K.--Well, here is a difference of opinion between brethren.

H.--Let us try to get together on this point.

K.--I desire, above all things, to know the truth, and to see eye to
eye with all the Brethren on every point of Holy Writ.

H.--So do I. Now let us see. I do not think the seven were deacons,
because they are nowhere _called_ deacons. Have we a just right to
call them deacons when the Word does not call them so? Again: I must
think the church at Jerusalem was fully organized before any demand
was found for the appointment of the seven. Did it not have deacons at
the start? Who attended to gathering up food and hunting shelter, and
making general provisions for the comfortable entertainment of
thousands of brethren and sisters, and their children besides? I
rather think that the deacons already in office attended to these
things. But the number of the brethren increased so rapidly that the
deacons needed help in the way of general oversight, and the most
natural thing in the world would be for them to apply to the apostles
for advice in regard to the matter. But the apostles replied, "It is
not reason that we should LEAVE the Word of God and serve tables."
This proves that they had not done so before, and that it would not be
right for them to do so now. Hence the importance of getting men of
real executive ability to serve the present necessity. Such ability
and fitness they found in the seven whom they set apart to that work.
But they must not only possess business tact; they must be "men full
of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, and men of _honest_ report," whose
record in life proved their HONESTY. This, Brother John, is my opinion
as to the reason why the apostles were so particular on this point.