QUES. 31.-"He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother is in darkness even until now . . . He that hateth his brother is in darkness and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither lie goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes" (] John 2 :9, 11). Could this apply to a brother in Christ, or is it a brother in the flesh? For how could a brother in Christ hate his brother in Christ?-although Ephesians 5:14 refers to Christians sleeping among the dead and needing to arise out of it that Christ may give them light.

ANS.-For one who is a true Christian-a man in whom the Spirit of Christ dwells-it is hard to conceive how such can hate each other, and also how they can be said to be and to walk in the darkness. But the clause " he that saith " explains the whole. It is a mere profession, and we must never forget that while the day of grace lasts, whatever place men take, God allows it to them and holds them responsible for what belongs to it. Thus a man who professes to be a Christian, without any real work of God in the soul, is allowed the place he takes and is therefore called a brother, for all Christians are brethren.

Notice the little clause even until now in verse 9. It means that the individual, although saying he is in the light, has really never been out of the darkness. He was there, and is still there, in spite of his profession. He is a mere natural man among those who are spiritual men, and he walks as natural men do. That true Christians may also be guilty of such evil because of the evil nature which is still in them, there is, alas, but too much proof ; but as a sheep fallen in the mud seeks to free itself out of it, so the true Christian cannot live in evil. It is not his character. He is miserable while in it, until he makes a clean breast of it before God, who is ever ready to forgive and to restore.

QUES. 32.-Is it consistent for a Christian couple, gathered to the name of Christ, to be united in marriage by a clergyman, when the law of the land permits a purely civil marriage ceremony performed by magistrates and other properly authorized civil powers? Does not the clergy man arrogate to himself the title of "reverend," which belongs only to God Himself; and does be not assume a position as standing between God and His people, thus practically denying that all God's people are priests, and in this respect are on an equal footing before Him? And is not this assumption the deeds and doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which the Lord hates? (Rev. 2:6, 15). Do not clergymen have this power conferred upon them because they have assumed this unscriptural position as a special class in the Church of God ? In view of all this, how can one who knows the truth consistently call upon any of this class to unite them in marriage ? Many are interested in this question, and an early and full answer will be greatly appreciated.

ANS.-We quite agree with what you write, and it pains us not a little to do so ; for while truth demands that we bear witness against the institution of the clergy, it also demands that we mention the devotedness and self-denying lives of many individuals who have belonged to or are in the institution. Were the line of honored names called up who have spent and been spent for our adorable Lord while belonging to that institution, it would be a noble host.

But good men in an evil institution do not make the institution better. They make it but the more dangerous, The few words of our Lord in Matthew 23 :8 at once describe and condemn the institution. A clergy implies a laity-a people inferior to them in place toward God, farther off from God, needing the clergy between them and God. Nothing could be more opposed to the character of Christianity. "Ye are all brethren," says the Head and Heart of Christianity; no matter what gift or talent this or that one may have, he cannot rightly take a place above the common level of a brother among his brethren. "Be ye not called Rabbi (Doctor) for one is your Master, even Christ." "Call no man your lather upon the earth :for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Thus are both the Romish "Father" and the Protestant "Reverend" or "Doctor" condemned by the Master whose eye foresaw what His professed followers would do. The ministry of Christ-evangelists, pastors, teachers-are no nearer to God than their brethren. The special gifts which they possess do not make them a separate class from their brethren any more than the special gift possessed by the foot, or the hand, or the eye, or the ear, makes those members a separate class in the human body. Each one's special gift makes him servant to the rest, not a master.

The institution arose when the Church became Judaized and began to imitate the order of Judaism, not understanding its typical character. Thus, failing to see that the Jewish priesthood foreshadowed Christ as the great High Priest, and the whole Church as the priestly family which, being in Christ, is brought nigh to God as Christ is, and is therefore called in 1 Peter 2 :5 "a holy priesthood," and in verse 9 "a royal priesthood," they turned the Christian ministry into a priesthood, with the exclusive privileges of that order. Out of this grave error has arisen a system of mediators, and of high, higher, highest princes after the fashion and ambitions of the world, to the destruction of Christian simplicity. And what is still more serious, the system has led to the usurpation of much which belongs to the Holy Ghost alone. He was sent down from heaven at Pentecost by our glorified Lord to form the Church and take charge of her on her journey through this world, as the glory-cloud was to conduct Israel on her journey from Egypt to Canaan. The institution of the clergy as such usurps that place largely. It would be a novel thing in Christendom now to see a congregation of Christians recognizing the Holy Spirit as alone to guide their meetings in praise, worship and ministry. Such scriptures as 1 Corinthians 11 aud 14 have practically become to them a dead letter. A congregation without a clergyman at its head would be looked upon as quite out of order. Believers cannot remember their Lord with the bread and the wine without a clergyman. It would be a desecration if not administered by an " ordained " man. Even at a prayer meeting the Holy Spirit is hindered. The clergyman calls upon this one or that one to pray, ignoring the Spirit who alone knows the hearts of all men. The institution thus makes the full Christian development impossible, and has been an important reason why many of God's people have fled from the institution when they have tasted divine liberty aud the spiritual development which results from it. Those who have passed through these experiences are anxious, therefore, to maintain their testimony against the institution as such.

We have no doubt that it is. as you say, because of the assumption of this unscriptural position (as a special class in the Chinch of God) that the Governments have recognized them and conferred privileges upon them. Had they remained in their rightful place of servants of the Lord Jesus, with no title attached, they would no more be recognized than the Lord Himself. Yet is it not a proof that the Powers desire to honor Christianity, for which we can be thankful? If therefore the laws of the State require that a clergyman be present to legalize the marriage, let us leave to the clergyman himself the responsibility of being in that position aud submit to the Slate. If we are left free to choose, let us be faithful and use the civil officer in preference. The people of God invited and present there, by prayer and fellowship represent God's side of the institution of marriage (for He is the One who has instituted it), while the civil officer represents the State in its jurisdiction over it. Thus all is divinely simple and true in the acknowledgment of God and of the Powers which He has instituted.