his words, and by so doing, they maim the passage. He is speaking of the best method of obtaining the truth. This he says, can best be done by the neighboring churches resorting to Rome, to examine the autographs of Paul's Epistles, &c. This "resorting" the Romanists render agreeing. The original word is "convenire." Iren. adv. Haer. lib. iii., c. 3, §. 2. Cyprian and Tertullian, with some others, take the text to prove that Peter only, or individually, is meant; but they do not cite it as warranting the supremacy of the Roman Bishop. Chrysostom gives it the same interpretation we have done. Homil. Ixix. in Pet. Apost. et Eliam. Praph. oper. vol. p. 856. Athansius, Cyril, of Jerusalem, Jerome and Augustine, give the interpretation we have adopted. Athan. lenum Ep. Christ. oper. p. 519, 529. Cyril. Catech. vi., p. 54, xi. 93. Aug. Expos. in Evang. Johon. Tract. cxxiv. oper. vol. ix. p. 206. Thus we think it is evident, that from this text the papacy can derive no support. We pass on, therefore, to the second exception.

II. It is not and cannot be proved that Peter ever was Bishop of Rome.

If this could be done, it would appear from the line of bishops preserved by ecclesiastical writers: but this it does not. According to Irenaeus, Paul and Peter conjointly founded the church at Rome. But that either of them was Bishop, he virtually denies, for he makes Linus the first bishop. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 24, lib. v. c. 5, 6. Here, then, is evidence that Peter never was, or at least not the first, Bishop of Rome.

But it further strikes my mind, that Peter never was a Bishop, in any manner, or of any place, in the sense which they would give to that word. Were this so, it ought certainly to appear from the history of his apostolic life.

Had he been Bishop, in their sense, i. e. the head of the church, or vicar of Christ, instead of taking the tedious method, of appointing an apostle in the room of Judas, by lot, he would at once in virtue of his supreme authority have filled that vacancy in the Apostolic College. But his not doing this, is proof positive that he did not consider himself vested with such power. The next incident of Peter's life, recorded, is in his speech on the day of Pentecost. But there can be no argument drawn from this to prove his primacy.

We have again a convincing proof that he was not the head of the Apostles, in the fact, that when Samaria "received the word," and it had come to the knowledge of the apostles, instead of his sending them, they sent him and John to that city. This would have been a fine stretch of power, on the part of the apostles, if Peter had been their head and ruler. Nothing like primacy on his part shows itself here.

Again, when Peter went and preached to Cornelius, and baptized him, we find that his conduct was complained of, and he was arraigned before the church judicature for it. Does he at this time assert his pontifical authority, and silence the judicature by his frown? No, he meekly submits to the investigation. And gives, as his only reason, that the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost as well as they, and that he could not resist God.

Moreover, the conduct of Peter at the Synod of Jerusalem, gives no evidence that he had any superior authority: He was not even moderator of the meeting. James filled this place, and it was he that finally closed the business by a vote of the apostles and elders, and the church sends off Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. In this transaction, if there were any supreme authority, it certainly was not exercised by Peter but by James.-Acts xv. 4-31.

After this circumstance, the Acts of the Apostles are silent with regard to Peter, but occupy their details in giving the history of Paul. Certainly the superior Bishop ought to have had greater attention paid to him than this. Moreover, Paul, in all his epistles, gives not the least intimation of this supremacy; but he gives the most decided evidence, that he esteemed himself equal to Peter; and expressly declares that at Antioch he withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.-Gal. i. 11–24; ii. 1—16.

Again, if we look at the epistles of the other apostles, we shall find them equally silent on this subject.

Finally, the apostle Peter himself, never intimates any thing of it, but addresses the officers of the churches to whom he wrote, as their equal. Now we would naturally suppose, that even if all the other apostles were silent on this subject, yet Peter himself would not be; if indeed he had been vested with such authority. He dare not be. But in neither of his epistles does he say any thing. about it. The conclusion, therefore, must be evident to every mind, that Peter had no such authority.

