not only to perform the baptismal act, but also to determine who are fit subjects for the sacred ordinance, is forcibly stated by Richard Baxter, in his "Christian Ecclesiastics." "1. It is the Pastor's office," he observes, "to bear and exercise the keys of Christ's church; therefore, by office, he is to receive those that come in; and, consequently, to be the trier and judge of their fitness. 2 It belongeth to the same office which is to baptize, to judge who is to be baptized; otherwise, Ministers should not be rational judges of their own actions, but the executioners of other men's judgment. It is more the judging who is to be baptized, that the Minister's office consisteth in, than in the bare doing of the outward act of baptizing. 3. He that must be the ordinary judge in church-admissions is supposed to have both ability and leisure to make him fit; and authority and obligation to do the work. 4. The ordinary body of the laity have none of all these four qualifications, much less all. (1.) They are not ordinarily able so to examine a man's faith and resolution with judgment and skill, as may not tend to the wrong of himself nor of the church: for it is great skill that is required thereunto. (2.) They have not ordinarily leisure from their proper callings and labours to wait on such a work as it must be waited on; especially in populous places. (3.) They are not, therefore, obliged to do that which they cannot be supposed to have ability or leisure for. (4.) And where they have not the other three, they can have no authority to do it. (5.) It is therefore as great a crime for the laity to usurp the Pastor's office in this matter, as in preaching, baptizing, or other parts of it."

be easily set aside. No particular church has authority to reject any of those great New Testament principles which are essential to the church in general; and if Jesus Christ has committed to his Ministers the exclusive right of admitting persons within the pale of his church, no section of that church must dare to violate the divine rule, by denying to the Pastor the right of receiving members into its own particular communion.

Whatever form of church-order may be adopted by any particular church, that important office, which was instituted for the purpose of originating, extending, and edifying the church; and on whose instrumentality not only the prosperity but the very existence of the church is made to depend, must be duly recognised and respected. In every section of the church of Christ, the Pastor must bear the keys, or he is not the Pastor of Christ's own making.

The right of excluding unworthy members from the church is naturally included in the power of receiving suitable persons into its communion. The well-known author already quoted elsewhere argues,"As it is the Pastor's office, to judge who is to be received, so also to judge who is to be excluded." The power to administer that discipline which is necessary for regulating and preserving the purity of the church, is given along with the keys; and thus the inspired writers of the New Testament, while enlarging on the powers vested by the original commission in the Ministers of the Gospel, speak of them as having the right to administer all the inferior acts of discipline designed for the correction of the offender, and also to perform the extreme act of expulsion on his proving incorrigible. It is for the Ministers of Christ, the Pastors of his church, to "reprove," "rebuke with all authority," "admonish," "warn;" and, finally, when they judge necessary, to "reject" offenders from church communion. The exclusive right of the Christian Pastor to administer the sacrament of the Lord's supper rests on the same ground. It is also in

On the question, whether the Pastor has the right of admitting persons into any particular church, as he has by baptism into the universal church, Baxter further observes, "It is not in the power of the laity to keep a man out of their own particular church-communion, whom the Pastor receiveth; because, as is said, it is his office to judge and bear the keys." This conclusion will not

cluded in the power of the keys. As the sacrament of baptism is the door of admission into the general church, the Lord's supper is the pledge of continued membership. And it being the business of the Pastor to admit persons to membership, and remove them from it, it must necessarily remain for him to give the pledge of membership to the approved members of the church, as well as refuse it to those whom he deems unworthy. Were others than the Pastor allowed to perform this act, it might sometimes happen, that the pledge of membership would be given to such as he had excluded, and denied to others whom he might judge worthy of communion with the church.

A few of the numerous passages which speak most unequivocally of the ruling power as vested in Christian Ministers may be specified. In writing to Timothy, the Apostle Paul describes the necessary qualifications of a Bishop; and says that he must be" one who ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity:" adding, "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1 Timothy iii. 4, 5.) If the Apostle does not, by this language, intend to convey the idea that the Christian Minister is to exercise an authoritative control over the church under his care, somewhat analogous to that which a pious man exercises in his own family, it is impossible to conceive what can be his meaning. In a succeeding chapter of the same epistle, the Apostle attaches such importance to the governing ability of Ministers, as to declare that the laborious Minister, who rules well, is worthy of double honour. (1 Tim. v. 17.) Writing to the Hebrews, be says, "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God;" (Heb. xiii. 7 ;) and, recurring to the same subject, in a subsequent part of the chapter, he moreover enjoins on them obedience and submission to their Pastors: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves." Let it be admitted that the word rendered "rule"

implies also "leading and guiding," still the case is not altered. Christian Ministers are evidently such guides as have authority to command" (1 Tim. iv. 11) those whom they lead by their teaching and example, whom the people are bound not only to follow, but to submit to and obey. If then the idea of guiding is to be entertained in the present instance, it is to be regarded as additional to that of ruling, and not as a substitution in its stead. The reason why obedience to their Pastors is thus enjoined upon the Hebrews is most impressive and admonitory: "For they watch for your souls," says the Apostle," as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief." Great must be the importance of the duty which the Holy Spirit has enforced by such a consideration. If the obedience or disobedience of Christians to their Ministers is to be a subject of solemn recognition in the day of judgment, and will prove cause of "joy" or "grief" to their Pastors themselves, as they "give account," it behoves Christian people to ponder well the obligation under which they are placed, in regard of those who watch over them in the Lord.*

