IA 'WW/** 'VV^ *V«J\ *AA ■W\\A/VW\ W\ W» 
 
 $z 
 
 •S)U33 3Ay-i(]U9A\X 
 
 «^Wl^MWIVM\MWtw\\M 
 
 'S)U33 JjBq-T3 pue USA! 
 
 jot noon 
 
 r-lH± 
 
 •suic 
 
 •s)u; 
 
 
 
 
 iz 
 
 ^ 
 
 (T3 
 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 .2 
 
 
 MX 
 
 /? 
 
 1c 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 -a 
 
 «5 
 
 
 
 .fc^ 
 
 IE 
 
 . 
 
 >/v W 
 
 r-># '"S 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 k/XW 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 *s> fc 
 
 
 ^o 
 
 
 l£ 
 
 o 
 
 
 $ 
 
 
 
 ~ s 
 
 
 <u 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 w O 
 
 
 bJ) 
 
 e\ 
 
 
 »25 ^ 
 
 
 <c 
 
 I> 
 
 MX 
 
 i^ 8 
 
 
 ~a3 
 
 3 
 
 j^T 
 
 
 fe 
 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 <* M 
 
 
 C3 
 
 -ft 
 
 
 •^ « 
 
 c/) 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 "*■* Pn 
 
 
 «3 
 
 v»w 
 
 ^ 
 
 >^ 
 
 
 
 
 -O 
 
 
 zc 
 
 ^ 
 
 -a 
 
 =§ 
 
 £ 
 
 a> 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 V* 
 
 <u 
 
 » 
 
 
 & 
 
 to 
 
 6 
 
 MX 
 
 '%*> 
 
 a! 
 
 
 
 
 <5cp 
 
 N 
 
 -V^» •» X 
 
 fd&n 
 
 ?<j 
 
 •S)U03 aATJ-^UOAX^ 
 JOj pOOQ 
 
 izc 
 
 •s]U33 j [mj-rr puu uoads-a* 
 
 3ADS-A1.1IH ' 
 
 JOj pOOQ 
 
\TV 
 
 LETT E n S, 
 
 .ADDRESSED TO THE 
 
 ALEXANDER CARSON. 
 
 
 
 Wmv ATTEMPT TO VINDICATE PRESBTE- 
 ROM THE ASPERSIONS 
 CA3T UPON IT, 
 
 Br AND/SIEVENSON. 
 
 LONDONDERRY: 
 MTED BY SAMUEL BOV». 
 
 mm — i— i ■ 
 
 1810. 
 
 -s* 
 
 ■A 
 
I 
 
the preface:^ 
 
 It has been the lot of those who love the 
 cause of religion, in almost every age, to 
 contend not only with more open foes, but 
 with professed, and in some respects with 
 real friends ; such is my situation. The man 
 whom I oppose is, I believe, not only sound 
 in the doctrines of faith, but one who proba- 
 bly has given as great an evidence of being 
 denied to the profits and honours of the 
 world, as any in our day. Yet as Paul with- 
 stood Peter to the face because he was to be 
 blamed, so ought we to oppose even the most 
 godly, if they other deviate from, or inno- 
 vate in divine institutions. Yet while I op- 
 pose I love ; and while I reason I reverence 
 and esteem ; and, were I capable, I 'would 
 make a distinction between weakening errors 
 and soul-ruining heresies,- or between weak- 
 ness and wickedness. The former ot which 
 
IV 
 
 alone I impute to my pious opposer 5 but 
 when I impute weakness of opinion 
 to the man, I am far from imputing 
 weakness of talents or learning to him. I 
 know that the disproportion between us 
 § so great, and he is so inspeakably my su- 
 perior, that I am afraid all the weight of 
 truth on my side, will in this feeble attempt 
 be unable to counterbalance; nor am I so weak 
 as to think myself a fit supporter of the cause 
 of Presbyterianisrn. It might excite the just 
 indignation of all the genuine sons of Pres- 
 bytery to see one so inadequate entering the 
 lists with such a boasted champion. They 
 might charge me with arrogance and haugh- 
 tiness, and that I had come in my pride to 
 see the battle, It is true, I come not armed 
 ivith the shield and buckler of learning and 
 critical skill. I am not fenced with the spear 
 of logical knowledge, bv which 1 might pierce 
 the arguments of my opposer. But I come 
 m the simple array of an unlettered peasant, 
 and I approach, I hope, in the name of the 
 Lord, to meet one, who, however esteemed 
 in other respects 5 I think in this instance, hath 
 " Defied the armies of the living God." 
 
 "When Mr. Carson*s publication first came 
 into my hands, the uneasiness it produced in 
 
my mind cannot easily be described ; I had 
 flattered myself, that the Presbyterian system 
 was not only founded on the word of God, 
 but that nothing substantial could be objected 
 against it. But here I saw the foundation 
 seemingly overturned^ And a new system 
 apparently fair, strong, and scriptural, e- 
 rected on its ruins. The arguments produc- 
 ed appeared so strong, and they were so well 
 supported by scripture, that 1 began to dfcbt 
 that all I had ever believed concerning Pres- 
 bytcry was but a cc Cunningly devised fable." 
 I thought however that I would examine the 
 point; for though I would think it right to 
 give up a favourite system upon conviction ; 
 yet I would think it weakness to do so without 
 thorough investigation, In order to that I 
 examined with, renewed attention the attack 
 made upon my system by Mr. Carson ; and 
 notwithstanding the plausible appearance of 
 his reasonings, thought that I discovered some 
 inadvertencies, some inconsistencies, and un- 
 fair deductions in what he had written ; until 
 some of these were cleared out of the way I 
 saw that I could not conscientiously become 
 an Independent.. In order that this might be 
 done, that the Author might have an oppor- 
 a 3 
 
VI 
 
 tunity of speaking more explicitly, and likely 
 of rectifying what might be my mistake, I 
 \yrote and forwarded to him these two letters 
 that I. now publish. I had at that time no 
 intention of publishing, I knew that I was 
 very unfit for it. I only expected to obtain 
 satisfaction as to my own doubts upon the 
 subject. I did not get such a satisfactory 
 answer as what I expected, but was referred 
 to a book, that was said to be in the press, 
 In Glasgow, for an answer. Indeed I con- 
 cluded that the cause of this was. what I knew 
 to be a fact, that I was below Mr. Carson's 
 notice, .And as I found it inconvenient for 
 me to' go to Glasgow for a solution of my 
 doubts, I examined the matter over again 
 myrelf. I read the Bible, I endeavoured to 
 look up to him who has promised to guide 
 the lowly, I lost many an hours sleep in 
 thoughtful research. Finally, my doubts 
 were removed, and I became as fully per-, 
 isuaded in the truth or the Presbyterian sys- 
 tem as ever I had been. The reasons of my 
 publishing at present are — 
 
 First, That if any have been puzzled in 
 the same way that I have been on this subject, 
 they possibly might find some relief from the 
 remarks contained in these letters, and which 
 
were the means of producing relief to my 
 own mind. 
 
 Secondly, I understand that by some means 
 or other it came to be known that I had writ- 
 ten to Mr. Carson, and it was asserted that I 
 had borrowed my observations upon his pro- 
 duction from Mr. Brown's " Defence of 
 Classical Presbytery," I cannot tell who was 
 the propagator, at first, of that report, but 
 I think it little to their credit. It was repre* 
 senting me in a very unfavourable light ; for 
 by that means I must have been not only guil* 
 ty of plagiarism, but of aciing the part of an 
 imposter, pretending to have uneasy feelings 
 in my own mind, while I was only transcribe 
 ing sentiments from another. I would be ve- 
 ry sorry to impute any such thing to Mr, 
 Carson. But if he did suspect me in that, 
 it would much weaken my resentment against 
 the clergymen of the Synod of Ulster, res- 
 pecting a charge which he prefers against 
 them. He alleges that they borrow a num- 
 ber of their sermons from books, and that 
 when they entertain their people with elegant 
 language and fine composition, they are not 
 giving one word of their own, but copying 
 it all from men who were capable to compose 
 in this manner, — such as the Scotch Preach* 
 
vm 
 
 er, Logan's Sermons, &c. Now from Li 
 relation I thought it had been a fact, and that 
 it was very unbecoming conduct in learned 
 men like them ; for what man of taste and 
 spirit would not rather appear in his own 
 clothes tho' homely, than in the robes of a- 
 nother, tho' more elegant ? And the richer 
 the dress, and the more above his capacity 
 the. more ridiculous is the wearer, if it be a 
 borrowed one. But if I thought that Mr. 
 Carson had been the relater of this tale con-r 
 cerning me, I would begin to suspect this, 
 story of his about the preachers, and to think; 
 that he had got a custom of suspecting people 
 for borrowing when they had not done it. 
 For I can, and do solemnly aver, that I never 
 yet saw Brown's " Defence of Classical Pres- 
 bytery ;" nor did I buy or borrow a single 
 book to assist me in writing to my learned 
 friend; my Bible, and the. few books that 
 have for many years constituted my little li- 
 brary were my only helps. Any person that 
 reads these letters may discern, that they con- 
 sist chiefly of objections raised against Mr. 
 m 9 from what I considered to be incon- 
 sistency in his reasoning itself ; and my prin- 
 cipal remarks could never have existed unless 
 Mr, Cain's writing had produced them; so 
 
-that if the real origin of my remarks be en- 
 
 Juired for, it was no other book than Mr. 
 Arson's that was the cause. 
 
 ij A third reason of my publishing is, from 
 idle hope that when my. feeble efforts to sup. 
 j$>ort the honourable, but despised cause of 
 iPresbyrery shall be seen, some of the well 
 qualified watchmen on Zion's walls will come 
 forth, and with the pen of the learned, deal 
 .destructions to those arguments, shall I say ? 
 ( ( or sophisms, that have been hurled forth as 
 so many battering rams to raze the very 
 foundations of the goodly government of the 
 l&ouse of our God. I might detain the reader 
 with apologies of unfitness, but I need not, 
 I am sure the work itself will contain abun- 
 dant evidence to this purpose. But as I 
 have never received a liberal nor refined edu- 
 cation, (as I occupy the humble station of a 
 mechanick in a low sphere of life) if these 
 letters should fell into the hands of any of 
 the learned, I hope they will make every al- 
 lowance for the inaccuracies that they may 
 discover in them. Those who have spent 
 years in informing their mind with know- 
 ledge, cannot easily know what a task it must 
 be for a man to publish, even in my weak 
 manner, who, not to speak of learning and 
 
•legant studies, has not been taught the 
 rules of grammar, is destitute of any ade- 
 quate knowledge of spelling, except what 
 he acquires by dint of toil in turning the 
 leaves of a dictionary, and who without in* 
 fringing on his sleep has not time to devotU 
 to the subject. Depending upon the indul. 
 gence of the learned, fully convinced in my 
 own mind of the goodness of my cause, and 
 trusting that God, whose I think it is, will 
 produce and prosper means for its support* 
 I submit the fruit of my studies on this sub. 
 ject to the public ; and if it shall be the 
 means of warning any of the unruly, who 
 pbel against Church order— of strengthen. 
 ing any of the feeble mindedr-or of con- 
 firming any that are wavering, I shall think 
 my feeble efforts abundantly repaid. 
 
 June Ut, mt 
 
Ret. Sir, 
 Although unacquainted, I make free t« 
 trouble you with a few lines in consequence 
 )f a publication of your's, which lately c ame 
 :o my hand. So much zeal for your master, 
 io much love to holiness and self-denial shew* 
 *d themselves in it, as not only engaged my 
 attention, but drew my affection very much 
 :o you. But upon further investigation, I 
 found independent church government not 
 only vindicated, but Presbytery examined, 
 weighed in the balance, and by you found 
 wanting. This for a moment stifled the 
 Ipleasing sensation ; yet your mode cf reason- 
 ing was so strong, your apostolic precepts 
 and examples so numerous and plain, that at 
 first sight, notwithstanding all my former 
 Strict adherence to Presbytery, I was almost 
 constrained to adopt as a principle what Job 
 spoke ironically, " Doubtlcs you are the 
 (people, and wisdom will die with you." Yet 
 'notwithstanding all the strength of your ar- 
 guments, and all the perspicuity with which 
 they are adorned, my dulness of uptakingis 
 such, that I require precept upon precept, 
 therefore would modestly propose the follow* 
 
ing questions ; while under the influence of 
 a docile spirit I prostrate myself at your feet, 
 and subject myself to your tuition as your pu- 
 pil, knowing that " The priests lip's should 
 keep knowledge, and that I should seek the 
 law at his mouth," hoping that, tho' your sys- 
 tem denies the right of appeals to the injured, 
 yet that you will net deny the right of en« 
 quiry to the ignorant. 
 
 In page 31 you begin your attack by repre- 
 senting Presbyterians as glorying in the 1 5th 
 of the Acts as their only and alone bulwark, 
 insinuating that they have little else to suopor' 
 their system but what they extract from this 
 passage •> but to convince you of the contrary, 
 consult Acts xiii. 1. There is a Presbytery 
 consisting of three members, Simeon,, Lucius, 
 and Maneon ; these, while sitting in this ca- 
 pacity, are expressly commanded by the Holy- 
 Ghost, to set apart two candidates fcr the 
 ministry, viz, Barnabas and Saul, by ordi- 
 nation, with the imposition of hands. Now 
 if you would refuse this as a second bulwark, 
 might I not be tempted to think that you ? 
 afraid that it would not only prove Presbyte- 
 ry, but that Presbyterians from it might play 
 off their artillery against the usurpation of the 
 laity, who in the indepenent church arro- 
 gantly grasp at the power cf the keys in the 
 act of ordination. 
 
 Secondly, What do you think of 1 Tim. 
 
3 
 
 if. 14. There Timothy is said to have re- 
 ceived his office in the same way which Bar- 
 nabas and Saul did ; namely, by imposition of 
 Presbyterial hands (notice that the laity inter- 
 meddle not). Now, if you would admit this 
 as a third bulwark, I would, with your leave, 
 place one of your own pieces of ordnance 
 on it, taken from page 61, where you 
 say that " The office which has not a 
 name in scripture, has not an institution in 
 scrip'ure." But here you see that Presby- 
 tery, both name and thing, has an existence 
 in scripture. But if it should happen that in- 
 dependency has neither, what damage would 
 you sustain from your own artillery I 
 
 Thirdly, If you would admit Acts 6. 
 (where the deacons are ordained) to be at 
 least one of the high towers oi Presbytery, 
 might you not from it see the exact sphere, 
 which Divine Wisdom has marked out for 
 ruler and ruled to move in? Might you not 
 from it se? the people choosing, and the 
 Presbytery ordaining ? Now from this fort 
 might not Presbyterians do gi'Gnt £ICCUt] oft 
 against such as deny a popular power abouf 
 the keys, to the laity in choosing their own 
 church officers on the one side; and on 
 the other, against such as grant them 
 authoritative power to use them in ordina- 
 tion. 
 
In page 65, in order to overturn the idea 
 *>f Presbytery, and establish the independ- 
 ency of congregations, you assert that the 
 reasons why the church of Jerusalem is al- 
 ways named in the sirgular, is to shew that 
 it consisted only of one congregation. While 
 I have hitherto thought it was because it was 
 governed by one Presbytery ; yet consisted 
 of very many congregations, and my reasons 
 were the following : — 
 
 First, On account of the great diversity of 
 language in use among believers in this 
 church. In the name of wonder how could 
 Parthians, Medes, Elan-its, dwellers in Me- 
 sopotamia, Judea Cappadosia, Pontus, Asia, 
 Phrygia, Pamphylia, Fgypt, Libya, Cyrene, 
 strangers from Rome, Jews, Cretes, Arabi- 
 ans, &c. I say how could all these hear, 
 pray and praise in the same congregation ? 
 
 Secondly, On account of their number, 
 which encreased from one hundred and twen- 
 ty, Acts 1. to three thousand one hundred 
 and twenty, Acts ii. 4. five thousand more 
 are zddzd, Acts iv. 4. and in Acts v. 14. 
 uncounted multitudes are added to this sam« 
 church. A nd in Acts vi. it is said " That the 
 number of the disciples multiplied greatly in 
 Jerusalem, and a great number of the priests 
 were obedient to the faiih." And in Acts 
 a*ri, James speaks of uncounted thousands 
 
:ing added to this same church. Permit 
 me here to ask what house is it that could 
 contain all these, for churches were not then 
 built, but they went about from house to 
 house, as you see in Acts ii. 46. 
 
