Basic HTML Version
554
they did not deny the unity of the visible Church but maintained it. However, they did not find
the bond of union in the ecclesiastical organization of the Church, but in the true preaching of
the Word and the right administration of the sacraments. This is also the case in the Belgic
Confession.[Articles XXVII - XXIX.] We quote only the following statements from it: “We believe
and profess one catholic or universal Church, which is a holy congregation of true believers, all
expecting their salvation in Jesus Christ, being washed by His blood, sanctified and sealed by
the Holy Spirit.”[Art. XXVII.] The marks by which the true Church is known are these: “If the
pure doctrine of the Gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the
sacraments as instituted by Christ; if Church discipline is exercised in punishing sin; in short, if
all things are managed according to the pure Word of God; all things contrary thereto rejected,
and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may
certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.”[Art. XXIX.] The unity of
the visible Church was also taught by Reformed theologians of the post-Reformation period,
and was always very strongly emphasized in Scottish theology. Walker even says: “True
Churches of Christ, side by side with one another, forming separate organizations, with
separate governments, seemed to them (Scottish theologians) utterly inadmissible, unless it
might be in a very limited way, and for some reason of temporary expediency.”[Scottish
Theology and Theologians, pp. 97 f.] In the Netherlands this doctrine was eclipsed in recent
years in the measure in which the multi- or pluriformity of the Churches was emphasized in
deference to the facts of history and the existing condition. At present it is again stressed in
some of the current discussions. In view of the present divisions of the Church, it is quite
natural that the question should arise, whether these do not militate against the doctrine of the
unity of the visible Church. In answer to this it may be said that some divisions, such as those
caused by differences of locality or of language, are perfectly compatible with the unity of the
Church; but that others, such as those which originate in doctrinal perversions or sacramental
abuses, do really impair that unity. The former result from the providential guidance of God,
but the latter are due to the influence of sin: to the darkening of the understanding, the power
of error, or the stubbornness of man; and therefore the Church will have to strive for the ideal
of overcoming these. The question may still arise, whether the one invisible Church ought not
to find expression in a single organization. It can hardly be said that the Word of God explicitly
requires this, and history has shown this to be infeasible and also of questionable worth. The
only attempt that was made so far to unite the whole Church in one great external
organization, did not prove productive of good results, but led to externalism, ritualism, and
legalism. Moreover, the multiformity of Churches, so characteristic of Protestantism, in so far as
it resulted from the providential guidance of God and in a legitimate way, arose in the most
natural manner, and is quite in harmony with the law of differentiation, according to which an
organism in its development evolves from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous. It is quite