Andrew Jacob Preus

THE ECCLESIA SYNTHETICA Implications on the Church and Her Fellowship

by Andrew Jacob Preus

A Treatise

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Divinity

Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St. Catharines, ON

Rev. Prof. Duane Peters, Advisor

2012 © Ecclesia Synthetica

Andrew Jacob Preus The Ecclesia Synthetica Implications on the Church and Her Fellowship Master's Treatise, 7F98 Rev. Prof. Duane Peters, Advisor

Abstract

The synthetic church (ecclesia synthetica) is a term that was used by Lutheran theologians mainly of the late seventeenth century. The main feature of the term is that the church does not only consist of the lay-people; rather, God instituted the church with both preachers and hearers. The synthetic church is also known as the collective church (ecclesia collective since it presupposes individual salvation and collection into the church. With questions concerning church fellowship and church practices such as holy communion and the calling and ordaining of ministers – specifically concerning who calls and who ordains – the goal of this treatise is to show how the teaching of the synthetic church helps clarify orthodox ecclesiastical fellowship and practice.

The research for this treatise has been drawn mainly from the seventeenth century

Lutheran dogmatics of Johann Andreas Quenstedt and David Hollaz. Since much of the work used by these (and other) theologians was taken from the original Latin, this research has enhanced the author’s ability in reading and analyzing the Latin texts of the dogmaticians. In examining the analytical approach to Christian dogmatics used during the era of Lutheran orthodoxy, the author has been able to demonstrate the unity of the article of the church with the article of justification in classical Lutheran theology.

The research of this treatise has shown that in the theology of Lutheran orthodoxy, specifically in Quenstedt and Hollaz, the ministry is not a formless hodgepodge of functions, and that the pastoral office is not the church's invention. Rather they understood the ministry as the office of preaching, teaching, and administering the sacraments, that is, the pastoral office. This

research has also revealed that according to the theology of Lutheran orthodoxy, the office of the ministry is not merely one way through which God justifies and brings people into His church, but it is the instrumental means by which He justifies.

Much of this treatise deals with the Biblical scrutiny of the synthetic church with respect to the church consisting of both hearers and preachers/teachers as well as the practical implications for the question of church fellowship, doctrine, and practice.

In his research, the author also has sought to prove not only that the synthetic church is

Biblical, but that it is also Confessional. The research demonstrates that the Lutheran

Confessions, though not using the term, have essentially the same teaching concerning the church as Quenstedt and Hollaz. This also includes comparing the paradigm of the visible/invisible church with the teaching concerning the church in the Lutheran Confessions.

A very important point about the ecclesiology of Quenstedt and Hollaz is that they followed the model of the three hierarchical estates, ecclesiastical, domestic, and political. This demonstrates that the ecclesiastical and societal outlook in that part of the church's history was much different than the present church in North America, and it helps the church today better understand the historically Lutheran approach to church polity and practice.

Ecclesia Synthetica

Table of Contents

Introduction: Ecclesiology in the Silver Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy ...... 1 Chapter One: The Term Ecclesia Synthetica ...... 8 Part I. Point of Discussion…………………………...……………………………8 Part II. Definition and Concept of the ecclesia synthetica ...... 10 Part III. The Unity of the Church ...... 12 Part IV. Presupposing Justification: Material, Form, and Marks of the Church ... 13 Chapter Two: Defining Fellowship with the Concept of the Ecclesia Synthetica……………….22 Part I. The Form of Church Fellowship ...... 23 Part II. Fellowship through Preaching and Hearing……………………………...26 Part III. Fellowship and a Catholic Confession……………………………….....31 Chapter Three: The Church and Justification ...... 36 Part I. Efficient Cause ...... 36 Part II. Impulsive Cause ...... 38 Part III. Instrumental and Ministerial Causes ...... 39 Chapter Four: Justification and Church Fellowship in the Unity of Doctrine and Practice……..41 Part I. Justification and Church Fellowship ...... 41 Part II. Unity of Doctrine and Practice ...... 47 Chapter Five: The Ecclesia Synthetica in relation to the Call and Ordination ...... 53 Chapter Six: The Concept of the Ecclesia Synthetica in the Lutheran Confessions ...... 59 Part I. Invisible and Visible Church in the Lutheran Confessions ...... 59 Part II. Preachers and Hearers in the Lutheran Confessions ...... 62 Part III. Call and Ordination in the Lutheran Confessions ...... 65 Conclusion: ...... 67

To my dad, whose costly defence of the Biblical and Classically Lutheran teaching on Church and Ministry has taught me the meaning of tentatio.

Ecclesia Synthetica 1

Introduction: Ecclesiology in the Silver Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy In the second half of the seventeenth century, orthodox Lutheran dogmaticians began to

speak in terms of the synthetic or collective church (ecclesia synthetica seu collective). Although

the term was not introduced until a little over a century after the Formula of Concord, a survey

into Lutheran theology will demonstrate that their theological teaching on the church has a strong

Biblical and Confessional foundation. In the forthcoming chapters, I will discuss the term itself

against the background of Lutheran ecclesiology. Moreover, a brief overview of the orthodox

Lutheran definition of the church, including their understanding of theology itself, will provide a

helpful introduction to this entire study.

In his Smalcald Articles, Luther says: “Also, thanks be to God, today a child of seven

years knows what the church is, namely believers, saints, [and] lambs hearing the voice of their

Shepherd (pastoris).”1 This simple definition by Luther established the core understanding of

ecclesiology on which the future dogmaticians would lean. This definition of the church carries

with it the central article of all Christian Doctrine, justification by faith alone for Christ’s sake

alone. Any definition of the church must stand the test of Scripture, and it should not ignore or

in any way attack the centrality of the Gospel. If one’s definition of the church necessitates the

inclusion of works or anything else but Christ alone in the justification of the sinner before God,

that definition must not stand. Likewise, if one defines the church in any way independently

from the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments, that definition is

neither Lutheran nor orthodox.

1Hereafter, all citations in the Book of Concord shall come from: Triglota Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran church. German-English-Latin. F. Bente. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921. 498. Print.

Introduction 2

The Augsburg Confession presents the definition of the church in articles VII and VIII,

demonstrating the absolute inseparability to the office of the Ministry of the Word in articles V

and XIV. Preaching, teaching, and administrating the sacraments not only identify the task of the

office; they also mark and identify the church, around which God’s people gather. The authority

and legitimacy of the church are not found in size or antiquity; rather, she is founded on the Word

of God, instituted by Christ, and made holy by His blood through baptism (Eph 5:26). This truth

must remain sacred and undefiled, lest human ordinances pervert the Gospel by adding an extra

requirement for true membership of the church.

The Lutheran dogmaticians directed their definition of the church against both the Papists

and the fanatics. The legitimacy and credibility of the Lutheran church was evident in the proper

definition of the dogmaticians. Against the fanatics, the dogmaticians stressed the visibility of

the church, namely that it has external marks; against the Papists, they emphasized the

invisibility of the church, namely that one cannot define her according to man-made ordinances.

At the same time, the Lutheran dogmaticians confessed one church, defending against the

accusations of certain Papists.2

The three periods of Lutheran orthodoxy, taken from Robert Preus’ chronological

construction3 include the golden age (roughly 1580-1618), high orthodoxy (1618-1648, during

the Thirty Years’ War), and the silver age (1648 to the early parts of the eighteenth century). In

the golden age, theological works consisted mostly of loci, wherein the writers gathered the

Biblical passages for the topics of the Christian faith. By high orthodoxy, as the dogmaticians

continued to defend Lutheran Doctrine against the teachings of the Papacy, the Reformed, and

2 John Gerhard responded to the criticism of John Eck and Robert Belarmine, who called the invisible church merely Platonic ideas. Johann Gerhard. Loci Theologici, Book 5, Loc 22 De Ecclesia, pg. 307. http://books.google.ca/books?id=Wi3gASvI8B8C&printsec=titlepage&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false 3 Robert Preus. The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 1970. 1:45-47. Print.

Ecclesia Synthetica 3

the fanatics, the use of polemics became much more organized. Their theological constructions

became clearer as they even used philosophical terminology for explaining more precisely the

articles of faith. By the silver age, theological works consisted in systemae of Christian

Doctrine, where they dealt with each topic very precisely. Preus explains that the former loci

included most of the articles of faith when dealing with each topic, but in the silver age, the

dogmaticians dealt with each topic individually with little repetition. With this systema

approach, they aimed at presenting all Doctrine as one item.4

Dogmatics required a certain order, and whether they used loci, summa, or systema, the

dogmaticians’ purposes were didactic. Kenneth Appold (1998) notes that the Italian philosopher

David Zabarella (1532-89) – who specialized in Aristotle’s works – influenced the structural

method for academic work in the sixteenth century. Zabarella argued that logic was not a

science, and since it did not merely report on existing entities, it would acquire information

rather than provide information. This method of drawing out each topic in a certain order

became useful when applied to dogmatic theology. Appold explains that a theologian could

adopt this method with the theological conviction that he is not merely explaining natural things

that are observable.5 Rather, since topics of theology are articles of faith, not observable with

carnal eyes, they must be taught to the mind of faith. This also allowed the teacher of theology

to take the liberty of explaining Christian Doctrine in the order found most fitting. This carried

with it the conviction that God’s word is cognitive. At the same time, the dogmaticians

maintained that theology was a spiritual aptitude rather than philosophical theory or ethics. In

his prolegomena, Quenstedt makes this very point:

4 Ibid 5 Kenneth Appold. Abraham Calov’s doctrine of vocation in its systematic context. Tϋbingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1998. 21-22.

Introduction 4

Is theology a God-given (θεόσδοτος) practical aptitude (habitus)? κρίνομενον or point of controversy? The question 1) concerning systematic theology, is not considered abstractly or accidentally (accidentaliter); but taken habitually, concretely, and essentially. 2) Not from a God-given aptitude (θεόσδοτῷ) by reason of immediate infusion, but by reason of discovery, of origin, and of object. 3) Concerning a practical aptitude, not by such practice, which is established by human power, nor is it handled humanly (τὰ ἀνθρώπινα) as from Philosophy, but by such practice which is Spiritual, assuredly leading man to eternal salvation. 4) Not concerning the practical aptitude by which the practice is the means or a study of good works, but that which as it is taught for the sake of practising the life of faith, by which alone we draw near to eternal life. 5) Not concerning the practical aptitude which excludes all knowledge (γνῶσιν), nor does it presuppose something false, but that which while depending originally on it, nevertheless ultimately remains and comes about in it.6 Although the orthodox Lutheran dogmaticians grew in their use of dogmatic structure and

their precise distinctions of terms, it is unfair to regard them as purely scholastic and academic

with little emphasis on the spiritual life. Lars Qualben (1933), for example, wrote that Lutheran

orthodoxy “emphasized pure doctrine at the expense of a healthy spiritual life;”7 however, as

Quenstedt demonstrates, theology could not possibly exist apart from a spiritual life of faith.

Theology and faith are at the same time cognitive and spiritual. The aptitude (habitus) of

theology “[draws] near to eternal life.” The dogmaticians did not waver in this conviction when

they defined the church. When they dealt with issues such as the catholicity of the Lutheran

church, true and false members, and the true marks, the discussion always pertained to how men

are saved. Theology was always practical; a true spiritual practice depended on pure spiritual

doctrine.

In the silver age of Lutheran orthodoxy, the dogmaticians dealt with many of the same

issues as their predecessors did, arguing against people who were already dead. For example,

John Gerhard (1582-1637) engaged the Jesuit theologian Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) in

theological polemics regarding many topics, responding to Belarmine’s Disputationes de

6Quenstedt, Systema, Pars I, Caput I, Quaestio III, 1715 edition, 22 (see footnote 11 for details on citations from Quenstedt’s Dogmatics.) 7 Lars Qualben. A History of the Christian church. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons. 1933. 345. Print.

Ecclesia Synthetica 5

Controversiis (1586-93), but Quenstedt also engaged in polemics against Bellarmine's teachings

over seventy years after his death. This makes sense, since, for generations, Bellarmine

remained a giant in Roman Catholic theology.8 It is evident throughout the silver age that these

dogmaticians shared the same goal as their forerunners, namely defending the Lutheran

definition of the church.

The continuous Lutheran defence of the church was so vigorous that it forced the Roman

Catholics into a more systematic approach in their ecclesiology. Roman Catholic theologian

Gustave Weigel (1960) noted that ecclesiology “as a formal theological discipline was born in

the sixteenth century as a direct result of the Protestant Reformation.”9 Weigel saw the polemical

nature of theology in the Reformation era as a “common defect.”10 However, when we look

positively at the theological developments of the Reformation and Lutheran orthodoxy, we see

that polemics became more helpful than detrimental. Through polemics, the dogmaticians found

clarity in their own theological articulations, and up to the second half of the seventeenth century

ecclesiology found a matured formulation of the same theological concepts defended in the

Augsburg Confession.

This treatise will focus on the ecclesiology of John Andrew Quenstedt and David Hollaz,

since they both dealt with the ecclesia synthetica most extensively. A brief biography of both

men will contribute to the discussion.

John Andrew Quenstedt was born at Quedlinburgh (upper Saxony) in 1617. He studied

at Helmstedt and Wittenberg, and was the nephew of John Gerhard. At Wittenberg, he became a

professor, teaching geography, logic, and metaphysics before he took on the position as professor

of theology in 1660, a colleague of Abraham Calov (1612-86). From 1686, Quenstedt would

8 Matthew Bunson. Encyclopedia of Catholic History. Hungtingtion, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Inc. 1995. 112. Print. “Made venerable in 1627, [Bellarmine] was canonized in 1930 by Pope Pius XI and declared a Doctor of the church in 1931.” 9 Gustave Weigel. Catholic Theology in Dialogue. New York: Harper and Row. 1960. 9-11. Print. 10 Ibid Introduction 6

occupy the position of primary professor of theology at Wittenberg for the remaining two years

of his life. Quenstedt was a prolific dogmatician; his most notable work was Theologia

Didactio-Polemica sive Systema Theologiae (hereafter Systema).11 Preus writes that “after the

Loci Theologici of Chemnitz and Gerhard the Systema of Quenstedt ranks as the greatest

dogmatics book ever written by a Lutheran.” Luther Poellot calls Quenstedt the “foremost leader

of orthodox Lutheranism.”

In his Systema, Quenstedt displays an impressive knowledge of the Scriptures and the

Confessions as well as an awareness of contemporary theologians. If a theologian had

something helpful to say, whether he was Lutheran, Reformed, or Catholic, then Quenstedt

would quote him. In this way he demonstrated that pure doctrine was pure doctrine, regardless

of who said it.12

David Hollaz was born at Wulkow, near Pomerania, (about 60 miles north-west of

Wittenberg) in 1648. After studying at Wittenberg, he was ordained, becoming a pastor at the

age of 22, and he remained a pastor his whole life, never teaching at a university. When he

studied at Wittenberg, Hollaz was taught by Calov and Quenstedt. Even though he never taught

as a professor, his dogmatics Examen Theologicum Acroamaticum was very popular. Preus calls

it “the last great orthodox dogmatics.” Although he did not bring much originality to this work,

11Most of the discussion on Quenstedt’s teaching on the church shall come from his Systema. I will rely heavily on the translation of Luther Poellot, drawing from the original text when necessary: J. A. Quenstedt. The church. Translated by Luther Polloet from the 3rd edition, 1696, of Theologia Didactico Polemica, Part IV, Chapter XV: De ecclesia. Molone, TX: Repristination Press. Print. Original text taken from: Johann Andreas Quenstedt. "Theologica Didactico-Polemica (1715 edition)." Lutheran Legacy. 2007. Web. 26 Feb 2012. .

12The bibliography for this short biography of Quenstedt includes: 1) Preus, Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism, 1:62-63; 2) Erwin Lueker. Lutheran Cyclopedia. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 1954. 876. Print.; 3) Poellot’s editor’s preface to his translation of de ecclesia; 4) John Aikin, et al. General Biography; or Lives, Critical and Historical, of the Most Eminent Persons of all Ages, Countries, Conditions, and Professions. London: 1813. VIII: 415-16. Print. Ecclesia Synthetica 7

Preus explains that his structure demonstrated his organizational skills in the practice of

dogmatics. He mainly took his theological arguments from Gerhard, Calov, and Quenstedt,

using and elaborating on Quenstedt’s concept of the ecclesia synthetica. Like Quenstedt, Hollaz’

practice of distinguishing terms gave his work much clarity; however, Preus writes that these

constant distinctions “detract from the force of many of Hollaz’ ideas.” For the latter part of his

life, Hollaz served as bishop of Jakobshage, Pomerania. Even for those who claim that pastoral

and spiritual care was under-emphasized in Lutheran orthodoxy, Hollaz was well known for his

pastoral and practical concerns. Hollaz died in 1713 at the age of 65.13

Robert Preus notes that Quenstedt often synthesized what was already implicit;14

however, that is not necessarily a redundant method. Although the term ecclesia synthetica does

not bring any ground-breaking teachings to the locus of the church that had not already been

covered by their theological predecessors, Quenstedt and Hollaz emphasized the important

aspects of the church, and a theological examination of such emphases will help determine its

value in understanding the church and her fellowship.

