3. The public ministry is not a human order, but a divine one.
It is not merely human, but divine order that Christians carry out the works of the spiritual priesthood, that is, preach the gospel not only in their homes, but also in their intercourse with their brethren and with the world. But it is also not merely human but divine order that Christians living in one place enter into fellowship with one another, form a congregation, and appoint persons equipped with special teaching ability to preach the Word of God publicly (in public assembly) and specially (to individual Christians) on their behalf. As far as the scriptural evidence for this is concerned, we not only see that the apostles appointed elders or bishops to the established congregations, whose office it was to supply the congregations publicly and especially with the Word of God, but it is also expressly reported that Paul, when this order was omitted in the congregations on Crete, commands Titus, who was left there, to appoint such elders or bishops in the individual congregations. Tit. 1:5: "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest perfect, as I left it, and appoint elders in the cities hither and thither, as I commanded thee." τούτον χάριν άπέλιπόν σε εν Κρήτη, ϊνα τά λείποντα επιδιορΰώση καί καταστήσῃς κατά πόλιν πρεσβντέρονς ώς εγώ σοι διέταξα μην. "Elders" and "bishops" are one and the same in Scripture because the expressions promiscue are used.1585) These elders or bishops are accurately described in Scripture both according to their personal character and according to the functions incumbent upon them. They must not only be Christians but model Christians, examples of the flock (1 Pet. 5:3), also have a good name before the world (1 Tim. 3:7). The
1585) Tit. 1:5, 7; Acts 20:17, 28.
507 > The Public Ministry. [English ed. ~ 443-444.]
virtues that should be found in them and the vices that should not be found in them are listed in 1 Tim. 3 and Tit. 1. As far as their knowledge of Christian doctrine and their ability to teach are concerned, they must have the "sound" doctrine, that is, pure doctrine, and be able to do both the thesis and the antithesis, that is, to teach the congregation rightly and to refute false teachers (Titus 1:9-11). For a further description of the area of their activity and the activity itself it says: They must not only preside well over their own house, but also care for the congregation of God (1 Tim. 3:5), feed the congregation of God (Acts 20:28), feed the flock they are commanded to feed (1 Pet. 5:1 ff.), take care of the whole flock (Acts 20:28), care for the individual souls (Acts 20:31), watch over the souls as those who are to give account for them (Hebr. 13:17).
It has been objected against the divine order of the ministry, e.g. by Höfling, that what Paul and Barnabas did Acts 14:23 and Paul Tit. 1:5 ff. had only temporary and local validity, namely for initial conditions and "just formed congregations" of the apostolic church. But this is a limitation not contained in the text. In the text the appointment of elders or bishops is not justified by the fact that they were initial congregations or "congregations that had just come into existence," but the congregations are described absolutely as congregations in which the elders or bishops were to be stewards of God (ϑεον οικονόμοι). Moreover, initial congregations or congregations that have just come into existence are also proper congregations. A congregation is a congregation by the fact that it exists, even before the appointment of the public Ministry. Thus it does not suit us to limit the order of presbyters or bishops to temporary and local relationships of apostolic times. We are safe without any doubt when we say with the Lutheran Confessions [Trigl. 523, Smalc. Art., ibid., 67 🔗]: "Wherever the church is" — no matter how old, how large, in what place and at what time it is — "there is ever the command to preach the gospel. Therefore the churches must retain the power to require ministers, to hold elections, and to ordain." We say, therefore, in describing the public ministry: it does not stand in the arbitrariness of Christians whether they want to establish and maintain the public ministry or not, but Christians are bound to do so by God's ordinance
508 > The Public Ministry. [English ed. ~ 444-445]
Walther expresses this thus:1586) "The ministry of preaching or parish office is not a human order, but an office instituted by God Himself" and: "The ministry of preaching is not an arbitrary office, but such an office, the direction of which is commanded to the church, and to which the church is ordinarily bound until the end of days." The Lutheran Confession states:1587) "But if one would call the sacrament of the order a sacrament of the ministry and gospel, there would be no difficulty in calling ordination a sacrament. For the ministry has been instituted and commanded by God (ministerium Verbi habet mandatum Dei)."
The divine order of the public ministry was disputed within the Lutheran Church in the middle of the last century, especially in Germany, with little satisfactory result. Only a few, such as Ströbel,1588) took the right scriptural position between two paths. The theologian Höfling of Erlangen wants the ministry to be a divine order, but only in the sense that "everything reasonable, expedient, morally necessary" can be called a divine order, not in the sense that there is a divine commandment for the public ministry. With Acts 14:23, where Paul and Barnabas ordain elders for the congregations they have gathered, and with Titus 1:5, where Paul commands Titus to appoint elders or bishops in the congregations of Crete, Höfling, as we have already seen, comes to terms with the untenable remark that these passages deal with "congregations that have just come into being", with "relationships of the beginning", from which "no dogmatic conclusions may be drawn for the future".1589) The real reason, however,
1586) Kirche u. Amt, 193. 211. [Walther and the Church, p. 71, 73]
1587) Apology, 203, 11. [Trigl. 311, Art. XIII, 11 🔗]
1588) Publication for Lutheran Theology and Church 1852, p. 699 f.
