Church

The core question

Whoever has the last word in a dispute over what constitutes true Christianity holds power over consciences. For precisely this reason, the doctrine of the Church is no peripheral question, but the methodological key question of all theology. If the Church itself decides what Scripture is, what it means, and which conclusions drawn from it are binding, then the final authority is no longer Scripture, but the ecclesiastical magisterium. If conversely Scripture examines the Church, then every assembly — even the most venerable — must be measured against what is written.

In De Ecclesia Sozzini does not attack the existence or dignity of the Church. He attacks a logical inference: that from the mere fact of being a Church it already follows that one is in the right. This inference, on his diagnosis, is either an inadmissible generalization or a hidden circular argument. The essay we summarize here follows his line of thought in seven steps.

Occasion and form of the argument

The starting point is a concrete argument of Roman Catholic polemic against the Reformers: their dogmas and rites are binding because they are the doctrine of the Church, and the Church cannot err. Formally it is a syllogism:

1. Major premise: The true Church cannot err (in doctrine).
2. Minor premise: With us (Rome) is the true Church.
3. Conclusion: Therefore our doctrine cannot err.

Sozzini attacks both premises. Both, as he shows, are neither self-evident nor establishable apart from Scripture. With this, the conclusion collapses — and with it the claim to be able to prove the truth of a doctrine solely by its ecclesiastical origin.

Visible and invisible Church

Before the actual argument, Sozzini clarifies the term. By “Church” the opponents understand the visible assembly of the baptized who profess themselves Christian. In this sense the Church is an empirically observable entity — with offices, buildings, councils, rites. Distinct from this is the invisible Church: the community of those who truly believe and are pure before God. It is known only to God; in the sense of Matt 13:24-30 it is on earth mingled with hypocrites until the end.

This distinction is not merely scholastic. It has immediate consequences: if one wants to derive the Church’s infallibility from its visibility, one proves too much — for then the hypocrites within the visible assembly would also have to become infallible. Sozzini therefore argues with the visible Church, but measured by the standard that the invisible Church has always had: the word of Christ.

The major premise: how far does infallibility extend?

The proposition “the Church cannot err” is, according to Sozzini, not simpliciter — absolutely — true, but only secundum quid: in a certain respect. Scripture promises the Church no comprehensive freedom from error. It does, however, promise that wherever the Church is, the doctrine of Christ necessary for eternal salvation is not lost. In all other determinations — canonical, liturgical, philosophical, historical — the Church too is fallible.

“This argument must be opposed both by contesting the major premise and, above all, the minor premise. For the major premise, as it stands — the Church cannot err — is not unconditionally true, since nothing prevents the Church from erring in certain matters.”

Faustus Sozzini, De Ecclesia

Scripture itself supports this differentiation. Paul rebukes the congregation in Galatia because as a Church it had already accepted another gospel (Gal 1:6-9). Christ reproaches five of the seven churches of Asia (Rev 2-3) and threatens to remove their lampstand. Peter himself had to be publicly rebuked in Antioch by a member of the congregation (Gal 2:11-14). A Church which has its capacity for error conceded in Scripture itself cannot subsequently become infallible.

The consequence is far-reaching: a great part of what is enjoined as binding dogma or as a divinely instituted custom does not fall under the protection of the promise. It does not belong to that “which is necessary for eternal salvation,” and may therefore be examined, criticized, and, if appropriate, rejected — even when the entire visible Church has taught it for centuries.

The minor premise: which is the true Church?

Even if the major premise is granted in the strict sense, the question remains: who is the Church here in question? Sozzini rejects every answer that rests on external marks: not size, not age, not the chain of succession, not the splendour or unity of the assembly makes a Church the true Church, but solely the possession and confession of the saving doctrine of Christ.

“To wish to recognize the Church by certain marks, and not by whether it has and confesses the saving doctrine of Christ, is just as if someone wished to recognize a human being not from whether he is a rational living being endowed with understanding, but from external features.”

Faustus Sozzini, De Ecclesia

Scripture gives no other answer. Christ recognizes his sheep by the fact that they hear his voice and follow him (John 10:27); the Bereans are praised precisely because they did not follow the authority of the apostle Paul, but daily “searched the Scriptures whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). The standard is not the voice of the teachers, but the voice of Christ in Scripture.

The logical point is sharp: if even a single dogma or a single rite of a Church permanently contradicts Holy Scripture, that Church cannot, in the strict sense in which the opponents claim it, be the Church of Christ. The burden of proof thus shifts from the Reform movement to the institution: it must show that none of its doctrines contradicts Scripture.

The circular argument of ecclesiastical interpretation of Scripture

At this point Sozzini draws his sharpest methodological conclusion. Whoever claims that Scripture can be reliably interpreted only through the judgement of the Church falls into a circle: the Church is supposed to be recognized by its agreement with Scripture; Scripture is supposed to be recognized by the judgement of the Church. Both knowledge claims rest on each other — and thereby neither Scripture nor the Church rests on itself.

