his temper so well? "The reason is," replied the Dean, “I have truth on my side." It is certain, that a man is chiefly apt to lose his temper when questioned on a subject respecting which he can give no very satisfactory explanation.

While, then, it appears the plain duty of Christians to be ready to give an account of any part of their principles or practice, to those who may ask it, it is manifestly criminal, on the other hand, in any man, to harbour prejudices against others, from general surmises, which may be totally unfounded, if it is in his power, by personal inquiry, to obtain more correct information. Those who, amidst all the collisions of interest, and jarrings of sentiment which exist in this world of selfishness and error, are disposed to act with fairness, and to do to others as they would that others should do to them, ought to unite as a phalanx against the whole tribe of calumniators and detractors, under whatever form they may appear.

An attention to the hints above suggested would manifestly tend to remove much of that prejudice that so much abounds. But, alas! are there not cases, in which men are willingly ignorant of what may be said in vindication of those who differ from them? They not only deliberately indulge preju- . dice and misrepresentation themselves, but manifest a secret gratification in the diffusion of them among others. Wherever this exists, whatever a man may profess, and however dangerous he may conceive to be the errors of those he opposes, he is not opposing them in the spirit of the Gospel. Let error, of whatever description, be met with the legitimate

weapons of argument and truth. But let not the Christian soldier ever resort to the armoury of the prince of darkness, and employ weapons derived from that quarter, to defend the kingdom of light. Such a conduct will not stand the test of the day of trial.

As one illustration, among many, of the misrepresentations that often take place, in regard to the conduct of Christian churches, I may here mention the false stories that are often in circulation, respecting the grounds on which persons are excluded from them. There are evidently two cases mentioned in Scripture, where exclusion becomes necessary. The first is that of a wicked person, or one found chargeable with gross transgression. As the conduct of such a one is so decidedly hostile to his own best interests, and calculated to bring much reproach on the Christian profession, a church is called to show that they will not bear them that are evil, by immediate exclusion, though, upon satisfactory evidence of repentance, the offender should afterwards be restored. This was the case with the incestuous person in the church at Corinth, of whom we have an account, 1 Cor. 5. The other case that requires exclusion, is when a person will not hear the church. This point is established by our Lord, Matt. 18: 16. Whatever the original offence may have been, though it should be something of a comparatively inferior nature, after the previous steps there mentioned are taken without success, it becomes necessary to lay it before the church. Here the offender is unquestionably bound to hear the

church; and if he do not, it is impossible for him to remain longer in the communion.

Where a member is excluded on this last account, how often is it circulated that the original private offence was the ground of separation. And if this was something comparatively trivial, it is naturally thought a very strange thing, that a church should exclude a member for such a cause. In such a case, however, and indeed we may add in many others, exclusion is founded, not on the original offence, but on that which it was the means of bringing to light. In pursuing the plain rule of Scripture, the offender, instead of manifesting the spirit of the Gospel, discovers pride and obstinacy. The application of the laws of Christ makes manifest what was not known before. They, like every other part of his word, tend to search the hearts of the children of men. When at last the offender peremptorily refuses to hear the church, it is on this account, and on this alone, exclusion takes place. The wisdom of this regulation is sufficiently obvious. Pertinaciously indulging a spirit of pride and obstinacy, is as really inconsistent with Christianity, as open iniquity. But the laws of Christ are so graciously constituted, that while his disciples receive from the observance of them all the benefit that can be derived from association, they are also carefully guarded against injuring one another, by administering to the self-deception of any. While, by indulging such a spirit, then, a man manifests a departure from Christian obedience, the mutual confidence and union between him and his brethren are destroyed, and separation is what the benefit of both parties imperiously demands.

PART THIRD.

BESPECTING PASTORS AND TEACHERS.

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

IN introducing this chapter, it may be useful to state what is meant by the distinction between pastors and teachers,* and to inquire, how far there is any foundation for it in the word of God. We shall be naturally led to this inquiry, by considering what appears to have been the method, in the apostolic times, of supplying churches with pastors.

In the inspired writings, we have the following directions given, respecting the qualifications necessary for the pastoral office. 1 Tim. 3:2. 66 bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt [qualified] to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre, [or not one who earns money by base means; and by this translation is this part of the description distinguish

* In the following observations, I shall substitute the name Preacher for Teacher, as being the name now more commonly in use, while the same class is denoted by it.

ed from covetous, which follows;] but patient, not a brawler, not covetous, one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be of good report of them that are without, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

On

Again: Titus 1:7. "For a bishop* must be blameless, as the steward of God, not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate. Holding fast the faithful word, as he hath been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." these passages, we suggest the following remarks: I. It appears from them, that the brethren, on some occasions at least, when they met together, were accustomed to exercise their gifts for mutual edification. This is manifest, from one of the qualifications mentioned -a fitness to teach. Now, how could it be ascertained, whether or not any one

*It has often been justly observed how clearly it appears from this passage in Titus, that the terms Elder and Bishop are employed in Scripture as of the same import. The whole passage runs thus: Verse 5, "for this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless," &c. Here, it is plain, there would be no legitimacy in the Apostle's inference, unless elder and bishop were used as perfectly synonymous terms. Titus was to ordain elders, if any were blameless. "For a bishop must be blameless," &c.