III. We are now brought to our third exception, which is, that if it be true, that Peter was not the rock on which the church was built; and if there is no evidence that he ever was Bishop of Rome, or any other place, in their sense of the word, then the Roman pontiffs are not and cannot be his successors-and consequently have no right to universal primacy. Accordingly, we find that from the first, there was no such thing as a supreme ruling bishop. Although the office of Provincial or Diocesan Bishop was soon introduced, yet it was not admitted by any, that the Bishop of Rome, was possessed alone, of the power of regulating all ecclesiastical affairs, throughout the world.

The Roman Bishops, however, soon began to claim a superiority; as the instances of Victor, in the second, and Stephen in the third centuries, prove. And as ignorance and moral darkness gathered around the church, they rose in their claims of power and lordly titles, until they arrived at the highest pitch of presumption, in claiming the homage of kings, and the right to wield the civil as well as the ecclesiastical sword. In the third century, Firmilian accounts Stephen, Bishop of Rome, a second Judas, and calls him arrogant and presumptuous fool."

an

But I need not dwell longer on this subject. Nothing can appear clearer to an unprejudiced mind, than that popery is a novelty, unknown to the Scriptures and apostolic history.

D. N.

[For the Baltimore Literary and Religious Magazine.]

A SERIOUS REVIEW OF A CALM DISCUSSION OF THE LAWFULNESS, SCRIPTURALNESS, AND EXPEDIENCY OF ECCLESIASTICAL BOARDS"-BEING A DEFENCE OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL

BOARDS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

PART SECOND.

Ecclesiastical Boards accordant with the Standards of the Presbyterian Church, and therefore Constitutional.

SUFFICIENT has been said in order to expose the untenableness of the ground taken against our ecclesiastical organizations. Every reasonable mind will revolt against their destruction until some better system, free from the objections urged against the present, can be devised. Every such mind will conclude that since our benevolent operations must be sustained and carried forward, the existing agency must be maintained, unless it can be shown that those operations can be carried on by other means, and with increased energy and zeal. Our argument, therefore, might be here closed. But we are willing to meet the objections against our existing system, face to face, and sure we are, they will be found invalid, or altogether inapplicable.

What, then, is the real object of attack on the one hand, and of defence on the other? Let our objector answer. "We do not," he says, (p. 146,) "object to this system" of ecclesiastical organizations, " on account of any slight or accidental evils which wisdom and experience may remove without affecting the essential elements of the system itself. Such evils or rather abuses exist. They are to be found in those regulations by which honorary membership is purchased for money, an enormity similar to the sin of Simon Magus, for which he met the rebuke of the apostle; in their tendency to perpetuate themselves; and in the very partial amount of real investigation to which their proceedings are ever subjected. These are objections to the present plan on which our Boards are organized, but they lie not so much against the system itself as against partial and accidental abuses. The objections which have influenced our minds are radical and fundamental. that the system in its essential principles is directly subversive of the Constitution of our church, unknown to the word of God, and unsupported by any arguments of expediency or necessity which can commend it to the understanding of a Christian man."

We believe

So also in his introduction, the writer speaks of "this system of measures which certainly has no surer foundations than that of prescription ;" while in his conclusion he says, we can have no reason to expect the assistance of the Lord, when we have trampled his institutions in the dust."

That, therefore, against which objections are now raised, and which we undertake to defend, is not our present ecclesiastical organizations in all their details, but only in their essential principles or elements. We do not, therefore, say that every part of our present system ought to be, or that it is necessary, it should be