The conclusion which the preceding examination has established, may be arrived at by another method. Let an attentive consideration be given to those parts of the Scriptures in which the ministerial is more especially spoken of as the pastoral office; and the result will be the same. In the New Testament, the church is mentioned as a flock;" Jesus Christ is described as "the great Shepherd," "the chief Shepherd," who has the charge of it; and the Ministers of the Gospel are represented as having been appointed to watch over it in the character of sub

The reader will do well to examine

carefully the remainder of this class of passages; such as, 1 Thessalonians v. 12: them which labour among you, and are "And we beseech you, brethren, to know over you in the Lord, and admonish you." Heb xiii. 24: "Salute all them that have the rule over you,", &c.

ordinate Pastors, or under-shepherds. Now it is the business of the Pastor both to feed and govern his flock. It is incumbent on him not only to provide for it suitable pasturage, but also to exercise all such control over it as may be necessary to secure its well-being and safety; and unless all analogy be disregarded, it must be concluded that the Pastors of the "flock of God" have also this two-fold duty to discharge: that they have to feed it, and regulate it by necessary discipline. There is assuredly a marked similarity hetween the business of taking care of a flock, and that of taking care of the church of God; otherwise the one would not have been chosen to illustrate the other: and no one is at liberty to reject any of the plain and obvious points of agreement in the comparison, which the Holy Spirit has seen fit to institute. It will not be denied that the analogy holds good in regard of Jesus Christ himself. He, as the chief Shepherd," it will be admitted, governs as well as feeds the flock; and the inquirer is bound, by all the rules of fair reasoning, to conclude, that, so far as the analogy is concerned, unless some qualifying and limiting expression can be found, the Ministers of the Gospel, as under-shepherds, have both these functions to perform. But where will the objector look for a passage which, while it invests the Ministers of the Gospel with the pastoral office, limits it to the duty of feeding, and denies the power of governing, the flock? No intimation can be met with in the New Testament, that the "flock of God" is made responsible for ruling, any more than providing pasturage for, itself; and the inference derived from analogy must therefore be admitted.

66

feeding. This is the case in Matthew ii. 6: "Out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel." In this passage the government of Christ is intended, if not exclusively, yet at least primarily and especially; and the word which is rendered "rule," is ouaivw. So fully does this word express the idea of ruling, that it is sometimes used to denote ruling with severity; as in the promise of Christ to the angel of the church of Thyatira: “To him will I give power over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to pieces: even as I received of my Father.” (Rev. ii. 26, 27.)

Пoμaw, in this passage, not only expresses ruling, but ruling with rigour. Christ declares that he to whom the promise is made, shall, for the shepherd's crook, have a rod of iron, with which he shall crush the nations. A knowledge of the meaning of this verb is important to a right understanding of the oft-quoted passage in the first epistle of Peter: "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." (1 Pet. v. 1-4.) A mere English reader might suppose that the duty of feeding the flock is all that the Apostle here enforces; but the word translated "feed" is the verb ποιμαίνω, which, as has been shown, means ruling also. The English language has no word equivalent to this Greek verb; and our translators were therefore obliged, unless, however, they had adopted a periphrastical mode of expression, to use a term which only expresses one of its meanings. That which the Apostle really enjoins on his fellow-elders is, the performance of all the duties, the exercise of all the

functions, of the pastoral office. The authoritative control, as well as the feeding of the flock, is therefore intended. This interpretation is abundantly confirmed by the following expression, επισκοπούντες, "taking the oversight thereof;" that is, filling the office of Bishops over the flock; or, if it were allowable to coin a word, episcopizing the flock." The construction of the passage requires that this expression be understood as synonymous with the one in question; and as the Bishop is empowered to rule as well as teach, the verb Touave, in the preceding clause, must be understood in its full sense as implying both feeding and governing. This whole passage is one of the most comprehensive and instructive portions of sacred writ, on the important subject of the pastoral office. In the first place, it teaches, that whatever difference in other respects existed among Apostles, Bishops, and Elders or Presbyters, they were all, as Ministers of the Gospel, invested with the pastoral office, in relation to the church. Secondly, the motives which ought to influence Christian Pastors are specified. Although "they which preach the Gospel are to live of the Gospel," yet pecuniary advantage is not to induce any one to engage in the sacred work. Higher, nobler

