Chapter 2: Organization, Discipline, Offices

Chapter 2: Organization, Discipline, Offices

2. Organization, Discipline, Offices

1. How many views are there concerning the organization and government of the visible church?

a)The view of those who declare every external form as unnecessary or even illegitimate. So judge the “Plymouth Brethren,” or Darbyists, who have separated themselves from all organized churches. They think that every church formation necessarily corrupts and leads to results that are irreconcilable with the spirit of Christianity, and that therefore it is not only unnecessary to form a visible church, but positively sinful. Of itself, then, office also falls with external formation. All believers are priests, and the Holy Spirit is the only bond that may bind them as one (Darby 1800–1882). The Quakers have a similar view. They too reject office.

b)The Erastian system. This teaches that the church as such is entirely spiritual, and that it belongs to the state to provide it with an external organization, to exercise the power that there must be in it. Erastus (1524–1583) had taken over his ideas from Zwingli. The sin of confessing Christians may not be punished by ecclesiastical office-bearers by denying them the use of the seals of the covenant. Only the civil government may concern itself with sin. The church cannot make laws or decrees. It can only instruct, admonish, convince. This Erastian system can be applied in different ways.

1.The application found in England, where it is connected with Episcopalianism. At the time of the Reformation, the English king had assumed for himself the power of the Pope as head of the church. All the bishops had to swear allegiance to him and to receive their office from his hands. Some said that by virtue of his office the king had also received the mandate from God to care for the spiritual concerns of his subjects. Others said that Scripture does not provide a form of church government, and so the church is completely free if it wishes to permit itself to be governed by the state. They are not strictly Episcopalian. The “high churchmen” tried in one way or another to diminish the authority of the crown.

2.The application of the Remonstrants. They too were zealous proponents of the authority of the state in ecclesiastical matters. This was connected with the political conditions of those days in Holland, but, moreover, also had a still deeper basis—namely, a weakening of the concept of the church and, in connection with that, of the kingship of Christ.

3.The application of the Lutheran church. In Germany, the Reformation certainly did not originate with civil power but still was taken up and advanced by it. The Reformers allowed consistories, which were charged with ecclesiastical discipline, to be appointed by the electors. The ruler of the land consequently received the power to appoint instruments for the government of the church and in fact became Summus Episcopus, “Highest Bishop.” Some have the following theory for the explanation of this actual situation: the ruler is not the highest governor of the church on the basis of his civil position but only as its most eminent member. In the execution of his power, however, he is bound by the judgment of the clergy and the people. Others, however, are consistently Erastian and ascribe ecclesiastical authority to the ruler as such.

c)The episcopal system. This teaches that the unity and authority of the church resides with the bishops in their totality. It views the bishops as the successors of the apostles and thinks that authority has come by transmission from the latter to the former. Thereby an ordering naturally appears among the clergy, for the apostles certainly had a wholly unique position. Whoever thinks that the apostolate has been perpetuated in the episcopate must thus place the bishops higher than others who work in the church under their control. From this, it further follows that all the clergy must be ordained by the bishops if they are to be recognized as legitimate ministers of the church. The episcopal system is thus insupportable to other churches that reject its basic conception. That is, the episcopal system is schismatic in nature; it hinders practicing communion with other manifestations of the body of Christ on earth. It is said that the Episcopal Church of England rebaptizes children who were baptized in Presbyterian churches, and reordains ordained ministers from such churches. For a long time the episcopal system was the system of the Roman Catholic Church, first generally and later in opposition to the ultramontane theory. The French church appeals to bishops over against the Pope.

d)The system of the present-day Roman Catholic Church. This has already been discussed in part above. Since the Vatican Council,1 it is a complete system. The Roman Catholic Church is an absolute monarchy. The Pope is accountable to no one; he stands above the church; indeed, the church is dependent on him. In a certain sense, he is the church. This system involves a great transformation, since it imports something absolute and tangible into our world of relativities and abstractions. If the church must surely be an institution, many say, then preferably it should be a perfect institution that acts with authority and finality. But this is an utterly unscriptural system, as is shown in detail in the introduction to dogmatics. It may be maintained neither exegetically nor historically nor dogmatically.

e)The system of the Independents. To begin with, this system agrees with the Puritan principle. One conceives of the church too much as a spiritual body of believers only, without reckoning with the calling that the church has to fulfill as an organized institution. Owen was an Independent or a Congregationalist. According to him, then, the individual visible church consists of those regenerate who are united by a specific relationship for the service of God and to exercise mutual oversight of one another. Believers are the material of the church, and this relationship is the form of the church.

Now it is self-evident that when in this way one limits the significance of the visible formation of the church, unity among the local churches is out of the question. Each church stands by itself. When a kind of union between different churches comes about, then this is completely accidental and not jure divino, “by divine right.”

At the same time, internally Independentism also has its own distinctive mark by which it is distinguished from other systems. It has office ministry permanently bound to the choice of all believers; that is, it is absolutely democratic in its government of the church. There are no office-bearers in the Presbyterian sense of the word. The people, the sum of believers, invest with office and therefore can also, when they desire, withdraw it. Further: only confessing believers are subject to ecclesiastical discipline, for only they make up the church, properly speaking. On this point one can perhaps best see the difference between the Independent and the Presbyterian-Reformed concept of the church. Finally, many Independents also allow ordination to the ministry of the Word only in relation to the local church in which it took place. According to this understanding, when a teacher has left his church in which he was ordained, he becomes an ordinary member and must be ordained anew to be able to minister in a new local church. It is said that such ordinations regularly occurred among the Puritans in New England. According to the Presbyterian concept, ordination does not only apply to a local church. An elder is only an elder in the one congregation that chose him, but a minister of the Word is minister of the Word wherever he proclaims the Word in the church of God. The system of the Independents must in fact exclude missions to pagans.

f)The collegial system. This is the system developed by Samuel Pufendorf (1687), by Christoph Mattäus Pfaff (1719), and J. H. Böhmer (1744) in Germany. The old Roman guilds were called collegia—free associations that originated out of a particular interest but that were recognized by the state as such. So Christian churches, which in the beginning had been collegia illicita [unlawful associations] for the Romans, later became collegia licita [permitted associations]. The collegial system will have churches viewed as such free societies. They originated by a contract.

However, this is a more or less rationalistic conception of the matter. It is certainly true that one obtains his full rights in the visible church only by confession, but still one is already associated with the church earlier, apart from his own doing. That the church has originated through a contract is equally quite as mistaken as the theory that the state had come into existence in that way. As the state rests on the basis of the family and the clan in the sphere of natural law, so also in the spiritual sphere the church rests on the ministry of God’s covenant. To wish to derive its right from a free act of man is completely Pelagian. The collegial system is usually connected with the idea that the local churches are parts of the visible association as a whole and not, in antithesis, to be viewed as a product of the gathering of local churches through their representatives in larger assemblies.

One can compare the collegial system with the partitioning of France. France is a republic, and the separate provinces are determined from Paris. The whole is greater than the parts, and all power and jurisdiction comes from above. One can compare the Reformed-Presbyterial system, on the other hand, with the union of the states of North America. Here the parts precede the whole and authority rises from below, from which then it further follows that the state has rights that it has not ceded to Washington, and, conversely, those rights that the individual states can no longer exercise.

g)The Reformed system of church government. This is based on the following fundamental theses:

1.The church, in its deepest essence, is a kingdom, for Christ is anointed king over it. Accordingly, no authority may be exercised in the church unless it is derived from the kingship of Christ and remain bound to it. To want to make the church entirely into a free association shortchanges this kingship. Believers are not free to unite or not to unite, but from the outset stand under the command of Christ, their king.

2.This kingly authority of Christ over the church is connected to the kingly word of Christ. Christ is in the church, and He rules over the church through His word. Therefore, no one can do anything in the church that would be right and conflict with that word. All believers owe unconditional obedience to the word of their King, and that obligation takes precedence before all other things. In this way, all despotic authority is excluded. There are no truly sovereign rulers in the Christian church. Christ is the only sovereign. In the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope claims that he is such a sovereign and then is also called the representative of Christ on earth. He is bound by nothing, does not live according to the law of Christ, but produces the law of Christ in a sovereign manner. In the Reformed church, something like that is completely inconceivable. In God’s Word we have the commands of Christ once for all. In it, also, the outlines of government are drawn, while what is subordinate is left to Christian wisdom according to time and circumstances. But the main thing is to carry out and to apply the word of Christ. Thus, insofar as the church itself is concerned, it is entirely a ministerial and not a ruling power.