 Thirdly, The great number of pastor* 
 which resided in this parish prove, either 
 that they preached seldom, and so laboured 
 not in word and doctrine ; or else that there 
 were very many congregations ; and you 
 know that those (not the laity) met often for 
 acts of government, as in Acts i. to ordain 
 Mathias ; and in Acts vi« to ordain deacons ; 
 and in Acts xv. to determine about the dis- 
 pute from Antioch ; and in Acts xxi. Paul, 
 James, and all the elders meet in a Presbyte- 
 rial Capacity, before whom Paul is account- 
 able for his faithfulness in the ministry- But 
 1 would fain flatter myself, that it was no- 
 thing worse than inadvertency, that induced 
 you to quote Acts ii. 44. to prove that all 
 these apostles, elders and people composed 
 but one congregation ; because that it is there 
 said that they were altogether with one accord. 
 That the thing was true, when this text was 
 written, none doubts, out was not tne church 
 then in her infancy ? I think however before 
 the point is proven, that you would require 
 to produce -such a text after the 21 chap- 
 ter. 
 
 b 2 
 
Moreover, its evident that the church of. 
 Ephesus liwewise consisted of very many con- 
 gregations, although always named in the sin- 
 gular. There Paul continued by the space of 
 two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard 
 the word of the Lord, Acts xix. 20. Was it 
 not at Ephesus that a great door and effectual 
 was opened to Paul ? 1 Cor. xvi. 8. Was it 
 not here that Paul's miracles were known to 
 all the Jews and Greeks that dwelt at Ephe- 
 sus ? Was it not here that such as had curi- 
 ous arts brought their books & burned them ? 
 No wonder then that it is said in Acts xix. 
 *' So mightily grew the word of the Lord and 
 Increased." Now if all this could take place 
 in one single congregation, I would think it 
 a little strange. But as it is evident there 
 were very many congregations, so there 
 were very many pastors, see Acts xx. 17. 
 where Paul at Miletus calls for the elders of 
 Ephesus to meet him, which by the by proves 
 provincial synods. Had this been an ordina* 
 ry Presbytery, they would, doubtless, have 
 met at home as other Presbyteries ; and had 
 it been a national synod or general assembly, 
 they would, doubtless, have met at their usu- 
 al place, viz. Jerusalem. Therefore, it seems 
 to me that it was neither, but a provincial 
 synod. 
 
 Now this eldership alone had divine war- 
 rant to exercise the keys, in trying the gifts 
 
and orthodoxy of bishops, and rejecting hire- 
 lings, and all without dependence on the iai." 
 ty. Now all this is evident from Rev. ii, 2. 
 where the Presbytery of Ephesus is express- 
 ly commanded by the Holy Ghost, for their 
 judicative decision, having tryed them which 
 said they were apostles, and were not, and 
 found them liars. Now if there is any weight 
 in these remarks to prove a Presbyterial 
 church at Jerusalem and Ephesus, 1 could 
 add a number of a similar kind, to prove the 
 same at Samaria, Galatia, and Rome. But 
 I return to Acts xv. 
 
 I once designed not to drop one remark on 
 this chapter, but to have passed on, and e- 
 vinced that the scriptures abound with proofs 
 for Presbyterian church government besides 
 it. But seeing the bold attack you have made 
 on it, both by stratagem and storm, to make 
 it strike to independency, and you now have 
 proclaimed to the world that it has done so ; 
 I will therefore stop to examine the matter j 
 for I have no more fear that it has done this, 
 than 1 have of the virgin's chastity, who, to 
 evade a rape cries out, I have read it with 
 calmness and attention according to your re- 
 quest, page 32. The history of it, together 
 with my illiterate remarks, are as follows :— 
 
 In verse 1, certain false teachers (like son^e 
 
 B 3 
 
 -, 
 
8 
 
 in our days wishing to innovate) taught the 
 Gentile converts of Antioch, Syria, and 
 Ciiicia, the absolute necessity of circumcisi- 
 on, with whom Paul and Barnabas had no 
 small disputation But neither party yield- 
 ing, an appeal to a general synod is agreed to, 
 which met at Jerusalem, consisting of apos- 
 tles and elders. Immediately Paul, Barna- 
 bas, and certain others, are deputed to carry 
 the appeal But before the general assembly 
 met, the same unhallowed flame breaks out 
 in the church of Jerusalem, which soon taught 
 all the churches the necessity of a general 
 synod. Immediately the apostles and elders 
 came together to consider of this matter. 
 You may notice it was apostles and elders 
 that the appeal was to, ver 2. and it is only 
 apostles and elders that meet judicatively to 
 determine, ver. 6. Nothing about populace 
 meeting for that end nor is the appeal to 
 such. And you know that when Paul deli- 
 vered the decrees of this synod to the church- 
 es, Acts xvi, 4. they are expressly termed 
 the decrees of the apostles and elders. Not 
 a w r ord of their being the decrees of the illi- 
 terate laity, which doubtless would have been 
 the case had they been possessed of sole 
 power according to your system. 
 
 My dear Sir I hope you will inform me 
 what it was that induced you to assert, page 
 35, " That all the members of the Jerusalem 
 
church sat in this assembly, and took an active 
 part in the deliberation." I assure you I feel 
 for you already while I anticipate your con- 
 fusion of mind, when you hear that any one 
 has observed this assertion.. Your proof for 
 it I fear is as yet unwritten in the word. Only 
 but look at their number as specified above, 
 which consisted of eight thousand one hun- 
 dred and twenty, besides uncounted multi- 
 tudes of both men and women, -Acts v. 14. 
 And in ^cts xxi. James speaks of unnum- 
 bered thousands being added to this church. 
 How absurd then my dear friend to suppose 
 that " AH these took an active part in the 
 deliberations ;" sat, reasoned, and voted 
 there ! Pray Sir would not this represent 
 the God of order as the author of confusion ? 
 Why should children, who you know are 
 church members but especially women who 
 are expressly commanded by the Holy Ghost, 
 1 Cor. xiv. 34 * 6 Not so much as to speak 
 in the church." yet be admitted here to have 
 decisive votes in framing the model, and 
 settling the constitution of the first christian 
 church in the world. Alas may i not exclaim 
 how faintly do we see in divine things ! when 
 one of the most intelligent and best of men 
 (for such I believe you to be) should be so far 
 bewildered as to think so. 
 
 But instead of all this or any thing like if, 
 try to shew me wheieiu this assembly any of 
 
10 
 
 the laity spoke one word ; I grant that in the 
 7th verse some disputed wich the apostles, 
 but probably this was one of the Antioch 
 seducers. Nay, but on the contrary it is 
 asserted in the J2rh verse, that all the mul- 
 titude kept silence. I know it is objected 
 from verse 22, that because the multitude 
 approve of the apostles and elders choice of 
 Judas and Silas, to go with Paul and Barnabas 
 to Antioch, to carry the decrees, therefore 
 the whole multitude took an active part in 
 framing them. My dear Sir how strange this 
 to confound the choice of deligates to carry 
 the decrees, with the divine authority of 
 making them- How strange would it be to 
 infer, that because all the people of God 
 approve of the father's choice of Christ to be 
 the messenger of the covenant ; therefore 
 they all sat at the counsel table, with the bless- 
 ed three, and took an active part in managing 
 the covenant. 
 
 But in order to prove that every individual 
 took an active part in this assembly, you ob- 
 serve in page 34, " That the letters to Anti- 
 och are not from a representative counsel, but 
 from the apostles, elders, and brethern at 
 Jerusalem " — Here the emphasis is laid on 
 the word brethern ; yet whether these bre- 
 thern were teachtrs, or taught, wh« ther bre- 
 thern in office, or only by profession, you 
 do not tell me. One thing 1 know myself, 
 
li 
 
 that all of them that are named are men "a 
 office, see verse 3. There it is said that 
 64 Judas and Silas being prophets themselves." 
 Now both of these are said to be chosen men 
 among the brethern ; so if ail the rest of 
 them that are here called brethern were of 
 this order, I see not why but their names 
 should be at the signature, and would make 
 nothing for popular government, and instead 
 of militating against Presbytery would confirm 
 it. 
 
 But in order to explode the idea of repre- 
 sentation from this assembly altogether, you 
 assert in page 34, " That the members that 
 composed it were of the Jerusalem church 
 alone, without commissioneror representative 
 from any church on earth." My dear friend 
 the high opinions I have hitherto entertained 
 of you, forbids me to impute this assertion 
 to any thing worse than inadvertancy ; could 
 I hide you and it, from the eyes both of wise 
 men and mockers, 1 assure you it would be 
 my delight, but 1 fear no apology nor exer- 
 tion of mine can screen you. But when you 
 write I hope you will inform me how Paul 
 could be a member of the Jerusalem congre- 
 gation, seeing after his conversion, which 
 happened near Damascus, about sixty miles 
 from Jerusalem, he returned not for three 
 years after; and when re did return, he says 
 in Gal. i. that he remained but fifteen days, 
 
12 
 
 then departing, he saw the Jerusalem church 
 no more for fourteen years. During this 
 period he and Barnabas received ordination 
 from the Presbytery of Antioch, Acts xiii. 
 after which both are recognised as members 
 of Synod, in this very assembly, this being 
 their next return. But again do not the 
 apostles accurately distinguish between the 
 persons who in this synod were members of 
 their own church, and who of Antioch. In 
 verse 22, they say « They send chosen men 
 of rhejr own company with Paul and Barna* 
 has, namely, Judas and Silus. 
 
 Secondly, Please to inform me how these 
 cer/ain others, which come with Paul from 
 Antioch, could be members of the Jerusalem 
 congregation, seeing Antioch lay about two 
 hundred miles from Jerusalem? Is it not 
 mere probable then that these never worship. 
 ed one day in Jerusalem before. Now that 
 these composed a part of this assembly is 
 evident^ and that they acted as representa- 
 tives in it is indisputable for they were ex- 
 pressly sent to represent these churches as 
 the most distressed people on earth ; — nor 
 distressed by sword or famine, not in danger 
 ofiosbmg houses or lands, but what infinite- 
 ly worse, the loss of their immortal souls. 
 In this situation they represented them in this 
 ■synod all which is evident from verse 24, 
 where the synod in their letter back say, 
 
13 
 
 " Forasmuch as we have heard that certain 
 which went out from us have troubled you 
 ' with words subverting vour souls." 
 
 But with a plain desipn to cut of all fo- 
 xeign interference at one stroke, in page 34* 
 you exclaim thus, c - How absurd would be 
 their language upon the supposition there 
 were representatives in it from ^mioch, or 
 others c Forasmuch as we have heard 
 that certain which went out from us/ Could 
 the Antioch or other representatives put their 
 signature to this letter ? Could they say 
 they went out from them ? They went out 
 from the church of Jerusalem, and no one 
 could say they went out from us but the 
 church of Jerusalem. The language * Went 
 out from us," plainly excludes from this as- 
 sembly all members'from foreign churches.** 
 
 Now whether your rhetoric so logically 
 displayed on these words, " Went out from 
 us/' bear analogy to sophism or genuine lo- 
 gic, I pretend not to determine. The learn- 
 ed that are versant in polemick studies caa 
 decide. However, you appear to exult in 
 this argument, as if, like Goliah's sword, 
 there was none like it ; or like Sampson's 
 hair, that wherein yur great strength lies. 
 But you know it is a maxim in reasoning 
 that the argument that proves too much, 
 proves nothing. Now if this language, 
 
14 
 
 * Went out from us," excludes from this 
 assembly all members from for< ign churches ; 
 then Paul and those with him were not in this 
 assembly at all, which for me to attempt to 
 prove, would be to offer an insult to your 
 reason, and to evince that they had votes in 
 this synod would be superfluous, and to de- 
 ny either would be to give the lie to the Holy 
 Ghost ; and that Paul and those with him 
 were not members of the Jerusalem church, I 
 presume has been sufficiently, proven above ; 
 yet might not Paul and Barnabas, although 
 representatives of other churches, yet as now 
 members of synod might they not put their 
 signature to these words et Went out from 
 us/' inasmuch as, when a synod is met they 
 can all say collectively, that all the licenciates 
 or junior members of any Presbytery 
 under their inspection, went out from 
 them, and yet they may be said to have gone 
 out from their respective presbyteries and 
 doubtless it was the Presbytery of Jerusalem 
 that ordained these imposters ; for. I pre- 
 sume, it is the province of Presby eries to 
 ordain, without dependence on the hands of 
 the the laity, see Acts xiii. 1 Tim. iv. 14. 
 Yet still in subordination to synods, as you 
 see from the whole strain of this chapter. 
 My dear friend might not one pause here and 
 wonder at divine wisdom shewn en these 
 words, " Wen: out from us." Thereby the 
 
15 
 
 apostles distinguish their legitimate successors 
 that go out rr in them by Divine warrant 
 with Presby terial ordination, from impostors t 
 that go out only from the people, and re- 
 ceive both the keys, and power to exercise 
 them from the laity. But again by these 
 words " Went out from us" they distinguish, 
 between such as are legally ordained by % 
 plurality (US ) from such as are ordained by % 
 single individual, as in the preiatic church. 
 
 In page 32, after having asserted that <c la 
 all this chapter there is not the least feature 
 ot modern Presbytery, you ask "Where is 
 tht Presbyterian subordination of courts 
 here ? Was the matter first tried in a ses- 
 sion V s I answer is not this to darken counsel 
 with words without knowledge. You might 
 as well ask was the murderer first tried ia 
 a mannor court before he was brought before 
 a judge of assize? How astonishing ! that a 
 Presbyterian minister should know so little 
 about their discipline, as to suppose that a 
 number of pastors should be tried for error 
 at the bar of a congregational session. No 
 wonder that you were so fickle, unstable*, & 
 easily drawn av ay, when you knew so little 
 about th^ir discipline You again ask " Was 
 the matter next carried to a Presbytery ?'* 
 1 answer it was first carried to a Pr.suyiery, 
 said Frebyttrian discipline says it should bfi 
 
16 
 
 s®. Yon ask " Was the appeal from a Pres- 
 bytery ? "' I answer yes, and that to a synod 
 of apostles & elders & to none rise as you 
 see in verse 2. And although Paul who was 
 not a whit behind the chiefest apostle, doubt- 
 less in conjunction with the Presbytery of 
 .Antioch, might have determined it : yet to 
 teach after ages the divine right of appeals, 
 together with the subordination of courts, 
 they appeal to a synod. You next enquire 
 Ci Who sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusa- 
 lem :" I say it was the Presbytery of 4nti- 
 och ; you answer 6w ! his is easier said than 
 proven ;" by this you b astingly insinuate 
 that it cannot be proven, but if the sequel 
 should make it appear that my evidences are 
 sufficient and legal the apostles themselves 
 
 g judges, would you not blush ior bi 
 xtig while putting on your harness ? You 
 next add that Ci There is as much evidence 
 that it was the magistrates of \nticcb \.L u 
 themas the supposed presbytery of tb. 
 indeed sir if alorg with your other elope:, 
 you are turned erac t ian in }our judgern^ 
 sp } j c st y c u thii k Xh{ re is more. I cu il- 
 rally ccrcluie ir page 33, that < It .was 
 brefhern that sent ibcm ;" task wlty not the 
 
 eih'ood, at least in eoj iurctien, seeing 
 yen assert in page 70, 7 1 , tfyal ! he v\ r ole 
 pf wer of crurch discipline is lodged in the 
 hands of church men bers. and that every 
 
 .idual has to be accountable ior the per- 
 
17 
 
 sonal discharge of it." Now you know tha 
 women and children are individuals* and 
 church members too, and general) 7 more 
 numerous in the church than men, conse- 
 quently it was them that tried the Antiocli 
 seducers, it was them that appealed to a sy- 
 nod, and finally it was them that sent 
 Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, 
 
 In page 32, you assert that " It would 
 puzzle the most metaphisical head to disco- 
 ver a Session or Presbytery, or either at An- 
 tioch- ,, I hope Sir, I have convinced you 
 above that this process should not come- 
 through the medium of a session ; yetl think 
 with the assistance yeu have given in page 52, 
 it would not require much skill in metaphi- 
 sics to discover a Presbytery at Antioch, there 
 you say that l a plurality of pastors or elders 
 in the same church is in 1 Tim. iv. i4. called 
 a Presbytery " Now apply this to the church 
 or Antioch and you will see that these very 
 deligates Paul and Barnabas received ordina- 
 tion by a plurality of pastors in this very 
 same church with the imposition of hands, 
 which you allow is a Presbyterial action, 1 
 Tim. iv. 14s But least you should think that 
 this argument is any way foreign because not 
 contained in this disputed chapter, you may 
 look to the 35*th verse, and there you will 
 find an uncounted number of pastors in this 
 
18 
 
 very church ; the text stands thus, " Paul 
 and Barnabas continued in Antioch teaching 
 and preaching the word cf the Lord, with 
 many others also f and John is spoken of in 
 the 3 7th verse as being there also. 
 
 Now seeing these met often for acts of go- 
 vernment, as in Acts J 3. to ordain, and in 
 this chapter to try these impostors ; I say 
 all this put together, I suppose by this time 
 you would not think it would require much 
 skill in metaphisics to discover a Presby te- 
 ry there. I hope my dear Sir by this time 
 you are convinced that there- was a sufficient 
 number to sign the commission of Paul and 
 Barnabas, even tho* names of neither the lay 
 brethren nor sisterhood were at it. 
 
 Thus having at your request read this much 
 disputed chapter with calmness and attention, 
 and droped these few undigested hints, I now 
 modestly ask you are you still of the same 
 opinion as in page 32 ; namely, that it coa- 
 tains not the least feature of modern Presby- 
 tery ; if you s;ill continue to answer in the 
 negative, 1 now ask does it contain any of 
 the features of ancient apostolic Presbytery ? 
 I think I hear you now in extacy exclaim O 
 yes, yes, no one in their reason would deny 
 it ; well then why but you continued to ad- 
 here to that and oppose all innovation, and 
 not to make such an elopement from Pre** 
 
19 
 
 bytery^ name and thing, ancient and modern, 
 apostolic and divine ? 
 
