Chapter V: Testimony of the Churches of the Reformation to the Office of Deacon

When the Reformation of the 16th century dawned, and men, abandoning human traditions, reverted to the Word of God as the exclusive standard, they clearly saw the wisdom and obligation of the office of deacon, as a permanent institution in the Christian Church, and proceeded forthwith to revive it in the Churches which they were honoured to rear. Indeed, ages before the Reformation, strictly so called, the Waldenses bore testimony to the office of deacon. They reach up almost to apostolic times; and yet Gillis, one of their historians and pastors, give us the confession of their ancient as well as modern faith, from which these words are an extract:

It is necessary for the Church to have pastors esteemed sufficiently learned and exemplary in their conduct, as well to preach God’s Word as to administer the sacraments, and watch over the sheep of Jesus Christ; together with the elders and deacons, according to the rules of good and holy Church discipline, and the practice of the primitive Church. (Art. 31)

There is not a word here of preaching and baptizing deacons. On the contrary, this usurpation is excluded.

Wickliffe, “the Morning Star of the Reformation,” its precursor by nearly 200 years, held that there are but two orders of clergy—the priest and the deacon— and disclaims the bishops, with the many other varieties of imparity. It is probable that, by orders of clergy here, he meant to be popularly understood as speaking of office-bearers in the Church.

Tyndal, A.D. 1526, the first translator of the Scriptures into English, and very nobly a martyr for his work, after speaking of the bishop or presbyter in the primitive Church, says, “Another officer they chose, and called him deacon, after the Greek—a minister in English—to minister alms to the poor.” Lambert, a martyr of the same reign, could be appealed to to the same purpose; and so might Archbishop Cranmer, and many of his prelatic brethren, in “The Institution of a Christian Man,” which they approved and published in 1537, and which maintains that there are only two orders, deacons and presbyters. From the view which is given of the pastoral and ministerial functions of the presbyter, it is plain that the other office must point to a different class of duties. Turning from Britain to the Continent, we find Ursinus in Germany, the learned contemporary of Luther and Melanchthon, accurately describe the different office-bearers of the Church as Presbyterian would do, and conclude by describing the deacons “as ministers (or servants) elected by the Church to take care of the poor and distribute alms.” Buddœus, another Lutheran, and eminent professor of divinity at Leipsic, giving an account of the government of his own church, mentions the office of deacon, and asserts that it had been perverted, in process of time, from the guardianship of the poor, to which it had been expressly devoted by the apostles. In accordance with these views, the Lutheran Church, after all the decline which it has experienced, adheres to the office of deacon, not as an order of clergy, but as a guardian of the poor, and, at the present day, administers their affairs through deacons in every congregation. So little foundation is there for the idea of a clerical order of deacons, that, if I am not misinformed, even the modern Swedish Church, which is practically Episcopalian in its government, disclaims the notion of deacons as an order of ministers.

If we now pass to the Genevan and Swiss Churches, we shall be at no loss to ascertain their sentiments on the subject of the deaconship. Calvin, the great reformer, to whom these and all the Churches of the Reformation are deeply indebted, expresses himself with his usual clearness and decision. In his celebrated “Institutes,” published in 1536, he says (book iv. chap. 3), in speaking of the permanent offices of the Church:

The care of the poor is committed to the deacons. Although the word deacon has a more extensive meaning, yet the Scriptures expressly call them deacons to whom the Church has given in charge the distribution of alms and the care of the poor; and hath appointed them, as it were, stewards of the common treasury of the poor, whose origin, institution, and office, are described by Luke, in Acts vi., &c., &c. Behold what manner of the deacons the apostolic Church had, and what manner of deacons it becomes us to have, in conformity to their example.

Again (book iv. chap. 5), there is the following passage, in which he condemns the unscriptural views of the office entertained by prelatic Churches:

Now let the deacons come forth, and that holy distribution which they have of the Church’s goods: although they by no means, at present, create their deacons for that purpose, for they (viz., the Roman Catholics) enjoin upon them nothing else but to minister at the altar, to read or sing the gospels, and to perform, I know not what, trifles. Nothing of the alms, nothing of the care of the poor, nothing of the whole function which in former times they executed. I speak of the very institution; for if we have a respect to what they do, it is not in itself an office, but only a step towards the priesthood. Therefore, they mock the Church with this lying deaconry. Truly therein they have nothing like either the institution of the apostles or ancient usage.

