The institution of the deacon's office arose from a
seemingly accidental circumstance which occurred in the church at Jerusalem,
the particulars of which are recorded in the 6th chapter of the Acts of the
Apostles.* The original design of this office, was to administer the bounty
of the church. The first deacons were simply the almoners of their
brethren. They dispensed the charities of the rich, for the relief of the
poor. And this, whatever has been added by the usages of the churches, must
still be considered as its paramount duty. What a lovely and
attractive view does it give us of Christianity, and how strikingly
characteristic of its merciful nature, to behold it solemnly instituting an
office, the chief design of which is, the comfort of its poorer followers!
Where shall we find anything analogous to this in other systems? Paganism
and Mohammadanism have nothing like it.
* Some people are of opinion that this occurrence was not
the origin of the deacon's office, and that the individuals there mentioned,
are to be viewed, not as officers of the church—but merely as stewards of a
public charity, who were appointed for a special occasion, and not as a
general and authoritative precedent. It is said, in support of this opinion,
that these individuals are not called deacons by the sacred
historian, and that, in consequence, they cannot be proved to have been
such. It is also contended, that Paul does not specify, in his epistle to
Timothy, the duties of a deacon in such a way as to identify the office with
what Luke, in the 6th of Acts, has stated to be the duties of the
individuals there selected for the primitive church.
In reply to this, I contend that this was the origin of
the deacon's office, and on the following grounds—
1st. Church history informs us, that the office was
always considered, from the very earliest ages, as designed for the relief
of the poor. If so, how natural is it to trace up its origin to the
circumstance alluded to, which so easily accounts for it.
2nd. The solemnity with which the seven people were set
apart to their office, that is, with prayer and imposition of hands,
looks as if their appointment was to be considered as a standing and
authoritative precedent.
3rd. If this be not the origin of the deacon's office,
where shall we find the account? and what is still stronger, if this be not
the institution, Paul has given directions about an office, the duties of
which are, in that case, not mentioned in the Word of God. He has certainly
said nothing himself of its design—a circumstance which is strongly
presumptive of the truth of my view of the case, since his silence seems to
imply that the duties of the deacon were already too well known to need that
be should specify them. His very omission is grounded on some previous
institution. Where shall we find this—but in Acts 6?
4th. The reason of the appointment in question, is
of permanent force, that is, that those who minister in the
Word, should not have their attention diverted by temporal concerns; and,
therefore, seems as if a permanent office was then established.
5th. I would ask any one who takes a different view from
that which I hold, what are the duties of the deacons mentioned by Paul? If
he reply, as I think he must, "To attend to the concerns of the poor," I
would still inquire how he knows that. If he answers, The testimony of
ecclesiastical history—I would still ask, On what is the immemorial usage of
the church could be founded, if not on the fact mentioned by Luke in the
Acts of the Apostles?
By a reference to the origin of the office, we shall
learn how widely some religious communities have departed from the design of
this simple, merciful, and useful institution. "Those who perverted all
church orders," says Dr. Owen, "took out of the hands and care of the
deacons, that work which was committed to them by the Holy Spirit in the
apostles, and for which end alone their office was instituted in the church,
and assigned other work unto them, whereunto they were not called and
appointed. And whereas, when all things were swelling with pride and
ambition in the church, no sort of its officers contenting themselves with
their primitive institution—but striving by various degrees to be somewhat,
in name and thing, that was high and aloft, there arose from the name of
this office the meteor of an arch deacon, with strange power
and authority never heard of in the church for many ages. But this belongs
to the mystery of iniquity, whereunto neither the Scripture nor the practice
of the primitive churches, do give the least countenance. But some think it
not inconvenient to sport themselves in matters of church order and
constitutions." (Owen on Church Government)
The church of England, which retains some of the
corruptions of the church of Rome, has imitated her in the total alteration
of this office. In that communion, the deacon is not a secular—but a
spiritual officer, and his post is considered as the first grade in the
ascent to the episcopal throne. He is a preacher, and may baptize—but not
administer the eucharist. He is, in fact, half priest, half layman, and does
not altogether put off the laic, nor put on the cleric character, until his
second ordination to the full orders of the priesthood. The church-warden
and the overseer share between them the office of the deacon.
