statements which my friend makes, concerning this "point of fact," are altogether conjectural. He speaks, for instance (in the extract given), "of those men who had 'come down from Jerusalem.'" Now, it is not affirmed, in the sacred narrative, that they came down from Jerusalem: they are said to have come down “from Judea;” and whether they belonged to the church at Jerusalem, or to some other of the churches in Judea, must be entirely a matter of conjecture. He mentions, in the same extract, that these men pretended, "that they had a commission from Jerusalem to teach the doctrine of the necessity of subjection to the law for justification." That they taught the doctrine of the necessity of subjection to the law for justification, is stated in the inspired narrative: but that they pretended to have a commission from Jerusalem to teach this doctrine, is entirely Dr Wardlaw's own conjecture. Again, that any appeal was made to the apostles and elders, to ascertain "the point of fact," whether these men "really had such a commission," is another conjecture which Dr Wardlaw makes.

Seeing that Dr Wardlaw's answer to the objection which I am now urging against his theory, rests upon such conjectures as these, it must be pronounced altogether inconclusive. The objection is, that if the appeal was made to inspired authority, why should the appeal be made to the elders, as well as to the apostles, seeing they were not inspired. The answer to the objection is, that the elders were not called upon to judge concerning "a point of doctrine," but concerning "a point of fact;" namely, concerning a commission which the Judaizing teachers pretended to have received from the church at Jerusalem. We have seen, that this "point of fact" is a mere conjecture made by my learned brother, for the apparent purpose of "getting over" a difficulty. I have only further to add, in reference to this matter, that whether the "point of fact" was included in the appeal or not, the elders did judge as well as the apostles on "the point of doctrine;" for the decrees enacted on the occasion, are styled (Acts xvi. 4) "the decrees that were ordained of the apostles and elders."

THE discussions in the Synod on the office of Deacon have revealed the fact that considerable diversity of opinion, and no small difficulty, exist in the United Presbyterian Church on the subject. The same thing is evident from the undecided, and somewhat inconsistent way in which the office is spoken of in the "Forms of process." It will probably require, therefore, some delay, and a good deal of discussion, before any harmonious or satisfactory deliverance can be given on the question by the supreme court; and every friend of the church who thinks he can contribute any thing to direct that dis

cussion into a right channel, or to bring it to a sound termination, is called upon to do so. Did our church aim at being a "historical church," the question might be speedily and easily settled; for in that case the views of the reformers, and the statements of the books of discipline, &c., would alone require to be consulted. But we aspire after higher honour; we aim at being in all respects a scriptural,-an apostolical church; and hence, with every question of doctrine or order, we must go back to the supreme standard, the word of God. Now, when we do so on the subject of the deaconship, we are

met with a number of questions which are not easily answered, and which are yet so important that all the value of the institution-all the intention and utility of the office-must be seen to hinge upon them. I would suggest one or two of these questions; and the first is one which I did not hear at all alluded to in the Synod, namely

I. Was the deaconship, in the primitive church, a congregational office? -In one of the overtures transmitted to the Synod, the answer to this question was taken for granted. It was so also, generally, by the speakers who argued for the revival of the office in the United Presbyterian Church. The Forms of process make the same assumption; and so apparently do the most recent writers on the office, Drs M'Kerrow and King. That the point is questionable, however, and must be proved, prior to any certain or authoritative deliverance on the subject, a few considerations will make sufficiently plain. Presbyterians are in the habit of contending, in opposition to the views of Independents, that the "church in Jerusalem," the "church in Ephesus," and other primitive churches, were each composed of more than a single congregation. This is particularly clear in reference to the church of Jerusalem (in which the office of deacon was first instituted), not only from the many thousands of members which that church contained, but also from the fact, brought out in connexion with the history of the origin of the deaconship, namely -that the church in Jerusalem was composed of two classes of persons, the Hebrews and the Grecians, who used different languages, and must therefore have worshipped in different places. But it is unnecessary to dwell on this. If any one wishes to have the plurality of congregations in the primitive churches proved beyond the possibility of dispute, I refer him to the very masterly demonstration by Dr M'Kerrow, con

