028. Chapter 24: Concerning the Church
------------ CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR ------------ Concerning the Church
After having briefly presented to you the nature of the covenant of grace, we promised to discuss three subjects more extensively: 1) the Surety of the covenant; 2) the partakers of the covenant, who constitute the church; and 3) the ways whereby the Lord Jesus leads His partakers of this covenant to glory, or the benefits of which the Lord makes them partakers. The first subject we have already discussed in chapters 17-23, and we will now proceed to discuss the second subject: the partakers of the covenant. When considered together, they are referred to as the church or congregation. The Church: Known from the Word of God
First, it is necessary to state clearly and succinctly what the church is in her essential nature, in order that everyone may know which congregation he ought to join. They who belong to the true church ought to rejoice, exclaiming, “Christ is here!” for Christ only dwells in the true church. Only there, by His Spirit, is He engaged in the work of conversion, consolation, and sanctification. “For there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore” (Psalms 133:3).
Therefore one must search the Word of God to discern which congregation constitutes the church. I repeat, search the Word, for the veracity of God’s Word is not determined by the church, even though she preserves, protects, and proclaims the Word entrusted to her (Romans 3:2), and thus is called “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). The true church, however, is identified by the Word of God, for she is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 2:20). Scripture also teaches that one must first be instructed before one can be admitted to the sacraments, that is, be admitted into the church community. This is confirmed in the following texts: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them” (Matthew 28:19); “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41); “Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus ... and the eunuch said ... what doth hinder me to be baptized” (Acts 8:35-36).
Since there are so many churches which call themselves the Christian church, we are at present all the more obligated to search the Word of God in order to ascertain which is the true church, and which congregation holds to the truth. He who therefore earnestly searches God’s Word by either reading it, hearing it read, or hearing it preached, and who perseveringly, humbly, and heartily prays to be led into the truth, may expect that the Lord will bring him to the true church. If he is already in the true church, he may also expect that the Lord, to his joy, will assure him of this.
Secondly, the word “church” occurs seventy-seven times in the King James Version of the Bible. [Note: à Brakel states that “kerk,” which we translate as “church” is not found in Scripture. This is true in the Statenvertaling, but not in the KJV; hence we revised the paragraph. Whenever the KJV uses “church,” the Statenvertaling uses “gemeente,” which is the equivalent of “congregation.”] It is a transliteration of the Greek word kuriake, of which “church” is the abbreviated, anglicized form. It means, “that which belongs to the Lord.” One will thus find the word kuriako in the phrase “the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20), and the word kuriake in the phrase “the day of the Lord.” This is likewise true for the church of the Lord, that is, the congregation. The word congregation is generally used in the Old Testament and church in the New Testament, both of which are expressed by various words in the original languages, such as qahal. “Thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints èdah” (Psalms 89:5); “... their congregation ekklesia shall be established before Me” (Jeremiah 30:20); “... when ye come together in the church” (1 Corinthians 11:18). The word synagogé is not translated as “congregation,” but as “gathering.” It sometimes refers to the building in which the congregation gathers, and at other times to the congregation itself which gathers there, be they Jews or Christians. “For if there come unto your assembly (synagogé),” etc. (James 2:2). These words in their original meaning refer to an orderly gathering of people which has been summoned together, in contrast to a disorderly multitude of people. In our language “congregation” or “church” refers to the mutual fellowship of those who have been summoned together and gather with Christ as their Head. In our treatment of this subject, we neither understand the word “church” to refer to a house or building in which the congregation gathers to hear the Word of God and use the sacraments, nor to the elders of the church, or consistory as representatives of the church, such as in Matthew 18:17, where we read, “ ... tell it unto the church.” Rather, we understand by “church” the congregation of the people.
We wish to establish at the outset that there are not two or more churches, but only one Christian church. This one church we now wish to consider together. This one church is made up of all the elect who have been called from the beginning of the world and are yet to be called until the end of the world. They are Christ’s peculiar people (Titus 2:14). “To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven” (Hebrews 12:23); “... Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it” (Ephesians 5:25). This one congregation is partially in heaven, and is called the church triumphant, to which reference is made in Revelation 7:9-16. This, however, is not the subject of discussion here. This congregation exists also partially upon earth and is called the church militant. It is the church militant which is the subject of this chapter. One can view this church either in its entirety, dispersed throughout the entire world, or as individual congregations in a nation, city, or village. As such one can refer to the church of England, of the Netherlands, or of Rotterdam.
Clarification of the Invisible/Visible Church Distinction This one church in its militant state upon earth manifests itself at times more openly in her public assemblies, confession, and holiness. She is then called the visible church. At other times she is more hidden from the eyes of the world by prevailing errors, ungodliness, or persecutions. Then she is referred to as the invisible church (Revelation 12:14). This militant church can be viewed either in her internal, spiritual frame, or in her public gatherings. Her internal, spiritual frame, which consists of faith, a mystical union with Christ, and the spiritual life of the soul, is invisible and cannot be observed with the physical eye. The gatherings where God’s Word is heard and the sacraments are used, as well as her public profession in times of prosperity, are public and visible. Thus, in some respects the church is visible, and in some respects invisible. However, one may not divide the church into a visible and invisible church. One and the same person is invisible as far as the soul, will, intellect, and affections are concerned, and he is visible as far as his body and motions are concerned. As one person cannot be divided into an invisible and a visible person, one may not divide the church into a visible and invisible church, for then it would seem as if there were two churches, each being a different church.
One may also not divide the church into a visible and invisible church as far as the members themselves are concerned, as if the one had different members from the other. Then all the elect, that is, those who truly have been called and converted, would mentally be separated from all others in the church and constitute the invisible church, whereas converted and unconverted together, gathering in one church, and having only in common the external call, historical faith, confession of the truth, and the external use of the sacraments, would constitute the visible church. This is, in our opinion, an erroneous view, generating many confusing thoughts and expressions concerning the church. When a speaker or writer refers to the church, one will then be in doubt as to whether he is speaking of the so-called invisible or visible church.
We maintain that one may not separate the visible and invisible church in such a manner, for, first, I do not find that the terms visible and invisible church are used in God’s Word with that connotation, nor do I find the description of such a distinction.
Secondly, this distinction is founded upon a false supposition -- as if the unconverted are truly members of the church with equal right, that is, in its external and visible gathering, and therefore have a right to use the sacraments, something which we deny expressly below. If the unconverted are not members of the church, even when she is visible, the aforementioned distinction is of necessity irrelevant.
Thirdly, such a distinction infers the existence of two churches which are essentially different from each other. From a spiritual perspective true believers constitute the church by reason of a true, spiritual, and believing union with Christ and with each other. If the unconverted, together with the converted would constitute a church on the basis of equal rights, this would have to be of an essentially different nature, whereby members of distinctly different natures would constitute one body and one church, even though the unconverted are not spiritually united to Christ and believers. If there are two essential manifestations, there must also be two essentially different bodies and churches, whereas we confess that there is but one church.
Fourthly, if in this respect there were a visible and an invisible church, one consisting only of true believers (due to a spiritual union) and one consisting of converted and unconverted together by way of an external union, then believers would simultaneously belong to two churches, one being invisible and the other visible. They would thus be in one church to which salvation is not promised, and in another to which salvation is promised. To hold such a view is as absurd as to propose the existence of two churches.
Objection #1: There is a twofold calling, the one being internal and the other external. There is also a twofold faith: a saving, and a historical or temporal faith. There is a twofold holiness, the one being external and the other in truth, and there is a twofold participation of benefits, the one being external and the other an internal participation in the real benefits. Consequently, there is also an external and internal church.
Answer: (1) From this proposition it must be concluded that there are two churches, which is contrary to the Bible. (2) The external call, historical or temporal faith, external holiness, and external participation in external privileges, do not constitute true membership of the church, which is spiritual in nature. Consequently, such a church cannot be the true church of Christ.
Objection #2: We do not think of two churches when we speak of an external or visible church, and of an internal or invisible church. Rather, we understand this to refer to a twofold perspective of the same church.
Answer: (1) If one maintains that the one church consists of different members from the other, there being a different manner of being united to her, one is not proposing that there are two aspects of the same church. Rather, it is only being indicated that there are two essentially different churches, with two types of members essentially different in nature which make up the church, and two ways whereby one can be united to her.
(2) The external relationship neither makes one a true member of the church, nor constitutes an external church, just as an external relationship with a corporation or business does not make one a true member and partner of it. It also does not cause the corporation or business to be viewed in a different perspective.
(3) No external relationship to the church gives the unconverted the right to use the sacraments, and thus unconverted and converted together cannot constitute an external church. There is no true church of Christ unless all who are members of it have a right to partake of the sacraments.
(4) If one understands the differentiation between the external and internal church to be but a twofold view and perspective of one and the same church, and does not hold to a twofold membership relationship, all is well and our proposition is confirmed: The differentiation between an external and internal church on the basis of membership and relationship is not good. One and the same church, consisting of true believers only, can either be viewed in reference to her internal spiritual condition, or in reference to her external manifestation in the world. This is what we have stated. From that which has been said it is now evident in what manner we view the church in this treatise: We speak of a church consisting of true believers only, which on earth wars against her enemies and for the faith, being at times more and at times less visible to the human eye. As far as her internal, spiritual frame is concerned, she is invisible; but she is visible in reference to her public assemblies and members. As we shall now consider the matter itself, we shall first give a description of the church, and subsequently give an explanation of all her elements. The Church Defined The church is a holy, catholic, Christian congregation, consisting of true believers only, who by the Holy Spirit have been called through the Word of God, are separate from the world, and are united to their Head and each other with a spiritual bond, and thus are united in one spiritual body. All of this is manifested by a true confession of Christ and of His truth, and in striving against their and Christ’s enemies, doing battle with spiritual weapons under the command of their Head Jesus Christ to the glory of God and their salvation. Let us now consider the individual elements of this description. The church is first of all a congregation. One individual person does not constitute a church or a congregation. The church is referred to as a house, “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house” (1 Peter 2:9); as a flock, “... and there shall be one fold, and one Shepherd” (John 10:16); as a body, “... and gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, which is His body” (Ephesians 1:22-23); as a nation, “But ye are ... an holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9); and as a kingdom, “... who hath called you unto His kingdom” (1 Thessalonians 2:12). However, one stone does not constitute a house, one sheep does not constitute a flock, one member is not a body, one person is not a nation, one person is not a kingdom -- and thus also one pope does not constitute a church, which papists claim to be the case. The True Church: A Congregation of True Believers The church is a congregation of true believers. The unconverted, even though they have made confession of faith, have been accepted into the fellowship of the church, live without offense, and have been admitted to the use of the sacraments, the unconverted, I repeat, are not true members of the church. This is so whether the church is viewed in her internal, spiritual condition or in her public gatherings whereby she manifests herself externally to the world. The unconverted are not members of the external, visible church. Believers only constitute the true church. They alone are members of the church, regardless of how one views them. This is clearly stated in articles 27-29 of the Belgic Confession of Faith, which read as follows:
Article 27
We believe and profess one catholic or universal Church, which is a holy congregation of true Christian believers, all expecting their salvation in Jesus Christ, being washed by His blood, sanctified and sealed by the Holy Ghost. This Church hath been from the beginning of the world and will be to the end thereof; which is evident from this, that Christ is an eternal King, which, without subjects He cannot be. And this holy Church is preserved or supported by God against the rage of the whole world; though she sometimes (for a while) appears very small, and in the eyes of men, to be reduced to nothing, as during the perilous reign of Ahab when nevertheless the Lord reserved unto him seven thousand men, who had not bowed their knees to Baal. Furthermore, this holy Church is not confined, bound, or limited to a certain place or to certain persons, but is spread and dispersed over the whole world; and yet is joined and united with heart and will, by the power of faith, in one and the same spirit.
