whatever is needful for the suitable and convenient performance of these duties. Churches, for example, must be organized. In some instances, one congregation must be divided into two or more; in others two or more congregations united into one. Charges of disorderly conduct, preferred against members of the church, must be investigated. For this purpose, witnesses must be cited and examined, and their testimony duly considered. Ministers must be held amenable to discipline, in reference to their official, as well as their personal conduct, especially in reference to the doctrines they teach. As a transfer of ecclesiastical relations frequently becomes necessary, there must, of course, be a power to certify to the ecclesiastical standing of the person concerned; and this bears just the same relation to discipline as the power to receive persons into the church.

Every public society ought to afford to all whom it may concern, ample means of information as to the principles on which she is organized, and the rules by which she is governed. Without this, it is manifest, the ends of discipline cannot be secured. In the present state of the nominally Christian world, no particular church can perform this duty by merely referring us to the Bible. For there are a variety of subjects on which a common understanding is essential to the harmony of a particular church, but in reference to which the Bible is differently interpreted by different public bodies, equally professing subjection to its authority. Every church, therefore, ought to have such a document as we are accustomed to describe by the phrase, A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION. And the adoption of such a Constitution is a very high exercise of the power to rule. For just the same reason, such questions of princple, as may at any time arise, affecting the church as a public society, ought to be decided by her rulers in her behalf.

But there may sometimes arise difficulties of a different kind. Questions of which the immediate subject is neither doctrine, discipline, nor order, may agitate a church, disturb her harmony, and even threaten her dissolution. It may be manifest that neither official teaching nor discipline can remove the evil, and yet that it must be removed by the public authority of the

church. That authority, then, ought to be executed. The principle is that of self-preservation. And the power exercised we shall describe as the power of visitation. The ministry is not the only office in the church; and it is too obvious to require argument, that whenever any ecclesiastical office is to be conferred, there is some thing to be done by some person or persons already in office. The remark is intended as a general one; whether any exception is to be made in favour of extreme cases, is a question on which, at present, we express no opinion.

We are now prepared to state our doctrine in general terms. The rightful authority of ecclesiastical rulers extends to the ministry, public worship, and the discipline of the church, to every thing connected with these, so far as it is of such a nature as to require the intervention of created rulers, and to nothing else, otherwise than in virtue of its connexion with these.

Hitherto we have confined our attention to the general truth, that the church is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ; from which we have sought to deduce an answer to the question, what is it to rule and take care of her? Our conclusion will be either confirmed or disproved, by an examination of those portions of the word of God which describe more particulary the duties of ecclesiastical rulers.

The circumstances in which the office of deacon originated, and the purposes for which it was instituted, may be learned from Acts vi. All other ecclesiastical officers, whether ordinary or extraordinary, are elders. This title is given to apostles. "The elders which are among you," says Peter, "I exhort, WHO AM ALSO AN ELDER.' On the other hand, it is given to men who are not preachers.— "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, ESPECIALLY THEY WHO LABOUR IN WORD AND

DOCTRINE."

From this latter text it is evident, that the whole duty of the eldership consists in ruling and teaching: the elders are divided into two classes; to rule is the function common to them all, and the only official duty of one class; while the other class are charged with the additional duty of labouring in word and doctrine. For the sake of convenience, we are accustomed to describe

the one class as ruling elders, (though, in strictness of speech, this title is applicable to both;) and the other as ministers, or preaching elders. Whatever, then, is included in official teaching, as distinguished from ruling, belongs to ministers only. Whatever is included in ruling, as distinguished from teaching, belongs to all the elders, both those who preach, and those who do not; and should ordinarily be transacted in an assembly of elders. As has been remarked already, the administration of the sacraments is an act of teaching, and therefore belongs exclusively to preaching elders; but to judge of the qualifications of candidates for sealing ordinances, is an act of ruling; and, therefore, belongs to both preaching and ruling elders. It is true that, in the New Testament, there are recorded instances of the admission of persons to baptism by a single officer; but in every such case, it was an extraordinary and inspired officer, appointed to plant and organize churches, and prepare them for a settled course of action. It is not at all surprising that such an officer should have power to do acts which might not be done in a settled state of the church, by any single person who was merely an ordinary and uninspired officer. The same explanation applies to every other instance in which it can be shown that an inspired man did singly an act which, according to the doctrine just stated, ought ordinarily to be done by two or more officers jointly.

