be "ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh them a reason of the hope that is in them," (1 Peter iii. 15), how much more their spiritual guides!

Finally, we do not forget, that he who plants, is nothing, that he who waters, is nothing, and that God, who gives the increase, is all. It is because we have a lively feeling that we ourselves stand in need of growing in grace and in knowledge, that we encourage our fellow-labourers to the same; while we supplicate the Author of every excellent grace, and of every perfect gift, that he would be pleased to bless their labours,-to send them, according to the riches of his love, the fertilizing showers of the latter season, and to spread abroad upon them some refreshing dews, should they ever be tempted to feel discouragement in looking upon the difficulty of their task, or to sigh under the burden and the heat of the day.

wwwwwwww

CAUTIONS AND QUERIES ON THE SUBJECT OF RULING ELDERS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN.

CONCEIVING, Sir, your publication intended to be beneficial to the Presbyterian population of Ulster, by correcting the errors in principle and practice, into which some of their churches have fallen; and directing the views of Ministers and people in the government of ecclesiastical affairs, I beg leave to direct the attention of your readers to the state of the ruling Eldership. There is a writer, who has been in the habit of occupying your pages, under the title of "The Reformer," whose talents and time might be very usefully employed on this subject, were his attention directed to its examination. I beg leave, therefore, to invite "The Reformer" to the consideration of the state of the ruling Eldership, in the congregations connected with the Presbyterian Churches in this province. The necessity of attending to the subject has been fre quently adverted to in your pages. In a note, in your last Number, to the "narrative of the proceedings in the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America," it is remarked, "we are sorry to find the same lack of ruling Elders in the American Assembly that, in our last Number, we found reason to regret in the Synod of Ulster."-In a preceding Number, in giving a narrative of the proceed

ings of the Synod of Ulster at its last meeting, and in viewing what may be discussed in this Rev. Body at its next annual meeting, the writer observes, " let the different congregations consider it (that is, subscription to the Westminster Confession) in their sessions, and be sure to send forward Elders, who will express their opinion."

Now that there may be no want of ruling Elders duly qualified to take a part in the deliberations of the next annual meeting of the Synod; and that congregations may, on considering the subjects to which their attention has been called, send forward ruling Elders as their representatives, properly prepared to express their sentiments, I humbly conceive a variety of considerations should be brought before the eye of the churches, relative to the Elder's office, the qualifications he should possess, the duties he is required to perform, the manner of his life and conversation, the scriptural form in which he may have been admitted to office. That these points have been sadly neglected, all men know, and many men la, ment. I have known men act as ruling Elders in congregations, called Presbyterian, who never were elected by the people, nor in any form ordained. I know men acting as Elders in congregations of Orthodox character, who are not only not chosen by the people, not ordained by the ministry, but who hold tenets diametrically opposite both to the Ministers and the great majority of the congre gations they affect to represent. And I have known men brought to the Synod, at its annual meetings, when the Arian Heresy was brought to the test of public opinion and scriptural argument; I have known them, I say, to come as ruling Elders, and to sit and vote against the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the doctrines of original sin, justification by faith, the atonement, &c., and all the peculiarly distinguishing characteristics of Orthodoxy, who were not chosen by the congregations as Elders, who were not sent by them to represent them in Synod, who were never ordained, and who consequently were not entitled to take any part in the deliberations of an ecclesiastical assembly: And I am afraid men may be brought to the next meeting of the Synod of Ulster to represent congregations, and to vote against subscription to the Westminster Confession, and the continuance of the Theological Committee, who may be somewhat of a similar character.

To prevent this, let me observe, that no Elder should be permitted to sit in the next meeting of the Synod of Ulster,

who does not produce evidence from the Minister and Session of the congregation from which he comes, that he was regularly appointed by them to attend that meeting, that he was regularly ordained a year at least previously to the meeting, that he signed the Westminster Confession, or solemnly professed his belief in the doctrines generally denominated Orthodox.

As my present communication is not intended to discuss these matters, but rather to bring them before the view of the Presbyterian public, I would wish to close this article, by proposing a number of interrogatives, cal. culated to call forth the opinions of some of your valuable correspondents. And that these subjects may be explained on scriptural principles, and in accordance with Presbyterian discipline. Do the Scriptures authorize distinct orders of office-bearers in the church, as pastors, ruling Elders, and deacons? Are the offices of ruling Elder and deacon different from each other? and if so, what is the difference? By whom should ruling Elders be chosen? What is the scriptural manner of appointment? In what manner should they be ordained? Whether by imposition of hands or otherwise? What are the duties of a ruling Elder in public and private? Should any men be permitted to act as Elders in congregations, or sit in Presbyteries or Synods, who are not regularly chosen and ordained? Should any person be permitted to act as a ruling Elder, whose religious principles are opposed to the Orthodox standards of the church? Should not the religious reform carried on of late years in the Synod of Ulster, amongst the Ministers, be also extended to the ruling Eldership in that Body? Have Ministers and Sessions any right to appoint Elders in congregations without the consent and approbation of the people at large? Should men be ordained as Elders without making a profession of their belief, and without examination, as to their religious principles? Should there not be as much watchfulness and careful anxiety manifested and observed in admitting ruling Elders into office, as candidates for the ministry? And why is there so much carelessness on this subject among Presbyterians ?

I trust some of your correspondents will answer these questions in a scriptural and consistent manner, and in strict accordance with the principles and practices of Orthodox Presbyterianism.

J. M. M.

REPLY TO "A LOVER OF TRUE PHILOSOPHY."