 Permit me now my dear Sir to ask whe- 
 ther or not all tne essentials of a synod are 
 to be found in this Jerusalem assembly, first 
 members from the Presbytery of 4ntioch, 
 and likewise members from the Presbytery 
 of Jerusalem. Secondiy, the business trans- 
 acted here was such as had failed both the 
 Presbyteries of Jerusalem and Antioch, and 
 therefore came forward to them as a superior 
 court in way of appeal, which shews clearly 
 the absolute necessity of a general synod. 
 Moreover, the decrees of this court bound 
 nbt only as other scriptures, but with an ec- 
 clesiastic tie, all which is evident from the 
 first copy issued out by synodical authority 
 in the 23th verse, where they say that c< it 
 seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to 
 (US)*' which mode of expression is not very 
 frequent with the sacred pen-men as thus 
 saith the Lord is in other cases deemed suffi- 
 cient, but the churches head foreseeing the 
 bold attempt that some would make to rob 
 his ambassadors of that exclusive authority 
 granted them in Matt. xvi. 19. of binding 
 and loosing, therefore to leave such inexcu- 
 sable, when the decrees of this synod are 
 published by Paul through the churches in 
 Acts xvi, 4. they are expressly said to be or- 
 c3 
 
so 
 
 daiAed by the apostles and elders : the Holy 
 Ghost, although the chief operator in fram- 
 ing them, is not so much as mentioned. 
 
 But in order to rob the injured of the 
 right of appeals in after ages, you say in page 
 35 that " the appeal from Antioch was an 
 appeal to inspired authority " Now though 
 1 should grant you this, yet if, this was all, 
 and not intended to teach the subordination 
 of courts, and the divine right of appeals to 
 posterity, might they not have been satisfied 
 by Eaul.at home, seeing he was inspired, & 
 not a whit behind the very chiefest apostle. 
 Nay, but on the contrary was he not caught 
 up to third heavens, and saw and heard such 
 things as no apostle or other mortal ever saw. 
 Strange then that after all thishe should sub- 
 mit what he kr.ew to be his Lord's mind to 
 the vote and deliberations of uncounted thou- 
 sands of all ages and sex, men, women and 
 children, unequaled absurdity ! — TELL IT 
 NOT IN GATH. 
 
 But granting that this was an appeal to 
 inspired authority, and not to a Syncd pray 
 who w r ere the subjects of inspiration appealed 
 tc ? But as this question is so childish, you 
 may look on it as an insult to your advanced 
 dkillin theology, and therefore with an air 
 •f disgust may answer, To whom should it 
 be but the apostles, seeing the connnajidraernfc 
 
21 
 
 of the apostles are said to be the command*- 
 merits of the Lord, 1 Cor. iv 37 Well then 
 if this is your answer, I could almost con- 
 gratulateyou with the right hand of fellow- 
 ship ; but if you- should say that as they 
 were apostles and elders to whom the appeal 
 was made, therefore they were apostles and 
 elders jointly that were clothed with inspired 
 authority. Whether these elders were ail 
 pastors, or some ruling elders, it mauers not 
 here, I look upon it as an axiom with both 
 ; you and me that they were ordinary officers,. 
 ',and therefore now ask when or where were 
 such employed in penning canonic scripiure? 
 for you allow the decrees of this assembly 
 to be such Or where did the apostles ask 
 advice at any time what they would ? et down 
 i as scripture ? : On the contrary is it not said in 
 2 Peter i 21. that prophesy came not in old' 
 times by the will of men, but holy men of God 
 spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost? 
 not as they were directed by him or her that 
 occupied the next seat. But we may hear 
 your own refined sentiments on the subject 
 in page 35 y there you assert that " all the 
 members of the Jerusalem church sat in this 
 assembly and took an active part in the de- 
 1] liberations ;" the substance of which, yon 
 know, is contained in the decrees, and this 
 '; you admit is sacred writ. 
 
 Now what is the native consequence of all 
 
90 
 
 this r Shall I put it into language ? I shud 
 der at the thought ! What fs it ? Why tha 
 uncounted thousands and unnumbered mul 
 titudes even above eight thousand one hun 
 dred and twenty of every age and sex were 
 all vested with inspired authority, not onl) 
 to new model the church, decree in matters 
 of faith, but even settle the constitution of the 
 christian church to the world's end. HOR- 
 RIBLE THOUGHT! No wonder that 
 you say that the like or a similar case can ne- 
 ver happen again in the world. But when 
 you^ were a Presbyterian, was it a received 
 sentiment with them that their faith should 
 be built on the foundation of the apostles, ac- 
 cording to I ph. ii. 2a? But is it now your de- 
 clared senrimentshs an independent, that your 
 faith should be built on the deliberations of 
 a promiscuous multitude of every age and 
 sex. But far be it from me dear Sir to drop 
 the least irritating hint on the subject ; the 
 bare repetition of it would be grating enough 
 to the feelings of some ; yet I hope you will 
 permit me to ask, why, in a consistency with 
 your own system, but the like, or a similar 
 case may happen again in the world. See- 
 ing all the peculiarity that Is here is only just 
 the trial of a few bishops ar the bar of the 
 laity of a single congregation. At the bar 
 of the laity did I say ? Yes at the bar of the 
 laity ; for their number being probably a 
 thousand to cue of apostles and elders, $c 
 
23 
 
 illance of power was destroyed ; and not 
 dy so, but yourseif allow in page 7' >, that 
 ,e whole power of church discipline is lodg- 
 1 in the hands of church members, conse- 
 jently apostles and elders had no power 
 ?re but what they had in common with be* 
 iving women & children. But as if this was 
 ven too much power to intrust church rulers 
 ith, you say in the same page, " That the 
 *hole church is to judge the accused person, 
 nt church rulers are to execute the judg- 
 ment." What is thisbut to allow church mem- 
 &rs the legislative power, but church rulers 
 Inly the executive ; or in other words you 
 How the illiterate laity to occupy the honour- 
 able seat of the judge, while the ambassadors 
 -f Christ must stoop to the ignoble and di- 
 iiinutive task of executioners, 
 
 I am sorry my dear Sir, for your sake, that 
 jhere is so much evidence that your publica- 
 jion took wing from the first rude undigested 
 nanuscript, before you took time to revise or 
 :orrect it. But if w the like or a similar case 
 :an never happen again in the world,' I ask 
 if this was a temporary, extraordinary and 
 apostolic meeting, why had the laity votes? 
 | And again, if it was an ordinary meeting in 
 'which the laity had sole power, how came it 
 that their decisions aie canonic scripture? 
 ! And again, if all the apostolic churches 
 were independent and in subordination to no 
 
24 
 
 «ourt, how came it that the independei 
 church of Jerusalem made laws which bom 
 the independent churches of Antioch, Syri 
 and Siciha. In page 36, you say that " tl 
 decisions of the church of Jerusalem we! 
 the issue of the infallible interpretation 
 scripture, k that none can plead :his as a pr 
 cedent for any body of men to settle contr: 
 verted points for others, who cannot plead tl 
 gift of infallible interpretation of scriptuii 
 
 Now who they were in this church, th 
 
 were thus qualified with this infallible gil 
 
 I can learn from page 70, namely, the lair 
 
 There you say " the church judgeth, b^ 
 
 church rulers execute the judgment," so tl 
 
 church is distinguished from her pastors an 
 
 her decisions you say were the infallible ij 
 
 terpretations of Scripture. Consequently 
 
 was the church (that is the laity) thai: enac 
 
 ed the decrees of this assembly, and the 
 
 empowered the apostles to publish and ex< 
 
 cute them. Astonishing sentiment, public 
 
 H not in the streets of Askelon, least th 
 
 dezstical world should laugh ; and this the 
 
 might to hear such a distinguished friend 
 
 revelation suggest that the uncounted mult 
 
 sands that were members c 
 
 were all possesed of the iniallih 
 
 gift of iai . , pr.tation of scripture. What 
 
 pity when j u were attributing, infallibilit 
 
 I - any that you did not like aneighbourin, 
 
25 
 
 lurch, ascribe it to their clerical head, and 
 )t «o the lai f y. If you should reply that it 
 %s only the apostles that were thus gifted, 
 is would not avail you, seeing it is the 
 imch as distinguished from her rulers that 
 tigeth, and apostles who were church rukrs 
 ere onh to execute the judgment and you 
 y that every member of this church took 
 i active part in the delibeiations and that 
 eird cisions were the mfalhbleinterprf tation 
 scripture, therefore it does not tvail you 
 ,ough the apostles were thus giftec, if the 
 Ij y was not. But while i hear you assert 
 Lat this assembly is no precedent for any 
 bey of men in settling controverted matters 
 pothers, except they be equally qualified j 
 i quesnen occurs to ny mm J, which I can- 
 idly acknowledge I am not able to solve, 
 lamely, what actions of tne apostles were 
 uitable and what not And while I drop 
 ite following undigested thoughts I wait with 
 latience for your more mature answer ; and 
 rsr 1 think no actions of an extraor. inary 
 ;ii;d, such as immediate mission, universal 
 commission, infallible inspiration, power of 
 ferking miracles, &c are to be imitated j 
 lit ii. ail thii gs where n they acred as ordf- 
 < mecrs tl ey are to be imitated ; uich 
 is prci'chirg, b. ptizi. g, ordaining, exami- 
 [ca h g & sin m^ in church courts &c & 
 Is list are they employed in *bi chapter; 
 tod that as'ordairfary pastors, which is ev*. 
 
2S 
 
 Sent from the appeal from Antloch, verse \ 
 being equally made to apostles and elder 
 •without any superiority supposed ; and i 
 verse 6, elders meet on equal footing wit 
 apostles to determine disputes Thus whi 
 equality exists in this synod, I ask where 
 there any superiority either supposed, gran 
 ed, or claimed, by the apostles ? Where d 
 they in this synod, upon bare apostolic a_i 
 thoriry, introduce a new code of laws 
 "Where do they upon the aut ority of o 
 traordinary internal impulse enforce their ne 
 system ? Or where do they, as at otht 
 times, or like other extraordinary officer: 
 b: ing forward their new model of churc 
 government wrh a thus saith the Lord. O 
 the contrary is not all the reasons of the: 
 movements taken from external written rev< 
 lation? From all which it appears evider 
 tha the church s head designed that this a: 
 semblv and its movements should be an exac 
 model and precedent for church cours, e; 
 pecialiy synods to the world's end. 
 
 I am sorry indeed m\ dear Siir to see the 
 when argument fail, and you havenofurfhe 
 gr -und to go upon, either real oi pretendec 
 y. u have recourse to another mode, designe 
 t no les.s inimical to your former friends 
 
 i Jy to point out Presbytery before he 
 < ii s in the most ludicrous manner tha 
 j, tebly your pencil i* capable, of, '!> 
 
27 
 
 plan, together "with substituting bare asser- 
 tions in place of positive proof, is a prool 
 that almost pervades your whole performance* 
 See page 20, v/here you say that " Classical 
 Presbytery is the most clumsy and compli- 
 cated machine that could possiblybeinvemcd, 
 and a tedious and roundabout way of settling 
 differences. " My dear friend, whatever 
 reason you may have to fear that some might 
 retaliate here, yet far oe it from me, I would 
 rather convince you that, the sons of Pres- 
 bytery like her author return not railing 
 for railing, and when reviled revile not again; 
 yet would modestly ask, whether popular or 
 representative government is the most clum- 
 sy ? Wherher the ambassadors of « hrist, 
 who have got the tongue of the learned, and 
 have his promised presence to the world's 
 end. Matt. %$ 9 I say whether these or the 
 illiterate peasantry, however holy ihey may 
 be, are likely to determine more wisely ia 
 the most critical cases ? Pray Sir, if the sy- 
 nodical way of doi.g business be tedious, 
 clumsy, and roundabout, is not -your phan- 
 tom of the Jerusalem assembly and their way 
 of doing business tar mor< so ; while you 
 suppose that all the unnumbered thousands 
 that were members of <:hat church had to be 
 reasoned with, and voted round to every 
 aiticie. Your next objection againstayhpds is 
 founded on distance, and the number of th <£r 
 
28 
 
 sflembers. But pray did you ever attend a 
 synod more numerous than the supposed in- 
 dependent assembly that you say met at Jeru- 
 salem ? In page 20, you say cc Several 
 hundred men from the most distant parts of 
 a kingdom or province, meeting annually, 
 besides all their subordinate meetings, is a 
 thing which bears no resemblance to the sim- 
 plicity of other gospel institutions, when 
 united to these it is like a sober plain drest 
 gentleman with a large military hat and fea- 
 ther " Now seeing a chief ground of your 
 objections against synopsis distance, what a 
 pity is it that the same spirit which ov-ar.d 
 upon Abraham did not animate you : he ?t 
 the Divine biding left his couutry and friends, 
 went into a land he knew not. left the desire 
 oi his eyes, took with him the blooming hc:r 
 of promise, travelled a long and dreary jour- 
 ney with the heart-rending design of sacri- 
 ficing the endearing youth* And Elijah scru- 
 ples not at a fo:ty days journey when his 
 Lord commands. All the males in Israel 
 (come to age) appear at Jerusalem three rimes 
 in the year, and that from the most distant 
 parts of the kingdom or province. But it 
 may be you will object here and say what 
 docs all this avail This was under the sha- 
 dowy dispensation, and this was a part of the 
 yoke that neither we nor our forefathers was 
 oble to bear. But shew me under the iN'ew 
 Testament where any by divine warrant jour- 
 
29 
 
 neyec! as far to synods as the members of the 
 Synod of Ulster do now to Cookstown, and 
 I freely will grant you all. Well then I take it 
 for granted thatlhave satisfied you above that 
 the Jerusalem assembly had members wno 
 journeyed farther than the'members of the Sy- 
 nod of Ulster do now to Cookstown, for And- 
 och was about two hundred miles from Jeru- 
 salem, and you cannot deny but they that at. 
 tended it had divine warrant for their attend- 
 ance, for although they acted as ordinary pas- 
 tors when they came, yet in an extraordinary- 
 way they were warned to come. See Gal. 2. ii 
 where Paul expressly asserts that he went up 
 by Revelation. And you acknowledge in 
 page #6 that this was the very time. Now 
 admitting that this assembly had ail the essen- 
 tials of a synod, and that the members who* 
 composed it came a greater distance than the 
 members of the synod of Ulster do now to 
 Cookstown, and that they had divine autho- 
 rity for their attendance, and all this under 
 the New Testament* I say all this put toge- 
 ther, what a pity thatmy pious opposer should 
 think the church complex without them, and 
 represent her and them under the ludicrous 
 metaphor g£ a huge military hat & feather oa 
 a sober plain dressed gentleman. But might 
 not your phantontfof the Jerusalem assembly, 
 where you say the laiiy had sole power of 
 judging, and apostles and elders only a dele- 
 
30 
 
 gated power to execute the judgment, remind 
 one of inconsistency. Might not such a pic- 
 fure remind one of a legally called parlia- 
 ment that is turned insane, and now, under 
 the influence of lunacy, signs over their le* 
 gislauve authority into the hands of the com- 
 mon populace ? But, were it not that J am 
 not disposed to retaliate, 1 would tell you that 
 your representation of this assembly sets ser- 
 vants on horseback while princes must go on 
 foot ; and this turns all things upside down, 
 ft/light it not remind you of your own plain 
 dressed gentleman, that is now deranged, 
 vainly attempting to carry his } orse, and at 
 the same time wearing his boots and spurs on 
 his iorehead. 
 
 I am truly sorry, my dear Sir, that I am 
 constrained to tell you, that there are none, 
 who have read the history of the popes, with 
 their cavillings and arguments, .against 
 general councils, but might almost suppose 
 that you had transcribed them, and bving 
 them out, now and then, against general sy- 
 nods. Only, with this difference, they al- 
 low that themselves are the first receptacle of 
 church power while the under clergy have 
 it only from them at the second hand. But 
 your system allows the laity to be the first re- 
 ceptacle of church power, and that pastors 
 have it only from them by delegation, or if 
 you please at second hand*. 
 
SI 
 
 Indeed Sir, I see little more in your per* 
 fornaance that I think militates with any force 
 against Presbytery. I know there are a num- 
 ber of unproven assertions, which, admitting 
 they were even true, strike- moie against a- 
 postacy from Presbytery, than Presbytery 
 itself. A few of which you may see in page 
 12, 13, 14, and 20. But, as the repetatioix 
 of them in full might occasion a blush, I for- 
 bear, and turn my attention to enquire a little 
 unto independency. And here I candidly ac- 
 knowledge, that want of literature, unac- 
 quaintedness with controvercy, together with 
 the novelty of your system, renders me inca. 
 pable of correct thought upon the subject, 
 or of cjoathing my ideas in an intelligent 
 manner. But however i find myself happily in- 
 troduced by your timely discovery of your sys- 
 tem in page 72, where you assert that " dicip- 
 line and all church power are committed to 
 an individual church^' and page 70, that 
 t* Excommunication;, though the highest act of 
 church authority, is peculiarly the business 
 of the whole church ;" and " The restoration 
 of fallen members, upon repentance, is also 
 the business of the whole churcn ;" and that 
 w Every one has the king's commission, and 
 the King's command, to act in consert with 
 their bremeni." 
 