After the remarks just made, it will not be necessary to cite particular texts in reference to the agency of elders in receiving persons to membership in the church. Every person tolerably acquainted with the New Testament will at once recollect such passages. Of certificates of ecclesiastical standing, we have examples in the cases of Apollos and Phebe. (See Acts xviii., 27, and Rom. xvi., 1.) Of discipline for immorality, in the case of the incestuous person at Corinth; and for heresy, in the cases of Hymeneus and Alexander.-(See 1 Cor. v., 13, and 1 Tim. i., 20.)

As to investiture with ecclesiastical office, we have examples of their agency in the ordination of ministers, of elders, (both preaching and ruling, manifestly,) and deacons. (See 1 Timothy, iv., 14; Acts xiv., 23; Acts

vi. 6.) And as to their supervision of the training of candidates for the ministry, 2 Tim. ii., 2, is decisive.Their agency in designating ministers to their respective fields of labour is very strongly exhibited in Acts xiii., 1-3. That the Holy Ghost had called Barnabas and Saul to the work on which they were now about to enter, was well known, both to themselves and their brethren. Yet even in their case, it was needful that before entering on the work, they should be formally set apart to it, by a public ecclesiastical act. Extraordinary and notorious as their call was, it did not supercede the necessity of honoring the order which God had established in his church.

We mentioned a power to settle questions of principle in which the church as a public society is concerned. The evident necessity of such a power is, of itself, sufficient evidence that it belongs to those who are appointed to take care of the church of God. And the decision of the question about circumcision, (Acts xv.,) affords a very clear example of its exercise. It is true, the decision was dictated by the Holy Ghost. There is not, however, a shadow of evidence that inspiration was required as a qualification for a seat in that assembly; but much to the contrary. To mention no other proof, we know there were men who sat there simply as elders; and that office certainly did not imply inspiration. Moreover, had the sole object been to obtain an inspired decision of the question at issue, a sentence uttered by any one apostle would have been sufficient; and any possible doubt as to its authority could easily have been removed by miracles wrought in its confirmation. Why then, this public meeting and this formal discussion? There is but one answer. It pleased the Holy Ghost to exhibit a pattern to be imitated whenever a similar case should occur.

Here is sufficient authority for the adoption of what we are accustomed to call a written ecclesiastical constitution. Such a constitution is simply a collection of such decisions, authoritatively adopted for the guidance of future ecclesiastical action. We must remark here, that it is easy to carry the exercise of this power too far. There are many religious questions in which the church VOL. VIII.-No. 1.

9

is not concerned in the sense intended. A man's adopting one side or the other will not render his piety doubtful, nor lead to a violation of the rights of another, nor incapacitate him for the faithful and edifying performance of his ecclesiastical duties. With such questions the government of the church ought not to meddle. The rule is, let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, and follow the things that make for peace.-(See Rom. xiv.)

We turn now to the power of visitation. An example of its exercise is recorded in Acts vi. A dispute arose between two numerous classes of people, broadly distinguished from one another already. The immediate subject was not strictly, of a religious nature, no principle was in question. It related directly to the distribution of alms. Still the whole church was concerned. Her harmony was disturbed; and, as we may reasonably suppose, an open rupture threatened. Hence the apostles interposed, and prescribed a remedy. It was, indeed, one that could not have been lawfully applied, had it not been prescribed by inspiration; for it involved the introduction of a new office into the church. In this respect, a similar case can never occur. But it is evident cases may occur, and do occur, resembling this in all those points on which depended the need for the authoritative interposition of ecclesiastical officers; and in every such case, this example is a sufficient warrant for such interposition.

This enumeration of particulars is probably sufficient. The Word of God, it has been shown, distinctly connects a variety of authoritative acts with the eldership; and those who admit these, will not be apt to object to anything formerly mentioned as included in ruling and taking care of the church of God.

But is not our doctrine objectionable for an opposite reason? Do the ministry, public worship, and church discipline cover the whole ground of church government? Does it not extend to some other things, for other reasons than their connexion with these? If any man affirms it, he is bound to prove his assertion; and this, we are confident cannot be done. Let the radical principle be borne in mind. No man can lawfully do,