from that time JESUS began to “preach and to teach.” Even He confessed, “As the FATHER hath SENT ME,” and, as “the FATHER hath given ME commandment,” even “so I do.” And His blessed Apostle said, “GOD was in CHRIST reconciling the world unto Himself, . . . and hath COMMITTED unto us the ministry of reconciliation;” and when the same Apostle was “about to be offered,” and the “time of his departure was at hand,” he said, “This charge I COMMIT unto thee, son Timothy;” and further, “the same COMMIT thou to faithful men,” who shall TEACH others also. Indeed every Scripture precedent is against the notion so wholly inconsistent with the idea of a “commission,” that a man may teach in the name of GOD, without GOD’S authority so to do. Surely the words of Scripture mean something. “Pastors,” “stewards of mysteries,” “overseers,” “embassadors,”—those “in CHRIST’S stead,” those “speaking in the person of CHRIST,” those whom the Churches were commanded to “obey” as “watchers for souls,” and “accountable.”—Those who were received as “angels of GOD,” even “as JESUS CHRIST;” “workers together with GOD,” “angels of the Churches,” “stars in CHRIST’S right hand!” Are these the descriptions of an earthly dignity wherewith a man of ability may clothe himself? Do they mean less than they say?—or rather do they not powerfully point the question, “How shall men preach except they be SENT?” But notwithstanding the vagueness of the popular creed, it is not to be denied, that those who think attentively about religion and read their Bible with care, and yet embrace sectarian views, have some way of explaining all these, and similar expressions, so as to bring them, in some degree, into conformity with their particular views. Doubtless some sort of explanation would be _necessary_ to give a measure of consistency to their systems. And into the examination of their manifold systems it would be impossible now to enter. Nor is it necessary; it is enough to point out the fundamental error, of having a system, and then “explaining” texts down to that system. And this perhaps may be sufficiently done by glancing chiefly at two classes of the most received theories, with a view of showing that they alike proceed on a common principle, and that (in consequence) instead of taking the words of Scripture as they plainly stand, and accepting them as the Church does, in their full natural meaning, they are obliged to “explain.” Such, indeed, we have already said to be our running argument. “Would the sectarians, or would Catholics, have been more likely to employ naturally such and such words?” And more than this we can scarcely attempt on this occasion. Indeed a formal confutation of many such systems as we are now alluding to, would be almost impossible. There is something so indeterminate about them, that there is no tangible point of attack. The bare denial of an Apostolically descended Ministry is, frequently, all that can be obtained from our opponents.