Article 28
We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved and out of it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw himself, to live in a separate state from it; but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it, maintaining the unity of the Church, submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ; and as mutual members of the same body, serving to the edification of the brethren, according to the talents God has given them. And that this may be the more effectually observed, it is the duty of all believers, according to the Word of God, to separate themselves from those who do not belong to the Church, and to join themselves to this congregation, wheresoever God hath established it, even though the magistrates and edicts of princes be against it; yea, though they should suffer death or any other corporal punishment.
Therefore all those, who separate themselves from the same, or do not join themselves to it, act contrary to the ordinance of God.
Article 29
We believe, that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects who call themselves the Church.
It is first of all evident that the Belgic Confession of Faith makes no mention of an invisible church which would consist, by way of mental deduction, of none but believers only, in distinction from a visible church which would consist of both converted and unconverted. This we have rejected earlier. Rather, it speaks of a church, existing and gathered upon earth, which is more or less visible. Anyone who attentively examines the words of the confession will readily discern this, for it makes mention of that church 1) in which hypocrites are to be found (Article 29), 2) to which one ought to join himself, “wheresoever God hath established it,” subjecting oneself to its instruction and discipline (Article 28), 3) against which are magistrates and the edicts of princes, and the joining of which could result in death or any other corporal punishment during times of persecution (Article 28), and 4) which one can distinguish from other sects. All of this can only be applicable to the visible church as she gathers to hear God’s Word and use the sacraments.
Secondly, the confession states that this church, which is more or less visible, consists only of true believers, when 1) it describes the church as “a holy congregation of true Christian believers, all expecting their salvation in Jesus Christ, being washed by His blood, sanctified and sealed by the Holy Ghost” (Article 27), 2) it declares that “hypocrites, who are mixed in the church with the good, yet are not of the church, though externally in it” (Article 29). This confirms the conviction of the Reformed church that only believers are members of the church, while the unconverted are not members of the church, though they be externally in it.
Objection: The confession speaks of that church outside of which there is no salvation. Salvation can, however, be obtained outside of the visible and external church. Many are saved, even though they are neither baptized nor partake of the Lord’s Supper -- yes, who are as yet in the Roman Catholic Church. The confession therefore speaks of the invisible church, which consists of believers only, and thus not of the visible church.
Answer: (1) At the time of the Reformation, when there was fierce persecution, many did not dare join themselves to the congregations of believers, thus pretending (as many still do) that salvation can be obtained in every religion. This the confession here refutes.
(2) It is an obvious truth that there is no salvation outside of the church; he who does not have the church as his mother, does not have God as His Father, for the church alone has the truth and preaches the truth, without which no one can be converted and saved.
(3) The confession does not state that no one can be saved unless they have been accepted as a member, are baptized, and attend the Lord’s Supper, but rather that apart from the church there is no salvation, and that outside of her neither the way of salvation is taught nor the means unto salvation are to be found.
(4) Unbaptized converted persons are saved by means of the church, which puts God’s Word at their disposal and proclaims that Word to them. If someone from the realm of popery is converted, this does not occur by way of papal doctrine, but by the Word of truth which the papacy has still allowed to remain in the church.
We have thus demonstrated that the Belgic Confession of Faith declares that only true believers are members of the church, and that the unconverted within the church are not members. The truth of the aforesaid is established by the following arguments: First, an external covenant between God and man, of which the unconverted would be partakers, has not been established either in the Old or New Testament. Consequently, there is also no external church of which unconverted persons are members. The first proposition has been proven exhaustively in chapter 16; the second proposition is then certain, since the church is founded upon the covenant. As the covenant is, so is the church.
Secondly, all true members of the church are entitled to the use of the sacraments, whereby the benefits of the covenant are sealed to them. The bread and wine are the communion of the body and blood of Christ, which is broken and shed for the forgiveness of sins (cf. Romans 4:11; 1 Corinthians 10:16; Matthew 26:26-28). The unconverted, however, have no right to use the sacraments, since they have neither part nor lot in the sealed benefits, and they thus eat and drink judgment to themselves. The Form for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper states: “All these, while they continue in such sins, shall abstain from this meat (which Christ hath ordained only for the faithful), lest their judgment and condemnation be made the heavier.” Thus, the unconverted are not members of the church.
Thirdly, the very essence of the church, which gathers in an external form, is union with Christ and each other by the Holy Spirit. “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body ... and have been all made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13). The Form for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper speaks of this when it quotes 1 Corinthians 10:17, “For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” It further states, “that we by the same Spirit (which dwelleth in Christ as in the head, and in us as His members), might have true communion with Him; ... besides, that we by this same Spirit may also be united as members of one body in true brotherly love.” The unconverted, however, do not have this Spirit. “These be they ... sensual, having not the Spirit” (Jude 1:19). Since the unconverted do not have the Spirit, they are none of Christ (Romans 8:9). Thus, they are no members of the church, for her members are mutually united by the Spirit and are Christ’s.
Fourthly, the name “church” is not applicable to the unconverted. The church is called, “... the house of God” (1 Timothy 3:15); a spiritual house, built up of lively stones (1 Peter 2:5); the fold of Christ (John 10:16); “... the kingdom of His dear Son” (Colossians 1:13); “the congregation of the saints” (Psalms 89:5); “... the assembly of the upright” (Psalms 111:1). The apostle, when writing to the congregation, denominates them as those “that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints” (1 Corinthians 1:2); “holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling” (Hebrews 3:1). All of this, however, cannot be stated concerning the unconverted. Thus, they do not belong to the church, and consequently are not members of her.
Fifthly, this is also evident in 1 John 2:19 : “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.” Those who went out were the unconverted, who prior to their departure were in the church but nevertheless did not belong to the church. Thus, the unconverted, even though they are in the church, are not of the church, and therefore are no members of her.
Objections Answered Concerning Membership in the True Church
Objection #1: It is evident that a large multitude of unconverted persons associate with the church, are accepted as her members, remain members there, and partake of the sacraments. Therefore they are members of the church indeed.
Answer: (1) It is one thing to associate with the church and to be accepted as members, and another thing to be true members. The latter does not proceed from the first, for the acceptance of men as members is performed by men, who see only what is before their eyes and cannot judge according to the heart, leaving this to Him who knows the hearts. Regeneration or the probability of regeneration has not been established as a rule by which the elders of the church accept members. Rather, they are judged by their confession of the truth and their response to this truth, and by the manifestation of a life which does not contradict their confession. The rest is left to them and to the Lord.
(2) It is one thing to join the church externally, and it is another thing to speak of an external church. Even though they are externally in the church, this does not mean that there is an external church of which they are bona fide members. Membership in an external church to which the promise of salvation is not annexed is not their objective, but rather a church as being a fellowship within which they may be saved. To this church they apply themselves, but only externally, and not in truth with a converted and believing heart. Therefore they are no members, even though men view them as such externally. They are thus within the church as a poisonous fruit which is attached to a good tree with good fruits. They are therefore within the church as strangers, who for some time dwell in a house, but whom no one deems to be family members. Because of this external association with the church there is also an external relationship to the Lord Jesus as King of His church, as well as her true members, and they enjoy the external privileges of the church. Their entrance into the church, and the church’s acceptance of them does not make them true members of the church. Such can only come about by faith and repentance.
Objection #2: On a threshing floor both wheat and chaff are to be found. The church is the threshing floor, and both chaff and wheat are in an identical relationship to the threshing floor. In like manner the unconverted and the converted belong to the same church.
Answer: There is no argument over the fact that both good and evil men are to be found in the church. We are not proposing, however, the chaff to be a “member” of the threshing floor, that is, the church. Chaff is present on the threshing floor as chaff and not as wheat. All who are in the church are not therefore of the church.
Objection #3: Consider Matthew 13:24-25
Answer: The field does not represent the church, but the world (vs. 38), upon which both good and evil men reside. The fish net which gathers all fish, is examined by the fishermen, and only the good fish are placed in the barrels. One must keep the objective of the parable in view, which is not to show who are true members of the church, but what the end will be of the good and the evil. This passage is therefore not applicable here.
Objection #4: One could object by referring to 2 Timothy 2:20 : “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.” The house is the church, and the vessels are the members of the church. Among these members are also the unconverted, who are referred to as vessels of dishonor.
Answer: (1) The vessels in a house are not household members. Likewise the vessels of dishonor -- the unconverted -- are not members; they do not truly belong to the household.
(2) Again, one should not become entangled in details, but take note of the objective, which is to demonstrate who are the good and the evil within the church, a fact we readily admit. Not one word is mentioned here, however, whether or not they are true members of the church. Even if they are in the church, they are not therefore of the church.
Objection #5: If one maintains that only the converted are members of the church, one proposes that there is a pure church upon earth, which is contrary to the Bible and experience.
Answer: (1) True believers themselves are still subject to many impurities, and are far from being perfect. (2) By maintaining that only true believers are members of the church, we do not claim that there are no unconverted in the congregation, but that they are not present as true members there. There neither has been nor will ever be a church upon earth in which there are no unconverted, that is, those who merely travel along; yes, the latter are generally in the majority. There is a significant difference between being in the church, and being of the church.
Objection #6: If only the truly converted are true members of the church, the true church which we need to identify is not recognizable, since one cannot be certain of the conversion of others.
Answer: One ought not to identify the church by regeneration, but by the true doctrine, and the sanctification of the confessing members conjoined with this true doctrine. These two are identifiable, and wherever these two are present, the true church is to be found. Whether someone possesses these two in truth or in pretense is a personal matter, however, and is not to be a distinguishing mark for the church for others.
It thus remains certain that only true believers who congregate upon earth are members of the church, it being more or less visible. The unconverted are therefore not members of the church, though they be externally in her. The Characteristics of the Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Christian
We have thus observed that the church is a congregation -- a congregation consisting of true believers. We shall now proceed with further analysis of the description previously given, and present the characteristics of the church; she is one, holy, catholic, and Christian.
