no legitimate authority in religion that is not derived immediately from the scriptures; they are God's umpire, and to them alone in the dernier resort, we must appeal; so that the only remaining question is, Whether the Bible contains descriptions of the real and transformed ministers, particular enough to enable me to distinguish them.

To know this I must open and read; and I proceed by induction of particulars, thus :-First, all the bishops and deacons in the churches of Jerusalem, Judea, Ephesus, Samaria, Greece, Crete, &c. were, without a single exception selected from among the brethren of the particular churches in which they were to officiate; and this particular I hold to be a sine qua non in electing or ordaining a bishop. He must be chosen from the flock. Step aside from this, and the hireling system with its whole train of religious spouting, preaching, &c. at once enters. If the brethren require to have bishops and deacons, it is indispensable that they look out from among themselves holy men, answering the description given to Timothy and Titus. Now in selecting them a number of persons calling themselves a church, may choose to depart from this apostolic practice, i. e. they may hire a school or college man, who allowing the assembly so hiring him, to be what they profess to be, a church of Christ can never in any sense, be said to be selected from the brethren of the said church. In every such case we have great and manifold reasons to suspect the character of the church, as well as that of the minister. The first may be, and I only say may be, a synagogue of Satan, and the preacher his minister transformed into an angel of light, a minister of righteHowever it would be premature in me to say that every minister so appointed is a servant of Satan, because even in my own conception, this would be deducing the general conclusion from too limited a number of experiments. I only say then that such a person and such a church are wrong, astray from scripture authority in the very first step, and therefore I must proceed with the deduction.

ousness.

Here I shall turn a leaf and look through the medium of the scripture at the hireling. We have seen how any number of persons came to the bi hop's office in the apostolic church; through a choice from among the members of the church where they were to officiate. We are then sure that one so appointed comes in by the door." But the hireling-how comes he in? "Verily, verily, I say to you, he

66

that enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up some other way, is a thief and a robber." It would appear from this declaration, that the step which a man takes at the threshold, may finally determine his character as a minister.

The reader may be fearful of looking at things in this point of veiw, seeing he may never have heard of ministers being thus selected, We grant that this manner of viewing things bears wonderfully on the teachers of the present day. But to go on it may be objected that the Saviour used the above language in reference to the Pharisees. A second matter worthy of observation is that these same Pharisees, whom he plainly indicated to be thieves and robbers, did not know that they were the parties to whom he alluded. In short it would appear that those ministers were not aware of their own origin-were not aware that they had no authority from God. Let us see how these men climbed up into the office of teachers in Israel!-how they came by the name Reverend or Rabbi.

All the world knows that there was no foundation in the law of God for the sectarian distinction of Pharisee and Sadducee. These sectaries, therefore, owed their origin to some heresiarch, who lived either at or before the return from Babylon. Well, therefore, might the Saviour style them an offspring of vipers, i. e. the followers of unauthorised, heretical assemblies, who, instead of adhering to the law of God, and that alone, would wickedly frame their own religious course, and even set aside the law of God by their traditions. But if they had no liberty from the law to assume these names, they had far less for assuming to themselves the office of teachers. It was declared by God in Deuteronomy, that the house of Levi should teach Jacob his judgments, and Israel his law; that they should put incense before him and whole-burnt sacrifice upon his altar. And on this account the lands of the house of Levi, which amounted to the one-twelfth of all Canaan, were divided among the other tribes, who returned one-tenth of their annual increase for the service appointed them by God, viz. for teaching his judgments and law, and for waiting on the service of the tabernacle. And here it must be e remarked, to the confusion of those who plead for the tenth, that the lands of the tribe of Levi being taken into account, the priests received one-tenth of the produce for one-twelfth of

