times, because our circumstances are infinitely more favourable.

In the present great battle between the powers of light and the powers of darkness for the possession of the world, every congregation is a regiment of Christ's army, and every pastor is its officer. His first duty is to clear the ranks of all who are not on the Lord's side, because in the face of the enemy they are worse than useless. After that his functions are to feed, to train, and to lead his regiment into action, so as to turn the tide of battle against the enemy, as he shall be answerable to God at the great day. The time is fast approaching when the temple delusion will be, not partially, but altogether exploded, and when the Church will be regularly organised on the lines of the synagogue and the Apostolic Church. The pastors will then understand that their work is not to preach to the world, but to feed the respective flocks over the which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers, so that they may shine as lights in the world, holding forth the Word of life, and that they, the pastors, may rejoice in the day of Christ, that they have not run in vain nor laboured in vain.

Travellers tell us that in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, on a certain evening, when the multitude assembled is in total darkness, each having a taper in his hand; suddenly a little wicket is opened, and a lighted taper is thrust forth to enable the nearest to kindle his own. On and on passes the flame, every one giving a light to his neighbour, as soon as he has received it himself, till in a few minutes the whole church is in a blaze of light. So will it be with the evangelisation of the world; and if the hundred millions of heathen are to receive the light of the Gospel, it can only be done by every candle when it is lighted, communicating the flame to all around.

CHAPTER XVI.

GENTILE GOVERNMENT PART OF THE TEMPLE SYSTEM.

UPON

PON no subject is the Church of Christ so much divided as upon that of its government and organisation. Upon matters of doctrine and duty, it may be said that the living Church is unanimous, and that their faith is one; for were we to bring together from all parts of the world living Christian men, it would be found that in regard to the great doctrines of Christianity and Christian duty, they would all speak the same thing. But the moment that they would begin to discuss the question of government and organisation, immediately there would be divergence of opinion. Baptists and Pedobaptists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Independents, Wesleyans, Quakers, Voluntaries, and Churchmen, differ so widely in their views of Church organisation that agreement would seem to be almost impossible. May not templeism have had something to do with this discordance? and may not the synagogue become the meeting place where this disagreement may end?

We have seen in the previous chapters that the Romish apostasy consisted chiefly in abandoning the synagogue as the type and model upon which the apostles founded the Christian Church, and falling back on the weak and beggarly elements of the temple system.

We have seen that the Reformation of the sixteenth

century was only half a reformation, in consequence of the temple theory of Rome being retained in the organisation of the Protestant Churches.

And we have also seen that the Reformation which has been going on during the present century consists chiefly in a return to the principles of the synagogue, and the gradual abandonment of the temple as the model of the Church. Let us now inquire whether this does not hold true also in regard to the vexed question of Church government.

We must first inquire what was the characteristic difference between the government of the temple and the government of the synagogue. It consisted chiefly in this, that the government of the temple was in principle monarchial, while the government of the synagogue was in principle democratic. In the temple system all authority and power was lodged in the person of the high priest, and from him it proceeded downwards. The priests, the sons of Aaron, issued their commands to the Levites, who were given to be their servants, and who were bound to obey them (Num. xvii. 6). The chief priests exercised authority over the common priests in their respective courses; and the high priest, who was really the Minister of public worship, under the king, had supreme authority in all things connected with the temple. The priesthood was hereditary-the Levites did not elect the priests who were to rule over them, neither did the priests elect the chief priests, nor the chief priests the high priest; he was nominated by the king.

The government of the synagogue was altogether different. In the synagogue all authority and power proceeded from the members themselves, and was delegated by them to the elders whom they chose out from their own number to rule in their name, These formed a

committee of management with a president, who was called the chief ruler. The elders, who must not be fewer in number than ten, formed an ecclesiastical court, called the local Sanhedrim, or Church Court, which had judicial functions, and were, therefore, pastors and rulers as well as servants of the congregation. They took cognisance of the moral character of the members; and in case of any complaint or disagreement, they were the tribunal before which the case was tried. But these elders as individuals had no authority or power over the other members; it was only as a court that they had any authority. In fact the synagogue with its elders was conducted on the same principles as those of our modern societies with their committees and office-bearers; the members of committee as individuals being no higher in authority than the other members.

The distinguishing difference between the government of the temple and the government of the synagogue consisted in this, that the officers of the temple exercised authority over those beneath them in regard to the performance of their duty, the elders of the synagogue exercised authority over its members only in regard to the violation of their duty. It was a pure democracy, every Jew possessing in himself all the elements of a synagogue, so that it only required a company of Jews to give it birth. There was no central authority in Jerusalem or elsewhere which it was necessary to consult in regard to its formation, and there was no external authority which had the right to interfere. The only moving power in that direction was the felt necessity of banding together for mutual help, sympathy, and edification. The constitution, so far from being a subjection to bondage, was the most perfect form in which liberty and order could be combined. The great principle of synagogue government

was, that the individual member submitted himself to the judgment of the corporate body. The consequence was that no member gave up more of his own liberty than the other members surrendered to him.

Every synagogue managed its own affairs, and looked after its own property; nor does there appear to have been any common fund, from which they drew their supplies. The reason probably was that there was no need for it. The Jewish religion differed from the Christian religion of the present day in that it could not only exist but flourish without money. All that they needed was a room to meet in (which might be in one of their own houses), a Bible, and liberty.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH-WAS IT THAT OF THE TEMPLE OR THE SYNAGOGUE ?

Keeping in view then these two forms of Government, we next inquire which of the two our Lord gave His sanction to as that which was to be adopted in the Government of His Church. Even supposing that He had given no instructions regarding its government, we should be warranted in concluding that the government of the Christian Church ought to be the same as that of the synagogue; because it can be proved to demonstration that the Christian Church was the continuation of the Jewish synagogue. But our Lord did give ample instructions on the subject; and these instructions were in favour of the synagogue, not the temple. The first occasion on which He issued a decree on the subject was when Salome proposed that her two sons, James and John, should sit the one on His right hand and the other on His left in His kingdom.

The request of Salome was not so presumptuous as