3.Christ as King has invested the church with power (potestas). However, this potestas does not reside, as the Roman Catholic and the Episcopal system would have it, with a separate class that would possess it without the church and beyond the church. It resides with the church as a whole. The whole church has received this power from its King. The power of the keys resides with the church. Everywhere the church is, there is the power of the keys. Everywhere the church originates or manifests itself, there the power of the keys appears. In Matthew 18:18 it is said to the congregation, “All that you will bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” etc. The church can exercise this power through the ministry of overseers as it generally does, and it is even its calling to choose such overseers and to subject themselves to their direction, to maintain a special ministry of the Word, but all this does not negate the fact that the church as a whole is the seat of power that is exercised in it on behalf of Christ. Voetius expresses it like this: “that the ministering key of authority and government is in the whole body of the church as such virtualiter [virtually], but only in the ministers formaliter [formally].”

Viewed from this angle, Reformed church government is a democracy in antithesis to the oligarchic and despotic character of the Roman Catholic and Anglican system. Voetius asks “whether the potestas [power] resides in the church council [consistory] or with the ministers of any particular church, or with the people in distinction from the church council, or in the entire church body consisting of people and church council?” His answer is, “We deny that all the power resides either with the church council alone or with the ministers alone. This would still be oligarchic and papist, so that the people as laity would be excluded from all power and everything would be guaranteed to the clergy and that certainly a hierarchical clergy.” Subsequently, “We deny that all the power resides with the people as distinct from the church council, with them as first and sufficient subject, so that it would devolve from there to the ministers and the church council with regard to its possession or at least with regard to its use, namely, because the people choose and appoint ministers and elders, and transmit to them power, or rather, the exercise of power; just as if they possess no proper power in themselves or through themselves by virtue of their ministry or work by divine right.” (This is the Independentist theory, indicated then in the context as the teaching of the Brownists.) Consequently, “We deny that all power in the same sense belongs to the church council and its members and to the people head for head or taken collectively.” Finally, “We affirm that ecclesiastical power taken universally and collectively resides with the whole body of the church, as that consists of church council and people as its proper and sufficient subject; that it is not passed from the body of the people to the church council and also not the reverse—no more than my right eye is the real, first, immediate and nearest subject of my sight and this sight passes over to my left eye, nor the reverse.”

Therefore, the conception is this:

a)Power resides with the church as a whole.

b)The exercise of this power cannot occur other than by the office-bearers in the church connected with the congregation. It is not legitimate for a congregation to act without government in the manner of Independents

c)Neither can a government act apart from the congregation.

d)Church as institute and government originate with each other, for the individual church is organized as a separate body by the election of overseers—that is, church and church council originate with each other.

e)The power that the church council has is not transmitted from the individual members of the church by election and installation. Calling or election is nothing other than the concrete application of office to this or that person, and only to this degree is it a causa sine qua non, “condition without which not.”

f)Conversely, the power that resides with the members of the church does not first descend from above and derive from the church council. When the office-bearers admit someone to the visibly Reformed church, this act of reception is naturally indispensable, but it is not the source of ecclesiastical power.

This conception is in fact supported by Scripture. At its beginning, the church existed with the apostolate. The apostles were of course much more than ordinary ministers of the church, but still their office also included ordinary authority.

These apostles were not chosen by the church but by Christ, who gave power both to them and the church. The eleven apostles did not choose a new apostle as though they had formed a college that could refill itself. They had two chosen by the congregation, while the final choice remained to the one who knows the heart. Later, too, it was Christ Himself who called the apostle Paul. Thus, if one were to drop the apostles, one could say that the church was there before its office-bearers. But that one cannot exclude the apostles and view them merely as missionaries appears certain from Matthew 16:19, where the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to them.

4.This potestas ecclesiastica [ecclesiastical power] is distributed in different ways. Some speak of (1) a dogmatic power, and (2) a juridical power. To the first, then, belong the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, and all that serves these as means: the gathering and organization of churches, the choosing of ministers, the calling together of assemblies, etc. To the second belong ecclesiastical discipline and all that pertains to it. Hence one speaks of two keys: a key of knowledge and a key of government (clavis scientiae et regiminis). Others make a threefold distinction: (1) a dogmatic, (2) an ordering, and (3) a judicial power.

5.Dogmatic power, like all ecclesiastical power, is naturally a ministerial power and bound to the Word of God. It includes:

a)The preservation of Holy Scripture. The words of God are entrusted to the church. It preserves the Scripture not only as a Bible society does, but it is its official calling (Rom 3:2).

b)The ministry of Holy Scripture. This happens through the ministers of the Word. They speak on the basis of the Word and from the Word, and so open or shut the kingdom of heaven. This is a declarative power that then is only valid before God when it agrees with Scripture and when the situation to which it is applied is in fact as one assumes it to be. Consequently, there is a distinction in this power between mere scriptural interpretation by a private member and the official ministry of the Word. God or Christ speaks to the congregation through the latter, through such who are called by Him to that end. Christ has given them the ministry of reconciliation, and they are ambassadors on behalf of Christ, who implore: Be reconciled with God (2 Cor 5:20; cf. 1 Tim 4:13; 2 Tim 2:15; cf. [Heidelberg] Catechism, 84).

c)The explanation and determination of the meaning of Holy Scripture by means of creeds and confessions, especially against erroneous opinions. Accordingly, the church is called a pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Of course, the Word of God has its ground in itself, and this Word is not unlocked, as Rome would have it, only by the church. But through the ministry of the church the truth is expounded and upheld; its certainty is made manifest.

There are many who deny to the church the power and right of making creeds, and think that to do so is in conflict with the sufficiency of Holy Scripture. Hence, too, there are many communions that hold to no confession, such as the Quakers, Darbyists, etc. One should grant that creeds are not absolutely necessary. A church, if one wishes to reason in the abstract, can exist without confessional documents, and has existed without such. These, however, were exceptional situations. It is impossible to guide someone through Scripture in its entirety or to ask him his opinions concerning the whole of Scripture. The essential things must be gathered together in order that the church may show how it understands Scripture in the light of the Spirit. The authority of these creeds is always bound to Scripture; they are susceptible to improvement, but may not be lightly revised, inasmuch as they are not a compendium of theology but the ripe fruits of the spiritual development of the church, sometimes obtained through a long struggle. A true revision does not tear down the old but explains and confirms it and further illumines it in connection with new times and circumstances. But it remains true that the Scripture is the norma normans [norming norm], the confession the norma normata [normed norm].

6.According to some, what we have already enumerated above as parts of the dogmatic power of the church belongs to the potestas ordinis [power of order], since one limits this power to the official ministry of the Word. If one takes the first part more broadly, as we have done, falling under the potestas ordinis is the making of laws and rules, thus of a church order and the implementation thereof; in short, all that occurs in the church apart from the power that is related to the Word and that belongs to discipline. The ordinances that the church makes are distinguished from the ordinances that God Himself has prescribed in His Word. The latter bind the conscience, something that cannot be said of an ecclesiastical ordinance. That there must be gatherings in which God’s Word is proclaimed and the sacraments are administered is a “law” that obligates the conscience; how those gatherings will be further organized in detail is an ordinance of the church, a canon or constitution. If the latter are transgressed, then it is not sin because they are binding in themselves, but only because by transgressing them one devalues the ecclesiastical power by which they are established. The laws are only declared by the church; the ordinances are made by it. Laws are spoken of in Matthew 28:20, “teaching them to keep all that I have commanded you.” Of the ordinances (at least in part), there is an example in Acts 15 (cf. with 1 Cor 8:9, 13 and 10:23, 25, 27; cf. also 1 Cor 14:40; 11:34; 16:1).

