The article responds to a letter to the editor which was recently published with a postscript. The editor explains why details of publishing led to the original letter’s presentation. The editor responds to a few meaningful claims brought by the writer of the postscript on the subject of the journal’s objections to a recent document by the American Education Society. The editor defends the previous position against minute detail in quarterly returns and refutes that compliance with the returns is “a test of piety.” There is a debate on the terminology of payment for pastors, whether they are loans, salaries, or support. The editor questions the evidence used by the writer on patrimony to students from wealthy families. A disagreement is cited between the journal and the Assembly’s Board of Education on the permission to treat support money as a loan. Students trained to serve God, who are paid in training, should follow through to pay back in action. The editor attacks the notion that they intended to “excite sectarian jealousies.” He ultimately defends the American Education Society while admitting its abilities to make mistakes.

• PROFESSOR STUARTS POSTSCRIPT TO HIS LETTER TO THE EDITORS OF THE BIRLICAL REPERTORY (page 6)