covenant with the church, under its watch and care, subject to its discipline, and the object aimed at in the foregoing discussion is secured. And the same objections would lie against his becoming a member in this way, as in any other. But is it true, that the mere settlement of a minister over a church constitutes him a member of it? I answer this question in the negative, and that for several reasons.

In the first place, the act of settling a minister over one church cannot, of itself, remove him from another. Up to the time of his settlement, the pastor elect belongs to some other church. He is in solemn covenant with that church, and cannot be released from it in a regular way, but by an act of dismission. But no such act has been passed, and none requested. Probably the church has not been consulted at all, in regard to the contemplated settlement. Under these circumstances, how can an ordaining council, or any other body, take the pastor elect out of the church of which he is a member? How can they release him from his covenant obligations to that church, or the church from its covenant obligations to him? The thing is manifestly impossible.

He

And equally impossible is it for the ordaining council to put the candidate for settlement into the church of which he is to be pastor. If he comes into this body, he must come in by assenting to its faith and covenant. must come in at his own request and by consent of the body itself. This is the only way in which persons can become connected with a congregational church. And to tell of a minister's being put into such a church, so as to become a member of it, by an ordaining council, or by the act of settlement, is an absurdity.

But this is not all. If the act of settlement over a church constitutes the pastor a member of it, then how is

he affected by the act of dismission?

Does this make

him no member? And if it does make him no member (as it should seem, on the theory before us, it ought to) then where does it leave him?

Does it throw him back originally belonged? Or

into the church to which he does it throw him out of the Christian community, entirely consign him over to the world, and amount to a virtual excommunication? It devolves on those to answer these questions, who say that the very act of settlement constitutes a minister member of his church, and that a formal admission to it is unnecessary. *

On the whole, it is my decided opinion, that every pastor should be a member of the church over which he is settled; and that he should become a member, by admission, in the usual way. This step is perfectly reasonable and proper in itself, and the influence of it is all good, and only good. Whereas the contrary practice, to say nothing of its inherent absurdity, lays a foundation for unfavorable inferences and remarks, and is followed often, or is likely to be, by unhappy consequences. I would hope therefore, that no minister will ever again be settled over a Congregational church, until he has first become a member of it; and that no church will consent to receive one as its pastor, who is not a member; and that no council will consent to solemnize the pastoral relation, without seeing to it that the relation of membership has first been consummated. Until this is done, our churches cannot claim that their practice is regulated by the teachings either of reason or scripture.

They cannot claim to be the con

*Perhaps it will be said, that the dismissed minister belongs to the general visible church, but not to any particular church. Then there is no particular church to watch over him, and to call him to an account in case of scandal. He is subject to discipline for his offences, nowhere. Besides, what constitutes the general visible church, except the particular visible churches? The church general includes all these, and no more. Hence, if an individual does not belong to any particular church, it is impossible he should belong to the church general.

sistent followers, either of our Pilgrim forefathers, or of the primitive believers.*

Having thus expressed the opinion, and shown the reasons of it, that a minister settled over a church, should first be a member of the body, I proceed to say, that he is something more than a member. He is an officer of the church, and under Christ its highest officer. He is its pastor, its teacher, its bishop, its earthly guide and head.

The term pastor or shepherd is one much employed in the Scriptures, to denote a religious teacher and guide. In this sense it is applied to the prophets of the Old Testament. It is often applied to our Lord Jesus Christ, who is "the Great Shepherd of the sheep"-" the Chief Shepherd"-" the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls." The term is a relative one, implying (in the very composition of it) the existence of a flock. Much of the wealth of the orientals, in their earlier and simpler state of society, consisted in their flocks; the feeding, tending, and nurturing of which constituted a principal part of their employment. The business of the shepherd was lucrative and honorable; and the connection subsisting between him and his flock was of the most intimate and tender kind. The sheep knew the voice of their shepherd, and followed him; but a stranger they would not follow, for they knew not the voice of strangers. The shepherd called his own sheep by name; and when he put them forth, he went before them, and the sheep followed him, for they knew his voice. See John 10: 3—5. This tender, interesting connection, so familiar to those to whom the Scriptures were first given-a connection involving

* In his Ratio Disciplinæ, Mr. Upham says, "According to Congregational usage, no person becomes and remains the minister of a church, without also transferring his relationship, and becoming a member of the same. The reasons of this are various; but one undoubtedly is that he may feel himself subject to the needful restraint of its watch and discipline." p. 167.

so much of care and watchfulness on one part, and of dependence and confidence on the other-the Holy Spirit has seized upon, to set forth the connection subsisting between the religious teacher, and the people of his charge. He is their under-shepherd, their pastor; and they are the flock, which the great Shepherd of the sheep has committed to his hands. The duties growing out of this pastoral relation are numerous and various, and will be considered in the following Lectures.

LECTURE IV.

Pastoral Acquaintance.-Means of it. Visits. Set visits described. Dangers and benefits of them. Rules to be observed in regard to them.

state.

ONE of the first duties involved in the pastoral relation, is that of a mutual and intimate acquaintance. "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." Every good pastor will make himself familiarly acquainted with his people, and with all his people. He will know their names, their families, their characters, connections, and circumstances-every thing pertaining to them which would be of interest to a confiding and faithful friend. More especially will he endeavor to become spiritually acquainted with them. He will know of them individually, so far as he may, their spiritual Without this acquaintance, he cannot possibly know how to preach to them with advantage. He cannot know what truths and duties to enforce, or how to enforce them. He cannot so divide the word of truth, as to give to each his portion in due season. His bow must be perpetually drawn at a venture, and his arrows will be almost as likely to do hurt as good. As well might the physician prescribe for his patient, without knowing at all the symptoms of his disease, as the religious teacher proclaim the truths of the gospel, without that intimate spiritual acquaintance with the people of his charge, of which I have spoken.

The modes of cultivating this spiritual acquaintance