Now, every church order consists of two different parts. In it are elements that belong to the most fundamental parts of scriptural government; thus church laws. In it are also elements that are freely made and about which Scripture is not decisive, at least gives no direct command. A good church order must include both, since free stipulations can only be made on the basis of the foundations of scriptural church government and so be suitable. Thus there is also an unalterable element in the church order, derived from God’s Word, to which the human element is added. The latter too, however, must be followed, although on a different basis than the former, namely, since the church has also bound itself to that element by its own rulers. Whoever acknowledges ecclesiastical power to make ordinances must also keep those ordinances, even when he may consider them less useful or serviceable. A canon that need not be followed eo ipso [thereby] ceases to be a canon.

Discipline2

7.The third part of ecclesiastical power is the potestas judicialis or disciplinaris, “ecclesiastical discipline.” Not everyone acknowledges that the church has this power to maintain oversight of its members through discipline or to exclude from its fellowship by excommunication. Erastians deny every such action, maintaining that such discipline belongs to the sphere of the state and that therefore the church must keep itself out of it entirely. Only if the state does not fulfill its duty, or cannot since it is unbelieving, may the church, according to some, take discipline into its own hands.

It was Calvin who brought to the fore specifically ecclesiastical discipline, as something distinguished from civil discipline, in connection with the presbyterial office. And for these two things—discipline and the office of elder—the Reformed church is indebted, under God, to him. However, in Geneva, according to the church order introduced in 1541, on more than one point ecclesiastical discipline was still dependent on the power of civil punishment. Elders were chosen from and by the government. Only in lands where the government stood over against the church was this good principle developed with complete purity.

The question is where and to what extent Scripture teaches discipline in the narrower sense—that is, the sort of handling of the members that ends up in public and official excommunication. It is not sufficient to appeal to the character of an association, for the church is more than an association. It acts not by its own hand but in the name of its King. May it in His name proceed to banish? Theologians (such as Turretin) appeal to the Old Testament. Fallen man is thrown out of paradise and eating from the tree of life is denied him. Paradise was a type of the congregation, the tree of life a sacrament, as was what happened with Cain (Gen 4:14). The uncircumcised, lepers, the impure were excluded from holy places within Israel (Lev 5, 6, 7, 10); also from the use of holy things. Priests and Levites had to separate the pure and the impure (Ezek 44:28; cf. also 44:9). One may understand all this as a type, but the question is whether it is a type for the visible church or for the invisible, the kingdom of God. At that time there could not be a real excommunication as it exists under the New Testament. Church and state were one. Therefore, someone could not be put out of the church or he must also be eliminated from the state, that is, be eradicated from his people and punished with death. Only later, when the Jews lost their independence and this law could no longer be exercised, did actual excommunication, the termination of religious communion, originate. “And he himself would be separated from the congregation of the exiles” (Ezra 10:8). After the exile, the maintenance of this excommunication was an issue of its existence for Judaism. Surrounded on all sides by the pagan world, they had to rigorously exclude all pagan elements so that they were not gradually absorbed completely into paganism. The Jews made a distinction between nidduy and cherem, “temporary” and “final” excommunication. In the New Testament, this Jewish excommunication is spoken of in Luke 6:22; John 9:22; 12:42; and 16:2. The right to excommunicate resided with the elders of the synagogue (“the Jews had already made a decision together”; John 9:22).

This excommunication was the application in new situations of the principles prescribed in the Old Testament. Through Ezra it had received divine sanction, which Christ connected with the power of the keys that He gave to His church. Matthew 16:19 and 18:17 is the communication of this power. Its application is found in 1 Corinthians 5; 2 Thessalonians 3:14–15; Titus 3:10–11 (“Reject a heretical person after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is perverse and sins, having condemned himself”); 2 John 10; 1 Timothy 1:20 (“Among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan in order that they would learn to no longer blaspheme”); and Romans 16:17.

Does all this have to do with the ordinary exercise of terminal discipline as this is understood to take place even now, or is this something that was only legitimate for the apostles? In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul says that the church should remove the incestuous person from its midst and that only if they did not do so, he himself intends to intervene with his apostolic authority (1 Cor 5:2–7). But even then it is not a solely apostolic excommunication that will be pronounced on such a person, for the apostle intends that his spirit will be present when the church is assembled, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ. Accordingly, there are two elements here: (a) excommunication by the congregation, which the apostle urged and in which he participated through his spirit; (b) handing over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (5:5). By that it is evident that something quite extraordinary is meant. We may not say that the church that applies discipline to someone and cuts him off hands over such a person to Satan. Our formula for removal does not use such expressions. Likely the apostle refers to bodily suffering, to which he had then gives over the one guilty (cf. the case of Elymas, Acts 13:9–11). First Timothy 1:20 is to be judged similarly. At the same time, we see from this case that the terminal exercise of discipline still has a remedial significance. Handing over to Satan also happened in order that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ. The other texts mentioned above also place that in the foreground.

But this is not the sole purpose. If discipline has reference to the individual member, no less does it have reference to the body of the church. It serves to remove such members who, by remaining in the church, would infect others, would completely pollute the body, and would defile the table of the Lord. About that 1 Corinthians 5:6–7 says, “Do you not know that a little yeast leavens all the dough? Then clean out the old yeast that you may be new dough.” But these two things do not necessarily exclude each other. As long as someone lives in sin and does not repent, he can be a dangerously sick member of the congregation and it can be necessary to cut him off while he still is and remains truly a child of God. Then he will return with confession, and discipline will have accomplished its double purpose. Of course, it may also be that he belonged among the hypocrites, who ought not to be in the congregation.

But the church cannot say that decisively when it pronounces excommunication; it must leave to God the judgment on what is inward. Its excommunication is always on the basis of God’s Word and declarative—that is, if the person does not repent and his inward state corresponds to his outward conduct, then he will be excluded from the kingdom of God, as he is now excluded from the fellowship of the visible church. Thus, while those in the church are judged objectively according to their confession and are to be dealt with as Christians, the church has no further judgment to pronounce over someone who is excommunicated, for those who are outside God judges. Also, in subsequent dealings with such a person the church must reckon with both possibilities: that he can be a true member of the body of Christ who has taken a wrong path, and also that he can have been an apparent member. If he returns with repentance and confession, then the church deals with him (again objectively) in the first sense.

Connected with this is the question whether one can apply discipline to someone who puts himself outside the church. This question is difficult to answer. On the one hand, one can say that the individual has not become a member by a free act of the will, that by virtue of God’s covenant he belongs to the church by his baptism and is under the oversight of the church, that he therefore cannot withdraw by a free act of the will. Consequently, if a freely self-willed separation from the church eliminates the further exercise of discipline, nearly nothing of discipline remains. If someone silently permits his being cut off to happen, then in most cases he will also not hesitate to sever the bond beforehand. In the worst illness, the radical cure has to remain unused.

However, there is also much to be said on the other side of this question. If one would carry out the execution of discipline strictly, then one must not only proceed if a member under censure separates himself, but also once a member free from censure takes this step. Indeed, even members by baptism must then come under censure if they withdraw, and the entire process of discipline must be carried out with all its steps from beginning to end. That smacks more or less of Rome. One can also say that by the self-willed withdrawal of a person the goal of discipline is in part reached, in part made unreachable. As far as the surgical aspect of discipline is concerned, this has become superfluous; the offender has freed the congregation from himself. As to the healing aspect, there is little chance that someone who of himself evades exclusion from the seals of covenant and from the termination of ecclesiastical fellowship will cause much disturbance. It seems to us that discipline must be exercised in ordinary circumstances. Many who have the sad intention to separate arbitrarily can perhaps be affected by official admonition or even by formal removal. Such cases have taken place. However, it is not advisable here to lay down a rule that must be valid for all instances. In any case, to say that one may not deal with someone who has separated goes too far.

Does this discipline also extend to those baptized who are not members by confession? That question is judged differently. The examples of discipline described for us in the New Testament concern those who were baptized as adults. This question is connected with another: whether the children of the covenant, the children of the confessing members of the church, belong to the institutional church. Voetius poses this question, “Whether the children of covenantal members are of the visible church and help to constitute it? Answer: They are called members of the church by the Netherlands Liturgy in the formula for the administration of baptism, in the first question put to the parents (“as members of His church ought to be baptized”). And that is shown from 1 Corinthians 7:14 and Acts 2:39. But this must be understood with a qualification, as Ames expresses it very well: The children are not in this sense mature members of the church that they … are able to share in all privileges.” This, however, may not be understood as though the church had no calling and no right to deal with the children and to admonish them. There is, therefore, a kind of discipline. But when someone becomes a confessing member, he promises that he will subject himself to ecclesiastical discipline. Formal, proper discipline, then, is designed for mature persons who have reached years of discretion, and not for children. The latter are members of the visible church, fully members and not half-members, but immature members who do not have the full right of members. But this in no way proves that the church does not possess its full rights with respect to them.