1589) Höfling presented his doctrines in "Grundsätze ev.-luth. Kirchenverfassung". The text is also printed in full in the "Erl. Zeitschr. 1850, p. 317 ff. The third edition appeared in 1853. Höfling's position is perhaps best recognized in his article directed against Münchmeyer, "Erl. Zeitschr. 1852, p. 102 ff. There is no factual difference between the 1st and 3rd editions of Höfling's writing. In the 3rd edition, too, he says (pp. 75, 76) that the spiritual ministry in and for itself, but not the public ministry of preaching established by reason of fellowship, is of divine institution, but belongs, "even if with inner necessity," to the human order of church and worship. On p. 274 it is repeated that the apostles had no divine command for the appointment of presbyters or bishops; p. 278 the
509 > The Public Ministry. [English ed. ~ 445-446.]
why he thinks he must reject the divine order of the Ministry lies elsewhere with Höfling. He thinks that if one assumes a divine commandment for the administration of the means of grace by public ministers, then an Old Testament, legal, ceremonial-legal trait is thereby brought into the church of the New Testament. This argument refutes itself as soon as it is taken seriously. It proves too much. Nor is there merely an "inner moral necessity" for the handling of the Word of God on the part of all Christians by virtue of their spiritual priesthood, but likewise an express divine command. All Christians are to search the Scriptures, are to read the Scriptures, are to let Christ's Word dwell among them, are to proclaim the virtues of God, etc. We are dealing here also with imperatives or command words:, that is, with divine order in the sense of a divine command. If a "ceremonial-legal trait" were attached to the divine command or commandment, we would also have to deny the divine order of the handling of the means of grace on the part of all Christians, in order to protect them from ceremonial-legal deviations. Furthermore: For baptism and for the Lord's Supper there is also not merely an "inner moral necessity," but an express divine command. But we will not therefore maintain that baptism and the Lord's Supper have a "legal trait" attached to them, and therefore deny with newer theologians the command for baptism and the Lord's Supper.1590) Furthermore, with regard to sanctification and good works, the doctrine teaches the
The "appointment to office" — and in it the establishment of the public ministry of the fellowship is included — is put on the same line with the Sunday celebration. — The literature belonging to this dispute is very extensive: Delitzsch, Vier Bücher v. d. K., 1847. Loehe, Aphorismen, 1849. Harleß, K. u. A., 1853. Wucherer, Ausführl. Kliefoth, Acht Bücher v. d. K., 1854. Münchmeyer, Das Amt d. N. Ts.; Zeitschr. für luth. Th. u. K. 1852, p. 46 ff. The same: Das Dogma v. d. sichtb. u. unfichtb. Flörke, Zur L. v. d. K. u. ihrem A.; Zeitschr. für luth. Th. u. K. 1852, p. 1 ff. Preger, Die Geschichte d. L. vom geistl. A., 1857 (excellent compilation of quotations from Loehe, p. 170 to 192. Criticism of Loehe's position p. 192 ff, Kliefoth's p. 216 ff). Kraußold, Amt u. Gemeinde, 1858. Dieckhoff, Luther's L. v. d. kirchl. power, 1865. Vilmar, Erl. Zeitschr., Sept. 1859. same: Die L. vom geistl. Amt, 1870.
1590) This, however, is done by more recent theologians, as we have seen with the doctrines of baptism and the Lord's Supper. They admit that baptism and the Lord's Supper were in use in the apostolic church, but not by divine institution, but as a result of free development from Jewish and pagan analogies.
510 > The Public Ministry. [English ed. ~ 446-447]
Scripture not only the "inner moral necessity," but also the divine order expressed by command.1591) We will not, however, maintain that Scripture with these commands instructs Christians to a ceremonial-legal conception of sanctification and good works. In short, Höfling makes contrasts where there are none. The divine command and the divine order to do something has no "legal trait," as Höfling thinks. In his case, of course, this is connected with the peculiarity of Erlangen theology. He explicitly refers to the consensus of all his colleagues1592) and especially to the proof of Scripture that Hofmann had given for his (Höfling's) doctrines.1593) Hofmann's theological position is this: He believes that in presenting Christian doctrine, one must first put Holy Scriptures out of sight and let the "reborn" ego or subject testify "independently." If one were to take the Christian doctrine not from one's own inner being, but from the Holy Scriptures situated outside of it, one would thereby impress a legal trait upon the Christian doctrine, make of the Scriptures "a collection of laws of faith."1594) Only afterwards, what the "born-again ego" has said with inner necessity and independently, is to be compared with Scripture and corrected as needed. Hofmann then did not carry out this correction afterwards. Rather, he subsequently corrected the Scriptures according to what had been developed with inner necessity from within, in such a way that he also deleted the satisfactio vicaria as a scriptural doctrine. It happened similarly to Höfling. In order to be able to deny the divine command for the order of the ministry, he claims that the apostolic example and the apostolic command for the order and appointment of elders or bishops refer only to apostolic times and congregations that have just come into being. We saw that Scripture says nothing of this limitation. To the same end, he further asserts that the functions of the apostolic presbyterate or episcopate are not certain in Scripture. We saw above that Scripture is very precise and detailed in telling both what the elders or bishops are to be like and what they are to do. He further thinks that the apostolic presbyterate had more of a "governing" meaning. We saw above,
1591) 1 Thess. 4:3: God's will (ϑέλημα); 1 Joh. 3:23: God's command (ἐντολή) etc.