 Now, it I mistake nor, ex<zQWiwm%tiQ$ 
 D 3 
 
<n 
 
 2 
 
 and restoration, are what is* in Mat. xvi. 19^ 
 . walled-binding and loosing. Now, to whom! 
 Soever this power is given, to them are the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven given, which 
 I think are nearly the same thing In conse- 
 quenct of which the same persons are autho- 
 rized to go forth, teach, preach, and bapti- 
 ze. But I hope, my pious opposer will 
 permit me to ask, whether were the keys 
 given into the hands of the believing laity, 
 or into the hands of the apostles, in Mat. xvi. 
 3 9 ? whether into the h&ids of Peter, or in- 
 to the hands of Mary Magdalene, or -Mary, 
 the mother of James ?■ whither into the hand 
 ^cf Peter, as representing belie vers, or as re- 
 * presenting church guides ? the latter of these, 
 I know, you will deny, the former, proba- 
 bly, would be your choice, were it not that 
 both equally imply representation, and this is 
 an idea you detest, as unscriptural ; therefore 
 it may be that you will deny both, rather 
 than admit. a thing so improper, and choose 
 rather to fall in with a sister (I should here- 
 said mother) church, who asserts that Peter 
 received the keys as prince of apostles, or if 
 you please, as bishop of bishops But I hope 
 better things of you, though I thus speak, 
 anci, therefore, would venture to anticipate, 
 that your answer will be, that Peter received 
 them as the representative of believers. Well, 
 if in this respect he received them, are not 
 believing womer authorized ambassadors of 
 
S3 
 
 I 
 
 Christ ? Secondly — are not the infants of be- 
 lieving parents, born key- bearers ? that is they 
 are born bishops. Thirdly — if believing a- 
 Ione entitled 10 the excercise of the keys, 
 then in case a believer tall under scandal, 
 does he men lose the excercise of the keys ? 
 if he dees, is not the saints perseverance de- 
 nied ? which sentiment, I know is dear to 
 you. If he does not y while he appears be« 
 afore his offended brethern, as a delinquent, 
 does he not occupy the strange stand of a cri- 
 minal, a judge, and a jury at the same time ? 
 But to whomsoever it was that the keys were 
 delivered, was it not said to the same person 
 ' Go forth, teach, preach, and baptize ? I 
 ask then, why but believing women preach* 
 lis well as excommunicate? why but they or- 
 dain, as well as depose ? why but they bap- 
 tize, as well as dissolve from scandal ? I see, 
 1 am anticipated in my last question, by your 
 asserting in page 69, that "Everv member 
 has the king's command to a't in consert with 
 his brethern about the affairs of his house. 
 Seeing then that baptism has ever been the 
 avenue through which members have beea 
 received into the church, I ask then, is it 
 possible that you approve of women baptiz- 
 ing ? and yet why but they should ? seeing 
 every individual r,as to be accountable for 
 their personal discharge of the highest act' of 
 church power, and so is in full possession of 
 the power of die keys, and, therefore, has 
 
34 
 
 the king's warrant, and command, to %c 
 forth, teach, preach, and baptize. Oh! 
 my dear Sir ! will you never be convinced oi 
 the evil of prostituting the keys of the king, 
 dom of heaven ? these sacred utensils whicli 
 none may use, but at their peril, except sue!: 
 as are of the geniune apostolic succession , 
 Only try to^ answer the apostle's question in 
 1 Cor. xii., in a consistancy with your own 
 Tague use of the keys, he asks " \re all pro- 
 phets ? are al* teachers ? your answer accord- 
 ing to your hypothesis must be in the affirm^ 
 tive, while in my opinion these questions 
 imply the strongest negation. And in the 
 28th verse, he avers, that God hath set some 
 in the church, first apostles, next prophets, 
 next teachers, which surely implies that he 
 has not set all He likewise states a co/npa*! 
 rlson between the church and a natural body, 
 and to shew there should be no schism in the 
 same, shews the necessity of every part. 
 But does not your hypothesis represent the 
 whole body as being eye ? The scripture 
 every where speak of pastors under the idea 
 of shepherds. But does not your system 
 give every believer, man, woman, and child, 
 the shepherds crook and staff. And yet alas ! 
 your clildish phamtom leaves all such she- 
 pherds without a flock, for if every man be 
 shephtrd there are none to constitute a flock. 
 But, in oposition to this whole mass of anar- 
 chy, the scripture, as clearly as a sua b«un, 
 
35 
 
 Wares that qualified church officers receive 
 e keys immediately from the hand of Christ, 
 id these are successively transmitted dy or- 
 na'ion, though they are to exercise in all 
 .e different departments of their office, with* 
 it regard to the claims of usurpers, whe- 
 ler above them or below them, and that to 
 lem pertains the exclusive right to preach, 
 'id baptize is such a settled scripture axiom, 
 hich for me to attempt to prove would be 
 > offer an insult to your reason. Secondly, 
 {) them peatains the right to hear and receive 
 harges against offenders. Thus the house 
 'f Chloe prefer a charge against the Corin- 
 lians to Paul, 1 Cor. f. And the Presby- 
 |ry of Antioch heard the libel against sedu- 
 'ers v Acts x/.. And the synod ol Jerusalem 
 ear and determine the same, after it had 
 jailed both the Presbyteries ot Jerusalem and 
 Wioch. \nd it is the Presbytery of t phesus 
 ;hat try and condemn imposters, Rev. ii. and 
 ! is them (not the peasantry) jjiat Paul en- 
 loins 10 reprove, rebuke, and exort with all 
 .uthority Fourthly, I would fondly flayer 
 nyself that you would not risk your^our 
 iv denying them the exclusive ris^ of 0l ; di ~ 
 larion and that in a Presbv^al. capacity, 
 feu know it was a Presby-'7 tha , ord W<?1 
 iV: a; thias Acts i and it >*s a. Presbytery that 
 Irdained the deacons Acts yi And it was a 
 -resbvtery that or<^ d Barnabas and Saul, 
 :\cts xiii, & k w& a Presbytery that ordameti 
 
m 
 
 Timothy, 1 Tim.iv 14 and it was the Pre- 
 bytery of Jerusalem that ordained theimpos 
 tors that was tried by the Presbytery of Ai 
 tioch, Acts xv. Fifthly, I only add, that e: 
 communication is likewise their province, an 
 th; irs exclusively You know it was Pai 
 that excommunicated Hymenius and Ale? 
 ander, 1 Tim.i 20. and it was him (not th 
 laity) that authoritatively prejudged the ince: 
 tuous person, l Cor. v. so as that fee Corir 
 thian Presbytery had nothing to do, whc 
 constituted in the name of the Lord Jesu 
 Christ, but with Paul's spirit to execute th 
 judgment Now, seeing you assert that ever 
 church member has the king's command at* 
 commission to attend to the affairs of hi 
 house, and that every individual has to be aq 
 countable for the personal discharge of it. 
 take it for granted that women and childrei 
 are church members ; I call upon you nov 
 to shew me in all the word of God where am 
 such are authorized officially to admonish 
 reprove, rebuke, exort, to try offenders ju 
 4icatively, excommunicate, dissolve from 
 scaM ? I, ordain, preach, baptize, administei 
 the LoH' s Supper I ask where are we com 
 rnanded tov aow such to be oyer ^ fa tfaj 
 Lord, and -jo H™ women that have the . 
 over us, and to st^; t ourseIv , s ro them fc| 
 they watch for our s^ Is f Qn the QQ 
 instead of exercising^ k m the ab > 
 particulars, are they not Wssly commands 
 
37 
 
 jl In 1 Cor. xiv. 34. to be silent m the 
 urch, for it is not permitted unto them so 
 uch as to speak ? Before I conclude might 
 aot take up a lamentation for the depravity 
 ' our nature, and say alas ! how are we 
 lien ! Man, who at first was not only qua- 
 ied for having rule over all his Maker's 
 arks here below, but had the rule given him 
 •en over die women, though in some res- 
 ets she was his equal, is now obliged to 
 >come her inferior, in case he be a church 
 leer, for in that case ht is subj< ct tc each 
 iiernber of the church, and of course to each 
 Ionian. Alas ! what a si ock has our nar 
 Wined, when such a shining light as hewho 
 ras onct the Rev. Alexander Carson, should 
 W> be so far infatuated as to glory in that 
 \ his privilege, which the Lord threatened 
 o inflict on sinning Israel as a scourge, name- 
 k that womenandchildren should rule them, 
 'aiah, iii. 
 
 S I shall however, desist from asking any 
 hore quesfons, least you should think that 
 , like F am* was as much disposer* to expose 
 Iii father's nakedness as to receive instruc- 
 [ens I forbear asking what exertions you 
 ised to reclaim your supposed offending bre- 
 4iern of sv nod before you left them ; I take it 
 tor granted that you used every means in your 
 power, by private admonition, reasoning, and 
 Writing, and when this failed, libelled them 
 
38 
 
 to their respective Presbyteries, and whezj 
 this proved abortive that you delated them to 
 synod, a number of whom you still suppose 
 more faithiul. All this course of process 3 
 hope you have gone through committing 
 them and these means so used to God, by 
 fervent prayer, before you libelled them to 
 the world, for such errors in sentiment and 
 scandalous practice as I forbear t© mention, 
 admitting they were even true. But might 
 it not have been as prudent in you> before a 
 deiestical «ge like Shem to have thrown the 
 lap of your garment over them, as to have 
 acted the part of Ham to expose your father's 
 nakedness ; and the more especially, least 
 any one should be tempted to think that it 
 was as much in the way of apology for your 
 own elopement, as zeal for pure communion. 
 You know what was the conduct of our 
 Lord, who doubtless m the days ol -his hu- 
 miiarion found as much defection in the Jew 
 ish church as you found in the Presbyterian ; 
 yet he did not make a faction, erect a new 
 sect ana t/ien libel his former connections. 
 No he used every exertion Divine Wisdom 
 thought proper to stem the unhallowed tor- 
 rent, and at the same time enjoined the strict- 
 est adherence to the Mosaic dispensation.* 
 
 * I do not disaprove of christian endeavours to ob- 
 tain pare communion ; but if a man thinks that impuri- 
 ty ha»got into a church, he should use the means pre | 
 
39 
 
 But I forbear to add any thing more leas* 
 ycur feelings should be touched, and you., 
 like Pharaoh's butler, constrained to say I 
 do remember my faults this day. 
 
 My dear Sir, your distinguished character 
 convinces me that while you glance over my 
 unpolished lines, you will act the christian ra- 
 ther than the critic ; I hope it will appear t<5? 
 you that my sincere desire is to find out truth j 
 and whatever defects appear in my rustic 
 researches, that you will cover them with 
 the veil of christian apology ; but if in any 
 instance I have used imprudent keeness, t 
 hope yeu will impute it to unskillfulness m 
 
 scribed by God to restore purity, not apostize, ani 
 thereby endeavour to subvert the foundations of ths 
 church's government, because lie may see something 
 defective in her discipline. He would be a froward so* 
 that would attempt to persuade all the children of a 
 family, that the whole provisions of the family were 
 poisonous, because he perceived that the children were 
 not as warmly or as richly cJuathed as they ought to be. 
 And so to tempt the children to forsake the family on 
 this ground. But does not Mr. Carson act the same 
 part, where he cries out the discipliine of the synod ot" 
 Ulster is impure, therefore let us reject her church go- 
 vernment. Is not this to act like the adversaries of Ju- 
 dah, mentioned Ezra iv. 2. who said " Let us buili 
 with you." But when the Jews would not comply witk 
 their terms, they did all that was in their power to stop 
 the building of the temple, and overturn the buildinr 
 to its fauaiAtiofl* 
 
40 
 
 controvercy, together with my former strict 
 adherence to Presbytery, which I have often 
 thought was invincible, and you were the 
 Very first I ever saw attempting to overthrow 
 it. Yet if, after all you should still object 
 that I have used sharpness of words, I have 
 no better apology than what the sons of Jacob 
 gave their father for their outrage ag?instthe 
 son of Hamor, for conduct that probably was 
 not altogether unlike your's Say they " why 
 should he deal with our sister as with one that 
 is an harlot." I only add, that whatever 
 in per lections you may notice in the above 
 lines, you may in. putt them 10 myself alone, 
 as I can solemnly assure you I never consult- 
 ed mortal upon earth on the subject, not so 
 jniich as my own p; stor, nor did he know 
 when I wrote ; my bible alone was my chief 
 directory, for yourstif can witness forme, 
 that I have not in one instance enforced my 
 sentiments with any human authority. But 
 I remain your's, with all due respects, 
 
 Asdbew Stevenson, 
 
LETTER II 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 With the greatest degree of self-dim* deiic^ 
 I address you, the second time, and the more 
 especially because unhappily we differ in judg- 
 ment. It is a blessing, however, that it is 
 hopeful that we differ only in extra essentials. 
 This, however, I would think the less of, if 
 you had never been farther advanced in the 
 knowledge of the truth, but apostacy, even 
 in things comparatively little, is not a very 
 hopeful case. Yet, I candidly acknowledge, 
 your splendid abilities shine so conspicuous!)? 
 in defence of your new system, that I have 
 often lamented that they were not devoted 
 to the defence of the truth ; nor did 1 think 
 that your principles could have admitted of 
 such a defence; nor that the highest degree of 
 sophism could have produced such apparent-, 
 ly strong arguments against Presbytery ; all 
 which is very forbidding to such a. one as T, 
 to oppose any thing that you defend, or de- 
 fend any thing that yc i oppose, and might 
 be a ready way whereby truth might be 
 wounded in the house of her friends, There- 
 
42 
 
 fere whatever may appear in the sequel is not 
 so much as a pretended defence of any sys- 
 tem, or yet a refutation of any, but just a few 
 undigested thoughts on your objections against 
 the office of the ruling elder. That thereby 
 you may have an opportunity of speaking a 
 litrle more expressly, and likewise rectifying 
 my mistakes upon the subject. 
 
 T ^ my last I glanced a little at Presbytery 
 in general, faintly dropping some probatory 
 hints. I also made some slight observations 
 upon the system oi independency, with some 
 remarks expressive of disaprobation. In all " 
 which you will see little, but chaos instead of 
 order ; confused thoughts instead of close 
 reasoning. 
 
 1 know it ought to have been the scholar, 
 the philosopher,- the logician, that should 
 have addressed you ; instead of which, it is 
 the unlearned the rustic, and the peasant 
 Yet, though it is thus, God sometimes choos- 
 es the foolish things of the world to confound 
 the wise and prudent. And reveals him- 
 self to babes, while he hides himself from 
 the wise and prudent Therefore, if any 
 thing in the sequel should appear to be ge- 
 nuine, I hope you \vili not despise it, on ac- 
 count of my childish lispings 
 
 In chapter fourth, you examine, try, and 
 condemn Presbytery in general. In chapter 
 fifth, you examine, try, and condemn the 
 ruling elders office, in particular, or, as you 
 
43 
 
 call it the lay elders office, which, in my 
 opinion, is a term peculiar to yourself, and, 
 I think, unknown both in scripture and church 
 history — and is, I presume, as contradictory 
 to common sense as to talk of a square circle, 
 a blind guide, or a white black. Paul in 1 
 Tim v. 1 7. calls them ruling elders- and the 
 ancient Purpurius, in a letter to Salvanus, 
 dat<ed l')3. calls them ecclesiastical men. But 
 were 1 possessed of but half your natural 
 and acquired talents, i presume, I could 
 evince that the ruling elders office is not on- 
 ly ordinary & perpetual, but that it is distinct 
 from the office or both pastor and deacon/ 
 But more of this afterwards ; my present 
 design is for a moment to trace your object* 
 tions against this office, with some remarks 
 expressive of attachment to it. 
 
 Your first objection, page 41, is " Presby- 
 terians themselves are no: agreed, either as 
 to the foundation, extent, or prerogatives of 
 this office, a circumstance that will go far in 
 the judgment of every unprejudiced enquirer 
 to prove that the office is not scriptural."— 
 Here I call upon you to inform me where 
 any of our standards or any treatise wrote 
 on church government, that ever got the 
 approbation of a general assembly since the 
 year 163S, differed on the subject ? But 
 least you should be at a loss for proper docu- 
 ments for ttiat end, I hope you will not de-lav 
 s 3 
 
44 
 
 Writing till then, least it should be tedious 
 before you obtain them. Pray, Sir, might 
 It not have been prudent in you to have pro- 
 duced your proof for this assertion when you 
 made it, and not have exposed yourself to a 
 suspicion of incapacity But, though ycu even 
 now could prove our disagreement on the 
 subject, might I not call in question the pro- 
 priety of your inference, namely, that " it is 
 a circumstance that will go far in the judg- 
 ment of every unprejudiced enquirer to prove 
 that the office is not scriptural" My dear 
 Sir. you know that it is a mournful truth that 
 all professing christians are not agreed about, 
 the foundation, extent, or prerogatives of 
 ©ur Lord s mediatory office. But should you 
 infer from thence that this is a circumstance 
 that will go far in the judgment of every un- 
 prejudiced enquirer to prove that he is not 
 possessed of such an office ; if you should, 
 could you blame me if I should be so plain 
 as to teli you that this, to call it no worse, 
 would be coarse logic. You next assert, that 
 " a lay elder (as you say) is composed of a 
 new testament deacon, the half of a new tes- 
 tament pastor, as he is a church ruler, and a 
 part of the office of an apostle as a legislator 
 to make laws for the church." — I h re con- 
 fess, that, till now, I did not know that even 
 apostles themselves were possessed of legis- 
 lative authority in Zion ; I really thought that 
 Ike Lord Christ was exclusively vested wi& 
 
45 
 
 this authority, as the Father ever speaks o£ 
 setting one king upon his holy hill ; but till 
 now never heard that he had set twelve, viz. 
 all the apostles. I likewise thought, that 
 even apostles themselves only occupied the 
 humble stand of heralds about the King's 
 court, ready to receive the law from the 
 Prince's mouth, and declare it to his subjects, 
 but had no thought that they were possessed 
 oi legislature. And even yet, (strange to 
 tell it) I am somehow so incredulous, that 
 notwithstanding all your shining abilities, 
 together with my high opinion of your per- 
 sonal piety, I can scarcely believe that the 
 apostles were possessed of legislature 5 and 
 my reason is, th-y themselves so absolutely 
 disclaim it. Paul says they were the com- 
 mandments of the Lord that he writes, not 
 his own legislations, and denies that he has 
 dominion over our faith. And Peter strong- 
 ly prohibits any from being lords over God's 
 heritage. And John declares it was what the 
 spirit said io the churches that he wrute. Jtfo 
 claim here to legislature. 
 