First of all the church is one. This does not refer to locality, she being dispersed to many places upon earth, consisting of many individual churches -- and thus not limited or bound to one particular place, be it Jerusalem, Rome, or any other locality. Her oneness does not relate to her external manifestation in the world, for she is like the moon which increases and decreases. Sometimes she manifests herself with more luster than at other times; sometimes she is more dispersed, and at other times occupies much less territory. The church is one, however, in nature and essence, being identical at all times and in all places, wherever that may be. She is one in reference to the same doctrine of immutable truth, and to the same faith, Spirit, and holiness. This is confirmed in Holy Writ. “My dove, My undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother” (Song of Solomon 6:9); “... and there shall be one fold, and one Shepherd” (John 10:16); “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Ephesians 4:4-6). This unity is manifested when she assembles to hear the Word of God, in her use of the holy sacraments, in her separating from all other assemblies which do not have pure doctrine, and in barring entrance to and expelling all with whom she differs in doctrine. “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed!” (2 John 1:10).
Secondly, the church is a holy gathering. She is denominated as such. “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9); “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling” (Hebrews 3:1). In the salutations to the congregations unto whom the apostle Paul wrote his letters, he calls them saints (cf. Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:2). As the church, from Adam to the day of judgment, has at all times been one, she will likewise be holy at all times.
One ought not to be of the opinion that the holiness of the Old Testament church was but a typical holiness, a depiction of the true holiness of the New Testament, consisting only in separation from other nations, in washings, in abstinence from unclean and the use of clean food, etc. Rather, true regeneration and sanctification were a reality in the Old as well as in the New Testament church.
(1) Peter calls the prophets holy men of God (2 Peter 1:21). (2) In the Old Testament they had true faith in the Messiah (cf. Psalms 16:10; 2 Corinthians 4:13). Paul gives an account of an entire listing of believers from the Old Testament in Hebrews 11:1-40. Where there is true faith, however, there will also be true holiness, for faith worketh by love (Galatians 5:6), which is the fulfillment of the law.
(3) Believers in the Old Testament were exercised as far as true sanctification is concerned; they prayed for strength and were engaged in spiritual warfare and in ordering their life according to the Lord’s commandments (cf. Psalms 51:12; Psalms 43:3-4; Psalms 119:1-176 in its entirety).
(4) The uncircumcised in heart (as far as they themselves were concerned) were no less permitted to come into God’s house than were the uncircumcised in the flesh. “No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My sanctuary” (Ezekiel 44:9).
(5) Those ceremonial cleansings were meant for them, and not merely given to typify the true holiness which people would have in the New Testament. We may still profit from these ceremonial cleansings, and by them be stirred up to internal and external holiness. They were, however, primarily intended for the believers of the Old Testament, pointing them to their pollution and directing them to the Messiah, in order to be cleansed in His blood. These ceremonial cleansings obligated and exhorted them to true purity, both internally and externally, to cleanse them “from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1).
Objection #1: This contradicts what Paul states in Hebrews 9:9-10
Answer: This text does not contradict what has been said. (1) It does not state that they had but ceremonial holiness. (2) The text states that all these things in and of themselves did not constitute true holiness, which we readily admit. Just as at present external church attendance, the water of baptism, the bread of the Lord’s Supper, and the external use of the sacraments do not constitute true holiness; both then and now these external matters must by faith be united to Christ Himself.
(3) This text does state that these things pointed and led them to Christ, but not that these things were examples, typifying the true holiness which the church of the New Testament would have. In calling the church holy we do not refer merely to her separation from all assemblies other than the church, but to her belonging to God. It also does not only refer to the imputed holiness which the church has in Christ; rather, the reference is primarily to inherent holiness and godliness. As such the church is holy 1) because she consists of truly converted and believing members only, 2) because only there they are instructed concerning and exhorted to true holiness, 3) and because there true holiness is to be found, manifesting itself before the eyes of all who are able to distinguish true holiness from the counterfeit holiness which may manifest itself in other assemblies. This is not to suggest that the church is pure and perfect, for all her members have but a small beginning of this holiness and still have much corruption within themselves. Furthermore, there are many in the church who are unconverted and thus are not true members of the church. There are always ungodly individuals in the church -- chaff together with the kernels, and tares among the wheat. Consider the church from Adam to Christ and you will discover that God was not pleased with most of our fathers (1 Corinthians 10:5). During the time of Christ the Jewish church was very corrupt. Even baptized disciples turned away from Christ in multitudes (John 6:66). Paul declared that the congregation in Corinth was carnal (1 Corinthians 3:3), fornication being practiced among her (1 Corinthians 5:1). Some attended the Lord’s Supper while drunk (1 Corinthians 11:21), and some did not have knowledge of God (1 Corinthians 15:34). In the congregation of Galatia there were such who should have been excommunicated but remained in the congregation (Galatians 5:12). The apostle Paul declared of many in the church, “For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s” (Php 2:21). Jude said concerning the church, “For there are certain men crept in unawares ... ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ ... for they have gone in the way of Cain. ... These are spots in your feasts of charity ... clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead ... raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars” (Jude 1:4
Secondly, the congregation of the New Testament is called universal in distinction from the church of the Old Testament. The church was then limited to one nation: the seed of Abraham. If someone from another nation became a true believer, he would be incorporated into the nation of Israel and be called a Jewish proselyte. That church was limited to Canaan and the seat of its religion was in Jerusalem. In the New Testament, however, the church is catholic, that is, universal as far as locality, nationality, and time is concerned. She is now dispersed over the entire world, and is found now here and then there. She consists of various nations, and it is immaterial whether one is a Jew or a Gentile. She will never cease to exist, but will endure until the coming of Christ on the day of judgment.
Thirdly, the church is universal as far as doctrine is concerned, which always has been and will be the same. The external practice of religion was once and for all changed by Christ, for prior to the advent of Christ, it was practiced by way of shadows which gave instruction concerning Christ. After Christ the external practice of religion was without shadows, consisting only in Holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, along with water, bread, and wine, as signs and seals of the covenant of grace -- all ratified by the blood of Christ. The fourth characteristic of the church is that she is Christian, being thus called: (1) after Christ, who is the singular and only Head of the church. “Christ is the Head of the church: and He is the Saviour of the body” (Ephesians 5:23). Christ is King of His church. “Yet have I set My King upon My holy hill of Zion” (Psalms 2:6). (Having extensively demonstrated in the foregoing that Christ is the King of His Church, we shall not discuss His headship over the church any further here.) Christ is the Bridegroom of the church, she being continually presented as the bride in the entire Song of Songs. Consider also John 3:29, “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom.” As Eve was called Manninne after the man -- and every woman is named after the man -- the church likewise is called “Christian” after Christ, and thus each believer is called a Christian (Acts 11:26). “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian” (Acts 26:28); “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian” (1 Peter 4:16).
(2) She is named “Christian” because she alone embraces the doctrine of Christ, and the life of Christ manifests itself to some degree in her life. “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection” (Hebrews 6:1); “He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 1:9); “But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16). As the church has the doctrine of Christ, she likewise gives expression to His life to some degree. “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1); “... leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps” (1 Peter 2:21).
Many assemblies conceal their errors by the use of the name “Christian.” To distinguish these from each other, it has been determined by divine providence that each assembly would be called by a specific name, be it that they call themselves by this name, or that others call them such as an expression of rebuke, which generally was the case with those who initially propagated error. Thus, Papists are called after their head, the pope, or Roman Catholics after the city of Rome where his residence is and from where he propagates his errors. Mennonites[Note: Hereafter referred to as Anabaptists.] (Anabaptists) are named after Menno Simons, an expelled monk from Witmarsum in Friesland, the Netherlands. Arminians are named after Arminius, the deposed professor of the university of Leiden, Socinians after Socinus, and Lutherans after Luther. The True Church Refers to Herself as Reformed To distinguish the true church from all erroneous assemblies, we call ourselves Reformed -- not, however, in reference to doctrine, as if we had changed or improved the same. No, according to God’s Word the truth remains impeccably preserved. We do so, however, in reference to errors which permeated the church. These the church has cast out, departing from Roman Catholic heresy by which she had been so long oppressed, and reforming the church according to the precepts of God’s Word. Certain parties reproachfully call members of the true Reformed Church Calvinists after Calvin, minister in Geneva, who was one of the first to oppose Roman Catholic error. We say, “among the first,” for neither he nor Luther, but Zwingli, was the first. We acknowledge Calvin as a member of the true church. He has done much to promote the truth, but he is neither the head of the church nor the one who prescribed the rule for life and doctrine. We neither magnify nor lean upon man. We do not follow human inventions nor call ourselves after men. If someone desires to name us after a man, he does so at his own peril. If in doing so he wishes to distinguish us as the true church from the false church, the matter itself is good, but not the manner. The True Church Is Separated from the World and United Internally This church, whose true characteristics we have presented, we previously described as an assembly separated from the world.
Every kingdom has its borders and border markings within which its subjects reside and by which they are separated from others. The kingdom of heaven is likewise separated from all nations, and functions independently without intertwining itself with other spheres of sovereignty. This separation does not pertain to locality, region, or city, as was true in the Old Testament, but she is separated from others by fellowship and confession. Thus, the church does not wish to have those within its community who still belong to the world or embrace a false religion. The church wishes to be separate in order that the kingdom of Christ may be all the more evident. This separation is expressed (1) in the following Old Testament texts: “Lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations” (Numbers 23:9); “For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth” (Deuteronomy 7:6). This is likewise true in the New Testament: “And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them” (Acts 5:13); “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (2 Corinthians 6:17).
(2) The church is therefore presented to us as being fenced in and enclosed by walls. “And He fenced it” (i.e., His vineyard) (Isaiah 5:2); “I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem” (Isaiah 62:6).
(3) For this reason the church has elders who preserve her separation, and keep her from intermingling with the world. “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers” (Acts 20:28); “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls” (Hebrews 13:17). This is also confirmed by her orderly structure: “beholding your order” (Colossians 2:5).
(4) The church has keys to shut and to open (Matthew 16:19). “... if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” (Matthew 18:17); “But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (1 Corinthians 5:13). As the church is separated from the rest of the world, she is likewise united internally, which is evident from the word congregation itself, it being expressive of her internal fellowship. This is evident by virtue of her separation, and by way of comparison she is called a house which is built by the uniting of individual stones. She is called a body, consisting of many united members; a flock, consisting not of sheep who are dispersed but who are gathered together; and a kingdom in which the subjects are united for mutual protection. This union is realized first of all by the embracing of the same truth. “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41).
Secondly, this union is realized by uniting with all those who embrace and confess the same truth. If someone confesses this truth only with his mouth, he himself is accountable. Those who desire a true unity have as their objective and heartfelt desire the uniting themselves with them who confess and experience the truth. “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul” (Acts 4:32); “... and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God ... they clave to their brethren” (Nehemiah 10:28-29); “That they all may be one” (John 17:21); “... that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Corinthians 1:10).
Thirdly, this union comes about by the same Spirit. “We having the same Spirit of faith” (2 Corinthians 4:13); “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13). They are all indwelt by one Spirit, who inspires, illuminates, regenerates, and sanctifies them all. They consequently have the same nature. As birds of a feather flock together [Note: The Dutch reads, “gelijk nu zoekt gelijk,” which in our opinion is best translated with this well-known English proverb.] , they will of necessity unite together.