1592) Erl. Publication 1852, p. 152.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1593) Grundsätze, 1850, p. 50.
1594) Scripture Proof I, p. 9 ff.
511 > The Public Ministry. [English ed. ~ 447-448]
that precisely the teaching of the Word of God and the refutation of false doctrine that is designated in Scripture is the main task of presbyters or bishops. It serves as a partial excuse for Höfling that his opponents (Münchmeyer, Loehe, Kliefoth, etc.) put forward a roughly Romanizing doctrine of ministry, namely, the doctrine that the public ministry of preaching was not transferred by calling from the Christian congregation, as the original holder of all spiritual power, but was a divine endowment in this sense that it passed directly from the apostles to their disciples as a special "spiritual state," and that this state propagated itself through ordination. They also addressed it as if the means of grace had their proper power and effectiveness only when they were administered by the 'ministers' who had thus come into being. Against this caricature of the doctrine of the public ministry, Höfling rightly says that this would make the public ministers a "means of grace" alongside Word and Sacrament: "The believers cannot see their need for salvation directed both to Word and Sacrament themselves and rather to the divine-privileged organ for their administration and administration. The right efficacy of the means of grace presents itself as dependent on a ceremonial-legal institution; the Holy Spirit no longer works both in them and through them than through the ceremonial-legal organs of their administration." But Höfling's polemic in no way suffers application to the public ministry of preaching taught in the Lutheran Confessions. By the fact that this office has God's command (mandatum Dei), its public ministers no more become "means of grace" and "ceremonial-legal organs" than all Christians become means of grace and ceremonial-legal organs by the fact that their doctrines are also according to God's command and order. So then: Although according to Lutheran doctrine the public ministry has mandatum Dei, it is also stated and very emphatically inculcated that the power and efficacy of the means of grace in no way depend on the persons of the public ministers, but that the means of grace have all power in themselves, whether they are administered by the pious or the ungodly, laymen or officials, called or hired, by the Pope and emperor or by a boy, etc. It is a false conclusion that the doctrine of the divine order of the ministry tends to make those in the ministry "means of grace" alongside the means of grace. Exactly the opposite is the case. If
512 > The Public Ministry. [English ed. ~ 448-449]
it is held that the means of grace have their power and effect through the divine institution, and if it is also held that, as all Christians, so also their public ministers handle the means of grace according to divine order, then all those who are ministered to by the means of grace are induced precisely by the truth of the divine order to disregard entirely the nature of the human person and to adhere only to the means of grace themselves, as if God himself were acting with them. In short, Höfling has not succeeded in keeping the balance in the struggle against a gross Romanistic aberration. In order to thoroughly refute Loehe's etc. direct divine establishment of the public ministry, he thought he had to deny that the indirect establishment taking place through the congregation was divine order or had a divine command. Ströbel summarizes1595) the Lutheran doctrine in this way, which excludes both Loehe's and Höfling's doctrine: "The doctrine of our church concerning the spiritual office is, in short, this: To preach the Word of God to one's neighbor, to administer the sacraments, to forgive sins, to lay hands on one's neighbor, every baptized Christian has a divine right to do this as a spiritual priest (under certain circumstances an unavoidable duty); however, for the sake of order pleasing to God, he should exercise this only in cases of emergency and otherwise make use of the office of the pastors ordinarily called by Christ through the congregation. The Christian congregation, however, must know that it should not let the spiritual office established by the Lord fall or be subjugated by the rabble or by spiritual and worldly tyrants, but should always fill it anew with capable, faithful, God-fearing men until the Lord returns. The pastors, on the other hand, must take comfort in the fact that the office they have received from the congregation is just as certainly a divine one, to be administered only in Christ's name, as if they had received it from Christ himself. For it is an illogical conclusion that he who has the spiritual office not directly from the Lord but from the congregation has it from men and is a minister of men.1596)
1595) Zeitschr. f. luth. Th. u. K. 1852, p. 699.
1596) Rejection of Loehe's doctrine in L. u. W. 1870, p. 174, and rejection of Loehe's doctrine etc. by the whole article "Antithesen zu den Thesen von Kirche und Amt", p. 161 ff. The first article in the first volume of L. u. W., 1855, p. 1 ff, rejects both Loehe's and Höfling's doctrines.
513 > The Public Ministry. [English ed. ~ 449-450]