Discipline does not concern all sins, but so-called public sins—that is, those that openly give offense. Thus, by public sin is not meant a sin that is committed in the clear light of day, for there are many unrighteous acts that by their nature seek darkness and ecclesiastical discipline would thus become completely useless with such a limitation. Something becomes a public sin ipso facto [in itself] as soon as it openly produces offence in the congregation, even if it would also be committed behind closed doors. One may imagine what an untenable position the church would occupy against all the secret societies of our time if it would take “secret sin” in the strictest sense of the word. A sin can be secret and public at the same time, according to how it is understood. The demand that for a censurable sin one must be able to specify the day and the hour is completely untenable.

How the process of discipline should proceed is prescribed in Matthew 18:

a)Brotherly admonition between the one who has become aware of the sin and the sinner alone.

b)If this does not avail, admonition in the presence of one or two witnesses in order that it is clear later how the personal handling of the affair has taken place.

c)If this too does not help, the sin is presented to the congregation. The question here is whether by “the congregation” the church council is to be understood. Beza and our formula for the induction of elders understand it that way (“which by no means can be understood of each and every member of the congregation”). The truth appears to be that here it is not the particular form of government of the congregation that is in view, since that still lay in the future. By saying the church council, one says the congregation. In Corinth too, moreover, the entire church appears to have taken part in the exercise of discipline (cf. Heidelberg Catechism, question 85).

d)As soon as a sin is brought before the church council, it becomes public if the admonition does not avail. If the admonition does avail, the sin need not be made public further. If, on the other hand, it has been public from the outset, the church council naturally need not wait for someone to be concerned with it in private but must press for public confession. Public sins must be confessed publicly, whether they were originally public or become so by scorning ecclesiastical admonition.

The first step following fruitless admonition by the church council is the minor excommunication (excommunicatio minor), denial of the use of the Lord’s Supper. Between this minor excommunication and the final removal fall three admonitions, according to article 77 of the Church Order of Dort. In the first, the name of the sinner is not mentioned; in the second, his name is mentioned with the recommendation of the classis. In the third, his removal is finally declared, in order that it can take place with the silent agreement of the church. This removal is called “major excommunication” (excommunicatio major). Reinstatement must also take place with the prior knowledge of the congregation.

Only individual persons are objects of discipline, not collective bodies, as Rome would have it when it excommunicates entire lands and nations. The consequences of discipline are not civil, as if one may not have any sort of contact in civil life with a censured or excommunicated person. Paul has expressly warned against this excess in 1 Corinthians 5:9–12. One must have no religious fellowship with such person. In a religious respect, he must be as a pagan or publican. But one may certainly work with a pagan and a publican. The church is also obligated to that after the exercise of discipline (2 Thess 3:15).

One sees that in general, with respect to its foundational principles, discipline rests on God’s Word. Individual steps, on the other hand, possess no biblical authority and so do not belong to laws but to ecclesiastical regulations. Matthew 18 says nothing more than that those who do not listen to the church must be kept from all fellowship. However, discipline in stages is already very old in the church. A first and second admonition is already spoken of in Titus 3:10, after which a heretic must be expelled. The ancient church was rigorous not only in exclusion but also in readmission, which occurred in four steps (proklausis, akroasis, hypoptōsis, systasis). There were even parties that would not readmit the fallen. One who was placed under church discipline was excluded from office. In later times discipline fell into disuse, especially in the Roman Catholic Church through trafficking in indulgences.

It is almost superfluous to observe that excommunication does not exclude from the scope of the ministry of the Word but only from the ministry of the sacraments. Someone who is excommunicated has accountability toward the Word as much as do pagans and publicans when it is brought to him.

Ecclesiastical and civil dealing with sins do not exclude each other but run parallel. That someone has borne his civil punishment and so is once again right with the civil authority does not vindicate him before the church. It can also occur that in one way or another civil law does not condemn him while there are still reasons to deal with him ecclesiastically. The church need not conform to the opinions of worldly justice. It has its own administration of justice, and is itself responsible to God.

Offices3

8.To exercise the government of the church Christ has instituted offices. “He has given some to be apostles and some to be prophets and some to be evangelists and some to be pastors and teachers” (Eph 4:11). “And God has placed some in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, after that gifts of healings, helps, governments, various kinds of tongues” (1 Cor 12:28). “Whether prophecy, according to the measure of faith, whether service, in serving, whether the one who teaches, in teaching, whether the one who admonishes, in admonishing, whether the one who distributes, in simplicity, the one who is an advocate, with diligence, the one who shows mercy, with cheerfulness” (Rom 12:6–8). From these passages one should start with the distinction of offices in the New Testament church. They are in part ordinary and in part extraordinary—Calvin (Institutes, 4.1.1 and following) divides them as follows: apostles, prophets, and evangelists are of an extraordinary and temporary kind; pastors and teachers have an ordinary office that is permanent. Teachers have to do with the interpretation of Scripture, pastors with the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. Further permanent offices (derived from Rom 12:7 and 1 Cor 12:28) are government (kybernēsis) and care for the poor (antilēmpsis). Government resides with the elders, and care for the poor with the deacons. There are two sorts of deacons, those having to do with good for the poor and those having to do with the persons of the poor.

Apostle (apostolos), from apostollein, properly means “envoy,” “one sent.” It can be used in a general sense (cf. 2 Cor 8:23). Usually, however, it has a quite specific meaning. Jesus designated the twelve whom He chose with this specific name (Luke 6:13), which thus implies the particularity of their office. They were not called apostles as ordinary missionaries (cf. Acts 1:2, 8). Paul certainly did not merely claim the position of an ordinary preacher when he defended and established his apostleship with such emphasis and so frequently.

The apostles are chosen, twelve in number, as representatives of spiritual Israel. Thereby it was meaningfully indicated that the New Testament church rested on the ground of the Old and that it was built upon that ground. They are at the same time stones that, with the prophets, form the foundation (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30). When one considers the matter from this viewpoint, the election of Matthias (Acts 1:26) cannot be called a mistake or hasty action. Paul did not appear in the place of Judas, but stands outside the circle of the twelve (cf. Rev 21:14). He was the Gentile-apostle, apostolos ethnōn (Rom 11:13), apostolēn … eis ta ethnē (Gal 2:8).

An apostle has an office that not only extends over his lifetime but is valid for the entire earthly dispensation of God’s covenant. Presbyters and deacons in the New Testament are no longer our deacons and presbyters. For us, they are past historical persons. It is otherwise with the apostles; they are our apostles as well as the apostles of the first Christians, sent to us, authoritative for us. There is no knowledge of Christ other than through the word of the apostles. Christ prays for those who will believe in Him through their word. Whoever withdraws himself from the authority of the apostles places himself outside the pale of Christianity. Paul says: my gospel is the only, genuine gospel, and if an angel or whoever else proclaims another gospel to you, let him be cursed.

