United States of America, of using only Scriptural names when speaking of their ecclesiastical officers. Thus, in reporting members to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America, ministers are styled bishops, and elders are denominated ruling elders. This restores the word bishop to its primitive Scripture meaning, and deprives our Episcopalian friends of an undue advantage which they possess, from the popular impression that there can be no bishops but diocesan bishops, such as govern the Church of England, owing to the word in common speech being appropriated to them. In the same way, the term elder would be speedily freed from absurd and unmerited reproach. More error is conveyed and perpetuated by incorrect names than many imagine. They exert an injurious influence even over minds which know better."

10-VOL IV.

NOTES.

NOTE A.

The following vindication of the order of the Free Church Assembly, on Elders and Deacons, is taken from The Free Church Magazine for August.

The Assembly's Act on Elders and Deacons.

Two objections may be, perhaps we should say, have been, urged against this Act, and we propose here shortly to consider them. The one is, that too much power is given to the Deacons; and the other that too much power is given to the Elders

The first objection is that too much power is given to the Deacons. On referring to Scripture, we find that the Deacon's office was established because of complaints that the poor were not sufficiently attended to, and the Deacons were appointed for the distribution of the alms of the church among such of the disciples as had need. "Look ye out among you," said the apostles, "seven men, whom we may appoint over this business." It is nowhere expressly stated that any portion of the ecclesiastical goods was to be administered by them, except that which was destined for the relief of the poor.-Acts 6: 1-4; 1 Tim. 3: 8-13. Now, the objection is, that the Act of Assembly gives the Deacon a much more extensive charge, and invests him with authority in the disposal of the whole of the church's patrimony, not only that which consists in alms for the poor, but also that which is designed for the support of the ministry, and for the erection and repair of our places of worship.

It is true that the Act in question does all this, and that in all temporal matters whatever, in the whole secular business of the congregation, it places the Deacon on a perfect equality with the Elder, so far as determining how the ecclesiastical goods are to be administered is concerned, and confers on him, moreover, an executive function, whereby he is to give effect to the resolution which the office-bearers at large have seen fit to adopt.

But we see not in this that there is any unwarrantable stretching of the Deacon's office so as to make it embrace objects and powers inconsistent with, or beyond its scriptural design. For it should be observed, that there were two reasons for the institution of the Deaconship. The one may be said to have been more peculiarly the people's reason; and the other, that of the apostles. The people's reason was, that the widows might not be neglected in the daily ministration; and the

reason stated by the apostles was, that they might be enabled to give themselves more exclusively to their spiritual duties, and not to be compelled "to leave the Word of God, and serve tables." From the people's reason we gather, that one part of the secular business of the church was sought to be more effectually provided for by the appointment of Deacons, namely, that part which related to the supply of the wants of the poor; and from the apostles' reason we may conclude that the Deacons were to have to do with the whole matter of the daily ministration, and the service of tables; that is to say, with the management of the church's whole temporal affairs. The daily ministration and the service of tables cannot, we conceive, be viewed as having consisted merely in the relief of the poor, according to the usual acceptation of the word. At the time when the office of Deacon was introduced, the disciples of the Lord had all things common, and “as many as were possessors of lands or houses, sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to every man according as he had need." Acts 2: 44-46; 4: 32-37. "Every man" had his portion out of that common fund. The generous donors, who had placed in it the proceeds of the sale of their property, received theirs. The destitute widows had a title to theirs. So also had the apostles themselves. And out of that same fund must all payments have been made which were connected with the dispensation of the ordinances of Christ. It is highly reasonable, therefore, to conclude, that the service of tables and the daily ministration embraced all the ordinary disbursements of the church, and its whole temporal business; and that the appointment of Deacons was resorted to for the purpose of lightening the burden of the apostles, in respect of the entire class of secular duties, that their minds might be left more free and undisturbed for the exercise of prayer, and the ministry of the Word. "Duties of a secular nature," the apostles substantially said, "however important these duties may be, cannot be allowed to interfere with the due exercise of the spiritual functions which we are called to perform; and when the care of the temporal concerns of the church becomes so weighty and engrossing as to be incompatible with the charge of men's souls and the preaching of the gospel, it is essential to have other office-bearers through whom we may obtain the requisite relief, and on whom the main burden of the outward business of the sanctuary may be devolved."