 My dear Sir, from principles of pure 
 friendshp I tell you, that I think 1 might here 
 pause a little, and wonder at the depths of 
 God's ways with men You thought to 
 blacken this office belore the eyes of the un- 
 wary by imputing to such officers the usur- 
 pation of apostolic legislature, which thftig 
 
46 
 
 m itself you may now see has no existence. 
 And could you now prove the charge against 
 apostles, I think your evidence would bring 
 them in guilty of rebellion against the son of 
 God But seeing they plead not guilty, and 
 bring such strong exculpatory evidence, and 
 you at the same time sustaining the charge, 
 I shudder while I anticipate the decision, when 
 the day shall declare it ; but I hope you will in 
 time stop process & withdraw the action ; if ' 
 not my soul shall weep in secret for your fol- 
 ly. But you say that vC a lay elder is com- 
 posed of a new testament deacon, and the 
 half of a new testament elder or pa tor as * 
 he is a church ruler." Here, with humble 
 diffidence, I would suggest that God, the 
 fountain of all power, hath included all infe- 
 rior power and office of the same kind in the | 
 superior. Thus a general (if need be) may 
 in the day of battle, lawfully act as a subal- 
 tern. A peer of the realm may act as an inte- 
 rior magistrate, when necessary, but none 
 may lawfully reverse this order. Thus we 
 find the apostles exercising themselves in all 
 the inferior ecclesiastical offices, even down 
 to a deacon But if any would reverse this 
 order it would be at their peril. Of conse- 
 qutnee the elders and deacons office is in- 
 cluded in the pastors, yet neither of those 
 may usurp the office of the pastor. Thus 
 the deacon's office is included in the ruling 
 elder's, and yet the deacon has no rule in the 
 
47 
 
 church, nor is the ruling elders office found- 
 ed upon his. You say in page 45, tha._ " no 
 man may combine any two dF these offices 
 more than make a new order over the rest." 
 But if the church's head has combined them, 
 in the manner above discribed, dare you 
 call in question the combination ? If you 
 would might I not ask you, like Paul in ano- 
 ther case, " Nay but, O man, who artthofc 
 that rtpliest against God ? 
 
 In page 41, you say 6t As to the scriptu- 
 ral authority of lay elders, some refer us to 
 the office of the deacon the name is not scrip- 
 tural, say they, yet the office is." It is a 
 pity, Sir, that it was net convenient for you 
 to specify who these some are, that refer us 
 to the deacons office for the scripture autho- 
 rity of the ruling elder. But, I here appeal 
 to yourself if this is not your mode to insinu. 
 ate what answers a turn without producing 
 proof. 1 think this is done, not less than three 
 times, m this and the following page. But 
 seeing you do not say possitively who these 
 some are, that speak thus, permit me to tell 
 you that they are not Presbyterians, because 
 your assertion is neither consistant with Pres* 
 bytery nor common sense What c©rps of 
 military officers is it, wh-, while acting law- 
 fully, being charged with intrusion and im- 
 posture, instead of py educing their con / 
 sion from their superiors, would refer their. 
 
48 
 
 accuser to the office of their hospital inspec- 
 tor, or treasurer, as their authority for act- 
 ing judicatively in a court martial, and say, 
 although the name treasurer is not strictly 
 military, yet the office is, when exercised in 
 favour of invalids ; and yet who dare deny 
 but any of theabove company of officers might 
 lawfully inspect into their military hospital, & 
 relieve their distressed, dismembered inva- 
 lids ; all which shews that all inferior office 
 of the some kind is included in the superior, 
 and yet the superior is not founded on this. 
 You next subjoin that " if he be the same as 
 the deacon, let him do the office of the dea- 
 con only." You might as well say, if the 
 apostles were deacons, which you are sure 
 they were, why but they did the office of a 
 deacon only ? Or if it be your duty to be 
 mindful of the poor, as you are sure it is, 
 why but you do the offi-e of the deacon only ? 
 You again ask c if he be the deacon why has 
 he been called elder ? Pray, Sir, who called 
 him the deacon ? it was not any of our stand- 
 ards nor acts of assembly ; and, therefore, 
 if ever you heard any one speak so probibly 
 it has been one that has made an elopement 
 from Presbyter v, and now thinking to apo- 
 logize for his apostacy, mist epresents things 
 thus, and occupies the seat of the scorner. 
 You next ask " has not the father the best 
 right fn name the child ? I answer yes; and 
 so he has in 1 Tim. v. 17. There he express. 
 
49 
 
 Iy calls them elders, You say in page 42, 
 that '- it is not a very modest supposition, for 
 men to think that they could give a more 
 proper and decent name to this office, than 
 the spirit of God has done." Indeed, Sir, I 
 perfectly agree with you. But pray who is 
 it that is guilty ? The spirit says in 1 \ im. 
 v. 17. that they are elders ; and not only so, 
 but elders that rule, and we agree, and call 
 them ruling elders ; while you. spurning at 
 the spirit's diction, in contempt give them a 
 more decent name, as you think, that is lay 
 elders. 
 
 In page 42. you say cc there are others who 
 pretend to find both name and c flice in the 
 new testament, and produce as their autho- 
 rity 1 Tim. v. 17. 'let the elders that rule 
 well be counted worthy of double honour, 
 especially they that labour in word and doc- 
 trine ' Here syy they is an evident distinc- 
 tion between teaching and ruling elders, 
 there must be some to rule and others to 
 teach " Indeed, Sir, 1 think there is a good 
 dea] of art in your mode of speaking, you 
 say there are otliers who pretend to find both 
 name and office in the new testament, but do 
 not pretend to tell who these others are ; and 
 I think this is wisdom, as th^re is no such 
 game as lay elder in all the new testament, 
 The penmen spoke as they were inspired, 
 filing them ruling elders, and xadependeflt 
 
50 
 
 dockers were not by one thousand and six 
 hundred years, so early. Indeed, Sir, I think 
 there would have been as mucn truth in your 
 remarks, justice done to your opponents, and 
 honour to yourself, if you had never intro- 
 duced the fables of your nameless authors j 
 but just commenced your attack, by asserting 
 that all Presbyterians, except the ignorant 
 and prejudiced, were agreed that both name 
 and office of the ruling elder can be proven 
 from many places of the new testament. It ' 
 might be proven, even from this text, that 
 you have chosen as the seat of the war, " Let 
 the elders that rule well be counted worthy 
 of double honour, especially they that labour 
 in word and doctrine." New that a dis- 
 tinction of orders is apparent from these 
 words, 1 presume the few following remarks 
 might evince : — First, The officers here men- r 
 tioned are by divine authority styled elders j 
 2dly, Vested with rule in the church ; 3dly, 
 Approven of by God in their rule ; 4thly, A 
 reward promised to them for their work ; 
 and finally, distinguished trom such as labour 
 in word and doctrine. The term elder I 
 see, has many exceptions in the new testa- 
 ment ; First It stands for men of ancient 
 times, §i so is opposed to modern , Matt. xv. 
 2. 2dly, it is expressive of men advanced 
 in years, although living, and so is opposed 
 to younger, l Tim v. 1 And 3dly, It stands 
 ftr elders in function or office, and so is 
 
31 
 
 opposed to private men not in office, Acts 
 xiv. 23. And in this sense, I presume, it is 
 taken in this place. The name elder, when 
 applied to church officers, seems to have 
 rule ard authority written on it, for it is of- 
 ten applied to civil rulers, as in Ruth iv. 2. 
 And you should know that it is a genera? 
 term, agreeing both to (hem that rule in the 
 lowest circles, and to them that rule in a 
 higher. The one only rules in the lowest 
 department of rule, while the other besides 
 this rules in a higher, here termed labouring 
 in word and doctrine, but both are elders. 
 2dly, They are not only styled elders, but 
 vested with rule in tHe church This is not 
 only evident from the text, but from the 
 very name elder, which implies authority 
 both in church and state. And yourself al- 
 low in page 49, that " in the Greek it signi- 
 fies a military officer ." To this translation 
 I have no objection, for you know such noE 
 only disciple their men go before, and lead 
 on, but authoritatively command all that fol- 
 low, Surely, then, according to your own 
 definition of the name elder, it applies well, 
 not only to. such as go before others by doc- 
 trine and example, bu :also to such as govern 
 and rule others by lawful authority. And 
 in the last sense, i presume the word rule is 
 taken in 1 Tim. iii. 4, one that ruleth his own 
 ho_use ? &c. It is erident then Uut the rule 
 
52 
 
 which elders are vested with is ecclesiastic!, 
 not domestic, as in the text last alluded to. 
 £o then we have in the te*a not enly the 
 office, as to the thing but the very n^ne 
 — let the elders that rule well, &c. 3d1y, 
 Does it not appear, as with a sunbeam, that 
 these elders are approven of by God in their 
 rule ? If so dees not this amount to a divine 
 Institution ? New-seeing Cod commendstheir 
 ruling well, did no power in the church be* 
 long to them, for the matter, God would 
 never commend nor approve of them for 
 the manner. Surely, he cannot be counted 
 with God to do any thing well, that has no 
 right to do it at all. But again, it appears 
 that God not only commends their ruling 
 well, but commands it to be honourably re- 
 warded, and that with double honour. Now 
 where God appoints rewards^ surely he ap- 
 proves of that which he rewards ; and that 
 which he approves of surely has divine au- 
 thority. Finally, these elders vested with 
 rule in the church, and divinely approven of 
 by God in their rule, are distinct from such 
 as labour in word and doctrine I think this 
 is evident from the text ; for there is a gene- 
 ral term, to wit, elder under which the se- 
 veral kinds of officers mentioned in the text 
 are ccn prehended. Again, there are two 
 distinct kinds of elders, they that rule, and 
 they ih labour. Moreover, there are two 
 remarkable words in the text 5 to wit, ruling* 
 
53 
 
 and labouring. The one only rules in infe- 
 rior matters, that is all his work •, while the 
 other, over and besides, rules in a higher 
 circle, here expressed by labouring in word 
 and doctrine ; yet both are elders, just as all 
 men in military life are soldiers, yet it is the 
 lowest order that is emphatically termed so. 
 Soldiers of an higher order are distinguished 
 by a superadded distinctive title, such as cap- 
 tain, colonel, general, &c, yet all are sol- 
 diers. Again, there are two distinct articles 
 annexed to the words ruling and labouring, 
 to wit, they that rule, and they that labour* 
 Moreover, I think, that the word especially 
 is emphatically set in the text to distinguish 
 these two orders of elders. You know the 
 words are especially they that labour, &c. 
 Indeed, I presume, that wherever the word 
 especially is found in the new testament it is 
 tised to distinguish persons from persons, and 
 things from things. Thus in 1 Tim. v. 8* 
 If any man provide not for his own, and es- 
 pecially for those of his own house, &c- 
 Gal. vi. 10. Let us do good to all men, es- 
 pecially unto them that are of the household 
 of faith. Therefore if the word especially 
 is not used to distinguish persons from per- 
 sons, and things from things, I know noc. 
 how you will explain this and many other, 
 places of scripture. Now, from these few 
 pimple remarks, I presume, it is indisputa* 
 j 2 
 
54 
 
 hly clear from the text, even without any 
 explanation, that the officers here mentioned 
 are by the Holy Ghost Iststyled elders, 2dly, 
 vested with rule, 3dly, approven of by God 
 in their rule, 4thly, promised a reward for 
 their work, and finally, distinguished from 
 such as labour in word and doctrine. Now, 
 if this is so why do you account them pre- 
 tenders, that can so plainly shew both name 
 and office of the ruling elder in the new tes- 
 tament ? Or why do you deny a distinction 
 between the ruling and preaching elder ? To 
 this you reply in page 42, ct Allowing the 
 Presbyterian explanariDn of the text in its 
 utmost latitude, what does this make, suppos- 
 ing that there should be a body of lay elders 
 to join with the preaching elders in ruling a 
 church, this gives no countenance to a church 
 session as a body of legislators to make laws, 
 rules, and regulations for the congregation, 
 their being church rulers does not constitute 
 them church legislators." My dear Sir, this 
 charge of ruling elders being legislators, is a 
 charge that pervades almost every page. 
 Yet, notwithstanding your keen resentment 
 against the office, you have so much caution 
 and care of your own honour as not so much 
 as attempt once to prove it, or produce one 
 instance to shew wherein they are guilty. I 
 now ask who constituted them legislators ? 
 I assert that it was neither our church nor 
 church's head. My probation is indisputable.. 
 
53 
 
 I appeal to the scriptures, or their duplicate,* 
 our form of church government, extant near- 
 ly these 200 years, and still annexed to our 
 confession of faith. In the compiling of 
 which our reformers, according to the divine 
 bidding Ez. xliii 11 have shewed us the 
 form of the house, and the fashion thereof, 
 and the goings out thereof, and the comings 
 in thereof, and-all the laws thereof, and they 
 wrote it in a book, that we might keep the 
 whole form thereof, and all the ordinances 
 thereof. And although I have been at many 
 such courts, where the laws of the house re- 
 cognize their power, yet I never saw such 
 usurpation as you charge them with, no not 
 in one instance. Their care was to learn the 
 laws of the house, and put them into exe- 
 cution. But if you can prove the charge 
 against them, I shall freely acknowledge it 
 was apostacy from, and rebellion against the 
 laws of the house. But, as you do not so> 
 much as pretend to prove any of your charg- 
 es, I shall pass it over, only reminding you 
 that such conduct as this is in Jer. xviii. term- 
 ed a smiting with the tongue. 
 
 In page 43, you " allow from the text aix 
 order of ruling elders distinct from preach* 
 ing elders/ 3 but say " this gives no counte- 
 nance to a body of men called lay elders. 
 Such ruling elders would be as really pastors, 
 
56 
 
 bishops, minister, as the preaching elder.** 
 My kind Friend, I congratulate you on your 
 confession ; and I acknowledge obligations 
 for granting from the text an order of ruling 
 elders distinct from preaching elders ; ,and 
 am i till more happy that it is in my power, 
 not only to return you the compliment, but 
 even I can pay you in kind ; and therefore' 
 freely grant you the full force of your asser- 
 tion ; namely, that this gives no countenance 
 to a body of men called lay elders. Why 
 should it ? seeing scripture and church his- 
 tory are silent about such an order in the 
 church. Indeed, I grant, that the scripture 
 just about one hundred times applies the 
 serm elder to civil magistrates. Now, see- 
 ing these are in scripture termed elden, if 
 you please they may be called lay elder?, for 
 God has not set magistrates as such in the 
 ehurch, but in the state. But seeing you 
 assert that such ruling elders, although dis- 
 tinct from preaching elders, yet are as really 
 pastors, bishops, ministers as the pi caching 
 elder. I acknowledge that rhis to me is a 
 paradox ; nor do I see how you will ill us- 
 trate it ; except by producing the canons of 
 a certain church, whose exotic head rules 
 over all and yet preaches none; under 
 •whom such names of blasphemy as these are 
 frequent,; snch as pastor of pastors, bishop 
 of bishops ; for you know such as wear 
 i>es<2 titles preach none, bu: ar£ distinct: 
 
 / 
 
• 57 
 
 from such as do ; and yet say they are 4 as 
 really pastors, bishops, &c. 11 not more so, 
 than the preaching elder, Alas ! my dear 
 Friend, I iear your hypothesis is built beside 
 the foundation ; you take it for granted, 
 through your whole nooning., tiiat the dif- 
 ferent orders men.ioned in the t^xt are Jl 
 pastors, together with a denial of iUe oiLce 
 of the meer ruling eluer altogether, although 
 
 t so evident irom the text* But had the apos- 
 tle intended by these two different words rul- 
 ing and labouring, to st u- different pans 
 of the bishops office, and not differ* nt orders, 
 
 ■■ then doubtless he would have saia, i et the 
 ciders that rule tyett be count ea Worthy of 
 doable honour, especially because they la* 
 bour in the word, for then he would have 
 
 v pointed at the different parts of the bishop's 
 office; instead of which, he saith especially 
 they that labour, &c. which clearly carries 
 the sense to the distinction oi eiders them* 
 selves. 
 
 But again, if pastors only are meant under 
 that phrase, rute/well, I trunk I could prove, 
 were it tiisputed. that the whole of the pas- 
 tor's office is include^ under'it -, whereas la- 
 bt Ailing in word and doctrine is buf one 
 par<, anu so the text would read. Let the 
 elders that rule well be counted worthy of 
 double hoi our, especially they who are faith- 
 ful in one part only. How shockingly absurd 
 
58 
 
 wc3uld this interpretation be ! Although yo& 
 allow from the text, an order of ruling el- 
 ders, distinct from preaching elders, yet 
 you say this gires no countenance to a body 
 of men called lay elders, that is, men not 
 vested with the pastoral office, I assure you, 
 Sir, I am sorry for your sake, that you will 
 not give your countenance to qualified ruling 
 elders, altnough not vested with the pastoral 
 ©ffice, seeing both scripture and antiquity 
 give theirs. In Acts xxi. elders sit in Pres- 
 bytery with James and Paul. And in Acts 
 xv. elders skin synod, as possessed of equal 
 power with aposiles in determining disputes. 
 And it is is indisputable that the ancients 
 looked on them as divinely authorized to ex- 
 ercise jurisdictions. Ignatius, the most anci- 
 ent cf all the fathers, who was not only co- 
 temporary with the apostles, but even ac- 
 quainted with our Lord in the flesh, and was 
 twelve years old at his crucifixion, it is said 
 that our Lord had a peculiar fondness for 
 him, when but a child. It was him that he 
 took up in his arms and blessed, and set in 
 the midst of the apostles, and said, of such 
 is the kingdom of heaven. And in one of 
 his own epistles, he saith lhat he was in his 
 company after his passion — See Clark's lives 
 of the father. Hear then what this holy man 
 of God saith, when speaking of the power 
 of elders in church courts, " and elders are 
 as the court of Cod, and the combination 
 
59 
 
 of the apostles of Christ ; and a little after 
 -he calls them the holy assembly, the coun- 
 sellors, and assessors of the bishops. 
 