The marks of an apostle are:

a)That he must have a mission directly from Christ. That is implied in the name. He is not an “envoy” in a general but a specific sense, an envoy directly from Christ. The Gospels say, “Jesus sent out these twelve” (Matt 10:8; 11:1; Mark 6:7; Luke 9:2). One could say then that Matthias could not be an apostle since he was chosen by the church. But the church chose two then, and left the decisive choice to Christ. Paul, too, was directly called by Christ (Gal. 1:1).

b)The apostles had to be witnesses of the life of Christ during His state of humiliation, of His mediatorial work in that state, of His suffering, and above all of His resurrection (John 15:27). “It is necessary then that of the men who accompanied us during all the time in which the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning with the baptism of John to the day in which He was taken up from us, that one of these become with us a witness of his resurrection” (Acts 1:21–22). Hence Paul asks, “Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” (1 Cor 9:1). And accordingly, his seeing of the Lord on the way to Damascus must have been a real seeing and not merely a leaving of his senses. Elsewhere, then, the apostle also puts it on the same line with a series of other bodily appearances of the Lord (1 Cor 15:8).

c)An apostle spoke and wrote by inspiration. The Lord promised that to His apostles (Matt 10:19; Luke 12:12). The Holy Spirit, whom the Father would send in His name, would teach them all things (John 14:26), lead them into all truth (John 16:13). This promise is fulfilled in Peter (Acts 4:8). Later they could say, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28). “So then whoever rejects this, does not reject man but God, who has given us His Holy Spirit,” Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 4:8. An apostle can certainly sin and make mistakes, but he cannot proclaim false teaching. When by his conduct Peter appeared to teach the obligation of the Gentiles to keep the Jewish law, he acted hypocritically but did not err (Gal 2:13).

d)An apostle possesses the power to work miracles. That too was promised them in their sending, and they made use of it (Acts 3:15–16; Heb 2:3–4).

e)An apostle receives validation from God by the success of his work. Paul, at least, has repeatedly appealed to that for his apostleship, and others have acknowledged it as a verdict of God (Gal 2:8; 1 Cor 9:1–2).

These facts are sufficient to settle the question whether there are still apostles or can be. Episcopalians make the apostolate something transmissible and think they may view their bishops as apostles. But they cannot say that they have seen the Lord, are not inspired, work no miracles, and are not chosen by Christ Himself. Hence they maintain that besides the qualities mentioned above, the apostles had this as well: that they could ordain and govern, and that is passed down to the bishops. Now it is certainly true that the apostles possessed this power. They rule with absolute authority over the churches, appoint elders, deacons, etc. But only they? This is evidently not the case. By virtue of its entirely unique character, their office included all these other things (cf. 1 Tim 4:14 with 2 Tim 1:6).

In recent times, the Irvingites have sought to revive the apostolate. According to them, the gift of tongues has also returned. The return of Christ is about to take place. Hence the name: “Catholic Apostolic Church.” There are prophets, apostles, evangelists, and pastors.

A second office reckoned as extraordinary is that of prophet. Under the Old Testament there were two sorts of prophets: those who stood on the same line with the New Testament apostles, that is, who were infallible proclaimers of the counsel of God, and those who applied and further disseminated the truth proclaimed by the former. In the New Testament, prophets appear along with the apostles (Eph 3:5; 2:20; 4:11; 1 Tim 1:18; 4:14; 1 Cor 14:3; 13:8; Rev 11:6). From these passages, it appears that in the apostolic era the gift to speak for the edification of the congregation was developed in an extraordinary way, that through the Spirit mysteries were revealed, future things sometimes foretold (Acts 13:1–2; 11:28). To that extent, this prophetic office was temporary and extraordinary. In the broader sense of “speaking for edification,” it is permanent and was also in use in old Reformed churches.

A third office is that of evangelists. This designation is easily misunderstood. Biblical evangelists were essentially distinguished from ours. They are connected with the apostles. They were their associates, traveling companions, fellow workers. Philip, Timothy, Titus, Mark, Silas belonged to this group. The seventy disciples whom the Lord sent out are also to be noted here. Their work consisted in preaching and baptizing. To that extent they corresponded to ordinary pastors, except that these served in a set place. But at the same time, they appear to have had special power. Titus appointed elders (Titus 1:5) and exercised discipline (3:10). Timothy laid on hands (1 Tim 5:22). From all this it appears that there was something extraordinary in the office of evangelist. Jerome already said, “Every apostle was an evangelist, not every evangelist an apostle.” The popular notion that an evangelist stands a little lower than a pastor is, in any case, unbiblical. If this office of evangelist can still exist, there is much more reason to place them higher (cf. also “helps,” 1 Cor 12:28).

We come now to the ordinary offices. Here different questions must be discussed: (a) The relationship in which the offices of elder (presbyter) and bishop or overseer (episkopos) stand to each other, and whether this is one and the same office. (b) The relationship in which the office of pastor (poimēn) stands to the two mentioned in (a); that is, whether within the eldership there is a distinction between those who are pastors and those who are not pastors. (c) The question concerning the office of teacher and whether this was a particular office, distinct from the office of pastor. (d) The question concerning the office of deacons and deaconesses. (e) The question concerning calling to the offices and the way in which one is invested with office.

a)The relationship between the episcopate and the presbyterate. Advocates of the episcopal system say that the two offices of bishop and presbyter are different. Bishops are higher than presbyters. They have the power to ordain and to govern the presbyters. The latter cannot ordain each other. Some go much further, as we saw, and make bishops successors of the apostles.

In antithesis, we posit the thesis: bishop and presbyter, overseer and elder wholly indicate the same office. An overseer is an elder and an elder is an overseer. If there was a distinction in the eldership and in the overseership, this had nothing to do with the double name. One called the two kinds of elders that there were both overseers and presbyters. It is reported of Paul (Acts 20:17) that he summoned the elders of the church of Ephesus and then addressed them as overseers (20:28). In Philippians 1:1 overseers appear next to deacons, as in other places elders are next to deacons (cf. also 1 Tim 3:2 with 3:8); “that you should appoint elders from city to city” (Titus 1:5) and “for an overseer must be above reproach” (1:7). Consequently, nothing is clearer than the identity of these two offices. The only difference lies in these two points: elder (presbyter) is a Jewish term derived from the synagogue, which was also administered by the eldest men; overseer (episkopos) is a Greek term. Elder refers to the dignity of the office, overseer its work.

b)The second of the questions above concerns the distinction within the eldership itself. Were there two kinds of elders? It appears from 1 Timothy 4:14 that in one and the same church there was a plurality of elders, and that they formed a closed whole, a college, “presbytery,” “eldership.” From 1 Timothy 5:17 it appears further that there were elders who worked in the Word and teaching, and so also elders who were not occupied with such work. The distinction between teaching elders and ruling elders rests on that.

We will now have to think about the matter as follows. Originally all the emphasis with the eldership fell on ruling, maintaining oversight. The reason for that was that the extraordinary office of prophecy and the extraordinary charismata (charismata), in general, as well as the continuing presence of the apostles and evangelists made the need for an ordained office of teacher less visible. Elders could all teach and speak the Word, but there were many besides them who also taught and prophesied in the congregation. Later, when extraordinary gifts had already waned, there arose of itself the need for a regulated office of teacher. In the Pastoral Epistles of Paul this already appears as an established structure. Still, it seems to us that one derives too much from the data if one argues that all the elders were not free to be active in teaching in the congregation. Only this follows with certainty: there were a number of elders who had the specific duty to teach. The others may have had the freedom; they did not have the duty. Hereby, in fact, the Reformed distinction between two kinds of elders is legitimized in principle.

Some difference prevails concerning the office of ruling elders. According to one theory, they must be viewed as representatives of the people. The church is then governed by two sorts of office-bearers: (a) ministers of the Word, who are clergy; (b) ruling elders, who are laity. Both have identical rights in all ecclesiastical bodies to which they are delegated. But the elders who only rule bring along these rights from the people whom they represent; teaching elders have those rights, as it were, in themselves. From that it follows that the latter also continue to possess them in ecclesiastical assemblies when they do not represent a church council or congregation. A teaching elder without ministry nonetheless has a vote in assemblies. The Presbyterian Church of the United States says in its “Form of Government”: “The ordinary and permanent office-bearers in the church are overseers or pastors; the representatives of the people are commonly called ruling elders and deacons.” And again: “Ruling elders are properly the representatives of the people and are chosen by the people to exercise government and discipline in connection with the pastors and ministers of the Word” (ch. III, 2, and ch. V).4

There are substantial objections to this view:

1.It could be inferred from it that the congregation that chooses these representatives can give them a specific mandate—now broader, then less broad—all according as it chooses. Strictly speaking, one can give instruction to a representative and say: you must act so. Now, it is clear that in this sense ruling elders are not representatives of the people. They have received an office from Christ; the Holy Spirit has appointed them as overseers of the flock; they are not accountable to their constituents but to God and His Word.