13The bibliography for this short biography of Hollaz includes: 1) Preus, Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism, 1:65; 2) Lueker, Lutheran Cyclopedia, 479 3) John M’Clintock and James Strong. Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. New York: Harper & Brothers. 1880. 4:301. Print.; 4) Eric W. Gritsch. A History of Lutheranism. Minneapolis: Fortress Preus. 2010. 118. Print. 14 Robert Preus. The Doctrine of the Call in the Confessions and in Lutheran Orthodoxy. Church and Ministry Today. St. Louis: Luther Academy. 2001. 4. Print. Chapter One: The Term Ecclesia Synthetica 8

Chapter One: The Term Ecclesia Synthetica Part I. Point of Discussion The church on earth is understood as both visible and invisible; however, a lack of

theological understanding may result in various problematic conclusions. On the one hand, one

might argue that since the church is invisible, one therefore has no need for the gathering

together with the assembly around the Word and the Sacraments. It can lead to either an extreme

pietism that under-emphasizes the external Word and Promises of the Gospel, focusing mainly

on the inward piety of the believer, or to a gospel-reductionism by which one holds that as long

as people believe, the pure preaching of God's Word and the correct administration of the

Sacraments are of merely secondary importance. On the other hand, maintaining the church as

visible, one might identify her by the bureaucratic organizations instituted by members of the

church or by certain ranks established by human right.

Christendom always faces the danger of identifying the church by size and antiquity

rather than by the gathering of the saints around the preached and sacramental Gospel. Cardinal

Bellarmine's insistence that the church was purely visible came from his conviction of the

primacy of the papacy. All authority of the church belonged to the Pope, who was the visible

head of the church. Although it was possible for people who possessed the internal virtues of

faith, hope, and charity to be members of the soul of the church, they could not be members of

the body without a profession of faith, that is, external membership in the Roman Catholic

Church.15 Bellarmine included children and those who have been excommunicated, so long as

they have the internal virtues, as members of the soul but not the body.16 Hollaz and Quenstedt

rejected the idea of partial or potential membership in the church. They maintained that

15 Terence Nichols. That All May Be One: Hierarchy and Participation in the church. Collegevill, MN: Liturgical Press. 1997. 207-09. Print. 16 Paul Haffner. Mystery of the church. Leominster: Gracewing. 2007. 203. Print. Ecclesia Synthetica 9

candidates who believe and desire baptism are true members of the church by faith even before

baptism, since faith comes by hearing (Rom 10:17).17

One must not fall into the misconception that the gap between Rome's position and the

Lutheran position is simply a difference in emphasis. If Bellarmine would have conceded to the

Lutherans that the church was invisible, this would not have necessarily resulted in an agreement

with the Lutheran dogmaticians on ecclesiology. Kurt Marquart points out that although Vatican

II did confess the invisibility of the church, they did so not from an “evangelical stream,” but

rather from a “latitudinarian undertow which controlled Vatican II, and shaped its posture of

accommodation to modern secular culture.”18 It was accompanied with the understanding that

all people, believers and unbelievers, are united to the mystery of Christ if they follow their

consciences. Marquart points out the vital difference between Lutheran and Roman Catholic

ecclesiology:

Ultimately it is a question of the right distinction between Law and Gospel. Where that distinction is denied in principle or abolished in practice, the church will either be reduced legalistically to a particular visible, juridical structure, or else it will evaporate into an abstract, universalistic invisibility, projecting upon mankind, in a false magnanimity, the cruel illusion of salvation through Law, natural knowledge, and sincere self-disposition. By contrast the true import of the church's essential invisibility has always been the sola fide, the very quintessence of the evangelical confession.19 The issue always comes down to the Gospel, that is, the article of justification by faith

alone. Our goal is not to demonstrate simply that the Lutheran dogmaticians taught the

invisibility of the church; that would only require a casual gloss over a few pages. Our goal is

rather to explain the implications for the church as both visible and invisible. This is where the

terms ecclesia synthetica and ecclesia collective, expanded upon by Quenstedt and Hollaz, are

most useful. The teaching of the church confessed by Quenstedt and Hollaz not only helps unite

17 De Ecclesia, Sec II, 1932 David Hollaz. Examen Theologicum Acroamaticum. Leipzig: 1707. Part IV, Chap 1, pg. 1279 (Hereafter Examen) 18 Kurt Marquart. Robert Preus, ed. Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics. The church and Her Fellowship, Ministry, and Governance. Fort Wayne: The International Foundation for Lutheran Confessional Research. 1990. 36-37. Print. 19 Ibid, 38 Chapter One: The Term Ecclesia Synthetica 10

our understanding of the church as visible and at the same time invisible, it gives us insight into

the Lutheran understanding of unity and fellowship.

Part II. Definition and Concept of the ecclesia synthetica The ecclesia synthetica, or ecclesia collective, includes the church militant, not the

church triumphant which is in heaven. Quenstedt's definition is as follows:

The synthetic church is the mixed assembly of people called and gathered, by the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments, out of the world to the kingdom of God and to participation of spiritual and heavenly blessings, who agree by outward profession of the true doctrine, for the praise of God and the eternal salvation of the very ones who are called.20 The term combines into one concept both the church visible and the church invisible.

Quenstedt made it clear that in making this distinction, we are concerned with whether the

church “with its unity intact, variously considered, [is] rightly divided into a visible and an

invisible.(emphasis added)”21 Quenstedt defines the visible church with respect to the called and

the invisible with respect to the elect. Even some hypocrites are called, although they are not

elect.22 They did not mean election by absolute decree of God, as the Calvinists taught. God

calls to faith by His word, and even the temporary believers (Luke 8:13) are members of the

church for the time that they have faith. This is why Quenstedt preferred to call the church the

assembly of the called, as AC VII does.23 Nevertheless, the church invisible is the assembly of

the elect, because they are unseen and will not be revealed until the Day of our Lord.24

The church visible is not merely an imperfect human organization. Likewise, the

reference to the church as invisible does not imply that it is unattainable or completely separated

from external things. Quenstedt is clear that there is no invisible church outside of the visible

20 Systema, Par III, C XV, Sec I, Thesis XXII. (Hereafter, De Ecclesia) 21 De Ecclesia,1638 22Ibid, 1621 23Ibid, 1618 24Ibid, 1639 Ecclesia Synthetica 11

church. They are not contradictory, but they are subalternate and subordinate, so “the invisible

church of the elect is contained in and under the visible assembly of the called.”25 Although

Quenstedt and Hollaz do discuss the state of the church under pressure and persecution,26 it still

stands that someone cannot merely believe in his heart yet refuse to confess with his lips or

gather around the Word and Sacraments with the assembly when it is available.

The fact that hypocrites exist within the outward assembly does not turn the visible

church into something other than the church. It also does not mean that hypocrites are true

members of the church just because they are in the visible assembly. Hollaz addresses this

problem, first determining whether hypocrites who hear the word and use the sacraments are

either in the church or outside of the church (extra ecclesiam). He concedes to the Papists'

conclusion that hypocrites are not outside of the church. However, hypocrites, Hollaz argues,

“are in the church, but not of the church (in ecclesia, sed non de ecclesia).” Quenstedt makes

this same distinction.27 After explaining that hypocrites are only in the church by name, not in

fact (nomine, non re ipsa), Hollaz continues:

They are in that assembly, in which it is the church (in quo est ecclesia) but they are not that assembly, which is the church (qui est ecclesia). Therefore, although they profess externally the doctrine of Christ, they are not united with Christ the head. They are therefore in the church as bad soil, not as partakers of the true body.28 By these distinctions, Hollaz maintains that the outward assembly of the church, although having

hypocrites in her midst, is still the church and not merely an imperfect form of an unreachable

church invisible. The church is made up of those who are called by the gospel to faith in Christ

and gather around the doctrine of Christ. Quenstedt writes: “The material of which (materia ex

qua) the synthetic church consists... are all who are called, without distinction, saints as well as

25Ibid, 1639 26Ibid also: Examen,1271 27De Ecclesia, 1618 28 Examen, 1278 Chapter One: The Term Ecclesia Synthetica 12

hypocrites, Matt. 10:16; 13:24-25, 47.”29 Although hypocrites do not make up the church, as

Hollaz points out, Quenstedt's synthesis combines both concepts of visible and invisible into one.

The visibility and invisibility of the church express the twofold mode of the church.

Reflecting AC VII and VIII, Quenstedt and Hollaz teach that the church is properly taught

(proprie dicta) and loosely taught (late dicta). They are distinctions within one substance, or as

Quenstedt explains, an equivoque in its equivocate.30 The ecclesia synthetica is the substance,

but in dogmatics, we discuss the same substance in parts. Quenstedt makes clear that such a

distinction is not a division into opposing species.31

Part III. The Unity of the Church This terminology ecclesia synthetica/collective helps clarify the unity of the church. As a

collection (collectio), it unites Luther's three estates, ecclesiastical, political, and domestic.32

Quenstedt begins his treatment of the church by stating: “That whole collection (aggregatum)

that the three hierarchical estates – ecclesiastical, political, and domestic – constitute is called the

church (ecclesia).”33 The marks of the church, Word and Sacraments, are those things which

identify her; however, they do not make up the church. Rather, the church is made up of people,

specifically Christians. She is not only made up of pastors (ecclesiasticus), nor only hearers

(oeconomicus). Rather, both preachers and hearers make up the church. Hollaz understood the

ecclesia synthetica as the ecclesia collective, since it includes both teachers (doctoribus) and

hearers (auditoribus).34 The civil government (politicus) was also included in so far as they were

29De Ecclesia, 1621; The Church, 12-13 30Ibid, 1639; The Church, 54 31Ibid 32 AE 37:364, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528). In his Large Catechism on the 4th Commandment, Luther speaks of three kinds of fathers: fathers in blood, fathers in office (government), and spiritual fathers. LC, I, 158 33 De Ecclesia, 1617; The Church, 1 (cf. Systema, IV, 1497) 34 Examen, 1266. Ecclesia Synthetica 13

Christians. Martin Chemnitz (1522-86) used the concept of Luther's three estates in his teaching

of the church as well.35

Part IV. Presupposing Justification: Material, Form, and Marks of the Church The article on which the church stands or falls is the justification of the sinner before God

by faith in Christ. Quenstedt writes:

This most glorious doctrine of the gracious justification of a sinner before the bar of God through Christ as He is accepted in true faith is the citadel of the whole Christian religion; it is the nexus by which all members of the body of Christian doctrine are joined together, and should this doctrine be violated, all the remaining articles will be abandoned and overthrown.36 One must not conclude that since justification is the article on which the church stands or

falls that all articles of faith derive from it. John Stephenson (2003) rightly criticizes Swedish

professor and bishop Einar Billing (1871-1939) for teaching that all of Luther's articles of faith

come from the article of forgiveness of sins.37 Every article of faith, indeed all theology, derives

from God,38 and they are revealed by His Word. The centrality of justification simply means that

justification is the article which holds all things together. If one article of faith is neglected or

attacked, the entire doctrine of the Gospel (doctrina evangelii) is assaulted, and thus the article of

35 Martin Chemnitz. Ministry Word and Sacraments: Enchiridion. Translated by Luther Poellot. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 1981. 32-35. Print. 36Systema, III, ch VIII, De hominis peccatoris coram Deo Iustificatione. 736 Translation taken from Robert Preus' lecture notes, Justification as Taught by Post-Reformation Lutheran Theologians. March 26th, 1982. CLTS, St. Catharines, ON. 37 John Stephenson. The Lord's Supper. Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics volume XII. Editor John Stephenson. Northvill, SD: Luther Academy. 2003. 21. Print. 38On the distinction between Archetypal theology (original theology) and ectypal theology (derived theology), see: Preus, Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism, I:113-14 Preus quotes John Gerhard: “Archetypal or original theology is in God the Creator. It is the theology according to which God knows Himself in Himself and also knows everything that is outside Him by an indivisible and immutable act of knowing. This theology in the Creator is aktistos kai ousiodes, uncreated and essential, infinite and original, and differs entirely from ectypal theology, which is sumbebekea kai ktiste, accidental and finite, and is sort of outflow and efflux... of the former. Ectypal theology is expressions and utterances derived from the former through a gracious communication, and by reason of its subject is either in Christ the Head or in His members. In the man Christ this ectypal theology is an inherent wisdom embracing an absolutely perfect knowledge of God and of divine things. This is called the theologia unionis. It differs entirely from the theology of rational creatures in that the human spirit of Christ, having taken to itself the hypostasis of the Logos, is raised far above the eminence of all angels and men, and thus is clearly unique.” Chapter One: The Term Ecclesia Synthetica 14

justification is attacked and placed in great danger.39 This truth does not end when considering

any article of faith, especially the church. All articles of faith point toward or presuppose

justification.

In his Examen, Hollaz demonstrates this truth when introducing his section on the church.

He begins by explaining that the synthetic church is that one holy assembly or mystical body into

which men are gathered through the Holy Spirit with the “ordinary means of salvation by the free

favour of God on account of the merit of Christ.” The church as collective presupposes

individual salvation and collection.40 The teaching of the church is contingent upon the teaching

of grace, justification, and salvation for the individual. The church is not something in which

one loses his identity; however it is also not a bunch of independent individuals. Quenstedt

distinguished between the materia and the forma of the church. The former, as discussed above,

is the people who have been called by the gospel; it is what makes up the church. The latter is

what it looks like, namely the “unity of external profession of the true doctrine.” From there, he

discusses the marks (notae) of the church, by which one can find and identify her, namely the

true preaching of the Word and right administration of the Sacraments.41 The materia denotes

the individual conversion, salvation, and collection; the forma denotes external fellowship.

39Although the Lutheran dogmaticians did not consider the law an article of faith, Luther's debate with John Agricola and the Antinomians is still noteworthy. Because they did away with the preaching of the law, the gospel became a means for bringing one to repentance. Antinomianism is not a mere over-emphasis of the gospel. Rather, by attacking the preaching of the law, they in effect attack the gospel, ironically giving to the latter the characteristics of the law. The Formula of Concord states: “Now, here likewise there has occurred a dissent among some theologians of the Augsburg Confession; for the one side asserted that the Gospel is properly not only a preaching of grace, but at the same time also a preaching of repentance, which rebukes the greatest sin, namely, unbelief. But the other side held and contended that the Gospel is not properly a preaching of repentance or of reproof [preaching of repentance, convicting sin], as that properly belongs to God's Law, which reproves all sins, and therefore unbelief also; but that the Gospel is properly a preaching of the grace and favor of God for Christ's sake, through which the unbelief of the converted, which previously inhered in them, and which the Law of God reproved, is pardoned and forgiven.” (SD V, 2) See: Martin Luther. Sola Decalogus Est Aeternus. Edited and Translated by Holger Sonntag. Minneapolis: Lutheran Press. 2008. 40Examen, 1265 41De Ecclesia, 1621-22; The Church, 13 … forma Ecclesiae consistit in unitate externae professionis doctrinae verae... Ecclesia Synthetica 15

The notae describe both the church and the ministry. This is evident with AC V, VII, and

VIII. In order that we might obtain that justifying faith described in AC IV, God instituted the

office of the ministry, that is, the pure preaching of the Gospel and the right administration of the

sacraments (AC V). It follows therefore that AC VII describes the church as the congregation of

saints in which the Gospel is purely taught and the sacraments are rightly administered, and that

true unity of the church depends solely on the consensus of the doctrine of the Gospel and the

administration of the sacraments. AC VIII then describes the efficacy of the sacraments even

when hypocrites administer them. In their efficacy, the marks of the church are not merely

empty signs that help us find the outward and imperfect features of the church. They are the

instrumental cause (caussa instrumentalis) of the church.42 They help identify the church not

merely as a common assembly, but a sacred assembly. They distinguish not merely the Christian

church in general from the assemblies of the heathen, Jews, and Turks, but also from other

heretical assemblies within Christendom.

The marks of the church are not simply the visible parts of the church. The one holy

church that will continue forever is “the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly

taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.” (AC VII; emphasis added) When the

dogmaticians say that the church is invisible because faith is seen only by God, they do not mean

that faith cannot identify the church.

The church is an article of faith, but so are the Word and Sacraments. Nikolaus Selnecker

(1530-92), a leading theologian in the late sixteenth century who worked with Chemnitz,

Andreae, and Chythraeus in developing the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, came

up with a useful syllogism explaining the invisibility of the church. It reads as follows: “Articles

of faith are not visible. The church is essentially an article of faith. Therefore, the church is not

42Ibid, 1621 Chapter One: The Term Ecclesia Synthetica 16

visible.”43 Selnecker's words should not lead us to understand the church nor any article of faith

as a completely invisible thing with respect to form and concepts. An unbeliever can certainly

see people gathered around the preaching of the Gospel and administration of the sacraments.

He can, as much as reason permits, understand the outward concepts of various articles of faith.

For example, the unbeliever can come to the analytical understanding of justification through

faith alone. Learning from the Scriptures, he can understand the concept of a just God, of sinners

who stand guilty before such God, of a propitiatory sacrifice, of the proclamation of a powerful

word, and that if one believes such word then he is accounted righteous in God's sight. However,

the article of justification remains invisible to the unbeliever because he does not apply such

benefits to himself by faith. Man is quite capable of analytically systematizing, arranging, and

explaining Doctrine, but apart from faith, that Doctrine remains invisible, thus leaving the

unbeliever with a mere carnal knowledge of a concept rather than a truly divine understanding

(Psalm 119:144). Therefore, we should understand Selnecker's syllogism as in so far as the

church is an article of faith, that is, in respect to its spiritual benefits, it is invisible. He continues

by explaining the unity of the visible and invisible aspects of the church. He writes: “That

moreover by this disputation we establish a boundary, it is certain that the invisible church

always united should be understood in itself as the visible church, and itself to be one and the

same thing.”44 Although faith adds nothing to the efficacy of the means of grace, the benefits are

not received or even observed outside of faith. So it is with the church, her material, form, and

marks; we cannot look at these apart from faith as merely ex opere operato.