tained in this Magazine for the month of May last. But how, then, stood the office of the deaconship, as respects this plurality of congregations in the church of Jerusalem ? Was it ordained for each congregation, or for the whole church? Were the seven deacons, officers in the several congregations, or were they a board for the one church? I do not answer this question; but only suggest it, and contend that the obligation of answering it, and proving their answer, must devolve on the advocates of the restoration of the deaconship as a congregational office; for, unquestionably, the prima facie evidence is against them. Unless we say that there were precisely seven congregations in the church of Jerusalem, and that there was one deacon in each; or that the number of congregations was less than seven, and that there were more than one deacon in some of them; we must conclude, either that the office was not a congregational one at all, or that some of the congregations must have been without deacons. I assume, in this statement, that the congregations were fixed, and not mere variable, or chance assemblies; but if this be questioned, then only the more difficult-only the more necessary, at least, will be the proof that the deaconship was congregational; for then the very existence of such bodies as our congregations, in the primitive churches, would require to be first demonstrated. However this may be; to prove that the deacon could be a congregational officer in Jerusalem, you must prove that the ten or twenty thousand disciples there, were distributed into not more than seven congregations; which I am afraid is impossible.

The case of other primitive churches throws no light upon this question; for in none other is the deaconship expressly mentioned as existing, save that of Philippi, concerning the number of members in which, or

their distribution into congregations, we have no information. "All the saints at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons," formed one church (Phil. i. 1, compared with iv. 15): but did they exist as only one congregation? Or, if not, were the deacons distributed among the congregations? and did each act as the deacon of the congregation to which he belonged? The burden of proof lies again with the advocates of the office, as a congregational office.- Another question, which requires to be considered, is

II. What was the precise nature of the deacon's work in the primitive churches? This question is equally important with the foregoing, and not less difficult. For, taking it for granted that the deacons in the primitive churches, had, as such, to do only with pecuniary matters, the question branches itself into such as the following: FIRSTWas the fund under their charge, the common fund of the whole church in one place, or was it a congregational fund? SECONDLY-Was this fund intended exclusively for eleemosynary, or generally for ecclesiastical purposes? THIRDLY-Had the deacons to do with the collection, or only with the distribution of this fund? It is plain, these questions must be settled before we can tell what the scriptural office of the deaconship was; and before, therefore, we can even pretend to revive it. For how different, both in character and operation, from the deaconship of the apostolic churches, would any office now, though called a deaconship, be, which departed only in one of these points from the primitive model! To be the treasurers of a number of congregations, would evidently not be the same thing as to be the treasurers of one. To be the curators of a charitable fund, would be very different from being the curators of a fund for all religious and pious purposes. And, to have the power both of collecting

and disbursing the money of the church, would involve much more influence and authority than to have merely the power of disbursing it. So much indeed do these things differ from each other, that they seem to involve, to some extent, important differences in the constitution of the church. Adopt one of these views in preference to another, as the scriptural view of the deaconship, and your ecclesiastical constitution must undergo a change before you can revive that office. Adopt another, and you have merely to ordain your present managers, and give them the charge of the poor's fund, and you have the scriptural office. Adopt another, and hardly even this will in many cases be required. You have but to call the elder who takes charge of the poor's fund, in a congregation, by the name of deacon, and the office is revived.

Now, who will take in hand to say, at once, how these different questions are to be answered, in accordance with the word of God? Certainly, no one who has given a moderate degree of attention to the subject. For, reverting again to the case of the church in Jerusalem, from which we must derive almost all our knowledge of the deaconship,—it is indisputable that the fund in that church, from which the "daily ministration" was made, was a common fund. It belonged not to one congregation, but to the whole church there. This is evident, not only from the statement, "they had all things common," &c., but especially from the fact, that the deacons were appointed to remedy an alleged abuse in the distribution of the fund; and this allegation of abuse sprung out of the other fact, that both the Grecians and the Hebrews, who must have belonged to separate congregations, had a like interest in the daily ministration. It is absurd to imagine that the disciples in Jerusalem had at this time a "community of goods," in the Socialist sense, or, as indivi

duals; but it is plain that they had a common fund, as a church.

On the other hand, it is disputed whether this common fund in Jerusalem was solely a charitable fund, or one for all the expenses of the church. Much might be said on both sides. It does not follow, that, because the allegation of abuse related only to the case of widows, none but widows participated in the daily ministration. It does not follow, that, because almsgiving was one department of "the service of tables" for which the deacons were ordained, that service had no other department. Many things render the opposite conclusion the more probable of the two; and, therefore, also render the revival of the office of deacon, after the apostolic model, a more difficult and hazardous attempt, in the present circumstances of the Christian church, than some may suppose. It may indeed be said, "Let us revive the office in so far as our circumstances permit." But the saying involves a false principle. You may apply it to apostolic doctrine as well as apostolic church order, and say, "Let us hold the faith, not as it was delivered unto the saints, but as far as our circumstances permit." Besides, it leads you to nothing; for many would be prepared to reply, "We have already revived the office of deacons, in as far as our circumstances permit, only we call them managers."

