In a discussion in the Free Church Assembly, the Church’s Ministry was the subject of proposed changes which, if adopted, would alter the work and the very nature of the Free Church ministry itself. The Free Church Assembly listened on Wednesday to the Report of the Sustentation and Supply Committee, presented by Mr John Munro, Inverness, in which a scheme was outlined which would combine the pastoral duties of the ministry with employment in some secular work, either in Education or Industry. “It may well be that the ministry as we know it today will change in a very distinctive way within the next few years,” said Mr Munro, “The minister of the future may be required not only to be a specialist in his own sphere in religion but he may also be required to take his place in industry and education, particularly in the latter. It may be well for those who are thinking of the ministry and those who are presently students to equip themselves to take their place in secondary schools in specialist subjects. By their influence, by precept they could make a contribution to the advancement of the evangel and to moral standards—all very necessary in this day and age.” It sounds as though what is advocated here amounts to a part time ministry. But will a part time ministry, whatever may be the purpose for it, where the minister immerses himself in the work of some worldly calling for the most of the week and expects to preach a fresh, stimulating message to his flock on the Sabbath, be more effective than a whole time ministry? In time of economic necessity, as a temporary measure, the minister may have to take up worldly employment, as did the apostle when he resorted to the trade of tentmaker, but consecration to the work of the ministry requires of the Lord’s servant unreserved application to his work, free from worldly anxieties. The scriptures teach only a full time ministry for Christ’s ministers. The apostle counsels Timothy to give himself wholly to the work of the ministry, “that this profiting may appear to all”—I Tim. 4, 15; “Watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry”—II Tim. 4, 5. For the most part the occupants of the modern pulpit are worldly enough and need no fresh encouragement to become more worldly.
The proper use of the Church’s man power was also considered. There are at present in the Free Church ministry 83 ministers in active service and 20 on retired list but fully employed each Sabbath; there are also 18 working lay agents. The proposal was made that the small congregations should link together for the purpose of enjoying the services of a full time minister. “By linking they could have unity in strength and make a much more affective contribution to the community,” he said. In the City of Glasgow were 9 congregations where this scheme might apply without detriment to any one congregation.
On Church’s Finances, the Assembly was informed that ministers’ salaries would be increased from £1,000 to £1,100 which was in no way too great remuneration for the work of their noble office, and salaries of resident lay agents would rise to £650 per year. Payment to retired ministers, at present £290 payable under the terms of the Aged and Infirm Ministers’ Fund would be raised to £400. On retirement allowances, the Assembly agreed that a scheme would be prepared providing that within 5 years the maximum retirement allowance would not be less than 65 per cent of the equal dividends, the same proportion being maintained in any future fluctuations of the equal dividend, at the time of retirement. The Assembly also approved the setting up of a central fund of the Free Church for a trial period of three years, which would be a holding fund for the total income of the Church, apart from legacies or sums devoted to special purposes, and from this fund would be allocated to the various administrative committees, money in terms of a budget of expenditure what had previously been approved by the Finance Committee.
The Westminster Confession of Faith was taken up in the Report of the Committee on Public Questions, Religion and Morals, when Rev. H. Cameron, Dornoch presented the Report to the Assembly. Mr Cameron offered some defence of the Confession against criticisms in recent years, having no doubt particularly in mind the debate in the nearby Assembly of the Church of Scotland on the Confession. He spoke of the need of the people of Scotland being educated up to their own Confession, as something that was more urgent than the abandonment of the Confession itself. “They would then be in a happier position to place an estimate on their doctrinal heritage,” and might with fuller knowledge be able to decide what changes, if any, were required, he said. “We spend too much time bemoaning the tragedy of the age instead of getting on with the job of Christian education,” he went on. “We ought to look at the question how far Christianity is actually being taught,” We cannot deny that much of what Mr Cameron says in his remarks on this subject is true. There is a woeful ignorance in the country today of the Bible as well as the Confession. The Westminster Confession, being a human document, is not above the need of undergoing changes, although the fact that it has stood for four centuries makes this possibility very remote. And the task of the Church is certainly urgent to press on with the Christian education of the people. But when the Westminster Confession is under heavy attack as an antiquated, discredited document, is this the time to emphasise ignorance of its contents, possibility of emendation of its statements, the time wasted “bemoaning the tragedy of the age” which could be devoted more profitably to Christian education? These matters may not be irrelevant today, but used by Mr Cameron in this context, they are simply a diversion from the serious issue of the very survival of the Westminster Confession. This is a poor defence. These hesitating words will do little, we are convinced, to deter the enemies of the Westminster Confession from their purpose of getting rid of this noble statement of the Christian Faith at all costs. We do not wonder, when we read such remarks as these, that the Assembly of the Church of Scotland have relegated the Westminster Confession, up till now the accepted Subordinate Standard of the Church, to a place alongside the Creed and the Scots Confession as an historical document of antiquarian interest.