motives are to influence the Pastors of Christ's flock, and dispose them to a cheerful and willing performance of their duties. The manner in which they are to exercise the pastoral authority is next adverted to. Theirs is not to be a lordly, imperious rule. The pastoral office was instituted for the benefit of the flock; and they who fill it must, while they judge of the doctrine with which the church is to be nourished, illustrate the purity and excellence of the doctrine which they preach by their own example; and they are to remember, that those on whom they have to exercise discipline are their brethren, and they should therefore enforce it affectionately and kindly, as well as firmly. Finally, the Christian Pastor is encouraged with the prospect of the reward which awaits him. However ardu

ous may be the duties he is to perform, or painful the exercises which he may be called to endure, whatever may be the sacrifices that he has to make for the sake of the flock; he shall be more than recompensed hereafter. "The chief Shepherd " will at length appear, who will reward the fidelity of the under-shepherd with a crown of unfading glory. The same principle of interpretation, which applies to this quotation from Peter, must also be adopted in reference to the solemn injunction recorded in the Acts of the Apostles: (chap. xx. 28 :) "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, (Eкóяous, Bishops,) to feed (Touave, perform the duties of Pastors to) the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Limited as the preceding inquiry respecting the pastoral office has been, it will be obvious to the reflecting reader, that those who speak of the government of the church as given to the church itself, and who degrade the Pastor so as to make him merely an organ through which the church is to express its will, cannot claim the New Testament in support of their views. The Holy Spirit does not contradict himself; and He having so evidently ascribed the government of the church, not to the church itself, but to its Pastors, the opposite theory cannot also be true. In this instance, as in all others, the principles of sound criticism must be applied; and passages somewhat obscure or ambiguous are to be explained by those portions of the New Testament, the meaning of which is so clear as not to admit of controversy. One of the cases referred to by those who would vest the government of the church in the church itself, is that of the Corinthians, who were directed by the Apostle to deliver the incestuous person to Satan; but this case utterly fails to support the cause in behalf of which it is quoted. Who does not see that if the whole church did really unite in performing the act, they were only the mere executioners of the Apos

:

tle's will? The judgment was given by the Apostle; who saw occasion to make a display of his authority over the Corinthians, presenting the "rod" to them, (1 Corinthians iv. 21,) and declaring that when he should visit them again, he would not "spare," but would enforce rigorous discipline for the extirpation of the many evils which, as he feared, still existed among them. (2 Cor. xii. 20; xiii. 2.) But there is nothing in the language of the Apostle contradictory to the opinion that the awful act of discipline was to be performed by the Pastors of the church. If all the inembers of the church were present, approving of the deed, and uniting together in prayer, it was sufficiently correct, in general language, to speak of the transaction as the act of the whole church. The third epistle of John contains a passage which throws such light upon this whole affair as might well set the question respecting it at rest. "I wrote," he says, "unto the church but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church." This is a case in point. In this instance also the Apostle writes to "the church," directing them not, as at Corinth, to expel a member, but to receive persons among them; but the opposition of Diotrephes defeats his design. It can scarcely be doubted that Diotrephes was the Pastor of the church. If it really were the prerogative of the church to govern itself, how was it that this individual was allowed to perform such acts as are ascribed to him? He greatly abused his authority in resisting the Apostle; but if he had not, as its Pastor, been invested with the government of the church, he could not thus have "cast out of the church," excommunicated, those who were disposed to receive the persons concerning whom the Apostle had written. And it may be fairly presumed that, if the Pastor Diotrephes had attended

to the Apostle's directions, and promptly carried them into effect, no more would have been said of him than of the Pastor or Pastors of the church at Corinth; and the reception of the persons into the church to which St. John wrote, would have appeared on the face of the record as much the act of the whole church as the expulsion of the offender from the Corinthian church.

Another transaction referred to in support of the same cause, is the settlement of the question concerning circumcision, as recorded in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. It is said, that on this occasion the church at Antioch sent the Apostle Paul with Barnabas to Jerusalem, to obtain a decision on the subject. But what says St. Paul himself? He tells the Galatians that on this occasion, "he went up by revelation." (Gal. ii. 2.)* It appears therefore, that it was the Lord, and not the church, who authoritatively sent the Apostle on this errand; and the sending on the part of the church amounted to nothing more than its submitting to the divine will, and providing things necessary for the Apostle and his companion to undertake the journey. It is said, moreover, that the church at Jerusalem decided the question; but this assertion must be met with a direct negative. For, 1. It was understood at Antioch, that, not the church at Jerusalem, but "the Apostles and Elders" were the persons to be consulted. 2. It is expressly said, that, on the arrival of Paul and Barnabas at Jerusalem, "the Apostles and Elders" (not the church) came together for to consider of this matter." 3. It is by no means certain that the whole church was so much as present during the discussion; "the multitude," afterwards mentioned, being, probably, no other than the whole assembly of Apostles and Elders. But, supposing that all the church was present, no others than the Apostles and Elders are represented as taking any part in the

* Almost all respectable Commentators agree that this journey was the one which he undertook on the question of the circumcision.