The second question, "How and to what extent is this government to be exercised?" is not so easily answered. Great unhappiness has been induced by error and difference of opinion on this point, and it is much to be desired that the precise nature and degree of this authority could be ascertained. "Pastors," says Fuller, are that to a church, which the executive powers or magistrates of a free country are to the state; the organs of the law." On this point, we shall not however offer any remarks of our own. So deeply do we feel the importance of correct notions on the subject, and so ably has it been treated on by Dr. Payne, in his excellent little book, "The Church of Christ considered," that we cannot refrain from quoting a few of his judicious remarks on the matter before us. "It is conceived then to be of some consequence to remember, and it may be of advantage to our ministerial brethren to remember, that their authority, whatsoever it may be, does not extend to anything not coming fairly 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 anything 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.” That this consideration is of high importance, no one who knows anything of human nature, and the history of the church, will for a moment dispute. Dr. Payne instances in illustration the admission or rejection of applications for pecuniary aid, by the pastor exclusively-a practical assumption of the right to govern others in the application of their money. Having shown what the pastor's right to govern is not, he proceeds, with his characteristic discretion and discernment, to point out what it is. "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 right-minded 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 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 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 authorized 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." Trusting that these important and sensible remarks will produce as much satisfaction in the mind of an Observer and your readers, as they have in my own, I am, my dear Sir, yours truly, S. P. No. II. SIR, It is scarcely necessary to premise that any observations made in a Congregational periodical in relation to the subject of the above queries, should be based solely upon the declarations of the New Testament, apart from the Old Testament economy on the one hand, and the records of ecclesiastical antiquity on the other; nor in the New Testament itself can any deductions be legitimately drawn from what is obviously said respecting the extraordinary powers of the Apostles; but only from its disclosures respecting the duties of ordinary and perpetual church officers. In the ground thus narrowed the term "pastor" or "shepherd" is to be found but once, Eph. iv. 11, where it occurs as an order of men, placed after "evangelists," and conjoined with "teachers." The precise duties of these "pastors" cannot now perhaps be ascertained. It is a probable conjecture that they resembled in some degree, in the miraculously endowed primitive church, the Wesleyan class-leaders of modern times. Nothing is, however, here said respecting their power. These, however, may not be the "pastors" intended by your correspondent. He probably means the "Christian ministers" of dissenters at the present day, and for their models and predecessors he would perhaps look to the "bishops" or "elders" of the New Testament. That these terms designate the same class of church officers, it will not now be necessary to prove. The well-known passages, Acts xx. 17, 28, Tit. i. 5-7, 1 Pet. v. 1, 2, so frequently adduced, furnish sufficient evidence of this. It has been correctly observed, that the Apostles, having before them two modes of Jewish worship, the temple and the synagogue, preferred the simplicity of the latter to the ritual of the former for adoption in the Christian church. Hence seem to have originated the spiritual and secular superintendents of the affairs of each church, or the two orders of "bishops" and "deacons." The 1 or deacons of the Jewish synagogue, are noticed by Whitby in his note on 1 Cor. xvi. 2, and by Buxtorf and Lightfoot, as there quoted by him. The apt, on, "elders," or "overseers," éπioкоTо, of the synagogue, appear to have corresponded to the Christian elders or bishops. Details respecting their duties will be found in Lightfoot's Works, vol. iii. 242, v. 119, xi. 87, 91–94, 165, xii. 65, 67, 8vo. ed., from which they seem to have formed a kind of committee of management for the performance of the stated worship of God. In this capacity we find them, Acts xiii. 15, requesting Paul and Barnabas to speak to the people. It appears to have been customary with them to select from among the congregation some one or two persons (strangers of grave appearance were often preferred) to read the Parash and Haphtara, or after these lessons to address those present. In this way Christ "taught in the synagogues," Mat. iv. 23, ix. 35, xiii. 54; Mark i. 39, vi. 2; Luke iv. 21, xiii. 9; Paul, Acts ix. 20, xiii. 16, xiv. 1, xvii. 17, xviii. 4; and Apollos, Acts xviii. 26. That the "bishops" or "elders" among the first Christians were analogous to the "rulers" among the Jews, appears probable from the following circumstances :— 1. They were plural in number in each church; see Acts xiv. 23, xv. 4, 6, 23, xx. 17; Phil. i. 1; Tit. i. 5; James v. 14. 2. They were appointed to "rule," 1 Tim. v. 17, by which term. the phrases employed, combined with the analogy stated above, would lead us to understand their being the executive of the church; carrying out into daily or weekly detail the measures on which the deliberative general assembly of the church had previously determined. Their office would, therefore, include within its sphere all that pertained to the spiritual interests of the congregation in social intercourse and public worship; the selection of persons to read the "first lesson" from the Old Testament, the "second lesson" from such part of the apostolical writings as might then be in their possession, and from these portions to address that "word of exhortation" to the assembly, which supplied in earlier and simpler times the place of what we now term the "sermon." Occasionally these duties might naturally devolve upon one of their number, on account of his superior qualifications for the purpose causing his brethren to request it of him, or in consequence of the absence of any other suitable person to perform it. Thus Paul, 1 Tim. v. 17, counts worthy of especial honour the elders who not only "rule well," but also "labour in word and doctrine."* The passages, Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24, involving a critical difficulty, are intentionally passed by. 3. The Apostle John, in the book of the Revelation, addresses the "angel of the church," corresponding to which the Jews had their nbw, "angel," or messenger" of the synagogue, as we are informed by Lightfoot. This officer probably corresponded in some degree to that which we now term "a secretary," being an ultimate executive functionary. The reply, therefore, to your correspondent's queries will depend upon the degree of resemblance subsisting between the functionaries mentioned in his letter and those spoken of in the New Testament. If the "Christian pastors" of the present day be identical in number, in office, in relation to the churches, with the "bishops" or "elders" of primitive times, then it necessarily follows, by the very fact of their being such officers, that the same executive (not legislative) power which is above described, rightly appertains to them. If, however, a modern "congregation" resemble more closely the Lyceum, the Academy, or the Porch, than either the temple, the synagogue, or the ékkλŋσia ; if the speaker who addresses them from week to week stand more in the place of a σοφιστής than of an ἐπίσκοπος οι πρεσβύτερος ; then it is not easy to perceive on what principles or from what data your correspondent can be furnished with an answer. Philosophical practices cannot be formed into Christian precedents. The epistles of Ignatius and Cyprian present a state of things differing indeed from the polity of the New Testament, but resembling more closely a combination of Episcopacy and Presbyterianism than an outline of Independency. The power of the church of Christ, or of any part of it, to form its own polity, would be too great a concession to the Oxford divines. If, therefore, "An Observer" were to state more distinctly than he has done the ideas he attaches to the words "Christian pastors," it would contribute to the speedier solution of the queries he has proposed. RESPONDENT. Nov. 2, 1841. No. III. SIR,-In answer to the questions proposed in your Magazine for this month, permit me to make the following remarks. The questions are, First, Are the Christian pastors invested with authority to govern the churches of Jesus Christ? Second, If they be so invested, how, and to what extent is that government to be exercised? But prior to my answers and remarks, I feel it necessary to state my views, lest the free remarks I make might be considered to proceed from a desire to expose the errors of the Congregational system, rather than with a view of endeavouring to improve it. I in principle dissent from the Episcopal church, and have been for many years a member of a Congregational one, and I am fully persuaded that this latter has as strong a claim of being reckoned an original system as any other; still I think it |