REMARKS UPON THE "REPORT OF THE EVANGELICAL SOCIETY OF GENEVA, FOR 1841"
REMARKS UPON THE “REPORT OF THE EVANGELICAL SOCIETY OF GENEVA, FOR 1841”
They have put into my hands the Report of the Evangelical Society, in which the matter that occupies us has also been discussed, from the very beginning of the different reports. I pray God with all my heart, that the work the Society is engaged in may be blessed, whatever may be the way in which it is conducted. I only wish here to draw attention to the arguments which have been used on the subject of ministry, and to shew how far a false idea can lead astray true Christians. All, it is said, should work for the advancement of
+The word used in the French edition of Martin. In Switzerland, the dissenters from the Establishment had chosen presidents, when they had not regular pastors.
[p. 190] the kingdom of God; but if there is not a priesthood, there is a ministry (page 60 of the Report).
Let us mark this well. In this passage of the Report, ministry does not mean service rendered to God and to men, whether of evangelisation, or of faithful care amongst those who have already been brought into the Lord’s sheepfold; but it means a body of men, to whom belongs the right of exercising their ministry; of men who are, as it is said, a few lines lower down, a government in Christian churches. In short, ministry does not mean a certain service, or the subject of testimony with which this service is occupied (as it might be said, for instance, the ministry of the apostle, to designate his service; the ministry of the gospel, to designate the subject matter of testimony); but what has been falsely called the Clergy. I fully acknowledge a ministry (that is, a service rendered by God to men, by means of men raised up by God to this end), whether it be that this ministry is exercised towards the world in evangelisation, or is exercised in the church by gifts and suitable instruments of every kind. “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation,” etc., Romans 12:6-8, etc. Peter also said, “As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God,” etc., 1 Peter 4:10.
Finally, Jesus Himself approves of those, as faithful servants, who have traded with the gift that He entrusted to them, because they have sufficient confidence in Him to labour without further authority than the communication of the gift; and intelligence enough to understand that God does not light a candle to put it under a bushel. But this is not the meaning of the word ministry, in the paragraph we have just quoted. There the ministry is contrasted with the work of Priscilla, and Aquila, and of Origen before his ordination. “They were only simple believers,” but besides that, “there is a ministry,” that is, a clergy. Christian churches need a government.
The whole force of this argument rests on the confusion that is made of the ministry with the established clergy, with a body of teachers, nominated and set apart by man. The author of the report cites, in support of this, 1 Corinthians 12:28:
“[p. 191] God hath set some in the church.” We will content ourselves with what the reporter says himself elsewhere; not man, but God. I do not think that he wishes to make apostles, and who was it that ordained prophets, teachers? But it suffices to say that the apostle only speaks here of the operation of the Holy Spirit. “But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.” This is how God appoints.
Ephesians 4:11, 12, is quoted; but I find here that Christ has bestowed the gifts, and in nowise that man made a body of those who possessed them. I find that the apostle, in the Epistle to the Galatians, asserts, as his glory, that his ministry was not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, and by God the Father. Who was it that set apart the prophets when it is said “so that all may speak and that all may be edified?” Who from among men ordained those that, at the time of the persecution which took place at the death of Stephen, went everywhere preaching the word? Where is it said that these teachers, whom Christ had given as gifts, were ordained? What connection is there between all that and ordination, or a mission on the part of man? Is there no difference between the Lord Jesus, the head of the body, who imparts gifts to men by the Holy Spirit, according to His good pleasure, and an academy for bringing up a clergy? Is it then intended to educate apostles, for they are mentioned here just as much as teachers?+ What an extraordinary confusion is found in the mind of man, the instant he desires to be something!