The Treaty of Rome was discussed in the Assembly when considering the Report of the Committee on Public Questions. In seconding the adoption of the Report, Rev. N. MacLeod, Duke Street, Glasgow spoke of the major political issue facing this country today as being Britain’s relationship to the Common Market, which in public discussions was being treated as though the economic question was the determining factor, whereas the loss of sovereignty was the main political issue. Under the Treaty of Rome, Britain would lose much of her sovereignty and the Christian influence inherited from the time of the Reformation by which she was able to make so great a contribution to the Christian institutions, culture and traditions of the world. The present Government’s manner of handling the Common Market negotiations was highly unsatisfactory, for “they have not been frank, open and honest with the nation.” The European Economic Community was “Romanist dominated.” If Britain were to sign the Treaty of Rome, she would become a minority voice as far as religion was concerned. Mr MacLeod said: “If Britain does become part of the Community, that will be one of the saddest chapters in the long and distinguished history of this country.” With these words we fully agree. This is no over-statement of the dire peril that threatens this country, if we enter the Common Market. Besides the economic and political questions, there are the religious consequences which will affect the Sabbath, the Protestant Constitution of the Throne, and the religious and civil liberties of our people.
The Growing Permissiveness of the age was taken up by Rev. A.G. Ross, Hope Street, Glasgow who put forward an amendment to the Report of the Committee. Mr Ross spoke of the appalling decline in moral standards, the debasing of the beautiful gift of sex into something perverted and pernicious and expressed the fear that God was in the process of giving people up to the uncleanness and horrid catalogue of vice of which the Bible had warned. The amendment called upon the Assembly to urge Christian people everywhere “to unite in a concerted effort against the present exploitation of sex and to campaign ceaselessly to preserve the foundations of our national life now being shamelessly undermined,” and other churches be invited to give their support to this necessary cause.
In his closing address to the Assembly on Friday evening, the Moderator Rev. Prof. G.N.M. Collins spoke of the present fragmented condition of the Christian Church, which demanded an enquiry into the causes of division, not an incorporating union of a vague, uncritical, unscriptural kind. While the causes of division were ignored, such a union was to attempt the greatest fraud in history. “Truths once held dearer than life itself are now demoted to mere arguable propositions,” he said. A Bible based ecumenical movement provided the answer to the modern ecumenical movement which was described as “one of the most controversial and influential sideshows of the present time.” The Moderator spoke of two important fields of interest which deeply concerned the Church, the relationship with other Churches and the Christian message preached from the pulpit. The Free Church, he claimed, had always taken her full share in inter-Church activities which provide a worthwhile area of Christian co-operation, without compromising her testimony to the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. Whether the Free Church has always observed the line of separation between the Reformed Church and heretical bodies is open to question. On the nature of the message heard from many pulpits today, the Moderator said: “The content of pulpit proclamation in many cases is so pitifully inadequate and so destitute of the message of salvation as to be an affront to the Gospel and an insult to the intellect.” The standard of education required for the Ministry is generally as high as it has ever been. The Assembly then rose on Friday night. A.F.M.
Induction Sermon: “Sir, we would see Jesus”. John 12 v.21
by Rev. J. Tallach, Kinlochbervie
(The following sermon was preached at the induction of the Rev.D.B. Macleod to the charge of Lairg and Bonar on 17th March, 1971.)