2.It cannot be proven that the New Testament makes such a distinction with respect to the power of the teaching and ruling elders. They apparently form one institution, bear the same names (bishop, elder), and it is completely impossible to explain this if there is such a profound difference as this theory presupposes. Some of its advocates (Charles Hodge, among others) would then retain the term presbyter in a specific sense for ruling elders—completely without support, in our thinking. If anything is clear, then it is this: that in 1 Timothy 5:17 both kinds of elders are specifically called presbyter.

3.It is certainly true that power is given by Christ to the church as a whole, but this must be understood in the sense described above and not as if it is transferred democratically from the congregation to the elders, who govern. Elders have their power to rule from Christ as they belong to the organism of the congregation.

4.That elders are chosen by the congregation does not mean that they are representatives of the congregation. It is well established that even in electing an apostle the congregation is consulted for its choice. No one would infer from this that an apostle represents the congregation. And the congregation likewise takes part in the election of a teaching elder. Conversely, it would seem, sometimes the apostles also appointed both ruling and teaching elders directly or had them appointed by their evangelists. If the office of ruling elder were in its essence an office of representation of the congregation, then one must say: a ruling elder chosen by an apostle is a contradictory notion. But the matter becomes completely otherwise if one abandons this idea of representation. Then it becomes clear how there are two ways along which Christ chooses office-bearers, both to rule and to teach—namely, sometimes directly by His apostles, sometimes by the choice of the congregation.

Nevertheless, there is some truth in this theory. It has already been noted above that a ruling elder can only serve in the particular congregation that chose him. He cannot function in another congregation. But a minister of the Word can certainly do that. This, however, does not prove that ruling elders get their authority from the congregation. That simply follows from the limitation on their work. Ministers of the Word have a general or a limited mission. But they too, for example, can be delegated by a classis to a broader assembly.

While a ruling elder does not have the rights and duties of a teaching elder, in antithesis a teaching elder certainly has the rights and duties of a ruling elder. Those who teach likewise govern, but not the reverse. The installation formula for ruling elders specifies their activities as follows: (1) having oversight of the congregation; (2) to be helpful to the ministers of the Word in exercising the governing power of the church (see above); (3) having oversight of the doctrine and conduct of the ministers of the Word.

On the other hand, teaching elders have: (1) the ministry of the Word; (2) the accompanying administration of the sacraments; (3) the public invocation of the name of God on behalf of the entire congregation; (4) the exercise of governing power; (5) oversight and discipline of the congregation.

Is there a particular term that is standard for teaching elders in Scripture? For that some have wanted to take the term “shepherds” (poimenes). From that come our “pastors,” which is no longer applied to ruling elders. But Scripture does not make this distinction. In Ephesians 4:11, the “pastors” are put next to the “teachers,” and by the former are apparently to be understood “elders,” “overseers,” without further specification or division. In Acts 20:28, again, it is said of all the presbyters that they are appointed as overseers to shepherd (poimainein) the congregation of God. Also, that concept includes a twofold shepherding: (a) feeding; (b) leading or ruling. In all its dimensions, it is therefore only applicable to teaching elders, and to that extent one has a certain right to call them “pastors” preeminently, as those alone in whom the concept of “pastor” is realized in full. On the other hand, there is another term for overseers and elders that then lets more emphasis fall on the ruling element alone, namely, “upholder” (proistamenos, proestōs, from proistanai, Rom 12:8; 1 Tim 5:17); see also “administrations” (kybernēseis, 1 Cor 12:28).

c)The third question concerns the office of teacher. “Teachers” are spoken of in more than one place in the New Testament. Ephesians 4:11 has poimenas kai didaskalous, [“pastors and teachers”]. Is that one concept, one office, characterized from two sides? Calvin (Institutes, 4.1.5; 4.3.4) separates the two. “Teachers” (doctores) have only to do with the interpretation of Scripture, in order that the pure, biblical truth endures; “pastors” have to do with the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments and discipline. In a similarly but less decisive vein is his Commentary on Ephesians, on 4:11. It is best explained (according to Calvin): pastors are at the same time teachers, but, conversely, to be a teacher one need not at the same time be a pastor. Most Reformed theologians follow Calvin and speak of a specific doctorate (cf., e.g., Maastricht, [Theoretico-practica theologia] 2.7.20). But there is no proof that something like that existed in the New Testament as a regular office. One could rather identify the teachers who appear there with catechetical instructors. If one would view professorship as a separate ecclesiastical office, one can infer that from the general concept of a teaching office. The Church Order of Dort also speaks of doctors or professors in theology (article 18). They, however, are not appointed by the church. In any case, the scientific degrees granted by the universities may not be confused with ecclesiastical offices. An ecclesiastical office must be granted by the church. The question here simply comes down to this: Is this teaching office that the church confers on some a particular alteration of that of the minister of the Word, or is it a new office that someone can occupy without being a minister of the Word? So far the church has not given a clear answer.

d)In the fourth place, deacons and deaconesses should be spoken of. Diakones (from diakonein) is in general a “servant.” It can be said of all office-bearers in the church that they are servants. Paul calls himself a “deacon” [diakonos] (Col 1:25). The government is God’s minister (Rom 13:4; cf. 2 Cor 3:6). But “deacon” also appears in a narrower sense along with the office of “elder,” “with the overseers and deacons” (Phil 1:1; cf. 1 Tim 3:8, 12). Mention is made of a woman as a deaconess, “Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae” (Rom 16:1; according to some, 1 Tim 3:11 as well).

In Acts 6, one finds the establishment of the office of deacons. There are, however, not a few who dispute that.

1.According to some, in Acts 6 we do not have the origin of the diaconate but of the presbytery [body of elders]. One gathers that from the fact that according to Acts 11:30 the congregation in Antioch sent aid to Jerusalem, which was handed over not to deacons but to elders. If there had been deacons, it is said, these must have received it. So judge Lange, Lechler, and others. But this conclusion is hasty. It was no more than natural that representatives from a different congregation approached the elders as the leaders of the congregation, not the deacons. It is also said that if this is not the institution of the office of presbyter, where then is this to be found? But we can just as well ask, vice versa: if the diaconate is not instituted here, then where?

2.Others say that what is first instituted in Jerusalem according to Acts 6 was a mixed entity that united in itself the functions of both eldership and deaconate. This too is not plausible. It is not said there that the men who were chosen must do the work of a presbyter. They must serve tables.

3.According a few (Vitringa), we have to do here with an extraordinary, temporary office that may not be confused with our diaconate. But there is also no proof for this. It is difficult to see where that great difference would have consisted between these and later deacons.

We have Acts 6 for the institution of the ordinary diaconate throughout history. It arose through the pressure of circumstances. The apostles could not “serve tables,” that is, not busy themselves with the distribution of foodstuffs, when their principal work of the ministry of the Word of God and prayer had to suffer by doing that. Hence the designation “deacon, “serving,” had the specific meaning of “serving table” (John 2:5, 9). The office is designated according to what had first been given it, the ministry of tables. From Romans 12:8 and 1 Corinthians 12:28, Calvin inferred that there were two kinds of deacons.

e)Finally, the question must be discussed how these offices were continued in the church after they had once been instituted. Accordingly, this is an inquiry concerning the calling of office-bearers in the church. All authority of office comes from Christ. But Christ does not speak from heaven and does not appoint directly the persons by whom He would be served in His church. Provision, therefore, must be made by external means to make this appointment in a fair and orderly manner. The church must have grounds for believing of its servants that God calls them. Calling is to be viewed not as an absolute transfer of power but as an appointment of those who will exercise power. They are distinguished in differing ways:

1.Into an external and an internal call. In the latter, God works through His word and through His Spirit directly on the heart of the individual person to give rise in him, more or less strongly, the conviction that he is intended for official service in the church. Paul speaks of that in 1 Timothy 3:1: “If someone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires an excellent work.” To that desire belongs a consciousness that one is impelled to the office not by fleshly ambition or greed but by love for God and zeal to build the church; further, with the conviction that the gifts necessary for occupying the office and the exercise of its ministry are not completely lacking; finally, that by providence the paths are also opened and paved for us to reach our goal by external calling. Where these things are present, one ought not to expect something additional and extraordinary.