Let us examine the other passages quoted. Romans 10:14, 15: “How shall they preach except they be sent? How beautiful are the feet of them who preach the gospel of peace.” Is it then a clergy? Was it man who at that time sent out the apostle and others to preach the gospel? Was the apostle mistaken when he said, Not of man, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ? Was he not then one of those who were sent? What a singular feeling of self-satisfaction must exist, when after sent is added “by men,” and when God is thus found excluded
+I see in effect that the dear brother I have in view, amiably imaginative, compares the school of theology to the twelve who were with Jesus. I had only paid attention to the passages quoted. As to this allusion, I do not occupy myself with it; I see more of the reporter than of the Report; it is unnecessary I think to argue about it. (Page 15 of the Report.)
[p. 192] from this glorious privilege and the prerogatives of His grace. In short, who is it that says here that it is men who ought to send them? Romans 12:6-8 says not a word of ordination for the ministry; on the contrary, it is said that each one ought to act according to the gift which has been entrusted to him. “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God,” 1 Corinthians 4:1, 2. Because I ought to consider the apostle as a minister of Christ, does it follow from this, that there ought to be a clergy in the church of God? I am perhaps slow of apprehension, but I see no sequence in this reasoning, although I heartily acknowledge the apostle to be what he says. But does the reporter hold the clergy, from which he has separated himself,+ to be what the apostle was? If not, the point in question is clearly quite another thing. God had sent the apostle; it was necessary to acknowledge him as such; but if one desires to find out how, it will not be difficult to discern in this very epistle, that it was not because he was sent and ordained by men: “Say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it,” Colossians 4:17. Who says that Archippus had received this ministry through the intervention of man?
I find in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25), that faithfulness consisted in that they had acted on their own responsibility, without waiting for anything further than the communication of the gift on the part of Christ, because they had a right confidence in the goodness of their Master and the understanding of His will. He who would have had some other warrant, was condemned out of his own mouth. I am far from putting ordained men in this category; I speak only of the grand principle; for many among them have laboured faithfully in the sphere they have given themselves, and have even acted with a good conscience in this respect. Perhaps they may be found somewhat of the number of those who have put out their money to the banker.
In conclusion, I have nothing to say for my part against the laying on of hands in itself. I do not speak of that laying on of hands which bestowed gifts, but of that which can be given to
+Messrs, Merle, Gaussen, etc., who had separated from the Genevese establishment, or were driven out for faithfulness, when it was Socinian. At that time the Clergy were almost wholly Socinian. If my memory does not much deceive me, Mr. Merle drew up the Report.
[p. 193] any brother approved in the kingdom of God, who has acted on his own responsibility, and with the knowledge of the grace of God, the only real motive owned by God, and who is desirous of being recommended to the grace of God for a special work; in that case, it is all very well. It is what happened to Paul, who received the laying on of hands from the laity (as they say), not to receive authority, nor to be placed amongst the clergy, but to be recommended to the grace of God. It appears, indeed, that this was repeated: compare Acts 15:40, and chapter 14: 26, with chapter 13: 3. That is a very precious thing, but quite in contrast with a ministry transmissible and authorised by men, into which introduction takes place by the intervention of men, by its preparatory education, as if it were a trade.
Let us continue the examination of the passages. The reporter only quotes one more passage which we will look at in a moment. “And those who trust to the choice made by the churches, of those to whom some ministry was confided.” (At the end of page 60 of the Report.) Some ministry was confided! I am astonished! Some ministry! Did the churches choose the apostles, the prophets, the teachers, the evangelists? There were those, it is true, who said, “I am of Paul, of Cephas, of Apollos” — others who have had itching ears. What then is the subject of the passages quoted? Nothing but tables and money. The apostles, because they had the ministry of the word, which was the object, not of the choice of men, but of that of God, requested that men should be chosen to administer the money entrusted to them by the church, because it did not become those who had the ministry given of God to leave it to attend to temporal matters. In like manner, the apostle, careful to provide things honest even before men, was unwilling to take the money, unless there was someone, chosen on the part of the church, to take charge of it together with him. “Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance, which is administered by us, providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men,” 2 Corinthians 8:20, 21.
