiveness of sins, also dass ein christlicher Prediger nimmer das Maul aufthun kann, er muss eine

Absolution sprechen, Sohm t. a. p. 488, yet this was not enough for him; absolution also had to be applied individually by the pastor in the confession, not indeed necessary but nevertheless highly useful, Köstlin,

Luthers Theol. II 528. Caspari, art. Beichte in Herzog3. Conf. Aug. 11. 25 en Apol. Conf. Catech. minor I 5. Appendix I ad Catech. maj. Art. Smalc.

III 8. Gerhard, Loc. XV 97-117. Quenstedt, Theol. III 584. 598. Harnack, Prakt. Theol. II 463 f. en daar aangeh. litt. Gandert, Zur Revision des

Beichtwesens in der ev. Kirche, Wittenberg 1898. But this private

confession ran up against insurmountable difficulties, against the insufficient number of pastors, against the confession fee, against the uncertain meaning of absolution, etc., and gradually fell into disuse.

Although now the Reformed found the mutual confession of misdeeds useful, they let the official ministry of the word and thus also the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins, i.e. absolution, take place only in the public assembly of the believers, retained from confession as an ecclesiastical institution only the regular, or sometimes in preparation for the Lord's Supper customary, confession of sins, and otherwise replaced private confession by the personal house visitation, Zwingli bij Zeller, Das theol. System Zwingli's 153. Calvijn, Inst. III 4. IV 1, 22. Martyr, L. C. 274.

Amesius, Bellarminus enervatus III 481. Rivetus, Op. III 316. M. Vitringa III 127 sq. Biesterveld, Het Huisbezoek, Kampen 1900.

In the second place, discipline in the Lutheran church had a different course than in the Reformed. Luther himself indeed desired application of discipline in the congregation of Christ; although he rejected the Roman ban and removed all civil punishment from ecclesiastical discipline, yet such a congregation was his ideal, which after repeated admonition removed the evil from its midst, Köstlin, Luthers Theol. II 530 f. 560 f.

Herzog2 8, 14. 13, 588. Th. Harnack, Prakt. Theol. II 497 f. Dieckhoff, Luthers Lehre v. d. kirchl. Gewalt, Berlin 1865, de Luthersche belijdenisschriften bij Müller, S. 64. 152. 165. 288. 323. 340. 342. But the absence of the presbyterial office and the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline only by the pastor led to such abuses that it soon completely came to nothing and, insofar as it remained, was left to the mixed consistories [155]. Practically this yielded the same result as the doctrine of Zwingli, Erastus, the Remonstrants, the Rationalists, and many newer

theologians, according to which the congregation has transferred its power to exercise discipline, since the government has become Christian, to that government. In contrast, for Calvin ecclesiastical discipline was a matter of life; for the right of the church to remove the evil from its midst he fought in Geneva for twenty years; he first obtained it in the year 1555, Choisy, La théocratie à Genève 166. Discipline was not allowed to be the soul of the church, yet it was its nerve. And this view of the obligatoriness, necessity, and usefulness of ecclesiastical discipline became the property of the Reformed, and distinguished them from Roman Catholics and Lutherans on the one side, but on the other side also from Anabaptists and Mennonites, who by their antithesis of nature and grace sometimes applied the ban excessively strictly and deprived it of its spiritual character. Cf. Calvijn,

Inst. IV 12. Martyr, L. C. 411. Zanchius, Op. IV 736. Junius, Theses Theol.

47. Bucanus, Instit. theol. 581. Mastricht, Theol. VII 6. Synopsis pur. theol.

48. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII qu. 32. Maresius, Syst. Theol. XVI 79-87.

Voetius, Pol. Eccl. IV 841 sq. Conf. Gall. 27. Belg. 29. Cat. Heid. 83-85.

Helv. II 18 enz.

In the third place, the relation of Christianity to natural life was determined differently by Luther than by Calvin. All Reformers agreed in this, that they freed natural life from the pressure and power of the church, which at Rome coincides with Christianity, as a supranatural addition to nature, yet otherwise grants to that natural life a large scope. Protestantism set over against that the confession that the whole world, although lying in evil, is nevertheless in itself holy and good, a work of God, the Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth; it exchanged the quantitative antithesis of natural and supernatural for the qualitative, ethical antithesis of sin and grace. But in that there was nevertheless a great difference among the

Reformers. Zwingli never wholly overcame the medieval dualism of flesh and spirit, of humana and divina justitia. Luther often limited the work of Christ so much to the religious-ethical domain that the natural came to stand alongside it as detached; the gospel changed only the outward, the disposition, the heart, but did not work renewing and reforming upon the whole natural life. Hence the contempt with which Luther often spoke about reason, philosophy, jurisprudence; hence the harsh judgment that the Formula Concordiae pronounced over the natural man as lapis, truncus aut limus; hence the Lutheran distinction and separation between the sensuous and the spiritual as duo hemisphaeria, quorum unum inferius, alterum superius, cf. mijne rede over de Kathol. van Christ. en Kerk 1888 bl. 28v., en over de Algemeene Genade 1894 bl. 24v. From that it is also to be explained that the Lutheran church, provided it only had the pure ministry of word and sacrament, was fairly indifferent to every other power bestowed by Christ upon the church. It knew better and confessed that the church must have its own overseers and deacons, its own government and discipline. But in practice it at once and almost without struggle ceded all that to the government. If need be it could concede a monarchical (papal) and episcopal government, recognize many ceremonies as adiaphora, leave discipline to the consistories, and entrust the whole external government of the church to the government. The church kept for itself only the preaching office, the ministry of word and sacrament, but otherwise became a territorial and a state church, in which the government as substitute of the Roman episcopate, or as praecipuum membrum ecclesiae, or as plenipotentiary of the church had almost everything to say, cf. above bl.

108. Köstlin, Luthers Theol. II 555 f. Lechler, Die neut. Lehre v. h. Amte 1857 S. 223 f. 230 f. Sohm, Kirchenrecht 542 f. en voorts Melanchton, Loci

Comm. de magistr. civil. Gerhard, Loc. XXIV. Quenstedt, Theol. IV 420450. Hollaz, Ex. 1352-1366. Baier, Comp. 639-649. Buddeus, Inst. Theol.

1267-1286. In substance this again entirely corresponded with the power which Zwingli, Erastus, the Remonstrants etc. assigned to the government in relation to the church. But the Reformed set themselves in principle against this. Just as God had appointed the government in the state as sovereign, so He anointed Christ as King of his church. Both, state and church, were thus in origin, nature, government, essentially distinct from one another; to transfer the power of the church to the government was an assault on the kingship of Christ. But this [157] distinction was nevertheless never meant by the Reformed as a separation. On the contrary, just as the church distributes its spiritual goods for the salvation of the whole natural life in family and society, in art and science, so also the government in a Christian land has the precious calling to protect the true church, to support it in its expansion and propagation, to ward off and eradicate all idolatry and false religion and to overthrow the kingdom of the antichrist. They could not teach otherwise, because they believed that the government was instituted by God himself on account of sin, for its restraint; that as such it was bound to God's law and word; that not only the second but also the first table of the law had to be maintained on its terrain and in its manner; that Holy Scripture was a book not exclusively with religious-ethical content, valid only for the church, but a word of God, going out to all men and spreading light over all creature and life; that the government under the O.

Test. was charged by God with such a task in a special way; that Christian truth was universal and catholic, clear and plain, and thus also knowable for the government. Cf. De Geref. belijdenisschriften bij Niemeyer 9. 32. 54.

55. 82. 98. 114. 122. 326. 355. 387. 534. 610. 765. 810. Calvijn, Inst. IV 20;

over ketterstraf, Op. ed. Amst. VIII 510-567, cf. Choisy, La théocratie à Genève au temps de Calvin, 1898. Bloesch, Gesch. d. Schweiz.-ref.

Kirchen, Bern 1899 I 227 s. Beza, de haereticis a civili magistratu puniendis, Tract. Theol. I 85-169. Zanchius, Op. IV 580-587. Martyr, L. C.

473. Bullinger, Huisboek II 7. Junius, Op. I 544. Bogerman, in de diss. van der Tuuk 1868 bl. 32v. Trigland, Antapol. c. 29. Kerckel. Gesch. passim, vooral bl. 440v. Rhetorford, Examen Arminianismi c. 19. Revius, in de diss. van Posthumus Meyjes, 1895 bl. 151-171. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. I 124 sq. en passim. Disp. sel. II 692-809. III 206. Synopsis pur. theol. 50. Mastricht,

Theol. VII 7, 14. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII qu. 34. Moor VI 470-518.

Vitringa IX 1. 700 sq.

But life proved stronger than doctrine; the absolute standpoint was gradually weakened. Already in the 16th century some Anabaptists and Socinians demanded that the government should refrain from all interference in matters of religion and specifically from the punishment of heresy [158]. The Reformed doctrine, accordingly, also ran up against many practical objections. In theory, to be sure, state and church were indeed distinct, but in fact the state was often subject to the pronouncements of the church, and bound to its confession. By virtue of the close union with the church and the obligation which it had assumed, the government came to acts of violence and coercion, for which it itself usually had an aversion, which gave it a bad name among many noble-minded persons, loaded upon it the appearance of Roman tyranny, and were in conflict with the Protestant demand for freedom of conscience and of religion. So long as in a country one confession bound all citizens or at least the great majority, the union of church and state was still maintainable; but when gradually the Roman church revived and in Protestantism all manner of churches and confessions

arose, to whom one could not deny the Christian character, then it became impossible even for the strictest, to maintain the confessional character of the state and the demand for the punishment of heresy. In England this first came clearly to light in the 17th century. Not only Roman Catholics and Episcopalians there contended with one another for precedence, but soon the Presbyterians, Independents, Quakers, Levellers, and Deists appeared one after another. Thus one advanced, led by the facts, gradually from the confessional to the general Christian and from there to the deistic character of the state, and tolerance and moderation became the watchword of the eighteenth century. Roger Williams, the "arch-individualist," was the first who in the 17th century expressed the demand for separation in church and state and desired absolute freedom of religion for everyone, also for heretics and Jews, and put these principles into practice in his colony in Rhode

Island. On the Christian side and on the revolutionary side this theory found more and more assent. Some states in America applied it since 1776, the French Revolution carried it through in many countries. Nevertheless it exists nowhere purely and consistently, and everyone in practice shrinks back from its consequences.