Fourthly, they are united by mutual love and peace. “... forbearing one another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:2-3); “Put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness” (Colossians 3:14).
Fifthly, they are united by having the identical objective: to promote the honor of Christ their Head. “... they are ... the glory of Christ” (2 Corinthians 8:23).
Sixthly, this engenders a mutual willingness to assist each other, to endure everything with each other -- yes, to die for each other. “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth” (1 Corinthians 10:24); “We ought to lay down our lives for the brethren” (1 John 3:16). The church does not spontaneously unite. It is not the result of human wisdom, but it is God, and God alone, who unites His own and gathers them together as a people, as a church. “The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47); “Who ... hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son” (Colossians 1:13). “Them also I must bring” (John 10:16). The means by which the Lord gathers His church is the Word. “They shall hear My voice; and there shall be one fold, and one Shepherd” (John 10:16); “Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth” (James 1:18); “... holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling” (Hebrews 3:1). Whenever the Lord sends a servant or specific individual to a locality with the gospel, He holds Christ before such a nation by means of His Word. If someone is illuminated, believes, and is converted, he will immediately cleave to the one who preached Christ to him. These two will become the means of the conversion of a third person, and likewise of others. Such converted individuals will immediately join themselves to the others and become as one soul with them. Thus this congregation will grow and will manifest itself as a light in the darkness and as a city upon a hill. Everyone will hear her powerful testimony and observe her holy walk. This will engender esteem for this congregation in both hearers and observers. They will become internally convicted that they are not thus, and they will be convinced; or it will motivate them to oppose and eradicate her, not being able to endure this light which rebukes them, and consequently they will hate this congregation. Due to the luster of the church, the esteem which she enjoys among the population, and the mutual love observed within her, many will be attracted whose hearts are not true within, and they, though unconverted, will join themselves to this congregation, doing so in such large numbers that they become the majority. Such individuals are friends in public but enemies at heart. For when they, being within the congregation, perceive that the godly begin to know and rebuke them with words and deeds, they will manifest their nature and oppress the godly in the church more than the wicked will do from without. This oppression will unite the godly and engender strife without and within.
God, the Keeper of His Church As God gathers the church, He likewise also keeps her, so that the church is not eradicated. There has always been and will be a church upon earth as long as the world exists. Certain denominations in various localities can either become fully apostate concerning the faith and become heretical or be eradicated by persecution, but the church itself cannot be eradicated. If she is eradicated in one locality, she will grow again in a different locality. This is abundantly confirmed by experience. We do not merely maintain that there will always be believers and elect, who are dispersed in various places and living in isolation, but that there will always be a congregation -- this not being due to the steadfastness and strength of the church itself, but by the will and preserving power of God -- a church in which both visibility and corruption will fluctuate.
Question: Will there always be a church upon earth?
Answer: Yes. This is evident, first of all, from the promises of God. “Upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). If ever the church would be eradicated, the gates of hell, that is, the might of the devil, would have prevailed against her. This, however, will never occur, and thus the church will always remain. This is also evident in Matthew 28:20, where we read, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” The apostles would not live that long, but their spiritual seed (that is, their children, the one generation after the other), and the Holy Scriptures recorded by them, would remain. Christ promises His assistance to these all the days until the end of the world, and in these children and by their writings they still live and speak. Thus the church continues to exist and will always remain in existence.
Secondly, this is also confirmed by the offices of the Lord Jesus. As Prophet, Priest, and King, He will endure forever. There can, however, be no body without a head, no king without subjects, no teaching prophets without pupils, no priest without a people for whom he prays, and no bridegroom without a bride. “Thou art a priest for ever” (Psalms 110:4); “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed” (Daniel 2:44); “For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:25-26).
Thirdly, add to this experience that the Bible reveals to us the church from Adam to Christ, and after Christ, during the time of the apostles. Both church and secular history bear witness to the fact that the church has existed from the time of the apostles until now. Since she still exists, we therefore conclude that she will continue to exist in spite of all those who wish the contrary.
Objection #1: “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth” (Luke 18:8). Is this not as much as saying, “I shall find no faith, and thus there will be no church”?
Answer: It is not inferred here that there will be no believers: this will most certainly be the case according to the words of the apostle in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. Rather, it means that there will be so few that it will be amazing indeed.
Objection #2: “That day shall not come except there come a falling away first” (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Total apostasy implies of necessity total eradication of the church. “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him [the beast]” (Revelation 13:8). Where then will the godly be?
Answer: These and similar texts express the generality and magnitude of this apostasy, but do not include all without exception, for even at the time the church will be in the wilderness (Revelation 12:17); a seed will remain (Revelation 12:17). It is thus confirmed that the church will always remain, and will never be entirely eradicated. The Marks Whereby the Church Is Distinguished
Having considered the essential nature of the church, it is necessary to define some of the distinguishing marks whereby one may discern which is or is not the true church. I repeat, may discern; for all men are not acquainted with these marks, as there would not be so many who exclaim, “The church is here!” Not everyone has eyes to discern these marks of distinction. Many have no concern regarding them, and without due consideration follow their parents. Others simply have no desire to either know or examine them, even though it is of such crucial importance, for only in the true church is Christ present with His blessings. There the pure Word of salvation is to be found; there are the faithful pastors and teachers unto the perfection of the saints; there souls are converted, comforted, and grow in sanctification; there the Lord Jesus is confessed; there one will go to heaven. In one word, only there the Lord commands His blessing, even life forever more (Psalms 133:3). Therefore all who know the joyful sound will turn to her; the Lord gives His own a heart and a desire to join themselves to her. This is the duty of all who wish to be saved.
Since there are so many assemblies claiming to be the church, who nevertheless promote doctrines which deceive and damn the soul, it is necessary to know whereby true and false churches may be identified, thus enabling a person to join the true church and rejoice in belonging to her.
Distinguishing Marks not Applicable to the Church
We shall first present those matters which the false church proposes as being distinguishing marks so that, due to conformity to these false marks, she would appear to be the true church. The Roman Catholic Church would prefer that we put God’s Word aside, and only rely on her pronouncements or the pronouncements of her head, the pope. They know that then they will prevail. Since there are, however, other assemblies which call themselves churches who are also false, and yet who with the true church declare the pope to be the antichrist, we neither can nor may be satisfied with such a declaration. There are so many assemblies which bear the name “church,” the one being opposed to the other; thus we cannot accept anyone’s declaration -- including that of the true church -- as authoritative, without there being another criterion by which a determination is made between all these parties. Since such a requirement is fair, even in the judgment of those who are impartial, one will embellish some things which are clearly consistent with their assemblies. These they wish to have considered as distinguishing marks, which they are not. We shall present the most significant of these false distinguishing marks and expose them as having no foundation.
First, the false church proposes the word catholic as one of the distinguishing marks of the church.
(1) This word, however, is not found in the Bible. Would one then boast of a word which has been contrived apart from Scripture?
(2) The Novatians, Donatists, Arians, and other heretics have formerly also been referred to as “catholic.” That to which many false churches lay claim cannot be one of the distinguishing marks of the true church.
(3) If the word “catholic” were one of the marks of the true church, no one would be able to boast of this title except those who not only have the name but also the matter itself. One can have a good name, but nevertheless be evil. What benefit was there for the congregation of Sardis to have the name that they lived and yet to be dead (Revelation 3:1)? Those who boast of the name “catholic” are not catholic in deed or doctrine, since her doctrine is not consistent with the Word of God, with which the doctrine of the true church always has been and must be in agreement. Neither is this true chronologically, for they are new; that is, they primarily came into existence after 606 A.D. This is also not true as far as location is concerned, for her church is not everywhere. The Mohammedans and the heathen occupy much more territory. Likewise, all Protestants combined during some periods have been as great in number as they. They also rob the word “catholic” of its meaning when they define their church in reference to the pope and restrict the church to the city of Rome. By using the term “Roman Catholic” it is as if one would say that white is black; that which is catholic is not Roman, for the word “Roman” limits the church to a city, and that which is Roman is not catholic.
(4) The church of the Old and New Testament is one church. The church of the Old Testament was not catholic, however, for she was limited to Canaan and Jerusalem; yet she was the true church. From all of this it is evident that the word “catholic” is not one of the distinguishing marks of the true church. Therefore, even though the Reformed church is the true church and she calls herself “catholic,” she will not boast of a word which is not a distinguishing mark.
Secondly, the false church proposes age to be a second mark of dictinction. However, this is not one of the distinguishing marks whereby everyone may know the church, for:
(1) the kingdom of the devil commenced at the fall of Adam, and therefore it is not the church alone which is old. Thus age is not one of these marks.
(2) Age was not a factor when the church began. How could age be a factor in reference to the true Christian church at the time of the apostles? She was nevertheless the true church; thus the Jews, after this era, could not boast to be the true church simply on the basis of age. Age has nothing to do with truth, for a lie is not transformed into truth by age.
(3) Those who claim to have age on their side and thus establish age as one of the distinguishing marks of the true church, contradict themselves; they are relatively new, not having their origin until AD 606. Only the church which dates from the time of the apostles and has remained true to their doctrine can truly lay claim to age. True age must be determined by way of doctrine and not by the locality where the church originated. If age were to be determined by locality, the Mohammedan religion would be the true religion. Those localities did not preserve the true Christian doctrine, and the church has thus been eradicated there. Rome likewise did not preserve true Christian doctrine, having gradually embraced a new and idolatrous doctrine. Therefore, the fact that the true church has formerly been in Rome is not a matter to be boasted of. Rather, she is to be blamed that she has not preserved the truth and thus also did not remain the true church. If the true church is established in a locality where it had previously not existed, this congregation would not constitute a new church, as it would have, confess, and experience the old truth. From all of this it is evident that even though the church dates back to Adam or to the time of the apostles, age cannot be one of the distinguishing marks of the true church. This is even more true for a location where the true church has formerly been, since individual churches in various localities degenerated through error, and can change or have been changed into heretical or heathen religions.
Thirdly, durability is proposed as a distinguishing mark. To this we reply that the church is indeed durable, never entirely ceases to exist, and with uninterrupted durability will continue from the time of Christ to end of the world. This truth we have confirmed earlier. Durability can, however, not be one of the distinguishing marks of the true church, since the kingdom of the devil has also endured since Adam, and many heresies have endured. The Jews are still a separate people, and are thus durable. That which the church has in common with other groups of people is not one of the distinguishing marks of the church. Moreover, one ought not to relate durability to locality: in places where the church has previously been, she now no longer is, and in places she has previously not been, she now exists. Rather, durability must be judged in terms of the truth of the doctrine to which the church has steadfastly adhered, no matter where she exists.
Fourthly, the number of professing members is also proposed as a distinguishing mark. This, however, has not so much as a semblance of validity. The Mohammedan religion has incomparably more professors. At the time of Arius, everyone was amazed that the world had so soon turned Arian. In Revelation 13:3 we read that the entire earth will follow the beast. The church, on the contrary, is most often a little flock (Luke 12:32), and the way to heaven is traversed by only a few (Matthew 7:14).