Just as one cannot separate the church from the Gospel and Sacraments, one cannot

divorce from her the office of the ministry. The ministry of the word is the ministerial cause

43Nicolai Selnecceri. Paedagogia Christiana, year 1577. Volume 2:419 From google books: http://books.google.ca/books?id=biE8AAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1- PA108&dq=Nikolaus+Selnecker,+Paedagogia+Christiana,+Volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ku--T- SyNrGJ6wHk_qS9Cg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false 44Ibid, 423 Ecclesia Synthetica 17

(caussa ministerialis) of the church.45 The fact that Quenstedt distinguished between the

instrumental and ministerial causes shows that he did not have a formless view of the office of

the ministry. As discussed above, there are three orders or estates (ordines seu status) instituted

by God. The ministry, as the ecclesastical estate, is not merely a lump of functions, with which

the church sets up certain ranks for the sake of good order. Rather, the ministry is an office, a

station, or position which God has instituted.46 Therefore, although the church properly (proprie)

consists of true believers, it is not without form. Hollaz writes:

The church strictly, properly and precisely taught is the assembly of true believers and saints, whom God, moved by mercy in view of the merits of Christ and by the ministry of the divine word, calls out from the impious polluted world, and from a state of sin to His kingdom and a state of grace, He regenerates, justifies, and implants them in Christ the Redeemer; also He sanctifies and preserves them together with the others who are reborn to the whole body, and for the mutual edification and salvation of individual members. (emphasis added)47 Hollaz' explanation closely resembles Luther's explanation to the Third Article of the Creed in

the Small Catechism: “... just as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian

church on earth and keeps it in Christ Jesus in the one true faith.” (SC, II, 3) He does all this by

the ministry of the word, the holy office which God instituted. These particular men today are

“regularly called (rite vocati) and ordained teachers (doctores) as well as pastors.”48 The church

and the ministry are intimately connected. The ministry is not merely a consequence of the

church or an order in the church per accidens; rather, it is an institution of God Himself by which

He calls sinners to faith, sanctifies, and keeps them in the mystical body of Christ. The called

45Ibid, 1653-54 46Systema, IV, 1497 47Examen, 1268 Ecclesia stricte, proprie & exquisite dicta est coetus vere credentium & sanctorum, quos Deus motus misericordia intuitu meriti Christi ex impia mundi colluvie, statuque peccati ad regnum suum, statumque gratiae ministerio verbi divini evocavit, regeneravit, iustificavit, & Christo redemtori infevit, eosque una cum aliis renatis sanctificat & confervat ad corporis totius, singulorumque membrorum mutuam aedificationem & salutem. 48Ibid, 1276 Deus in colligenda ecclesia utitur praeconibus verbi divini, tanquam cooperariis a), quales in V.T. Fuerunt patriarchae & propetae b). In N.T. Apostoli c), & hodienum sunt omnes rite vocari & ordinati doctores atque pastores d). Chapter One: The Term Ecclesia Synthetica 18

believe through them as long as they preach the gospel according to the authority and mandate of

Christ (1 Cor 3:5).49 Therefore, an attack on the institution of the office of the ministry is an

attack on the church, indeed on the article of justification itself.

In maintaining the true marks of the church against the papists,50 the Lutheran

dogmaticians could defend the catholicity of the Lutheran Church. The church on earth is the

church militant (ecclesia militans), and it is either universal (catholica; Matt 16:18; Eph 1:22;

5:24-27; 1 Tim 3:15) or particular (particularis). Hollaz wrote that with respect to size and

quantity, the Lutheran church is not catholic or universal, but particular. With respect to

doctrine, it is catholic, “because it esteems and teaches the truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures

(John 17:17).”51 Particular is visible while catholic or universal is invisible. With this

distinction, Hollaz affirms that the catholic, universal, or invisible church cannot err nor can it go

extinct. This is possible for a particular church; however, since the true catholic, universal, and

invisible church is identified by the profession and teaching of pure doctrine of Christ, she

cannot fail (Matthew 16:18).

Quenstedt describes a particular church as “any particular assembly under the one Head,

Christ, gathered by Word and Sacrament in a certain place, and it is either diocesan in a certain

realm and dominion, or provincial in a certain city and village, or domestic in a certain family.”

He also notes that a single family is called church three times in the New Testament (Rom 16:5;

Col 4:15; Phm 2).52

49Ibid 50Bellarmine listed fifteen marks: 1) The name “Catholic,” 2) antiquity, 3)durability or long duration, 4)large size, 5)episcopal succession, 6)harmony in doctrine with the ancient church, 7) unity of members among themselves and with the head, 8)holiness of doctrine 9)efficacy of the same, 10) holiness of life of pastors, 11) the glory of miracles, 12) prophetic light, 13) the admission of the adversaries, 14) the unhappy end of enemies, and 15) temporal happiness divinely conferred on those who have defended the church. 51 Examen, 1309 52 De Ecclesia, Thes VII, 1618-19; The Church, 5 Ecclesia Synthetica 19

Notice that a particular church is not limited to a local congregation, but it can include a

place that includes a number of congregations; the ecclesia particularis refers to the church by

reason of time and place. God did not mandate a specific place, but this does not mean that He

did not institute an assembly. He instituted the one true catholic church, which is an assembly

(coetus) and necessarily would meet in a certain place and at a certain time.53 These individual

particular churches (singulae ecclesiae particulares) are able to fail, according to Hollaz,

separately, but not jointly or collectively.54 The church is infallible conditionally (indeficibilitate

conditionata), as long as she clings to Christ. She is universal “not absolutely or in herself, but

on account of the grace, assistance and governance of Christ the Spiritual Head and King, who is

not without [His] spiritual Body and Kingdom.”55 Catholicity moreover depends on the doctrine

taught and confessed, and we may identify this in one single assembly or in many assemblies

collectively.

Quenstedt very carefully distinguished the Lutheran position of the church from the

Roman Catholic view represented by Bellarmine, who said that it is more proper to speak of the

church as a place rather than an assembly.56 Bellarmine argued that to come together (convenire)

would more often occur in a senate or synod rather than in an assembly (conventum). Quenstedt

as well as Hollaz taught that the ecclesia representativa, which would gather in a council or

synod, is acknowledged by Christ (Matt 18:17) when He says, “If he will not heed them, tell it to

the church.” Quenstedt calls this the church by synecdoche (per synecdochen), since it is

represented by the presbytery or the church council.57

53De Ecclesia, Thes VII, VIII, IX, 1618-19; The Church, 5-7 54Examen, 1313 Paragraph VII: Singulae ecclesiae particulares possunt deficere divisim, non coniunctim aut collective. 55Ibid 56De Ecclesia, Thes XI, 1620; The Church, 8-9 ...non esse, convenire in conventum, sed in locum... 57Ibid Chapter One: The Term Ecclesia Synthetica 20

Synods and councils, however, are not the only things that are considered church by

synecdoche. Hollaz writes that the church taken “broadly and improperly (late & improrie) or

by synecdoche is for the assembly of the called by a collection of true believers and saints, and

of an admixture of hypocrites and the wicked, likewise nevertheless by professing the same

faith.”58 Although both the church late dicta and a synod or council are called the church by

synecdoche, there are two notable differences between them.

First, the church late dicta is an assembly consisting of hearers and teachers while a

synod or council is a gathering consisting only of teachers and other representatives who are

gifted in theology.59 The other difference is that a synod or council is concrete, while the church

late dicta simply describes one of two ways how the word church is understood and taught.

Hollaz begins this specific section by saying, “The synthetic church is taken twofold... proprie...

late”60 There is no visible difference between the church late dicta and the church proprie dicta.

There is, however, a difference in appearance and form between the church proprie dicta and a

council or synod.

Hollaz also demonstrates a strict confessional subscription. In identifying the Lutheran

Church as the Church of the Augsburg Confession, he writes, “The Lutheran church is taught to

Examen, Part IV, Cat I, Qest XLII, 1314 “...2) From the apostolic council held in Jerusalem, just as by clear imitation, legitimate councils have naturally formed, and a description to us is presented to us, of which the Holy Spirit was in charge (Acts 15:28). For the apostles declared: “The Holy Spirit has come, and to us.” 3) Christ Himself refers to the ecclesia representativa, saying: “Speak to the church,” (Matt 18:17) where by church is understood as a judging assembly; however, the multitude in common does not judge. Therefore the ecclesia representativa is signified, which is a congregation of teachers (congregatio doctorum). Moreover, Christ would not refer to the church unless in it a divine tribunal was established.” 58Ibid, 1266-67 … late & improprie, atque per synecdochen pro coetu vocatorum ex vere credentibus sanctisque, & admiztis hypocritis ac malis, eandem tamen fidem profitentibus, aggregato. 59Hollaz does refer to the ecclesia representative as an assembly of teachers (coetus doctorum) when distinguishing it from the ecclesia synthetica (Examen, 1266), but most of the time he refers to the council as congregatio and the church as coetus. The two terms are basically synonymous (congregatio is used in AC VII and VIII), but historically, that is, in the middle ages, congregatio mainly referred to a council of bishops. See: Katherine O'Brien O'Keeffe, ed. Andy Orchard, ed. Latin Learning and English Lore: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Literature for Michael Lapidge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2005. I:307. 60Examen, 1266 Ecclesia Synthetica 21

be catholic not by reason of size or dispersion through the whole earth..., but by reason of

catholic doctrine; because it is orthodox (quia est orthodoxa).”61 He could say that the Lutheran

Church of the Augsburg Confession is catholic in so far as (quatenus) it is orthodox and teaches

the truth of the Holy Scriptures, but he does not say this. The Lutheran Church of the Augsburg

Confession is true, catholic, and universal because (quia) it is orthodox and teaches the pure

doctrine of the Scriptures. A confession of the true catholicity of the Lutheran Confessions is a

confession of the true catholicity of the Lutheran Church.

61Ibid Chapter Two: Defining Fellowship 22

Chapter Two: Defining Fellowship with the Concept of the Ecclesia Synthetica The concept of the ecclesia synthetica has useful implications even for the church today,

especially when we consider church fellowship. There are three main concepts of the ecclesia

synthetica that contribute to such a discussion.

The first concept is the form (forma) of the church. The church is not simply a bunch of

individual Christians who organize in their own creative or innovative ways. She is a gathering

or collection (collectio; aggregatum) of believers around the profession of Christian doctrine.

This concept encapsulates the importance of the church's marks and her material. The second

concept is that the church consists of both teachers/preachers and hearers. In the form of

assembling around pure doctrine, preachers preach and hearers hear. This is not a concept that

man organized. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) teaches, for example, that

women may participate in the offices and activities of the public ministry so long as they do not

have authority over men. They do not say that Christ instituted the specific office of the ministry

of preaching, teaching, and administering the sacraments. Instead they say that He has

“established the public ministry of the Word.” The Church is the one who institutes the various

offices of ministry.62 But God did not arbitrarily institute a formless ministry, leaving to man the

organizational details; rather, according to Quenstedt and Hollaz, God has designed His church

in this way, namely that she consists of both teachers and hearers. The third concept of the

ecclesia synthetica that is useful for understanding church fellowship is the concept of her

catholicity. The catholicity of the church carries with it her confessional identity as much as her

unity.

62 "Statements of Beliefs." WELS. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, 2010. Web. 1 May 2010. . It should be noted that the practice of women giving the Sacrament to other women meets much opposition within the WELS.

Ecclesia Synthetica 23

A discussion on church fellowship can easily turn into a lengthy study that deals with

church life in an endless list of circumstances. Therefore, it is quite helpful in the discussion of

church fellowship first to determine our starting point. Kurt Marquart points out that there is no

such thing as a doctrine of fellowship. Rather, it is only a doctrine of church fellowship. He

criticizes the WELS and the LCMS for beginning their definitions of fellowship with the

individual Christians. He explains that the proper course for studying church fellowship lays in a

study of the church.63 The WELS defines fellowship as “every joint expression, manifestation

and demonstration of the common faith in which Christians on the basis of their confession find

themselves to be united with one another.”64 If we begin with this definition, we run into

immediate difficulties in determining these expressions of faith. For example, if a Lutheran and

a Roman Catholic stand together against certain social movements that attack the moral values of

the Scriptures, they might find themselves “fellowshipping” with one another.

Part I. The Form of Church Fellowship Marquart warns against the two extremes in undertaking the task for determining church

fellowship. On the one hand, we must guard against a purely subjective approach. When we

determine fellowship completely on the relationships of individual Christians, we neglect the

form of the church, taking on a shapeless definition of fellowship. On the other hand, we must

guard against a “false objectivity,” lest we deal with a completely impersonal concept. This

brings us to our first concept, that is, the form of the church. Marquart upholds the same

conviction expressed by Quenstedt and Hollaz when they deal with the ecclesia synthetica. The

church has a form (forma), material (materia), and marks (notae). God instituted His church,

and in doing so He does not neglect or overlook His children. After all, the people who are

called by the gospel to faith are the material of the church. In harmony with this conviction,

63Marquart, The Church, 46-47 64Ibid, 46, n. 10 Chapter Two: Defining Fellowship 24

Marquart says that “the living God Himself confronts and deals with us in His holy Word and

sacraments.” He comes to us personally, but not merely individually; He comes to us together

with “angels and archangels and with all the company of heaven.”65

If we want to understand church fellowship, we must understand the church. We do not

achieve church fellowship negatively, but rather positively. In other words, church fellowship is

not achieved primarily through pointing out the errors of other churches. Rather, it is achieved

through preaching and confessing the pure Word of God, against which the gates of hell shall not

prevail (Matt 16:18). This is not to say that we need not guard against false teachers (Matt 7:15).

Preaching the pure Word of God includes preaching only the truth and refuting all errors. It

includes teaching as well as rebuking and exhorting (2 Tim 4:2), but although the Lutherans

always recognized the necessity for church discipline, they viewed the office of the ministry as a

primarily evangelical office.66

Today the Lutheran Church faces many divisions, and the concept of fellowship

necessarily enters into many grey areas which I do not intend to discuss. However, if we can

apply anything from the concept of the ecclesia synthetica to immediate issues of church

fellowship, we must remember that not only is the church divinely instituted, it is also divinely

formed. God knows what His church looks like. The church is not merely a conglomeration of

individuals, but rather saints who gather together in profession of pure doctrine. Without the

marks of the church, that is, the Word and Sacraments, she is just like any common group of

people. But with them, she remains pure, holy, and righteous, cleansed by Christ through the

washing of water with the Word (Eph 5:26,27). She is a priestly kingdom called out of darkness

into God's light (1 Peter 2:9), saints who draw near with true faith and in one confession in the

assembly (Heb 10:22-25). We therefore only know her in the way God has revealed. He has

65Ibid, 49 66Preus, The Call, 15 Ecclesia Synthetica 25

revealed her in His Word, and He sustains her with His Word. We find in the apostolic

exhortations to unity not only the means for unity, but conversely, the very marks of the church.

The Augsburg Confession shows this. The office of preaching the Gospel and administering the

sacraments is the means through which we obtain that justifying faith (AC V), and it also

identifies the church (AC VII).

In Ephesians 4, Paul does not exhort the church to maintain unity of the Spirit in their

own ways; rather, he tells them how they do it: in the bond of peace (Eph 4:3). The bond of

peace (συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης) is an example of a genitive of apposition or an epexegetical

genitive. It is not merely a bond that comes from peace or that is somewhat related to peace.

No, the bond itself is peace.67 It is the peace proclaimed in the Apostolic greeting. It is not

simply a nice gesture that Paul uses the three words grace, mercy, and peace together in one

greeting. Peace, along with saving grace and mercy, come from God. The proclamation of

peace is the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins. This peace is the gospel of Jesus'

resurrection and the justification of the sinner before God. “Since we have been justified by

faith,” Paul says, “we have peace with God (Rom 5:1).” It is the peace that Jesus proclaimed to

His disciples before sending them on His ministry of forgiving sins (John 20:21-23). This bond

that is peace, that is, the article of justification, binds all together just as it binds all teaching

together; it is the central article.

Paul's words in Colossians 3 help us understand that the peace of Christ is inseparable

from the Word of Christ. He writes in verse 15, “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to

which you were indeed called into one body.” He continues in verse 16, “Let the Word of Christ

67Daniel B. Wallace. Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1996. 95. Print. “This use of the genitive is fairly common, though largely misunderstood. It is sometimes lumped in together with the genitive of content or the genitive of material, though there are legitimate semantic differences among all three categories. It is also often confused with the genitive in simple apposition[, which requires both nouns to be in the genitive case.]”

Chapter Two: Defining Fellowship 26

dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and

hymns, and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” The Word by which faith

comes (Rom 10:17) calls us to the peace that rules the hearts of the faithful. Therefore, when we

define the church outside of the gathering together and striving together in the Word and peace of

Christ, we are describing the church without considering the justification of the sinner before

God. All doctrine, practice, and doxology must centre on that peace and justification that flow

from Christ's resurrection. If we ignore that, we fail properly to teach Christian Doctrine, and we

therefore fail to define church fellowship.

We have already noted that identifying church fellowship is simply identifying the

church. Identifying the church largely comes from acknowledging her ministerial cause. When

Jesus commands His disciples to baptise all nations and teach them to observe all He has

commanded them (Matt 28:19,20), He indicates what the church should look like. He therefore

indicates what fellowship looks like. If Christians do not gather around the pure doctrine of

Christ and the Sacraments, there is no church, and there is no fellowship.