the soil, which is about one-sixtieth of the whole, besides what in reality was their own; so that Israel paid to the priests, in fact, a very poor stipend, considering the business and important service appointed them by God. The house of Levi, then, were the true teachers in the church of Moses. And now conceive for a moment the fatal effects which the violation of the law would have upon the condition of the Levites; conceive how easily this paltry return might be diminished, and how quickly the ministers of God might be deprived of their due and necessary means of subsistence, if a host of individuals from the other tribes should arrogate to themselves the office of teachers and expounders of the law. The Pharisees, then, who were chief teachers, and compounded of individuals from every tribe, are therefore, by our blessed Saviour, declared to be a plantation which his heavenly father had not planted, and were to be rooted out. Josephus, as quoted by Whitby, says that many of the priests were starved to death in consequence of the people not bringing in their tithes. It appears to me that the Pharisees had got up an order of things very much resembling our theological institutions, where all comers indiscriminately were intsructed in the divinity of the day, without the least respect to the law of God on this point, without the least regard to the rights and dues of the Levitical ministers; and who does not see that the young Pharisee, Paul, who was no Levite, but of the tribe of Benjamin, was one of the young divines at the moment of his conversion? What right had Paul to teach the judgments and law of God to the Jews? He was a Benjamite, concerning which tribe God said nothing about teaching. Yet was this young gentleman sent to college-schooled in the traditions of his sect-distinguished for his zeal, and for his progress in the study of self-deception, as well as for being the student of the famous Gamalial. Now we can easily perceive what the Saviour meant by the Pharisees climbing up some other way, and being thieves and robbers. First, they had no authority for teaching from God. Secondly, they robbed both priests and people; as the Lord Jesus said, "You rob widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers." The priest's lips were to keep knowledge, and the people were to seek the law from his mouth: for, says Jehovah, "He is the messenger of the Lord of hosts." The Pharisees and others had come in between the people and

the teachers whom God had appointed, and thus threw the nation into sects, as the schoolmen have the christian church; for, whereas our blessed Saviour has commanded us to look out officers from among ourselves, and has given us examples for so doing in all the primitive churches, these learned divines have come in between the holy brethren and the law of Christ, and not only done away the ancient custom of selecting bishops from among the brethren, but even suceeded almost generally in foisting in their own young men as teachers of the sons of God. When I look through the scriptures, at the christian bishops, I see them distinguished by being selected from among the disciples; and this I call the door into the sheepfold, because it is the way authorized by the Lord. When I look at the transformed ministers of Satan, I see them coming another way. Not from among the brethren, but over the heads of the aged and experienced into an office not due to them.

We have then discovered one difference between the bishop and the transformed minister-they do not come in alike the manner of their induction is absolutely diversethe one by the door, the other by the wall-the one by an authorized, the other by an unauthorized method. But this induction may be pursued at greater length in a future paper. WALTER SCOTT.

THE EDITOR'S TABLE

Frequently bears a number of epistles altogether unfit for publication as a whole, and yet containing many small and distinct references to matters that would prove instructing, pleasing, and admonitory. By the presentation of some of these scraps and fragments, we could frequently "reprove, exhort, rebuke,” or eulogize; and therefore, under the above heading, we may ever and anon present a few lines.

Our first selection shall be from a recent letter, wherein one of God's dear children enteringinto the feelings of the prophet of old, is ready to exclaim, "Oh that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughters of my people! O that I had in the wilderness a lodg ing-place of wayfaring-men; that I might leave my people, and go from them!"—

"I have much to discourage me; indeed, I am often thinking of stepping over all differences, and essaying to join myself to the other Baptists; for as we move on, I fear we rather misrepresent than illus. trate Reformation, being more apt to find fault with others' work, than to labour ourselves. Some want a good many hearers, but don't, I think, labour and pray enough for them. If we were to break up, and a few intelligent active men were united together, standing firm to principle, holding forth the word of life. we might soon see the fruit."

:

Reader, do you wish to know to what congregation we refe: ? Let us rather intreat you to ask of yourself the following questions:How long has the church of which I am a member been in existence? What has been the average annual number, by her instru'mentality, snatched as "brands from the burning?" How much zeal

and love have we over and above those we call sectarian? Has our light been so shining that the men of the world are finding us out. and respecting our very names; or has the chief difference between us and other Laodicean professors been that we raise a loud cry about the original order of the church, the possession of which will only increase our condemnation, providing it produces not the fruits of the spirit! Look at home; and if you are compelled to acknowledge lukewarmness, remember that unless you reform, God will cast you out of his mouth. If you discover lukewarmness in others, cry aloud, spare not, show the transgressors their sin; and, above all, examine deeply your own condition, and remember, your own personal reformation will do more to arouse the church than ten millions of harangues. But enough on this subject. We shall only further express our conviction, that every congregation not successful in gathering in from the world, is more or less preparing to have its candlestick removed, and is resting under the divine displeasure.

But (as if to prevent our being too much depressed in spirit upon perusing the above lamentations, we received about the same time a note, a portion of which runs as follows

"Since my arrival here, I have been introduced to the church in B-- They desire a monthly supply of your tracts. I would inform you. that though poor and few in number, they are most zealous and exemplary; their entire conversation is so in keeping with the Gospel, that they seem to walk and live in God."

2

How delightsome to be enabled thus to speak of brethren. Let us watch and take heed, and ever remember that there can be no