also be proved or tested first," it is thought there is an allusion to a practice which prevailed in ancient times (and which is still observed in some churches), of announcing in public beforehand the names of the persons chosen, so as to give any one an opportunity of objecting if they should see cause, and if no objection were brought within a limited time, they were then allowed to enter on the functions of their office.

2. Consider the mode of election. They were to be freely chosen, like all other church office-bearers, by the suffrages of the people. Even the apostles, though divinely inspired, and having the gift of discerning spirits, would not interfere in the matter. They called the "multitude of the disciples together," and told them to "look out suitable persons " from among themselves." They pointed out the proper qualifications, and set them apart by prayer and laying on of hands, but the right of election remained with the people. And the "whole multitude gave their votes-the choice was unanimous-and when the election was completed they set the persons approved before the apostles. The same order was observed in choosing Matthias as an apostle in the room of Judas. It is evident that the whole hundred and twenty united in electing the two candidates, and as the votes were equal, the ultimate choice was determined by lot. (Acts i. 23-26.) This right of suffrage was soon lost, in the progress of corruption, through the ambition of the clergy, and the supineness and indifference of the people. And even in many modern Protestant churches the members are far from " standing fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made them free." In some Presbyterian congregations the consistory, or session, is elected after the manner of the old tory corporations -that is, the minister and elders already in office reserve in their own hands the power of filling up vacancies, and consequently the popular voice is ignored, and those only are appointed who are likely to be subservient to the will of the clergy. And even among Congregationalists the apostolic rule is not always observed. I remember, many years ago, when an appointment of deacons was about to be made, a worthy Nonconformist minister in London contented himself with simply reading out a list of persons which he had drawn up, to be submitted for the approval of the members. To this mode of procedure a grave objection was urged, on the ground that there could be no free or proper election when the persons to be chosen were already named. It was like the congè d'elire of a bishop, where the chapter is required to go through the mockery of electing a candidate already nominated by the Crown. The persons thus chosen by the people were set apart "by prayer and the laying on of hands ;" and there seems no good reason for departing from this primitive rule in the ordination either of pastors or deacons, providing it be understood and explained that, by this act, we do not profess or pretend to confer any spiritual gifts, or to impress an indelible character, but simply designate, by a decent and becoming solemnity, in presence of the people, the objects of their choice, and implore the Divine blessing on their persons and services.

66

3. We pass on to consider the functions pertaining to the deacon's office, and these are sufficiently pointed out in the reason assigned for the institution. It was to relieve the apostles from the labour and responsibility of serving tables; this work was consequently to be devolved on those holding this new appointment. Under this designation it is common to include the table of the Lord, the table of the poor, and the pastor's table. The first comprehends the duty of providing the communion elements of bread and wine, and other things necessary for the decent and orderly performance of divine worship; and Justin Martyr, in his "Apology," represents the deacons as "distributing the consecrated bread and wine" to the people. The second part of their office is to provide for the relief of the poor out of the alms of the church, with a special reference to widows, and to the circumstances of each individual case. And the last branch of their duty includes the securing of a reasonable maintenance for the pastors, so as their minds may be relieved from all anxiety respecting temporal things, and that they be enabled to devote themselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." It is always an ungracious task for the minister to bring his own necessities before the people, and it is a wise and considerate arrangement to make his supplies come to him through the medium of disinterested and official persons, who can urge on the church the duty of "ministering to him in carnal things," without the suspicion of any personal motive or selfish end. Hence it appears that the office of deacon corresponded originally to that of steward or treasurer, and that he was not required to teach or to conduct the exercises of public worship. Hence no mention is made in the list of qualifications above recited, as in the case of the bishop, of his being "apt to teach." (ver. 2.) No doubt, both Stephen and Philip preached the word and wrought miracles, but this, we conceive, was in virtue of the spiritual gifts conferred on them, and was not necessarily a part of their duty as deacons. Hence it is specially noticed, of the former, that he was "a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost;" and Philip is expressly called an evangelist." Acts xxi. 8. In the Church of England, the original design of the deacon's office is entirely lost sight of; he is considered simply as a preacher, like our licentiates or probationers, occupying the first step in the order of the ministry, with power to baptise, but not to administer the eucharist. And the duties of the office are devolved on churchwardens, an order of persons unknown in Scripture. We shall never object to deacons preaching or conducting public worship in cases of necessity, or in the absence of the minister, when they are able to do so to the edification of the church; but we do not consider it as a necessary part of the deacon's office as such, and we should concede the same liberty of prophesying" to any other wellqualified brother.