As you will notice in reading this chapter, Jesus was One over Whom the people in Jerusalem were divided. Even little children understand that when Jesus of Nazareth began His public ministry, it was not a case of the whole of Galilee and the whole of Jerusalem as a man flocking to follow Him and hail Him as the long-promised Messiah. There were those who loved Him; there were those who rejoiced that the day-spring from on high had at last visited them. There was Simeon, who rejoiced at the Saviour’s birth, and there were others when Jesus began His public ministry who loved Him and who rejoiced in His preaching and who followed Him with their whole hearts. But not everyone followed Him: for the Redeemer, we may say, at every turn in His ministry, had to say to those whom He preached, “There are some of you who believe not”. There were some who did not acknowledge Him, there were some who did not receive Him, there were some who had no love for Him in their hearts. Now in this chapter we have a case, or more than one case, of these two conflicting attitudes coming together over the head of Christ. You have this woman, Mary, who showed what love she had in her heart, anointing Him. Then immediately you have the opposite view in Judas. Then again you come and read of the Pharisees, in verse 19: “The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Behold, the world is gone after him”. And then, following on that expression of their animosity against the Saviour, we have these Greeks, who were among them that came up to worship at the feast. They had it in their own hearts that they desired for themselves that they would see Him. So they came to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, “Sir, we would see Jesus”. These Greeks, as you will understand, were proselytes. That is, they were not Jews by birth, though they were coming up to this Jewish feast. Apparently their whole hearts were not taken up with this ancient feast. Apparently they had this in their hearts, that they desired to see the Saviour, that they desired to meet with Him — “Sir, we would see Jesus”.
Let us think briefly first of all of these Greeks, who came up and presented this petition to Philip.
Secondly, we will think a little of the disciples who brought this matter to Christ — of Philip and of Andrew, who together came and told Jesus.
Then we will think a little thirdly of what is involved in seeing the Saviour in a gospel sense. These Greeks were not the first to come with this desire in their hearts — “Sir, we would see Jesus” — and they were not the last. And perhaps it is true that there are those among us this night who have this in their own hearts, “Sir, we would see Jesus”. Well, we will think about that in the third place — about seeing Christ in a gospel sense.
And then we will have a little by way of applying this matter to ourselves in the circumstances in which we are met tonight.
First of all then let us consider those who put this question to Philip, who came with this desire in their hearts, “Sir, we would see Jesus”.
We may just describe them as enquirers. We will just pick out this one aspect in which they are presented to us, this single aspect. They come to us as enquirers. That is, they have something in their hearts which goes out to that which they seek. They have a desire. They have something in their hearts making them unsatisfied with the way they are. They have this desire, they have this enquiry, they have this out-going of heart to this object. They are enquirers.
And we may say that those coming to the public means of grace are enquirers. When they are coming to the courts of God’s house, coming to the preaching of the gospel, they come in this aspect too; they are enquirers. Why are they gathering to hear the preaching of the gospel? Because they are not satisfied with themselves as they are — there is something in their hearts which is going out to a certain object. They are enquirers; they are seekers. And I think we may say that in a special sense those who call a pastor to be their minister present this aspect in a very striking way; they are enquirers. Why are they asking for a minister to come among them, and why are they seeking the ordinance of the preaching of the gospel? Because they are not feeling that they are complete without it, and they have this desire in their hearts towards it. They have this out-going of soul. They are enquirers; they are seeking something. This is your profession, in calling a pastor to labour among you in this congregation. This is your profession, that you are saying, “Sir, we would see Jesus”.
You notice that these Greeks did not come up to the Feast to see John, or to see Peter, or to see James. And when they came with this enquiry, this seeking, this request to Philip, they did not ask to see a mere man. Their enquiry fixes upon the Saviour and the Saviour alone. They did not say, “We desire to see Jesus, and some of His disciples, some of His supporters, some of His followers”. But this desire in their hearts goes out to, and fastens upon, Christ alone. “Sir”, they say, “We would see Jesus”. So this is your profession, in seeking a minister to labour among you: “We do not desire to see a man for his own sake. We do not seek a mere man. We do not desire merely to have a man among us, but this is our desire, in calling a pastor, that we would see Jesus through his ministry”. This is your profession, that your heart’s desire goes beyond the man, and that it rests upon the Saviour. This is your profession, “Sir, we would see Jesus”.
Now let us consider a little about the disciples (of course, particularly Philip, but then Philip and Andrew together).
The Greeks did not come directly to the Saviour, but they came to one of the Saviour’s friends, one of the Saviour’s followers, one of His close disciples. They came to one of the twelve, they came to Philip, and they presented their petition to him and placed it in his hand.