6. That Christ has granted to his church on earth a certain power is scarcely open to any doubt. In general already it is an undeniable truth that nothing can exist without order [159] and rule, that being without form is unthinkable, that a proper ὑλη everywhere and in every domain is nothing but a philosophical abstraction. A family cannot exist without a head, a people not without government, an association not without administration, an army not without a general, etc.; anarchy is impossible. To say that Christ founded a church without any organization, government, or power is an assertion that arises from mystical-philosophical principles but takes

account neither of the teaching of Scripture nor of the reality of life. The question that divides, then, is actually not this, whether the church of Christ, in order to exist, needs a certain power and government, for all agree to that, whether they let the congregation give this government to itself or assign it to the civil government. But the difference runs over this, whether

Christ himself in his word, of course not in all sorts of particulars but in principles and main matters, has granted to his church a power and government, which therefore also constitutes and may constitute an article of our faith and a part of our confession, Ned. Gel. art. 30-32. Yet this difference too is decided by Holy Scripture as strongly and clearly as possible. Christ has indeed said that his kingdom is not of this world, but he is not in that sense a spiritual king, that he absolutely does not concern himself with the outward and earthly. On the contrary, he has assumed full human nature and has come into the world, not to condemn it, but to save it; he has planted his kingdom in that world and ensured that it can exist in it and, as a leaven, can work renewingly in all spheres of life. His work was to break the works of the devil everywhere, and to bring the right and the honor of God to recognition; insofar as sin has destroyed and corrupted everything, his reconciling and redeeming activity extends intensively.

Therefore he does not merely bring some people individually by his Spirit to faith, so that they would then freely unite and serve one another with the received gifts of the Spirit. But he founds a congregation, a church, and arranges it from the outset in such a way that it can exist, propagate and expand, and accomplish its task on earth. For clarification one may and must distinguish between the essence and the government of the church.

But this distinction [160] must never be understood as if the believers had originally been deprived of all government and power. On the contrary, the

previous paragraph has brought to light that the church from the first moment of its existence after the fall onward has had a certain organization, first in the patriarchal families, then in the people of Israel, and since

Christ's coming to earth in the various extraordinary and ordinary offices which he instituted in his congregation, Mk. 3:14, Luk. 10:1, Hd. 20:28, 1

Cor. 12:28, Ef. 4:11. Every office, however, includes a power, a right, a competence. It is true that there are many gifts in the congregation, which, bestowed by the H. Spirit, manifest themselves as διακονιαι of Christ and as ἐνεργηματα of God the Father and serve the congregation mutually for edification, 1 Cor. 12:4v. But nevertheless Christ attached to the offices which he instituted in his congregation a special power, ἐξουσια, consisting in the preaching of the gospel, Mt. 10:7, Mk. 3:14, 16:15, Luk. 9:2, etc., in the administration of the sacraments, Mt. 28:19, Mk. 16:15, Luk. 22:19, 1

Cor. 11:24-26, in the doing of all kinds of miracles, Mt. 10:1, 8, Mk. 3:15, 16:18, Luk. 9:1, 10:9, 19 etc., in the retaining or forgiving of sins, Mt.

16:19, 18:18, Joh. 20:23, in the shepherding of the flock, Joh. 21:15-17, Hd.

20:28, in the exercise of discipline, Mt. 18:17, 1 Cor. 5:4, in the serving of the tables, Hd. 6:2, in the right to live from the gospel, Mt. 10:10, 9:4v., 2

Thess. 3:9, 1 Tim. 5:18. This description, which Scripture gives of the power of the church, indicates not only its indubitable existence, but also its complete independence and distinctiveness over against all other power in the world. There is manifold power and authority on earth, in family, society, state, art, science, etc. But ecclesiastical power is in essence distinct from all these and over against them completely autonomous. For all that other power is derived from God as Creator of heaven and earth, Rom.

13:1, but this ecclesiastical power has its origin directly in God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 12:28, Ef. 4:11, Hd. 20:28, and is

therefore with respect to all other earthly power completely free and independent. Whoever with Caesareopapism or Erastianism curtails this power of the church, restricts it and assigns it to the civil government, infringes the honor of Christ [161] and falls short with respect to the rights and freedoms granted to the church. Independent must this power of the church remain over against all other earthly power, because it is wholly of its own kind, cannot be taken over or exercised by any other power, and thus by such a transfer is deprived of its nature and destroyed. For all the power that Christ has granted to his church, ministry of word and sacrament, exercise of discipline, service of the tables, etc., has besides its own origin also its own organ, its own nature, its own goal. It is bound to offices which Christ alone has instituted in his congregation, to which he alone grants and can grant the gifts, whom he alone calls and sends; no one takes this honor to himself except he who is called by God, Rom. 10:15,

Hebr. 5:4. Further, this power is spiritual. That does not mean that it is invisible and wholly inward, for Christ is indeed a spiritual king but rules over soul and body both, his word and sacrament address the whole human being, the service of mercy even has chiefly to relieve bodily needs. But when the power of the church is called spiritual, thereby it is made known that it is bestowed by the H. Spirit of God, Hd. 20:28, can be exercised only in the name of Christ and the power of the H. Spirit, Joh. 20:22, 23, 1 Cor.

5:4, concerns exclusively people as believers, 1 Cor. 5:12, and only in a spiritual, moral way, not with coercion and punishment in money, goods, or life, but through conviction, faith, willingness, freedom, love and thus only with spiritual weapons, 2 Cor. 10:4, works and can work, Mk. 16:16, Joh.

8:32, 2 Cor. 3:17, Ef. 6:7 etc. Finally this power also has its own goal; it tends, although for unbelievers it also brings an aggravation of judgment, to

salvation, to edification and not to overthrow, to the perfecting of the saints and the building up of the body of Christ, Mt. 10:13, Mk. 16:16, Luk. 2:34,

2 Cor. 2:16, 10:4, 8, 13:10, Ef. 4:12, 6:11-18 etc. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. IV 783.

By all this ecclesiastical power is generically distinct from all political power. Already under the O. Test. state and church, though closely connected, were nevertheless not one and the same. Much more clearly, however, Christ has expressed the distinction between his kingdom and the kingdoms of the world, Mt. 22:21, Joh. 18:36; he himself [162] refused all earthly power, Luk. 12:13, 14, Joh. 6:15, and forbade to his disciples everything that savored of worldly dominion, Mt. 20:25, 26, 1 Petr. 5:3.

Between church and state and the power of both there is therefore all manner of difference; in origin not only, as was already remarked above, but further also in organs, for the offices in the congregation of Christ are all διαχονιαι, but the political government is sovereign, and has, though a servant of God, nevertheless right and power to issue laws and to demand submission to them; in kind and nature, for the power of the church is spiritual, but the power of the political government is natural, earthly, worldly, extends over all subjects, without any other quality than that they are subjects, and regulates only their earthly interests; in goal, for ecclesiastical power tends to the building up of the body of Christ, but political power has its destination in this life and strives after the bonum naturale et commune; in means, for the church has no other than spiritual weapons, but the government bears the sword, has the right over life and death and may demand obedience with coercion and violence. As unlawful therefore on the one side it is to assign ecclesiastical power to the civil government, so sinful it is also on the other side to change ecclesiastical power into a political one. Romanism and Anabaptism are both guilty of

that, because both proceed from the antithesis of nature and grace. Only Anabaptism makes that antithesis absolute and thereby destroys nature;

Rome takes it relatively and suppresses nature. In the Middle Ages, when the Roman church possessed sole dominion, this striving came to light more clearly; but in principle it has not changed, and still it is driven by the same desire, to make the clergy as much as possible free from political subordination, to draw all kinds of civil matters within its circle and subject them to its judgment; to shine through outward splendor and pomp, to expand possession of capital and real property, to exercise political influence at courts; to demand on the ground of Mt. 28:18 and according to the theory of the two swords for the pope, if not the direct then at least the indirect power over the whole world, etc., cf. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. I 115. Not only, however, is the Roman church always out to [163] make all earthly, political power subservient to itself; worse still is that it deprives ecclesiastical power itself of its spiritual character and changes it into a political dominion. First, this becomes manifest in this, that the Roman church ascribes to itself, i.e. to the pope, the highest legislative power.

Formerly this power was still limited by Scripture and tradition, by bishops and councils; the government was a monarchy tempered by aristocracy. But since the promulgation of the dogma of infallibility this relation has been reversed. The pope is in a formal sense absolute monarch. By virtue of the alleged assistance of the H. Spirit he determines infallibly what must be believed and done. There is no higher appeal; what he binds or looses is bound or loosed in heaven; what he says has as much authority as if it were spoken by Christ himself. The dogmas and laws which he promulgates bind the conscience, and oblige to faith and obedience on forfeiture of eternal salvation. From the civil government there is appeal to God, but the

sovereignty of the pope is the very highest; God himself speaks through his mouth. Second, the Roman church ascribes to itself, i.e. to the pope, the highest judicial power. Ecclesiastical power is twofold, potestas ordinis and potestas jurisdictionis; the potestas docendi, even if it is mentioned separately, properly belongs to the potestas jurisdictionis. Therein is included that the administration of word and sacrament in Rome is not proclamation of the gospel, but a legal transaction and a pronouncement.

