Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

1. THE MARKS OF THE CHURCH IN GENERAL.
a. The need of such marks. Little need was felt for such marks as long as the Church
was clearly one. But when heresies arose, it became necessary to point to certain marks
by which the true Church could be recognized. The consciousness of this need was
already present in the early Church, was naturally less apparent in the Middle Ages, but
became very strong at the time of the Reformation. At that time the one existing Church
was not only divided into two great sections, but Protestantism itself was divided into
several Churches and sects. As a result it was felt ever increasingly that it was necessary
to point out some marks by which the true Church could be distinguished from the
false. The very fact of the Reformation proves that the Reformers, without denying that
God maintains His Church, were yet deeply conscious of the fact that an empirical
embodiment of the Church may become subject to error, may depart from the truth, and
may totally degenerate. They assumed the existence of a standard of truth to which the
Church must correspond, and recognized as such the Word of God.
b. The marks of the Church in Reformed theology. Reformed theologians differed as to
the number of the marks of the Church. Some spoke of but one, the preaching of the
pure doctrine of the Gospel (Beza, Alsted, Amesius, Heidanus, Maresius); others, of
two, the pure preaching of the word and the right administration of the sacraments
(Calvin, Bullinger, Zanchius, Junius, Gomarus, Mastricht, à Marck) and still others
added to these a third, the faithful exercise of discipline (Hyperius, Martyr, Ursinus,
Trelcatius, Heidegger, Wendelinus). These three are also named in our Confession; 26 but
after making mention of them, the Confession combines them all into one by saying: “in
short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God.” In course of time a
distinction was made, especially in Scotland, between those features which are
absolutely necessary to the being of a Church, and those which are only necessary to its
well-being. Some began to feel that, however necessary discipline might be to the health
of the Church, it would be wrong to say that a church without discipline was no Church
at all. Some even felt the same way about the right administration of the sacraments,
since they did not feel free to unchurch either the Baptists or the Quakers. The effect of
this is seen in the Westminster Confession, which mentions as the only thing that is
indispensable to the being of the Church “the profession of the true religion,” and
speaks of other things, such as purity of doctrine or worship, and of discipline as
excellent qualities of particular churches, by which the degree of their purity may be
26 Art. XXIX.
638