Fifthly, the succession of bishops and other members of the clergy is deemed to be as such a distinguishing mark. This is unfounded, for:
(1) whatever is a mark of the true church must always and uniquely be true. This succession is, however, not a unique distinction of the church for there was no succession of the apostles. Such succession is not unique to the church, for Mohammedan and heretical teachers also have their successors. Thus, doctrine is once more the real issue, for what is the value of succession without truth?
(2) Individual churches, in which there has been a good succession since the times of the apostles, can degenerate. A “wolf,” that is, a heretic, can take the place of an orthodox minister, so that subsequent succession is tainted by heresy. To what avail then is succession? The papists who deem succession as one of the distinguishing marks of the church, condemn themselves, being unable to prove infallibly their succession. Particularly in the first two centuries, the succession which they did have has degenerated and become heretical.
Sixthly, miracles are proposed as one of the distinguishing marks of the church. To this we reply:
(1) Miracles do not belong to the distinguishing marks of the true church. This is nowhere to be found in the Word of God.
(2) Miracles are not intended for believers, but for unbelievers; thus the church has no need of them. If one were desirous of bringing an unbeliever into the true church, one would have to perform a wonder time and again, which, however, the proponents of this mark do not do.
(3) The performance of and boasting in miracles in the post-apostolic era, as a means of the confirmation of doctrine, is a distinguishing mark of the anti-Christian church. “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2:9). This certainly confirms that the performance of miracles does not belong to the distinguishing marks of the church.
Seventhly, one proposes external luster and prosperity as being a distinguishing mark of the true church. The basis for this has no more validity than the previous arguments. Not one text supports this, and it is entirely contradicted by experience. The church, like the moon, is subject to successive changes in appearance. Consider for a moment the condition of the church in both Old and New Testaments. Where was the luster of the church at the end of the first world -- when the entire world had corrupted its way, was filled with violence, and only Noah and his family were preserved in the ark? Where was the luster of the church in Israel when Elijah was of the opinion that he alone had been left (1 Kings 19:14)? How often did not the ungodly kings of Judah rob her of her luster in closing the temple and instituting nationwide idolatry? Where was the luster of the church when the Lord Jesus came into the world, finding the church to be thoroughly corrupted?
Such was also the case with the church of the New Testament which, after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, manifested itself so gloriously over the entire earth. During the first three hundred years she was frequently so ravaged that a visible church could hardly be distinguished, the name “Christian” was regarded with utmost contempt, and the church had to hide in forests and valleys. It has also been clearly prophesied that the church would flee into the desert during the reign of the antichrist and for a period of twelve hundred sixty years would be in hiding there (Revelation 12:14). We have thus observed various proposals which are not distinguishing marks of the true church. Some add even more marks to this; however, they are insignificant and not worthy of notice.
True Distinguishing Marks of the Church
Having refuted the false distinguishing marks, we shall now proceed to present the true distinguishing marks which will manifest themselves always and only in the church, regardless of what her external condition may be. The primary and most eminent distinguishing mark is purity of doctrine -- doctrine consistent with the Word of God. We are not now dealing with those who deny fundamental principles, but with those denominated as Christians who acknowledge God’s Word to be the infallible truth. We must therefore consider how God’s Word defines the distinguishing marks of the true church. Let him depart who does not wish to conduct himself according to God’s Word. However, he who wishes to esteem the Word of God as the only rule of life and doctrine will be able to perceive from this Word that only that church is the true church which has the true doctrine, consistent with the Word. This is first of all confirmed by such texts where the Word of God is stated 1) to be the means whereby the church is gathered, preserved, and built up; 2) to be a treasure entrusted to her protection; and 3) to be a matter for which she must do battle.
(1) Concerning the first, we read: “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord” (Ephesians 2:19-21); “That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word” (Ephesians 5:26); “Of His own will begat He us with the Word of truth” (James 1:18); “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth” (1 Peter 1:22).
(2) Concerning the fact that the church must protect the Word as a treasure entrusted to her, we read: “... because that unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Romans 3:1-2); “... which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).
(3) Finally the church must do battle to maintain purity of doctrine: “It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3). That which we have stated concerning the Word is irrefutably confirmed by the texts mentioned. From these texts it is also evident that these matters are distinguishing marks of the true church, since they are regarded as being characteristic of the church. Inasmuch as a matter is identified by its distinguishing marks, the pure doctrine of God’s Word is therefore a distinguishing mark of the church.
Secondly, add to this that the Word of God is the means whereby false churches are exposed. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house” (2 John 1:9-10). If the Word is the means whereby false churches are exposed, the Word by the law of opposites is a distinguishing mark of the true church.
Thirdly, that assembly in which God and Christ make their abode is the true church. “For where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20); “God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (2 Corinthians 6:16); “These things saith He ... who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks” (Revelation 2:1). The Father and Christ, however, dwell wherever their Word is received and preserved. “He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me. ... If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (John 14:21
Fourthly, this is confirmed by such texts in which the church is described as submitting itself to this Word only. “They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42); “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice” (John 10:26-27). The Lord Jesus shows here that those who do and do not belong to His stable are only distinguished by the fact that they hear His voice; that is, they either do hear and receive His Word, or do not hear and receive it. Inasmuch as sheep are distinguished by this, however, this is true for the entire church. The church is identical in nature, since it consists of sheep.
Objection: Hearing or not hearing pertains to believing and receiving. This is a work of the heart and thus not obvious to others; therefore it cannot be a distinguishing mark of the church.
Answer (1) Christ speaks here of that which is very obvious. It was evident who did hear and receive Him, and who did not.
(2) There can be no true receiving unless this be wrought by the hearing of the Word (Romans 10:17), and wherever there is a believing reception of the heart, there will be a confession of the mouth (Romans 10:10). This is also confirmed by John 8:31-32, “If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Here it is clearly shown whereby a disciple may be known and what his nature is. This is nothing else but a knowing of and continuing in the Word. It is thus very evident that the church is identified by her reception, preservation, and experience of the Word, and therefore the Word is the distinguishing mark of the true church.
Objection #1: Everyone boasts that his doctrine is in accordance with God’s Word. Doctrine can therefore not be a distinguishing mark, for it remains a matter of debate who has the support of the Word of God.
Answer: (1) This obviously confirms that everyone is convinced that adherence to true doctrine is characteristic of the true church, since everyone wishes their doctrine to be in harmony with this Word.
(2) To boast of something or to be something is essentially different. Everyone’s doctrine must therefore be examined by way of this touchstone.
Additional Objection: Would it not be safer to subject oneself to the declaration of the church or of her visible head, the pope, since there remains so much difference of opinion concerning the exposition of God’s Word? The question as to which is the true church is neither answered nor eliminated in this way.
Answer: (1) The pope and his followers are one of the parties who boast of being the true church. A party, however, cannot make an objective declaration concerning itself, even if they were the true church -- which they are not. In doing so, they would consequently make a false pronouncement in the matter.
(2) The Word itself makes this pronouncement and resolves this point of contention with sufficient clarity. He who does not wish to subject himself to God’s own pronouncement in His Word, but opposes it instead, will do so at his own peril and will bear his judgment.
(3) The apostle states, “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Corinthians 11:19). Thus, one ought not to expect that there will come an end to all controversy, but one needs to hold to the law and the prophets, and proceed according to that rule (Luke 16:29
Objection #2: An unlearned person cannot search the Bible, and can also not know the foundational doctrine of each church. Thus, consistency between doctrine and the Word of God cannot be a distinguishing mark of the church.
Answer: Since either a blind or ignorant person cannot examine gold by means of a proper touchstone, is such a touchstone therefore not a touchstone? Does this mean that gold cannot be identified? Such is also true here. If someone with a darkened understanding cannot comprehend the things of God’s Spirit, this does not negate the fact that God’s Word is a touchstone. He who is illuminated knows it to be such, being assured of this.
Additional Objection: How will such poor people determine to whom they ought to join themselves? They can only proceed blindly. If they have joined themselves to a congregation, how will they know whether they are in the true church?
Answer: (1) This question will always remain, no matter what distinguishing mark one proposes regarding the church.
(2) Their duty is to pray and to search the Word, examining all things by means of this Word. It is pure grace if it pleases God to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven to someone (Matthew 13:11).
(3) Even if someone joins himself to the true church and remains blind and unconverted, he will not benefit thereby. When God converts and illuminates His elect, however, they know which is the true church, and rejoice in the fact that they are members of her, exclaiming, “I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord. Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem” (Psalms 122:1-2). If someone blindly joins himself to the popish church, he will certainly join himself to the false church.
Objection #3: In the church there can be many errors so that the true doctrine is not always there, nor to be known. Consequently true doctrine cannot be the infallible distinguishing mark of the true church.
Answer (1) Even though there sometimes are many errors in the church, and even if she is inundated with errors (as will be true at the time of the antichrist), the Word and true doctrine can still be found there. And there will always be those who will defend the truth and oppose error.
(2) All errors do not pertain to the foundation of truth, and thus the truth by which one can be saved can remain there in its essence. If an assembly is inundated by foundational errors, however, and but a few truths remain which are not saving in nature (as is true for all heretical assemblies where some truth is to be found), that particular church ceases to be a church, and all true believers are then obligated to separate themselves from that assembly. God will then also draw His own out of such a church.
Objection #4: The church can be much more readily distinguished than the Word, and thus not the Word, but the church itself ought to be a distinguishing mark.
Answer: The external assemblies themselves can be distinguished much more readily than the Word. However, which of these assemblies constitutes the true church is not more readily distinguished than the Word itself. Rather, the Word is more readily distinguished than such assemblies, since they can only be identified by the Word as has been shown above.
Additional Objection: One ought to consider the age and the luster of the church. Wherever this is most evident, one must conclude that the true church is to be found there.
Answer: That this is not characteristic of the church has been shown earlier. The church which in one locality is the oldest church, is the newest church in another locality. The church which in one locality is the most public and illustrious is most obscure in another locality. An old lie is never the truth. External and worldly luster in churches is not characteristic of spirituality, but generally characteristic of the world and the false church.
Objection #5: In identifying the church by means of the Word, one can be in error. Thus the Word cannot be the distinguishing mark for the true church.
Answer: The Word, being eternal truth, can neither be in error nor cause anyone to err, but man’s understanding can err. Even though it can err, it does not always err, nor does man always remain in uncertainty whether he is in error or not. He is capable of both understanding and perceiving things so that he knows that he is not in error concerning a certain matter. “And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ” (John 6:69); “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God” (1 Corinthians 2:12); “And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth” (1 John 5:6).