“Otherwise the Church would have to be recognized before that by which it itself is to be recognized has been recognized. Scripture must be presupposed if the Church is to be determined as Church at all.”

Faustus Sozzini, De Ecclesia

The methodological consequence is: Scripture must be understood from itself — from clear passages about which no reasonable reader can doubt; from context; from agreement with what Christ and the apostles themselves have designated as essential. This principle — the perspicuitas of Scripture in matters of salvation — is no Reformation invention, but is derived from biblical self-statements: the word is a “lamp to my feet” (Ps 119:105), a “lamp shining in a dark place” (2 Pet 1:19), “breathed out by God” and “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16-17).

The marks are not enough: doctrine as the only criterion

What remains when all external notae ecclesiae — succession, miracles, veneration of saints, size, unity, antiquity — fall away as criteria? Sozzini leaves precisely one criterion: the possession of the saving doctrine of Christ. Where this doctrine is purely proclaimed, there is the Church; where it is systematically falsified, it is not — regardless of how old, large, or venerable the assembly is that calls itself “Church.”

“If even a single dogma or a single rite is found among them that contradicts Holy Scripture, that is already sufficient proof that they are not the true Church of Christ.”

Faustus Sozzini, De Ecclesia

Here too Scripture itself answers. Paul warns the elders of Ephesus that “from among your own selves men will arise speaking twisted things” (Acts 20:29-30). John explicitly calls his readers to “test the spirits, whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1). Paul demands that even in the assembly of the prophets “let the others weigh what is said” (1 Cor 14:29). In Scripture itself, the congregation is not judge over the doctrine, but the first addressee of the examination — and the standard of this examination is always the written word.

Preaching ministry and sacraments without apostolic succession

In the second main part of De Ecclesia Sozzini defends the legitimacy of the non-Roman preaching ministry. His argument is sober: whoever knows the saving doctrine is called to proclaim it to others. The right and the duty of proclamation arise not from a chain of laying-on of hands going back to the apostles, but from the universal commission of the exalted Christ (Matt 28:18-20) and from the gifting of the Spirit (Eph 4:11-13).

According to Sozzini, the administration of the sacraments — baptism and the Lord’s Supper — likewise requires no separate divine appointment beyond the calling of the teacher. Whoever teaches by commission of the congregation may also visibly signify what he teaches. The question “by which bishop were you ordained?” is, in the light of the New Testament, no necessary question: neither Apollos nor Aquila were formally installed by an apostle, and yet they are presented as legitimate teachers of the Church (Acts 18:24-26).

Logical arguments

1. Argument from the two premises: The Roman conclusion contains two assertions — the infallibility of the Church and the identity of this Church with Rome. Both are to be examined independently; both must succeed individually. If one falls, the conclusion falls.
2. Argument from the limited promise: The biblical promises to the Church (“on this rock,” “to the end of the world,” “pillar and ground”) concern the preservation of the truth necessary for salvation, not every arbitrary determination. They apply to the matter, not to the institution.
3. Argument from historical self-diagnosis: The apostles themselves warned the later Church against error (Paul in Acts 20; Peter in 2 Pet 2; John in 1 John 2). A Church which finds its own capacity for error presupposed in Holy Writ cannot appeal to infallibility.
4. Argument from definition: “Church” means in the New Testament the assembly of those who are gathered through the word of Christ. The doctrine is not accidental, but essential. An assembly without this doctrine is not simply a weak Church, but a different entity.
5. Argument from the distribution of the burden of proof: Whoever raises a positive claim to knowledge (“we are the true Church”) must justify it. It is not the task of the Reform movement to refute the genuineness of the institution, but the task of the institution to prove it — and indeed by a standard that is not itself.
6. Argument from circularity: Whoever recognizes Scripture only through the Church, but the Church only through its own doctrine, is moving in a circle. From a circle no new content of knowledge can be gained — only self-confirmation.
7. Argument from the Bereans: Scripture itself (Acts 17:11) permits and demands of the congregation that what its teachers say be examined against Scripture. A doctrine that forbids this examination or subjects it to the judgement of the hierarchy contradicts its own biblical foundation.
8. Argument from necessity for salvation: What is necessary for salvation must also be accessible to the simple reader — otherwise God in his saving action would be dependent on the clergy. The central statements of Scripture are clear; the search for the “true Church” as an institutional entity is therefore not necessary for salvation.

