Sunday, September 20, he arrived at Brother George Hoke's. He says: "I have been exposed to some bad weather, and have passed over some bad roads; but to meet such a dear and kind brother as George Hoke, and be received in such a pleasant way as I have been by the dear brother and family, is more than a compensation for all the exposure and toil it has cost."
As nearly as I can, I will now give the substance and manner of a conversation which took place the same evening between Brother Kline and Brother Hoke. The Diary is silent upon it, but Brother Kline related it to me himself in the year 1862. Brother Jacob Miller, of Greenmount, Virginia, told me afterwards that Brother Kline had related the same to him. The weather being a little cool and damp, the two brethren sat by the fire. I will name the parties in the order of the conversation.
Kline.—Why do not we ordain deacons in the same way the seven were ordained at Jerusalem?
Hoke.—Do you think the seven were deacons?
K.—Yes, I have always thought so.
H.—I do not think they were.
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. 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 Cæsarea, 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.