Part II. Fellowship through Preaching and Hearing Now we shall consider the second concept of the ecclesia synthetica, that the church

consists of both teachers/preachers (Preaching and teaching the Gospel are interchangeable!68)

and hearers. This is vital when considering church fellowship. Both are saved through divine

instruction (1 Tim 4:16), and a good relationship between teachers and hearers finds high priority

in Paul's exhortations. He reiterates in his own words Christ's final mandate from Maundy

Thursday (John 13:34-35): “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just

as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are

68Preus, The Call, 12 “Preaching and teaching the Gospel: the two terms are interchangeable. This activity, along with the administration of the sacraments, is the one mission and work of the church. This activity, along with the administration of the sacraments (which is included under this activity), constitutes the marks of the church. And it is this activity alone to which the minister and teacher in the church is called.” Ecclesia Synthetica 27 my disciples, if you have love for one another.” The apostle writes (Gal 6:2): “Bear (βαστάζετε) one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.” He continues in verse 6, “Let the one who is taught the Word share all good things with the one who teaches.” These are not empty commands. They denote the reality that God has filled His church with those who are taught and those who teach. They express in different words what Paul expresses in Ephesians 4, “bearing

(ἀνεχόμενοι) with each other in love.” The church bears the vicarious marks of Christ; therefore, as Christ has loved us by bearing our burdens, we are to love one another, both hearers and teachers. Paul frequently makes a point of expressing that pastoral relationship. In Romans 12, he does not fail to mention those who teach when emphasising the unity of all the members of the body of Christ.

We find another similar exhortation from Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5. The apostle shows a shift in whom he addresses. In his final words (5:12-28), he first speaks to brothers (ἀδελφοί) in

Thessalonica, asking them to respect those who labour among them and are over them in the

Lord. He urges them to be at peace among themselves. He then goes on to urge the brothers to admonish the idle, comfort the faint-hearted, help the weak, and be patient with them all. When closely examining this passage, it appears that Paul suddenly begins to address the pastors in

5:14. He still refers to them as brothers (ἀδελφοί), but his mandates to them certainly fit the tasks of an elder or bishop. In discussing this possible distinction made by Paul, we shall refer to the brothers of 1 Thessalonians 5:12 as brothers-a, and those of 5:14 as brothers-b.

In 1 Thessalonians 5:14, Paul urges brothers-b to admonish, encourage, help, and be patient. The Greek word for admonish is νουθετέω. It is important to note who in the New

Testament admonishes. Paul himself admonishes twice (Acts 20:31; 1 Cor 4:14). He encourages the people to admonish each other (Rom 15:14; Col 3:16). Finally, Paul and Timothy both admonish (Col 1:28). It is evident that admonishing is not unique to the office of the ministry, Chapter Two: Defining Fellowship 28 since on two occasions he calls for mutual admonishing among all the saints. Nevertheless, it is quite important for the office of the ministry. The most significant use of the word νουθετέω, however, is found in this very text. Paul first tells brothers-a to respect those who labour among them, “who are over you in the Lord, and admonish you (νουθετοῦντας ὑμᾶς).” Two verses later, he tells brothers-b to admonish the idle (νουθετεῖτε τοὺς ἀτάκτους). This repetition of the verb

νουθετέω indicates a shift in Paul's address.

The Greek word for encourage is παραμυθέομαι, which is similar in meaning to the noun

παράκλησις, found in 1 Timothy 4:13, where Paul lists three crucial duties for Timothy: public reading of Scripture, exhortation (παρακλήσει), and teaching. Paul also uses παραμυθέομαι in 1

Thessalonians 2:12, as he, Silvanus, and Timothy encourage the Thessalonians. This word likewise exhibits a unique function for the office of the ministry.

The word for help, ἀντέχομαι, also means to be devoted or to hold firm. Jesus uses this word in describing the relationship between a slave and one of two masters: “He will either be devoted to (ἀνθέξεται) the one and despise the other... (Matt 6:24).” In the Epistles, there is only one other place where this word is used, which is Titus 1:9. In describing the qualifications of an elder, Paul says that he should hold firm to the word of God. This word does not appear in the

Scriptures enough to indicate any unique connection to the office of the ministry, but it does denote a function within a specific relationship.

Finally, Paul tells brothers-b to be patient with them all. Patience is not unique to the office of the ministry. It describes God (2 Pet 3:9), the waiting for the coming of the Lord

(James 5:7,8), and it describes love (1 Cor 13:4). The significance, however is that Paul tells brothers-b to be patient with all (πάντας), as opposed to one another (ἀλλήλων). It is not a mutual patience, rather he appears to single out a portion of all the brothers. When he speaks to all the people in Romans 15:14, he tells them to admonish one another (ἀλλήλους νουθετεῖν), Ecclesia Synthetica 29

but 1 Thessalonians 5:14 has the characteristics of Paul's other passages where he speaks to those

in the office. We have already discussed 1 Timothy 4:13, and Paul's words are similar in 2

Timothy 4:2, “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and

exhort, with complete patience (μακροθυμία) and teaching.” We see here that although patience

is not unique to the office of the ministry, it is certainly a crucial feature.

Paul uses the same root word for public reading of Scripture in both 1 Timothy 4:13 (the

noun ἀνάγνωσις) and 1 Thessalonians 5:27 (the verb ἀναγινώσκω; cf. Acts 15:31; 23:34; 2 Cor

1:13; 3:2; Eph 3:4).69 In 1 Thessalonians 5:27 he says, “I put you under oath before the Lord to

have this letter read (ἀναγνωσθῆναι τὴν ἐπιστολὴν) before all the brothers.” The verb ἐνορκίζω

(“I put under oath”) is a hapax legomenon, used only once in the Scriptures; however, its

derivative is found in Nehemiah 13:25: “I made them take an oath in the name of God (ὥρκισα

αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ θεῷ)...” Paul does not put them under an empty oath, but one before the Lord.

These are the duties of the servants of the gospel who labour among the saints, and although Paul

does not mention teaching in Thessalonians 5, it goes without saying that those who labour

among them in the Lord would teach that which the Lord has entrusted them to teach.

It is significant that in his exhortations Paul frequently draws a connection between unity

and the proclamation of the gospel. In 1 Thessalonians 5:20, 21, he exhorts the saints not to

despise prophecy, testing everything yet holding to what is good. In a treatise written on the

congregation's right to judge all teaching, call, appoint, and dismiss teachers, Luther used this

text to argue that the hearers of the Word have the authority to judge doctrine. He writes, “You

see, here [Paul] does not want to have any teaching or decree obeyed unless it is examined and

recognized as good by the congregation hearing it.”70 The relationship between teachers and

69 Rudolf Bultmann. “Ἀναγινώσκω.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Gerhard Kittel, ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing. 1964. I:343. Print. 70AE 39:308, That A Christian Assembly Has the Right (1523) Chapter Two: Defining Fellowship 30

hearers is therefore not only maintained by faithful and pure preaching, but also by the hearers

assenting to God's pure Word and judging all teaching according to it. Luther also used Christ's

words in proving this: “When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep

follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him,

for they do not know the voice of strangers... All who came before me are thieves and robbers,

but the sheep did not listen to them (John 10:4-5, 8).”71 Hollaz explained that the judgement

concerning orthodox teaching, or exact judgement, is in the power of the presbytery, but the

judgement of discretion should not be taken away from the laity.72

That law for the church to love one another is not a string attached to God's favour, nor is

it a random set of ethics. Rather, it presupposes the love of Christ which binds all together (Col

3:14). It is still law, which accuses the sinner, but it is never without the gospel of peace in

Christ. The peace and Word of Christ unite and identify His holy bride. The unity of the church

does not exist without the proclamation of the vicarious atonement of Christ, who knowing no

sin, became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God. Paul's desire for unity

among the saints is non-existent without the peace of Christ, and the preaching of that Word of

peace by called servants and ambassadors of Christ through whom God makes His appeal. The

godly relationship between teachers and hearers is crucial for the building up of the body of

Christ (Eph 4:12). Paul does not leave it to the Ephesians to figure out how they might obtain

that bond of peace. He continues by showing that the ascended Lord has given to His church

apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (4:11).

71 Ibid 72Examen, Par IV, Cap II, 1331 Iudicium de ὸρθοδοξία προφητιχὸν, siue exactum & solidum est quidem penes presbyterium; at iudicium δοχιμασιχὸν, siue discretiuum non est denegandum laicis. Paullus enim generatim omnes Corinthios compellat: Iudicate vos, quod dico, I Cor. X, 15.

Ecclesia Synthetica 31

The present pains of the church are largely due to divisions. Many people write off

Christianity all together for this very reason. If acknowledged, divisions lead to uncomfortable confrontations. If ignored, they lead to doctrinal nihilism and theological apathy. Pastors are often criticised for preaching against the errors of other confessions or for giving the Lord's

Supper only to members of orthodox Lutheran congregations. The destruction of church fellowship will inevitably follow the distrust and division between hearers of the Word and preachers of the Word. When the hearers ignore Jesus' words, “he who hears you hears Me,” or when the preachers refuse to preach the pure Word of God to His children in season and out of season, we can forget about fellowship. To concentrate on fellowship without concentrating on doctrine is like concentrating on faith without concentrating on Christ. This is because, as Christ is to faith, agreement in doctrine is the basis for church fellowship. Without such agreement, church fellowship is an idle and hopeless fantasy.

Part III. Fellowship and a Catholic Confession Finally, the catholicity of the church benefits the discussion of church fellowship, since it relies on the marks of the church. As discussed by Hollaz, the Lutheran Church of the Augsburg

Confession is true and catholic because of her doctrine. The orthodoxy and catholicity of the

Lutheran Church is the same as the orthodoxy and catholicity of the Lutheran Confessions.

Confessional subscription, therefore, is significant in determining church fellowship. In his essay “Confessional Subscription” (1858) C. F. W. Walther addressed the position of confessional subscription taken by Wilhelm Löhe who wanted the Missouri Synod to interpret the Lutheran Symbols according to the Scriptures. This approach sounds faithful at first; however, Walther explained that if we take this approach, we may end up misrepresenting the

Confessions themselves. He wrote:

The addition of similar statements, to the effect that one will subscribe the confessions if one is permitted to understand them aright, can of course not mean that they should be understood as they read and as they were really intended, for only a madman can require Chapter Two: Defining Fellowship 32

a different understanding. Moreover, such additions indicate that one cannot accept the confessions if they are understood as they read and that one therefore makes the reservations that a meaning can be put into the words of the symbols which is not really there but which one regards as correct and Biblical.73 An unconditional subscription to the Lutheran Confessions is an acceptance of the

doctrine confessed therein because it is all Scriptural. One is not required to fully accept every

method and form of argumentation, and one can certainly improve and elaborate on the way the

doctrine is confessed; however, one must accept unconditionally the doctrine expressed by the

Confessions. Ministers of the church subscribe to the Confessions to ensure that they agree with

the interpretation of the Scriptures already laid out in the Confessions. One cannot force

apparent unclear statements in the Confessions to agree with Scripture. They either agree with

Scripture and one therefore should accept them, or they disagree with Scripture in which case

one must reject them. When one subscribes unconditionally to the Confessions, one

acknowledges that they are Scriptural as they are read without infusing any extra interpretations.

In his essay, Walther lists a number of examples of a conditional subscription to the

Confessions, among which he criticises J. A. A. Grabau of the Buffalo Synod for claiming that

the Confessions do not address thoroughly the teaching of church and ministry.74 For Walther,

the Confessions lay out the entire doctrine of God's Word. Today, however, it is true that recent

degradations of moral and theological integrity have led many to ask if the Confessions actually

do cover all that is necessary to be an orthodox Lutheran. For example, nowhere in the

Confessions is women's ordination or homosexuality explicitly addressed. In response to those

who would argue that due to the lack of specific examples the Confessions are therefore not a

completely adequate standard for orthodoxy, we must simply repeat the words of the Formula of

Concord: "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New

73C. F. W. Walther. Confessional Subscription; presented at the fourth Western District Convention,Trinity Lutheran Church, St. Louis, MO, April 15, 1858. Essays for the Church, C. F. W. Walther. St. Louis: Concordia Pub House. 1992. pg. 23. Print. 74Ibid Ecclesia Synthetica 33

Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to

which all teachers and teachings are to be judged.” (FC, SD, Rule and Norm, 3) It is only

because they are in agreement with the norm of the Scriptures that the preface of the Book of

Concord calls the Confessions the “true norm and declaration of pure doctrine,” by which we

shall examine all controversies. If a minister subscribes to the Confessions, he must therefore

hold to the perspicuity of Scripture and thus condemn practices including and not limited to

women pastors and homosexuality as contrary to the Christian Doctrine upheld in the Book of

Concord.

The preface to the Book of Concord declares that within the Confessions is the norm and

rule of all doctrine. The Formula of Concord declares that they accept the three ecumenical

creeds, namely the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, since these

creeds were “regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox

and true church (FC, Ep, Rule and Norm, 3).” Likewise, they declared that the confessions of

Book of Concord were the unanimous consensus and declaration of their Christian faith and

confession (FC, Ep, Rule and Norm, 4-5). They considered the confessional symbols

ecumenical, and although they did not reject all other writings, such as those written by

Melanchthon, Brenz, Urban Rhegius, Pomeranus, etc., they accepted them in so far as

(quatenus) they agree with the norm set forth in the Book of Concord (Preface to Book of

Concord, 17). It would therefore be unacceptable for a confessional Lutheran to set up another

standard for orthodoxy and catholicity outside of the norm of the Lutheran Confessions. Church

fellowship rests on the pure catholic and orthodox doctrine confessed by the Lutheran Church of

the Augsburg Confession.75

75Although many doctrinal statements may certainly be beneficial, they cannot be binding. When the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS) passed their statement on the ministry, the Public Ministry of the Word (PMW) in 2005 with a 62 to 38% margin, some who did not accept it were removed from the synod despite their unconditional subscriptions to what the Confessions already said about the ministry. Chapter Two: Defining Fellowship 34

We have already discussed the distinction between the church late dicta and a council or

synod. We have also discussed the important fact that the church in her proper catholicity is an

assembly (coetus). We shall now discuss how this relates to church fellowship.

Today Lutheranism in North America is divided into several synods. When a pastor joins

a synod, he joins himself to the confession of that synod. If the synod has an official confession

that is heterodox, then the pastors who join themselves to the synod would by necessity be guilty

of heterodoxy. This is a simple logic. However, what if the synod is orthodox in her official

confession, yet some of the leadership of the synod allow or even defend heterodox doctrine and

practices in their midst? If we confuse the council or synod with the church proprie dicta, we

necessarily fall into the status of “guilty by association” when certain members or leaders of the

synod fail to condemn any error that creeps in. In their official statement, as in their definition of

the ministry, the WELS fails to articulate the church's specific form. They write:

We believe that it is the Lord's will that Christians meet regularly to build one another up by using the means of grace together (Hebrews 10:24,25) and to work for the spread of the gospel into all the world (Mark 16:15). Since these visible gatherings (for example, congregations and synods) use the means of grace, they are called churches. They bear this name, however, only because of the true believers present in them (1 Corinthians 1:2).76 Although synods are certainly ecclesiastical, they only represent the assembly. The

assembly is made up of both preachers and hearers, but the WELS fails to confess this. It

therefore makes sense that they would understand church fellowship primarily in the scope of

individual expressions of faith. The catholicity of the church taught by Quenstedt and Hollaz

informs us of what constitutes a truly orthodox church. Even if a synod's leadership fails to

discipline those who promote false doctrine and practice, the pastors and churches associated

with the synod do not fall into heterodoxy as long as they teach and confess true Christian

76(Emphasis mine) "Statements of Beliefs." WELS. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, 2010. Web. 1 May 2010. Ecclesia Synthetica 35

doctrine, rejecting everything false. The only thing that distinguishes orthodox churches from

heterodox churches is the pure preaching of the word of God and the right administration of the

sacraments. Quenstedt notes, “Of old the Arians were distinguished from the orthodox in no

other way than by doctrine.”77

This does not mean that each congregation is independent from the other, or that they are

on their own. The collectivity of the church denotes the unity of every individual assembly

where the Gospel is taught in its purity and the sacraments are rightly administered. Moreover,

the ecclesia representative assumes that a number of churches would gather through

ecclesiastical representatives. A pastor should not merely cling to his call while ignoring the

other pastors who are also called to God's church. However, there are times when a pastor must

stand in confession against error. Since fellowship is based upon doctrine, a pastor must not

confess fellowship with other pastors simply because they are in the same synod. This also

means that a pastor can still remain orthodox in a synod that has become heterodox as long as he

continues to teach and confess the true doctrine of Scripture as it is expressed in the Book of

Concord. For unity of the church there must be agreement on the doctrine of the Gospel, and

pastors and teachers preserve this agreement through meeting together regularly to discuss

theology.

77De Ecclesia, 1659; The Church, 92 Chapter Three: The Church and Justification 36

Chapter Three: The Church and Justification As noted above, the church as an article of faith presupposes an individual collection of

people who have been justified by faith. We have also discussed in some detail the causes of the

church, her material, form, and marks. Quenstedt and Hollaz both followed the Aristotelian

analytical approach in drawing out their dogmatics. This included discussing the various causes

of each article of faith.

In comparing the causes of justification with those of the church, we will seek to present

the unity between the two loci, and thus the church's salvific value.78

Part I. Efficient Cause For Quenstedt, the efficient cause of the church is the Holy Trinity, the Father (Eph

1:3,4), the Son (Acts 20:28; Matt 16:18), and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5; 14:16,17; 1 Peter 1:12).

Likewise, the cause of the justification of the sinner before God is the Holy Trinity, the Father

(John 3:16,17; Rom 8:31-33), the Son (Isaiah 53:11; 1 Cor 6:11; Rom 5:19; Col 3:13), and the

Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:11). Hollaz simply says it is the Triune God, who called the people of God

into His marvellous light (1 Peter 2:9,10).

The collection of the church is part of the outward work of the Trinity (opus ad extra).

