tious; that he should admit persons to the holy communion also on his own discretion, having duly instructed and prepared them, and found them proper candidates ; that it should be his duty to watch over the flock, "to reprove, rebuke, and exhort," and not theirs to overlook each other for these purposes, except as certain relations in life, such as parents, masters, guardians, intimate friends, and some others adventitious, might warrant, and render it safe and hopeful of good; and that he should instruct all, guide all, preside over all, so far as his proper ministerial and pastoral functions may be considered as legitimately extending. In this way the members of Christ's body sustain their visible connexion with him through his ministers, and through them alone. All that other factitious machinery, so difficult to be kept in order, so hard to be worked to advantage, so prolific of discord and scandal, so detrimental to a pastor's influence and efficiency, and to a great extent a stumblingblock to the world around, would be wanting. It could not be found, and consequently nobody could find fault with it. It could do no hurt positively, or negatively. And yet all Christians could enjoy their privileges: Christ's church and its ordinances would be open to them; the pastor could avail himself of all the helps to be found among his own people, to act under his advice and supervision, and not he under theirs; every mode of doing good, that is proper in any case, might be adopted in this, and every available talent among Christians put to use. The pastor might have his own adopted advisers, and consult them, as he might feel the want of their counsel; but they should not be his governors. He might have a board to supervise and manage all needful secular concerns, as in other cases is provided for by statutes and ordinances of civil Government.

Now, set this theory down, as opposed to the former, and let any sober and enlightened man say-under which of the two, such a ministry, as that which is generally found in the Presbyterian and Congregational connexions, would be likely to accomplish the greatest good, under the same forms of worship now in use among

them? Under which of the two would any good and faithful ministry be likely to do the greatest good, other things being equal? If the answer to this question be obvious—as I think it must be—and obviously in favour of the second theory proposed, the question is settled against the expediency of the first. The first is complicated, inconvenient, unnatural; it is not adapted to man as he is, nor to society as we find it ;--while the second is simple, practicable, and naturally works into society in all its forms. There is no possible good, that can be done under the first, in given circumstances and by given agents, which may not be done under the second in the same circumstances and by the same agents; and under the second the grievous and necessary evils of the first may be avoided. And withal a scope is still left open, and a power still remains, under the latter, of extended usefulness, the amount of which cannot be estimated, all which the former for ever bars by its inherent defects.

It is proper to remember, that these two theories are thus set forth in comparison, and supposed to be applied, where all other things, which are not necessarily inherent in the peculiar character of each, are equal; and it is in this view only, that they can be properly appreciated.

I anticipate, that, admitting a community with a pastor could do better under the application of the second theory, the question might be raised-what would become of them without a pastor? I answer-they would still have the advantage even in that case. Christians of leading influence and character would naturally take their appropriate positions, as the exigencies of the community might demand; and society would pay them far greater deference, as may easily be imagined, than would be rendered to a set of men, who perhaps could advance no other title for influence, than that of having long time filled an official station without honouring it; or at least without discharging its duties in a manner useful and agreeable to the public. It is Christian virtue and a talent for usefulness, which are best fitted for such a time -without which the application of the first theory would

not simply be inefficient, but injurious--and with which the second would still be more desirable. The official lay authorities of such a community, whatever might be their denomination, and the people themselves would naturally feel more the importance of obtaining a pastor, than when all is left to a set of Deacons or Elders, who often deem themselves competent to fill that place. Moreover, the church in such a case could not be shaken, nor its existence put in peril; because it would have no organization liable to such an accident. Whenever a pastor should be provided, he would find in every Christian of such a community a member of the Church universal, whose relation had not been and could not be disturbed, except by his own misconduct; neither could the fault of one member affect the privileges and standing of another, except through the medium of a personal influ

ence.

Inasmuch as the covenant of "mutual watch and care," so generally in use in Presbyterian and Congregational churches, is in common opinion of their members deemed an important element of their constitution, and supposed to have scriptural authority, having myself objected to it so strongly, it may seem to claim from me a separate and more particular consideration.

It is supposed to have scriptural authority, first, from the injunctions so frequently made and so emphatically urged by Christ and the apostles to love and union among Christians; and next, specific rules, such as—“If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault, &c. ;" "Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others ;" and sundry other passages of this class, of which, it must be allowed, these specimens are most direct and emphatic.

With regard to the first and others to the same point, given by our Saviour and the Apostles, it will be seen, that they relate exclusively to private offences; and the rules affixed to them are a mere repetition and sanction of the common practices of society in such cases, making them incumbent, with this difference of manner and ob

ject that it should be done in the spirit of kindness and forgiveness, for the sake of bringing an offending brother to a proper state of feeling; whereas the common object of unsanctified and worldly men is to show their spirit of resentment, perhaps to carry out a quarrel to an extreme, putting on the airs of self-importance and independence, making irritating charges, imperatively demanding reparation, and with "men of honour," falsely so called, sometimes leading to bloodshed. But not so is it permitted to Christians. This rule of Christ can never be legitimately applied to cases of fault, which have no more relation to us personally, than to others, or to the public.

As to the injunction of Paul-“Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others," and others of this kind, it is a mere exhortation-mandate, if you please-to benevolence; and has no respect to calling others to account for faults, or to a supervision of their private conduct. The connexion in which it stands will show this, and the very next word is an illustration of the injunction, by adducing the highest exemplification of benevolence, which the universe affords: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus," &c. It is an injunction to benevolence of the highest order, having respect not only to the temporal relief, comfort, and happiness of others, but especially to the salvation of their souls.

But it is said, St. James enjoins "Confess your faults one to another." I need not say, that the Roman Catholics claim this, as prescribing auricular confessions; and they, doubtless, have as good a right to it for this purpose, as those whom I now oppose have for theirs. It is a violent wresting of Scripture in both cases. Where Christians are sufficiently intimate, it is a salutary rule; and was no doubt intended for such cases; but by no fair interpretation can it be made to authorize an inquisition into the private conduct of our neighbours.

The passage in Leviticus-" Thou shalt in anywise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him”—is evidently a direction to a civil magistrate, as in the verse

but one preceding : judgment," &c.

:-" Ye shall do no unrighteousness in

Moreover, the negative of this claim to supervise the affairs of others, can be established, not only by constructive applications, but by direct and positive injunctions of Scripture::-"Whatsoever ye would, that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." But-" we would that our brother should tell us our faults"-say some of these persons. I answer, that this is a rare attainment, and that the rule is intended for the common feelings of mankind, Christ says expressly, pointedly, emphatically" Judge not, that ye be not judged," &c. "Why beholdest thou the mote," &c. "Thou hypocrite," &c. He knew, that persons, who think themselves better than others, but knowing not themselves, would be inclined this way; and therefore he rebuked this disposition, and branded it with the name of hypocrisy.

One of the most inconvenient and troublesome vices among Christians of Apostolic times was-meddling and impertinent interference, both of men and women; and I am sorry to say, more especially of the latter; as is evident from the Epistles. St. Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus are specific and minute in allusion to this evil, and contain injunctions against this vice in its various forms. They make a melancholy development of scandal on this point; but it is truth, and the Bible is always honest. To the Thessalonian Christians he said. "Be quiet, and do your own business." To Timothy he enjoined, that even a bishop should "not be a brawler," nor their wives "slanderers ;" the proper interpretation of which doubtless is that they especially should not be guilty of these faults. But it involves the converse. "Refuse profane and old wives' fables;" "let them," widows, "learn first to show piety at home;" "the younger refuse because they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not ;" "against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses," showing that tattling and slan