Surely this if for our learning tonight — surely there is a lesson for us, surely there is something precious for us here, that the Lord in His providence ordered it in this way, and that the record of it would be given to us, and that we could read it tonight, that this is how things went between these Greeks and Jesus of Nazareth — that the Lord in His providence gave this place to Philip and Andrew, that they had a part in introducing these Greeks to Jesus of Nazareth. We have symbolised here the function of the ministry of the gospel. We have reduced to concrete terms the ministry of reconciliation. We have it written large here, in concrete terms. Here we have a man, and in the providence of God he is used to bring sinners to Christ. Don’t you see there the function of the ministry? Don’t you see there represented and symbolised the work of the ministry? Is it not represented in such a simple way that a child could follow it? This is the work of a minister, to bring a sinner to Christ. Paul had extraordinary gifts, and he was qualified to a very high degree for the work of preaching the gospel. But was there in essence any difference between Paul and Peter? You see Paul preaching in Athens, or in Thessalonica or Berea, and you see Peter also (and he was an unlearned fisherman) preaching in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. Now if you examine their function, is it not the same? Is there any basic difference between the two? What Paul is doing in the Areopagus in Athens, Peter is doing in the streets of Jerusalem. This is their function, simply represented — it is to bring sinners and Jesus together. This is the work of the ministry. How easy it would be for us to overlook the significance of Philip’s function here. We might see the desire in the hearts of these Greeks, and then hurry on to see what Jesus says in response to their request. But if we hurry on like that, then we overlook something which is large with significance for the preachers of the gospel. It is a very simple act, but it is full of significance. The action that Philip and Andrew did was simple, but it was precious. If the ministers of the gospel would read here, they would find encouragement for themselves. It was a simple action which the disciples performed, but the Lord put it out for them, and gave them that work to do.
Now Philip and Andrew have nothing of their own to offer, in answer to the Greeks’ request. There was no use in Philip saying, for example, that Jesus was occupied in healing the sick, but that perhaps Philip himself could help. There was no use in that. The enquiry terminated on Christ, and to cut it short of that was to destroy it, to annihilate it. It was Christ and Christ alone who was desired, and Philip had nothing to put in Christ’s place. Philip had nothing of his own to offer to these Greeks. All his work consisted in was this simple leading them along till they met with Jesus. That was all. It wasn’t giving anything of his own, but just leading them to Christ. Now we have there again something that brings before us the work of the ministry. A minister has nothing to give of his own; but this is simply his work, that he will lead sinners to Christ. Paul, though he was learned, and though he had a masterly mind, had nothing of his own to offer to the Greeks in Athens. They were there, and their minds were just itching to learn or to hear of some new thing. Had Paul anything new for them? None of his own, nothing of his own. He could not give them anything that originated in himself, but this was simply his work, to lead to Christ. So it is with the minister who is to be set over you. So it is with every minister of the gospel. He cannot give a congregation of his own — he has nothing of his own to give. “But none of these his brother can redeem by any way. Nor can he unto God for him sufficient ransom pay.” (Ps.49 v.7) A minister cannot save your souls. You cannot come to your minister and ask him for forgiveness. You cannot come to him and ask him for the blotting out of your transgressions. A minister has no power in his own hands. He has nothing of his own to give to you. Though your need would be desperate, and though you would present him with an urgent plea, though your heart would go out to him, pleading with him to help you, and to give you peace of conscience, he has nothing to give you. Well, that’s the first point regarding the disciples, and their work, as it represents for us in the work of the ministry. Philip did not give them anything of his own, and there was nothing which Philip had which he could give to meet their need.
The second point is this. All was in Christ.
He could not give them anything himself, but the whole request would be satisfactorily met simply by leading them to Christ. They wouldn’t have any other request to meet, once they had led these Greeks to Christ. There would be enough in Christ to meet the desire of these Greeks’ hearts. And that is the way with the preachers of the gospel in every age. They have nothing of their own, but such is their work that if they can once bring a sinner to Christ, then that sinner will find everything in Christ. If a minister of the gospel can, under the hand of God, be useful in binding the heart of a sinner to Christ, then that is his work done. He will not need to weep over any soul who is joined to Christ, under his preaching, in a perpetual covenant. That is a covenant that will not be forgotten by the sinner, and that is a covenant that will never be forgotten by God. Once a sinner is brought to Christ, he will find everything in Christ. The apostle opens up that doctrine to the Corinthians: “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption.” We have no wisdom to give, but it’s all in Christ. We cannot give righteousness, but a sinner who meets with Christ will find it in Him. A minister cannot sanctify his people by his own power, but once they are in Christ, and increasingly resting in Him, then they’ll find sanctification in Him. And if seekers, coming to the preaching of the gospel, will find Christ, then they will find eternal redemption in that Christ to whom they are wedded under the preaching of the gospel. If a sinner in this church is united to Christ, he finds in Christ wisdom, he finds in Him righteousness, he finds in Him, as he is coming to the preaching of the gospel, sanctification and Christ is precious to him to an increasing degree. Then the time comes when that person is to be taken from this world. Does he go then in a frenzy to his minister asking him to help him? No! He goes to that Christ to Whom he was joined under the preaching of the gospel and he is not disappointed. He finds in Him eternal redemption. If you will be united to Christ under the preaching of the gospel in this church, then you will find everything in Him. The minister has nothing to give of his own, but if you are united to Christ under the preaching you will have everything in Christ; you will lack for nothing.
