the abstract unity, instead of the concrete persons. The Lord does not pray that it may be perfected, but that they may be; and he does not pray that they may be perfected in one, but into one. The perfect participle employed in this passage has, indeed, no less force than this "That they may be (or become) such as have been perfected into one," which, however, is expressed with sufficient exactness above. What, then, is the result of this change? It is, as we conceive, a deepening of the sense of the passage. The Lord's desire goes further than the common version represents. So far as the force of this clause goes, he does not pray that union may lead to perfection, but that perfection, or at least progress towards it, may lead to union. Perfecting is the process-unity the result of it. How, then, does this result bear upon the advocacy of Christian union in the present day? It bears on the sects around, and upon ourselves. (1). On the sects around. How are they to become one? By leaving their imperfections behind them. Let them perfect their reverence for the Scriptures by laying aside human creeds; perfect their fidelity to Christ, by observing all his institutions, and renouncing all human usages, &c.; and they will thus become rapidly perfected in one. (2). On the disciples of Jesus who have adopted the scriptural platform of union. These should learn that their work is not done by merely coming together in an external, mechanical way. Have they not room yet left to advance towards perfection? If so, their unity may yet assume a more perfect development. Let them perfect their church organization; perfect their understanding and maintenance of the faith in all its integrity; perfect their characters, in submissive humility, ardent zeal, prayerful enterprise, and harmonious action; and depend upon it their resulting unity, seen in its beauty, felt in its power, will cause unbelievers and sectarians to quail or melt under its influence. Thus may we all come into the unity of the faith and of the acknowledgment of the Son of God, into a complete man, into the measure of the maturity of the fulness of Christ."

Eloud of Taitnesses.

J. B. R.

There is here (Rom. vi. 4,) plainly a reference to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion; and I agree with Hoppe and Rosenmuller, that there is reason to regret it should have been abandoned in most christian churches, especially as it has so evident a reference to the mystic sense of baptism.-Bloomfield.

The deadly heresy which confines the preaching of the gospel to office conveyed by a certain succession, is an infernal machine for destroying the souls of men. It is one of the great artifices of Satan to spike the cannon on the gospel batteries. But it is as unscriptural as it is irrational. The Scriptures know nothing of such a succession, It is the invention of the man of sin, calculated to extinguish the light, and promote the empire of darkness. And whatever may be the mode of conveying office, the preaching of the gospel, either publicly or privately, is not confined to office. Every christian has a right to preach the gospel, and according to his opportunities and his abilities it is his duty to preach it. This vile dogma of Oxford is self

evidently false. If the gospel is true, can there be any danger of sin in proclaiming its truths? If the gospel is salvation, and if God wills the salvation of men, can it be sinful to tell them of that which saves them from hell? What would you think of a senator who should rise up in the British senate house, declaring that no watchmen ought to be employed in the city of London but those who have a regular succession from the watchmen who lived at the foundation of the city, and that, though the city were fired at innumerable points, no man had a right to cry, "Fire! fire !" but the legal watchmen? It is only in religion that the effusions of folly and absurdity are dignified as wisdom.-Dr. Carson.

Poetry.

THE DUTY OF THE CHILD OF GOD.
My duty is to love my God

With all my heart and soul;-Matt. xxii. 37.

To walk the path which Jesus trod,

And from it not to stroll.-Ephes. v. 1.

If I from Him should ever stray,

O may my heart not rest

One single moment of the day

Till I've my fault confessed.-1 John i. 9.

My duty is to live to Him,

For He did die for me,-2 Cor. v. 15.

For me He did endure the pain

Of the accursed tree.-Romans v. 8.

My duty is to honour those Phil. ii. 3.
Whose hearts are set above, Col. iii. 2:
To tread with them the heavenly road,
In zealous flaming love. Eph. v. 2.

To wait upon the wearied sick,

Who lie in sore distress; Romans xii. 15.

To bear the sorrows of the weak,

And their dull fears repress. 1 John iii. 18.

My nature should be meek and mild, Col. iii. 12.
Clothed with humility; 1 Peter v. 5.

Should bear reproach for Jesus' name, Phil. i. 29.
And take it joyfully. 1 Peter iv. 13.

If evil to me should be done,

Good in return should give; 1 Peter iii. 9.