Quenstedt uses the picture of the bride in explaining the Trinity's activity on the church. The

Father brings the bride to His Son, preparing a wedding banquet (Matt 22:2). The Son is the

bridegroom (2 Cor 11:2), who bought her with His own blood (Acts 20:28), calling her His

church (Matt 16:18). Through the holy ministry which God has instituted, the Holy Spirit

cleanses her and adorns her for Christ the bridegroom (Eph 5:27; Rev. 21:2). The Holy Spirit is

78 This discussion will be drawn from these pages: Systema: Ch. XV De Ecclesia, 1621-22; Caput IIX. De Hominis Peccatoris coram Deo Justificatione, 738-744 Caput XII. De Fide Justificante, 1334. Examen, Part III, Chap. VIII, 888-899. Part IV, Chap 1, 1275-76l; Ecclesia Synthetica 37 also the gift or pledge, which the Son gives to His bride (Eph 1:14; John 3:5; 1 Peter 1:12). The

Holy Spirit stays with the church forever (John 14:16,17). Hollaz also explains it in this way; however, when he speaks of the work of the Holy Spirit, he stresses the role of the office of the ministry (1 Cor 4:1) by which He keeps her in Christ by the merit of His suffering and death.

Tearing down the office of the ministry, therefore, is tearing down the work of the Holy Spirit.

Hollaz also points out that the Father is the architect of the church (1 Tim 3:15), and the Son is the cornerstone and foundation of the church (1 Peter 2:7) by which He sustains her (1 Cor 3:2).

Justification is also the outward work of the Trinity, bestowed by God the Father (John

3:16, 17). In Romans 8:32-33, God who justifies is the Father who gave up His own Son. In considering Isaiah 53:11, “by His knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous,” Quenstedt understands “by His knowledge” as “through faith” by which Christ is acknowledge and apprehended. By this knowledge, that is, through faith, many will be justified; He will declare them righteous and absolve them from punishment. Hollaz draws the same conclusion, and both men echo what the Apology says (IV, 101):

But what is the knowledge of Christ unless to know the benefits of Christ, the promises which by the Gospel He has scattered broadcast in the world? And to know these benefits is properly and truly to believe in Christ, to believe that that which God has promised for Christ's sake He will certainly fulfil. 1 Corinthians 6:11 shows the united work of the Son and the Holy Spirit in justification: “You were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and in the Spirit of our God.” The Holy Spirit is given as a pledge and as a Chancellor in the hearts of the faithful to sustain them in the faith.

Justifying faith, moreover, is the work of the Triune God (John 6:29;Col 2:12), and terminatively

(terminative) of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3); it is given for the sake of Christ (Phil 1:29), just as every good gift comes from above (Jam 1:17).

The church is not a mere consequence of salvation. It is not only an observation or the aftermath of people being brought to faith, as if they arbitrarily gather in their own way. As Chapter Three: The Church and Justification 38

discussed above, the church has a form, namely the public profession of pure doctrine. The fact

that justification shares the same efficient cause as the church demonstrates that God intended

the existence of the church just as He intended our forgiveness. When one thinks of the

forgiveness of sins, one should think of the church. It is as Luther said, “Behold, all this is to be

the office and work of the Holy Ghost, that He begin and daily increase holiness upon earth by

means of these two things, the Christian Church and the forgiveness of sins.” (LC, II, 59) The

Author of the church is the Author of our salvation.

Part II. Impulsive Cause The impulsive cause which moves God to create the church is either internal or external.

The internal impulsive cause is the boundless goodness of God, His fatherly mercy and

gratuitous favour by which He has given us complete salvation. The external impulsive cause is

the merit of Christ (1 Tim 2:6; 2 Tim 1:9; 1 Cor 1:4). There is also another external cause, which

is the misery of sinful mankind. This, as Hollaz says, is a cause not per se, but per accidens, that

is, not a cause in itself, but rather indirectly. He writes, “Moreover, the misery of fallen men in

sin provides to God the opportunity to be merciful.”79

Likewise, the internal impulsive cause of our justification is the grace of God (Rom 3:24;

11:6; Eph 2:8,9; 2 Tim 1:9; Tit 3:4-6). The external impulsive cause of our justification is the

most sufficient active and passive obedience and satisfaction of Christ the mediator (Rom

3:24,25; 8:3; Eph 5:2; Col 1:20,22; 1 Tim 2:6; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13; Psa 69:5; Isaiah 53:4ff).

Romans 3:24 reads, “and are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in

Christ Jesus.” Quenstedt understood the phrase “through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus

(διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ),” as “on account of” (propter) the redemption.”

Since διά is followed by a genitive in this phrase, it cannot be translated as “on account of” or

79Examen, 1276 Ecclesia Synthetica 39 propter. That would only be the case if διὰ were followed by an accusative. However, based on the context, the fact that God put Christ forward (προέθετο) as a propitiation (ἱλαστήριον) through His blood demonstrates that the redemption is the acquiring cause (caussa promerens) of our justification. This putting forward (προθεσις) is in the eternal plan and decree of God (1

Peter 1:20; Rev 13:8). The fact that both of these articles of faith share the impulsive causes of grace and the merits of Christ demonstrates that as in the case of justification, the church likewise exists propter Christum.

Part III. Instrumental and Ministerial Causes Although the church's ministerial cause is the ministry of the word and sacraments,

Quenstedt lists no ministerial cause for justification. Justification has a mediate or instrumental cause (caussa media) either on the part of man (ex parte hominis), which is faith and is passive

(Ληπτικὴ), or on the part of God (ex parte Dei) which is the word and sacraments, and they are active gifts (Δοτικὴ). It has already been noted that Hollaz and Quenstedt deal separately with the instrumental and ministerial causes, demonstrating the fact that the ministry is not merely the functions, but also an actual institution itself. As far as justification goes, God uses the gospel to justify the sinner by bringing him faith. Faith does not come from man; rather, it is bestowed by

God.

Justification by faith is individual, but the church is collective. Although we have discussed that the collectivity of the church presupposes the justification of the sinner, the former does not derive from the latter. They both derive from God as the efficient cause, and they both exist by means of the Word and sacraments. Yet the church of the New Testament exists also by means of the office which Christ has instituted. This is because it is God's office. Hollaz points out that Christ has collected the church of the New Testament by charging the apostles to make disciples of all nations, baptising them etc. (Matt 28:19,20). It appears, moreover, that the Chapter Three: The Church and Justification 40 ministerial cause of the church helps distinguish it from the article of justification. Justification is an act of God on sinful man while the church is the Body of Christ, in which a special office is included. We should not conclude from this, however, that justification is independent from the office of the ministry. The act of preaching is included in the instrumental cause of justification.

Before the application, generation, confirmation, and increase of faith, Quenstedt includes the preaching and offering (annunciationem et oblationem) of the righteousness of Christ and the remission of sins as the median or instrumental cause (ex parte Dei) in justification, citing Luke

24:47, “and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His Name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” Hollaz explains that the Lord's Supper does not begin justification, but rather “through the sacrament of the Supper justification is continued.” The

Lord's Supper only takes place in the church; therefore, following Hollaz' point, justification continues in the church.

Ecclesia Synthetica 41

Chapter Four: Justification and Church Fellowship in the Unity of Doctrine and Practice After comparing their analytical formulations of the church and justification, it is evident

that Quenstedt and Hollaz saw an inseparable bond between the two articles. Any attempt to

determine church fellowship must keep justification at the centre of all theological formulations.

So far in our discussion on church fellowship we have identified the form, material, marks,

ministry, and catholicity of the church. Now, analysing the relationship between doctrine and

practice will advance that discussion. The practice of the church, like her doctrine, centres on

justification. Robert Preus notes that the relationship between justification and church and

ministry shows the unity of doctrine and practice in Lutheran theology. He explains:

Almost every reputable book or commentary on the Confessions sees a causal as well as an organic relationship between AC V and ACIII and IV, AC XIV, AC VII and VIII, and AC XXVIII. The Gospel creates the ministry and the church, and the church and her ministers have no other work and mission than to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments through which the church and her ministry lives. And all jurisdiction of the church and her ministers is confined to this one activity.80 We do not need to determine on our own the church's main practice. Jesus already told His

disciples what to do, and the Confessions identify it as the ministry into which God calls certain

men to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments (AC V, XIV, XXVIII). Therefore, in

this chapter, we will first discuss the relationship between justification and church fellowship.

After that, we will examine how fellowship is preserved through pure doctrine and practice.

Part I. Justification and Church Fellowship The church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus being the

chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20).” The entire context of Ephesians 2 shows that her foundation

centres on the fact that we are saved by grace through faith apart from our works (2:8-9). The

foundation is that of doctrine, the doctrine of Christ that God has reconciled us to Himself in one

80Preus, The Call, 2-3. Chapter Four: Unity of Doctrine and Practice 42

body through the cross, killing our mutual hostility (2:16). However, God did not only save us

from our contempt for one another. There is no horizontal reconciliation in the church without a

vertical reconciliation with God proclaimed by His ministers of reconciliation.

If our definition of the church is determined apart from the doctrine of justification that

God declares the sinner righteous on account of the perfect obedience of Christ through faith in

Christ, then the church has lost her meaning. N. T. Wright, former bishop of Durham and

professor of New Testament and Early Christian Studies at University of St. Andrews in

Scotland, looks at justification in light of the covenant family of God (or his view of the church).

Concerning Genesis 15:6, he writes: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as the

badge of his membership in, indeed his foundation status within, the covenant family which God

was creating.”81

Wright expresses the importance of understanding Paul’s view of justification “within the

larger framework of Paul’s theology of God’s covenant with and through Abraham for the world,

now fulfilled in Christ,”82 arguing that this will help us understand the place of works in

justification. He says we cannot understand justification unless we view it in light of the

covenant of the church, the family of God, but a closer look at Paul's theology shows that a

correct understanding of the church and her unity proceeds from a correct understanding of

justification, not the other way around.

Paul refers back to Genesis 15 for his proof that justification is by faith and apart from

works. He does this in both Romans 4 and in Galatians 3, following the hermeneutical principle

of going back to the institution. Although God certainly justified by faith even those before

Abraham, it is first clearly expressed with Abraham. Paul uses the same principle when he

explains the Lord’s Supper to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11) by quoting the actual words of

81 N.T. Wright. Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 2009. pg. 134. 82Ibid, 235 Ecclesia Synthetica 43

institution. Jesus does this as well in Matthew 19 when asked about marriage and divorce. He

pointed back to the institution of marriage in Genesis 2:24.83 In Romans 4, Paul goes back to the

God’s promise to Abraham to prove that “to the one who does not work but trusts in Him who

justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted to him as righteousness (4:5).”

In his Epistles, Paul frequently expresses the importance of Church unity, but his entire

argument for the church and her unity depends on the doctrine of justification by faith. He saved

us by grace not only from our contempt for one another, as if that is all we needed. Rather, God

primarily reconciled us to Himself in the crucified body of His Son. Justification is not merely a

membership card to get into the church; there is no church unless there are holy people, and there

cannot be holy people unless their sins are taken away by Christ’s death and they are credited

with that righteousness required to stand before God as holy people. While Hollaz explains the

ultimate purpose for the ministry on God's part as the glory of the Lord, on man's part it is eternal

salvation. The intermediate purposes include illumination and conversion, regeneration, and

reconciliation with God.84 So for Hollaz, the purpose of the church carried out in the office of

the ministry is concerned primarily with individual man's salvation and relationship with God.

This is evident with Paul. Before he can even begin to speak to the Ephesians about church

unity, he must first declare that they have redemption in Christ’s blood and that in Christ God has

chosen them to be holy and blameless in His sight (Eph 1:4ff). There is no mutual unity in Christ

unless in Christ we are reconciled to God and forgiven all of our sins (2 Cor 5:18-19).

83 Chemnitz writes: “ Obviously there is never a time when sharp minds are lacking a pretext for finding Scripture passages which are in conflict with one another; as when the Pharisees in Matt. 19:3 ff. place in opposition to the institution of marriage the passage from Moses regarding the bill of divorcement… Christ answers the Pharisees that the basis of the doctrine of marriage is in the Words of its institution and that therefore the other passages of Scripture must be interpreted according to these Words and not vice versa.” Martin Chemnitz. The Lord’s Supper. Translated by J.A.O. Preus II. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Pub., 1979. pg. 76. Print. 84Examen, Part IV, Chap II, 1347 Chapter Four: Unity of Doctrine and Practice 44

Making the article of justification dependent upon the article of the church not only

attacks justification by faith alone, it also confuses the church and her fellowship. If the

collectivity of the church presupposes individual man's salvation, as Hollaz taught, then the

church is understood in light of your and my salvation. The underlying problem of Wright's

ecclesiology and doctrine of justification is demonstrated by his words here:

The theological equivalent of supposing that the sun goes round the earth is the belief that the whole of Christian truth is all about me and my salvation... Now do not misunderstand me. Hold the angry or fearful reaction. Salvation is hugely important... Discovering that God is gracious, rather than a distant bureaucrat or a dangerous tyrant, is the good news that constantly surprises and refreshes us. But we are not the centre of the universe. God is not circling around us. We are circling around him. It may look, from our point of view, as though “me and my salvation” are the be-all and end-all of Christianity.85 A false understanding of ecclesiology or any other article of faith does not come only by a direct

attack on justification. Wright does not directly assault justification by faith; in fact, he says that

it is very important. But the attack on ecclesiology and indeed on all theology comes also when

justification is taken out of the centre. The Church is called to preach and to hear primarily the

justifying grace of Jesus Christ. She is not called arbitrarily to make a difference in the world,

although this certainly has and does happen. Her mission is focused; it is centred on her

salvation wrought by Christ's atoning death for the sins of the whole world. Jesus bears witness

to the centrality of justification when He says, “Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say?

‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify

your name (John 12:27-28a).” St. Paul also bears witness to the centrality of the article of

justification when he told the Corinthians that he decided to know nothing among them but

Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor 2:2).

85Wright, 23 Ecclesia Synthetica 45

What lies at the heart of the church is the peace with God won for us by Christ. With this

in mind, we can look at church fellowship not as a burden, but as a gift from God. Rolf Preus

(2007) explains it well:

Only the Holy Spirit can bring about true fellowship. He does so by bringing to us the forgiveness of sins and eliciting faith within us so that we may receive the forgiveness he brings. The conflict between sinners cannot be resolved until the sin that has caused it is removed. The forgiveness of sins is the presupposition of Christian fellowship. Christian fellowship is church fellowship. Any ecclesiology that is not grounded in the doctrine of justification by faith alone is necessarily false. There can be no Holy Christian Church and she can enjoy no fellowship with God unless God forgives her all her sin.86 While church fellowship is contingent upon unity in justifying faith, the church must not

only discern whether one believes in Jesus while ignoring the rest of Jesus' doctrine. The

Augsburg Confession declares that “for true unity of the church it is enough (satis est) to agree

concerning the doctrine of the Gospel (doctrina evangelii) and administration of the sacraments

(AC VII).” However, agreeing on the doctrine of the Gospel is not understood only in its narrow

sense, but according to the definition given in the Formula of Concord, we must agree in its

broad sense as well (FC Ep V, 5).87 Our Lord's mandate to His disciples to teach all the things

He has commanded them demonstrates this. If the office through which believers come to faith

is the same office that Christ has charged to teach all of His doctrine, then one cannot speak of

86 Rolf Preus. Christ For Us, "The Relationship between the Justification of the Sinner before God and the Practice of Church Fellowship." Last modified 2007. Accessed July 12, 2012. http://christforus.org/Papers/Content/JustificationAndChurchFellowship.html.

87 See Robert Preus. “The Basis for Concord.” Theologians Convocation: Formula of Concord. (1977): 28-30. Web. 30 Jul. 2012. . Preus makes an argument that doctrina evangelii should be understood in its broad sense. The argument presented against this understanding is that if the doctrine of the gospel is understood in its broad sense, it would include the law. Therefore this mark of the church could not be a means of grace per se. Preus responds by pointing out that Melanchthon refers to it as the doctrine of the gospel in AC VII, but where ever he refers to the gospel in its narrow sense he simply says gospel. Therefore, Preus suggests that the gospel referred to in the first paragraph of AC VII should be understood in its strict sense while doctrina evangelii in the second paragraph is in the broad sense. He also points out that the later Lutheran theologians as well as Roman Catholics understood doctrina evangelii as the gospel in its broad sense. Chapter Four: Unity of Doctrine and Practice 46

church fellowship and justification if one is not also willing to hear and confess all of God's

word.

The Apostle Paul preached a gospel that does not reduce doctrine, but rather unites it. He

describes the gospel in four major ways. 1) It is the bare story of what Jesus did. He died, was

buried, and on the third day He was raised from the dead (1 Cor 15:3-4). 2) He describes what

Jesus accomplished for all mankind, namely, appeasement of God’s wrath, forgiveness,

justification, and reconciliation (Rom 3:25; 4:25; 5:18-19; 2 Cor 5:18-21). 3) He describes it

according to what God does and on what basis He does it; He justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5),

passing over former sins (Rom 3:25b), and He does this on the basis of the redemption which is

in Christ Jesus (Rom 3:24). 4) Paul describes the gospel according to its revelation, power (Rom

1:16-17), and application, namely through faith (1:17; 3:21ff) which comes from hearing the

word of Christ (10:14-17) and through baptism (Rom 6:1ff).

Paul therefore does not break the gospel down to one little message, while the rest of

doctrine is simply secondary information. Rather, all doctrine (διδαχή;88 διδασκαλία89) is united

and held together by the gospel. Paul starts his epistle by declaring himself “set apart for the

gospel of God.” (1:1) He is set apart by God’s mandate (ἐπιταγή) to preach this gospel (1 Tim

1:1; Tit 1:3). God charged Paul with the preaching and teaching of not merely a reiteration of

“God loves you,” but rather of the entire doctrine of the Gospel (doctrina evangelii), which does

not only include the message of forgiveness and salvation in Christ, but every implication of it,

including church and ministry. The gospel itself is not more than Christ crucified for sinners and

the promises attached to it; however, it does not stand alone. God entrusted to Paul his entire

counsel (βουλή), and this is what Paul preached (Acts 20:27). Paul preached God’s doctrine

(Titus 2:10), God’s counsel (Acts 20:27), and God’s gospel (Rom 1:1). Therefore, pure doctrine

88Romans 6:17; 16:17 89Romans 12:7 Ecclesia Synthetica 47

saves (1 Tim 4:16) not because of all the little details, but because it all centres on the gospel,

which is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes (Rom 1:16). This gospel, in

which God reveals His righteousness for faith, is only powerful to unite because it is powerful to

save.