Secondly, one would be in much greater danger of error if one were to depend on the mere testimony of an assembly, since false churches also claim be to the true church. Consequently one must have an infallible and dependable distinguishing mark which is free of error and cannot cause one to err. This is only true of the Word of God. If one therefore hears a church claim to be the true church, and examines doctrine and life by this Word and finds them to be in harmony with it, he can say with the believing Samaritans, “Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world” (John 4:42). It thus remains certain that the Word is the true distinguishing mark by which it is ascertained which church is true. The second distinguishing mark of the true church is the holiness of her members. The doctrine which is in harmony with God’s Word is the preeminent distinguishing mark and sufficient in and of itself. All other distinguishing marks must likewise be tested by God’s Word. In order to expand this subject further, however, and to identify the church more clearly, we shall consider three other distinguishing marks, establishing the holiness of her members as the second distinguishing mark of the church. Above we have shown that only the truly converted are members of the church, and that holiness is a distinction of the true church according to the apostolic confession, We believe an holy church. If holiness is a distinguishing mark of the church, we shall be able to identify the church by it, and thus a church where true holiness is absent is not the true church. Other churches also boast of holiness, but all that is called holiness is not holiness. Therefore we must first determine from God’s Word what true holiness is.
(1) True holiness springs forth from true faith. Where true faith is absent, true holiness will likewise be absent. Faith receives Christ as Surety unto justification and sanctification (John 1:12). By faith the soul is truly united with Christ (1 Corinthians 6:17). By faith Christ, who is her life, dwells in her heart (Ephesians 3:17). Faith purifies the heart (Acts 15:9). Faith works by love (Galatians 5:6), and faith causes her to bring forth good works (James 2:18).
(2) True holiness consists of our will being in harmony with God’s will (Ephesians 6:6) and God’s law (Matthew 22:37), and in the restoration of God’s image (Ephesians 4:24).
(3) Holiness in all its activity does not seek its own honor, but the glorification of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). This holiness is only taught and practiced in the true church. Other assemblies, whether they claim or pretend to have such holiness, practice nothing but a natural virtuousness in which even some pagans have excelled. This is neither the true holiness which the Word of God requires nor that which we have just briefly described. In maintaining that true holiness is a distinguishing mark of the true church, we do not suggest that all who are in the church are partakers of this holiness. What we are saying is that it is to be found there for those who are acquainted with true holiness and seek for it, and that true members are partakers of it. The church can be filled with so many unconverted members that they constitute the majority and dominate, thus oppressing the godly. Also here it is true: Many are called, but few are chosen. In stating that holiness is a distinguishing mark of the true church, we do not understand this to have reference to this or that specific church in a given city or village, but rather to the church in general as she is dispersed throughout the world, being the total sum of all individual churches. I do not dare to claim that true godly members are to be found in every individual church, for individual churches can degenerate in doctrine and life and die out.
We hold the third distinguishing mark of the true church to be the proper administration of the sacraments. Again this must be determined from the Word of God, and thus not be viewed independently but in conjunction with the other distinguishing marks. Wherever the first distinguishing mark is to be found, the others will be found likewise. The sacraments have been instituted in the church by Christ, and are presented in the Word as to the manner in which they are to be administered. The nature and administration of the sacraments will be discussed later in chapter 37. (Cf. Genesis 17:14; Numbers 9:12; Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23-30.) The sacraments are seals of the covenant of grace and are intended for partakers of the covenant alone. As each family is distinguished by its own coat of arms or seal, the church is likewise distinguished by the sacraments. Even though each assembly claims to have the sacraments, the correct administration of them is not necessarily to be found there. One church uses them either as a symbol of unity or as a mere external commemoration of the suffering of Christ, while another church assumes the external signs to be Christ Himself, attributing Christ’s efficacy to them, thereby negating the nature of the sacraments.
We consider the fourth distinguishing mark to be the use of the keys of God’s kingdom. The Lord Jesus has given keys to the church in order to include and exclude those whom He has commanded to include or exclude. These keys are the proclamation of the Word of God and Christian discipline, of which we will speak in chapter 29. The church is an assembly which is separated from the world and mutually united as one body under her Head, Jesus Christ, all of which we have discussed previously. For this purpose the Lord Christ has given keys, commanding to keep out and to cast out those who neither hold to true doctrine nor live in accordance with it (cf. Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:13; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). As the lock is known by the key which fits it, the church can likewise be identified by her keys. These keys must not be used independently, however, but in conjunction with all the other distinguishing marks; their correct use must be determined by the Word of God. If those who err in doctrine and lead offensive lives are excluded, while those who are orthodox in doctrine and godly in their walk are included, the keys are used correctly; and by this one will be able to identify the true church. If anyone is included, however, regardless of what his doctrine and life may be, or if those are excommunicated who are orthodox in doctrine, while including in the fellowship of the church those who err, such a practice is very evidently a mark of the false church. As imperfection is to be observed everywhere, and since this accompanying imperfection does not nullify the matter itself, there is also imperfection in the use of these keys. Although in one particular church these keys are used more consistently than in another, the proper use of the keys will be found in the true church. In considering all these distinguishing marks together, one will clearly observe which church is the true church, and will publicly have to declare that only the Reformed Church is the true church, in contradistinction to all so-called churches, whatever name they may bear. The world is filled with books in which writers demonstrate irrefutably that these distinguishing marks are only applicable to the Reformed Church, and we are able to demonstrate this to all who would like to contradict this. We therefore rejoice in the grace of God: His holy Name be therefore praised and glorified for this to all eternity! The Reformed Church Vindicated as the Continuation of the True Church
There are parties, not being able to refute this by means of the Word of God, who have contrived two objections in their own minds by which they wish to show that the Reformed Church is not the true church.
Objection #1: The Reformed Church is new, having only come into existence in the previous century, [Note: One must again bear in mind that this work was published in AD 1700.] whereas the true church is of unchangeable durability. Where was the Reformed church prior to Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin?
Answer: First of all, the true church remains steadfast by reason of her durability -- a durability which does not fluctuate. True doctrine is an infallible distinguishing mark of the church, which always remains true for her, as has also been shown above. Wherever true doctrine resides which the prophets and apostles by God’s Spirit have presented in His Word, there is also the church. Inasmuch as she holds to this enduring true doctrine, the Reformed Church is therefore the true church. Prior to Luther this church existed wherever this true doctrine, which never ceased to be, was to be found.
Secondly, the Reformed Church, having the apostolic doctrine, is therefore also the apostolic church.
(1) During the time of the apostles this church was dispersed throughout the entire world.
(2) After this she existed within the territory of pagan emperors, who, until Constantine the Great, that is, until AD 300, have cruelly persecuted her with fire and with sword -- not being able, however, to destroy her.
(3) Subsequent to this she existed in the territory which was infiltrated by the antichrist of whom the apostle speaks when he states, “So that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). This is to say that the church was in Rome and primarily in Europe. It was this church which was infiltrated by popery, and thus gradually and increasingly permeated the church with errors. Popish religion has not always been what it now is, for her errors have gradually developed over time. At first there were but few, so that one could endure being in her midst, albeit with much sorrow and grief. Subsequently the errors were multiplied so that one could no longer bear to stay in it. For this reason the church, upon God’s command, separated herself from it, and departed out of her midst. Popish religion and its adherents were in the church and oppressed the church. We maintain that the church existed where popish errors were gradually introduced and corrupted the church. She existed wherever the popish church existed. She was not in the popish church, but the popish church was in her.
(4) She existed wherever the two witnesses were (Revelation 11:3), that is, wherever there were few, but yet a sufficient number. Since Constantine there have always been some who, both orally and in writing, have opposed the errors which were surfacing. One particular church remained pure in doctrine longer than another and those who were pure in doctrine bore witness against the errors.
(5) The church existed in several independent churches which maintained separation from popery, against which former popes have initiated persecutions and have periodically eradicated some. Such churches existed since early times in the southern parts of France, as well as in some parts of England, Scotland, Bohemia, and also in Piedmont. Against these churches popes have initiated many persecutions, but they continue to exist until this day. History books bear abundant witness to all this. Several popish authors, such as Thumanus, Aeneas Sylvius, Eckius, and Tochlaeus, have particularly written about the residents of Piedmont, referring to them as heretics. They declare that prior to the time of Zwingli and Luther there had been very many who adhered to the same doctrine -- which they refer to as heresy -- and that Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin had by renewal brought this doctrine to light.
Particularly, there are two popish writers who in a noteworthy manner have written concerning the Waldenses. I shall trouble myself to translate something from each writer into our language, since their witness is of such importance.
Reynerius, one of the leaders of the Inquisition, who did some writing prior to the year 1400, writes concerning the Waldenses:
Among all sects that either are or have been, there is none more detrimental to the Roman Catholic Church than that of the Leonists (that is, the poor men of Lyons -- the Waldenses), and that for three reasons. The first is, because it is the sect that is of the longest standing of any; for some say it has existed continually since Pope Sylvester, whereas others since the time of the apostles. The second is, because it is the most general of all sects; for scarcely is there any country to be found where this sect has not been embraced. The third is, because, while all other sects frighten their hearers by the abominable nature of their blasphemies against God, this sect has a great appearance of godliness, since they live righteously before all men, believe all that God has said, and maintain all the articles contained in the “sybolum” (the twelve Articles of Faith). They do, however, speak evil of the Roman Catholic Church and its clergy, that is, the pope, cardinals, bishops, and other so-called clergymen.
Archbishop Sessellius writes in his book against the Waldenses: The Waldenses originate from a religious man named Leo, who lived during the time of the first Christian emperor, Constantine the Great. This Leo despised the miserliness of Pope Sylvester and the excess of liberty enjoyed under Constantine. He would rather endure poverty in pursuance of the simplicity of faith than to remain loyal to Sylvester and be polluted by the lucrative benefices which were the portion of those who were sympathetic towards the faith.
Such is the witness of these parties. Do you yet ask whether the Reformed Church existed prior to Luther? To this
I reply that she was to be found among those whom we have just mentioned; that is, those residing in Piedmont among the Waldenses. Our doctrine is identical with theirs, being in all aspects in agreement with the Word of God.
Objection #2: This objection relates to the sending forth of ministers. There is no true church unless the clergy is commissioned by the pope or other members of the clergy. Since the ministers of the Word in the Reformed Church are not sent forth in such a manner, their church cannot be the true church.
Answer: First, we deny that being commissioned by the pope is an essential element of the true church. Indeed, we maintain that after the true church departed from the popish church, this commission is of no value, since the antichrist has no power to ordain ministers. Their commission prior to the exit of the true church may be recognized, since they were in the church, and thus their commission originated with the church.
Secondly, the succession of ministers is no distinguishing mark of the true church as we have previously proven. The commission of ministers is also not a sacrament, so that for a season the true church could exist entirely without the service of ministers.
Thirdly, in case of necessity the church is authorized to call those to the ministry of the Word whom she deems fit for this, even though the circumstances and ceremonies which are normally observed in an organized church are set aside at such a time. The commission is of God and derives its authority from Him. Men are but the means by which such a commission is executed. This is true for ministers in an established congregation or for the congregation itself during unsettled times when the corrupted church is being restored. The congregation of one hundred twenty persons (Acts 1:15) appointed two candidates for the apostleship, choosing one by means of the lot (vs. 23). From city to city elders were appointed by a show of hands by the congregation (Acts 14:23). In like manner the church may also in case of necessity appoint ministers.