IN what state, relatively to this part of the globe, the moon was, when last Number of the Orthodox Presbyterian was printed and circulated, I know with tolerable accuracy; but, to determine the question, as to the influence exerted by that planet on diseases of a certain kind, I would give something to know her position, at the period of concocting the strange farrago of nonsense, which appeared in said Number, under the running title of "Philosophical Education.” The article bears indications of mental states, which medical men consider symptomatic of incipient derangement; harping, for example, on certain modes of expression; bursts of passion, where sober minds perceive no cause for offence; and lastly, alarm that every thing valuable in existence is in danger of destruction, when not even a threat is uttered, or a hostile attitude assumed. The secrecy with which the author, according to the Editor, went about the transmission of his effusion, instead of weakening, tends to strengthen my suspicion. Fear is at the bottom of all cunning, and no passion more frequently characterizes insanity than fear-persons in that state being often in terror of their own shadow. Altogether, the writer's friends should watch his motions, unless experience may have taught them, that his failing is constitutional, and confines itself to such innocent pranks as mauling whoever ventures to dissent from him on metaphysical points, and on the worth of certain ephemerals, ycleped religious tracts. But, after all, he may be in proper hands-his production may have come from bedlam. Judging by what is said in his introductory note by the Editor more especially by the concluding sentence of it, I would not be inclined to believe, that an article's coming from such a source would be held by him as a sufficient reason for rejecting it.

The reader, having accompanied me this far, may naturally inquire, why, if this be your opinion of the production, trouble me and yourself with a reply? My only reason for doing either, is to prevent the possibility of injury to my own character among the few who know me. I have lived long enough in the world to be convinced, that the greatest fool in it can occasionally succeed, to some extent, in hurting the reputation, and therefore the usefulness, of the wisest and the best. By many "the firebrands" of the author will appear to be thrown in " sport" by a greater number, as thrown partly in sport, and partly with a malignant intention; and by a few, as thrown to kindle a flame which may happily operate to the disadvantage of him who addresses you, and the purification of the church. For, you are aware, certain friends, mistaken ones, I coneeive, of what is called the church, are of opinion, that fire and blood are the chief instruments of her renovation. It is with a view to set myself right with this third class, that I have stolen a few moments from more grateful, and I trust, more useful employments, to commit the following brief observations to paper.

Because it would be an absolute waste of time, and not further the ob ject I have principally in view, to go into the discussion respecting Plato's notion concerning ideas, I shall allow that subject for the present to remain untouched. It is with graver matters I must engage the reader.

The first thing meriting observation, is the criticism on the following passage in the Review-"All knowledge, if it be genuine, i. e. it it be knowledge at all, is alike certain." I hold this to be not only a correct,

M

but an important statement. These are the terms in which it is spoken of by the Lover of true Philosophy. "This observation does not discover the penetration of a metaphysician. It confounds knowledge with truth; and asserts of the former that which is true only of the latter. Truth is an attribute of a proposition; but knowledge is an attribute of mind. Ifa thing is true, it cannot be more true; but my knowledge of truth may be made more certain. In truth there are no degrees; in knowledge there may be many." Now, I might satisfy myself with simply asking, what all this vain display of distinctions has to do with the statement-" All knowledge, if it be genuine, i. e. if it be knowledge at all, is alike certain ?" It contains nothing about truth. It cannot, therefore, be charged with 66 confounding" truth with any other thing. But it "asserts," it seems, of knowledge, "that which is true only of truth." How? It "asserts" of knowledge, when genuine, i, e. when knowledge at all, that it is certain. Is certainty not predicable of knowledge? That the author wrote the above remarks on my statement, is a fact that he knows. Is the knowledge of that fact not certain knowledge? What is it that any man really knows, that it is not certain ? All that you know is truth, and all truth is knowledge. But we are told, "Truth is an attribute of a proposition, but knowledge is an attribute of mind.". Look your notes, and tell me what a proposition is. I request you to look your notes, because I know you are here jabbering like a parrot, repeating words formerly put into your mouth. What is a proposition? Is it not a particular series of words? Can truth, with any propriety, be called an attribute of words? Not content, however, with affirming that truth is an attribute of words, you must deny that it is an attribute of mind. What think you of "truth in the inward parts?" What think you of those that have not "the truth in them?" Truth, Sir, is either an attribute of mind, or it is nothing. It is either in mind, or it is no where. The truths of chemistry do not lie folded up in chemical books, they are in the minds of chemists, else they have no existence in the world. You meet with the signs of truth in books, but nothing more. Were you trying to show off your "rhetoric," when saying so many pretty things of truth? Beautiful contrasts, eh? I have no serious fault to find with the other limb of your sentence"knowledge is an attribute of mind." But I have to guard you against such an application of the word attribute, as it may lead you, should you ever take to mental speculations, of which I think there is small probability, into the opinion, that the mind, in course of time, acquires a vast multitude of attributes, and loses also a vast multitude; and, as we come to know things only by their attributes, you may, by the loss of the attributes of your mind, come to doubt, whether the mind you now have, be the mind you had, when you attended the class where you learned your nonsense about truth...

Still farther, "in truth there are no degrees; in knowledge there may be many." Why, "no degrees in truth?". Can one man not have more truth in his mind than another has in his? Oh! but you say, no one truth admits of degrees. Well, I say, oh! does any one portion of knowledge admit of degrees, i. e. (for I must explain myself to make sure of your understanding me) can a portion of knowledge called it be ever any thing else, greater or smaller, than it is? You see, then, my brave blustering fellow, you are but a charlatan in metaphysics after all. I shall now quote the sentences that follow those on which I have been animadverting, and try to divert my thoughts from the feelings which, I am per