The purity of doctrine in all its articles was indispensable in the endeavour to preserve

church fellowship among the orthodox Lutheran dogmaticians. Against the claims of some

critics of Lutheran orthodoxy who complain about strict doctrinal uniformity, Robert Preus

points out that doctrinal certainty and personal faith, though not the same (God justifies man by

faith and not by man's orthodoxy), still complement each other. A false fellowship by which we

join ourselves to error is as damaging as if we were the ones teaching the error. Preus explains:

And it is significant that the target for [the orthodox Lutheran dogmaticians'] polemics was as often the syncretism of George Calixt90 and his party as the outright heterodoxy of the Socinians. Why was this? It was because the Lutherans saw in the latitudinarianism of unionism a threat as dangerous as straight-out heresy. For Latitudinarianism and syncretism undermined doctrinal certainty, and here was a challenge to the Gospel itself.91 The act of joining with those who teach error attacks the purity of doctrine, and it

demonstrates how important practice is as we keep God's doctrine pure. Unity must be subject

to the truth, not the other way around.

Part II. Unity of Doctrine and Practice The New Testament demonstrates that the relationship of justification with church and

ministry shows the unity of doctrine and practice. Paul saw no separation between God's work

in Christ and his mission to proclaim it. This shines forth most clearly in preaching. Peter and

90George Calixt (1586-1656) was a professor at the University of Helmstedt. He proposed his consensus of ancient times (consensus antiquitas), an attempt to find common ground and have a basis of confession with the Reformed churches by agreeing with the basic teachings of the Fathers and councils. He proposed that it should be the basis for unity with both Reformed and Roman Catholics, making it a norm next to the Bible. The orthodox Lutherans, especially Abraham Calov, opposed it as syncretism. For a biased account on the side of Calixt, see Eric Gritsch's A History of Lutheranism, 129-33. Notice how Gritsch tries to pit the satis est in AC VII against uniformity in all doctrine. 91Preus, Theology of Post-Reformation I:409 Chapter Four: Unity of Doctrine and Practice 48

John declare before the Council (Acts 4:20), “We cannot but speak (λαλεῖν) of the things we

have seen and heard.” Again, Paul says concerning himself and Timothy (2 Cor 4:13), “Since

we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, 'I believed, and so I spoke

(ἐλάλησα),' we also believe, and so we also speak (λαλοῦμεν).” The Greek verb λαλέω is a

public speaking, the same word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 14:34 when he forbids women to

speak (λαλεῖν) in the assemblies. As with the rest of the Apostles, Paul insists that one cannot

preach unless he is sent (Rom 10:15), demonstrating the intimate connection between doctrine

and practice. Even after making clear that he was called by God and not through any man (Gal

1:1), Paul still found it necessary to mention the fact that the other apostles gave him the right

hand of fellowship (Gal 2:9).

The gospel compelled the Apostles both to confess and preach that one has died for all (2

Cor 5:14), but the church must maintain good practice along with pure doctrine. One is not in

the ministry simply by some personal motivation. In proving this Hollaz points to Hebrews 5:4:

“And no one takes this honour for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was.”

Hollaz writes: “He is called an apostle not de facto, but de iure.”92 He explains that it is

physically possible that one would preach without a call, but not morally, that is, not rightly and

not properly.93 Hollaz continues by pointing out that one should not confuse the external sending

and calling through the church with the personal qualifications described in 1 Timothy 3:2. He

argues that one does not simply have an internal call (vocatio interna) simply because one has

the qualifications to teach.94 Church fellowship survives when God calls men through His

church, but it is divisive and schismatic if one “takes this honour for himself.” For Hollaz, it is

92 Examen, Part IV, Chap II, 1332 93 Ibid, 1333 Et enim physice quidem possibile est, ut quis praedicet sine vocatione, at non moraliter, id est non recte, non decore, non modo in scripturis expresso. 94Ibid, 1333-34 Ecclesia Synthetica 49

not only a matter of decorum or good order, but “by reason of divine mandate a legitimate call is

necessary.”95

The preaching, hearing, and confessing of the doctrine of the gospel are crucial for the

preservation of church fellowship, and all these features are most clearly expressed in the Lord's

Supper. Stephenson notes that since it is connected to the two natures of Christ and the

justification of the ungodly, the Lord's Supper “lies at the very heart of the faith once delivered

to the saints.”96 Luther's desire for more frequent use of the Lord's Supper in the life of the

church, Stephenson observes, “proceeds directly from his understanding of the Person and Work

of Christ, which is the central theme of his whole theology.”97 It is noteworthy that the Lutheran

Church's battles over fellowship have often been accompanied by debate over the Supper, from

the Marburg Colloquy (1529) and the Crypto-Calvinist Controversy98 all the way through the

Prussian Union (1817) up to the present day with internal struggles against open communion. In

examining the theology of the Supper, we find that these correlations are no coincidence. Hollaz

presents the intimate connection between the Lord's Supper and church fellowship, listing three

purposes of the Sacrament of the Altar: 1) Remembrance and proclamation of the passion and

death of Christ, carried out with faith and thanksgiving, 2) the seal of the grace of the gospel, and

3) the mutual love of the communicants.99

Hollaz cites the Apostle Paul: “As often as we eat this bread and drink this cup, we

confess the Lord's death until He returns (1 Cor 11:26).” It is not only the oral eating and

95Ibid, 1331 96 Stephenson, The Lord's Supper, 2-3. 97 John Stephenson. “The Holy Eucharist: At the Center or Periphery of the Church's Life in Luther's Thinking?” A Lively Legacy: Essays in Honor of Robert Preus. Ed. Kurt Marquart, Ed. John Stephenson and Ed. Bjarne Teigen. Fort Wayne: Concordia Theological Seminary, 1985. 158. Print. 98 F. Bente. Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books. Concordia Triglotta. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 1921. 172-92. Print 99The following discussion on Hollaz' view of the Lord's Supper come from: Examen, Part III, Chap V, 1132-1134 Chapter Four: Unity of Doctrine and Practice 50

drinking that constitutes such a confession of Christ, but also the spiritual eating by faith (John

6:35ff), without which the oral eating does not grasp the salutary benefit or enjoyment (fructum)

of the Eucharist, because “all spiritual benefits (beneficia spiritualia) are received by faith.”

Hollaz by no means argues that the oral eating is contingent upon the spiritual eating, as if one

does not receive the true substantial body and blood of Christ unless by faith. Rather, he only

demonstrates that a true confession and a true faith go together. Although unworthy recipients

certainly receive the true body and blood, Christ's Supper is still meant to be received with faith

just as any other true confession should be accompanied by faith. It is a public and corporal

confession of Christ, His work, and His promises, which, as Luther taught, “requires all hearts to

believe (SC, VI).”

Just as with the Lord's Supper, all promises of God intend a believing heart. Faith is

always the goal of the Gospel; it was written that we might believe (John 20:31). Forgiveness

does not depend upon faith, but faith is still required. The word of promise carries with it the

goal of faith (Rom 10:17), and this is the central point for doctrine and practice. Melanchthon

emphasizes this in AC XV on rites and ceremonies. In the Apology, (XV, 10), he writes:

“Therefore the law removed, and traditions removed, [Paul] contends that the remission of sins

has been promised not on account of our works, but freely on account of Christ, that we might

receive it only by faith.”100 The purpose is faith, and traditions created by men that do not

proclaim the gospel cannot intend faith. Pure church practice is an instrument for preserving and

increasing faith. Thus, Hollaz contends that the oral eating is a means for promoting the

enjoyment and spiritual eating of Christ's body.

100The Triglotta translates the latter part, “if only by faith we receive it.” This can possibly be misunderstood, as though the remission of sins is promised on the condition that we only believe it. But the Latin simply reads, “modo ut fide accipiamus eam,” denoting a purpose or consequence of the promise, not a condition. Ecclesia Synthetica 51

In explaining the second purpose of the Lord's Supper, Hollaz discusses regenerating grace, justifying grace, and indwelling grace. He explains that through regenerating grace, God promised to give faith to all (Acts 17:31), and in the Lord's Supper, God confirms, strengthens, and increases faith. Through justifying grace God remits sins, so in the eating and drinking of the body and blood given and shed for the remission of sins, Hollaz says that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believing recipient. Through indwelling grace, God unites us to

Himself, so by the eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood we become closer and firmer to God in the mystical union (John 6:56).

The third purpose for the Lord's Supper has the clearest relationship to church fellowship.

Through the Lord's Supper, the members of the mystical body are united. In fact, Hollaz says that the Sacrament of the Altar is the foundation (fundamentum) of love between us and our neighbour. He proves this from Paul's words, “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body. For we all partake of one bread (1 Cor 10:17).” Hollaz continues: “Hence also [the

Lord's Supper] is the mark of ecclesiastical fellowship (communionis ecclesiasticae), and the token of that church, with which we have fellowship in faith.” If the Lord's Supper were merely a memorial meal and not the true body and blood given for our forgiveness and the increase of faith, then it could hardly constitute a mark of church fellowship and confessional unity. Hollaz discusses the arguments of the Socinians, Arminians, and Anabaptists who claimed that the

Supper cannot do anything, since it is only bread and wine. Furthermore, because it is only bread and wine, there can be no benefits of faith. However, since Christ's body and blood are truly and substantially present and received under the bread and wine, the benefits of faith are available, and Hollaz argues that it is not a bare remembrance (Commemoratio illa non est nuda.), but one that binds the faithful together. Chapter Four: Unity of Doctrine and Practice 52

Doctrine and practice meet in the office of the ministry; so it makes sense that they

clearly manifest themselves in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Confessing is not something

that we do for the sake of confessing. It is a matter of faith. A clear confession with the mouth

requires a believing heart (Rom 10:10). So it is with the Lord's Supper. It follows then that

communing at an altar requires belief in what is taught at that church. Hollaz says that the

doctrine proclaimed by pastors is regarded as the confession of the entire church and the

individual members.101

A confession of faith is therefore always public, especially the eating and drinking in the

Lord's Supper. It is a proclamation and confession of the death of Christ, it centres on the

justification of the sinner, and it is a confession and mark of fellowship among churches and

church bodies. When the church celebrates the Lord's Supper, she says with the Formula of

Concord, “We believe, teach, and confess,” which really are the essentials of doctrine and

practice. The correct celebration of the Supper includes faith in the promises of Christ, the

teaching of Christ, and confession of Christian doctrine both personally and corporal. This is a

godly practice, which if abandoned, expels any hope for true church fellowship.102

101Examen, 1320 102For an historical example of this reality, see: Geoffrey Boyle. "Confessional, Confessing, or Both? The Ecclesiology of Hermann Sasse." Lutheran Theological Review. 24. (2012): 47-74. Print. Boyle discusses the clear practical implications the Lord's Supper had on Hermann Sasse's views of church fellowship, explaining the historical and theological background of Sasse's conviction, “The church dies with the Supper.” Ecclesia Synthetica 53

Chapter Five: The Ecclesia Synthetica in relation to the Call and Ordination We discussed in the previous chapter how the church expresses and keeps fellowship

through doctrine and practice. Since this takes place through the office of the ministry, a

perpetually important issue for the church remains how ministers are called and ordained, who

calls them, and who ordains them. The ecclesia synthetica offers clarity to the problem.

As already mentioned, the ecclesia synthetica unites the three hierarchical estates, the

civil, domestic, and ecclesiastical, and the unity of these three estates has practical implications

both in the right to call ministers of the gospel and in the right to call councils. Against the

Roman position represented by Bellarmine that only the Pope can call a council, Quenstedt

argued that it was the right of the civil magistrate. At first glance, one might assume that

Quenstedt is merely taking a political stance for the purpose of benefiting the Lutheran Church;

however, his argument that the magistrate should call the council is based on his conviction that

the Pope is not the visible head of the church on earth.103

As in justification and the church, God is the primary efficient cause (caussa efficiens

principalis), or author, of the ministry.104 He instituted it for faith, and He is the caller both to

faith and to the office of the ministry. The call to faith by which God makes someone a member

of the church is called a general call, and the call to a specific office (statum) of the church is a

personal call. God calls either mediately (by means) or immediately (without means). Although

He called the prophets and apostles immediately, today He regularly uses means (2 Tim 2:2; Tit

1:5),105 and the means He uses is the church, the secondary efficient cause (caussa efficiens

103 At that time, the affairs of the territories included ecclesiastical issues. The question was not that of the complete separation of church and state, but rather whether the Pope rightly possessed the authority of the sword, which included deciding the affairs of other territories, which were often theological. If civil magistrates are Christians, they can legitimately participate in calling pastors and councils. 104Examen, Par IV, Cap II, 1326 105Ibid, 1328 Chapter Five: Ecclesia Synthetica – Call and Ordination 54

minus principalis).106 God retains the highest right (summum) to call while the church possesses

the delegated right (delegatum), and this right to call belongs to the entire church, both preachers

and hearers, as well as civil magistrates as long as they are members of the church. Hollaz

distinguishes between the right to call ministers (ius vocandi ministros) and the church's polity or

the exercise of the right (iuris exercitium). The former belongs to the entire church regardless,

but the latter depends on the customs of a particular church.107 The polity must preserve good

order and avoid confusion. So although Christ gave the keys to the whole church (Matt 16:18),

and as Hollaz says, she is like the housewife who cannot be deprived of this right, nevertheless,

since God is not a God of confusion, but order, things should be done decently and in good order

(1 Cor 14:33).

The exercise of the call, therefore, should not exclude any of the three estates in the

ecclesia synthetica. The call to the ministry includes examination, ordination, and inauguration,

which is done by the presbytery; it includes nomination, presentation, and confirmation through

a call letter from the Christian Magistrate; finally, the call involves the consensus, vote, and

approval by the people, or domestic estate. Hollaz rejects the position of the Papists, who give

the right only to the ecclesiastical estate. He rejects the Arminians who gave the right of calling

ministers only to the civil estate, and he rejects the Anabaptists who only gave the right to the

people.108 There are certainly extreme cases when a legitimate call is impossible, but it still

stands that a legitimate call is necessary. The exception does not become the rule. Commenting

on Paul's words to Timothy that the desire for the office of bishop is a good work (1 Tim 3:1),

Hollaz explains that if one truly desires a good work in the office of bishop, he would desire a

legitimate call. He also distinguishes the good work of the office of the ministry from other good

106Ibid, 1329 107Ibid 108Ibid, 1330 Ecclesia Synthetica 55

works. The former is for a specific person; the latter is a work of love (opera caritatis), in which

all believers participate.109

Hollaz responds to the argument that since the apostles appointed bishops by themselves

that it should be that way today. He explains that we must distinguish between the church that is

to be planted (plantandam) and the church that has been planted (plantatam). Before the church

is planted, there are no believing people, so there are no people to give their assent. But since

today we have believing people, they should give their assent (Acts 1:24; 6:3; 14:23).

There is one ministry and one call, and this office is the preaching, teaching, and

administering of the sacraments. It is nothing less than that.110 But Hollaz explains that Luther's

call to his professorship was a call by itself. He was called mediately to the priesthood, and he

was also called as a professor of theology.111 During the time of Lutheran orthodoxy, a professor

would often have a call to a congregation, but this was not always the case. The call to be a

professor was a call even though it concentrated mainly on teaching.112 It was a call to the whole

church113 through representatives while a pastor was called by his individual congregation.

Although the duties of a professor focused mainly on teaching, his call to the whole church often

also included church discipline. In his Antiquitates biblicae et ecclesiasticae, Quenstedt writes

about councils:

109Ibid, 1333-34 110 Ibid, 1346 Referred by Preus, The Call, 16, n 29 111 Ibid, 1337 112 In an installation sermon for professors of theology at the prep college for the St. Louis Seminary, C. F. W. Walther explained that the professors who were previously in the parish were still in the one ministry, but were now called to a specific concentration in the ministry, taken from the mandate of Paul, “and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Timothy 2:2) C.F.W. Walther. "Sermon at the Installation of Two College Professors." Lutheran Theology Web Site. David J. Webber, n.d. Web. 2 Aug 2012. http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.waltherinstallation.html 113 Preus, The Call, 11-13 Chapter Five: Ecclesia Synthetica – Call and Ordination 56

We understand by council, a public convening put in place and organized either by a political magistrate or from the common consensus of Churches, in which teachers (doctores) and pastors of the church, and also certain prominent people, men (viri) who are properly learned and instructed concerning things pertaining to the church, consider and from Holy Writ decide that pure heavenly doctrine, uprightness of morals, and church discipline should be carried out and promoted…114 Although councils did include certain laymen, specifically learned men, they were mainly

made up of those in the office of the ministry, and primarily the doctors of the church. The fact

that these councils decided on matters of church discipline indicates that the doctors who make

up the councils, or as Hollaz called them the congregation of doctors (congregatio doctorum),115

were indeed involved in such matters, and it was in this way also that the doctors of the church

were called to the whole church.

Hollaz says that ordination is necessary for good arrangement (έυταξίαν) and divine

precept (praeceptum divinum), although the size and form of the ritual varies and is not absolute.