Additional Objection: This would constitute an extraordinary commission and they would then be required to perform miracles.
Answer: This is not a new, but the old administration. It is not a new doctrine or religious practice, but only the circumstances are extraordinary. All prophets did not perform miracles, and the miracles of the apostles have validity for us as well, for it is the same doctrine and the same administration.
Fourthly, the Reformed Church at the outset of the Reformation and upon her departure from [popery], had many priests in her midst who left popery, transferred to the true church, went in and out with her, and preached the truth. They in turn were able to commission others in the ordinary manner. If you insist on commission, here it is.
Objection #1: They were commissioned to teach popish doctrine and to administer the ceremonies. Answer: They were commissioned by the true church (which at that time was overrun by popery), to preach true doctrine. This was the purpose of the divine commission, and thus the commission of the church. Papists will not dare to contradict this. They would not dare to maintain that they were sent forth to preach idolatry. Thus, the commission of the priests who departed was both lawful and with the proper objective, as they were not commissioned to promote idolatry.
Objection #2: Their commission was taken away from them.
Answer (1) After the church departed out of the midst of popery, only anti-Christianity remained. It was no longer a church, and it thus had no power over those who had departed.
(2) It was unjust to depose faithful ministers, and thus because of the common commission they lawfully remained pastors and teachers.
Objection #3: The commission of popery is no longer considered lawful, for a priest who now comes over to us, desiring to be a minister, must by renewal be commissioned. Therefore the commission of those who initially departed from the church is not lawful.
Answer: There is a significant difference between the two. At that time the church was still subject to popery and the commission derived its validity from the church. After the true church departed, however, her commission was no longer that of the true church, but rather of a false church. Therefore her commission which previously was lawful is now invalid. The True Church Confesses Christ and His Truth
We now return to our description of the church as previously proposed, where we stated that the Church manifests itself by a true confession of Christ and His truth. When considering the church, a distinction is generally made between the visible and invisible church. This distinction does not pertain to her nature, as if there existed two essentially different churches, the one having different members from the other, for there is but one church. This distinction, however, relates to her external condition which sometimes is more and at other times less visible due to errors, ungodly practices, and persecutions. We have considered all this above. There is nothing the church fears more than that these matters will obscure and conceal her existence, and yet this is at times her lot. Nevertheless, she is like light and fire which always strive to manifest themselves, and to be publicly observed. She fears neither sword, nor fire, nor the gallows, and she boasts of the martyrs who, by their death, seal the truth. She views such occasions as so many victories. Her sole desire is that she may be visible: For this reason she continually strives to manifest herself, not with a sword in hand but by a faithful confession of Christ and His truth. She confesses that Christ is the only and all-sufficient Savior who as Surety, by His suffering and death, has satisfied the justice of God for the sins of His people and has reconciled them with God. He also by His active obedience and fulfillment of the law -- doing so as Surety on their behalf -- declares them righteous in Him and heirs of eternal life. She confesses that only those can be saved who receive Him as such by a true faith, are spiritually united to Him, live in Him, manifest His nature by way of a holy life, and walk as He has walked (1 John 2:6).
It is for this purpose that they gather together to hear the Word of God and to use the sacraments; they keep themselves separate and distinct from the world and as a city upon a hill (Matthew 5:14). They are always ready to give an answer to every man that asks them the reason of the hope that is in them with meekness and fear (1 Peter 3:15). They do so not as unto men but as unto God, in all humility and reverence and without undue boldness. For this purpose they have been called and gathered together. “This people have I formed for Myself; they shall shew forth My praise” (Isaiah 43:21); “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light” (1 Peter 2:9). The True Church Engaged in Spiritual Warfare
We also stated that, under her Head Christ Jesus the church battles with spiritual weapons against her and Christ’s enemies. In this respect a distinction is made between the church triumphant and the church militant. The church triumphant is in heaven, consisting of such who in the way of faith, sanctification, and spiritual warfare have gained the victory and subsequently received the crown. “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number ... stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; ... These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple: and He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them” (Revelation 7:9
Among the enemies which the church has here upon earth, the antichrist is the most significant and primary cause of all the persecutions of the church. The word “antichrist” consists of two words: anti, which, depending on the context, can mean either against or for, and Christos. Thus the word “antichrist” pertains to someone who is against Christ but who nevertheless creates the impression as if he were for Christ. Sometimes this word is used as pertaining to every heretic, who opposes the Person and the doctrine of Christ.
“As ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time” (1 John 2:18). Generally, however, it pertains to the great antichrist, the head of the multitude who oppose the doctrine and professors of Christ. That such a person will come is confirmed by many texts in the Holy Scriptures and is a fact which is not denied by anyone.
Question: Who is the antichrist?
Answer: With all Protestants we reply: The pope of Rome. The papists deny this strongly.
Scriptural Proofs that the Pope of Rome Is the Antichrist
We shall first confirm our opinion, and then answer the objections of the papists. In order to perceive the force of our argumentation all the more clearly, one must view all our arguments comprehensively, that is, as one argument. Our proof will consist of several parts, each of which, when considered independently, is convincing in and of itself. Our first proof is derived from the name itself, which means darkness. “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore and six” (Revelation 13:18). In Revelation 15:2 this is referred to as the number of his name. The Lord did not want to call him expressly by name; possibly that he be not hindered in his pursuit, or because the Lord did not wish to reveal His mysteries to everyone (cf. Matthew 13:13). It is irrefutable that the reference here is to the antichrist. How to prove this, however, is not equally clear to everyone. To identify him here as such, one must note: 1) John wrote in the Greek language, and the Greek language uses its letters also as Numbers 2:1-34) the letters of this number would convey the name of a man. We also read of “... the mark of his name” (Revelation 14:11); “... the number of his name” (Revelation 15:2); 3) his name would be written with such letters which together would constitute the number six hundred sixty-six.
First of all, Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp who himself was a disciple of John, arrived at the spelling of lateino” (lateinos), and concluded thereby that the antichrist would come forth from Italy and from the Latin church. Italy, or at least a portion of it, had a king prior to the birth of Christ. His name was Latinus, who was a son of Faunus, the son of Picus, the son of Saturnus, the son of Janus, the first king of Italy. Italy, or that portion of Italy which surrounds Rome, is called Latinum after this Latinus, and the language spoken there was called Latin, which is true until this very day. Latinus is written in Greek as Lateinos and these letters irrefutably represent the number 666. Therefore, in pursuit of the antichrist one is as it were led by the hand to Rome, to the Latin church and to her bishop, who later was called papa or pope, that is, father. The pope was the proprietor of Latinum, where Latinus was king before Rome was built. He established himself in the Latin Church, for the Western church was long known by the name of Latin Church. Whenever a general ecclesiastical gathering convened, the Western bishops were referred to as Latin bishops, and the Eastern bishops as Greek bishops. Until this very day the pope still uses the Latin language in his directives and decrees. Throughout the entire world the church service, the mass, etc, are conducted in the Latin language, which must be viewed as an extraordinary providence of God, whereby it is clearly proven that he is the antichrist.
Secondly, it becomes even more clear if one compares the pope with the person whose name is expressed by 666. (1) The seat of his residence would be in Rome, which is built upon seven hills. In Revelation 17:1 it is confirmed that this refers to the antichrist, and in verse 9 his seat is identified: “The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth” (Revelation 17:9).
(2) According to Revelation 17:10-11 he would succeed the emperor in this territory, for the seven heads refer to the sevenfold manner of government in Rome. Five forms of government had already run their course during the time of John. The sixth, consisting of the rule of the emperors, was in place at that time, after which the seventh would follow. However, none but the pope has succeeded the emperors in governing Rome.
(3) He whose name would constitute the number six hundred sixty-six would ascend the throne upon the destruction of the empire, and ten kings would simultaneously receive power to govern with him. “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings” (Revelation 17:12). All of this transpired between 500 and 600 A.D.
(4) This person would again introduce pagan idolatry and the worship of images (cf. Revelation 13:3
(5) He whose name would be expressed by 666 would be worshipped, and receive superhuman honor (Revelation 13:4).
(6) This person would blaspheme God and His church (Revelation 13:5-6).
(7) He would engage and prevail in “holy” warfare (Revelation 13:7-8).
(8) The time of His reign would be forty-two months.
(9) The entire world would be loyal to him and follow him (Revelation 13:8).
(10) He would cloak everything with an appearance of piety; he would have the horns of a lamb, but speak as a dragon (Revelation 13:11).
(11) He would deceive by means of lying wonders (Revelation 13:13-14).
(12) He whose name is six hundred sixty-six would make idolatry compulsory, and put to death whoever would not comply (Revelation 13:15).
(13) He would compel everyone to acknowledge him and to name themselves after him, or to declare their allegiance to him. They would be required to bear a mark; whoever would refuse to do so would not be able to buy or sell, and a social relationship with such would be forbidden (Revelation 13:16-17). When we apply all this to the pope, they resemble each other as two drops of water, as we shall subsequently demonstrate. We have thus considered the name 666 and all the circumstances related to it, as well as who would bear this name. He who cannot conclude from all this that the pope is the antichrist must be blind, since the pope’s name and activity are entirely consistent with all this. That popery itself cannot perceive this should come as no surprise. Of necessity it cannot perceive this, for this would signal the end of popery, which still must endure for some time.
Objection: “Latinus” must be written without an “e” and thus will not be equivalent to the number 666.
Answer (1) John did not write in Latin, but in Greek. That which is “Latinus” in Latin, is “Lateinos” in Greek. Irenaeus, being a Greek, certainly knew how one ought to write this word in Greek.
(2) Latins would also use “ei” instead of “i,” as for instance in “Sabeinos,” “Antoneinos,” “Lateinos,” as well as in this phrase, quam primum Cascei, Populei tenuere Lateinei. This argument is therefore futile. The second proof is that the antichrist must have his seat and territory in Rome. “The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.” (Revelation 17:18; “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth” (Revelation 17:18). The antichrist is here presented as a woman, as a great harlot (vs. 1), because of the idolatry -- which is referred to as “adultery” in the Word of God -- and also due to the shameful physical adultery and lewdness which is particularly in vogue among the so-called clergy of Rome and Italy. This harlot would have possession of the great city, which at that time would hold sway over the kings of the earth. That city is Rome, the seat of emperors. There were seven hills within the confines of Rome’s walls, a fact which obviously needs no further proof. Writers prior to and during this time refer to her as the city upon seven hills. Virgil, who died approximately fourteen years prior to the birth of Christ, writes:
Georgicon, Lib. II, 534-535.
Scilicet, et rerum facta est pulcherrima Roma, Septum quae una sibi muro circumdedit arces.
Translation: Thus, Rome has become the most glorious city of all, which alone has surrounded seven strongholds with a wall.
Ovidius, who was born approximately thirty-eight years prior to Christ, writes:
Tristium, Lib. I, 5, 69-70.