And prove by all my actions here

That to the Lord I live. 1 Peter ii. 9.

If His commands I do neglect,

Can I be of His sheep?

If them I ardently respect,

1 John ii. 4.

He will me safely keep. Ps. cxxi. 7, 8.

Then to be found in Him I will

Respect His righteous laws, 1 John iii. 24.
Each Christian duty I'll fulfil,

And forward His good cause. Eccles. xii. 13.

Dundee.

T. M.

Correspondence.

EPISCOPAL QUALIFICATIONS.

DEAR MR. EDITOR,-In the Advocate for September appears your answer to the question of T. W., of St. Helens, as to whether a bishop must be a married man or, if married, the husband of one wife only, and without giving any opinion as to the accuracy or otherwise of your conclusion I beg leave, with very great respect, to express a fear, which I trust your frank and generous spirit will appreciate, that in the reasoning out of that conclusion you have, at least, gone a step too far in asserting that "to demand the furthest bearing of the second requirement would shut out all men from the work," in support of which you have given us various samples of brethren who would be disqualified; but, contemplating the divine wisdom, absolute perfection and divine excellency of the Christian institution, with its high and holy requirements and the deep sincerity, earnestness, integrity, and pure devotion demanded of its subjects, can we not conceive of another class of brethren who come right up to, if not indeed go beyond the actual letter of the said requirement?

You will doubtless agree with me in saying that the men who undertake the solemn, important and responsible office of Christian pastor-the spiritual rulers or guides of the church, whose preeminent duty it is to "watch for souls, as they that must give account" (Heb. xii. 17), and who are placed over us in the Lord to admonish us, &c. (1 Thess. v. 12)-must be men of deep, extensive and established piety, of whose fidelity it would be unreasonable, if not sinful, in the absence of incontestable evidence, to entertain the slightest suspicion, and you will, perhaps, also agree with me in saying that most generally, and almost invariably, the men who attain so high a state of moral and spiritual excellence, are those who have known and loved the Lord from their youth.

The majority of men, even among believers, deem it not only lawful, but honourable and desirable, to marry (forbidding of which is reprobated by Paul as a characteristic of those who depart from the faith, 1 Tim. iv. 1-3), and the Christian young man intending to marry, who piously and wisely determines neither to displease his Saviour nor to mar his own prospects of happiness and usefulness, will marry "only in the Lord;" hence he will have not merely a wife, but a Christian wife.

The ordinary and divinely ordained result of marriage is the propagation of our species, hence the majority of those who have honoured that institution (marriage) have a family of children, whom we are taught in the holy scriptures to train up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. If Christian parents, having married in the Lord with the distinct understanding that henceforth they are to live, to suffer and, if needs be, to die for Christ, are faithful to their adorable Saviour and their God, will there not be a deeply serious and earnest solicitude for the moral, spiritual and eternal welfare of their offspring, who, while they are the fruit of the warmest and purest love of him who begat and her that bare them, are the creatures of God entrusted to their care to be trained for virtue and usefulness here and for honour and glory hereafter? And will not (at least should not) this call forth those affectionate restraints, those tender

corrections, those anxious watchings, those wholesome instructions which, accompanied and enforced by the holy example, pure devotion, and united, persevering, soul-travailing prayers of him and her whom innocent infant tongues have so often called pappa and mamma, will surround the whole family with such a holy atmosphere, cover them with such a sacred halo as would entirely envelope them with that heavenly, peaceful, loving influence, as would make it morally impossible for the children to be unruly. In short, since those who attain that degree of moral and spiritual excellence essential in the Christian Bishop are almost invariably those who can date their piety from their youth, and since the majority of men on attaining mature manhood marry, and since the majority of married men have families, if Christian people were what they should be, and piety reigned at home, would there not, among the thousands of God's believing Israel, be many holy, faithful, zealous brethren, having believing wives, striving to emulate apostolic Christianity and adorning the doctrine of God in all things and blest with a family of children who from their earliest days have been dutiful and submissive, and some of them become in early life the decided and devoted followers of the Lamb-men whose family standing and domestic circumstances would furnish a satisfactory negation of the assertion to which I demur, viz., "to demand the furthest bearing of the second requirement would shut out all men from the work?"

