The object of the paper in question was to call attention to what the writer has long felt to be a grievous lack among saints gathered to the Lord's name. He willingly therefore gives place for the discussion of a subject so little regarded as this is. In the main the letter of our brother does not differ from what had been presented in the paper. We think a fresh perusal of that, however, will show that the writer was not contending for universal bishops in any sense, but seeking rather to awaken conscience on the whole subject of oversight in the Church of God-a matter, we feel pained to repeat, too much overlooked and possibly despised in this democratic age. We sought in that paper to press upon our brethren the great need there was for oversight, and the fact that it was a gift especially intrusted to some of the Lord's servants. That it is largely a local gift, we would not hesitate to agree, though we would remind our brother that eldership and pastorship are not exactly identical. The elder was a local officer during apostolic times ; the pastor is a gift for the whole Church, and for all time (Eph. 4:11-13). Thus while we would admit that the gift of pastor was more likely to be confined to the limits of the local assembly than that of the evangelist, we would hesitate to say that Scripture absolutely restricts its exercise to the place where he may be personally well known. A letter of commendation would open the door for the brother in gatherings where he was unknown by face, and the character of his ministry would soon manifest itself. We believe that very often gatherings have been much refreshed by the visit of a pastor who has gone amongst the saints, comforting, cheering, or warning, as need may be.

With regard to the distinction between the "porter" of the Old Testament and the "overseer" of the New, we think it no greater than we would expect from the difference of dispensations. The porter was not merely to discover if strangers drew nigh, but if the true people of God were clean. So now with the caretaker in the Church. But we judge this will hardly be questioned.

It only remains to note the qualifications for oversight, as mentioned in the paper. We can only emphasize their importance. We heartily agree with our brother that a knowledge on the part of the saints of a brother's faithfulness at home would greatly enhance their appreciation of his service in the Church. How could they respect one whose lawless household showed laxity and inconsistency?

But we would shrink from applying this in such a way as to debar the pastor from exercising his gift anywhere. In the first place, his commendation opens the door for whatever service the Lord may give him ; and secondly, we rejoice to record that love "believeth all things," and a brother is not suspected but gladly welcomed by godly saints. However, the same qualifications are needed, and their lack would soon be manifest.

We would then, in conclusion, commend this whole subject of pastoral care, oversight, and reception, to our brethren. We trust our brother's letter will awaken further inquiry and interest. We believe that local oversight is too much lacking ; nor do we believe that this is largely due to the too great prominence given to visiting brethren. Faith gladly recognizes a gift, no matter by whom exercised, and these gifts never clash. Let the saints in each local gathering awake to prayer that God may develop the gifts of oversight among them, and they will never resent the pastoral ministry of a brother whom the Lord may send to serve them.

The important facts of the one body of Christ and of the unity of the Spirit necessitate the view we have presented. EDITOR.