Abuses of this office, however, are not confined to the
churches of Rome and of England—but may be found in the ecclesiastical
polity of those who separate from both. What is the deacon of some of our
independent communities? Not simply the laborious, indefatigable,
tender-hearted dispenser of the bounty of the church, the inspector of the
poor, the comforter of the distressed; no—but "the bible of the minister,
the patron of the and the wolf of the flock;" an individual, who, thrusting
himself into the seat of government, attempts to lord it over God's
heritage, by dictating alike to the pastor and the members; who thinks that,
in virtue of his office, his opinion is to be law in all matters of church
government, whether temporal or spiritual. This man is almost as distant
from the deacon of apostolic times, as the deacon of the Vatican. Such men
there have been, whose spirit of domination in the church has produced a
kind of diaconophobia in the minds of many ministers.*
* The author writes from observation, not from
experience; besides the eight deacons with whom he acts at present, he has
already outlived eight more, and both the dead and the living have been his
comfort and joy.
I do beseech those who bear this office to look to its
origin, and learn that it is an office of service, which gives no authority,
or power, or rule in the church, beyond the special work for which it is
appointed, and that is, to provide for the comfort of the poorer
brethren. This is their business. It is true, that by the usages of our
churches, many things have been added to the duties of the office, beyond
its original design—but this is mere matter of expediency.
It is often said that the duty of the office is to serve
tables; the table of the Lord, the table of the minister, and the table of
the poor. If it be meant that this was the design of its appointment,
I deny the statement, and affirm that the table of the poor, is the deacon's
appropriate and exclusive duty. Whatever is conjoined with this, is extra
diaconal service, and vested in the individual, merely for the sake of
utility. Such increase of their duties, I admit, is wise and proper. We need
people to take care of the comfort of the minister—to provide for the holy
feast of the Lord's supper—to direct the arrangements of all matters
connected with public worship; and who so proper for this, as the brethren
who already fill an office, of which temporalities are the object and
design? But these are all additions to the paramount duty of the
deacon, which is to take care of the poor.
Let it not be thought, that this is exhibiting the office
in a naked, and meager, and degrading point of view; or as shorn of the
beams of its brightest glory. What can be a more happy or more honorable
employment, that to distribute the alms of the brethren, and visit the
habitations of the poor, like angels of mercy, with words of peace upon
their lips, and the means of comfort in their hands? A faithful, laborious,
affectionate deacon, must necessarily become the object of justly deserved
regard in the church, and be looked up to with the esteem and veneration,
which are paid by a grateful dependent family to their father. The poor will
tell him their wants and woes, spiritual and temporal; and ask his advice
with implicit confidence. He will move through the orbit of his duty amid
the prayers and praises of his brethren, and in measure may adopt the
language of Job, "When the ear heard me, then it blessed me; and when the
eye saw me, then it gave witness to me; because I delivered the poor who
cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him. The blessing
of him that was ready to perish came upon me, and I caused the widow's heart
to sing for joy. I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame. I was
a father to the poor, and the cause which I knew not, I searched
out."
Surely, surely, here is honor, much pure, legitimate,
exalted honor. Such a man must be, and ought to be a person of
influence in the society—but it is the influence of character, of
goodness, of usefulness. Let him have his periodical visitations
of the poor. Let him go and see their wants and woes in their own
habitations, as well as bid them come and tell their sorrows in his.
Let him be full of compassion and tender hearted; let his eyes drop pity,
while his hands dispense bounty; let him be affable and kind as well as
attentive. And such a man shall lack neither honor nor power among his
brethren; although, at the same time, he is peaceful as a dove, meek as a
lamb, and gentle as a little child.