It sets the one called aside, separating him from the world into the ecclesiastical office.116

Hollaz, like other Lutheran theologians, defended the position that at the time of Luther the

Lutheran ministers were legitimately called and rightly ordained (legitime vocati & rite

ordinati).117 The specific rite of ordination was not mandated, but known from the examples of

the apostles (1 Tim 4:14). Hollaz says that ordination is not absolutely necessary, but the

exception he gives is for times of pestilence when there are no pastors available. One can then

be called from the church to the ministry “before he is ordained and consecrated,”118 implying

114 Quenstedt, Antiquitates biblicae et ecclesiasticae, De Concilis, 1688. p 169. It should be pointed out that Quenstedt only included men who were well learned in theology as the lay members of the church councils. The reader should recognize that our practice today of sending women as delegates to synodical and district conventions as well as appointing them to ecclesiastical boards is not in accordance with the Lutheran Church’s historic practice. It is significant that the LCMS adopted women suffrage in 1969, at the height of the women’s liberation movement. 115 See note 57 116 Examen, 1338 117 Ibid, 1336 118 Ibid, 1339 antequam ordinetur &consecretur Ecclesia Synthetica 57

that he would be ordained when pastors are available. He then adds that outside of this situation,

it should not be omitted.119

Ordination is important for church unity. It is an important way in which the pastoral

office participates in the calling of pastors, and the rite itself demonstrates the unity of the

preachers and hearers in calling the pastor. The minister ordains, but the people give their

consent.120

Hollaz echoes Martin Chemnitz, who explained the importance of such consensus.

Chemnitz taught that people should not call without approval of the ministers, and the ministers

should not undermine the right of the people to choose ministers.121 He pointed out that no

bishop or superintendent ever possess the right to appoint any minister he wishes to a parish

“without the judgement and consent of the church of that place.” He writes: “...that old canon is

observed: Let no one be given to the unwilling.”122 In his Examination, Chemnitz gives five

reasons for the practice of the laying on of hands. First, the candidate is declared to be

legitimately chosen and called. Second, he is given assurance about his legitimate and divine

call. Third, it is a solemn declaration before God that the model and rule prescribed by the Holy

Spirit had been observed at the election and the calling. Fourth, by this visible rite, God

approves the calling done by the voice of the church. Finally, Chemnitz mentions the prayer,

119 Ibid 120 Clement presents the concept of the bishops doing the appointing and the people giving their consent in 1 Clement 44: “Our apostles likewise knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the bishop's office. For this reason, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the officials mentioned earlier and afterwards they gave the offices a permanent character; that is, if they should die other approved men should succeed to their ministry. 3 Those, therefore who were appointed by them or , later on, by other reputable men with the consent of the whole church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ... these men we consider to be unjustly removed from their ministry.” J. B. Lightfoot, ed. The Apostolic Fathers. London: McMillan and Co. 1890. 294. Print. 121Martin Chemnitz. Ministry Word and Sacraments: Enchiridion. Translated by Luther Pollot. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 1981. 33-35. Print. 122Ibid, 35

Chapter Five: Ecclesia Synthetica – Call and Ordination 58

which includes the invocation of God’s name and promise to give gifts to the minister, to be with

him, etc. By this, the newly ordained is offered to God in good faith by the church.123

We can be certain when God works through means to which He has attached His

promise. He has attached His promise to the church. Therefore a legitimate call through the

church, both preachers and hearers, gives certainty to God's ministers that He actually has called

them Himself. He also gives certainty to the whole church that He has sent these preachers to

shepherd them.

123 Martin Chemnitz. The Examination of the Council of Trent. Translated by Fred Kramer. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 1978. II:694-96. Print.

Ecclesia Synthetica 59

Chapter Six: The Concept of the Ecclesia Synthetica in the Lutheran Confessions Despite the term's late appearance, the concept of the ecclesia synthetica certainly earns

the rank of Lutheran. The visibility and invisibility of the church as well are not specifically

taught in the Confessions, but a study therein will prove that the concept is certainly there. The

form and material, as well as the catholicity of the church are also evident within the symbolic

books. Finally, the call as understood through the concept of the ecclesia synthetica appears in

the Augsburg Confession as well as in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. In

this chapter, we shall examine how the Lutheran Confessions teach what Quenstedt and Hollaz

defended.

Part I. Invisible and Visible Church in the Lutheran Confessions In the Apology, Melanchthon distances the Lutheran position from the teaching that the

church is a Platonic state, which some accused the Lutherans of teaching (Ap VII, 20). He also

writes in his Loci Communes (1543):

Whenever we think about the church, we should consider the congregation of the called, which is the visible church, nor should we imagine that somewhere else there are any chosen ones except in this visible assembly itself. For God wants to be invoked and known in no other way than as He has revealed Himself, and He has revealed Himself in no other place than in the visible church in which alone the voice of the Gospel is proclaimed. Nor should we devise some other invisible and silent church of people still living in this life, but the eyes and mind of the assembly of the called, that is, of those who confess the Gospel of God must be looked at, and we should know that the voice of the Gospel must sound forth among people publicly...124 Melanchthon rejects the idea of an invisible church, and some might argue that the invisibility of

the church is contrary to the Confessions in light of Melancthon's condemnation of a Platonic

124 Philip Melanchthon. Loci Communes (1543). translated by J. A. O. Preus II. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 1992. 131. Print. I will draw from the original text when necessary: Philipp Melanchthon. Loci. 1543. De Ecclesia, loc XII. http://books.google.ca/books?id=ghw8AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=loci+communes+melanchthon&source=bl&ots =ezmINa9_n0&sig=rlrNWXly51gkcqxFN- 8uk5VHOp0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eV4ZUMiYGqSK0QGMrICAAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=de%20ecclesia&f=fal se Chapter Six: Ecclesia Synthetica – Lutheran Confessions 60 conception of the church in Ap VII. In both his Loci and Ap VII, 20 Melanchthon certainly appears to reject in different words the same concept; however, this does not necessarily mean that he rejects the concept of the visible-invisible paradigm taught within Lutheran orthodoxy.

There are three notable points that clear up Melanchthon's understanding of the church.

First, he contends that we should think of the church as the visible assembly of the called

(coetum vocatorum), and that there are no chosen people outside of this visible assembly. This is exactly what Quenstedt teaches when he says that the invisible church is hidden under the visible; we could not find it anywhere else. Second, Melanchthon says that God wants to be invoked in no other way than the way He has revealed Himself, that is, where the Gospel is proclaimed. He clearly confesses the form of the church and her marks. This is why he argues that the Gospel must sound forth publicly ( publice sonare) among the people. Finally, what illuminates Melanchthon's point is that the church is not invisible and silent (Ecclesiam invisibilem & mutam). Melanchthon is simply battling against the notion that one can despise and completely avoid the preaching of the Gospel and still be a member of the church in some silent way.

The question then is whether Melanchthon's teaching of the church in the Augsburg

Confession and the Apology is compatible with the visible and invisible paradigm of the ecclesia synthetica and earlier Lutheran dogmaticians. For Quenstedt and Hollaz, the church is invisible because it is the assembly of the elect, called to faith through the means of grace. The elect are not the elect by absolute decree, so the only way to identify the assembly of the elect is where the called gather around the Gospel and sacraments. The true church, just like all of God's mysteries, will not be unveiled until the last day. Until then, she is hidden, as Melanchthon says, under the cross. Melanchthon expresses the concept later understood by Lutherans as the invisible church when he compares the church with political kingdoms. As opposed to political Ecclesia Synthetica 61

kingdoms, our head, Christ, remains “not now seen with physical eyes.”125 He does not call

Christ invisible, but unseen (non conspicitur), and will be finally revealed at the last day.

Melanchthon's distinction between those who have only outward fellowship and true

spiritual members opens the door for such a paradigm of the visibility and invisibility of the

church. The Lutheran dogmaticians maintained that it was the same church, but these concepts

are helpful in understanding it. It was a necessary distinction, and Melanchthon found such a

distinction necessary as well, even though he did not use the same paradigm. He did, however,

hold that the church is not a civil state. He refers to the church as the spiritual kingdom of Christ

consisting of spiritual people (Ap VII, 13, 14). Melanchthon's distinction between the outward

fellowship of the church and the true spiritual people is what precedes his statement against the

Platonic idea of the church (Ap VII, 19). It follows then that if one views the invisible church

taught by the orthodox Lutheran dogmaticians as the same as the Platonic conception rejected by

Melanchthon, one only ignores either the Lutheran understanding of the invisible church against

the Calvinists or the distinctions made by Melanchthon in the Apology.126

With the distinction made between false and true believers, specifically in reference to

the administration of the sacraments by hypocrites (AC VIII; Ap VII, 2,3), Melanchthon provides

us with the paradigm of the church late dicta and proprie dicta, which we have already

discussed. The dogmaticians simply elaborated from this concept, but they continually

125 Loci Communes, 134 126 Some prefer to say that the church is hidden rather than invisible, but as long as we understand that faith is contingent upon the external means of the word of God and the sacraments rather than on the absolute decree of God, we still maintain the correct position on the church. To say that the church is not invisible is a dangerous position to take, because it implies that the church is perceivable to carnal eyes and thus not an article of faith. The life of the Christian is foolishness to the world, only understood by faith. Luther comments on Galatians 2:20: “A Christian uses earthly means like any unbeliever. Outwardly they look alike. Nevertheless there is a great difference between them. I may live in the flesh, but I do not live after the flesh. I do my living now "by the faith of the Son of God." Paul had the same voice, the same tongue, before and after his conversion. Before his conversion his tongue uttered blasphemies. But after his conversion his tongue spoke a spiritual, heavenly language. We may now understand how spiritual life originates. It enters the heart by faith. Christ reigns in the heart with His Holy Spirit, who sees, hears, speaks, works, suffers, and does all things in and through us over the protest and the resistance of the flesh.” AE 26:169, Lectures on Galatians (1535) Chapter Six: Ecclesia Synthetica – Lutheran Confessions 62

maintained the form and visibility of the church. Heinrich Schmid found the substance of the

visible and invisible church clearly in the Ap IV, 5 (quoted by Schmid):

The Church is not only the fellowship of outward matters and rites, as other governments, but is principally a fellowship of faith and the Holy Ghost in hearts... And this Church alone is called the body of Christ, because Christ renews, sanctifies, and governs it by his Spirit... Although therefore hypocrites and wicked men are members of this true Church, according to the outward rites, nevertheless, when the Church is defined, it is necessary to define that Church which is the living body of Christ, and likewise is the Church both in name and reality.127

Part II. Preachers and Hearers in the Lutheran Confessions A very important concept of the ecclesia synthetica, as we have discussed, is that the

church consists of both teachers and hearers. She is made up of the three estates, domestic,

ecclesiastical, and civil. The political realm is only part of the church if the ruler is a Christian

and thus involved in the affairs of the church. Today in North America, we do not have that kind

of polity, but since the political estate, according to Luther, derives its authority from the

authority given by God to the parental or domestic estate (LC I, 141), we can, in abbreviation,

simply deal with the two estates, ecclesiastical and domestic, that is, preachers and hearers.

The Lutheran teaching that the church consists of preachers and hearers goes hand-in-

hand with the conviction that the doctrine of the Gospel must be taught and preached purely.

Those who do not accept the authority of the Scriptures as the word of God cannot understand or

fully appreciate the urgency the Lutherans put on pure preaching. For them, this was sufficient

for true unity (AC VII), but today it is often too much to ask for. This approach to unity is

deemed by “Lutheran” theologian Carl Braaten as intellectualism. He claims that it is

“blasphemous idolatry” to look at the Bible as the ultimate authority. Braaten is correct when he

asserts that we are not saved by the works of our mind; however, he pits works of the mind

127 Heinrich Schmid. The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Edition 5. Translated by Charles Hay, and Henry Jacobs. Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society. 1876. pg. 611. Ecclesia Synthetica 63

against the preaching of the pure word of God.128 But apparent unity does not make truth.

Rather, only the truth, that is, God's word, as our Lord says, can unite us (John 17:17,22).

Furthermore, if the Lutherans placed so much importance upon pure preaching, it followed that

they sought to defend the integrity of the office of the ministry.

In his “The Sacred Ministry and Holy Ordination in the Symbolical Books of the

Lutheran Church (1969),” Arthur Carl Piepkorn thoroughly demonstrates that the Lutheran

Confessions are abundantly clear that the church consists of preachers and hearers. He lists them

as:

...preachers and Christians (LC I, 262), rectors (Pfarrherr) and parishioners (LC Introduction, 2-3); rectors and people (SC Introduction, 6), bishops, rectors, and preachers on the one hand and Christians on the other (SC Table of Duties, 2-3); Laymen (FC EP Summary Concepts, 5; SD Summary Concept, 8) and ministers of the word who preside over the community of God (FC SD, X, 10). The presbyters are a part of the total church (Ap XXII, 1,2,4). The church is more than (supra) the ministers; no minister has superiority or dominion over the church at large (Tr XI).129 Piepkorn rightly points out that the Confessions show an understanding that without ministers,

there is no ministry, otherwise the ministry would be a mere abstraction. The bishop has the

authority to preach, teach, and administer the sacraments (AC XXVIII, 5).130 He also notes that

the functions of the ministry require functioning, and thus an office through which it takes place.

He explains:

Of interest is the fact that Predigtamt (literally, “the office of preaching”) occasionally (for instance, AC V, 1 German and AP VII, 20 German) has 'the Gospel' or 'the Gospel and the sacraments' as an explanatory apposition. To be effective, the Gospel must actually be preached and the sacraments must be administered. But these are precisely the functions the Symbolical Books attribute to the incumbents of the sacred ministry.131 He is certainly correct in his observation. In passing, Luther calls the order of priest a divine

order (göttlichen Stand der Priester; SA III, 11), referring to the holder of the same office of

128 Carl Braaten. Justification: The Article by Which the Church Stands or Falls. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. 1990. 91. 129 Arthur Carl Piepkorn. “The Sacred Ministry and Holy Ordination in the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church.” Concordia Theological Monthly. (Sep, 1969). XL, 8. pg. 553. Print. 130 Ibid, 554 131 Ibid, 554-55 Chapter Six: Ecclesia Synthetica – Lutheran Confessions 64

preaching, teaching, and administering the sacraments (AC XXVIII).132 True bishops (rechte

Bischöfe), Luther says, preach, teach, baptise, and administer the Lord's Supper (SA, III, 10:2),

and Melanchthon makes clear that this is one office, whether the holder is called pastor,

presbyter, or bishop (Tr 61).

The church consisting of preachers and hearers was vital for the Reformation. In Luther's

visitations, he was appalled by the lack of education and knowledge of Christian doctrine among

the people. In the opening words to his preface to the Small Catechism, he writes:

The deplorable, miserable condition which I discovered lately when I, too, was a visitor, has forced and urged me to prepare [publish] this Catechism, or Christian doctrine, in this small, plain, simple form. Mercy! Good God! what manifold misery I beheld! The common people, especially in the villages, have no knowledge whatever of Christian doctrine, and, alas! many pastors are altogether incapable and incompetent to teach [so much so, that one is ashamed to speak of it]. The pastors were not teaching and the hearers were not learning. Luther felt very strongly about

solid Christian teaching and preaching. It was the biggest scandal among the churches that this

precious jewel was missing, and it hit at the very heart of the gospel. If the gospel is not

preached and taught rightly by called and authorized men, who will do it? It is true that the

Gospel can and should be taught in the home by parents who stand in God's stead (LC I, 108),133

and out of God's providence and grace He has allowed the church to survive even among

unfaithful preaching and teaching. But for Luther, as he expressed in the Smalcald Articles, the

negligence of the bishops to preach purely behoved the Lutherans to ordain suitable men to the

office without the papal bishops. Luther respected the office for this very reason, and this is why

he was in favour of frequent visitations from more learned teachers of the church. This is how he

132 Although the word “priest” is often avoided by Lutherans due to its link to the Latin word sacerdos, and the sacerdotal propitiatory sacrifices. Stephenson has noted that this term, used by German Lutherans for at least the first century after the Reformation, and still used by Scandinavian Lutherans as well as Anglicans, comes from a transliteration of the New Testament word presbyteros. John Stephenson. “Treatise 31 & 60: An Overlooked Treasure Trove in The Book of Concord.” December, 2004. ET “Reflections on the Holy Office of the Ministry for the Scandinavian Diaspora,” Logia XV, 1 (Epiphany 2006): 43-47. 133 Ihre Eltern an Gottes Statt Ecclesia Synthetica 65

saw the episcopal office, namely to teach the other preachers and congregations in the area.134

The office of the ministry is Christ's office whereby He calls us to faith through His Spirit and

Word.

Part III. Call and Ordination in the Lutheran Confessions The ecclesia synthetica informs us that both pastors and laity serve a role in calling a

pastor. The call is understood as coming from God, and it happens through the church, each

estate doing its part. After describing the new obedience, the Church and Sacraments, and

repentance, Melanchthon gives the shortest of all the articles (AC XIC): “No one should preach,

teach, or administer the sacraments unless he is rightly called (rite vocatus).”

In the Apology (XIV), Melanchthon shows that the point of departure from Rome was

not over the necessity of the call and ordination; rather, it was that Rome insisted on obedience to

the Papacy, and they were attacking the churches of the Reformation. Never was it questioned

whether ordination itself was or was not included in the rite vocatus of AC XIV. Ordination

remained a regular part of the entire process of calling pastors. Sometimes the term ordination

was used short-hand for the entire call (SA III, 10:3). The churches retain the right to elect and

ordain (Tr 66-67; SA III, 10) so that when ministers ordain other ministers in their churches, the

ordination is effective by divine right (factam iure divino ratam esse). The ministers are

specifically the ones who ordain, but the rest of the church has her role as well. Just as in the

ecclesia synthetica, the Confessions acknowledged the roles of both preachers and hearers in the

calling of pastors. In the Treatise, Melanchthon explains that historically, the people would elect

pastors and bishops, and then a bishop would confirm that call by the laying on of hands.