66

From the above view of the subject it appears that the office in question pertains chiefly to the things of this life, and that it does not invest the persons so constituted with any special claim or exclusive authority over their brethren, in the nomination of pastors

or in the admission or exclusion of members -the whole fraternity of the church stands on an equal footing in this respect, and they must not "give place by subjection," to the dictate of others, "no, not for an hour." Brethren of mature age and experience (as deacons generally are) may give their advice, as those who have received mercy of the Lord to be faithful; but the ultimate decision must remain with the church.

In the Congregational churches, certain collateral duties are devolved on the deacons, which do not properly belong to the office, but are conceded to them, from the confidence generally reposed in their judgment and prudence; and in this way they may be considered as a sort of standing committee, or assessors to the pastor; as, for example, conversing with candidates for church communion, and reporting on their qualifications-investigating cases of discipline, and preparing them for the consideration of the church-visiting and praying with the sick-conducting meetings for prayer, and superintending Sunday schools and Bible classes; but this is merely as a point of order, or matter of convenience, and does not necessarily pertain to the office. On this ground, most Presbyterian churches, and some Independent congregations, recognize a separate order of lay officers, called ruling elders. These are regularly ordained, and are considered spiritual men, being empowered to discharge all ministerial duties, except preaching and administering the sacraments. This distinction is founded on that passage in 1 Tim. v. 17, "Let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine," which implies that, at that time, there were elders who ruled, but did not "labour in word and doctrine." This accounts for the fact that there was a plurality of elders in every church founded by the apostles. We read of their "ordaining elders in every church," (Acts xiv. 23,) and “in every city." (Titus i. 5.) So we read of the elders in the church of Jerusalem (Acts xv. 2, 22;) and of the elders in the church of Ephesus (chapter xx. 17). And the apostle, in enumerating the gifts bestowed on the church, speaks of" him that ruleth," as well as of "him that teacheth," and "him that giveth," (Rom.xii. 7,8.) Now, let it be observed, that this distinction is not peculiar to Presbyterians, nor does it necessarily trench on the independency of churches, where the right of suffrage, in all matters of common interest, is reserved to the members. Dr. Owen was a decided advocate of Congregationalism, and yet he strenuously contends for the order of ruling elders, as distinct from pastors and deacons, and devotes two whole chapters to it, in his "True Nature of a Gospel Church," (chapters vii. and viii.) Attempts have been made to give a different turn to the expression,

especially those that labour in word and doctrine," as if it referred to the amount and not to the nature of their work,-and the meaning were, "those that labour especially," or diligently; but Dr. Owen clearly shows that this is a mere evasion, and that it puts a forced construction on the original words. Independents, by devolving spiritual duties on the deacons of the churches, practically invest

them with the power of ruling elders-for they assign the same duties to the one, which the Presbyterians devolve on the other, and recognize the office, while they reject the name. Indeed, both parties have gone to extremes, in their zeal for a favourite theory. The Congregationalists have merged the office of ruling elder in that of deacons, and the Presbyterians the office of deacons in that of ruling elders or managers, and have allowed the name deacon to fall almost into disuse. Yet the office itself is clearly recognised in the Confession of Faith, and has been generally revived in the Free Church of Scotland, where the three orders, of pastors, ruling elders, and deacons, are recognised, each holding their respective places in the congregation. In the purer age of the Scottish Establishment, the deacons were considered as assistants to the elders, and, at the communion service, they carried the flagons to supply the sacramental cups with wine.

A difficulty still remains :-If these three orders existed from the beginning, how it that mention is made in the New Testament of only bishops and deacons ? This is the case in Philip. i. 1; and in 1 Tim. iii. To account for this, we may suppose that the word "elder" was used as a generic term, to include both; and hence, when the specific term is employed, both bishops and deacons are mentioned. Some arrangement of this kind, in the way of "helps and governments," seems indispensably necessary to relieve the pastor of the sole responsibility of governing the church; so as to preserve it from the caprice or rashness of some self-willed Diotrephes on the one hand, and from the anarchy and confusion of an unmitigated democracy on the other. No prudent man would wish to rely on his own judgment alone, in cases of difficulty, and a staff of wise and well-informed councillors (call them what you will), in whose opinion he can safely confide, will serve to give weight to his decisions, and to remove all reasonable ground of complaint. It is not essential that a deacon should be a rich man, or a learned man, or a man of refined and polished manners, but he must be a good man, "showing, out of a good conversation, his works with meekness of wisdom." The number of deacons must depend on the extent of the congregation, and on the amount of work they have to perform. In the church of Jerusalem, where the number of members was large, seven were considered sufficient to meet the emergency, and there seems to have been a plurality in most of the primitive churches. And this is desirable still; for, in pecuniary matters, it is of importance, by mutual checks and friendly conference, to "provide for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men."

