absolute certainty, that there is no positive proof that the primacy at this time was a power, and not a fact. The Scripture is silent about the exercise of it in all its details. What then? Is the silence of the Scripture a positive demonstration? Assuredly not. A positive demonstration is a pile of evidence, assertion, and inference; præmissæ and conclusion, the foundation of which is something existing, or supposed to exist, obvious and tangible. And there is no statement in the sacred writings which can be laid down as a foundation upon which a positive argument against the exercise of the primacy in the first century can be firmly, or even safely built. But perhaps the silence of the Sacred Scriptures on the subject is equivalent to a negative demonstration; or, in other words, if the primacy was exercised it must of necessity be mentioned in the sacred writings. In the history of the Acts of the Apostles there is not much about the life or preaching of Peter. The narrative of St. Luke, which is the sole contemporary authority on this subject, is principally taken up with the voyages and labours of Paul. When Peter is mentioned in the first chapter of the Acts, his name is associated with pre-eminence in the Apostolic College-active, as when he speaks first in the meetings of the Church, or honorary and inactive, as when his name is first upon the list of apostles. But when the life of Paul is detailed, or the history of James, where was the necessity for referring to the authority of Peter? Peter might be ruling the Church, and governing all its bishops, and exercising a certain amount of authority over the other apostles, and yet the silence of the Scripture on the subject is perfectly intelligible, as the scope of its writers was manifestly confined within certain limits, and the object of their delineation was a partial, and not a general view of the Church.

There were besides in the primitive Church peculiar circumstances, which, if they did not prevent the exercise of the primacy of Peter altogether, may be reasonably supposed to have rendered the exercise of it in all its details unnecessary. I might almost say impossible. The

apostles were not as the bishops of the Church in subsequent times. They were men specially raised up, and enlightened in their capacity of bishops, after a manner extraordinary and supernatural. They could not err in writing. They could not err in believing. They could not err in making laws for the government of the Church. They possessed individually, that which Catholics claim for the whole Church and for its head. They were all and each of them infallible. Peter was the governor of them all; but each of them from the special light and grace that he received from above was irresponsible for the exercise of his ministry, as a founder and governor of the Church. And Peter knew this well. Why, therefore, need he interfere with their appointments of " bishops," or why should we expect to find him recasting their institutions or remodelling their laws? Each of the apostles was in principle subjected to Peter, but in fact, we may suppose him to have been independent in the exercise of his apostolic powers. Did the jurisdiction of bishops, then, come through the apostles, without any reference to the primatial power? Not necessarily, as far as the Scripture is concerned, because the primacy of Peter might have been the fountain of all jurisdiction communicating its effects tacitly, and not overtly, or by express agreement, conferring the plenitude of episcopal authority on all the appointments made by the apostles, without a reference to them individually.

We may suppose, therefore, and our supposition has firm foundation in the Sacred Scripture, that the primacy conferred on St. Peter was given with a view to succeeding ages principally. It was so extensive, and the sphere of its operation was so varied, and its functions were so defined that it was not given as a mere power to be dormant in its original possessor, and then to expire for ever; but as its activity was from circumstances restricted in the apostolic age, it was born for times succeeding, to outlive the first century, and to be developed by time, and to grow, in fact, and practice gradually but surely into the mighty proportions assigned it by the lips of wisdom undeceiving and infallible.

DIVISION VI.

THE CLERGY AND THE RITES THEY ADMINISTERED.

Who were the επισκοποι, πρεσβυτεροι, and

διακονοι ?

I give here, in parallel columns, the English Catholic and Protestant translations of the words, episcopus, presbyter, and diaconus, in all the passages in which they occur in the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament. From an examination of these texts, it appears that the compilers of the authorized version do not approve of the translation 66 priest " for πρεobуTεрos, whereas they have no objection to render the words επισκοπος and διάκονος " bishops" and "deacons"; whilst the Catholic translators are so far consistent that they depart from the literal meaning in the three cases equally. The word επίσκοπος does not literally mean a bishop, but an overseer, and the translation the Protestants give it in Acts xx. is in consequence literally correct. The word Staкovos means literally a minister or distributor. The Scriptural meaning of a word is, however, often different from its literal meaning; and thus it is that, according to the Protestants, two of the words in question, and, according to the Catholics, all three appear in the Scriptures in an English dress in which they would be quite a mystery to those who used them formerly, as parts of their vernacular language. This controversy will have little to say to the question we are now about to discuss, namely, "Who were the clergy of the primitive Church, and what were their functions?" and in reference to it I deem it expedient to make but one or two remarks. 1st. The German word Priester, and the

old French word préstre, and the English word priest, are all evidently modifications of the word πρεσβυτερος, and they are all used to designate one who offers sacrifice. It would appear, therefore, that the Catholic translators of the Sacred Scriptures into English had a very general usage in their favour when they gave the word "priest " as a proper translation for the word TρEOBUTEρos, as it occurs in the New Testament. 2nd. The word πρεσBUTEρOS occurs eighteen times in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. In all these places it is translated by the Catholic divines of Douay, "ancients," with the exception of the Book of Daniel, where it is invariably translated "elder." If it were similarly translated in the New Testament, it might appear that the peoẞurepoι of the primitive Church were the same as the peoẞurεpoι of the Jews. Now, the πρεσβύτεροι of the Jews are always distinguished from the tapes, or sacrificing ministers; and they were simply the presidents of the synagogues in the towns of Judea, or the members of the great council I of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem. The πρεσβυτεροι οι the primitive Church were not such. Their ordination and functions invested them with quite a different character. It was, then, to say the least of it, reasonable to give the word ρeoßureρoç a different translation in the New Testament from that which it had in the Old; but whether it was properly rendered, "a priest" or a "sacrificing minister," will appear in the sequel of what we are about to say.

Who, then, were the πρεσβυτεροι, επίσκοποι, and diakovo, that are so often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and the writings of St. Paul, and what were their functions? The πρεσβυτεροι, επισκοποι, and διακονοι, in question, were ordained ministers of the primitive Church. In stating that they were ordained ministers, I mean that they received an external rite which conferred upon them an internal grace for the due performance of their functions; or, in other words, that they received the