The apostle is very explicit in his statement of the
qualifications which the deacons should possess. "Likewise must the
deacons be grave," that is, men of serious and dignified deportment;
"not double tongued," that is, sincere, not addicted to duplicity of
speech; "not given to much wine; not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the
mystery of the faith in a pure conscience," that is, attached to the
doctrines of the gospel, and exhibiting their holy influence in a spotless
life; "and let them also first be proved; then let them use the office of a
deacon, being found blameless. Let them be the husband of one wife, ruling
their children and their own houses well." 1 Tim. 3:8-13.*
*The allusion made to the deacons' wives, appears to me
to be a mistranslation, and in the original refers to a class of female
office bearers in the primitive church. "Even so the women." As the
manners of the Greeks and Romans, and especially of the Asiatics, did not
permit men to have much communion with women of character, unless they were
relations, it was proper that an order of female assistants should be
instituted for visiting and privately instructing the young of their own
sex, and for catechizing females of any age. And as the church was then much
persecuted, and many of its members were often condemned to languish in a
prison, these holy women were, no doubt, peculiarly useful in visiting the
captive Christians, and performing for them many kind offices which their
sex can best render. Such a one, in all probability, was Phoebe,
mentioned Rom. 16:1. Such were the widows spoken of 1 Tim. 5. Such were
Euodia and Syntyche, Phil. 4:3. Clement of Alexandria reckons widows
among ecclesiastical people. "There are many precepts in Scripture for those
who are chosen, some for priests, others for bishops, others for deacons,
others for widows." Pliny, in his celebrated Epistle to Trajan, is thought
to refer to deaconesses, when, speaking of two female Christians whom he put
to the torture, he says, "they were called deaconesses."
Deacons should remember, that all these
qualifications should be found embodied, as much as possible, in each
individual, holding the office; and not merely some in one and some in
another, until the character is formed by the joint number—but not in each
member of the deaconry. Some have contended for plurality of elders in a
church, because it is impossible to find all the qualifications of a
Christian elder stated by the apostle, in one person. We are to look
for one excellence in one man, and another in the second, and what is
lacking in one will be made up in another, until their defects and
attainments are made to unite, like the corresponding parts of a dovetail
joint. I confess, however, that this way of making church officers, as it
were by patchwork, appears to me a most absurd idea.
The deacons, from their being officers in the church,
although their office refers to temporalities, and also from their being
generally acquainted with the affairs of the church, will be considered by
every wise and prudent minister, as his privy council in his spiritual
government, and should be always ready to afford him their advice in a
respectful and unobtrusive manner. "Christian brethren," said a
preacher on this subject, "give to the minister I love, for a deacon, a man
in whose house he may sit down at ease, when he is weary and loaded with
care; into whose bosom he may freely pour his sorrows, and by whose lips he
may be soothed when he is vexed and perplexed; by whose illuminated mind he
may be guided in difficulty; and by whose liberality and cordial
cooperation, he may be animated and assisted in every generous undertaking."
And I would add, who would do all this in the spirit of humble, modest, and
unauthoritative affection.
In the transactions of church business, the deacons
should exert no other influence than that which arises from the esteem and
affection in which they are held by the people. All personal and official
authority should be abstained from. Their opinion should ever be stated with
pre-eminent modesty; for if it be a wise one, its wisdom will commend itself
to the judgment of the people, whose hearts are already prepared by
affection and esteem to yield to its influence. Whereas, the wisest
opinion, if delivered dogmatically, will often be resisted, merely because
it is attempted to be imposed.
If a man deserves influence, he will be sure to have it
without seeking it, or designedly exerting it; if he does not deserve it,
and still seeks it, he is sure to be resisted.
The deacon's duty to the people, is to promote, so far as
he is able, the happiness of individuals, and the welfare of the church. In
his communion with them, he should be firm and unbending in principle—but
kind and conciliatory in temper and in manner. In those parts of his
office, which are sometimes very irksome and arduous, from the difficulty of
serving all according to their wishes, he should guard against everything
which even appears to be harsh and unkind. More especially should he do
this, when he finds it impossible, in consistency with his duty to others,
to fulfill their desires. The apparently insignificant circumstance, which
will often occur in our congregations, of being unable to accommodate an
individual, or a family, with a seat, may be mentioned with so much
kindness, and with such sincere regret that it is so, as to lead the
individual, or the family, patiently to wait for a more favorable
opportunity; or it may be done, although without design, in a tone of so
much indifference, as to lead the disappointed applicant to relinquish the
hope of success, and to leave the church. The secret charm by which the
deacon's office may be rendered comfortable to himself, and beneficial to
others, is that golden precept of inspiration, "Let everything be done with
love!" Or, as Doddridge better translates the passage, "Let all your affairs
be transacted in love!" 1 Cor. 16:14.