4. We shall now advert to the reward of the faithful deacon. This the apostle states, (1 Tim. iii. 13), "For they that have used (or served) the office of a deacon well, purchase (or procure) to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." The office may be said to be "well" or honourably discharged, when the deacons act in obedience to the authority of Christwith meekness, humility, and forbearance, from love to the people, especially the poor of

the flock, and with a view to the glory of God. They are worthy of their office when they seek to excel in the discharge of their duty, not grudging the time or labour it may require-when they are zealous in every good work, acting as in the sight of God, and as those who must give account of their stewardship-studying to promote the comfort and usefulness of the pastor, watching over the conduct of the members, so as to comfort, admonish, or reprove, as the case may require. Those who act thus, "procure for themselves a good degree (bathmon kalon)-the expression is somewhat obscure-it signifies, literally, "an honourable step," or rank, and is supposed to refer to the more elevated seats appropriated to the leaders of the congregation, or rulers of the synagogue. The expression is evidently metaphorical, and, according to some, intimates that those who had acted faithfully in the inferior office of deacon, were likely to be promoted to the more honourable and responsible office of presbyter or bishopand it is certain that, in ancient times, deacons were sometimes chosen to the pastoral office. "Thus," as McKnight observes, "Eleatherus, bishop of Rome, before his promotion, was a deacon of that church in the time of Anicetus." This, however, must depend on their fitness for the work in other respects; and, no doubt, it is on this principle that the clergy of the Church of England are first admitted to deacon's orders, before being advanced to the higher office of presbyters. But the phrase may signify merely that the active and faithful deacon will procure for himself an eminent place among his brethren; he will be looked up to as an example to the flock, he will secure the confidence and affection of the people, and enjoy the prayers and blessings of the poor and afflicted, whom he has relieved and visited; and, though the office, as administered among us, is in general gratuitously performed, he shall in nowise lose his reward, but shall receive the approbation of the righteous Judge, and shall be welcomed, as a good and faithful servant, into the presence and joy of his Lord. Who, then, is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing." Luke xii. 42, 43. To such, especially, may be applied the words of the Saviour, "I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat; thirsty, and ye gave me drink; a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; sick, and ye visited me; in prison, and ye came unto me; for inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matt. xxv. 35-40.

66

They further procure for themselves "great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus;" they will be able to defend it against cavillers and unbelievers, and will be prepared to suffer for it. We have an example of this boldness in the case of Philip, when he "went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them," (Acts viii. 5); and especially in the case of Stephen, when "full of faith and power, he did great wonders and miracles among the people," and his adversaries "were not able to resist the spirit and the wisdom

with which he spake;" and when the holy martyr declared, in the face of his murderers, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." Acts vi. 8, 10; vii. 56.

McKnight thus paraphrases the passage, "For they who have performed the office of a deacon, with ability and assiduity, secure to themselves an honourable rank in the church, and great courage in teaching the Christian faith. For even the wicked must respect persons who show so much benevolence and activity in relieving the poor, the afflicted, and the persecuted." (In loq.) Thus the words of Solomon may be understood: "The righteous," the man of upright and consistent character, "is bold as a lion."

or

It is a strange conceit of Mosheim, that "the young men," who were employed in carrying out the bodies of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts v. 6, 10), for burial, were "deacons" of the church at Jerusalem. That they were servants or attendants, employed in the more menial duties, is probable enough; and that they are called" the young men" (koi neoteroi), not so much in respect of age, as of "their office or functions," may be readily allowed; for both Greeks and Romans called their slaves or servants, boys (paides and pueri), whether old or young; as the French apply the term garçon, now, to all servants waiters. But how they could be called deacons, in the proper or official sense of that word, before the institution of that office, we cannot understand; it would involve an obvious anachronism. He also supposes that they were entrusted with the distribution of the church's alms, and that, being native Jews, they were partial to the widows of that party; and that it was in consequence of the murmuring that thus arose, that the "seven other deacons were chosen," (all of whom he maintains were foreigners, except one,) on behalf of the Hellenistic or Grecian Jews. But this is to introduce confusion into the narrative; for it is evident that the twelve had taken on themselves the management of the daily ministration, and that it was in consequence of the implied reflection against them (not on any inferior class,) that the seven were appointed, which was obviously the institution of a new office. "The young men" seem to have corresponded rather to the doorkeepers or sextons of the present day. (See Mosheim, Cent. i., Part II., chap. 2, sect. 10, note.)