Sed quae de septem totum cirkumspicit orbem Montibus, imperii Roma Deut.mque locus.
Translation: Rome, the territory of the gods, which overlooks the entire earth from seven hills.
Tristium, Lib. III, 7, 51-52.
Dumque suis septem victrix de montibus orbem Prospiciet domitum Martia Roma, legar.
Translation: I shall nevertheless be read as long as warring and victorious Rome overlooks a conquered world from her seven hills. The pope, however, has his chair in this Rome built upon seven hills. His territory extends to the kingdoms of this earth, and there he rules over many nations (Revelation 17:15). He is drunk with the blood of saints and has poured out the blood of professors of the truth as water (
Evasive Argument: Popery, in order not to apply this dreadful indictment to itself, agrees that this harlot and this great city refer to Rome, but then to pagan Rome during the time of the emperors, which became drunk with the blood of saints.
Answer: This chapter in Revelation indicates clearly that this refers to Rome after the emperors, and not while they reigned. It is a known fact that the pope of Rome has reigned after the emperors and reigns there as yet. This will be evident from the third proof. The third proof we derive from the practice of persecution and the time of its public manifestation. The beast had to succeed the emperors in the territory of Rome and the entire earth: “I ... saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns” (Revelation 13:1); “And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven” (Revelation 17:10-11).
“Seven heads” does not merely pertain to seven hills, comprehended within the walls of Rome, but also pertains to seven kings, that is, sovereign governments rather than specific individuals. Five forms of government had already run their course: kings, mayors, councils, governors, and dictators. The sixth form of government was in place when John wrote, for it is irrefutable that the emperors reigned at that time. During their reign this would not transpire, however, but rather under the seventh head of Rome. The beast was the seventh head which would come after the emperors as far as worldly rule is concerned, and be simultaneously also the eighth king as far as the supreme spiritual rulership which he claims for himself relative to the souls of men. This proves that the reference here is not to pagan Rome, but to Rome under the dominion of the pope.
Additionally, this seventh head would not step aside as quickly as the other heads, since the previous forms of Rome’s government were each time but for a short duration. However, this form of government would endure for some time -- 42 months or 1260 days. Since this refers to years this can only be applicable to the pope. Add to this what is written in verses 12-13 [Revelation 17:12-13], “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.” This did not occur, however, during the time of the emperors, for they were monarchs, sovereign heads and rulers. Instead, this occurred when the empire was destroyed by the Goths, Lombards, and other pagan nations which divided the empire into ten kingdoms.
Approximately around the same time, the beast also arose, and gained possession of Rome, which none other but the pope accomplished. Even when these nations for some time ruled Italy, they did not have their seat of government in Rome. Ten kings, however, yielded their power to the beast who had his seat of government in Rome, the city of seven hills, desiring to be confirmed and sanctioned by him. They executed his will in doing battle against Christ and His church. Observe, that this is the antichrist who, after the emperors, had his seat of government and territory in Rome and thus in the world -- at the time when ten kings gained power after the destruction of the empire. They who are now referred to as emperors did not come to power until 325 years later. They neither exercise any power over Rome, nor have their seat of government there, and thus rule but in name. However, none but the pope has succeeded the emperors in this territory. Ten kings came to power simultaneously with the pope and ten kings have yielded their power to none other than the pope to shed the blood of the church and to persecute her. The pope is thus the antichrist. This has even further strengthened our second proof and has answered the exception by demonstrating that the reference is not to pagan Rome but to Rome under the dominion of the pope, who would perform all that is stated in Revelation 13:1-18
We derive the fourth proof from the behavior of the antichrist. He would first of all place himself in the temple of God. “So that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). The church is God’s house (1 Timothy 3:15) and God’s temple. “For ye are the temple of the living God” (2 Corinthians 6:16). He would sit in the church as if he were God, viewing himself as the head and officer of the church; he would not approach the church as an external enemy and do battle against the church as such, but would rather proceed from within her and occupy the position of headship in the church. To whom but the pope does this apply, who is openly recognized as head by popery, and to whom they have given the title, “Our Lord God the pope”?
Secondly, the apostasy would be initiated with him. “Except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition” (2 Thessalonians 2:3). The church has always done battle, even in its initial period, against many heresies. The church of Rome maintained its purity the longest, and this gave opportunity to other churches in whom heresies arose to take refuge to the church of Rome. The bishop of Rome in turn used this opportunity to gradually exalt himself above all churches. He wanted his declarations relative to points of contention to be accepted as divine revelation without anyone contradicting him. Since heresies arose in her as well, however, the apostasy from the purity of the faith affected the entire church that much more easily and quickly. This apostasy increased rapidly, and one error led to the next. The fact that Rome has become entirely apostate is demonstrated everywhere in this book. Rome places its declarations and traditions next to, and in opposition to, the Word of God. Rome forbids the reading of the Bible, commands that a piece of bread be worshipped as God, has introduced the worship of angels and deceased saints, has erected images and altars, claims authority for itself to forgive sin, promotes the apostasy of the saints, teaches that man is not only able to be perfect but can also perform superfluous works which the pope then keeps in his treasure chest and distributes according to his pleasure. Rome denies that the merits of Christ atone for all sin, original and actual. It teaches that one can and must earn heaven himself. It has fabricated the existence of purgatory, and on behalf of the living and the dead, sacrifices Christ anew in the mass. All Romish errors are too numerous to be mentioned here. These sufficiently demonstrate that Rome and its followers have become apostate concerning the faith.
Thirdly, the antichrist would exalt himself above the kings of the earth. “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped ... shewing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). Kings and governments are referred to as kings and princes in Psalms 82:1
Yes, the Pope allows himself to be carried about as if he were God, and everyone bows the knee before him. He opposes the God of heaven, establishing religious practices which are contrary to what God has instituted. He has the audacity to maintain that even though Christ has instituted the Lord’s Supper with two signs, bread and wine, that it will be administered with one sign -- bread only.
Fourthly, the antichrist would perform wonders. “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2:9); “And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do” (Revelation 13:13-14). Those who belong to popery are the only ones who boast of miracles, wishing to prove thereby that they are the true church. What blind ignorance this is! They thereby convey clearly that the pope is the antichrist. Their miracles, however, no longer have the credibility they once had when thick darkness prevailed. Men now laugh at their lying wonders.
Fifthly, the antichrist would live in great luster and pomp. “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls” (Revelation 17:4). There is an extensive description of this pomp and luster in Revelation 18:12
Sixthly, the antichrist would war against the saints. “And it was given unto him (the beast) to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all ... to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name” (Revelation 13:7
Seventhly, add to this what is written in 1 Timothy 4:1
Objection: It is not written that the antichrist would do all these things; the pope is thus not the antichrist.
Answer: One thing is sure, however: he teaches the doctrines of devils. Furthermore, Scripture states clearly that the devil rules the antichrist, helps him and empowers him. “And the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority” (Revelation 13:2); “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan” (2 Thessalonians 2:9). If we consider these texts, we shall observe that the forbidding of marriage and the command to abstain from meat is the work of the antichrist, and thus we conclude that the pope is the antichrist.
Since little can be said in opposition to the aforementioned truths, they will resort to several other evasive arguments.
Evasive Argument #1: The antichrist will be only one person.
Answer (1) He is one in the same manner as the previous six heads were one. These were one, not as far as the person was concerned, but as far as the form of government. This is likewise true for the seventh head.
(2) He already began with his activity during the time of the apostles, and would continue to stir until he would have free rein and ascend the throne. This did not occur until several hundred years later, and thus it does not pertain to one person.
Evasive Argument #2: He would come after the destruction of the empire, but the empire still exists.
Answer: The empire has already been destroyed, and was terminated with Augustulus who was the last emperor in the fifth century. He who now bears the title “emperor” was not denominated as such by the pope until the year 800. He has no authority in Rome nor in Roman territory. The kings of Spain, France, England, Scotland, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Poland -- who formerly all belonged to the empire -- refuse to acknowledge him as such.
Evasive Argument #3: The antichrist will only appear at the end of the world and will be destroyed by Christ’s coming unto judgment (2 Thessalonians 2:8).
Answer: It is not true that he will appear near the end of the world’s existence. This is nowhere written in Scripture. “The last days” refers to the entire New Testament dispensation (cf. Acts 2:17; Hebrews 1:1-2). The time of his fall will come, and Christ will come with His judgments to destroy him even prior to His coming in judgment. If this text is understood as referring to the final judgment, one ought to know that even after the destruction of the antichrist, which will occur prior to the millennium [Note: à Brakel adhered to what today is referred to as “post millenialism,” a view which he clearly expresses in his commentary on the book of Revelation.] (Revelation 19:20; Revelation 20:4), his spirit will nevertheless prevail in many. He will only be destroyed when Christ comes in judgment.
Evasive Argument #4: He will only reign forty-two months, or 1260 days, which is three and one half years.
Answer: Those days are representative of years. Thus, Jacob’s service of one week consisted of seven years (Genesis 29:27), and the seventy weeks of Daniel represented seventy year-weeks (Daniel 9:24). Such is also the case here, for it is impossible that the antichrist would perform and accomplish all that in such a short period of time.
Evasive Argument #5: He must be a Jew, will rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, and reintroduce circumcision. Enoch and Elijah must first come from Paradise to oppose the antichrist and ascend to heaven again.
Answer: These are fabrications which are contrary to the Word of God.
Evasive Argument #6: The antichrist will deny Christ.
Answer: The pope has always done this, and still does so by way of his doctrines and institutions, just as the Jews made the commandment of God of none effect with their traditions (Matthew 15:6). It thus remains certain that the pope is the antichrist.
How correctly our forefathers have acted when they, upon God’s command, departed from Babylon! It is everyone’s duty never to have fellowship with the antichrist, and to die as martyrs for the cause of Christ rather than to be in the least manner polluted by him and his activities. The True Church Glorifies God
We have previously stated that the primary purpose of the church’s existence is the glorification of God. Since the church is the kingdom of heaven, and the people of God have God as their Father and the Lord Jesus as their King, so the glory of God can be observed when these people live in the love and fear of God. This is true when they are obedient to Him as their Lord, trust in Him as the almighty and faithful One, and live pure and holy lives personally among each other and towards others. The Lord’s Name is desecrated, however, when this people who are called after His Name do not conduct themselves accordingly. It is the Lord’s will that His Name be hallowed by the coming of His kingdom (Matthew 6:9-10). He has formed that people to show forth His praise (Isaiah 43:21); to show forth the praises of Him who hath called them (1 Peter 2:9); to be to the glory of Christ (2 Corinthians 8:23); and to “be a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God” (Isaiah 62:3). Therefore “let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). The secondary objective is the salvation of the elect. The church functions as a mother (Galatians 4:26), and has within her the Word of God as an incorruptible seed (1 Peter 1:23). As such she is fruitful unto the conversion of many souls, “And of Zion it shall be said, This and that man was born in her” (Psalms 87:5). By means of the preaching of the Word, the Lord will add to “the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47).