CHAPTER 17 - ON MR. WOLFF'S CHAPTER 17, WHERE HE ASSERTS THAT "TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE MINISTRY THE RIGHT TO ADMINISTER THE SACRAMENTS, IS TO INFRINGE UPON THE CHARGE ITSELF AND TO COMPROMISE ITS EXISTENCE

CHAPTER 17 — ON MR. WOLFF’S CHAPTER 17, WHERE HE ASSERTS THAT “TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE MINISTRY THE RIGHT TO ADMINISTER THE SACRAMENTS, IS TO INFRINGE UPON THE CHARGE ITSELF AND TO COMPROMISE ITS EXISTENCE

It is remarkable enough that the writer has been unable to quote a single passage of the word of God to establish that the administration of the sacraments must be performed by the ministry. Taking away from it gifts, and attributing to it the right of taking possession of the outward forms — these do very well together: but it is very singular that it never entered the mind of the apostle to propose, as a remedy, the system of the writer. Very far from this, in an epistle which formally treats the subject of the Lord’s Supper, the Holy Ghost does not give the slightest hint that the ministry presides; but quite the contrary. The state of things which is described there excludes all idea of such order; and never, in applying a remedy for it, does the idea present itself of making the minister preside: for it is singular that, in the epistle to the Corinthians, where the interior of the administration of a church is given to us, no mention is ever made of the elders. There were some, perhaps; but if there were, the Holy Ghost passes over it, authorizing us to act even when there are none. I exhort those brethren who are occupied with this to weigh such a fact taken from the epistle to the Corinthians.

^[p. 307] As to the quotation given by Mr. Wolff of Acts 6: 1-4, it is so much outside the subject that I need not dwell upon it. The man who can mistake the daily administration of help to widows for the Lord’s Supper may very well suppose all he likes; and in Mr. Wolff’s interpretation, Acts 6: 1-4, supposes that the apostles had abandoned the administration of the table of the Lord as being of slight importance, and that the deacons, and not the elders, are to preside there. What is said in paragraph 4� of page 81, is therefore unworthy of an answer. To say that the word of God which accompanies the outward act is more important than the Supper itself is to exalt a discourse without gifts above the remembrance of Jesus instituted by Himself. Moreover, where did the writer find this — “the word of God which accompanies the sacrament”? Besides, it is very certain that in the primitive Church there was nobody established to speak a word; for the prophets spoke as God led them, according to the rules given in 1 Corinthians 14. For an apostle to break the bread, when he was present (Acts 20: 11), was a very natural thing, and appears to me very suitable; but I do not see that this proves that the ministry had the exclusive right so to do.

As to baptism, the apostle expressly says that the Lord had not sent him to baptize. It is very certain that Acts 10: 48 is very badly rendered by “He took measures,” etc., and that Acts 17: 26, where it is said that God had determined certain things, proves the inaccuracy of such a way of translating. The reader who does not know Greek may consult Matthew 1: 24; chapter 21: 6; Luke 5: 14 — “Moses commanded”; Matthew 8: 4; Mark 1: 44; Acts 10: 33 — passages which, with the two quoted here, are the only passages where this word (which signifies “to command”) is found in the New Testament.

^[p. 308] In result, Mr. Wolff, who does not produce a single passage to prove that the ministry did administer the sacraments, admits that simple believers may do it in cases of necessity. We see that what existed at Corinth excludes the idea of such a custom; and when there was a state of disorder, when the opportunity presented itself of reminding them in what order did consist, or of establishing order if it had not yet been done; and if such order as this would have been the remedy according to God, not a syllable about it is said by the apostle — by the word, but means altogether different are used to remove the scandal. We find that, to support his system he is obliged to confound with the Lord’s Supper the administration of help intended for the widows. A cause which is thus maintained is not worth much. That in a large assembly the Supper be administered by brethren who enjoy the consideration of all, by an apostle when there was one, is just what suits order; and I have no fault to find with such an ordinance. There is not one expression in the word of God to lead one to suppose that there was any need of a minister for the Supper or for baptism — we even see the contrary — and now I use the word ‘ministry’ in the sense of the pamphlet, and in whatever sense people may like to use it.