Dr. Owen puts the question, "whether a deacon may be dismissed from his office, after he has been solemnly set apart to it by prayer?" The answer seems obvious. If bishops and deacons be the regular and permanent office-bearers in a church, they stand in the same relation to it; and the same rule applies to both. In general, I should say that they ought to be chosen, ad vitam aut culpam; there is no reason why an incompetent or inefficient deacon should be retained in his office, any more than an incompetent minister. But as it is not every little hindrance or difficulty that will justify a person in refusing to accept the deacon's office, when unanimously called to it by the suffrages of his brethren, neither is a church warranted in depriving him of it, for every trifling fault or infirmity; but, as a body, we have no need of lessons on the sub

ject of depositions or removals-we have enough of these, in all conscience, in the case both of pastors and deacons, as the annals of our churches testify. Our people have more need to be reminded of the apostolic injunction, "We beseech you, brethren, to know (or acknowledge) them that labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake; and be at peace among yourselves." 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. To make the office annual, as some propose, and to have a new election every year, is to loosen the bond of union between the people and their office-bearers-to keep the churches in a state

of constant agitation, and to assimilate our institutions to those modern societies, the rules of which are founded more on the principles of worldly policy or expediency, than in accordance with the statutes of the kingdom of Christ.

The reader will find an excellent discourse on the deacon's office (now, I fear, out of print), preached by the late Dr. Robert Winter, before an association of ministers and churches in London, 7th March, 1822. There is also a judicious tract on the same subject, marked No. 5, in the Congregational Union Series. Redcar. W. L.

more become the home of thralls, the house of bondage! Protestants have just read an astounding article in the Rambler, one of the most intelligent organs of Popery in England, avowing, with unusual candour, "the deepest hostility to the principle of religious liberty," as having never given the shadow of a sanction to the theory of civil liberty;" informing its readers that the Roman Catholic who pretends to the contrary, and pours forth liberalism is not talking Catholicism, but Protestantism and nonsense; that, "religious liberty, in the sense of a liberty possessed by every man to choose his own religion, is one of the most wicked delusions ever foisted upon this age by the father of all deceit;" that "the name of liberty, except in the sense of a permission to do certain acts, ought to be banished from the domain of religion;" that “none but an atheist can uphold the principles of religious liberty;" designates as damnable Calvinism and Anglicanism, as moral sin, like murder and adultery;" and very candidly forewarns us that were we in a minority, if not in numbers, yet in power, the Romanist would, if expedient, imprison, banish, fine, or possibly even hang us. "But," adds the writer," he would never tolerate you for the sake of the glorious principles of civil and religious liberty."

The candour of the whole article is equalled only by the audacity of its enunciation in the face of a people on whose bounty and forbearance they fatten and thrive, but whom they execrate, and, fiend-like, are eager once more to subjugate to papal tyranny, and whom, with boasting insolence, they premonish; as expecting one day to

wield the civil and ecclesiastical power of vengeance inherent to their boasted infallibility.

As Christians, we would not infringe a hair's breadth on their liberties, civil or sacred; as Protestant Christians, we would not assail them but on the basis of fair argument, and in the pursuit of the inquiry, "What is truth?" as British Christians, whose fathers suffered in anguish, and shed their best blood to rescue us from that worse than all tyrannies-the Papacy-we would not deserve our liberties were we to lend a helping hand to the jesuitical intrigues by which, with characteristic effrontery, they aim at their subversion; -and as claimants of equal rights, we enter our solemn protest against that compulsive principle that would, in a taxational shape, or from the public revenue, compel either Romanists to pay for our religion, or compel us, in violation of conscience, to support theirs. Our principles are directly antagonistic as Popish against Protestant. On equal ground we have no fear, for "great is the truth, and it must prevail." On the compulsory Church and State principles alone can might overcome right, and "truth fall in our streets." From that position, therefore, it becomes a sacred duty, by every just and constitutional means, to exclude that intolerant and persecuting power.

Few understand the true state of the case. The Church is full of Popery. Secession does not signify purgation: it is only a dislocated part of a greater whole yet that secession is of great value as serving to reveal the true state of things. Individuals excite little notice; the aggregate is appalling. Here is the contribution from Oxford alone.