In conformity with this view, and, doubtless, on such grounds as have been stated, the Second Book of Discipline says of the Deacons, "Their office and power is to receive, and to distribute the haill ecclesiastical goods unto them to whom they

are appointed." True, it is immediately added "This they ought to do according to the judgment and appointment of the Presbyteries or Elderships, of the which the Deacons are not," &c.; and this may be reckoned scarcely compatible with the Act of Assembly which gives the Deacon the very same vote and authority in disposing of the congregational funds, as it gives to the Elder or the Minister. We think, however, that the power of regulation here assigned to the presbyteries of the church, where the Deacons have no seats, may be rather regarded as analogous to the power exercised by the commissioners of Presbyteries in General Assembly convened, when they regulate, either directly, or through their committees, the sustentation of ministers, or when they pass an act, as they did in the present case, specifying the purposes to which the church funds are to be applied, and laying down the rules of secular administration; and, at all events, we are satisfied that a more rigid construction of the Second Book of Discipline would be less in accordance with the lessons which Scripture precedent affords us.

The second objection which is taken against the Assembly's Act is, that too much power is given to the Elders. It may appear a little strange that the same law should be liable to objections which thus conflict with each other. Yet so it is While, on the one hand, there are, as we have seen, plausible (although not solid) grounds for alleging that it stretches unwarrantably the office of Deacon, and gives power to that officebearer beyond what the original institution did; on the other hand it can be maintained, and with some show of reason, that the Act errs in that very particular with regard to the office of the Elder, and sends him out of his province to exercise authority in the Deacon's department. Why, it may be asked, should we not now, in this time of reform, confine the Elder entirely to those spiritual duties which are so important, and have been heretofore so much neglected, and leave the business of the Deacon's Court to be performed exclusively by those who have no higher and holier work assigned them? There is a seeming force in the question. It is not unfair to call upon us to vindicate the arrangement which vests the administration of the secular affairs of the church, not in the Deacons alone, but in all the congregational office-bearers together. We are bound, in fact, to show that the Pastors and Elders of the church can lawfully be associated with the Deacons, in the charge and allocation of ecclesiastical funds.

Our argument shall be short. Four steps will bring us to the end of it. The first step is, that the greater office always includes the less. This is not a principle in the state, but it is a well-known and acknowledged principle in the Christian

church. The meaning of it is, that the appropriate functions of the Deacon are competent to the Elder, and those of the Deacon and of the Elder to the Pastor,-in other words, that the Elder, because he is an Elder, is also a Deacon; and the Pastor, because he is a Pastor, is also an Elder and a Deacon. The superior office-bearer may not always exercise the powers of the inferior one, but he is always capable of doing so, and will exercise them, if need be. Hence, the Pastors of the church are spoken of, not only as teachers, but as rulers of the flock; that is to say, the special function of the Eldership belongs to them. Heb. 13: 7, 17. Hence, also, Peter says, "The Elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an Elder." 1 Pet. 5:1. And hence, in fine, the apostles of our Lord were Pastors, and Elders, and Deacons, in the church. They were Pastors; for they fed the flock. They were Elders; for they ruled it. And they were Deacons; for the whole secular business of the church was performed by them, until the time of the appointment of the seven. From all this we may infer, at the very least, that, where there are no Deacons, it is competent and proper for the other office-bearers to take the necessary oversight of the church's temporal affairs.

The second step in the argument is, that after a separate order of men had been appointed as Deacons, the higher officebearers continued to take some charge of the secular concerns of the church. When Paul received the right hand of fellowship from the other apostles, and it was settled that he should labor in the Gentile field, we are told that a stipulation was made, to which he most cordially acceded. "Only they would," he says, "that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do." Gal. 2: 10. Thus the care of the poor was devolved upon Paul at the very beginning of his career, and he does not appear to have ever been released from it. Twice we find him to have undertaken a long journey to Jerusalem, expressly as the bearer of the offerings of the brethren, and for the purpose of ministering to the necessities of the saints. We read of the first of these occasions in Acts 11: 29, 30, 12: 25. In conjunction with Barnabas, he had diligently labored in word and doctrine at Antioch, for the space of a whole year. The Lord had vouchsafed large success to his servants. "A great number" had believed; "much people" had been added unto the Lord. The Church of Antioch was in a highly flourishing condition; and no reasonable doubt can be entertained that it had its full equipment of office-bearers,not only Pastors, but Elders and Deacons. Yet when "the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea," they "sent it to the Elders, by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." Nor was