places, and upon all occasions, to further it; (every one within the bounds of their Places and Callings, in the exercise of their Gifts and Graces): So the Churches themselves (when planted by the providence of God, so as they may have opportunity and advantage for it) ought to hold communion amongst themselves for their peace, increase of love, and mutual edification. XXVI. In Cases of Difficulties or Differences, either in point of Doctrine or in Administrations, wherein either the Churches in general are concerned, or any one Church in their Peace, Union, and Edification, or any Member or Members of any Church are injured in, or by, any proceeding in Censures not agreeable to Truth and Order: it is according to the mind of Christ, that many Churches holding communion together, do by their Messengers meet in a Synod or Council, to consider and give their advice in, or about, that matter in difference, to be reported to all the Churches concerned: Howbeit, these Synods so assembled are not entrusted with any ChurchPower, properly so called, or with any Jurisdiction over the Churches themselves, to exercise any Censures, either over any Churches or Persons, or to impose their determinations on the Churches or Officers. XXVII. Besides these occasioned Synods or Councels, there are not instituted by Christ any stated Synods in a fixed Combination of Churches, or their Officers, in lesser or greater Assemblies; nor are there any Synods appointed by Christ in a way of Subordination to one another. XXVIII. Persons that are joyned in Church-fellowship, ought not lightly or without just cause to withdraw themselves from the communion of the Church whereunto they are so joyned: Nevertheless, where any person cannot continue in any Church without his sin, either for want of the Administration of any Ordinances instituted by Christ, or by his being deprived of his due Priviledges, or compelled to any thing in practice not warranted by the Word, or in case of Persecution, or upon the account of conveniency of habitation; he, consulting with the Church, or the Officer or Officers thereof, may peaceably depart from the communion of the Church, wherewith he hath so walked, to joyn himself with some other Church, where he may enjoy the Ordinances in thə purity of the same, for his edification and consolation. XXIX. Such reforming Churches as consist of Persons found in the Faith, and of Conversation becoming the Gospel, ought not to refuse the communion of each other, so far as may consist with their own Principles respectively, though they walk not in all things according to the same Rules of Church-Order. XXX. Churches gathered and walking according to the mind of Christ, judging other Churches (though less pure) to be true Churches, may receive, unto occasional communion with them, such Members of those Churches as are credibly testified to be godly, and to live without offence. THE OFFICE OF DEACON IN CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES. BY REV. T. S. POTWIN, FRANKLIN, N. Y. THE present and prospective growth of churches in this country opens new and important questions. A full thousand no longer limits the ever-increasing prosperity of some of our city churches. It was "in those days when the number of the disciples was multiplied " that there arose a demand for a new kind of labor. We live in such But it is often days, and long may we. easier to gather a large flock than to take care of it. Preaching, keeping a roll of names and an annual slip-renting, come wofully short of the whole needed care of a church. If we would have "room to receive " such a blessing as we covet, some provision must be made for the wants it will create. Churches which should honor God by their numbers chiefly, would soon be in great danger of being the greatest possible dishonor to him. Churches to which great numbers flock, need more watch-care per member than those less in favor with the multitude. How shall these large folds be well kept? For a single man to perform all the pastoral work for such churches with completeness such as may be attained by the pastors of small churches is a simple impossibility. What then? Shall the work be left undone? Much of it can not be, without violence to the tenderest feelings; none of it can be without spiritual danger and loss. Shall it be said that, when the pastor has done what he can, this is all the Lord of the harvest would have done; the responsibility for the rest must be thrown back upon him? This is Moslem fatalism. One says: "Let us have an assistant pastor, who shall not preach." But there are few, who feel called to the ministry, that would covet such a position. And members would hardly feel that they enjoyed pastoral care in the services of such a one. Another says: "Let us have a college of preaching pastors." But that is a rather costly luxury, even for a church which rejoices in its thousand members. Another : "We must have a Congregational Eldership to supervise the flock." But for Congregational churches the only difficulty is one, unfortunately too common, that of seeing what is nearest to them. The children of John Robinson believe in finding new treasures in God's word to the end of time; and they believe in the expansibility and adaptability to all church wants of the simple New Testament church order. Let our churches turn their attention anew to the capabilities of the office of deacon, and they will find a