Agreeably to these views, we find that the Second Confession of the Helvetic (Swiss) Churches, published in 1566, strongly condemns unauthorised offices in the Church, in these terms:

In process of time there were many more ministers brought into the Church. For some were created patriarchs, others archbishops, others suffragans, others metropolitans, archpriests, deacons, subdeacons, acolythes, exorcists, queristers, pastors, and I know not what a rabble besides. Cardinals, provosts, and priors; abbots, greater and lesser; governors, higher and lower; but touching all these we pass not a rush what they have been in time past, or what they are now. It is not sufficient for us. Forasmuch as concerneth ministers, we have the doctrine of the apostles. (Harmony of Confessions, chap. xviii., p. 235; London, 1643)

The same admirable document, in reference to the point more immediately on hand, under the head of the “Goods of the Church,” has these sentences:

The true use of the Church goods was, and now is, to maintain learning in schools and in holy assemblies, with all the service, rites, and buildings of the Church; finally, to maintain teachers, scholars, and ministers, with other necessary things; and chiefly for the succour and relief of the poor. But for the lawful dispensing of these ecclesiastical goods, let men be chosen that fear God, wise men, and such as are of good report for government of their families. But if the goods of the Church, by injury of the time, and the boldness, ignorance, or covetousness of some, be turned to any abuse, let them be restored again, by godly and wise men, unto their holy use, for they must not wink at so impious an abuse. Therefore we teach, that schools and colleges wherein corruption is crept in doctrine, in the service of God, and in manners, must be reformed—that there must order be taken godlily, faithfully, and wise, for the relief of the poor. (Cap. xxviii. pp. 355-6)

It is plain, from the Scripture qualifications referred to, that the men spoken of in the above paragraphs are the deacons; indeed they are elsewhere denominated “the overseers and watchmen of the Church, who did distribute food and other necessaries of the Church.” It may be noticed, in passing, that there was a peculiar call for such an office a that of deacon at the period of the Reformation, and for many years after. Independently of Scripture obligation, and the care of the poor, it was urgently necessary to guard the general patrimony of the Church against neglect, and also to prevent dilapidation and alienations. This duty could not be well attended to by the ministers and elders without injury to their spiritual office, and hence the propriety of committing it to the deacon. To give the greater weight to the views of the Helvetic Confession, it may be stated that it was approved and subscribed, not only by the Tigurines (inhabitants of Zurich) themselves, and their confederates of Berne, Scapushia, Sangallia, Rhetia, Milan, and Bienna, but Geneva, Savoy, Poland, and likewise the Churches of Hungary and Scotland.

If from Switzerland we pass to France, and ask what were the views of its illustrious Protestant Church on the subject of the deacon—the Church of the most able and learned ministers to whom the Reformation gave birth—we find its sentiments contained in these words:

We believe that the true Church ought to be governed by that regiment or discipline which our Lord Jesus hath established, to wit, so that there be in it pastors, elders, and deacons, that the purity of the doctrines may be retained—vices repressed—the poor, and others that be in misery, according to their necessity, may be provided for—and that there may be holy meetings for the edifying both of small and great. (Art. 29, Harmony, p. 253)

It is well known that there is sad mendicancy in particular districts of France,—not an occasional but constant evil. There can be little question that it is the Popery of the land, and not anything in the character of the people, which lies at the root of it. Few men were ever more noted for their industry and skill than the French Protestants. Some of the most honoured names in the United States, whither they were driven by persecution, belong to the number. Most of the countries of Europe, too, have been indebted to their perseverance and ingenuity. The French Church seems to have made extensive use of the office of deacon. In the account of “The Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches in France” (London, 1642), two chapters are devoted to an exposition of their duties; a number of important points also, connected with the administration of the office, are authoritatively determined. We are informed that “the office and duty of the deacons is to receive, gather, and distribute, by the advice of the consistory, the monies of the poor, the prisoners, and the sick; and to visit and take care of them. The office of the deacon is not to preach the Word of God nor to administer the sacraments; yet, nevertheless, for the necessity of the time, may the consistory elect and choose both some elders and deacons, to catechise in the households; they are forbid, however, to catechise publicly; are exhorted to exercise the office as long as they can; and are guarded against pretending to any supremacy or domination over one another.”

The spirit and language of the Confession of the Belgic Churches, formed in 1566, are similar to those of their French brethren. This Confession was revised and approved by the Dutch Synod of Dort, in 1618 and 1619. “We believe,” say the Protestant Presbyterians of Belgium,

that this true Church ought to be governed by that spiritual regiment which our Lord hath taught us in his Word, viz., that there be ministers or pastors to preach God’s Word and to administer the sacraments; that there be also elders and deacons, who, together with the pastors, might make up, as it were, and ecclesiastical senate; that by these means true religion might be preserved, and true doctrine propagated everywhere; that offenders be censured and restrained in a spiritual way; that likewise the poor and afflicted be relieved with aid and comfort, according to the several necessities of every one; so that all things in the Church be done decently and in order, when faithful men shall be chosen according to the rule prescribed by Paul in the Epistle to Timothy. (Ecclesiastical Discipline, p. 62)

