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.  These seven men would certainly have a great deal entrusted to their general keeping; and unless they were honest, they might take advantage and make personal gain out of it.  They soon got things so arranged in the hands of the deacons, that Stephen, one of the seven, could leave and give all of his time, or most of it, to preaching; for we are directly informed that the opposing Jews “were not able to withstand the wisdom and the spirit in which he spake.”  Right on the strength of this began the terrific persecution which soon resulted in the martyrdom of Stephen, and eventuated in the dispersion from Jerusalem of all the leaders and most of the influential and well-known members of the body.  Philip only, of all the seven except Stephen, is mentioned in the New Testament after this.  It seems that after he had preached for some time he married and settled down at Caesarea, where, years after, Paul found him, and spoke of him as one of the seven—­not deacons—­although it would have been very easy for Paul to call him such, had he been a deacon.  Paul here calls him Philip the evangelist.  Acts 21:8.

K.—­I must admit, Brother George, that your argument is fair and pointed, and I will reconsider the whole subject.  I never before saw the office and appointment of the seven in the light in which you have presented it to me this evening.

H.—­I believe there are points in addition to those already given, but you may find them yourself.