I have reserved one more quotation, because it is presented to us at length, and I doubt if there be found, even amongst the abettors of popery, an idea so monstrous, and so astounding on this subject. Let us recollect, that the point in question is [p. 194] the institution of a ministry, of a body of men set apart for this service, of the clergy, in short. “If the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory”; “for,” adds the apostle, “if that which is done away is glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious,” 2 Corinthians 3:9-11. I assure [my reader] that I have read again and again this passage and the paragraph where it is quoted, thinking to surprise myself in some confusion of ideas, because it seemed impossible to me that a Christian could make such an application. But no; such is the case. According to the Report, the clergy, the ministry that God established for the primitive church, is the glory which remains. The apostle does not speak of the subject of his ministry, in ‘contrast with the condemnation and death pronounced by the law, at the glory of which in consequence man could not look; it is not the glory of the Lord with unveiled face in the Person of Jesus Christ; no! it is the established ministry, it is the ministerial system, it is a separate class of men, a clergy; this is the glorious thing that is to remain! Is it possible to go to greater lengths?
Even if elders were subjected to the laying on of hands, which is never said, where is it seen that those who exercised the ministry were subjected to it? where is this idea found, that it was only elders who could exercise the ministry? It would be very difficult to prove such a system by the word, and indeed it is never quoted; I appeal to the citations already made by the reporter on the subject of the ministry. He says, that “it is forbidden also to choose ministers amongst new converts.” That is said of the elders, of overseers, but not of ministers: the mingling of these two things is quite unscriptural, although the elders ought to have been fit to teach. But who could have believed, that an attempt would be made to prove that it was forbidden to choose ministers amongst new converts, whilst young men are brought up for the ministry, and that elders or bishops are made of them by the consecration of men, as soon as they have finished their studies? Where is it said in the passages alluded to, and in which the qualities which bishops should possess are specified, “that they ought to receive solemnly the imposition of hands from the assembly of the elders”? When Titus was sent to appoint elders in every city, from what assembly of elders did they receive the imposition of hands?
[p. 195] It is singular enough that, although laying on of hands took place for all sorts of cases, as for the blessing of children, on the sick, on an apostle, to impart the Holy Spirit to all believers, or for a special gift — as to Timothy — finally, on those who were chosen to be deacons; and that thus it is probable that hands were laid on elders, when all things were done in order: it is, I say, singular that the word is perfectly silent on the subject. For my own part, I have no doubt, that as God had foreseen the abuse that would exist as to the Virgin Mary, and that in His grace He always shews her as repelled by the Lord Jesus during His ministry, so likewise God, foreseeing also the abuse of a custom, which probably existed at first, was perfectly silent on the subject; so that the Clergy, of which the system was foreknown to Him, as all things, might never have the semblance of His authority to make it a separate class,+ and by this means to exalt itself, as if it were the ministry of God. We know what has been the result.
As to the circumstances which have given rise to the exposition of the principle which we are commenting upon, I do not meddle with them: I occupy myself with principles only. It may perhaps appear extraordinary to comment upon a report. I reply, that it is not only a report, but a direct attack against certain principles, and the setting forth of other principles, which are given as more biblical: this is a proper subject for discussion.
There is, in the report itself, a singular and striking effect of the principles therein set forth: — Mr. Such-an-one, minister of the holy gospel.
Mr. Such-an-one, evangelist.
This is rather comical. There are evangelists who are not ministers (I suppose according to Ephesians 4:11, 12, quoted in page 61 of the report); and ministers of the holy gospel, who are not evangelists; and, what is more, evangelists, who are not ministers of the holy gospel. It is the ordination of man which makes this strange distinction. May God make them
+The word “clergy” is derived from a word which is found in 1 Peter 5:3, signifying “lot,” or “heritage”: “Not as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” The word translated by “heritage” is in Greek, cleron. Clergy has been made out of this, and the term is applied to the body ecclesiastic to make it the Lord’s heritage and the government of the churches; whereas, there is found in the passage a warning against such conduct. The abuse began early. (See Gieseler, page 169, volume 1, Clark.)