 Now, from the testimony of this ancient 
 pastor, three things are evident : 1st, The 
 antiquity of ruling elders; 2dly, That they 
 were distinct from bishops ; for, saith he, 
 they were their counsellors ; 3dly,That they 
 were equal in jurisdiction ; for, says he, 
 they are as the court of Gad, and combina- 
 of the apostles of Christ. But that ruling 
 and preaching elders are different orders, is 
 further evident by a letter written by Purpu- 
 rius, dated 105, He directs it thus :* — 'To 
 the clergy and elders V The ever memora- 
 ble Cyprian, who flourished in courage for 
 Christ in the most cruel times of persecution, 
 in ' the year 240 x writes thus : — \ That he 
 had admitted Aurelus and Celerinus to the 
 Presbytery of his church ; and that they were 
 not admitted to preach, but only to read the 
 word publicly ; yet were to sit with them in 
 their riper years." And a little after saith, 
 " Know ye, that we have admitted them to 
 the honour of the Presbytery." Here is a 
 testimony of ruling elders distinct from preach- 
 ing elders, and yet admitted to sit in Presby- 
 tery in Cyprian's own time. And in another 
 cpjsrle he writes thus : — " To the Presbyters, 
 deacons, and people touching one Numidi- 
 us, that he should be reckoned as an eldgf' 
 
60 
 
 with the Presbytery of Carthage, and should 
 sit with the clergy to make up the Presbyte- 
 ry ;" and this was Cyprian's own Presbyte- 
 ry, for he was bishop of Carthage. And it 
 was as a ruling elder that Numidius was to 
 be added to the Presbytery, and not as a 
 preacher ; which is plain from what follows t 
 For saith he " And truly when God shall 
 permit, he shall be admitted to a more ample, 
 place of his religion; when through the Lard's 
 protection we shall come in person." Now 
 what more ample place can Cyprian intend 
 for Numidius in his church ? if he had been 
 admitted to be a preaching Presbyter already, 
 which is the highest ordinary office in the 
 church. Surely this implies that he was ta- 
 ken in only as a ruling elder at first, but was 
 designed for greater promotions. I nsight 
 now ask, are you still of the same mind, that 
 all this gives no countenance to a body of 
 men called lay elders ? that is, men not in- 
 vested with the pastoral office, when this fa- 
 mous ancient Carthaginian bishop admitted 
 such to an equal power in bearing the keys 
 of government These sat in Presbytery, 
 and yet were distinct from bishops, pastors, 
 ministers, &c. How strange then that you 
 should assert that neither of these orders 
 ought to interfere in the other's department, 
 while Cyprian sits as a common Presbyter 
 with such ; and yet rule is not the exclusive 
 department or either, but may be exercised 
 
61 
 
 fey both. But why should I expert that thfc 
 testimony of Ignatius Or Cyprian, should 
 produce a change oi mind, when apostolic 
 example has s< little effect ? In Acts 21, 
 elders sit as common Presbyters with James 
 are p 1 1 ; and in Acts 15, the appeal from 
 Araioch is mine equally to apostles and el- 
 ders, veise * ; : and elders mee' on equal 
 fo< tir-g with apostles to determines verse 6. 
 No superio* -y ift point of jurisdiction is either 
 4 supposed* claimed, or exercised. You charge 
 them with arrogantly grasping at the name 
 which God has assigned to pastors, to wit, 
 elder. You say u the teneency of this has 
 been to mislead the English reader, and to 
 make him believe that where he meets the 
 word elder in the new testament, trie Presby- 
 terian elder was intended, &not the pastor." 
 .1 hope, Sir, y »u do not suppose that Igna- 
 tius, Purpurius, and Cyprian, were English 
 readers, or could be mislead by their misuse 
 of the term. Is it possible that these sage 
 fathers, some of whom contemporary with 
 the apostles, could mistake about the apos- 
 tle's meaning in Acts 15 ? where it is said 
 that apostles ane elders came together, to con- 
 sider of this matter. Or when it is said in 
 1 Tim. v. 17. Let the elders that ride well 
 le counted worthy of double honour sun ly 
 they did rot mistake it, when they allowed 
 men of the same order, rhe same power, and 
 rule with themselves* But what is fuU tt 
 
62 
 
 llie purpose, is the testimony of the much 
 famed Ambrose, who lived about 270 years 
 after Christ, he said both the synagouge, and 
 afterwards the church had elders, without 
 whose counsel nothing was done in the 
 church ; which thing, by what negligence if 
 grew out of use i know not, unless perhaps, - 
 through the teachers sloth fulness T or rather 
 haug : tiness, while they alone would be 
 thought somewhat. Now, I presume, that 
 this testimony is so plain and fall, that vou 
 dare not look it in the face, and say " this 
 gives no countenance to a body of men which 
 you call lay elders," that is, men not invested 
 with the pastoral office. Do you think that - 
 these elders were as really pastors, bishops, 
 ministers, as Ambrose was ; yet there was 
 nothing done in the church without their 
 counsel. Now had you lived in their days, 
 doubtless you would have charged rhem with 
 usurpation, as you do our elders, for making 
 laws, rules, and regulations, for the congre- 
 gation. Seeing nothing was done in the 
 church without their counsel ; and probably 
 for the same reason, namely, thac yourself 
 alone might be thought somewhat. 
 
 Agustine, who lived about 240 years after 
 Christ, frequently mentions ruling ciders in 
 his epistles. 1 could mention a number, but 
 shall content myself with one, which he di- 
 lecs thin. :— " To the most honourable bre* 
 
63 
 
 theren, the clergy, the elders, and peqpte 
 of the church of Hippo." Now this was his 
 own church, for he was bishop of Hippo ; 
 and you may observe tnat elder* are here in- 
 terposed between clergy and people, as dis- 
 tinct from both. I might here add the testi- 
 mony of Optatus, of Origin, Tertullian, 
 and others, all testifying, 1st, The antiquity 
 of our ruling elders ; 2dly, Their uninter- 
 rupted succession down to ihe rise of Anti- 
 Christ ; 3dly, The middle stand that they 
 occupied between bishop and people, and 
 yet distinct from both ; 4thly, That they are 
 none of what you call the illegitimate, spu- 
 rious brood of Geneva ; and finally, that 
 they exercised rule and jurisdiction in com- 
 mon with bishops, or if you please, they sat 
 in church courts, equally managing the keys 
 of government in common with them, until 
 they were wrested our. of their hands by the. 
 introducers of Aati-Chr.st. And were it not 
 for digressing, I would remind, you that 
 there is not a word of the laity in all this, a$ 
 in posses-ion of the keys. 
 
 - In your third argument, page 44, you ask, 
 
 it possible that two orders, so different as 
 
 that of ministers & elders, should be called in 
 
 script -lire invariably by the same name ? Is this 
 
 perspicuity of the biUe ?" Indeed, 
 
 you might hLve asked this question, ana 
 
made this insinuation, and not liave been tie- 
 tected, had the scripture been locked up in 
 the Lateran or chained to the pulpit, as in the 
 time of Henry the Vlllth But now when 
 we have the scripture open, and translations 
 fair, this insinuation, that they are called in 
 scripture invariable by the same name, would 
 not pass, even from a pontiff. Pray, Sir f 
 whoever said, or dared tc say, that they are 
 .called in scripture invariably by the same 
 name ? On the contrary, the scripture ever 
 distinguishes them both in name and office. 
 J might only remind you of the text for a 
 full refutation, where the one is styled elders 
 that rule, while the other is termed a labour- 
 er in word and doctrine. You may see ano- 
 ther instance in Rom. xii. 7. where the pas- 
 tor, whose official work is to teach, is enjoin- 
 ed to exert himself in teaching ; while the 
 ruling elder is commanded to rule with dili- 
 gence. But seeing you may have precept 
 upon precept, and a threefold cord is not 
 .easily broken, I might .direct you to 1 Cor. 
 xii. c z&. where ruling elders are described by 
 a name, indicative of rule and jurisdiction, 
 and that only ; there they are expressly 
 termed governments. Whereas, in the same 
 verse ministers are called teachers. And, 
 by the bye, this very text asserts that God 
 has set their, in the church How daring for 
 t?ou or any, to attempt to extirpate them 
 out of it, i\nd now, were it not that 1 fear 
 
65 
 
 it might occasion a blush, I would ask, ars 
 you yet oi the same mind that ministers, and 
 what you call lay elders, are in scripture 
 called invariably by the same ? But, I hope 
 that I may conclude, that your answer will 
 be in the negative. Yet you ask * Is this 
 like the perspicuity of the bible" ? Indeed^ 
 Sir, I think that the bible is very perspicu- 
 ous on this subject. But still, taking it tot* 
 granted that the scripture speaks of these^ 
 two orders indefinitely. You ask " Is this 
 agreeable to the use of any language on any 
 subject ? Is it agreeable to the genuis of the 
 phylosophic language of Greece? where 
 every shade of difference in idea is marked 
 by a difFeient word expressive of it. 611% 
 1 humbly acknowledge that I am unaquainted 
 with the peculiar beauties of any one lan- 
 guage above another ; yet the text induces 
 me to believe, that your character of the 
 Greek is genuine, for in it the different shades 
 expressive of different orders are drawn to 
 the life ; and no wonder, for the limner was 
 not a whit behind the very chiefest apostle* 
 A Hebrew of the Hebrews, born of no- 
 mam city, brought up at the feet of Gama- 
 liel, and learned his finest draits in the third 
 heavens ; and not only so, but when he drew 
 the outlines, filled up the spaces, and shad- 
 ed off the different features of these two dif- 
 ferent orders in the text, the Holy Ghost 
 p 2 
 
66 
 
 held the pencil; Therefore it would be su> 
 nerfluous for me, even once, to repeat the 
 text or shew (which I easily could) that eve- 
 ry dirlerence, both in name and office of 
 these iwo different orders, are marked with 
 a different word expressive of it. 
 
 In page 45, you say, " The English read- 
 er, of the most common understanding, 
 must be convinced that it is impossible for 
 the Greek word presbuteros to denote two, so 
 widely different officers from the use of our 
 own word elder, though this is the exact 
 translation of the Greek word/' Now whe- 
 ther this word preuuteroi is always found in 
 the original, where we have the word elder 
 in the translation ^ I know not ; one thing 
 1 know, that the word elder is not, I think, 
 iess than one hundred and eighty eight times 
 named in the scripture. Now try if you 
 can prove the sentiment that pervades your 
 whole reasoning, namely, that the term elder 
 Is always exclusively applied to pastors in all 
 this vast number, or that they were all pas- 
 tors to whom it is applied. But I fear that 
 you will find this task rather arduous ; as I 
 can prove that the term elder is applied to 
 orders and officers far more different than 
 pastors, and what you call lay cideis. \t is 
 twice applied to ipostles, thirteen times to 
 believers as such ; it is about one hundred 
 *imcs applied to civil magistrates, while it is 
 
but about twenty-one times applied to oral* 
 nary church officers in all the new testament, 
 Now if apostles, believers as such, civil ma- 
 gistrates, ordinary pastors, be not orders 
 more different than ministers and ruling el- 
 ders, I would think it a little strange. Yet 
 you ask 6i Is it possible that when the new- 
 testament writers employ so many words to 
 denote the same office, as bishop, presbyter, 
 shepherd, &c. that they could not afford a 
 distinct name for the office of the lay elder, 
 if it was apostolic/' Might I not retort the 
 question here, and ask why but the Holy 
 Ghost afforded a different name to all these 
 different orders, and not have called them all 
 by the same common name elder ? And 
 your answer to this I- presume will shew /hat 
 both are like enough to the perspicuity of 
 the scripture. But more particularly I an- 
 swer, that the sacred penmen did afford dif- 
 ferent names, such as they that rule, Rom. 
 xii. governments, 1 Cor. xiiV Elders that 
 rule well;, 1 Tim. v. 17. Here my dear 
 Sir I hope you will see distinct names front 
 that of pastors, bishops, ministers. You next 
 ask,. c; What Presbyterian speaks promiscu- 
 ously of ministers and lay elders by the com- 
 mon name elder, or who would understand 
 him if he did ? Yet such undistinguished, 
 unde terminate language they scruple not to 
 put into the mouth of the Holy Ghost, If 
 o 3 
 
6S 
 
 ever they use the word elder to denote the 
 .minister, they are obliged to prefix the word 
 lay to it, when attributed to the Presbyterian 
 elder to prevent obscurity.'* Indeed,, Hr, 
 \ again feel in the most pungent degree, 
 lor your inadvertant, but constant mode of 
 substituting phantoms in place of reality, 
 ungrounded, unproven assertions instead of 
 ; c oiid argument. Pray where did ever our 
 ecclessiastic, authoritative writings prefix tne 
 word lay to the term elder to distinguish the 
 Presbyterian elder from the pastor ? or why 
 should we be necessitated to do so ? seeing 
 these officers have a distinguished namewhieh 
 the mouth or ?he Lord their God has named, 
 even a name like the great men oi the earth, 
 ro wit, rnlhig elders. Or where did e^er 
 ouivchurch put undistinguished, unde'termi- 
 nate language in the mouth of the Holy 
 Ghost. Nay, but the contrary, he has put 
 distinct characteristic language in our mouth, 
 as has been shewn. Where then is the ne- 
 cessity that we should speak promiscuously 
 of ministers and ruling elders, seeing the 
 scripture has been so s^c cifk r IJut I fear that 
 a -blush must be substituted here in place of 
 an answer. 
 
 In your- next argument, page 4.£, you 
 say, c - Granting that the text does constitute 
 two orders of elders, then there will be three 
 orders in eVery churchy and tliePresbyti 
 
69 
 
 want the third, they have-not the descofl^* 
 
 Pray, Sir, what would be the absurdity, ad- 
 mitting there were three orders in every 
 church, seeing the scriptures warrant it. 
 Doubtless before you made youaj elopement 
 
 \ou could have proven there, were four, 
 "But, be that as it will, where does the scrip- 
 ture restrain us to two ? On the contrary, 
 you see that we are able to- evince that it war- 
 rants three,., at least, a»$l then you want the 
 
 vl, to wit, the ruling elder. But I 'doubt 
 it Will be difficult still for you to prove your 
 
 r&on, namely, that Presbyterians want 
 the third. Nor yet do I see how you attempt 
 to do it, either from the divine institution of 
 Presbytery, and her officers in the script ure 3 
 6r yet from their duplicate, our form of 
 church govemwerft. In both which the dif- 
 
 Qt officers which th 2 church's head 
 thought necessary for the perfecting of the 
 body are specified, and the deacon taken in, 
 as essentia! 10 the perfect organization of the 
 same. Yet for the purpose of supporting 
 your charge, perhaps you may reply, and 
 .not whhout some ground, that you r; 
 know some Presbyterian congregations that 
 have not deacons. But I hope you will per- 
 mit rue to ask here, whether you think it is 
 as Presbyterians' or as apostates from Presby- 
 tery that they live in this neglect ; if itshouid 
 ."a to be the latter, then your assertion 
 falls to the ground. For let rue tell you, that 
 
?0 
 
 Presbyterians as such cannot want deacons, 
 except they be disorganized by persecution 
 or otherwise. You know that the people of 
 God may fall into sin-, but it is not as the peo- 
 ple of God that they sin, or are prone to it, 
 but as the decendents of fallen Adam. Thus 
 the apostle, when speaking of the power of 
 indwelling sin, and at the same time person- 
 ifying his renewed part, says, <c It is no. 
 more L that do it, but sin that dwelleth in 
 me." So it is no more Presbyterians that 
 live in this neglect, but apostates from iu 
 But as I see little more in your fourth argu- 
 ment, but just a repetition of what you said 
 in page 41, therefore to avoid tautology I 
 refer you back to my illiterate remarks there- 
 on ; and so pass on to your fifth argument, 
 page 45, in which you proceed on the same 
 hypothesis, namely, that the scriptures speak 
 imdeterminately of ministers and ruling eU 
 ders ; your words are, " If there were two 
 orders of elders, so distinct as that of lay 
 and preaching elders, is it possible that their 
 office and qualifications would be included, 
 in the same description." Indeed, Sir, this 
 insinuation j that their office and qualifica- 
 tions are included in the same description will 
 probably be as difficult ior you to prove as 
 any oi ihe former. I only refer you to the 
 text, which is so characteristic and expres- 
 sive of different orders, that the most iiliie- 
 sate, ot whom I am one, may judge between 
 
71 
 
 us. 1 here the different orders are distin- 
 guished, 1st by their name, 2dly by their 
 work, and 3dly bv their reward. But what 
 would be the absurdity admitting thatl should 
 even grant your insinuation? Probably I 
 could produce a text that would include both 
 the office and essential qualifications of all 
 superiors, whether in church or state, whe- 
 ther supreme or subordinate, to the world's 
 end; and that in the same description. Now, 
 if this can be done, surely there are orders 
 here supposed far more different than minis- 
 ters and ruling elders, The text you will 
 find in 2 S?m. xxiii. 3. ci He that ruleth over 
 men must be just ruling in the fear of God." 
 Surely, Sir, it would be offering an insult to 
 your reasoning, to suppose that you; could 
 suggest, that the king only and exclusively 
 intended here, The words are, " He 
 that ruleth over men," and that is I presume 
 every one vested with rule.. If so, then the 
 king, the peers of the realm, all inferior 
 magistrates, together with ministers and rul- 
 ing ciders, their office and essential qualifica- 
 tions, are all included in the same descrip- 
 tion ; so that, although the thing was impos- 
 sible with you, yet you see it is possible with 
 God, You go on to tell us, that ^ the scrip- 
 ture, in describing the office of the elder 
 and his qualifications, takes no notice of two 
 orders, one as requiring different qualifica- 
 tions from thf other." My very d$jtc 
 
£2 
 
 Friend, when Moses describes the qualifier- 
 tions of a king, Deut. xvii. 15. He says " he 
 must be one whom the Lord thy God will 
 choose^ one from among his brethern, not 
 a stranger, &c.'* Now in this description 
 there is no notice taken of the members of 
 the Sanhedrim, of the elders of Israel, or 
 any inferior magistrate. But dare you deny 
 that they, together with their qualifications, 
 are here included; and yet I acknowledge, 
 that all the qualifications that are requisite in 
 a king may not be requisite in a judge of 
 assize; yet all that is requisite in a judge of 
 assize is positively necessary in a king. Thus* 
 all the qualifications that are necessary in a., 
 bishop may not be requisite in a ruling elder ; 
 yet all that is needful in a ruling elder is ab- 
 solutely necessary in a bishop. You next^ 
 add, " it is not said that the preaching elder 
 must have such and such qualifications, and' 
 do so and so - ? but the elder which must 
 include every distinction of elders " My 
 dear Sir, how absurd would it be to suppose 
 that the same quliricaiions are requsite m 
 every distinction of elders that are mentioned, 
 in scripture. Is it possible that Heathen ma- 
 gistrates, who are often in scripture termed 
 elders, are included in the same description, 
 or that the same qualifications are requsite in 
 them as in the preaching elder ? Moreover, 
 you take care not to say whether it is the 
 scripture or the apocrypha that is defective,. 
 
