The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-04-27
For the Central Presbyterian.
Retrenchment and Reform

Of course it is not all important that
SO humble an advocate should define his
position for the sake of doing so, but it
may be important to say that it is not
his purpose to become involved with
others, whose views he cannot fully en-
dorse, lest what clearly appears practi-
cable become entangled with what is not.
Not one word, pro or con, has he to
say about the consolidation of the Earn
est Worker and Missionary, leaving that
to others. Not scratch OF pen to make
against Secretary and Committee of
Foreign Missions; not a syllable to utter
now as to the work of Publication except
that by all legitimate means it ought to
be freed from debts; nor would he whis-
per aught against the Tuscaloosa Insti-
tute.
There are but two points to which he
would point his remarks, taking up one
now, and the other hereafter.
l. The receiving and distributing of
fcer of our General Assembly should be
deacon. Why? Look into the consti-
tuition of our Church, and see what office
is charged with the receiving and dis
bursting of funds for pious uses. Not the
ministry" nor the ruling elder whose
respective functions are clearly and fully
set forth. There is but one other: that
is the diaconate, which office was created
for this specific object. Is not this so
Will not this satisfy the chairman of the
committee on "Retrenchment and Re-
form, and all other good Presbyterians?
who seem to think that the apostle Paul
is an example authorizing us to employ
ministers of the word in this work In
addition, admit
LIST. That the church at Jerusalem, by
apostolic authority, had set apart seven
men to " the service of tables" which in
cludes the feeding and clothing of the
poor.
End. This mother church was the
model after which the others were organ
lied, and very few of us would deny this.
Then
Sd. When ST. Paul took the contribu-
ton for the poor saints up to Jerusalem,
it is not very far fetched to suppose that
it was there received and disbursed by
the officers who had been set apart by
prayer and the laying on of hands, to
that very work, and that too in order to
free the apostles from such work
In fact, the only satisfactory way of
escaping such conclusion, is to show by
the record, that some other officers than
the deacons received and. disbursed. We
freely admit that our beloved brother
Paul set US ministers of the word wor-
thy example, followed by too few of us
In stirring up the brethren to liberality,
but this is quite different thing from the
act of receiving and disbursing We hold
our position on constitutional grounds.
The plain text of the law gives it to us,
and we cannot afford to assume the bur
den of proof-we cannot go back of our
statutory provision. Is it not plain that
when the law provides, in express Ian
guage, for the performance of certain
duties, by an office, those duties cannot
within the law, be performed by others.
The duty of administering the Sacra-
ments belongs to the minister. Does not
that exclude all others? The duty of
ruling in Gods house belongs to the elder.
Does not that exclude all Others? The
duty of receiving and disbursing belongs
to the diaconate, by law. Does not that
exclude all others? tx