The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1875-09-15
From the Southern Presbyterian Review.
THE DEAC0N'S OFFICE IN THE CHURCH
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
(CoNTINUED.)

(CoNTINUED.)
III. We now reach the third element oi
the Presbyterian doctrine of the deacon, viz
that to the deacons especially belongs the
care of the poor and the distribution Of
the aims of the saints for their benefit. The
language of the Form of Government is un.
mistakable. The deacons have the final dis.
posal of funds collected for the poor, to the
end specified Their decisions are not liable
to be reversed by the session, unless they are
convicted of misappropriating funds, after
due process of trial. A difference of judg
ment as between the deacons and session
cannot be entertained by the court; as, for
example, the question, Does this or that per.
son deserve the aid of the poor fund; and if
so, how much should be given? OF all such
questions the deacons are to Judge. 1t is
not competent to the session to interfere un-
til accusation is brought of maladministra-
tion or of gross Negligence of duty which can
not be explained upon the supposition Of
honest difference of opinion. OAly then can
session take up the case, except by way Of
fraternal suggestion, which the deaconS are
at liberty to follow or not.
This point has been settled by the Gener
al Assembly of 1857, in response to the fol-
lowing overture:
"l Has church session any original or direct
control over the management and distribution OF
the fund collected and in the hands of the deacons
for the benefit of the poor OF the Church?
I -. Or does the management OF this fund be-
long exclusively to the deacons
" g. If the session has any control over this
| fund, what is the nature of that control?
1.-The committee recommended that the 6rsSin-
quiry be answered in the negative the second in
| the affirmative; and that the third be answered
as follows They may advise respecting the use Of
funds Adopted. l' See Baird's Digest, Ire.
vised Ed.l p. 65.
So much for the control by deacons' over
funds for the poor. The decision is, that
their lagful disposal thereof may not be in
terferred with. The case is analogous to the
right of jurisdiction inherent in the session,
of admitting persons to the privilege of com
munion at the Lords table. The Scripture
lays down certain qualifications which are
to be possessed by persons claiming this priv.
ilege; and by the Constitution of the Church,
based, as we hold, upon the word of God,)
the session is appointed to decide when the
profession by this or that man of such quail
fcation is credible. The higher courts may
not touch that decision, unless proof be ad'
duced that the session violated the law by
requiring qualifications not laid down in
Scripture, or else by failing to require
credible profession of such as are therein
revealed. The higher court may, upon due
consideration of all the facts, differ in opin'
ion from the session; it may make sugges
tions which session may or may not adopt
But the original jurisdiction to judge under
the law of the qualification of communicate
is by the Constitution vested in tho session
And difference OF opinion dones not warrant
interference, except by way of advice, which
leaves the lower court free. The analogy
holds good as to the inherent rights of pres
byteries to judge of the qualifications of can
didates for the gospel ministry. This hal
been recently tested by an appeal to one o
our Synods, wherein Synod rendered decis
ion, asserting the. original jurisdiction o
Presbytery in the premises.
AS to the control of the aims for the poor
then it is apparent that our Form of Govern
ment chap. VI, departs from the older doc
trine of the First and the Second Books o
Discipline. "The First Book of Discipline
teaches" says DR.. Arnold Miller, "tha
The Office of the deacones is to gadder AM
distribute the aims of the puire according
the directione of the sessione.' And tn
Second Book, that THAR office and power i
to reoeave and to distribute the hail eccle
siastical guides unto them to whom they a
appoyntit. This they aucht to do according
to the judgment and apyOyntment of tn
presbyteries or elderships, (of the quhilk tn
deacons ar not, that the patromonie of tn
kirk and puire be not cOnVertit unto priva
mems usis, nor wrangfullie DISTRIBUTE. ~
(See papers above referred to- Our Boo
gives deacons more, therefore, than the sym
bols of the ancient Church of Scotland allow
{ ed, by placing the poor fund in their hand
for distribution to lawful purposes, eve
though they may differ with the session il
matters of opinion. And in contrast wit
the Scottish theory, it may be well to por
der the words of Owen: "This Office of des
cons is an Office of service, which gives n
power in the rule of the Church. But bein
, an Office, it gives authority with respect unit
the special work of it, under a general NJ
r tion of authority; that is, right to atten