Biblical cross-references

• 2 Tim 3:16-17 — Scripture is “breathed out by God” and makes the man of God “complete, equipped for every good work.” If Scripture itself raises this claim, it needs no ecclesiastical completing authority alongside it.
• Acts 17:11 — The Bereans test the preaching of an apostle against Scripture. The model of the early Church is not hierarchical authentication, but textual examination.
• Gal 1:8-9 — Even an angel or the apostle Paul is accursed if he preaches another gospel. The doctrine stands above the teacher; the source stands above tradition.
• Acts 20:29-30 — Paul prophesies to the elders that “from among your own selves” men will arise speaking what is twisted. The corruption threatens from within the legitimately installed hierarchy.
• Rev 2-3 — The exalted Christ rebukes five of the seven churches of Asia and threatens them with the loss of the lampstand. A Church which is itself admonished and threatened in Scripture cannot at the same time be infallible.
• 1 John 4:1 — “Test the spirits, whether they are from God.” The responsibility of examination lies with the congregation, not with a superior authority that is itself the object of the examination.
• 1 Tim 3:15 — The Church is the “pillar and ground of the truth.” Sozzini reads this functionally: the Church bears the truth (it holds it up), it does not produce it.
• Eph 2:19-22 — The Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” with Christ as the cornerstone. The foundation is the apostolic-prophetic word, not a later hierarchy.

Objections and responses

“But the promise of Matthew 16:18 secures the Church absolutely”

The verse promises that “the gates of hell” shall not overcome the Church. Sozzini does not contest this in any way. He contests the inference that thereby every individual doctrinal decision of every individual particular Church is free from error throughout all ages. The promise applies to the one, worldwide community of Christ — it secures its continued existence and the preservation of the truth necessary for salvation, but not the infallibility of ecclesiastical conciliar decisions on every conceivable theme. This is shown precisely in the fact that the same Christ who gives this promise, in the letters to the churches (Rev 2-3), severely rebukes concrete congregations of the Church and threatens to take from them the lampstand. The promise to the whole Church is therefore compatible with the actual failure of individual particular Churches.

“Without a teaching office Scripture falls into arbitrariness”

This objection presupposes what it would have to prove — namely, that only an institutionalized office, equipped with special authority, secures the meaning of Scripture. Empirically the opposite is the case: the greatest dogmatic aberrations in history (the Investiture Controversy, the trade in indulgences, papal rivalries, late-scholastic speculations) arose not in spite of, but often because of the teaching office. Sozzini’s answer is not “let everyone do what he wants,” but: Scripture is opened up by Scripture itself, by clear passages through dark ones, by the confession of the early Church, and by the communio sanctorum of hearers and teachers of all ages. The teaching office is serving, not ruling; ministerial, not magisterial in the constitutive sense.

“Who decides on disputed passages, if not the teaching office?”

Sozzini does not deny that there are passages on which competent Christians may differ in opinion. He denies that from this uncontested observation a binding, alternativeless teaching office follows. The saving sum of Scripture is clear; that is the perspicuitas. Disputed passages do not concern precisely what is necessary for salvation. Where they appear to do so, Scripture has as a rule itself supplied interpretive anchors (such as the christological self-statements of Jesus in John 17 for the question of the Trinity). The congregation that reads in the Spirit comes, with patience, to sufficient clarity; this requires more humility than an authoritative dictate, but it is methodologically more honest.

“Sozzini’s position makes every individual a pope”

This is a topos that is brought against the Reformation scripture principle to this day. It does not, however, hit Sozzini’s position. Sozzini does not place the individual conscience over Scripture, but Scripture over every individual and every official conscience. He very much knows teachers, pastors, congregational order, and the duty to be examined by the whole of Christendom. What he rejects is the identification of a single empirical hierarchy with the infallible presence of Christ. Sovereignty lies with Christ and his word — and it is precisely this that protects against every form of “making oneself pope”: neither the individual nor the bishop may set himself in the place of Scripture.

“But who put the Bible together at all — the Church!”

The historical argument runs: without the ecclesiastical judgement on the canon we would have no Bible; therefore the Church stands logically before Scripture. Sozzini grants the historical fact, but contests the theological inference. The Church did not create the canon, but recognized it: it determined which writings are apostolic and which are not. This is an act of perception of a given entity, not an act of constitutive setting. The formation of the canon is therefore precisely no proof of ecclesiastical sovereignty over Scripture, but a classical case of its subordination: the Church asks what the word of God is, and then orders itself accordingly.

Consequences for today

The questions that Sozzini raises in De Ecclesia have lost none of their urgency. Where lies the boundary between what is necessary for salvation and what is historically grown tradition? Who examines what falls under each? How does one prevent tradition from taking the place of Scripture, without falling into private arbitrariness?

Sozzini’s answer is clear and, in its plainness, radical: The Church is not the standard of truth, but truth is the standard of the Church. From this follows a twofold movement — a disarming and an edifying one. Disarming, because no institution may withdraw itself from the judgement of Scripture, however ancient. Edifying, because every Christian who knows the saving doctrine of Christ is already a member of the Church — even if he should be institutionally without home.

Reference to Fausto Sozzini’s De Ecclesia

The treatise De Ecclesia is a comparatively slim but methodologically dense tract. It stands in the tradition of Reformation criticism of the Church, but goes a step beyond it through its purely logical mode of argument: it does not concede that the question “which Church is the true one” can be sensibly posed at all as a path of knowledge to salvation. The English rendering of the text is linked on this page; the passages quoted here are taken from it. Together with the Racovian Catechism, De Ecclesia forms one of the cornerstones of Socinian ecclesiology.

Summary