within the limits and range of the pastoral office. It is, indeed, chiefly, if not exclusively, confined to the application and execution of the laws of Christ, in regard to the church as an associated body. In reference to any thing beyond this, though a minister may give his opinion, he should not expect that it will carry with it more of authority than that with which the opinion of a wise and holy man will always be clothed. It is possible, however, for youth and inexperience to forget that a right to rule in some things, does not confer the right of ruling in every thing; and that a man who unwisely stretches the prerogative, and aims at being master in all things, may ultimately find himself master in nothing. Far greater is the importance than is sometimes imagined, of confining the exercise of the pastoral authority within legitimate bounds. In that case it may be exerted, where it should be exerted, more vigorously, with less risk of opposition or questioning, and with incomparably more advantage to the church. The notion we entertain of what is an undue extension of ministerial authority may be illustrated by the following case-All applications for pecuniary aid in the erection of new places of worship, or in support of those noble institutions which aim at evangelizing the world, are sometimes admitted or rejected by the minister exclusively (and the right is contended for of thus admitting or rejecting them,) without consultation with the deacons, or any other members of the church. This is surely not the most correct mode of proceeding. tainly the pastor has a right to give or withhold his personal sanction of the application; but by mere pastoral authority to forbid or grant the application, is practically to assume the right which no man possesses to govern others in the application of their property. It exposes ministers, also, to reflections and suspicions which it is very desirable for them to avoid.

Cer

Again, it is to be remembered that the authority of the pastor is not legislative but ministerial. His proper

work is to expound, and apply, and execute the laws which have issued from the Son of God, occupying as he does, exclusively, the legislative throne, and permitting no one to infringe upon this his undoubted prerogative. In short, the pastor rules by making the Lord Jesus Christ rule; by showing what He directs, commands, forbids. He has no authority independent of his Master, or separate from his. Forgetful of this important sentiment, should he enact laws, and then attempt to enforce them, the people would not be bound to obey; the people ought not to obey. Obedience would, in that case, be a practical dethroning of the exalted King in Zion. And should the pastor unwisely bring the authority of his office, instead of the authority of Christ, to enforce even an admitted enactment of the latter, he would be in danger of corrupting the principle of obedience, and of miscarrying after all. A rightminded minister will not desire to see himself, but the Saviour, reign over the people. Jealous for his Master's honour, he will shrink from the thought of dividing the supremacy with him. He covets not the obedience of the church on his own account, but for the honour of his Lord; and thus, placing before the people not himself but Christ, as the actual ruler, he secures, when the conscience is in subjection to Divine authority, the obedience he enforces.

Still there may be thought to be some degree of indefiniteness in these statements. The proper business of the pastor is, we have stated, to expound, apply, and to execute the laws of Christ. But, if there should be a difference of opinion between him and the church, in reference either to the meaning or the application of a law, are its members, in a case awaiting their decision, bound to take the pastor's exposition of the law, and to walk by his opinion of its application, when their judgment is at variance with his? Every candid man will admit that there is some difficulty here. If we maintain the affirmative, there appears to be no guard against the

pastor's lording it over God's heritage; if the negative, we seem to open the door at once for confusion, and anarchy, and every evil work. The church is to obey the pastor; but if the pastor is neither to make law, nor authoritatively to expound and to apply law, what room is there for obedience? On the other hand, if the church is bound to act on the judgment of the pastor, even when they regard that judgment as erroneous, how can they obey Christ? The only reply I feel able to give is, that, as the pastor is the authorised expounder of the laws of Christ, the church is bound to act on his judgment and direction, unless they can prove that he has misdirected them-the onus probandi being laid upon them for the evident purpose of repressing groundless and factious opposition. If it be objected, as perhaps it will, that this statement leaves it after all uncertain when a church is bound to yield obedience, and when it will be lawful to refuse it, I would reply, that a similar difficulty, if difficulty it be, is connected with the injunctions which bind the subject to obey the governor, the wife to obey the husband, the child to obey the parent. They seem to leave no case open for the refusal of obedience; yet all admit that such cases may occur. The governor, the husband, the parent, must all be disobeyed, when God interposes his authority; yet, as the instances where this is the case cannot be specified, the subject, wife, and child are thrown in every particular instance upon the decision of conscience in reference to the propriety of disobedience; having upon them the onus probandi of showing that the higher authority of God compels them to disobey. If it be further objected, that the whole of these injunctions to obedience are too general and loose, I reply, that they are perhaps as definite as they should be, the great object of the Moral Governor being to test the existence of the spirit of obedience; and, for this purpose, they are amply sufficient. In regard to a pastor and his flock, the difficulty referred to is rather speculative

than practical. When there exists fervent love between the parties when there is no tendency to an improper assumption of power on the one hand, and no proneness to groundless and factious opposition on the other, there will be no disputes on this delicate point; and with respect to which disputes are especially to be deprecated and avoided.

The second class of office-bearers comprises those to whom the management of the temporal affairs of the church is especially intrusted. This is the department of service to which the deacon is called. The term employed to designate the office is too general to afford us any light in reference to its nature. It simply means

a minister, or servant; and may, accordingly, be applied, and indeed is so, to individuals performing various kinds of service. It is used, for instance, to denote Christ, Rom. xv. 8; civil magistrates, Rom. xiii. 4; private Christians, John xii. 26; Paul and his companions, 1 Cor. iii. 5. By a common process of limitation, in reference to the meaning of terms, it came at length to denote that particular service which consists in distributing the alms of the church.

It is commonly thought that the origin, or institution of the office, is recorded in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. We read there that, "when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among yourselves seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business," &c.vi. 1-4. These persons are not called deacons; and hence many have doubted whether their office identifies itself with that of the deacon referred to in the epistles of Timothy and Titus. It was intended, it has been

thought, to meet and provide for a temporary emergency; and was laid down when the disciples ceased to have all things common. Now it must be admitted that, in the service which the seven were required to perform, there were specialties not to be found in that of the deacon in the present day. Still I apprehend that the office of the latter, as to spirit at least, must be conceived to have originated at the time to which we now refer. There is substantially the same cause for it now as then. The poor, said our Lord, ye have always with you; their wants must be carefully supplied; and, it is in entire harmony with what we should have expected from the grace of Him who came to preach the Gospel to the poor, to appoint a distinct office-bearer in the church, who shall have it in charge to minister the fruits of the church's love to them, for the sake of their common Lord. Is there not something exceedingly delightful and touching in this appointment? How strikingly does it exhibit the benign spirit of Christianity! When and where did paganism thus practically care for the poor? It becomes, on this account, more important for churches not to suffer, where it can possibly be avoided, this office to remain in practical abeyance; since, while this is the case, they cease to give this visible and strong demonstration of their love to the poor of the Lord's people, and of their regard to his authority. We would not be understood as blaming any particular church. Circumstances, we are well aware, may render it impossible in many cases to fill up the deacon's office; yet a church, while destitute of deacons, should regard itself as in an imperfectly organized state; and should fervently implore the church's Head to supply to them that which is lacking.

The preceding statements have taken it for granted that the deacon is not a spiritual officer-that his specific work is to serve tables; the table of the Lord, as is generally supposed, the table of the minister, and the table of the poor. Now there is no one, certainly, who