All the baptized belong not in a moral, spiritual sense but by right, in a juridical sense, with an unchangeable and inalienable right to the pope; they are his sheep, whom he may, if necessary, bring back into the sheepfold by force, even if perhaps he cannot do it because of the circumstances of time.

Nach dem Rechte der katholischen Kirche gehören eigentlich alle Getauften zur Kirche, also auch zur Parochie, aber in Ermangelung von

Zwangsmitteln fehlt gegenüber Andersgläubigen die Durchführbarkeit dieses Anspruchs, Vering, Lehrb. des kath. orient, u. prot. Kirchenrechts3

603. And all the Roman church members come under the preaching and to the sacrament of penance, in order to hear their judgment. The confessional is a court, the priest a judge; after having heard the accusations which the penitent brings against himself, [164] he pronounces the sentence; he binds and looses, not deprecatively and conditionally, but by virtue of the spirit of office that dwells in him, peremptorily and absolutely; as he judges, God judges in heaven. Third, Rome, i.e. the pope, lays claim to the highest executive and coercive power. The distinction between ecclesiastical and civil punishment has no value for Rome. If the church judges it useful and is able to do so, it applies the latter just as well as the former. It is true, it did not carry out the death penalty, for ecclesia non sitit sanguinem. But otherwise it left no means untried to compel disobedient children to

submission. And Rome was inventive. Monetary penalty, penance, prison, inquisition, rack, assassination, ban, interdict, release of subjects from obedience to the prince, etc. have all served. That was and is in principle still the conception of ecclesiastical power in Rome.

The Reformers, over against that, again conceived the potestas ecclesiastica in the sense of Scripture as a spiritual power. Thus the potestas docendi, the ministry of word and sacrament, naturally came to stand in the foreground. The Lutherans even let, at least in practice, the whole ecclesiastical power be absorbed in it; they had only pastores, no presbyters and deacons. But the Reformed also restored these offices and therefore, alongside the potestas docendi, also adopted the potestas jurisdictionis. The word jurisdictio, however, although Calvin, Inst. IV 11 adopted it, found no general approval. Coccejus on 1 Cor. 5 rejected it; Maresius, Syst. Theol.

15, 75 f. 16, 70 a said that there was, purely and correctly speaking, no jurisdictio in the church and that the word in the ecclesiastical sphere might only be conceived analogice; all acknowledged that the jurisdictio in the church was of an entirely different nature than in the state and bore a spiritual character, Voetius, Pol. IV 798, and many avoided the word and preferred rather to speak of potestas gubernans, ordinans, disciplinaris etc.

Furthermore, some distinguished a twofold, but others a threefold power.

The power of the church, namely, was not exhausted in the ministry of word and sacrament and in the exercise of discipline; it also had the right and the competence, in the interest of order, to make laws and to take measures of all kinds. Thus, alongside and often between the potestas docendi

(doctrinae, scientiae, dogmatica, ordinis) and the potestas disciplinae [165] (critica, jurisdictionis, correptionis) there also came to stand the potestas directionis (regiminis, ordinis, diatactica, legislativa,) Calvin, Inst. IV 8, 1.

Bucanus, Inst. 519. Maresius, Syst. Theol. 16, 70. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. I 118.

Vitringa IX 1 p. 457. Remarkable is that, with this power of the church, the diaconate was never brought up for discussion. Yet Christ has also bestowed in that a power upon his church, which is of the greatest significance. A threefold power therefore exists, in connection with the offices of pastor, presbyter, and deacon and further in connection with the threefold office of Christ, the prophetic, kingly, and priestly office, to be distinguished in his church: the potestas docendi, the potestas gubernans (of which the potestas disciplinae is a component part), and the potestas misericordiae.

7. The potestas docendi has its origin and ground in the prophetic office, to which Christ has been anointed and which He Himself still always exercises through His Word and Spirit. He has not transferred it to any man, and has appointed no pope or bishop, no pastor or teacher as His agent and substitute; but He is still always our highest prophet, who from heaven teaches His church through Word and Spirit. Yet in doing so He, as a rule, makes use of men as His organs, not only of the office-bearers in the narrower sense but of all believers and of each one of them according to the grace that has been given to him. The church itself is prophetess, and all

Christians are partakers of the anointing of Christ and called to confession of the Lord's name. The office does not suppress the gifts but only guides them. There are many charismata, which belong to the potestas docendi of the church, wisdom, knowledge, prophecy etc. 1 Cor. 12:8v. Christ instructs and teaches through the father in the family, through the teacher at the school, through the presbyter at the house visitation, through all the believers in their mutual intercourse and in their dealings with others. But He does it especially in a distinct manner, officially, with expressly granted charge and authority, in the public assemblies of the people of God, through

the minister of the Word. Under the potestas docendi this official ministry of the Word is now chiefly to be understood. In two respects this service must be maintained in its independence. First, with respect to the [166]

Roman church, which makes the word subordinate to the sacrament, the homilist to the liturgist, the preaching to the cultus, the potestas docendi to the potestas jurisdictionis. According to Scripture, however, the word takes precedence, and the sacrament is added to it as an appendage and seal; there is no sacrament without word, but there is a word without sacrament. The sacrament follows the word; he who administers the word therefore need not always, 1 Cor. 1:14-17, but can and may nevertheless administer the sacrament, and is also then a minister of the word, of the visible word, which is added to the audible. Second, this official ministry of the word is independent over against all instruction of the word that takes place by the believers among one another or outwardly, and even essentially distinct from the application which the presbyter has to make of the word at the visitation of the members of the church. Certainly the official ministry of the word in the assemblies of the church can and may also be conceived as a feeding of the flock. Scripture leads us in this. The Lord is the shepherd of His people, Ps. 23:1, 80:2, Isa. 40:11, 49:10, Jer. 31:10, Ezek. 34:15; Christ is called the shepherd of the flock, Ezek. 34:23, John 10:11, 14, Heb. 13:20,

1 Pet. 2:25, 5:4, Rev. 7:17. And under Him as the ἀρχιποιμην, 1 Pet. 5:4, His ministers also bear the name of shepherds, ποιμενες, pastores, Isa.

44:28, Jer. 2:8, 3:15, 23:1v., Ezek. 34:2v. etc., John 10:2, John 21:15-17, Acts 20:28, 1 Cor. 9:7, Eph. 4:11, 1 Pet. 5:2, cf. the Form. of the Reformed churches for the confirmation of ministers of the word. But since the two activities of feeding and teaching, of governing and laboring in the word and the doctrine, were separated and each received its own organ, Eph.

4:11, 1 Tim. 5:17, the name of teacher has become the characteristic title of the minister of the word. By his preparation and training, by his entire devotion to labor in the word, by the power to live from the gospel, by his official ministry of word and sacrament in the assembly of the believers he is distinguished from the overseer, the ruling elder, who is specially charged with the ποιμαινειν, Acts 20:28, 1 Pet. 5:2. Yet this teaching must not be understood in an intellectualistic sense; rather, with the above-mentioned

Formulary it is thus to be interpreted, that the ministers of the Lord will set forth the word thoroughly and sincerely to [167] their people and appropriate it, both in general and in particular, to the profit of the hearers, with instructing, admonishing, comforting and rebuking, according to each one's need, proclaiming conversion to God and reconciliation with Him through faith in Jesus Christ and refuting with Holy Scripture all errors and heresies that strive against this pure doctrine. More closely, there is enclosed in this potestas docendi the right and duty of the church, 1º to care for the training of her future ministers or to supervise that training accurately, to call, to examine, to send, to confirm, to maintain her ministers, through their service to have the word of God preached both to believers and unbelievers, and thus to confirm, to extend and to propagate the church of God among the human race; 2º to administer the word of God by means of the office in different form according to each one's need, specifically in the form of milk to the young, and in that of solid food to the adult members of the church, but further always in such a way that the full counsel of God, the whole richness of His word is unfolded and, in accordance with the needs of each people and land, of each century and time, of each church and of all believers in particular, developed and applied, Isa. 3:10, 11, 2 Cor. 5:20, 1 Tim. 4:13, 2 Tim. 2:15, 4:2; 3º to

preserve the word of God, to translate it, to explain it according to the rule of faith, to defend it against all combating of the lie, 1 Tim. 1:3, 4, 2 Tim.

1:13, Tit. 1:9-11, 13, 14 and thus to build up the church on the foundation of apostles and prophets, Eph. 2:20 and to cause it to be a στυλος και ἑδραιωμα της ἀληθειας, 1 Tim. 3:15, i.e. a pillar and foundation, which bears the truth, displays it before everyone's eye and makes it known to all.

Directly from this flows the competence of the churches to confess the truth which it believes and to maintain it in its midst as confession. From the side of the Remonstrants in the preface to their Confession and Apology, of the Baptists, Congregationalists, Quakers, cf. Schaff, Creeds I 834. 852.