The Dutch Church is not less clear. Junius, one of its earliest and most learned professors of divinity, a contemporary of the first reformers, writes fully on the subject of Church government. He maintains that pastors, ruling elders, and deacons, are the only three orders of Church officers, that they are set forth in the Word of God, and existed in the primitive Church. Of deacons he says, that they “are appointed to collect and distribute the alms of the Church.” At a later day, three eminent professors of theology, Polyander, Thysius, and Walӕus, in a joint work (“Synopsis Theologiӕ Disputat,” 42), maintain the same doctrine. They contend that the deacon is of apostolic institution—that he is intrusted with the Church’s treasure—that it is his duty to take care of the poor. They expressly declare that they considered the Church of Holland, in retaining these offices, as following the example of the Apostolic Church.

Passing from the testimony of individuals to more authoritative documents, we find that the Synod of Dort, composed of some of the most learned divines who were ever convened, several from foreign countries, solemnly declare that the true Church must be governed by that spiritual policy which our Lord hath taught in His Word, and that it comprehends “elders and deacons, who, together with the pastor, form the council of the Church,” (Netherlands Confession, Art. 30.) And still further, in the “Corpus Disciplinæ” of the Dutch Churches (London, 1645, pp. 3, 4) there is a section devoted to deacons. The following are some of the points:

Their office is diligently to collect and preserve the alms and other means belonging to the poor; they are to distribute the same, faithfully and discreetly, according to the need of such as are in want, whether inhabitants or strangers, by common consent and plurality of voices; to visit and comfort the needy, and to look that the alms be not misemployed.

The form for ordaining elders and deacons is given in four pages (37-41). The same “discipline” is observed by the Dutch Churches in Britain, as in their native country.

In harmony with these things, it appears from Dr Stevens’ “Brief View of the Dutch Ecclesiastical Establishment,” 1838, that the office of deacon is in vigorous operation in the Dutch Church at the present day. Those who hold it in larger towns, have a court of meeting of their own, and so important is the office deemed, that in conjunction with the elders, the deacons have the appointment of the ministry. It is doubtless in part owing to the importance attached to the office, and its excellent services, that the poor of Holland are, it is generally understood, among the best cared for in Europe.

It is unnecessary to refer to the testimony of other Reformed Churches. That of Scotland will be considered separately. It may simply be mentioned, that the Puritan or Presbyterian Church of England of the 17th century, entertained the same views of the office of deacon as the earlier Churches of the Reformation. The form of Church government agreed upon at Westminster, and adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1645, is an ample proof of this; as also the writings of the Presbyterian ministers of London, who always contended for the office of deacon as distinct from others, and permanent in the Christian Church. (Vide Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiasticæ, London, 1646, pp. 160, 161.)

In concluding this part of the subject, and in connexion with the above, it may be noticed that the Nonconformists of New England did not differ from their brethren in this country. On some points of church government there may have been diversity of opinion, but here they were at one. In the platform of church government agreed upon at Cambridge, in 1649, the deacon is spoken of in these terms:

The office and work of a deacon is to receive the offerings of the church, gifts given to the church, and to keep the treasury of the church, and therewith to serve the tables which the church is to provide for, as the Lord’s table, the table of the ministers, and of such as are in necessity, to whom they are to distribute in simplicity. The office, therefore, being limited unto the care of the temporal good things of the church, it extends not to the attendance upon and administration of the spiritual things thereof, as the word, the sacraments, and the like. (Cap. viii.)

Under the title of “Heads of Agreement assented to by the United Ministers, formerly called Presbyterian and Congregational,” we find that upon the office of deacon they are entirely at one.

It may be added that, with inconsiderable exceptions the Congregational Churches, both of this country and of the United States, have in all ages agreed with the Presbyterian Church throughout the world in regard to the deacon. In many cases, from particular circumstances, the power of the office of deacon may have been, and may be, too extensive as compared with pastors, and he may be admitted to the function of teaching and exhorting; but in this case, it is not as deacon, but as Christian brother, that he teaches. In almost every case, the principle is, that the office of deacon is a secular office, and has no connexion with the preaching of the word or the administration of the sacraments. This, we maintain, is the indubitable doctrine of Scripture. Hence it appears that the whole Presbyterian and Congregational Churches of the world, forming a vast proportion of the entire Protestant communion, though differing upon other points, are here at one. Surely this is no small testimony in behalf of the office as a scriptural office, the more especially when taken in connexion with the views of the Churches of the Reformation from the earliest periods. On the other hand, surely it is little to say of any Protestant Church, that, looking through Christendom, she can find none but the Church of Rome to countenance her in her views of an important office in the Church of Christ,—an office, upon the right administration of which, the most important results are suspended. Whether is it the more likely that the harmony is the harmony of the truth, or the harmony error?