Ordination, Melanchthon explains, is “nothing else (nec aliud) than such a ratification (Tr 70).”

Ordination was no small thing, though. It was part of the participation of preachers and hearers

134 AE 40:269-73, Instructions for the Visitors of Parish Pastors (1528) Chapter Six: Ecclesia Synthetica – Lutheran Confessions 66 in a mediate call. If one claims that ordination is completely optional, then one strips the ecclesiastical estate of one of its essential roles in the church’s practice of calling ministers of the church. On the other hand, if one says that ordination is the only element of the call that really matters, one strips the right of the domestic estate in participating. The keys are given to both preachers and hearers, indeed to the whole church (Tr 68, 69). The right to examine is not treated by itself in the Lutheran Confessions; however, it would have been implied when the

Lutherans claimed the right by God to ordain suitable men (SA III, 10).

When a pastor is legitimately called through the church, both preachers and hearers, the unity of the church remains intact. The unity of the church was very important for the

Reformation; however, the Lutherans understood that unity only comes through the promises of

God in Christ. If we ignore these promises, we will inevitably suffer disunity, whether by heresy or power struggles. But when we keep the promises of God at the centre, we can clearly understand and appreciate sound ecclesiastical practice with the church walking together in unity of the Spirit. Ecclesia Synthetica 67

Conclusion: The term ecclesia synthetica did not appear very often after Hollaz' Examen, but the

nineteenth century dogmatician Heinrich Schmid revived the term in his Doctrinal Theology of

the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Schmid was a professor of theology at Erlangen, and his work

first appeared in 1843 as Dogmatik der Evangelisch Lutherischen Kirche.135 The project to

translate his work was started, among others, by both Charles Krauth Sr. and Jr. during the

gradual confessional movement among nineteenth-century American Lutheranism. The German

Lutherans in America were also not deprived of the concept, since C. F. W. Walther used Johann

Baier's Compendium Theologiae Positivae as the standard dogmatics text book for the LCMS.

Although he did not use the term ecclesia synthetica, Baier did use the term ecclesia collective,

which, as we have discussed, is the same thing.136

Some final observations concerning the ecclesia synthetica will demonstrate its worth in

modern discussions of the church and her fellowship. The term aside, the concept of the

synthetic or collective church has been vital for the issue of church fellowship. Marquart called

church fellowship the litmus test for how seriously one takes everything else.137 If a church body

is willing to declare fellowship with those who confess false doctrine, then one should wonder

how much importance that church body puts on pure doctrine. If the pure doctrine of the Gospel

and the right administration of the sacraments mark and identify a local church as orthodox and

unites the members of that parish, then these pure marks should likewise unite the church

collectively; the practice of unionism denies this truth.

The relationship between the church and her polity is crucial for the issue of church

fellowship. Although a synod is not the church in the proper sense, it certainly exists for the sake

135 Appendix of The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, pg. 4. 136 J. Baier. ed. C. F. W. Walther. Compendium Theologiae Positivae. Printed from 1686 edition by Missouri Synod in 1879. 137 Kurt Marquart. “The Issue of Church Fellowship and Unionism in the Missouri Synod and its Associated Churches.” Logia XII, 1 (Epiphany, 2003): 18-19. Conclusion 68

of the church and her fellowship. Pastors and theologians should gather to discuss doctrinal and

moral issues; how they gather and how often obviously vary. If congregations confess pure

doctrine together, it should follow that they organize seminaries together, participate in

ordinations together, and continue in mutual discussion of doctrine.138 The church collectively

organizes councils, synods, and polities, so councils and synods possess their authority a

posteriori and not a priori.139 While a pastor holds a conditional obedience to the organization

of the church polity as long as she maintains pure doctrine and practice, he moreover holds an

unconditional devotion to the office which God has instituted and to which God has called him.

Congregations cannot simply rely on membership in a synod for their orthodox integrity.

When it all boils down, membership in a synod does not sufficiently identify fellowship; doctrine

does. It is true that synods and councils should stand on doctrine, but doctrine is not some static

concept only meant for synodical or congregational constitutions and other ecclesiastical paper-

work. It is meant for preaching and teaching, and the members of the church cannot ignore its

preaching. It is the preaching of that doctrine and the administration of the sacraments to the

assembly that clearly and properly mark fellowship, and this is precisely because they clearly

and properly identify the church.

138 Despite Kolb and Wengert's politically correct translation of SA III, 4 as “mutual conversation and consolation of brothers and sisters,” it is not out of the question that this statement of Luther, per mutuum colloquium et consolationem fratrum refers to the discussion of doctrine among the teachers and preachers of the church. Kolb and Wengert suggest the possibility of it originating in the monastic practice of mutual confession. Robert Kolb, Timothy Wengert. The Book of Concord. Minneapolis: Fortress Pr, 2000. 319, n 128. Print. 139 Examen, 1325 Referenced by Schmid, 621 “Although some authority is a posteriori given to councils by the consent of churches existing throughout the entire world” (“the councils which are received by a majority of churches, are judged to possess such authority, that from them the doctrine of the true Church may be inferred not obscurely”), “yet, this is not infallible or free from danger of erring (for those who, when out of the council, are liable to mistake, remain the same even when assembled in a council; but teachers of the Church when out of the council are liable to mistake... Therefore...).”

Ecclesia Synthetica 69

Another significant feature of the ecclesia synthetica is the importance given to the family unit. The church does not dissolve the family as if it is some kind of Marxist society of classless individuals. What we hear, believe, and confess on Sunday morning should carry through to our family affairs and even civil affairs.

The Lutherans dogmaticians did not go to great pains to separate the government from the church; however, this is not merely a sign of those times and circumstances. All three estates are instituted by God. The tasks of church and state are distinct, but not necessarily at odds. The political theorists of recent centuries have tried to approach the principles of government from their circumstances where the government often collided with the church; however, the two estates often collide simply because the church is not of this world while governments are. This does not change the fact that God has ordained the political estate to rule and execute justice on wickedness. While we should never be surprised that the government clashes with the church, we do not merely categorize the political estate, and with it all civil affairs, as intrinsically opposed to or of no concern to the church. Therefore, although it may very well be advisable to keep the government out of the affairs of the church, we must recognise how the dogmaticians understood the civil estate before we judge them too harshly.

The ecclesia synthetica's encapsulation of the three hierarchical estates demonstrated that the right and left hand kingdoms, though distinct, are not completely separate. Such a misunderstanding of the two kingdoms as though they have nothing to do with one another will inevitably lead to antinomianism. The so called separation of church and state often becomes the excuse to separate church from all of society and even from family. Church becomes something only done on Sundays while family devotions are forgotten. Despite their “mission- mindedness,” how easy is it for many Christians to forget that their most crucial mission exists in their own homes? It starts with bringing their children to the waters of baptism, and it continues Conclusion 70 through teaching them God's word and bringing them to church, where God’s ministers feed them with the pure spiritual milk of His Word. Arbitrarily calling every Christian a minister not only depreciates the pastoral office, it also easily promotes a doctrine of vocation that overlooks the divinely instituted domestic office of parent, to whom God commands to teach their children

His Word (Deut 6:7; Eph 6:4).

Such a wide separation of the two kingdoms can lead to a chasm between not only the church and the family, but also between theology and social ethics. With a clean conscience, church-going Christians walk into voting booths to vote for candidates who sanction the murder of the unborn. The discussion of other social issues that immediately pertain to the domestic estate such as marriage, divorce, and procreation can easily be swept under the rug or brushed aside as “political issues” that have no business in the conversation of the church. Although the church and the civil realm are certainly distinct, they are not completely separated. The church must always be careful not to replace her proclamation of repentance and forgiveness with a kind of civil gospel of social justice; however, this does not mean that Christians do not need to think and act like Christians after they leave the pew on Sunday. The church’s proclamation speaks to the lives of the people who live in the world.

Going home after Divine Service on Sunday mornings is not leaving the kingdom of the right. Rather, the head of the household teaches his family God's word. The church is for the family, just as it was expressed by St. Peter on Pentecost (Acts 2:39): “For the promise is for you and for your children...” The importance of family also shines through in Paul's requirement that bishops be husbands of one wife and that they have control over their households (2 Tim 3:2, 4,

5). The church enjoys harmony when the domestic and ecclesiastical estates respect each other’s tasks. The church does not need merely to find a happy medium between the ecclesiastical and Ecclesia Synthetica 71

domestic estates. Rather, she needs to extol both estates as divine institutions. The two will

overlap constantly, as they should.

One final observation for this study is the fact that the church has life. She has life not

because she has found her own ways to survive. No, the church exists by Jesus' mandates and

promises. Christ commanded His disciples to teach and baptise (Mark 16:15; Matt 28:19, 20), to

forgive and retain sins (John 20:21-23), and to administer His Supper (Matt 26:26-29; Mark

14:22-24; Luke 22:19-21; 1 Cor 11:23-25). He promised to be with His church through this one

ministry (Matt 28:20) and that the gates of hell will not prevail against her (Matt 16:18).

Therefore, we must not neglect the preaching of pure doctrine, because the preaching office is

inseparable from the ascended Lord's promise to send His Holy Spirit (John 16:13; Acts 1:8; Eph

4:10-11). So when we think about the church, we should think about the third article of the

creed. This entire treatise has really been about the office and work of the Holy Spirit who

“calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth and keeps it with

Jesus Christ in the one true faith (SC II, 3).”

The theme of this study has been the church and her fellowship, so we must above all

remember how the Holy Spirit preserves the church's fellowship: through the preaching of

Christ. It is only when we remember this that we can truly appreciate the urgency of pure

doctrine and practice. A desire for church unity is a desire for pure doctrine. If the members of

the church cherish their unity with all other believers, it should follow that they would strive for

agreement in all articles of faith, praying as Luther prayed:

Thou holy Light, Guide divine, Oh, cause the Word of Life to shine! Teach us to know our God aright And call Him Father with delight. From every error keep us free; Let none but Christ our Master be That we in living faith abide, In Him, our Lord, with all our might confide. Hallelujah! Hallelujah!140

140 TLH, 224 Conclusion 72

Bibliography

John Aikin, et al. General Biography; or Lives, Critical and Historical, of the Most Eminent Persons of all Ages, Countries, Conditions, and Professions. London: 1813. VIII: 415-16. Print.

Kenneth Appold. Abraham Calov’s doctrine of vocation in its systematic context. Tϋbingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1998. Print.

J. Baier. ed. C. F. W. Walther. Compendium Theologiae Positivae. Printed from 1686 edition by Missouri Synod in 1879. Print.

F. Bente. Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books. Concordia Triglotta. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 1921. Print

______. Triglota Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran church. German-English- Latin.. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921. Print.

Geoffrey Boyle. "Confessional, Confessing, or Both? The Ecclesiology of Hermann Sasse." Lutheran Theological Review. 24. (2012): 47-74. Print.

Carl Braaten. Justification: The Article by Which the Church Stands or Falls. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. 1990. Print.

Rudolf Bultmann. “Ἀναγινώσκω.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Gerhard Kittel, ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing. 1964. I:343. Print.

Matthew Bunson. Encyclopedia of Catholic History. Hungtingtion, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Inc. 1995. Print.

Martin Chemnitz. Ministry Word and Sacraments: Enchiridion. Translated by Luther Pollot. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 1981. Print.

Martin Chemnitz. The Examination of the Council of Trent. Translated by Fred Kramer. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 1978. II. Print.

Martin Chemnitz. The Lord’s Supper. Translated by J.A.O. Preus II. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Pub., 1979. Print.

Johann Gerhard. Loci Theologici, Book 5, Loc 22 De Ecclesia. http://books.google.ca/books?id=Wi3gASvI8B8C&printsec=titlepage&redir_esc=y#v=onepage &q&f=false

Paul Haffner. Mystery of the church. Leominster: Gracewing. 2007. Print.

David Hollaz. Examen Theologicum Acroamaticum. Leipzig: 1707. Print.

Robert Kolb, Timothy Wengert. The Book of Concord. Minneapolis: Fortress Pr, 2000. Print.

J. B. Lightfoot, ed. The Apostolic Fathers. London: McMillan and Co. 1890. Print. Bibliography 73

Erwin Lueker. Lutheran Cyclopedia. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 1954. 876. Print.

Martin Luther, “Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, 1528,” in Luther’s Works, American Edition (55 vols.; ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann; Philadelphia; Muehlenberg and Fortress, and St. Louis: Concordia, 1955-86), 37:364. Print.

______, “Instructions for the Visitors of Parish Pastors, 1528,” in Luther’s Works, American Edition (55 vols.; ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann; Philadelphia; Muehlenberg and Fortress, and St. Louis: Concordia, 1955-86), 40:269-73. Print.

______, “Lectures on Galatians, 1535,” in Luther’s Works, American Edition (55 vols.; ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann; Philadelphia; Muehlenberg and Fortress, and St. Louis: Concordia, 1955-86), 26:169. Print.

______. Sola Decalogus Est Aeternus. Edited and Translated by Holger Sonntag. Minneapolis: Lutheran Press. 2008. Print.

Kurt Marquart. Robert Preus, ed. Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics. The Church and Her Fellowship, Ministry, and Governance. Fort Wayne: The International Foundation for Lutheran Confessional Research. 1990. Print.

______. “The Issue of Church Fellowship and Unionism in the Missouri Synod and its Associated Churches.” Logia XII, 1 (Epiphany, 2003): 18-19. Print.

Philip Melanchthon. Loci Communes (1543). translated by J. A. O. Preus II. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 1992. Print.

Philipp Melanchthon. Loci. 1543. De Ecclesia, loc XII. http://books.google.ca/books?id=ghw8AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=loci+communes+ melanchthon&source=bl&ots=ezmINa9_n0&sig=rlrNWXly51gkcqxFN- 8uk5VHOp0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eV4ZUMiYGqSK0QGMrICAAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q= de%20ecclesia&f=false

Terence Nichols. That All May Be One: Hierarchy and Participation in the church. Collegevill, MN: Liturgical Press. 1997. Print.

Katherine O'Brien O'Keeffe, ed. Andy Orchard, ed. Latin Learning and English Lore: Studies in Anglo- Saxon Literature for Michael Lapidge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2005. I. Print.

Arthur Carl Piepkorn. “The Sacred Ministry and Holy Ordination in the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church.” Concordia Theological Monthly. (Sep, 1969). XL, 8. Print.

Robert Preus. “The Basis for Concord.” Theologians Convocation: Formula of Concord. (1977): 28-30. Web. 30 Jul. 2012. .

______Lecture notes, Justification as Taught by Post-Reformation Lutheran Theologians. March 26th, 1982. CLTS, St. Catharines, ON. Print.

______. The Doctrine of the Call in the Confessions and in Lutheran Orthodoxy. Church and Ministry Today. St. Louis: Luther Academy. 2001. 4. Print. Ecclesia Synthetica 74

______. The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 1970. I. Print.

Rolf Preus. Christ For Us, "The Relationship between the Justification of the Sinner before God and the Practice of Church Fellowship." Last modified 2007. Accessed July 12, 2012. http://christforus.org/Papers/Content/JustificationAndChurchFellowship.html.

Lars Qualben. A History of the Christian church. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons. 1933. Print.

J. A. Quenstedt. Antiquitates biblicae et ecclesiasticae, De Concilis, 1688. Print.

______. The Church. Translated by Luther Polloet from the 3rd edition, 1696, of Theologia Didactico Polemica, Part IV, Chapter XV: De ecclesia. Molone, TX: Repristination Press. Print.

______. "Theologica Didactico-Polemica (1715 edition)." Lutheran Legacy. 2007. Web. 26 Feb 2012. .

Heinrich Schmid. The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Edition 5. Translated by Charles Hay, and Henry Jacobs. Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society. 1876. Print.

Nicolai Selnecceri. Paedagogia Christiana, year 1577. Volume 2. http://books.google.ca/books?id=biE8AAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1- PA108&dq=Nikolaus+Selnecker,+Paedagogia+Christiana,+Volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ku-- T-SyNrGJ6wHk_qS9Cg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

John M’Clintock and James Strong. Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. New York: Harper & Brothers. 1880. 4:301. Print.

"Statements of Beliefs." WELS. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, 2010. Web. 1 May 2010..

John Stephenson. “The Holy Eucharist: At the Center or Periphery of the Church's Life in Luther's Thinking?” A Lively Legacy: Essays in Honor of Robert Preus. Ed. Kurt Marquart, Ed. John Stephenson and Ed. Bjarne Teigen. Fort Wayne: Concordia Theological Seminary, 1985. 158. Print.

______. The Lord's Supper. Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics volume XII. Editor John Stephenson. Northvill, SD: Luther Academy. 2003. Print.

______. “Treatise 31 & 60: An Overlooked Treasure Trove in The Book of Concord.” December, 2004. ET “Reflections on the Holy Office of the Ministry for the Scandinavian Diaspora,” Logia XV, 1 (Epiphany 2006): 43-47. Print.

The Synodical Conference. The Lutheran Hymnal. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1941. Print.

Daniel B. Wallace. Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1996. Print.

C. F. W. Walther. Confessional Subscription; presented at the fourth Western District Convention,Trinity Lutheran Church, St. Louis, MO, April 15, 1858. Essays for the Church, C. F. W. Walther. St. Louis: Concordia Pub House. 1992. Print. Bibliography 75

______. "Sermon at the Installation of Two College Professors." Lutheran Theology Web Site. David J. Webber, n.d. Web. 2 Aug 12. http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.waltherinstallation.html

Gustave Weigel. Catholic Theology in Dialogue. New York: Harper and Row. 1960. Print.

N.T. Wright. Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. 2009. pg. Print.

Bibles

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2005. Print. Nestle, Erwin, Barbara Aland, and Kurt Aland, eds. Greek-English New Testament, Nestle Aland. 11th ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2008. Print.