864. and of many others, it has been objected against this that the drawing up of binding confessions is in conflict with the all-sufficiency of Scripture, destroys Christian freedom, introduces an unbearable tyranny, cuts off further investigation and continuing development [168]. Scripture, however, clearly imposes upon the churches the duty to be a pillar and ground of the truth and to confess it before all men, to avoid such as deviate from the doctrine of the truth, and to maintain the word of God over against all opponents. The church has almost from the beginning, i.e. from the beginning of the second century onward, been a confessional church, which had its unity in the rule of faith common to all, i.e. in the baptismal confession, in the original, later somewhat expanded, apostolic symbol, and furthermore was repeatedly in the course of the centuries compelled by heresy and slander to a broader development of the truth, cf. Zahn,

Glaubensregel und Taufbekenntniss in der alten Kirche, in zijne Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten Kirche 1898 S. 238-270. Id. Das apost. Symbolum

1893. Kattenbusch, Das apost. Symbol I 1894. Kunze, Glaubensregel, H.

Schrift und Taufbekenntniss, Leipzig 1899. A church also cannot exist in a

world full of lies and deceit without a rule of faith, becomes, as history especially in this century teaches, without a firm confession a prey to all kinds of error and confusion and subject to the tyranny of prevailing directions and opinions. With such a confession the church also does not detract from the perfection of Holy Scripture, but expresses nothing other than what is contained in that Scripture; the confession does not stand alongside, much less above, but deep beneath Holy Scripture; this alone is αὐτοπιστος, unconditionally binding to faith and obedience, unchangeable, but the confession is and remains always examinable and revisable by Scripture; it is no norma normans, but at most norma normata, no norma veritatis, but norma doctrinae in aliqua ecclesia receptae, subordinate, fallible, a work of men, an imperfect expression of what the church has taken up from Scripture as divine truth into its consciousness and now on the authority of God's word confesses over against all error and falsehood.

Nor does the church with this confession compel anyone nor does it bind investigation, for it leaves everyone free to confess otherwise and to conceive the truth of God in another sense; it listens attentively to the objections which may possibly be raised against its confession on the ground of God's word and examines them according to the requirement of its confession itself; only it refuses and must refuse to lower itself to a debating society or philosophical [169] association, in which today counts as truth what yesterday was a lie, for it is not like a wave of the sea, but like a rock, pillar and ground of the truth. Cf. deel I 25 and furthermore still

(Dunlop) A collection of confessions of faiths, cathechisms, directories, books of discipline etc. of publick authority in the church of Scotland, I Edinb. 1719 preface p. V-CXLIV.

8. Christ is not only prophet, He is also king, who still continually from heaven personally governs His church. But in doing so He nevertheless makes use of men and thus to that extent gave to His church a potestas gubernationis. In a broader sense, under that is to be understood all the guidance and care which the believers together exercise with respect to one another. In the church the word of Esau does not apply: am I my brother's keeper? All are one another's members, suffer and rejoice with one another, have the ability and the calling, also mutually to teach, to admonish, to comfort, to edify one another, Rom. 15:14, Col. 3:16, 1 Thess. 5:11. There are gifts of guidance, of government, which Christ through the H. Spirit distributes to the church and which He does not nullify by the offices but keeps in the right track, Rom. 12:8, 1 Cor. 12:28. And among those gifts love stands at the top, which causes the one to go before the other in appreciation and esteem, Rom. 12:10, Phil. 2:3, 1 Petr. 5:5. But nevertheless

Christ as king of His church in the presbyterate has also instituted a definite office, through which He governs His church. This governing, however, bears a spiritual character, because Christ is king in the kingdom of grace, and is in Scripture called a ποιμαινειν, Joh. 21:15-17, Hd. 20:28, 1 Petr. 5:2; everything that makes one think of earthly power and political dominion is excluded from it, 2 Cor. 1:24, 1 Petr. 5:2, 3. In a broader sense this ποιμαινειν also includes the work of the teacher, but there is nevertheless a great difference between the public proclamation and the personal, individual application of the word, between the tending of the flock in general and the caring for each of the sheep in particular. The believers are indeed called, to take heed to one another, unto the sharpening of love and of good works, Hebr. 10:24, but in order that not a single sheep of the flock remain uncared for, Christ has nevertheless entrusted to a definite office the

[170] feeding of the sheep. That He has thereby provided for an essential need of His church appears from this, that, when the presbyterate gradually disappeared, in confession a human surrogate for this official service was instituted. Undoubtedly therefore confession contains something good, Jak.

5:16, Calvin, Inst. III 1, 13, but it cannot weigh up against the well-ordered service of the presbyterate. For it introduces an unlawful coercion of conscience, makes the believers dependent on the absolution of the priest, imposes in the confession of all special sins, particularly of the mortal sins, a duty impossible to fulfil, makes grace and salvation at every moment uncertain and unstable, compels to a casuistic and quantitative treatment of sin and punishment, and gives occasion to all kinds of immoral practices.

Scripture therefore nowhere speaks of such a forced confession. But what it says to us in example and precept is this, that Nathan goes to David and Elijah to Ahab and Isaiah to Hezekiah, to speak with them personally about their sins; that Christ goes through the land preaching and blessing, that He knows all His sheep by name and lets none be lost, Joh. 10:3, 28, that He charges Peter and all the apostles not only with the feeding of the flock but also with the feeding of the sheep, Joh. 21:15-17, that He commands His disciples, to preach the gospel in cities, villages, and houses, Mt. 10:11, 12, that Paul visits the brethren in every city, Hd. 15:36, strengthens the churches, Hd. 15:41 in public and from house to house, δημοσιᾳ και κατ' οἰκους, preaches conversion to God and faith in Christ, Hd. 20:20, 21, cf.

Calvin, Inst. IV 1, 22. Moreover, the need for such a continual spiritual care lies of itself enclosed in the condition of the church of Christ in this dispensation. Even if the church has once been planted, it is not at once perfect; on the contrary it has struggle from within and without, is prey to all kinds of attacks of sin and falsehood, and runs every moment danger, to

stray to the right or to the left. The church is a field, which must continually be weeded, a tree, which in its time must be pruned, a flock, which must always be led and fed, a house, at which one must always build, a bride, who must be prepared in order to be presented as a pure virgin to her husband. There are sick, dying, tried, [171] sorrowful, assailed, tempted, doubting, fallen, imprisoned etc., who have need of teaching and instruction, admonition and comfort. And even apart from this, the church ought to grow up in the knowledge and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ; the children must become youths, the youths men, the men fathers in Christ, and for that have need of guidance and care. The teachers too are weak and sinful men and ought to stand under oversight; if the council of elders and the assembly of neighbouring churches does not do this, the church becomes a plaything of the pastor or else a superintendency or episcopate becomes necessary. In one word, the teachers sow the word, the elders seek the fruit. Cf. further on the presbyterate: Calvin, Inst. IV 1, 22. 12, 2.

Martyr, Loci p. 392b. Zanchius, Op. IV 730. Bullinger, Huysboeck, Dec. 5 serm. 3. Junius, Op. I 1563. Bucanus, Inst. theol. 493. Mastricht, Theol. VII 2, 22. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. III 436-479. VI 92-109. M. Vitringa IX 229.

Renesse, Van het regeerouderlingschap 1659. Koelman, Ambt en pligt der ouderlingen 1765. Nieuwe werken van Th. Harnack, Prakt. Theol. II 291350. Id. in Zöcklers Handb. der theol. Wiss. III 503-537. Achelis, Prakt.

Theol. II 177-323. H. A. Koestlin, Die Lehre von der Seelsorge, Berlin 1895. Kuyper, Enc. III 524. Biesterveld, Het huisbezoek, Kampen 1900 enz.

9. To the activity of the overseers belongs in particular also ecclesiastical discipline, potestas disciplinae. Hebrew has for discipline the word מּוָסר, which properly means adstrictio, constrictio and in Greek is translated by

νουθετημα, διδασκαλια, νομος, σοφια and in the N. T. is rendered especially by the word παιδεια. Both words, like the Dutch word tucht, from tien, trekken, in general indicate that something that is young, tender, small, weak is reared with care. But since in general and especially among human beings this rearing must always at the same time counteract abnormal development, the word tucht acquires the secondary meaning of reproof, chastisement, correction. Almost never do the words denote instruction, teaching alone, cf. however Hd. 7:22, 22:3, but always such an upbringing and instruction as proceed by way of reproof and chastisement. Thus God brings up his children, Hebr. 12:5-11, [172] and Christ his church, Op. 3:19, by means of Scripture, which is useful προς διδασκαλιαν, προς ἐλεγμον, προς ἐπανορθωσιν, προς παιδειαν την ἐν δικαιοσυνῃ, 2 Tim. 3:16. And such a discipline Christ has also instituted in his church. In the O. T. there did not yet exist an ecclesiastical discipline properly so called, although

Adam too was banished from paradise and although in Israel the uncircumcised, lepers, and the unclean were kept away from the sanctuary,

Lev. 5v., Ezech. 44:9, for for unintentional sins there was always atonement, for sins with a high hand there stood extermination, and the cherem was at the same time a civil punishment. Only when Israel became a church did the exclusively ecclesiastical punishment arise, the separation from the congregation of believers, Ezr. 10:8, and this ban is still applied by the Jews in some cases, Gunning, De Chasidim bl. 55. Perhaps in connection with this synagogal discipline, Christ ordained discipline in his church. In Mt. 16:19 He gives the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter, in Mt. 18:18 to the church, in Joh. 20:23 to the apostles, so that they have the power, on the basis of the confession of Christ and under the guidance of the Spirit, to bind and to loose, to retain someone's sins or to forgive.