With every sentiment of courtesy and esteem, believe me, dear brother, yours for Christ's sake, THOMAS JOHNSON, London.

66

DEAR BROTHER MILNER,-In your correspondence of September, in the Christian Advocate ("Episcopal Qualifications"), you have made some remarks and given some illustrations which may possibly mislead some on so important a subject as a Christian Bishop. Paul says, a bishop must be blameless." Certainly we agree here, that this is not absolute but comparative, or no one would be found to fill the office. This is a moral qualification. The next, "the husband of one wife," is social, and therefore need not to be comparative, neither can it be, for a man is either a husband or he is not; and I am sure you see that Christianity embraces the moral, social, and religious faculties of man, so the Divine Being has made the social an important element in the Christian religion. Can anything be more definitely stated? and does not the apostle Paul aim a blow at celibacy as well as polygamy and adultery? for he had written to Timothy of some who would forbid to marry; and I am sure you, dear brother, are aware of the evils which have and do arise from so unnatural and ungodly a command.

There are often in the church circumstances arising, which require counsel, advice, and sympathy of the elders, which none but married men and fathers can give. Inexperience here is a non-qualification; hence it is one that "ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection, with all gravity;" and in Titus i. 6, it is repeated, "having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly." To my mind, nothing can be more explicit, and therefore submit your illustrations in this particular are not applicable. Surely, if the first wife is dead, the man is free from the law of marriage according to Paul's teaching, unless in this there is one law for the woman and another for the man; and suppose he marries again, is he not the husband of

the living wife, and not of the dead? The dead are where there is neither marrying or giving in marriage; they will be as the angels of God. How you have found ifs in these instructions is a little perplexing to me. With respect to the apostle being an overseer and unmarried, allow me to say he was more, he acted in the threefold office of apostle, evangelist, as well as overseer, and as there are only twelve apostles, there are no successors, and as the laws of the kingdom were not wholly carried into effect whilst the apostle thus acted, in the prospect of their removal, the Holy Spirit guided the apostle to instruct Timothy and Titus, next in authority as evangelists, to ordain elders in every city. How, then, was he a transgressor, seeing he was superior to that official (a bishop)? By the same mode of reasoning it might be argued that God is the transgressor of his own laws. There would be plenty of work in the church for such as you suppose to do as evangelists, helps, &c., without being placed in the bishop's office. I hope you will not feel hurt by my plainness, for I trust truth is only what we both desire. Accept my Christian love. Yours in one hope, G. KEMP, London.

Brother Johnson has not satisfied us that to demand the furthest bearing of the second requirement would not shut out all men from the work. His acquaintance with human nature must be larger than ours if he has found the parent whose influence has made it " morally impossible for his children to be unruly."

Brother Kemp's distinction between social and moral qualifications fails, for all social qualifications are moral. He also misses the point of the question when he supposes it to be met by the proposition "a man is either a husband or he is not." On Brother K.'s hypothesis a widower is disqualified, for a widower is not a husband, and being, as our brother says, free from the law of marriage, cannot longer be spoken of as the husband of one wife. That Paul aimed a blow at celibacy as enjoined by those who forbid to marry, when he called such teachers "seducing spirits," is plain enough, but that he does so here is not so manifest. We have found no ifs in the passage, but we find it made the subject of such a scheme of absolute interpretation as, if carried into effect, would render the word of none effect. The Sandemanians are alone consistent in the maintenance of an unqualified interpretation, for while they exclude unmarried men, they also exclude widowers, those who marry twice or oftener, those who have not children or who have one or more refractory children. Bro. K. talks unlike himself when he says that because Paul was an apostle and evangelist, as well as overseer, he had a right to transgress the law of his bishopric. His holding higher offices gave him no such authority. God is not the transgressor of his own laws; he respects them all. He has given in the Founder of the New Institution an example of obedience to the fulfilling of every divine ordinance. Paul furnished a like example of faithfulness. He was an example overseer, but was unmarried, therefore marriage is not an absolute requisite to oversight work.-ED.

EDUCATION.-QUERY AND REPLY.

DEAR BROTHER.-Desiring to serve the Saviour as far as I can, but being unable to speak correctly, that is, according to the rules of grammar, what should I do.-Yours in Jesus?

A DISCIPLE.