These remarks will be mistaken, if they be regarded as designed to discredit or discourage the proposal of reviving, in the United Presbyterian Church, the scriptural office of deacon. The writer rejoices in that proposal,

It

for many reasons; but he has a deep sense of the difficulty of accomplishing the thing proposed, and desires that that difficulty be looked at. may be added, on this question, that there is no evidence in scripture that the primitive deacons had any thing to do with the collection of the funds under their care. Before their appointment, all monies given to the church were laid at the apostles' feet; and, after that appointment, we still read of contributions for the church being "sent to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul."

III. The last question to be adverted to at present is, Whether the office of deacon was intended to be a permanent one in the Christian church? This is a question, it is apprehended, which might easily be settled, provided the others could. Not that the permanency of the office depends on its precise nature; but the utility of the settlement of the one question, plainly hinges on the settlement of the others. It is of no consequence to say, the office was designed to remain in the Christian church, unless you can tell what the office was; and, doubtless, the opinions of many as to its permanency, and as to the obligation of reviving it in the church to which we belong, will turn on this. Some questions put in the Synod, plainly indicating that "doctors may differ," seemed to imply as much; and therefore call attention more exclusively, in the first instance, to the nature of the office. If the foregoing thoughts serve the same purpose in any degree, they will have served all the end for which they have been thrown out. 30th May 1848.

Δ.

elders, managers, and congregations under their inspection, for the purposes of excitement, encouragement,

and direction. I have reason to know, that, in some instances at least, these conferences have been productive of the happiest results. I hope the practice will be persevered in, and become general throughout the whole body.

It has occurred to me, in thinking of this matter, that a very good end would be answered, if these conferences were carried still further out, and made to comprehend ministers as well as other office-bearers of the church. Ministers need to be excited, encouraged, and directed as well as others, and though it may be expedient, that in this case the conference should not be of a mixed character, there can be no reason why ministers should not occasionally or more regularly confer with each other, regarding the most efficient methods of discharging the duties of their high office. By this means the inexperienced might be instructed, the sluggish stimulated, the erring corrected, and all improved.

Such conferences, I think, might have a most happy influence, especially upon the preaching of our church. It is no presumption, I am persuaded, to say, that our ministers as a body have been and still are distinguished for the superior style of their preaching. But this must be kept up, and even improved upon, if our church is to maintain its deservedly high standing. I mean kept up not merely in respect of learning, talents, taste, and oratory, although in all these points progress is to be desired and should be attempted, but in respect of the substance and manner of evangelical truth, and the spirit of impassioned and even enthusiastic

earnestness.

If ever the time shall come, when for the warm gospel preaching of the Erskines, and the Bostons, and the Bells, there shall be substituted mere rhetorical flash, literary rodomontade, or moral disquisition, we may write upon the doors of our pulpits and churches, Ichabod, for then indeed the glory will have departed. Now, in such private meetings as I am recommending, ministers, without being personal, or appearing to be so, might be helpful to one another in keeping up and even raising the tone of their preaching. On such occasions" years might speak," and the voice of years would be listened to by the young and the inexperienced. The wonder is, that our younger ministers, with so little of the benefit of counsel and advice from their seniors, should preach so well. But how much better might they have been expected to preach, if they had listened from time to time to the experience and opinion of their more practised brethren!

The present, I think, is a very fitting time for setting such conferences as I have mentioned, agoing. The considerate liberality of John Henderson, Esq., in furnishing every minister of the body with a copy of that invaluable book, "James' Earnest Ministry," would be only suitably followed up, by Presbyteries making it the subject of earnest serious conversation. This, I am persuaded, would be a more acceptable return to the respected donor than any votes or letters of thanks, and I am sure it would be the best improvement that ministers could make of it for themselves.

A MINISTER.

INSTRUCTION of any kind is not an end, but only a means to one; yet

how unsteadily is this remembered? Hence so many scholarly nonentities,