Only because Christ gives this power to his church is it authorized to exercise discipline. In Mt. 18:15-17 He then indicates how this discipline must be exercised. God does not will that one of the little ones who believe in Jesus should be lost. Mt. 18:1-14. If therefore someone has been offended or unjustly treated by his brother, then he must first by personal rebuke, then by rebuke in the presence of two or three witnesses, and thereafter by rebuke on the part of the whole church, attempt to win him; and only if all that is of no avail, then he, the offended one (σοι, vs. 17, in sing.) may regard him as a heathen and tax collector, then he has tried everything with him, and he is free from his blood. Such a judgment then has force in heaven. This is the ordinary way along which discipline in the church, according to Jesus' command, must proceed. But from that is to be distinguished the discipline which God himself, which Christ, and which also the apostles sometimes exercise in his name and power. God can visit sins in the church, e.g. the unworthy use of the Lord's Supper, with sickness and death, 1 Cor. 11:30. Ananias and Sapphira, because of their lying against [173] the Spirit of God, fell down dead at Peter's feet, Hd. 5. Paul punished Elymas, Hd. 13:11, with blindness. In 1 Cor. 5 Paul commands the church, while it, together with his spirit, which has already pronounced judgment over the incestuous man in its midst, vs. 3, assembled and thus bound with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, in Christ's name to deliver such a one to Satan, so that he, struck by this one in his body, might thus nevertheless be saved again in spirit in the day of Christ. Paul at the same time reproaches the Corinthians vs. 2 that they had not already earlier removed him from their midst and thus presupposes that they had the right and the obligation to do so. And precisely because they had not done that, but had borne with the sinner and thus had shared in his sin, therefore he

now deems a radical measure necessary. He himself as apostle has already passed judgment for himself, and now demands that the church, in full assembly, immediately, without further admonition, according to the authority now granted to it by the apostle, indeed according to the power of Christ himself, in his name judge the evil one; and not merely simply place him outside the church, as in vs. 2 was demanded of it, but specifically deliver him to Satan for bodily affliction. Here therefore there is mention, not of ordinary excommunication, as e.g. in Mt. 18:17, but of a special, apostolic act of power. This is also evident from 1 Tim. 1:20, 2 Tim. 2:17, where Paul as apostle, entirely alone, without the church, in the same way delivers Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan, so that they would be disciplined not to blaspheme any more. There is therefore a great difference between these extraordinary punishments and the ordinary exercise of discipline, which is entrusted to the church. Of this latter Paul spoke in 1

Cor. 5:2 and more closely still in vs. 9-13. There he says namely that in an earlier letter, which thus preceded this "first" letter, he admonished them not to associate, i.e. to have no intercourse, with fornicators. But the Corinthians had misunderstood that and from it inferred that they were not at all to have any dealings, not even in civil life, with fornicators, the covetous, robbers, idolaters outside the church. But that was not the apostle's intention; that would have been an impossible demand, tantamount to this, that they had to go out of the world [174]. Only had he desired that they should have no intercourse with a fornicator etc., if such a one was called a brother and was a member of the church. Yes, in that case he wishes that they will also hold no meal with such a fallen brother, neither go to eat with him nor invite him to eat, not associate with him in a friendly and brotherly way, but that they, while they leave those who are outside to

God's judgment, will remove such an evil one, who associates in their circle, from their midst, cf. 2 Cor. 2:5-10. Likewise Paul elsewhere speaks of the right and the duty of the church, to take heed of and to avoid, ἐκκλινειν, those who cause dissension and offense, Rom. 16:17; in Jesus' name to withdraw, to separate, στελλεσθαι ἀπο, from every brother who walks disorderly, 2 Thess. 3:6, 14; after a first and second, i.e. after repeated admonition, to withdraw from, not to have to do with (παραιτεισθαι, to have oneself excused from something or someone by entreaties, to let go, to dismiss) a heretical man, who (as a member of the church, or perhaps also from outside) breaks the unity of the faith in the church, Tit. 3:10. John says the same; if someone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, then you may not receive him into your house as a brother, not associate with him in a friendly and brotherly way, and not greet and welcome him as a brother. 2 Joh. 10. And finally in Op. 2:2 the church of Ephesus is praised because it does not tolerate the evil; in Op. 2:14, 20, 24 those of Pergamum and Thyatira are rebuked because they tolerate heretical teachings and heathen abominations. Cf. Meyer, Die Lehre des N. T. von der

Kirchenzucht, Zeits. f. kirchl. Wiss. u. kirchl. Leben 1881.

This doctrine of Holy Scripture has been applied most purely in the exercise of discipline of the Reformed churches. According to it, indeed, 1º not impersonal things, writings, buildings, countries, but always persons are the object; and not men in general, for those who are outside, God judges, 1

Cor. 5:10, no dead persons, no class or group of men, but always definite, individual persons, who are members of the congregation either only by baptism, or also by confession. 2º The cause of discipline is not all kinds of weaknesses into which believers fall, nor also such dreadful sins which the Christian government punishes, [175] although the church then follows and

its discipline is not superfluous, Calv. Inst. IV 11, 3. Bucanus 539, but such sins as arouse offence in the midst of the congregation and are not or are very mildly punished by the government, Mastricht, Theol. VII 6, 8. 3º With these sins, to which ecclesiastical discipline is applicable, a distinction must be made between hidden and public sins. The former are dealt with according to the rule of Mt. 18, and first acquire the character of public sins when private admonitions do not avail and thus the whole congregation, or its representation in the consistory, becomes involved in it. 4º With these sins that have become public through obstinacy and with those that are public from the outset by their character (e.g. murder, adultery) the procedure is as follows: as soon as the transgressor shows sincere repentance, all ecclesiastical discipline in the narrower sense ceases. The Lord's Supper may then still be withheld, in order that the offence may be removed from the congregation and the sincerity of the confession of guilt may come to light; but there is no longer any question of discipline. He who confesses his sin finds with God and thus also with his congregation mercy.

The discipline that leads to cutting off always begins only after unrepentance and obstinacy have been shown. In order that the congregation may be fully convinced of this and not lightly proceed to the removal of the evil one from its midst, the consistory begins with admonitions. If the transgressor hardens himself against these, there follows first, with withholding of the Lord's Supper, the making known of the sin without the name of the sinner in the midst of the congregation; thereafter the making known of the sin with the name of the sinner, yet not except after a well-grounded advice of the classis; subsequently the making known that he, if he remains persistent, will be cut off; and finally the cutting off itself with the form for the ban. The time that must elapse between all these

admonitions and disciplinary measures is not to be determined, since it is connected with the nature of the sin, the conduct of the transgressor, the offence within and outside the congregation. 5º The punishments that the church applies in this are purely spiritual. They do not consist and may not consist in a monetary fine, bodily chastisement, branding, torture, imprisonment, dishonour, banishment, death penalty, etc., as Rome asserts, nor also in dissolution of family, civil, political relations, as the Anabaptists taught; likewise [176] not in exclusion from the public religious services, as the Christian church in the first period applied this. For the weapons of the congregation are not fleshly but spiritual and therefore powerful before God, 2 Cor. 10:4. But the discipline of the congregation is a serious test whether someone who has misbehaved and hardens himself against all admonition can and may still be regarded as a brother. Excommunication is therefore in the end nothing else but also nothing less than a renunciation of brotherly intercourse and brotherly communion; a withdrawing of the congregation; a finally, with sorrow, letting go of him who presented himself as a brother but proved not to be a brother. It is no handing over to Satan, which in the N. T. occurs only as an apostolic act, no condemnation or cursing, no ἀναθεμα, which in the N. Test. is never, not even in Rom.

9:3, used of ecclesiastical discipline, cf. Cremer s. v., but only and yet also nothing less than a solemn declaration of the congregation in Jesus' name, that the sinner has become public as not being a sincere brother in Christ, and thus a placing of him outside the congregation and its communion, so that God alone may judge him. 6o Excommunication is an ultimate remedy, in order that the one removed from brotherly intercourse may come to repentance. Even the apostolic handing over to Satan still had this meaning,

1 Cor. 5:5, 1 Tim. 1:20. Even if the congregation may regard the expelled

one also as a heathen and tax collector, because it has expended all effort on him, without fruit; even if it had to cast him out, in order itself to have no fellowship in his sins, 1 Cor. 5:6, 7, 11:30; yet the hope remains that he may still be a brother, who by admonition will be set right from his error, 2

Thess. 3:14. 7o Therefore readmission into the congregation always remains possible, Mt. 16:18, 18:18, Joh. 20:23, 2 Cor. 2:5-10; but in that case prior public confession is necessary, which in all other cases may be required only with all caution and according to the judgment of the whole consistory. Cf. Calvin, Inst. IV 12. Ursinus, Explic. Cat. qu. 83-85.

Zanchius, Op. IV 736. Polanus, Syst. Theol. p. 544. Martyr, Loci 411.

Junius, Theses Theol. 47. Bucanus, Instit. theol. 531. Heidegger II p. 600.

Synopsis pur. theol. disp. 48. Voetius, Pol. IV 770-982. Mastricht, Theol.

[177] VII c. 6. Moor VI 400-422. M. Vitringa IX 1 p. 498-573 etc. From more recent times: Scheele, Die Kirchenzucht 1852. Fabri, Kirchenzucht im

Sinne und Geiste des Evang. 1854. Art. Bann, Kirchenzucht, Schlüsselgewalt, Gerichtsbarkeit in Herzog. Müller, Dogm. Abh. 496 f.

Vilmar, Von der christl. Kirchenzucht 1872. Id. Kirchenzucht u. Lehrzucht 1877.

