DEACON (Auleorv/), the designation of an office-bearer in the apostolic churches (Phil. i. 1 ; I Tim. iii. 8-13). Respecting this office certain questions require to be considered.
1. Did it correspond to that of the 1111 chazan in the Jewish Synagogue, the inrmolrns of the N. T. (Luke iv. zo ; John vii. 32) ? That it did, is the opinion of Vitringa (De Syn. Vet., p. 895, ff. ; Bernard's Condensed Tr., p. 87, fE) ; whose prin ciple, that the order of the Christian churches was constructed on the model of the synagogues, led him to press the analogy between the two in every possible way. But for this opinion there is no solid support. Vitringa's main principle is itself un sound ; for nothing can be more evident than that the Apostles proceeded upon no pre-arranged scheme of church policy, but instituted offices and appointed usages just as circumstances required ; and as respects the deacon's office, it cannot be shewn that one of the duties pertaining to the office of chazan in the synagogue belonged to it. As Hartmann remarks (Enge Yerbind. des A. T. mit d. IV:, p. 281), the chazan was a mere servant whose functions resembled those of our sexton or church officer.
2. Have we in Acts vi. 1-6 an account of the in stitution of the deacon's office in the Church ? In that passage we read of the appointment of seven men in the church at Jerusalem to attend to the due distribution of the provision made for the sus tenance of the widows belonging to the church : were these men deacons in the sense in which that title was used in later years ? That they were is very generally assumed ; but it is not easy to dis cover any solid ground on which the assumption may be rested. Nothing can be drawn from the meaning of the word StaKovia as applied to their functions (ver. 1), or the word Safeway, as if this title had been originally derived from such a ' serv ing of tables' as is here referred to ; because these words are used in the N. T. with the utmost lati tude of meaning, so as to include every kind of ser vice rendered to the church or cause of God on earth—the service of presbyters (2 Cor. xi. 23 ; Ephes. vi. 21 ; CoL i. 7, etc.), of evangelists (1 Thess. iii. 2), of apostles (Acts xx. 24 ; xxi. 19 ;
Rom. xi. 13 ; 2 Cor. vi. 4, etc.), of prophets (1 Peter i. 12), of angels (Heb. i 14), of Christ him.
self (Rom. xv. 8) ; as well as service in temporal matters. Nor can much weight be attached to patristic testimony on this head ; because we have no clear declaration in favour of the position as. slimed earlier than that of the 6th General Council (in Trullo), held A.D. 680 ; all the earlier witnesses speak of the diaconate in connection with spiritual services, or the rites of the Church. If, moreover, this was the institution of a permanent office in the Church, it seems somewhat strange that it should disappear entirely from the history of the Church for many years, and come up again, for the first time, in the form of an incidental notice in an epistle writ ten in the latter half of the first century. Taking the narrative in the Acts in its connection with the history of which it forms a part, the appoint ment of the seven brethren has all the appearance of a temporary expedient to meet a peculiar emer gency. Hitherto the Apostles had managed the expenditure of the funds collected for the aid of the poor in the church ; but when the Hellenists com plained to the Hebrews (robs Tan 'Etipalous, not against the Hebrews), i.e., the resident Jews by whom the supply was of necessity chiefly furnished, that their widows were neglected in the daily dis tribution, the Apostles suggested an arrangement by which what they, from the pressure of other duties, could do only imperfectly, might be done efficiently and for the satisfaction of all The emergency, however, was itself the result of special circumstances, and consequently the arrangement by which it was to be met could not possess the character of a permanent institute. Whilst it, however, passed away with the circumstances which gave it birth, we believe there was this of permanency in it, that it established the principle that it was not fit that they who are entrusted with the ministry of the word should also be bur dened with the ministry of tables or the manage ment of the temporal affairs of the church.