(To be continued)
Noted English Preachers of the 18th Century
3. Henry Venn 1724–97
by Rev. H.R. Moshe Radcliff Th.L.
Henry Venn was born on the 2nd of March, 1724, in Barnes, Surrey, the third of eight children. His father was the incumbent of a church in London. According to the records, the Venn family had an unbroken line of men in the Church of England ministry since the days of Elizabeth. His father was a ‘High Churchman’, that is, he followed the Romanising influences so ignominiously propagated by Archbishop Laud. He had the questionable distinction of having shut Whitefield out of his church, and by his writings opposed the early Methodists. He died, however, at the early age of 48.
Not much is known about Henry Venn’s early days, but various anecdotes show that he possessed a strong character. On one occasion when a man who held Arian views called to see his father, the young Venn looked very suspiciously at him and refused to come to him, saying; “I will not come to you for you are an Arian!” Another proof of his attachment to his father’s cause was when he fearlessly attacked the son of a dissenting minister older and bigger than himself who was living in the same street. Someone remarked to his father that Henry would one day go to Holborn and stop either at the Palace of Ely (then the London residence of the Bishop of Ely) or go on to the gallows at Tyburn.
Henry Venn was educated first at a small school at Mortlake and then at Fulham. He was removed to a school in Bristol at his own request because he considered the discipline in Fulham too lax. He entered St John’s College at the age of 17 in 1742 but transferred to Jesus College when he obtained a scholarship there, and graduated B.A. in 1745. He graduated M.A. four years later and was chosen as a Fellow of Queens College.
The year 1749 was also the year in which he was ordained by the Bishop of Fulham, but without going to a pastoral charge. This the Bishop had done out of respect to his late father. But Venn was still unconverted. He was prejudiced in favour of the High Church party, and held fast to their principles and ideals. The seriousness with which he entered upon his ministry can be seen from an incident that happened prior to his ordination. He was an able cricketer, and after playing a winning match, he threw down his bat for anyone to take, as he would have no further use for it. He would never have it said of him “Well struck, parson”. He was very diligent in visiting the poor and sick and instructing them.
The first streak of light that came into his heart was when his mind was arrested by a phrase in the form of prayer he had used daily, “… that I might live to the glory of Thy Name”. He began to ask himself what this might imply. William Law’s book ‘A serious call to a serious and devout life’ became useful to him at that time though he was later to discard it because of its legalism*. In his self-efforts to glorify God, — being still ignorant of the only way — he walked every night in the cloisters of Great St Mary’s and stopped to meditate between the strokes of the great old bell on the theme of eternity.
Having read the book, the writer of this article agrees with Venn’s judgment.
He left Cambridge after 15 months, and for the next four years was the Assistant to another minister. He was obliged to spend his time in London for the summer months and the winter in Hosley, Surrey, and once again he applied himself diligently to his labours. It was in these years that he began to see the legalism of Law’s book, and that the author was not giving the glory to Christ. Venn began to discover the corruption of his own heart and the impossibility of working out his own salvation. It was also at that time that he began to see that the blood of Jesus Christ alone suffices as a covering for righteousness. Although he was not fully in the light, the tone of his preaching undeniably altered.
In 1754, he was inducted as Curate of Clapham, and it was there in the Lord’s mercy that the light of the gospel fully broke upon him and he was established in the doctrines of the free and sovereign grace of the everlasting gospel. This he owed largely to Lady Huntingdon, who after hearing him preach wrote a long and faithful letter to him urging him to abandon preaching salvation by works and preach a crucified and risen Saviour as alone sufficient for righteousness: “Oh, my friend, we can make no atonement for a violated law; we have no inward holiness of our own; the Lord Jesus Christ is ‘the Lord our Righteousness’ . . . You find it a hard task to come naked and miserable to Christ; . . . and to receive from the outstretched hand of our Immanuel the riches of redeeming grace . . . But if you come at all you must come thus . . . Preach Christ as the only foundation of the sinner’s hope . . . Be bold, be firm, be decided . . . Leave the consequences to your Divine Master . . .” In later years he would confess: “I am myself a witness to what pains a man can take to get to heaven and still be in the dark.”
