(Correspondence.) New York, June 8, 1895.

To the Editor of " Help and Food " :-

Dear Brother :-Referring to your article in the last number, I would ask your permission to add one or two remarks.

In the first place, I doubt if the " overseership " of the New Testament is exactly equivalent to the position of " doorkeeper" in the Old. The former seems to me always to have its sphere inside the assembly, which is not the case in the latter. " Take heed unto the flock of God, over whom the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God" is quite a different character of service to that of doorkeeper. The " pastor " is not the "porter"; the two ideas conveyed by the words are quite different. But I would ask particularly your attention to an omission in your paper that seems to me somewhat serious. The overseers or bishops were intended to act alone in the local assembly with which they were connected. There was no universal overseer-ship except in the Chief Shepherd. The very need of the work necessitated the one and precluded the other. They were to be men so well known in their own homes, having their own families in subjection, that their words, their rulings, in conjunction with the written Word, were received with the willing subjection of respect and affection that their well known lives commanded. This would not be expected if they went to other cities. On the other hand, they would thus be intimately acquainted with the little flock by which they were closely surrounded, also in a way that would be quite impossible in a wider sphere. They would know the particular dangers to which each one was exposed, the particular care therefore that each dear sheep needed. They would enter into every sorrow with the sympathy of trusted friends. Their words of counsel or faithful rebuke would naturally come with all the weight of a confidence founded on long and close personal intimacy, which would be, from the very order of things, impossible in other localities where such intimacies could not be maintained. The blessed word shows how fully this order was carried out. Every gathering had its own bishops ; nor is it anywhere suggested, that I am aware of, that they were to assume a similar position of overseership in any other locality than their own. The overlooking this important consideration has been fruitful of much mischief, as might naturally be expected.

The evangelist's work necessarily and properly takes in a wide circle. The more he goes to the " regions beyond " and preaches Christ where His name has not been mentioned, perhaps the better ; his message speaks for itself. That message is from God, irrespective of the messenger; hence he is, in this way, the "antipodes" in his service to the pastor or overseer, who must, to carry on his service, stay at home. Perhaps the overlooking this, as does your article, may in some measure account for the state of things that article deprecates. I am, my dear brother, Affectionately yours in Christ. F. C. J.