10. In the third place Christ is also priest and still exercises this office from heaven in his church by intercession and blessing. Just as as prophet he teaches his own and as king he governs them, so as priest he shows them the riches of his mercy. When he was on earth, he went about the cities and villages, not only teaching in the synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, but also healing every disease and every infirmity among the people, Mt. 9:35. And this was no incidental and accidental activity but a principal component of the work which the Father had commissioned him to do, Mt. 8:17, Joh. 5:36, 9:3, 4 etc. The fullness of his power and the

riches of his mercy were made manifest in it; the works of sin and Satan were broken by it; the consequences of sin in the physical world were thereby initially removed; they issued forth and received their seal and consummation in the resurrection, which was the victory over death and the principle of the renewal of all things. When, then, he sends out his disciples, he gives them not only the charge to preach the gospel, but just as certainly and emphatically, to cast out the unclean spirits and to heal every disease and every infirmity, Mt. 10:1, 8, Mk. 3:15, Luk. 9:1, 2, 10:9, 17. The disciples fulfilled that charge, not only during Jesus' stay on earth but also after his ascension, Hd. 5:16, 8:7 etc. Indeed, according to Jesus' own promise, Mk. 16:17, 18, in the first period many extraordinary gifts of healings and workings of powers were bestowed upon the believers, Hd.

2:44, 45, 4:35, Rom. 12:7, 8, 1 Cor. 12:28. Yet just as it went with the gifts of teaching and the gifts of governing, so it also went with those of mercy.

The extraordinary condition of the church gradually became normal. And although the gifts were not suppressed or destroyed, they nevertheless were gradually more and more connected [178] with the office. Teaching was entrusted to the didaskalos, governing to the presbyter, and likewise the service of mercy to the deacon, Hand. 6. And the gifts themselves, though remaining gifts of the H. Spirit, acquired a more simple and ordinary character. Rome does indeed claim that the miraculous power continues with her, part I 270, but more beautiful than those miracles on which she prides herself are the works of mercy, which bear powerful witness to her faith and love. For when the diaconate in the Christian church gradually changed entirely in character, the treasure of love and mercy which Christ pours out in his church has revealed itself richly in private charity. Although the regulation of the service of mercy in Rome leaves far too much to be

desired, nevertheless she takes first place among the Christian churches in works of love. For the Reformed church has indeed restored the office of deacon, but she has not properly regulated its place and service and has not brought its activity to development. This development, to which the need of the times at present presses, can in the main not take place otherwise than in this direction: 1o that the office of deacon be honored more than hitherto as an independent organ of the priestly mercy of Christ, 2o that love and mercy as the Christian virtues par excellence be recognized and practiced,

3o that deacons be charged to move all members of the congregation, especially the well-to-do, in the name of Christ to mercy, and to warn and to guard against the sin of greed, which is a root of all evil, 4o that the diaconate not kill private charity, but awaken, regulate, and lead it, 5o that the bearers of this office, if necessary, in large congregations make use of the help of deaconesses, in the same way as the other two offices make use of catechism teachers and comforters of the sick, 6o that they distribute their gifts, in Christ's name, as taken from the tables of the Lord, upon which they have been laid down by the congregation and bestowed upon Christ himself, Mt. 25:40, 7o that they extend their help to all poor, sick, strangers, prisoners, idiots, insane persons, widows, orphans, in a word to all miserable and needy persons who are in the midst of the congregation, and meet them in their suffering with word and [179] with deed, 8o that the service of mercy obtain a much broader place on the agenda of all ecclesiastical assemblies than has hitherto been the case, 9o that the deacons together with ministers and elders be delegated to the broader assemblies of the churches and in all matters concerning the service of mercy obtain a decisive vote, 10o that in these assemblies the service of mercy be regulated according to general principles, with due regard to the

difference of congregational circumstances; that for general needs it be undertaken in common, and from the local congregation be extended to the support of other churches, and furthermore also to the rendering of help to poor, oppressed fellow believers abroad, and 11o that this diaconal labor in its independence remain maintained and not be absorbed into or mixed with the work of the inner Mission, or also with state poor relief, which bears an entirely different character. Cf. Calvin, Inst. IV 3, 9. Musculus, Loci Comm.

425. Bullinger, Huysboeck V 3. Zanchius, Op. IV 765. Junius, Op. I 1566.

Bucanus, Inst. 494. Voetius, III 496-513. M. Vitringa IX 272-296. G.

Uhlhorn, Die christl. Liebesthätigkeit, Stuttgart 1882-'90. Bonwetsch, das Amt der Diakonie in der alten Kirche, 1890. Seesemann, Das Amt der

Diakonissen in der alten Kirche, 1891. Schäfer, Diakonik in Zöcklers Handb. der theol. Wiss. III 538-572. Achelis, Prakt. Theol. II 324-451.

Wurster, Die Lehre v. d. inneren Mission, Berlin 1895. Kuyper, Enc. III 535-545.

11. This authority, bestowed by Christ upon his church, comes together in the local church in the consistory. Every local church is, according to the N.

Test., independent, an ecclesia completa, and therefore bears, just as much as the church as a whole, the name of temple of God, 1 Cor. 3:16, 17, 2 Cor.

6:16, bride, 2 Cor. 11:2, or body of Christ, 1 Cor. 12:27. The believers do not stand by themselves but form a unity, and thus also the office-bearers in a local church do not remain standing separately alongside one another but unite into a council of the church. Traces of that are already present in the N. Test. In Jerusalem the believers, after they had been incorporated into the church by baptism, came together from time to time, continuing steadfastly in the teaching of the apostles, in the fellowship, in the breaking of bread, in the prayers, Hd. 1:14, 2:41v., 5:12 etc.; and they stood under [180] the

leadership of the college of the apostles, who were soon assisted therein by the presbyters, Hd. 6:2, 15:2, 6, 22. All kinds of circumstances, the gifts of the H. Spirit, in particular those of didaskalie, prophecy and glossolalie, the gatherings of the believers, the administration of word and sacrament, the collection of the offerings, the care of the poor etc., made leadership and regulation and thereby also counsel and deliberation of themselves necessary. At first the apostles provided as much as possible for all those needs, took measures and made determinations, Hd. 15:28v., 1 Cor. 11:4-6,

34, 14:27v., 16:1, 1 Tim. 3 etc. For everything had to take place in the church of Christ decently and with order, in peace and unto edification, 1

Cor. 14:26, 33, 40. But when the office of elders had been instituted, these were charged with the leadership and government of the church; and these soon formed among themselves a college, πρεσβυτηριον, 1 Tim. 4:14.

Under the leadership of such a college the church, however, in the first times enjoyed a great measure of independence; in weighty matters it was regularly consulted. In Hd. 1 the disciples come together for the choosing of an apostle; in Hd. 6 the church chooses the deacons; in Hd. 15 it attends the meeting of apostles and elders; in 1 Cor. 5 it exercises discipline. The first synods were gatherings of the local church. But also the local churches all together form a unity. They also all together bear the singular name of ἐκκλησια; they all stand under the apostles, to whom the leadership and government of the whole church has been entrusted; they are with one another one in Christ, thus one in doctrine, in faith, in baptism, in love; they greet one another, Rom. 16:16, 1 Cor. 16:20, 2 Cor. 13:12, serve one another with gifts of love, Rom. 15:26, 1 Cor. 16:1, 2 Cor. 8:1, 4, 9:1, Gal.

2:10, and have one another read the letters which they receive from the apostles, Col. 4:16. It therefore lay in the nature of the case that these

congregations, which were spiritually one, would, as the case might be, deliberate with one another about matters of general importance. The first example of that occurs in Hd. 15, on the occasion of the question whether the Gentiles could be saved without circumcision. The church of Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas and some others to Jerusalem, in order to exchange thoughts about this important question with the apostles and elders there and to come to unanimity. [181] The apostles and elders therefore held with these delegates from Antioch a meeting, 15:6, which perhaps was also attended by the church, 15:12, 22 (in verse 25, however, και οἱ before ἀδελφοι must probably be omitted). After much ζητησις, investigation, disputation, not merely an advice was given, but in the H. Spirit a decision was taken, which bound the brethren in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, was communicated to them by letter and by Judas and Silas also orally, in a meeting of the church, was explained, Hd. 15:22-31. All these meetings, of which the N. T. reports, were meetings of the local church, only in Hd. 15 attended by delegates from elsewhere. This custom was later, already in the second century as well, imitated. In weighty matters, such as appointment and deposition of a bishop, excommunication, absolution of mortal sins etc., not only did the presbyterium give its leadership but also the church its consent. Cyprian still says that from the beginning of his episcopate he did nothing without the counsel of his presbyterium and the consent of the church, Ep. 14, 4. At the synods of the second and third century therefore not only bishops but also presbyters, deacons and ordinary members of the church are present. Even the council of Nicaea was, besides by bishops, also attended by presbyters, deacons and members, who took part in the debates. And the delegates who at church meetings were invited from neighboring churches were in the first time absolutely not only bishops but

also sometimes presbyters, deacons or other members of the church. But the development of the hierarchical idea brought with it that the consent of the church was asked ever less, that presbyters and deacons were detached from the church and changed into advisers and helpers of the bishop, and that the synods were gradually held only by bishops. Further, in the second and third century all church meetings, attended by delegates from neighboring churches, were equal in rank; there was as yet no hierarchy of ecclesiastical assemblies; there were as yet no provincial, metropolitan, ecumenical councils; all assemblies of the churches took place in the name of Christ, made decisions in the H. Spirit, and were valid for the whole of Christendom (concilium universale, catholicum). But in that too [182] there came change. Already in the third century there are here and there definite provincial synods, i.e. meetings of bishops held in a particular province. In the fourth century there came, as a consequence of the great disputes that divided the church, synods of bishops from different provinces in addition.