retained. The regulation by which honorary membership is purchased for money, may be safely abolished. To this we should not object. The tendency of our boards to perpetuate themselves, may be checked by any seasonable regulations. Their proceedings may be made the subject of a closer investigation until every one shall be abundantly satisfied. The boards and their committees may be merged into a single body-responsible directly to the Assembly-and in every respect subject to its control. And if there be any other evils, or defects in the present system, we are abundantly willing that they should be rectified. None of these things constitute tbe subject of our present controversy. We demand for our ecclesiastical agency no powers inconsistent with the supremacy of the Assembly or the spirit of our standards. The single question is whether for carrying on her missionary and other operations; the Assembly may scripturally and constitutionally appoint any body to whom shall be entrusted the management of these various operations during the intervals which elapse between the yearly sessions of that judicatory. This is the single question. That the Assembly has such power, is the only point for which we contend, and it is as plainly the principle against which the objector utters such a withering condemnation. That the Assembly has such authority he denies and we affirm;- whatever, therefore," he says, " is not done by elders and ministers, assembled in some one of the courts above mentioned, is not done by them as Presbyterians. It is only in these courts that we recognize the church as an organized body. Here, and here alone, do we find Presbyterianism. Now we maintain that the system of boards gives us a set of officers and a set of ecclesiastical courts entirely different from those of the constitution." (See p. 147.)

The evils, abuses, or defects attributed to our existing boards, but which are separable from them-are not therefore to be consid. ered in the present argument. These are fair matters for a separate discussion. But the propriety and necessity of boards or committees of any kind for the management of the various benevolent operations in which the church is engaged, with power to carry into execution any plans which it is competent for her to undertake

this, we repeat, is the question before us. We are thus earnest in calling attention to this point, which is so clearly laid down by the objector himself, because in a subsequent part of his discussion, he argues against our organization on the ground that the boards as distinct from the committees, are unnecessary. This question is, however, very different from the general principle, and one which is to be decided on very different grounds.

"

Such an agency, call it either a board or a committee, as he maintains, is directly subversive of the form of government embodied in the constitution of our own church." "These courts

(i. e. Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and the General Assembly) are treated in our constitution as abundantly adequate to meet all the exigencies of the church, and to do all that God requires her to do in her ecclesiastical capacity." It is, therefore, argued that since these agencies or boards are neither Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods,

or General Assembly, the Assembly in appointing them transcends the powers given to it by the constitution.

Now in contrariety to this, we affirm that such boards, agencies, or committees, with such powers, and for such ends, are necessary to carry out the purposes for which the Assembly itself was organized, and are therefore constitutional; and that some such agency is contemplated by our standards, and is, therefore, to be considered as in unquestionable accordance with them.

We lay it down as an universal principle that the imposition of any duty implies the correspondent right to use such means as are necessary to its discharge. Where any constitution, civil or sacred, requires from its officers the discharge of any functions, or the attainment of certain ends, it at the same time gives the power necessary to carry such provisions into effect. This principle has been admitted in our political controversies by the strictest sect of our most rigid constructionists. Upon this principle our church also, acted in her late crisis, and with its certain propriety must all her famous acts and the present reformation of the church stand or fall. Now our church courts, and especially the General Assembly, are, as is admitted, under certain obligation to secure those important ends which are contemplated by our several benevolent operations. They are most assuredly bound to the utmost of their ability and in the very best manner possible, to provide for the education of young men for the work of the ministry-for the instruction of the people generally-and for sending the gospel where it is not enjoyed, as well in our country as in foreign lands.-(See Form of Gov. ch. xviii.) Such, then, being the duty imposed upon the General Assembly in particular, as the organ of the church, that body is necessarily empowered to order all the details of her plan of operations guided and restrained by the general principles of the Constitution. But as the General Assembly remains in session but for a very short period, and the necessity for continuous direction, supervision and assistance continues during the whole year, it is most obvious that either these operations must be wholly abandoned, which would be on the supposition sinful, or else some board, committee or agency must be entrusted with their management under a responsibility to that body. And as the supply of funds constitutes only one object for which such a body is necessary, and a general superintendence and controul are still more necessary and important, this body must be entrusted not only with the power of disbursing funds, but also with the power to carry into execution all the plans of the Assembly, and with the entire management of its various operations. Now whatever may be found in the constitution of our several boards which can be shown to be unnecessary for these ends, for any such features in their organization we do not contend. They are fairly open to discussion, and may be retained or abandoned as shall be thought most conducive to the peace and prosperity of the church. But to dissolve our several boards, and to limit the power of direct controul over the various benevolent operations of the church, in all their details, to the single periods of the sessions of any ecclesiastical judicatory, is at once and utterly to destroy them. It is to render their maintenance