Christ has made external calling to reside with the congregation. Here, too, we come into conflict with Rome. According to Rome, it resides with the bishops as far as the lower clergy is concerned, with the Pope for the bishops. We say that the church normally has the power of calling exercised by its already-installed ministers, by presbyters, both teaching and ruling, but that this is not at all absolutely necessary, so that if the circumstances demand, a church should not call a teaching elder directly as it normally calls ruling elders. One may imagine that a number of believers suffer shipwreck during a storm and land on an isolated island in the midst of barbarians, and that they have to remain there without communication with Christian churches in Christian lands. Have those Christians the right to call from among themselves a teacher to administer the Word and sacraments? To that all Reformed theologians answer affirmatively. We surely say that no one may arrogate an office to himself without a call. Still, the calling of the church is sufficient, and that of the ministers of the church is not absolutely necessary. That Rome answers differently is connected with the distinctive understanding it ascribes to calling and ordination. For Rome, this is a sacrament (sacramentum ordinis). The common folk of the laity cannot administer the sacrament. Further, a sacrament impresses with a character indelebilis, “an imperishable character.” Something granted in this way can only be ascribed to the bishops.

Our arguments are: the power of the keys is given by Christ to His entire church (Matt 18:17). The church is also sent by Christ into the world in such a way that it bears in itself the fullness of power necessary to discharge its calling. It must be able, if necessary, to call its ministers if it would be and remain a true church. The ministry of office-bearers may not be a stumbling block that drags the church down on its way and that impedes it in its movement, but must be an instrument and means through which it reaches its goals—naturally not a purely human means but one commanded and approved by God. It is not a legitimate or illegitimate office that makes a true church, but the reverse. Paul appeals to the congregation, “Whether Paul, whether Apollos, whether Cephas …; all are yours” (1 Cor 3:22). Thus, there is order in the congregation prior to office, even though temporally they both have existed side by side. The church abides eternally; office ceases when the militant church ceases to exist (1 Cor 4:5). The congregation must expect false teachers and distinguish between false and true teachers (Matt 7:15; John 10:14, 27; 1 John 4:1; Gal 1:8).

The practice of the apostles also teaches us this. If with anyone, then with them the right resided to appoint office-bearers directly in the congregation. They have apparently also made use of that right. But still by no means always, as one would have to expect according to the Roman Catholic view. It has already been noted that the congregation at Jerusalem was consulted even for the choice of an apostle (Acts 1:23). In Acts 6, the entire assembly of believers again chooses the seven men who were intended by God for the diaconate. How the presbyters in the Jerusalem congregation were appointed is not mentioned. They appear for the first time as something known (Acts 11:30). In Acts 14:23 we read, “And when they had chosen elders for them in each congregation, with the raising of hands, having prayed and with fasting,” etc. (cheirotonēsantes de autois katʼ ekklēsian presbyterous). Two things are apparent from this: on the one hand that the congregations had existed for a time without having chosen presbyters. It was only on their return trip that Paul and Barnabas did what is recorded here. We will therefore have to assume that with their initial visit, on their outward-bound journey, they will have entrusted leadership of the nascent congregations to a few persons. But now with their return, where the congregations were sufficiently mature for such a choice, they must themselves designate their presbyters. For the power of choosing with “the raising of hands,” one may compare 2 Corinthians 8:19. It indicates a choice that took place freely, by which each of those choosing raised his hands. Raising hands does not intend to say laying on of hands, as the Roman Catholics hold—namely, for ordination. Another word is used for that, on which below (cf. Acts 15:22, 25). Even of Timothy it is said that a gift has come to him through the laying on of hands of the eldership. It is possible that Titus 1:5 may speak of the placing of elders by Titus as an evangelist, but it may also be that we must explain this as analogous with Acts 14:23.

All this is very clear for ruling elders. There the individual congregation calls externally, but for teaching elders or ministers of the Word one must differentiate somewhat further. A teaching elder must satisfy certain requirements. An examination must take place whether he possesses those requirements. By the nature of the case, that is difficult for the presbyters of a single congregation. That was different in the apostolic era. Then there were extraordinary charismata and the weight of office rested less on individual persons. There was also a gift of the distinguishing of spirits. Now that conditions have become ordinary, recourse must also be taken to ordinary expedients.

With that there is still another consideration. A minister of the Word is minister not only for a single church, but can be called by all churches, can speak with authority and administer the sacraments anywhere. Thus where his office is more general, the nature of the case also demands that examination by the aggregate of churches will initiate his calling, or at least a part thereof. Thus it occurs that not a single presbytery but an assemblage of them (classes or presbyteries) institutes an examination, grants freedom to the examinee to preach in public, proposes him as eligible for a call. In the distant past it was the custom first to institute an examination after the candidate was called in the congregation, thus immediately prior to his ordination. The classis did this. Later, this inquiry was divided in two. First came the examination after someone had left school, by which he received the right to preach in the congregations. Then, after a call was extended by the congregation, came a final examination, upon which ordination followed. The examination that granted someone access to the ministry of the Word resided in any case with the classis and not with the school where he was educated. Conditions are now markedly changed. Earlier the schools did not stand in that direct connection with the church in which the theological schools of the free church stand toward it. Accordingly, the church is represented in the school. The church looks into the examinations at the school. Still, along with that the peremptory examination remains, so that we now have twice what naturally should only be once. If the church believes that it may not take the examination out of the hands of its ordinary assemblies, then these assemblies must properly examine in everything. The right admitting to preaching in the congregation must reside with them. In any case, there is much to be said that the latter should not depend on the faculty of the school but on the classes or the curators. That is good old-Reformed practice.

The proper call is the call of a congregation, that is, of a local church. Prior or subsequent examination also belongs there, but the crux of the matter is still the choice of the congregation, by which it desires someone as its minister. See the Church Order of Dort, article 4 and article 7, in which the latter article says: “No one shall be called to the ministry of the Word without placing him in a specific location, unless he is sent to preach here and there within the Church under the Cross or otherwise to gather churches.” In ordinary circumstances, where one does not have to do with mission work, the work of the local church in the external calling of ministers is therefore essential. It does that with the prior knowledge of the classis, but still does it itself. It can do it through its governance (church council and deacons) when that appears advisable to it, without the whole congregation itself voting. But even then the congregation has a silent voice in the matter, for the final confirmation may not take place unless the name of the minister is first announced in the church for fourteen days (cf. Church Order of Dort, article 4). Ordinarily, however, already at the outset the entire church is also consulted in the choice and the call.

Most old theologians also ascribe to the civil government a right to involve itself in the call. Voetius disputes this as a principial right. For most, however, such a notion of the connection between church and state reigns that they acknowledge the right of the government without scruple (cf. the Church Order of Dort).

2.Calling is also distinguished as ordinary and extraordinary. Ordinary is the calling of priests under the old covenant, that of pastors under the new. Extraordinary was the calling of prophets under the old dispensation, that of apostles under the new.

3.External calling may be distinguished as immediate and a mediate. Prophets and apostles were called immediately (Gal 1:12–22). God calls ordinary ministers of the church mediately. Immediately calling can be absolutely immediate (e.g., for Moses and John the Baptist) or relatively immediate (e.g., for Elisha, who was called by Elijah at the command of God).

A heated polemic was conducted by the Roman Catholics against the validity of the call of Protestants. Rome says: In part, the first pastors at the time of the Reformation never had a legitimate call; in part, they lost it when they exited from the Catholic Church and became apostate. The answer to that is that by their struggle against Rome and by leaving the Church, the Reformers who had been office-bearers in the Catholic Church—for example, bishops—have only done what accompanies their office according to God’s Word; that they, however, by faithful fulfillment of the obligations of their office could not lose their office but remained legitimate ministers of the church. It is noteworthy that they did not maintain that Rome’s call was no longer a legitimate call. Apparently, they deemed the continuation of the obligations of office to be compatible with the deeply debased condition of the Church and its hierarchy. Turretin, for example, writes: “Here again two kinds of call must be distinguished. First, one that on account of its particular institution is false, in every way illegitimate insofar as it serves entirely the propagation of godlessness and idolatry. Then, a call that in its institution is holy and right, but is corrupted and perverted by the abuse of men and is directed by them to the propagation of error. The first must be absolutely rejected because there is nothing good in it. But the second is to be improved and purified so that after the removal of error and corruption introduced by men, only the institution and use of Christ remain, according to the intention of God. Such (namely, like the second), now, is the call of presbyters and bishops in the Roman church” (Institutes, XVIII, 25, 8). When Roman Catholics say: but that was dishonest, for you were certainly not ordained and have not let yourself be ordained with the intention that you would oppose the church that ordained you and do injury to it, then one responds: one must first heed the command of Christ, for He is the one who calls and ordains in His church. The finis primarius (“the supreme purpose”) in every calling is the purpose of God. Only in the second place does the intention of the calling instruments come into consideration.