And the council of Nicaea, although absolutely no representation of the whole of Christendom, because it was attended only by a few bishops from the West, was nevertheless convened by the emperor from all sides. Thus there gradually came an ordering of rank of provincial, national, patriarchal, ecumenical councils, Sohm, Kirchenrecht 247-344. But the characteristic mark of an ecumenical council is difficult to indicate. It cannot lie in the fact that it was convened by the pope, for from the fourth to the tenth century it was convoked by the emperor; nor also in the general validity and the great significance of its decisions, for often the canons of ecumenical councils have been rejected and those of provincial synods accepted; nor also in the fact that an ecumenical council represents the whole of Christendom, for this has by no means always been the case with the so-

called councils. Toward the end of the Middle Ages the theory did indeed arise that a council was ecumenical and infallible only when it consisted of delegates of all churches. But this theory was of revolutionary origin, led in practice to all kinds of difficulties, and was also never accepted by Rome.

For Rome a council is ecumenical only when its decisions have been approved by the pope and thereby obtain an infallible character binding the whole of Christendom, Bellarminus, de conciliis et ecclesia lib. I II.

Heinrich, Dogm. II 476 f. Scheeben, Dogm. I 230 f. Vering, Kirchenrecht 613 f. etc.

In the Protestant churches the synodal church government first came to development on French soil. In the Lutheran church synods did indeed arise, but these consisted only in assemblies of pastores. Zwingli in 1528 at Zurich instituted synods, which were convened by the council, consisted of the preachers of city and country and a few members of the council, and especially had to consider complaints against the doctrine and life of the preachers, Mörikofer, Ulr. Zwingli, Leipzig 1869 [183] II 118 f. Calvin likewise determined in the Ordonnances ecclesiastiques, that the preachers had to come together every three months, in order to watch over one another's doctrine and life, and moreover in 1546 introduced an annual visitation, Kampschulte, Joh. Calvin I 408. Franz Lambert in 1526 designed for Hesse a church order, in which both congregational meetings and synods, consisting of the preachers and delegates appointed by the congregations, were included, but this church order did not come into effect, Lechler, Gesch. d. Presb. n. Syn. Verf. 14 f. A synodal church government came only in France, where the churches expanded strongly and, from need of unity, on the 26th of May 1559 for the first time came together in synod at Paris and united themselves in a common confession

and church order, Lechler ib. 69. Remarkable in this connection is, that the general synod first arose, that this introduced the provincial synods, and that later, in 1572, between these and the church councils the classis was still inserted, ib. 81, cf. likewise in Scotland 97. Such a synodal church government was then later also introduced in other Reformed churches, in Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, Germany, the Netherlands, Scotland, England,

America etc. But there soon came opposition against it from two sides. The Remonstrants, aligning themselves with Zwingli and Erastus, assigned ecclesiastical power to the civil government and inferred from that, that synods were indeed permitted but not commanded and were not necessary for the being or well-being of the church, and that, when they were held, the right to convoke, to delegate, to establish the agenda, to preside belonged to the civil government, Uitenbogaert, Tractaat van 't ampt ende auctoriteit enz. 1610 bl. 107v. cf. Limborch, Theol. Chr. VII 19. And the Independents, under the influence of the Anabaptist error, went still further, held every group of believers to be independent, and rejected every binding classical or synodal connection, Robinson bij Kist en Roijaards, Ned. Arch. voor Kerk.

Gesch. VIII 1848 bl. 371v. Neal, Historie der rechtz. Puriteinen II 1 bl. 96.

The grounds that can be brought against the synodal church government are indeed not devoid of weight. For the local churches in the N. T. are all completely independent with respect to one another; of a lawful, binding classical or synodal connection there is not a word. Such a connection seems [184] also to be wholly in conflict with the independence of the local churches, because it introduces assemblies that stand above the local churches and act with authority over against these, and thus in the church of Christ again introduces an unlawful hierarchy and tyranny. And in addition there then comes still, that the history of the synods does not always bear

favorable witness to their usefulness, and often makes them appear as the cause of all kinds of strife and division, so that Gregorius Naz. could already say, μηδεμιας συνοδου τελος εἰδον χρηστον; and the proverb not without reason runs: omne concilium parit bellum. But over against that, other considerations nevertheless place the necessity and usefulness of the synods clearly in the light. 1o In the N. T. there is as yet no classical or synodal connection of the churches, but there was then also no need for it, because the apostles themselves lived, assisted the congregations with counsel, and also cared for them through evangelists as their substitutes. 2º

The congregations were also then already in all kinds of ways connected to one another by spiritual bonds, and obtained the right, not only to assemble themselves, but also to send delegates to other congregations and there to ask for a decision in certain disputes; Hd. 1, 6, 15, 21 show, that synods in a wholly general sense are juris divini permissivi. 3º Synods are not decidedly necessary ad esse ecclesiae and are also not expressly commanded by God's

Word, but they are permitted and necessary ad bene esse ecclesiae. 4º The necessity lies in this, that the unity of doctrine, discipline, and cultus, to which the congregation is called; the order, peace, and love, which it has to preserve; and the common interests that are entrusted to it (such as training, calling, sending of ministers; mission among the heathen; support of needy churches etc.) cannot otherwise than by means of synods come into their right. 5º Synods are not a pedestal for but an undermining of all hierarchy; they maintain the independence of the local churches and preserve it from confusion, division, hierarchy of the pastor, domination of a few members; they confirm the freedom of the individual members, by giving them a support in the connection with other churches and allowing appeal to broader assemblies. 6º Nor are they a cause of division and strife, but a

means, to bring disputes, which there [185] in the church here on earth always again arise over doctrine, discipline, service, to decision in a peaceful way, through careful investigation and ample discussion. 7o In order that they answer to their purpose, synods ought always to be assemblies of churches, whose members (pastores, presbyters, deacons or ordinary members) are delegates of churches and bound to credentials of churches, which are convened by the churches themselves and not by civil government, pope etc. and are led by ecclesiastical persons chosen thereto, and which freely and independently, without interference of the civil government, judge and decide on ecclesiastical matters. 8o The ecclesiastical assemblies (local, classical, provincial, general, oecum.) are not essentially different from one another. The one assembly is not per se higher, weightier, less exposed to error, or more assured of the guidance of the H. Spirit than the other. For each church and each group of churches is independent over against the other; and all of them are in the same measure bound to the Word and partakers of the promise of the Spirit. In the ecclesiastical assemblies no representatives of the people but ecclesiastical office-bearers come together, who on Christ's behalf are called to the government of his church. They are therefore distinguished, not by a different kind or higher but only by greater power, which is brought together there and extends over a wider area. 9o The authority of all ecclesiastical assemblies is no other than that of the churches themselves; it is subject to the Word of Christ. Christ is the only one who in the churches and in their various assemblies has authority; his Word alone decides; what seems good to the H. Spirit in and through the members, that alone is binding in the church of Christ. But also these its decisions taken according to God's Word and in the H. Spirit the church cannot maintain otherwise

than by moral means. It has no ruling, coercive but only a serving power.

Cf. Calvijn, Inst. IV c. 9. Polanus, Synt. 541. Bullinger, Van de Conciliën, Dordr. 1611. Martyr, Loci Comm. 407. Junius, Op. II 1029. Theses Salmur.

III 505. Amyraut, Du gouvernement de l'Eglise contre ceux qui veulent abolir l'usage et l'autorité des synodes, Saumur 1653. Heidegger, Corp.

Theol. II 613. Turretinus, Theol. El. XVIII qu. 33. Synopsis pur. theol. disp.

49. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. IV 114-272. Oration of C. Vitringa on the Synods etc., [186] translated from the Latin by S. H. van Idsinga, Harl. 1741. Moor

VI 439-461. M. Vitringa IX 1 p. 574-653. Ch. Hodge, Discussions on Church polity, New-York 1878 p. 364-456. Karl Lechler, Die neut. Lehre v. h. Amte 1857 S. 254-275. Stahl, Die Kirchenverfassung u. s. w. 332 f.

12. Thus the church stands in the midst of the world with an origin, essence, activity, and goal of its own. It is in every respect distinct from that world, but yet never stands alongside it separated. To be sure, various tendencies in Christendom have placed church and world over against each other in an absolute, ethical antithesis, and have identified creation and recreation with sin and grace. But these tendencies, however powerful they may at times have been, have nevertheless never governed the history of Christianity, and could always only lead a sectarian life alongside the churches. Apart from these tendencies, there are only two ways in which in principle the relation of church and world can be determined, the Roman and the Protestant, the supranatural and the ethical. Rome does not regard the natural as sinful like Anabaptism and does not arrive at avoidance and separation, but it does teach that the natural is of a lower order, easily becomes a cause of sin, and therefore needs the rein of the supernatural.

Just as the image of God as a donum supernaturale was added to natural man, so from above grace comes mechanically to nature, the church to the

world, the higher to the lower morality; whoever wishes to live according to Rome's ideal must become an ascetic, suppress the natural and devote himself entirely to religion; whoever cannot do that, is granted the necessary latitude for the natural, and finds in the supernatural the boundary that determines it. Quite different was the relation which Protestantism adopted between church and world. It replaced the quantitative, supranaturalistic antithesis with the ethical. The natural was not of a lower order but was in its kind just as good and pure as the supernatural, for it was created by that same God who in re-creation revealed himself as Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Only it had been corrupted by sin and therefore had to be reconciled and renewed by the grace of Christ. Grace therefore here does not serve to avoid, to suppress, to kill the natural, but precisely to free it from its sinful corruption, and to make it truly natural again. It is true that Luther in the application of these principles stopped halfway, left the natural untouched and limited Christianity all too much to the ethicalreligious domain. But Calvin, the man of action, who came after Luther and therefore could mirror himself in Luther, continued the work of the Reformation and sought to reform the whole of life by Christianity.