[p. 196] to be good evangelists, and good ministers of the holy gospel! But, truly, the wisdom of man is folly in the sight of God; and the folly of God is wiser than the wisdom of men. Thanks be abundantly given to Him, for that He is good enough to pass over the littleness of the folly of man, and bless according to His sovereign grace those He sends! And I pray Him therefore, that, in His grace, He may keep from the pride that attaches itself to a human distinction those, who, not content with being evangelists sent by Him, have had themselves made by men ministers of the holy gospel.
Let us hasten, however, to find some roses in the midst of these thorns. I quote another report: “To pretend to distinguish here, as it is too often done amongst us, the ministry of preaching, and that of the sacraments (as if one of these ministries, exercised without the authority of the clergy, constituted, more than others, a separation), is to go beyond the scripture, and contrary to it” (page 25 of the report). I do not quote these words of the dear brother, who is the reporter, to lead others to think that he agrees with the principles of my pamphlet. It is clear enough that he does not. I take the words as they are,+ as a testimony which, by dint of circumstances, pierces through the prejudices which have been produced by old habits and certain forms of study. I rejoice to agree with him, and that, in consequence of the evil done by the clergy, according to his account, he has been compelled to put in its true light this truth, that the celebration of the Lord’s supper is no more a separation than preaching is. I draw the same practical (I do not say theoretical) conclusion, as the author of the report; when I find myself authorised to preach apart, I find myself authorised to communicate apart. It is, in my opinion, a perfectly just principle.
I have no doubt that the reporter has sometimes demanded other conditions for preaching than those which I myself demand. I have no wish to make him say what he does not say. I take the naked principle: and, I say, that to draw a distinction between these two things, as has been too often done amongst us, is to go against Scripture, seeing that, if I am authorised to preach apart, I am authorised to celebrate the Lord’s supper apart. Let this be noted! I admit with him, that these two steps are very serious; and I am sure that he does not wish to
+As Tertullian, who said, “Oh, testimony of a soul naturally Christian.”
[p. 197] separate from nationalism, neither by one nor the other. I let him judge for himself if it be to separate oneself from the church. I insist only upon the point contained in this sentence: to preach the word and dispense the Lord’s supper, without being authorised by the ecclesiastical governors, when they are in disorder. I add what he gives us of Benedict Pictet: “The truth of the faith, the purity of worship, submission to Christ, constitute the essence (l’�tre) of the church. The preservation of these things is then the preservation of the unity of the church.”
We have said enough in reply to the quotation which the same reporter makes of the Epistle to the Ephesians. One minister, nominated by men, is a thing far different from the diversity of ministry found in the body of Christ; such a person, in general, extinguishes all the other gifts, unless they manifest themselves in spite of him. It is this confusion that is made between a ministry, authorised by men, and the ministry of the body of Christ, which has produced so much confusion in practice, and which, in eliminating every other ministry than that which is found in the one minister, has forced all other ministries, as it were, into a position of opposition. However irregular, the means, as they are called, have become in a measure more regular in spite of the regular means, so that we have evangelists acknowledged, who are not ministers of the gospel, even teachers, and the Lord’s supper apart, without there being separation from the church.
It is a very important thing to commit to faithful men what one has learnt; but there is always this confusion, that by ministry is meant an ecclesiastical body, ecclesiastical authorities. It is not said here that Timothy (2 Timothy 2:2) was to confer offices, but to communicate the truth; as also he was to prevent certain persons from preaching other doctrines. He was called to watch over the doctrine, and to commit it to faithful men, able to teach others also. The reporter says, that it is evident that these principles (those of the ruin of the church) are false, because “it is easy to see that the state of the churches of Rome, of Ephesus, of Galatia, of Corinth, was the same as ours.” Does he think then that it was the duty of the faithful to have the Lord’s supper apart, because of the condition of these churches, as he thinks that it is now his duty to have the Lord’s supper apart? Was it the condition of those churches to have their pastors nominated by the civil authorities,
[p. 198] perhaps by unbelievers? Has the domination of the Pope changed nothing in the state of the church? What does he mean by “ours”? — the church of Geneva, where he cannot take the Lord’s supper? — the church of Rome, which he fights against with all his might? Where was the church among those churches mentioned in the word, however far it might have wandered in practice, or where was the doctrine which opened “the door to admit to the Lord’s supper, all those who, in the church acknowledged themselves utterly lost by their works and completely saved by Jesus Christ”? I think it strange the reporter should say, that as to their actual circumstances, the churches, in the time of the apostles, were in the same condition as his own.