From this reasoning, however, the old theologians did not intend to infer that Rome was a true church. Certainly, where the true church is, there is legitimate calling; but not the reverse: where legitimate calling is, there is the true church. With this matter, one says, it is like baptism, which can also be legitimate in a heretical church. Augustine: “It matters little whether the water is conducted through a stone channel or a silver pipe.”

For other cases, namely, where ministers of the Word did not bring their call with the from Rome but set to work themselves, one appealed to the office of believers in connection with the fact that a reformation of any kind could not be expected from the rulers of the church. As long as the ministry of the Word in a church is pure or gives hope for reformation, it must be purified in order to call and ordain new ministers, and in ordinary conditions it is not permissible to make ministers of the Word outside the body of teaching elders. But in extraordinary circumstances it is different. There must be a ministry of the Word; that is a necessitas salutis, “something that is necessary for salvation.” But that already serving presbyters shall participate in calling is a necessitatis ordinis, “a necessity of order.” The former takes priority over the latter.

Ordination, of course, must be distinguished from calling. When a minister of the Word is ordained, he must be called beforehand and the question proposed to him whether he believes himself to be called by God’s congregation and therefore by God Himself. Thus ordination appears as the validation and public declaration of the call. For ordination in the apostolic church the laying on of hands was practiced (epitheseōs tōn cheirōn, 1 Tim 4:14). Laying on of hands was an ancient ceremony. The Lord Himself sometimes laid on hands to heal and to bless. The apostles also did so to devote to a certain task in the service of the church. After the congregation had chosen deacons, they were placed before the apostles and they laid hands on them (Acts 6:6). Ananias laid hands on Paul (Acts 9:17). In Antioch, where Paul and Silas were sent on their first missionary journey, the prophets and teachers laid hands on them (Acts 13:3). In this case, as with the ordination of deacons, prayer or fasting and prayer preceded. Laying on of hands was also used to communicate the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17; 19:6). The body of elders laid hands on Timothy (1 Tim 4:14). Thus New Testament laying on of hands was evidently of two kinds—namely, extraordinary and an ordinary. By the former something special is communicated; the latter was a solemn and public setting apart for an ecclesiastical office. Rome lost sight of this distinction and invested the laying on of hands with a sacramental character. With us, too, the laying on of hands is used in the ordination of pastors and missionary-teachers. A more than symbolic significance cannot be attributed to this. It belongs to the non-essential parts of introduction into office. Accordingly, the question of who is permitted to take part in this laying on of hands is also of secondary importance. In the New Testament, the whole body of elders took part. But, as we have seen, in this first period the offices of ruling and teaching elders were not sharply separated. Thus one can not necessarily conclude: according to Scripture all elders can participate in the laying on of hands.

Once the presbyters divided in two, it appears in every way proper that the laying on of hands took place by those who serve in the same work as the minister to be ordained will be occupied. Accordingly, ministers of the Word lay on hands at the ordination of a minister of the Word. Hands are not laid on elders, although according to Acts 6 it even occurred with deacons, namely, by the apostles.

According to Hodge, in the Presbyterian Church it is not permissible for ruling elders to take part in the laying on of hands at the ordination of a teacher (Church Polity, pp. 288ff.).

Up to this point, only the government and the offices of the individual church established in a particular place have been discussed. The Bible does not contain a worked-out church order concerning the mutual relationship of local congregations. It was said above that the unity of the visible church was embodied in the apostolate. But this is not to be understood as if the apostles had formed a college that could rule over the churches either by its full number or by majority. Every apostle had apostolic power personally, even apart from the others. Paul, chosen as an apostle, did not consult with flesh and blood, that is, with the other apostles, but felt himself called independently by God. But at the same time it remains true that whoever resists the apostles or an apostle excludes himself from the church.

But even apart from that fact, there is sufficient evidence that the New Testament does not portray for us independent churches. There was a lively interaction among the differing congregations. There was a certain unity that was felt as binding, even in external things. The Christians at Jerusalem felt in solidarity with those at Antioch, and vice versa. In particular, that bond had to be felt between the Jewish-Christian congregations. They all looked to Jerusalem in Palestine. Paul knew a still-higher Jerusalem, the Jerusalem that is above, mother of us all (Gal 4:26). Also between congregations from the Gentiles and those from the Jews real fellowship was maintained through collections and in other respects. In his congregations, Paul continually emphasized that they may not stand alone and may not act arbitrarily. “But if someone appears to be contentious, we do not have such a custom, nor does the congregation of God” (1 Cor 11:16). And in 1 Corinthians 14:36 he asks very sharply, “Has the word of God come from you? Or has it come to you alone?” That is, you must hold to the things that are generally in use with all Christians. From Acts 15 it appears that matters of common concern may and must be deliberated on communally. Present were the apostles, elders, and the congregation at Jerusalem; Paul, Barnabas, and a few others from Antioch. It may not be concluded from verse 6 that it was a separate gathering of apostles and elders; the church was present, as is sufficiently clear from verses 12, 22 and 25. Together they chose the representatives who would deliver the decrees. In Acts 15 we have in principle the example of a classical or synodical meeting, but in a special form. The participation of the congregation in the voting may not be transferred to the present. Also present there were infallible apostles, who now are no longer. One may note, however, that the decision is not merely a matter of giving advice but has binding validity. Gentile Christians must conform to it. This is contrary the system of Independents (cf. vv. 28–29).

The mutual government of the churches rests on the autonomy of the congregation. That is, each individual church is a complete church that, if the need demands it, can do everything that belongs to the essence of the church. And when the churches gather, such gatherings are not higher but larger assemblies. The churches gather as equally entitled. This principle also carries with it that the rights and power of the larger assemblies are not unlimited. They cannot proceed to rule over individual congregations or members by setting aside church councils. If the classis and synod would wish to proceed without more ado to order things that belong to the internal governance of each congregation, the church council should not put up with that. When the individual churches take up correspondence with each other and enter into connection, mutual rights are defined. The church order serves that end. This order at the same time says not only what the churches have to hold themselves to mutually by virtue of their alliance but also guarantees the rights of the congregation that may not be infringed by the churches jointly. The idea that a classis or synod could impose anything on a congregation is completely un-Reformed and of Roman Catholic origin.

But the matter also has a reverse side. If the church order is a kind of constitution that guarantees the freedoms and privileges of the congregation, then, on the other hand, it is no less a valid norm to whose maintenance one has solemnly bound oneself. Things that appear in it and that are not left to the consent of individuals are things in which all have interest. The organism of the church is so interrelated that the one member shares the fate of the other. The States of the Union have their freedoms and rights as states, but from this autonomy of the state it may never be concluded that the Constitution of the United States does not need to be obeyed. There is autonomy in principle, but not autonomy that in its scope extends to every point. If by its own hand the State of New York proceeded to create money and to maintain its own rate of currency, it would soon turn out that the central power would have to intervene; otherwise the financial system of the other states would be jeopardized. It is so, too, mutatis mutandis, in the churches of God. Autonomy and strict compliance with mutual alliances do not exclude each other, but go together.

The object of the deliberations of the larger assemblies (classis, synod) is:

a)What all churches have in common. This is absolutely left to the larger assemblies, since the smaller ones naturally cannot undertake it.

b)What belongs specifically to individual churches. Naturally, this can only be taken up by the churches jointly in particular instances, namely: (a) in case of inadequacy, when the local church is unable to discharge its own affairs; (b) in case of irregular or illegitimate conduct, as when a disease that is spreading must be counteracted by all in contact with it; (c) in case of appeal, when one or another party believes itself to be wronged by the smaller assembly (So Voetius, III. I. 4).

↑ Back to top