SECEDERS FROM OXFORD TO ROME.

The following is a list of members of the University of Oxford, who have seceded to the Church of Rome:

University College. Rev. F W. Faber, M.A., late Fellow; Rev. J. C. Algar, M.A., Fellow; Rev. J. C. Robertson, M.A.; Rev. W. Maskell, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Exeter; Rev. W. Anderdon, M.A.

Baliol College. -Rev. W. G. Ward, M.A., Fellow; Rev. F. Oakeley, M.A., Fellow; Rev. G. Talbot, M.A.; Rev. J. M. Capes, M.A.; G. Tickell, Esq., M.A., Stowell Civil Law Fellow; Rev. J. Plummer, M.A.; E. R. P. Bastard, M.A.; Rev. E. Walford, M.A., Scholar; C. Cholmondeley, Esq.; Rev. H. N.

Oxenham, M.A., Scholar; F. R. WeggProsser, Esq., B.A.; Robert Simpson, Esq.

Merton College.-Ven. Archdeacon Manning, M.A., late Fellow; James R. Hope, Esq., M.A., late Fellow; Rev. E. S. Bathhurst, M.A., late Fellow; Rev. J. H. Pollen, M.A., Fellow.

Exeter College.-Rev. J. B. Morris, M.A., Fellow; Rev. F. S. Bowles, M.A., Fellow; J. D. Delgairns, Esq., M.A.; Rev. E. E. Estcourt, M.A.; Nath. Goldsmid, Esq., M.A.; Rev. Danvers Clarke, M.A.; L. M. Mackenzie, Esq., B.A.; Rev. C. Cox, B.A.; Rev. C. Thomas, B.A.; Rev. A. Dayman, B.A.; Walter Buckle, Esq.; W. Lockhart, Esq.; T. H. King, Esq.

Oriel College.-Rev. J. H. Newman, B.D., Fellow; Ven. Archdeacon Wilberforce, late Fellow; A. Christie, Fellow; Rev. H. J. Coleridge, Fellow; Rev. James Orr, B.A.; Rev. S. P. Rooke, M.A.; Rev. Daniel Parsons, M.A.; Rev. C. B. Bridges, M.A.; Rev. F. R. Neve, M.A.; Rev. G. D. Ryder, M.A.; Rev. H. W. Wilberforce, M.A.; Rev. R. Ward, M.A.; Rev. R. Gordon, M.A.; R. Williams, Esq., M.A.; Rev. J. R. Shortland, M.A.; Rev. R. Simpson, M.A.; Wm. Monsell, Esq.; Rev. H. M. Walker, B.A.

Queen's College.-F. C. Ellis, Esq; Walter Wortman, Esq.

New College.-Nicholas Darnell, Esq., M.A., Fellow.

Lincoln College.-Robert Walker, Esq. All Souls' College.-Rev. J. Wynne, B.C.L.; Rev. E. B. Dean, D.C.L.

Magdalen College.-Rev. R. Waldo Sibthorpe, B.D., Fellow; Rev. W. Palmer, M.A., Fellow; Rev. Bernard Smith, late Fellow; Rev. W. Wheeler, B.D., late Fellow; Rev. E. Coffin, M.A., Demy; Rev. J. G. Wenham, B.A., Demy.

Brazenose College.-Rev. J. Walken, M.A.; Rev. H. Formby, M.A.; Rev. E. Caswell, M.A.; Rev. C. B. Garside, M.A.; Rev. G. Case, M.A.; Rev. R. J. Butler, M.A.; Rev. W. H. Scott, Fellow; Rev. R. Stanton, B.A.; Rev. Joshua Dixon; Rev. R. K. Sconce, B.A.; J. Leigh, Esq.; T. F. Wetherell, Esq.; D. C. Lathbury, Esq., B.A.

Corpus Christi College. - Rey. R. Gell Macmullen, B.D., Fellow; Rev. J. S. Northcote, M.A., late Fellow; Rev. T. Meyrick,

M.A.

In the days of our fathers, such things were not even dreamt of. Among the foregoing, a conspicuous figure is made by the sons, the sons-in-law, and chaplains of bishops: only mitres and emoluments have served to anchor fast the bishops themselves. The calamity is not that these have come out, but that multitudes of the same stamp remain behind. The matter is deeply serious, and ought, without loss of time, to be dealt with. The bishops are traitors to their church and the nation!