His time in London was well occupied with sermons and lectures almost daily, but now his preaching proved that he was on the side of truth. At that time he was obliged to cease from writing his sermons in full and preach only from short notes. It was not surprising that this new style should bring opposition from those who were more formal and dead in their worship and doctrine. While at Clapham, Venn met some of the original Methodists, and Whitefield preached with much power in his Church. Now that he preached the doctrines of grace, Lady Huntingdon frequently invited him to preach before some of the Lords and Ladies who were assembled in her London home for that purpose.
In 1795 he was inducted into the Parish of Huddlesfield, Yorkshire. The bleakness of the Yorkshire hills was a great change from the warmth of Surrey, and it also meant a large drop in income for him. The people over whom he was now settled were in much darkness and ignorance, but the power of the gospel was soon manifested when under his preaching many were turned unto the Lord. Even fifty years later, when his grandson and namesake visited the town, he received many personal testimonies of those who were made new creatures in Christ, and continued to profess Him. There was nearby a Club which met for the purpose of ridiculing the truth. With this in view, one of their ablest members was sent to hear Venn preach so that he might discover the absurdities of his preaching. He was immediately struck with a sense of the presence of God. He waited on Mr Venn at the close of the service, and frankly admitted the reason of his coming, but that he was now leaving the Club.
Labours like his, could not be engaged in without personal cost, but he had always believed that it would be more glorifying to God to labour — “. . . to spend and be spent even to the shortening a little of a short life.” In the end he succumbed to a chest complaint so that he could do nothing for seven months but preach once a fortnight, and then he was prostrate for several days. However, the final cause of his breakdown was the death of his wife and partner, leaving him alone to care for their five young children. For the sake of his health he was finally forced to accept a much lighter Parish in Yelling, Huntingdonshire, but his parting from a people he had grown to love was far from easy.
“I go to Yelling a dying man”, were his own words at that time, but the Lord raised him up again for another 26 years. His new people were country yokels, but they were in the same darkness as the people of Huddlesfield at his first arrival. But here too he began to see the same things as in the former charge. The Holy Spirit by the preaching of the Word broke up the fallow ground and uprooted the thorns of their hard and barren hearts, and many were brought under the power of the Truth.
The same year that he moved to Yelling he married again to complete his happiness. From five in the morning till late at night he was about his sacred duties. It was not long till his house was thronged with anxious callers, and as many as twenty would throng his home to join in family worship.
He did not confine his preaching to Yelling but went further afield and at the suggestion of John Berridge he was even ready to preach in barns. He was among the stated supply at Surrey Chapel (whose minister was Rev. Rowland Hill). On one occasion he returned to Huddlesfield for three weeks and received a warm welcome as the people thronged to hear him once more. On the whole however, his life was very quiet compared with his previous labours.
At the age of 68 he was finally obliged by ill health to retire and end his days at his son’s manse, who was a minister of Clapham. He was so filled with joy at the thought of the dissolution of body and soul that his doctor said to him: “Sir, in this state of joyous excitement you cannot die.”
There are not many sermons left by which one can form a true estimate of his style, and even those that are at hand represent the earlier part of his ministry. These do not appear to be very outstanding, but the truth is that good preached sermons do not necessarily make good reading. Furthermore, the full force of his sermons was in the power of the Holy Spirit accompanying their delivery and also in the manner of their presentation. He looked severe when he spoke of judgment and hell, and smiled when he freely offered Christ. From his letters he showed that he had a clear knowledge of the sinfulness of the heart. These also prove him to have been an able and wise counsellor.
Henry Venn is also an outstanding example as a parent. It stands to his credit that he brought up all his children to know the Lord, and they were all professing Him giving evidence in their lives whom it was they loved and whom they served. His grandson and namesake was one of the founders of the Church Missionary Society in 1799, and the Church Mission to the Jews in 1809. Both these Societies were evangelical in their early days, and did much to pioneer missionary work.
Although he was a rigid Arminian at the beginning, in the end his doctrine was clearly Calvinistic, and so he was numbered with such great names as Whitefield, Berridge, Grimshaw and Rowland Hill. He was nevertheless sufficiently open-hearted to continue his friendships with those from whom he differed but whom he considered the Lord’s people. Thus he continued to be friends with the Wesleys and Fletcher.
He was unworldly in his character, and once when he heard that a wealthy widow intended to make him a beneficiary under her will, he immediately demurred looking only to his incorruptible inheritance in heaven.