The reporter, moreover, gives us a summary of the evangelical doctrines, on which, thanks be to God! we agree perfectly, as in many other matters, precious for time and eternity; then, contrasting the opposite error, he says: “Such has been in every age the language of the fallen churches and of all false religions.” Such have been the doctrines of the whole professing church; it was therefore a fallen church. There were only persecuted separatists who may have kept the good deposit of faith.
The church, as a body, is in ruin. That is what I say. In what condition was Protestantism a few years ago (and even at present, in several places), as to doctrine? A scandal, even to a pious member of the Romish Church! Good has introduced itself a little; but it is in spite of the church; I appeal to the Oratoire.+ The church, yes, the church of the reporter is, according to him, in ruin; his position shews it. “Such is,” says he (in speaking of a rejected teaching, as unworthy even of the name of Socinian), “such is the doctrine which has been promulgated in Geneva for a quarter of a century, and that without any remonstrance being raised, if it be not those of men who have been publicly punished by judicial sentence. Were we not right in saying, that our circumstances were unheard of?” How unheard of, if the condition be the same as that of the church at Ephesus? “The Romish religion, even, is not so fatal to the eternal interests of humanity”; “and all that with the sanction of the authorities.” Yet
+The place established for preaching and worship at Geneva by those who had left the national body, which was Socinian, where these reports by Mr. Merle, etc., were read.
[p. 199] persons dare to say: the condition of our church is such as that of Rome, of Ephesus, etc.! And it is not a fallen church!
I beseech my brother to believe me in this, that I am not saying here a word concerning his position; this is not the place to discuss it. I quote all these avowals, because he loudly blames this doctrine, that the church is in a state of failure, and yet it seems to me that he himself proves it. Such is all that I occupy myself with in this report. May God bless the work of those who preach the Lord Jesus! this is my prayer. The report discusses principles, I discuss them too; and I close by making this remark, that there is all possible difference between “preparing for the church faithful persons” — a task that appears to me rather a difficult one for man — and “committing to faithful men” the truths that one has learned, so that there may be a rampart against error. I would also recall the very important remark of the report on evangelisation. The word of God has settled the question. “God,” says the scripture (1 Corinthians 12:28), note it well; God, and not man — God “has set some in the church; first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers.” Well! let it be God, and not man, who appoints them, and we shall be content.
I wish, in conclusion, to remember myself, as well as to remind those who will peruse these pages, that the Holy Spirit is ever with us — that His strength fails not. The unbelief of the mass of professors may exercise an influence on the mode of the activity of the child of God, never on its source. It may give him more of sorrow sometimes; he may find himself more isolated, but that cannot prevent his being faithful. The unbelief of the mass may doubtless change the circumstances in the midst of which he labours, and so modify their effects, but it cannot alter the faithfulness of him who labours in it; on the contrary, the moment when evil is at its height, is ordinarily the time of the greatest faithfulness of Christians: we have already said so in the pamphlet, “On the Formation of Churches”; Elijah, Samuel, Moses, and others, are witnesses of this.
Moreover, the duty of evangelising always remains: the responsibility of those who have to labour in pastoral care is always the same, and Christian love will constrain those who are filled with the Spirit of Christ thus to occupy themselves. The conviction that the church is fallen, and that the world is going to be judged, will only serve to give more activity, so [p. 200] that they who have ears to hear, may hear, and be saved from the perverse generation, whose iniquity will soon bring in such terrible consequences; namely, the righteous anger of a God of patience, the wrath of the Lamb! Let us work, dearly beloved, whilst it is day; the night cometh, when no man can work. The love of Christ is the best guide for our daily duties.