The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1875-09-15

totype in the parable. 1t is time that the
Church should appreciate this fact, and our
Presbyterian body more than some others.
For our jealous brethren, the warm hearted
Methodist, and the Baptists, too, can better
than we afford to inscribe over the doors of
their sanctuaries, "The rich and the poor
meet together; the Lord is the Maker of
them ALL" Providence is preparing great
work for those who will use the Office of a
deacon well.
Nv. So much for the duties of the deacon
towards the poor, and his control of the poor
fund. Do the Scriptures restrict his re-
sponsibilties and his authority at this point? !?
Does the Constitution of our Church so re-
strict him?
1t might almost be inferred from the Gus
tom of the churches, that our organic law,
sustaining itself by an appeal to the Scrip
lures, either expressly limits the deacon's
handling of church finances to the poor fund,
or else that it somehow discourages the
thought of his being further employed
But when we turn to the Form of Govern
ment, chapter VI, we find the law, after
first establishing the deacon's control over
all the gifts of Gods people for the use of
their needy brethren, going on to say "To
them also may be properly committed the
management of the temporal affairs of the
church" The Constitution, then, is very
far from restricting the deacon's responsible
ity to the poor man. Its language cannot
be construed to imply less'than an explicit
approval of placing deacons in charge of all
the finances of the congregation, wherever
and whenever the way is clear. For not
only is bare permission granted" may be
committed" would have expressed such per-
mission-but more than this, the word "pro
perly" seems to add sanction of such pro-
ceeding. A legal gentleman tolls us that in
the ruling of civil courts, "may" in statute
is always quivalent to shall, and that dea-
cons could claim, upon such showing, the
management of all funds. But the Assem-
bly, has not so construed the language of
Chap. VI, of the Form CT Government
For when the question came before that
Court in 1888, from the Synod of West Ten
nessee, as to the Interpretation of the law,
the Assembly replied: ST. The answer we con.
ceive to be explicitly given in our Form of
Government, Chap. vi. Their duties are
there plainly made to consist in distributing
the charities of the church to which they be-
long to the poor of that church. Over char
tiles collected for any other purposes than
those specified, their Office gives them no con-
troll. In addition to this, the temporalities
of the church generally may be committed
to their care" Bairds Digest, p. 64.)-
This decision, though bearing on its face evil
dence of that haste which 80 often character
ises the ruling of our Courts, even upon
points of constitutional law, seems to present
two points: l. That the law, as now re-
ceived, does not, of itself, put deacons in
control of all the congregational funds, but
requires the further action of some one Of
our courts to do this. g That some court
other than the Assembly, is competent to
carry this legal permission into effect. The
wording of the AsSemblys answer suggests
the church session as competent to do this,
by limiting the deacon's functions to a par
ticular congregation. And the Book itself,
by placing this definition of the deacon's du,
ties along with matters congregational, plain
ly suggests the same course. We have heard
objection made to the sessions of churches
taking order to place all finances under man.
agement of the deacons, on the ground OF
departure from general custom. The reply
might be made, that such variety is within
the terms of the law and has the sanction of
the highest court. And besides, the Assem-
bly's sanction in favor of carrying into effect
the provision of Chap. vi, may be fairly
claimed on the ground of its adoption of the
4" New Book" which places all funds under
the control of the deacons.
AS to the ground of the discrimination
made between the deacon's power over the
poor fund and that over other finances, We
have heard the suggestion made, that at the
time of the last revision, suitable material
could not always be had for elders and for
deacons also, and 80 the trainers of the law
hesitated to place such grave responsibilities
in untried hands. The difficulty still exists
in many of our congregations But even if
this discrimination had been removed by the
adoption of the Book of Church Order by the
Presbyteries, there need not have arisen any
serious complications thereby, inasmuch as
the Assembly of 1910 decided that when ne
cessary the same persons might hold both
Offices. "Resolved, That while it is impor-
tant and desirable that the several Offices in
the Christian Church should be kept distinct,
and be sustained by different individuals,
whenever sufficient number of competent
men can be found, yet, in the opinion of this
Assembly, it is not inconsistent with the
Constitution of the Presbyterian Church, mol
with the precedent furnished in filing the
office of deacon at it's first institution, that
where necessity exists, the same individual
should sustain both Offices" The language
being somewhat ambiguous, it is not perfect
| l. L. =: -uLat rnannar tha A noaro LIN ax