means divinely arranged to meet the demands imposed by an exceedingly large membership. And in the first place the current interpretation and ideas of the diaconate must be corrected, and its proper position and possibilities of good restored in our minds. The office has suffered much degradation as the effect of the Presbyterian effort to thrust in a third office between those of pastor and deacon. The office of deacon in Presbyterian churches of moderate size is a comparative nullity, confined almost to the passing of the sacramental elements and contribution boxes, which children could do as well. And so, forsooth, the Congregational deaconship must be the same. If we are to take the duties of deacon from Presbyterians, we indeed may as well go on and take an eldership, for we shall need it. But if we are competent to think and act for ourselves in this matter, we shall find in the scriptural doctrine, the nature and the history of the office of deacon, along with the pastorate, all that any church can need, "that it may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ." 1. Let us review, in the first place, what we find in the Scripture concerning it. occurs of Christian elders (Acts xi. 30,) is one in which alms are said to be sent to them for distribution. What had become of "the seven " and their "serving of tables," if they were not at least included among the "elders," to whom Paul and Barnabas handed over the "relief" for the disciples at Jerusalem ? And when subsequently that council was convened of " apostles," "elders" and "brethren," among whom did “the seven" rank?. Is it to be supposed that they were held only as brethren, especially when we recall the prominence of Stephen and Philip in preaching the Word? But some have supposed that there were "other seven who ministered for the Hebrews, and whose neglect occasioned the appointment of those for the Hellenists. But the whole character of the narrative opposes this. In the first place we are told just before, that the money for distribution was laid "at the apostles' feet." It was doubtless distributed therefore, under their direction, by private hands of their selection. Then the apostles, in asking for the nomination of these men, did not ask it for the sake of securing equality or impartiality, but that themselves might be relieved from serving tables and give themselves without interruption to the ministry of the Word. We have before us, then, in Acts vi., the completion of the organization of the Jerusalem church so far as it was thought of any importance to make known its order in the inspired Word. Its officers were "ministers of the Word," and others for "daily ministration." The first trace of such service is found, of course, in Acts vi., in the appointment of "the seven." But what were แ the seven?" They are not designated in the Scripture by any title, as a body. There are good reasons for saying that they were both elders and deacons; that is, that they were the transition link from Jewish elders to Christian deacons. The organization of the church was instituted with no violence to previously existing ideas of order in the Lord's house. It is not too much to say that it was modeled to an extent after the synagogue. The elders of the synagogue had charge of all its affairs, secular and sacred. The Jews naturally associated every administrative function with the office of elder. And when it became necessary to appoint men in the new Christian organization to administer its affairs, "elder " would still be the generic designation which would most naturally occur to all. We find that soon the Jerusalem church had elders. We have no account of their appointment if they were other than the seven. If they were other and more important officers, how can we account for silence in regard to the demand for them and their setting apart, when we have been so particularly instructed respecting the appointment of "the seven ?" But, what is more conclusive, the first mention which the "daily ministration." It greatly Now is it not probable that this order was the model followed in the organization of other churches? If so, then we are to understand the appointment of" elders in every church" and "every city" as including those for favors this idea that "elder" is the only official term used in the Acts of church officers, whereas, subsequently, we find in its place the specific terms "bishop" and "deacon." The progress of society is continually making these changes in language. That which is generic becomes specific, or gives way to that which is specific. Elders came gradually to be known by terms derived from their several duties. Those who labored in word and doctrine, overseeing the flock, were "bishops"; those who were assigned to daily ministration were "ministers" (diaconoi) or deacons. 