73 
 
 in not being specific about the preaching el- 
 ders work and qualifications ; and I think 
 this was wisdom, inasmuch as, you know, 
 it is not the text that is defective ; and yet 
 you intimate as much, although the word 
 elder in the singular is not so much as named 
 in the text ; not only so, but the very reverse 
 of your assertion pervades every syllable of 
 it. There the elders, their different orders, 
 and different work are marked as with the 
 ^joint of a diamond. The first is to do so and 
 so, and the second so and so. The first is 
 only to rule in the lowest department ; the 
 second moves in a higher sphere, his work 
 <Ss to preach, or if you please, to rule in a 
 more exalted station, which surely requires 
 superior qualifications. Not only so, but 
 the very degrees of exertion and attention 
 .that the different orders are to evidence, in 
 the execution of their different offres are also 
 specified. In Rom. xii. 8 the first is enjoin* 
 ed to rute with diligence. The second is, in 
 this text, supposed even to labour in word 
 and doctrine. How happy would 1 be my 
 kind Friend, could I remove the radical mis- 
 take you so apparently labour under, name- 
 ly, that the name elder belongs exclusively 
 to the pastor. You ask, e< Is it possible that 
 two orders so different, as ministers and lay 
 elders, should be called in scripture by the 
 same name ? Is this like the the perspicuity 
 lof the bible?" I tope, £ir, from, the 
 
n 
 
 Maniple remarks I have dropt on this subject , 
 you will be led to see that the scripture ap - 
 plies the name elder to orders far more dif- 
 ferent ; and not only so, but, I presume-, 
 I could produce many instances where one 
 and the same name is applied to orders and 
 offices, characters and persons, as widely 
 different as heaven and hell j I mean the 
 official name angth r l his name, I presume, 
 is not less than two hundred and forty three 
 times named in scripture. Sometimes it is 
 applied to the Lord Christ, sometimes to the 
 son of perdition, sometimes to the ministers 
 of the gospel, and again to the inhabitants 
 of the infernal regions, often to the prime L 
 ministers of state about the throne above* 
 Now if these are not orders far more differ- 
 ent than ministers and ruling elders, let even 
 the enemies of ruling elders themselves be 
 judges. And yet, 1 presume, you dare not 
 deny but such a mode of expression is like 
 enough the perspicuity of the bible, 1 shall 
 only detain you with one instance more out 
 of many, to shew that the same name isap-^ 
 plied to orders very different, viz. the title 
 rulers. This title, or name, is nearly syno- 
 nimous with the word elder, and is- I think, 
 about one hundred and forty three times 
 named in scripture ; and, were it not 10 avoid 
 prolixity, I could evince, that it is apt 
 to orders as tUilertmt as ejther the word elder 
 <©r angel. 
 
75 
 
 Alas! my d^ar friend, I cannot dismiss 
 this subject without taking up a lamentation 
 over you, while with pungent feelings I 
 mourn, and am constrained to tell you, that 
 since the day I heard of your elopement, I 
 might have called you by the name Benoni, 
 or rather say some schabod ; -for surely, say 
 they, the glory is departed, when one of 
 such strong intellectual powers, , such a fer- 
 tile genus, such matured judgment, should 
 become a dupe to a sentiment so irrational, 
 so unscriptural, as this ; that because the 
 scripture, sometimes, applies the general 
 name elder to both paster and ruling elder, 
 therefore, do you employ all your powers 
 to prove that there is no difference ; but 
 take it for granted, that the very name 
 elder is always indicative of the pastor. You 
 even assert, in page 46, that " the words 
 elder and bishop are perfectly interchange- 
 able, constantly applied to the same officer sj" 
 and from this you infer, that "if there be an 
 order of lay elders, there must be an order 
 of lay bishops Indeed, Sir, although I 
 approve not of the term lay elder when ap- 
 plied to church officers; yet, probably, the 
 scripture might evince the propriety of it 
 according to your; definition: in page 43, 
 you say " they are men not vested with the 
 pastoral offices." Now magistrates are in 
 scripture often termed elders j .if so, they 
 a 
 
76 
 
 must be lay elders, for the sacred office ap- 
 pertains not to them. Now seeing that the 
 scriptures shew that there is such an order as 
 lay elders, I call upon you to prove your in- 
 ference, namely, that '•' if there be an order 
 of lay elders, there must be an order of lay 
 bishops." 1 likewise call upon you to try if 
 yon can prove your assertion even that the 
 word elder and bishop are perfectly inter- 
 changeable, and constantly applied to the 
 same officers. Indeed I fear that your per- 
 formance of this will be a little tedious. You 
 know that our Lord Christ is an officer of a 
 peculiar kind in and over his church ; and 
 he is expressly termed a bishop in Peter ii. 25. 
 but shew me in all the sacred page where he 
 is called an elder, or one instance where the 
 name elder and bishop are interchangeably 
 applied to him. Again, the name elder is 
 not only applied to believing but even to hea- 
 then magistrates. ?,nd that of the most wretch- 
 ed character, witness, the elders ol Midian, 
 Num. xxii. that strove to bribe Balaam to 
 curse Israel. Now where are these termed 
 bishops, or where are the names interchange- 
 ably applied to them. Again, the elders of 
 the Canaanitish Gibeonites who beguiled Is- 
 real 3 Joshua ix. were they bishops, or where 
 is the name elder and bishop interchange- 
 ably applied to the ciders that betrayed and 
 mocked our Lord, Mat-; xxvi. Alas ! Alas ! 
 for such inadvertence in one from whom it 
 
77 
 
 was so little expected. O ! that I could 
 hide you and your performance from the 
 world ; 1 think the obligations I am under 
 to religion shouM constrain me. I hope, my 
 dear Sir, that I mipht venture, for a mo- 
 ment, to solace myself with the pleasing 
 idea, that about this time you are willing to 
 renounce your new system ; Surely demon* 
 stratioii so plain, with scripture texts so nu- 
 merous, must have some weight on your 
 thinking mind. But if all should prove a- 
 bortive, should I for this give over, should 
 I for this lose hopes of my dear Mr. Carson ; 
 surely— no this would only convince me that 
 a brother offended, is harder to be won than 
 a strong castle. And that the word of itself 
 is only a dead letter — I shall therefore turn 
 aside into my closet, and speak to Him that 
 can work, and none can let it ; that he 
 would " put in his hand by the hole of the 
 door," and then would you and I see eye to 
 eye, in the matters of his glory. Thus un- 
 der the influence of pleasing expectation, I 
 shall wait the blessful event ; and I trust I 
 shall yet see the completion of my hope, 
 even your recantation. 
 
 But leaving this, I pass onto your sixth, 
 
 last, and supposed invincible argument, 
 
 which you introduce, by informing me, that 
 
 " the original word 'time/ that is here 
 
 h 2 
 
73 
 
 translated * honour,' signifies the honour- 
 able maintenance of the ministers of the gos- 
 pel ; (this you say) the apostle proves from 
 the law of Moses respecting the ox imployed 
 in treading out the corn : and the words of 
 Paul that the labourer is worthy of his 
 reward. The argument drawn from this 
 goes directly to prove that all the elders 
 spoken of in the 17 ver. are worthy of ho* 
 nourable support ;" and then you ask " do 
 pesbyterians think it their duty to support 
 their elders, or will any one say they are 
 worthy of it; if not, they cnnot be the 
 elders of which the apostle speaks," and 
 again ask, <c in what manner do the most 
 conscientious of them labour, so as to be 
 worthy of reward?" 
 
 Indeed, Sir, I candidly confess that I aril 
 totally unacquainted with the original lan- 
 guage, and therefore am incapable or object- 
 ing aainstyour translation ; x rather choose, 
 on the credit of your skill to acquiese. and 
 grant you that the word " time," or " ho- 
 nour," intends support. 2dlj — I agree that 
 all tne elders spoken of in the 17 ver. are 
 worthy of it Sdly — 1 agree with you in 
 another ph.ce, thai in this support there is 
 an inequality even specified in the text : but 
 I lam m to hear you suggest that both class- 
 es or elders spoken of in the text, are all 
 ministers of the gospel, for all such you 
 
79 
 
 know are equal, they have but one superior ^ 
 and that is Christ ; but all they are brethei en. 
 And in Canticles i, they are compared to a 
 flock of sheep that are even shorn, but if all 
 th^ elders, spoken of in the text, be pastors, 
 they are uneven and unequal almost in all 
 things : 1st — they are unequal in their work, 
 the first only rule,* that is all his work ; the 
 second both rule and preach. 2dly — 
 they are unequal in their support, the first 
 is to be supported, says the "text, but there 
 are an especial support allowed to the second. 
 Sdiy — Yourself granted that they are une- 
 qual both in talents and exertions, here- 
 fore, seeing there is such a disproportion in 
 work, in income, in talents, and exertions, 
 might I not strongly infer a disproportion of 
 office. And how, conspicious is it . that this 
 is what subsists between the pastor and ru- 
 ling elder, for all these things point out 
 
 * When I say he only rules, I do not hereby sug- 
 gest that rule is a cfimmutivs: thing, or that there is any 
 office above it ; but only mat he rules in the lowest de- 
 partment of rule ; just as all men from the king to the 
 peasant, are commanded to labour six days of the 
 week, consequently all are labourers? but it is the poor 
 man that works in the vineyard or brick kiln, that is em- 
 phatically termed so. Thus when we are speaking of 
 his employment, we say he only labours ; that is, he 
 is neither a mechanic, a lawyer, nor a divine ; for al- 
 though these are all labourers, yet the have distinct' 
 aaiaes, expressive of their advanced office. 
 H 3 
 
80 
 
 the beautiful distinction, between these two 
 orders. Pray Sir, was it not upon your hy- 
 pothesis* that a neighbouring church built 
 her whale structure, namely, an inequality 
 among pastors in work, in income, in ta- 
 lents, and exertions ? Alas ! that my 
 pious friend should ever lay a single store in 
 that cursed' Jericho, or ever commence an 
 advocate, in one instance, for their human 
 invented hierarchy. You ask " do Pres- 
 byterians think it their duty to support their 
 elders, or will any one say that they are wor- 
 thy of it ; if not. they can not 'be the elders 
 of which the apostle speaks'* — here you ta- 
 citly affirm that Presbyterians neither do, nor 
 think it their duty to support their elders,— *- 
 1 he contrary of which yourseif should Know, 
 even that they both think it their duty and 
 actuary do support their elders, especially 
 when they are called upon to labour with 
 more than ordinary toil and expence about 
 the more public concerns of the church. 
 Bui supposing that the church's sifuation 
 wa§ ^uch by persecution ; or otherwise, that 
 she was not able to support even her preach- 
 ing eld-rs are they iox -this not the ambassa- 
 dor s of Christ ? Or supposing that she was 
 nor able even now to support her ruling el* 
 ders, art thty for t isnot the elders of which 
 the apostle speaks? Or if the a urch in 
 prudence ti be not over burdened, 
 
 choose no. oni) qualified men but men of 
 
81 
 
 Wealth, that are both able and willing to bes* 
 tow their labour and make no charge, are 
 they £jr this not the eld era of which the 
 apostle speaks ? Surely you would not say, 
 that taking support is essential to. the office of 
 either preaching or ruling elder* Yet seeing 
 you insinuate this much, probably you would 
 require to be taught the mind of the Lord 
 more perfectly on the subject ; therefore I 
 w r ould recommend you to the tuition of i aul 
 as one qualified to instruct you on the sub- 
 ject. In 1 Cor. >:ii. he asserts that all the 
 evidences of his apostleship were seen among 
 them, and that in any tiling they were not 
 inferior to any churvh, save that he himself 
 was not burdensome to them, but preached 
 to them the gospel of God freely, and then 
 drops the ironical hint forgive me this wrong, 
 
 Nowshouldyou infer from Paul's kindness 
 that he had thereby lost his apostolic office 
 and authority ?• Thus while eiders labour 
 and make no charge, instead of making this 
 an argument whereby to invalidate their 
 bffice, i b as prudent in you to 
 
 t apostle': the other case, 
 
 a ? v . t wh«*e 
 
 p res- 
 ; 
 
 
82 
 
 'a little dark anent the duty of supporting 
 ruling elders* I hope you will take another 
 walk with me into the field of antiquity, and 
 there try to trace out the Cw footsteps of the 
 flock" in this particular. And here I will 
 only detain you with one testimony out of 
 many, even that of the ever memorable Cy- 
 prian, who in the year 240 writes thus :-— 
 " That Arelius and Celerinus were added to 
 his Presbytery, but were not to preach, yet 
 were to sit with him, and to be maintained 
 at the common charge of the church ;" and 
 again says, " Know ye that we have design- 
 ed them to the honour of the Presbytery, 
 that they may be honoured with the same 
 maintenance with the elders, and may divide 
 the measured or monthly dividend by equal 
 quantities \ they being to sit with us in their 
 grown abd confirmed years, although he 
 may be thought in nothing the less by reason 
 of the increase of his years> who hath made 
 up his age by the dignity of his glory." Here 
 you may see this famous, ancient Carthagi- 
 nian church not only supporting their ruling 
 elders while fit for action, but even when 
 superannuated. Here you may see no: only 
 the antiqmty of ruling ciders, but 2dly that 
 they were distinct from bishops, for these 
 you see w ere not admitted to preach ; and 
 3dly that they were vested with power and 
 jurisdiction, for they were admitted to sit in 
 Presbytery j and finally, that they were ea* 
 
83 
 
 fitled to support. You go on to ask, 
 " Wherein does the most coscientious of 
 them labour so as to be worthy of reward V 9 
 Indeed . Sir, although I know none of them 
 that is disposed to boast of how much they 
 co; yet I presume the commendation given 
 them in the text seals their divine warrant 
 for what they do. But as a nv;>re direct an- 
 Pestion | ie to inform 
 
 •ect 
 
 babiy occupies . thq 
 
 tjyear; and tfe dee i appeal 
 
 to Acts vi. and Acts xxi. This with 
 testimony quoted above, I hope is sufficient 
 probation. 2dly, If it is the duty of the 
 sick f o send for the elders of the church to 
 v pray with and for them, certainly it is their 
 duty to attend, which I know a great num- 
 ber that do at midnight, at cock-crow, and 
 at noon, n< t permitting their most urgent 
 /worldly avocations to prevent them, Sdiy, 
 Seeing you^ailow that it is the province, even 
 oi the weakest member of Christ's house, 
 to settle even civil differences between offend- 
 ed brethern rather than go to law ; much 
 mere does it belong to the elders of Israel 
 ,to interfere, especially in so far as the dis- 
 putes are matters of scandal. Thus in set- 
 tling debates of this kind they labour with 
 indirati&able toil, even to such a degree that 
 
84 
 
 1 know one of this order that has spent near 
 four days in this very week on which I write 
 about this very business. 4fhiy, If it is the 
 duty of bishops instrumental ly to sow the 
 seed of the word, surely it is the duty of 
 elders to see that it bear fruit ; and this th?v 
 do by inspecting carefully into the conduct 
 of the people, especially these within their 
 own district, strictly enjoining religion, fa- 
 mily, and personal, and, according to their 
 capacity, instructing them in the more plain 
 and necessary doctrines of faith. Now 1 
 know many that spend an evening every 
 week in this way. Now that this is no en- i 
 croachment on the bishop's office, but a rule 
 that has been always followed in the church, 
 even gray-haired antiquity bears ample wit- 
 ness. In the year 596 P the famed Isidores j 
 directs a letter to the clergy with his charge— 
 u The ciders of the people are first to be 
 taught, that by them such as are placed under 
 them may be more especially instructed," 
 From this you may again see not only the 
 antiquity of ruling elders, but a part of their 
 work which is to instruct the ignorant, and 
 likewise that they were distinct from the 
 clergy. Now seeing the church's head im- 
 powersand approves of ruling elders labour- 
 ing in all these four different branches, and 
 that they actually do it, I ask is not this to 
 labour so as to be worthy of reward ? If so, 
 and the church account them worthy of it 
 