Avoidance is the word of the Anabaptists; asceticism that of the Romans; renewal and sanctification that of the Protestant, specifically of the Reformed Christian. This latter view is without doubt the richest and most beautiful. For there is but one God in both creation and re-creation. The God of creation, of the Old Testament, is no lower God than that of recreation, than the Father of Christ, than the God of the N. Covenant. Christ, the mediator of the N. Covenant, is also the one through whom God created all things. And the H. Spirit, who is author of regeneration and sanctification, is the same who in the beginning hovered over the waters

and adorned the heavens. Creation and re-creation therefore cannot stand over against each other as lower and higher. They are both good and pure, both glorious works of the one and triune God. Further, sin, which has entered into the world, has indeed corrupted everything, not only the spiritual, the ethical-religious life but also all the natural, the body, the family, society, the whole world. But it is nevertheless no substance, no materia, but forma, and thus not identical with the created, but dwelling in and on the created and always to be loosened from it and removed by the grace of God. Substantially and materially creation after the fall is the same as before that time; it remains a work of God, and as such to be honoured and praised. For the recovery of that fallen world God now indeed brings the powers of grace into that creation. But that grace too is no substance or materia, enclosed in word or sacrament and distributed by the priest, but it is a renewing, re-creating power. It is not per se supernatural, but it bears that character only because of sin, and thus bears it in a certain sense accidentally and temporarily, in order to restore creation. This grace is distributed in a twofold form, as common grace for restraint, as special grace for renewal. Both have their unity in Christ, who is king in the regnum potentiae and gratiae; both are directed against sin; both bring and keep creation and re-creation in connection with each other. The world too after the fall is not left to itself, and not stripped of all grace, but it is borne and spared by common grace, guided and preserved for special grace in Christ. Separation and suppression are therefore unlawful and impossible.

Human being and Christian are not two beings. Creation is taken up and restored in re-creation. The man who is born again is substantially no other than he was before regeneration. Incorporated into the church, he nevertheless remains in the world, and has only to keep himself from the

evil one. Just as Christ, the Son of God, from Mary assumed full human nature and thereby regarded nothing human and nothing natural as foreign to himself, so the Christian is nothing other than the reborn, renewed and therefore the true man. The same people who are Christians are and remain in the same calling with which they are called; they remain members of the family, citizens of society, subjects of the government, practitioners of science and art, men or women, parents or children, masters or servants etc.

The relation that must exist between church and world is therefore in the first place of an organic, moral, spiritual nature. Christ is prophet, priest, king even now, and he works through his Word and Spirit upon the whole world. Through him there proceeds from everyone who believes in him a renewing, sanctifying influence in family, society, state, vocation, business, art, science etc. The spiritual life is destined to make the natural and moral life again correspond to the law of God in full depth and extent. Along this organic way Christian truth and Christian life are carried into all circles of natural life, so that family and family life are restored in honour, the woman is again regarded as the equal of the man, science and art are Christianized, the level of moral life is raised, society and state are reformed, laws and institutions, morals and customs are stamped Christian. But there is [189] yet another regulation of the relation of church and world, which is much more difficult and about which the greatest difference of opinion exists.

Christ rules his church namely also through offices and institutions; and the question is whether the relation of the church to the various domains of natural life is also to be regulated officially and institutionally. Papalism and Caesareopapism stand here over against each other. Caesareopapism regulates the relation in such a way that the church is subjected to the Christian state and has to conduct itself according to its laws. There is some

truth in this; the relation of the church to the state is a wholly different one since this has become Christian. Before the government was Christian, for example, many more sins fell under Christian discipline than after that time.

Attendance at pagan feasts, idolatry, worship of the emperor, Sabbath profanation, perjury, blasphemy, marriages in a forbidden degree, abominable sins of fornication, adultery etc., were indeed recognized and punished as sins by the church but not by the state. Since the government has been Christianized, there has come much greater agreement in moral conception and assessment. In many a case the church can therefore wait for the handling of scandalous transgressions by the judiciary and has no need of its own court. But nevertheless too much is inferred from that when all power is taken from the church and assigned to the Christian government. For essentially the power of the church has remained the same, even though its exercise has also been importantly altered. For the administration of word and sacrament is the inalienable right of the church; further, there always remain many sins, such as Sabbath profanation, fornication, drunkenness, swearing etc., which are not punished at all by the government or only, when they are very public and scandalous, are punished moderately; and finally the church also has, with those sinners whom the government punishes, a task of its own, for the government is satisfied with the punishment, but the church seeks to convince, to bring to repentance and to save, Calvin, Inst. IV 11, 4. On the other side stands the papal system, which indeed deserves praise insofar as it maintains the independence and freedom of the church, but otherwise, if not the whole world, then at least the whole baptized Christendom in all its circles of life and relations, wishes to subject judicially and legally to the pope; family, society, state, art, science etc. must [190] be ecclesiastical, for ecclesiastical

is identical with Christian, Roman, papal. This claim of Rome is not meant morally and spiritually, so that everyone who does not submit to the pope stands guilty before God; but it bears precisely this character, that everyone who refuses obedience to the pope also stands guilty before this vicarius

Christi in law and legally, can be punished by him, if he judges it useful and has the power to do so, and can be compelled to obedience not only with spiritual and moral means but also with bodily and civil punishments. From this papal tyranny the courage of faith and the strength of spirit of Luther and Calvin have freed us. Their mighty act of reformation consisted in this, that they restored Christianity in its religious-ethical significance, as religion of grace, and freed the natural, not from this Christianity, but from the jurisdiction of the Roman church. From that it followed of itself that the connection between church and world, apart from the above-mentioned organic way, could only be established contractually. It is true that Calvin held with tooth and nail that the government was subjected to God's word, to maintain the two tables of the law, and to listen to the church as interpreter of God's word and had also to punish civilly various sins over which the church exercised discipline. He did draw the boundary line between church and state clearly and sharply but he drew it differently than we; the domain on which both had something to say was much greater than is now determined by us; the government as Christian also had on its terrain and in its measure to watch for the honour of God, for the flourishing of his church, for the expansion of his kingdom. But nevertheless, the relation between church and state was contractual and free. The church could do nothing other than preach the word of God, testify in his name of his commandments; but if the government or whoever then also refused to listen, then the church, then Calvin himself, then every Christian had no

power and also no right any more to coercion. Then nothing remained but resistentia negativa, passive resistance, Calvin, Inst. IV 20, 29, cf. for others

Moor VI 513. Such a resistance too was an act, for as Doumergue, Calvin le fondateur des libertés modernes, Montauban 1898 p. 14 so beautifully says, c'est la soumission, mais du corps et non de l'âme. Humilié devant le Dieu, qui le [191] châtie, le calviniste reste le juge inexorable du despote qui l'oppresse. Il y a des soumissions plus mortelles à la tyrannie que des révoltes! But all right to coercion and punishment was nevertheless taken from the church over against the government and over against every human being and Christianity in its purely spiritual power restored and honoured.

The government remained, like every human being, for its unbelief, for its rejection of God's word, for its transgression of his commandments, for the persecution and suppression of his church, accountable only to God. If, however, the government freely and independently made profession of the Christian, of the Reformed religion —as indeed as its duty and calling was always preached— then it followed from that that it in its quality and in its domain had to promote this religion and had to ward off and root out heresy and idolatry. The error lay there not in this, that to the Christian government the promotion of God's honour and service was assigned, but that the boundaries of state and church were wrongly drawn and unbelief, heresy etc. were regarded as a state crime. In the century of the Reformation this could indeed not be otherwise. But since the task of the government has been limited, the peoples have become free and mature, the churches split and divide more and more, and all kinds of tendencies in thought and life have appeared, the distinction between crime and sin is more clearly seen and all coercion as precisely in conflict with the Christian confession is recognized by ever more people. In the regulation of the relation between

church and state the following is therefore to be maintained: 1º that the church, even though by its pluriformity its testimony is weakened, cannot desist from the demand that all creatures, art, science, family, society, state etc. submit to the Lord's word; 2º that this demand is only a preaching, a moral testimony and may never be urged directly or indirectly by coercion or punishment; 3º that a Christian, Reformed government has the calling to promote God's honour, to protect his church and to cast down the kingdom of the antichrist; 4º that it however never can or may do this except with means that are in accordance with the nature of the gospel of Christ, and only on that terrain that is entrusted to it for safeguarding; 5º that it, itself owing account to him for its attitude with respect to God's word, may not intervene in the rights of the individual human being nor also in those of family, society, art, science and thus is not responsible for what within these domains happens against God's word and law; 6º that it has to draw the boundaries between sin and crime according to the demand of the gospel and in accordance with the guidance of God's providence in the history of the peoples; which boundaries however do not coincide with those between the first and the second table of the law, for many sins against the second table fall outside the supervision and punishment of the government, and many others against the first table (perjury, Sabbath profanation) are also punishable for the Christian government; 7º that fixed boundaries cannot be indicated by anyone in the abstract, because they vary with people and with century and can only be determined to some extent in their direction by the testimony of the national conscience.

CHAPTER X. On the Means of Grace.

Monergism Books

↑ Back to top