66 We first find the terms, "diaconos," "diacones," diaconia," used in the broad sense of any Christian service. Paul applies these words to himself and his work. He applies them to Timothy and his other fellow-laborers. The source of this usage seems to have been in the saying of Christ, where he uses this word (Mark ix. 35): "If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all and servant of all." But the ministry of the word being found insufficient for all the wants of the churches, those appointed to supply the additional service were soon known as "the servants or "the assistants," "deacons." creature,- so distinct from anything which had gone before, necessarily involved a change from the merely conservative order of Jewish institutions. Hence Paul, having first secured the appointment of elders for the general superintendence of each church in its inception, before it could enjoy a trained ministry, afterwards, in his letters, unfolds who are to be those whom "God hath set in the church," and to Timothy gives the direction which has been the corner-stone of every system of ministerial instruction (2 Tim. ii. 2). As he writes of these things to the Ephesians, to the Corinthians, and to the Romans, his mind is evidently filled with the great work of proclaiming the gospel and teaching the way of life, as that for the furtherance of which God has given official members to the church. But along with “ prophecy he also joins "ministry," "diaconia" (Rom. xii. 7), and with the higher gifts (1 Cor. xii. 28), "helps," "governments." If any insist that by "he that ruleth" (Rom. xii. 8), Paul would designate a distinct officer, they must at least admit that he places such office lower than that of deacon, " diaconia." And if " governments indicates a separate, it comes after that of "helping." The coming change also appears in that significant hint Paul gives to elders (1 Tim. v. 17), by "especially they who labor in word and doctrine." He would have the first elders become as fast as possible Christian preachers. But to return to "the seven;" we find they did not by any means confine themselves to the "serving of tables," but evidently regarded themselves under obligation to serve the church with their fulness "of the Holy Ghost and wisdom," to the utmost of their time and power. Hence Stephen, beginning at the other extreme of the church's work, soon worked up to where he met the apostles half way; and Philip preached and baptized till the apostles found they must set out on a missionary work to complete what he had begun. I know that Philip is elsewhere spoken of as an "evangelist," and he certainly deserved the name; but to suppose that he and Stephen had another ordination as evangelists in those days when they preached as they were scattered by a fiery persecution, and in those days of few and simple rites, will seem quite absurd to most. It is plain that, having been set apart to serve in the church, they went forward and did with their might what they found to do, and were but "servants" (deacons) still. We may go at once from this beginning to what is the last that we know, perhaps, of the office, from the sacred canon in 1 Tim. iii. 8-13. The qualifications here laid down make it plain, if anything of the kind could, that the example of Stephen and Philip, in not confining themselves in their service to the care of the poor and the "temporalities" of the church, had become a recognized precedent and law. Paul's description is not of an office widely and sharply distinguished from that of bishop, but reads precisely as we should expect to find the requirements of assistant bishops. If the character here marked out for "deacons " would not fit them to be the spiritual assist ants of the bishops and servants of the church, you will look in vain for any possible fitness for this work. The requirement that they "first be proved" indicates that they were to be chosen from among the younger brethren, or, at least, that this would be their first attempt in church service. Beyond this there is scarcely an important difference in the respective requirements of bishops and deacons. Both are to be of blameless life in respect of morality and love of the world, both are to show capability of administration in ruling their own houses well. The bishop is to be" apt to teach;" but the deacon," having been "proved" and found fit for the office, is promised "great boldness in the faith," which reminds one of the "wisdom and the Spirit, irresistible," with which Stephen spake, and which is certainly a great aptitude for teaching or preaching. Success in their work at least gives them a "good degree;" that is, gives them, not advancement above the office of deacon, which would be "a better degree," but a worthy and honorable consideration in that office from fulfilling it. This "degree," coupled with "great boldness in the faith in Christ Jesus," certainly must have been the fruit of something more than the distribution of "alms " and "elements." The churches need no higher authority for calling their deacons to a much more efficient assistance of their pastors in spiritual work, and the general supervision of a large membership. Or, if the old ones can not be taught "new tricks," let the churches take up this matter anew, and "look out among them men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom," and appoint them to this work. If much of their time is required, as would be the case in many churches, let them be supported, wholly or in part, by the churches, except where they are in circumstances such that they can render the service as an unrequited offering. The service which is needed in many churches beyond the ability of a single man, the pastor, and beyond the care of the poor, is attendance upon funerals, visitation of the sick, religious visitation of the membership, admonition of the erring, familiar preaching in neighborhoods remote from or uninfluenced by the sanctuary. And still it is all work with which the pastor should be connected as much as pos |