# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Dezember 1856_S371
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

A Testimony of Martin Chemnitz Concerning the Right Understanding of the Doctrine, etc. 371

wanted to vindicate for any Christian, for the sake of his particular
estate, some special privilege of estate, to the exclusion of the
other common Christians; rather, they regard those chosen for church
governance out of all the estates as a "committee," which does, "for
order's sake," what all have the right to carry out.

Chemnitz raises, among other things, the question: "Must the whole
crowd always come together — especially where the congregation is
extensive and large — and act, in the calling and appointment of a
church minister, without any order?" To this he answers:

"God is not a God of disorder; He wills that everything be done
honorably and in order in the churches, 1 Cor. 14. Therefore, in order
to avoid disorder, the business of the election and calling of church
ministers was, already in the time of the apostles, and afterward also
in the ancient pure Church, distributed among the foremost estates or
members of the churches, and was undertaken and carried out by them
according to a certain due order. As in Acts 1:6, the apostles first
give a report as to what sort of persons should be chosen, whereupon
the church chooses and appoints certain persons. But because the
calling does not rest with the congregation alone, the nominated
persons are presented to the apostles, so that they may judge
concerning them, whether they are fit for the office according to the
rule of the divine Word. And thus the election and the calling are
approved and confirmed by the apostles, and the office is publicly
committed to those called, with prayer, through a public testimony,
namely through the laying on of hands, Acts 6. But because the
congregation is often not of such understanding that it can or does
know how to propose fit persons, the apostles themselves have often
named fit persons and proposed them to the church — Titus 1 and
1 Tim. 2, 2 Tim. 2. Thus Paul sent Timothy, Titus, and Silvanus to the
churches. But the apostles did not force such persons upon the
churches without their knowledge, consent, and will; rather, they were
presented to the church, which by its consent approved and confirmed
such an election, as Luke indicates with the little word Χειροτονίας
[cheirotonias, "by show of hands"] in Acts 14. But when the
congregation had grown large, a special presbyterium (church court)
was ordained, already in the time of the apostles, for this business,
1 Tim. 4, in which, according to the explanation of Tertullian and
Ambrose, there were certain persons from all the estates and members
of the churches, who, on behalf of and with the consent of the church,
handled such and similar church matters as a committee. Thus the
vocation [the calling] has been, and has remained, with the whole
church, and yet its due order was maintained therein. The ancient
Church followed the apostolic example, and when the magistracy also
accepted the Gospel, the act of vocation was duly distributed among
the three estates — the clergy, the Christian secular magistracy, and
the common estate of Christians. Concerning this, certain ancient
canons are cited: Dist. 23, 24, 62, 63, 65, 67. So also the old church
histories testify that often bishops and clergy proposed persons,
often also the Christian magistracy nominated persons, and at times
also the people desired or requested a person. But these same
nominated or requested persons were afterward presented to the other
estates of the church, by whose judgment and consent the election was
approved and confirmed. Cyprian, lib. 1, Epist. 4. Augustine,
Epist. 100. From this come the customary terms of nomination,
postulation, presentation, consent, confirmation, and collation,