85 
 
 are they not then the elders of which the 
 apostle speaks. And probably these remarks 
 might answer your last question, ' v In v 
 respects are Presbyterian eiders trcaders out 
 of the corn ? ' From what has been said 
 might I not infer that ruling elders are more 
 honourable than some in higher office, for 
 when they are called by God and the church 
 to their office they cannot be so much as 
 suspected of having lucrative designs ? But 
 there are many in higher office who before 
 they receive a call from a congregation, can 
 pretty nearly conjecture what will be their 
 income. And if such were, sure there w r ould 
 be little or none, can I think, that the y, (like 
 ruling elders) for sake of doing service to 
 God and the church, would accept of it. 
 Indeed some might suspect many of them 
 would not, " but I hope better things of you, 
 though I thus speak. '" Finally, if it has 
 been made appear that God hasassigned them 
 their office and work ; 2dly, That they have 
 with assiouity and persevering toil essayed 
 it ; and 3dly, That God has approven of 
 them in it, saying they rule well ; and 4thly, 
 Promised them a reward for it. If so, do 
 you now acquiesce with Cod, and congra- 
 tulate them in the eirjoyment of their reward. 
 But as a brother offended is harder to be 
 won than a strong castle, who knows but 
 that you might yet rally up all your dispirit- 
 ed forces and refuse acquiescence, Shall I 
 
, 86 
 
 let such a thought once strike my mind ? 
 .Iy no. I rather flatter myself that on 
 the contrary you are now rather disposed 
 vehemently to exclaim in the words of Ha« 
 zael, 2 Kings viii " Is thy servant a dog 
 that he should do this great -thing." No, 
 n©, seeing the church's head allows them 
 support, and the church says they are wor- 
 thy of it, I shall no longer oppose, but join 
 in with the blessed pair, adopting the words 
 of Arnasa, 1 Chron. xii, " Thine are we O 
 David, and on thy side thou Son of Jesse." 
 Well then if this is the happy issue, 1 shall 
 hail you with a welcome cheer, in the words 
 of Laban, Gen. xxiv. u Come in thou bless-> 
 ed of the Lord, why standest thou with- 
 
 ' I hope, Sir, you will pardon my unde- 
 signed prolixity on this your last argument/ 
 Lpass on now to your own explanation of 
 the text, page 47, where you say, " You 
 will endeavour to shew that the text neither 
 proves nor admits a distinction of orders 
 among the elders spoken of. " The oppo- 
 sition^ \ou sav " is not between ruling and 
 preaching elders, but in the first part of the 
 verse, between those who discharge the oilice 
 wel 1 in general, and those who are particu- 
 laily employed and distinguished ior toil pud 
 labour in that difficult and laborious brnrch 
 of thcofifice, preacning continaally to I 
 
87 
 
 public assemblies." I assure you, Sir, 
 I not only account myself honoured, but 
 happy so often as I find you and I agreed in 
 judgment. And here we are perfectly in. 
 two things; 1st, In this, that the faithful 
 discharge of all the duties of the pastoral 
 office is included in that of ruling well; 2dly«, 
 That preaching is but one part. But can- 
 not conjecture how you will account for the 
 Judge of the whole earth doing right if he 
 allows but double honour to a class ot bishops 
 that labour in all the different departments 
 of their office, so faithfully as that he him- 
 self declares they rule well, and yet allows 
 two-fold honour to another class who labour 
 but in one branch unly viz. preaching,. 
 Indeed I think the observation which one of 
 the ancients made is very applicable here, 
 which is. " If there be but one kind of 
 church officers intended here, the words 
 * especially they that labour' do not cause 
 the apostles speech to rise but 10 fall, not to 
 go forward but backward, for to teach wor- 
 thily and singularly i more than to teach 
 painfully, for the first noteth all that may 
 be required in a worthy teacher, whereas 
 the latter notch one virtue only, namely, 
 pains ta king/ Yet in the same puge you 
 assert uiat w all such elders are worthy of 
 honourable maintenance- these who are dis- 
 tinguished in their othce have a right to % 
 
 
88 
 
 double portion, especially those who are pe- 
 culiarly and usually employed in preaching. 
 This requires peculiar and perhaps rarer ta- 
 lents, much more time, study, and expence, 
 to qualify them for their office, has much 
 more labour and fatigue, incurs more ex- 
 pence by frequent exeurtions." Indeed, 
 Sir, I have no objection that all the honour 
 God allows, or the church's ability eanadmit, 
 be given to Christ's faithful ambassadors ; 
 but if all the elders spoken of in the text be 
 pastors, then but one class is said to labour 
 in word and doctrine, while the text tacitly 
 affirm that the other does not ; yet both yoj 
 say are to be supported. Alas! that my 
 pious Friend should be under the influence 
 of such inadvertence. Far be it from me, 
 my dear Mr. Carson, to suppose that either 
 the spirit of God, or yet laborious Paul, 
 would allow honourable support to slothful, 
 lazy, idle preachers, who feed themselves 
 and not the .flock. Dumb dogs that cannot 
 bark, sleepy dogs lying down loving to slum- 
 ber. ArA such are the first class in the 
 text if they be pastors, seeing they labour not 
 in word and doctrine. But as one well ob- 
 serves if this were the sense of the text to 
 prefer 'lie greater before the less labour in, 
 the ministry, then the apostle would have 
 used this form of words — let the elders that 
 rule well be counted worthy of double ho- 
 h6ur„es - those that take upon thera 
 
89 
 
 more weighty labour and care ; for tl 
 words (in word and doctrine) should have 
 been either quite omitted, or inserted imme- 
 diately after they that rule well ; and before 
 the word (especially) to this effect let the 
 elders thai rule well and preach the word 
 well be counted worthy of double honour, 
 but especially those who labour much in well 
 ruling and well preaching. Had this been 
 the case your interpretation had been good 
 sense ; but if your comment is just, that 
 they who labour most in the ministry 
 should have the greatest support, then would 
 not this introduce endless contention about 
 who laboured most, and who was entitled 
 to the greatest income ; and who is it that 
 would undertake to proportion the rewards 
 of each pastor according to his labour ? But 
 if this was theapostle's meaning, that income 
 should be proportioned to talents and toil, 
 who is that could evade suspecting the apos- 
 tle himself for having sinister ends in view ? 
 for in talents he outshined the then known 
 world and in toil " he laboured more abun- 
 dantly than they alL M But in opposition to 
 all such notions, permit me to ask, ought 
 not all pastors to be qualified to cmde the 
 wojd of God aright, to give to every one 
 their portion of meat in due season. None 
 a novice but all apt to teach. Again, ought 
 not Chris:, and him crucified, to be this 
 
 / 
 
90 
 
 theme of study ; and is not this exhibition 
 alike important everywhere. And in res. 
 pect of exertions ought not all to travail in 
 birth, as it were till Christ the hope of glory 
 be formed in their respective flocks. To be 
 Instant in season and out of season, catching 
 some by guile, saving others, plucking them 
 as brands out of the fire. Now if these 
 qualifications, studies, and exertions are re- 
 quisite in all at all times and in all places, 
 how comes it that you can assert that one 
 class of pastors requires peculiar and rarer 
 talents, much more time and study has 
 much more labour and expends. One rea- 
 son why you allow a double portion to the 
 second class of elders spoken of in the text 
 Is, you say, because they are usually employ- 
 ed in preaching. I assure you, Sir I thought 
 every pastor should be usually employed in 
 preaching. But while you assert that the 
 second order are usually employed in preach- 
 ing, and for this reason allows them a double 
 portion, do you not hereby tacitly affirm 
 that the first order is not usually employed 
 this way. Indulge me then for a moment to 
 express my amazement at the powerful tho' 
 imperceptable force with which the Divine 
 right of the ruling elder's office bursts in 
 you, even while its enemies themselves are 
 judges For while you allow the first order 
 xo be elders, and yet such elders as are not 
 usually employe^ in preaching, who then in 
 
gr 
 
 the name of common sense can tliey be if 
 they are nor the Presbyterian elders $ for 
 these I allow do not usually preach, and so 
 in this you. and I are perfectly agreed, and I 
 assure you were it my mode to produce any 
 human authority to prove this office distinct 
 from the pastor's, I know no modern evidence 
 more pertinent than your testimony above. 
 .Another reason why you allow a double por- 
 tion to this second class is, you say, because 
 of their frequent excursions. But if one 
 should ask who has required this at the 
 hands of ordinary pastors to make frequent 
 excursions from their flock, 1 feai they 
 would be speechless. That apostles and 
 other extraordinary officers might make fre- 
 quent excursions none doubts But pray 
 who gave this inferior order an unlimited 
 commission ? That such may be bishops in 
 the Catholic church I admit, but that such 
 are Catholic bishops 1 deny. Such wander- 
 ing shepherds as stray away leaving their de- 
 fenceless flocks to every beast of prey,, 
 would do well to try how they will answer 
 that question asked by Jesse's first born at 
 that young Hebrew shepherd, 1 Sam, xvii* 
 Ct With whom hast thou left these few sheep 
 in the wilderness? Ur that in Jer. xiii. 
 " Where is thy flock that was given thee, 
 that beautiful flock." Indeed, Sir, Isee no 
 authority in scripture for such wandering 
 > 3 
 
92 
 
 shepherds, On the contrary, it is declared 
 fey the apostle Jude, that for wandering stars 
 is reserved the blackness of darkness for 
 ever* This is indeed a double portion for 
 frequent excursions, but it is not the double 
 honour promised to elders in the text. Far- 
 iher, does not the very appellations given to 
 pasters in scripture indisputably evince that 
 every pastor ought to have his settled 
 charge. Hence they are not only termed 
 ambassadors, Stewarts, pastors, but watch- 
 men, shepherds, kc. bo that the most il- 
 literate peasant, I presume, may easily per- 
 ceive that the idea of a settled charge, a li- 
 mited commission, a particular flock, per- 
 vades every appellation. But what saith.the 
 scriptures r i o their authority I appeal, in 
 their decision I rest. 1 Peter v. 2 Feed die 
 flock of Gv>d which is among you, &c. con- 
 sequently not a fl ck in a distant clime. 
 Acts xiv 23. And when they had ordained 
 them eiders in every church, &c. Now if 
 frequent excursions had been the apostolic 
 mode, why but all these were ordained at Je- 
 rusalem and sent out as itinerants ? But on 
 the contrary ihey were ordained among their 
 lespective flocks, over whom they were to 
 preside, and from whom doubtless they had 
 received a cash Acts xx. 2<S. Take heed 
 therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock 
 over whom the Hoi) Ghost has made you 
 overseers to teed the flock 3 &<:• This text 
 
 
93 
 
 is, I presume, so full to the. purpose, ttal 
 were I evt n capaple to illustrate I would ac- 
 count it not only superfluous, but even an 
 insult offered \o your, reason . to attempt it. 
 Kow from these few ras^ne^s out of ma-ry 
 that could be produced [ hope that you are 
 convinced that every bishop ought to have 
 their own particular Mock, and I trust that 
 you are now. won to believe that not only the 
 spirit but the very letter of these texts are 
 perfectly antipode to your wandering system. 
 Only let reason opperate for a moment, 
 while 1 humbly ask what nobleman is it that 
 would not give double stripes instead of dou- 
 ble income to any one to whom he bau given 
 the oversight and charge cf all his demesne, 
 children, and substance, if he found him 
 unfaithful to his trust by making frequent 
 excursions from his charge. Per mi; me, 
 therefore, my dear Friend, to repeat the text 
 once more with your strange comment, wr ich 
 indeed is not with a view to irritate or hurt 
 your feelings ; " Let the elders that rule 
 well labouring in all the different depart- 
 ments of their office, be accounted v-orthy 
 of double honour, especially they that wan- 
 der away from their charge and make fre- 
 quent excursions frem the flocks over whom 
 the Holv C hesi 1 . si n ade them overseers " 
 They deserve a dom le portion doubtless, 
 this gloss, which I presume is the gamine 
 spirit of your comment when stripped ot all 
 
94 
 
 colouring would startle any thinking mind, 
 i hope it will have a sailutary effect upon 
 your own. 
 
 Thus, my dear Sir, I have faintly, tran- 
 siently, and superficially glanced over all 
 your arguments, not with the most remote 
 pretension of ability to overturn them. No, 
 far be it from me, the disproportion be- 
 a us is too great for me to attempt it. 
 ■iter myself, however, that I haye quoted 
 you fairly ; and if in any instance I have 
 treated you unfriendly, I can assure you it 
 has been through inadvertency and not from 
 design. On the contrary I have even 
 avoided retaliation, notwithstanding my keen 
 attachment to Presbytery. I confess indeed 
 that prolixity and tautology checker every 
 page, but this you know is a native conse- 
 quence of the illiterate stand I occupy,. In- 
 deed, Sir, the above thoughts are the result 
 of my own meditation, for I can solemnly 
 ass tire you that 1 never consulted mortal on 
 earth about one single argument, sentiment, 
 or sentence, contained in it, nor never 
 bought nor borrowed a book to assist me. 
 I acknowledge upon the whole that were it 
 not that you are under the influence of better 
 principles, wiih more propriety you might- 
 make that taunting remark against my whole 
 structure which Tobiah the Amonite made, 
 JNeh. iv v.po$ the feeble but faithful efforts 
 
 
S3 
 
 of the Jews to repair their demolished tiling 
 says he, « even that which they build, tf a 
 fox go up he shall even break down their 
 stone wall." Not that I call in question my 
 foundation, or yet my materials, but only 
 my own unskilfulnessin architecture. Indeed, 
 Sir I have wondered why your publication 
 has passed unnoticed by the learned, seeing 
 it contains such an open attack upon thegood- 
 lv government of the house of our God, and 
 militates so strongly againstthekinglyhonour 
 and wisdom of the church's head in institut- 
 ing the same. Yet who knows but a body 
 of men so eagle eyed and perspicuous as the 
 Synod of Ulster is 3 might discern that your 
 arguments were inconclusive, your inferen- 
 ces forced, and your whole mode of reason- 
 ing illogical If so might they not conclude, 
 not only that you were below their notice, 
 but that a refutation of the whole was the 
 business of the rustic, or rather a recreation 
 for the peasant. But whatever be their mo- 
 tives for silence, I fear the Lord refuses them 
 the honour of being advocates for his cause, 
 and that for former neglects, namely, for 
 not exercising that authority on you for your 
 backsliding which he hath vested them with. 
 For edification and not for destruction, this, 
 doubtless, the\ ought to have done bv bro- 
 therly admonition, rebuke, &c according as 
 they in their wisdom thought duty. But 
 for neglecting this the Lord treats them no\\ r 
 
m 
 
 as Paul did Mark, Acts xv. and probably 
 for the same reason, namely, for former 
 neglects Paul refuses him future privileges ; 
 but as I know not the cause of their silence 
 I need not multiply conjectures. 
 
 Finally, I only add one humble request, 
 namely, that if you see any thing in the 
 above remarks that would tend to your advan- 
 tage, you would not despise on account of 
 the incapacity of the author. You know' a 
 greater than you, I mean the apostle Johfl, 
 Rev. v* huriibiy and thankfully received in- 
 formation and instruction from one that only 
 occupied the humble seat of a hearer ; and 
 doubtless between these there was a greater 
 disproportion than between us. And you 
 know that even a prophet of the Lord tc 
 wit, Elgah dispised not food that was good 
 and wholesome, although his cooks were oi 
 a sable colour and of a very diminutive order, 
 From all which I hope you will see it your 
 duty to embrace lovely truth, although b a 
 homely dress* It is a blessing that genuine 
 truth, like natural unaffected beauty, is not 
 much brightened by painting, but of itself 
 has a powerful attracting influence. 
 
 Dearly beloved, notwithstanding all that 
 
 ctween us on account of your 
 
 conduct, 1 would account it highly 
 
 unfriendly to conclude without hinting how 
 
eio&ely my soul is kinl to yours ; vruL lhaX 
 on Accowik of (haul suppavrmt ion to holmes, 
 strict discipline sund pure, communion 
 which pervade, s your whole writings ^1 
 really laiixk it breathes out much of the 
 Imguotge of the heven born souX.WhtLb 
 a*pujthen Ihsul we should differ about 
 things of leff importance. Time will 
 corneal hope, when we, shall meet where 
 contention will eea.se, evert on the fbo- 
 wevyl)&rik,h of lmriz&nuels lanob^ where 
 we shall exchange the sworol for the Islu- 
 7*eU &,ndlhe spedjrfor&,welllunedha,- 
 nrp^wlieiz in concord with stmlhams 
 we shall join in h&rmvny in sounding 
 forth the praises of him who redeemed, 
 US amdw&slred lis in hi* own blood . 
 Now thai Ihi s ma,y be the happy issue 
 of&llourlravcLil^is the sine eve desire 
 of him ^who with all due respect ,remai7is 
 
 Your humble Sewvsmt^ 
 
 %3Lindrew Stevenson. 
 
 Mnx&