advisedly, and meant what they said, when they called it an ancient custom.

But, we are told, the "Provincial System" was the parent of the Papacy. Popes, it is said, were a legitimate development of Metropolitans; Metopolitans are embryo Popes. When this difficulty is raised, if there is any very definite idea in the mind of the objector, he must have reference to the Spiritual Supremacy of the Papacy. He can hardly allude to the Temporal Power. The fact that by the year 700, the Pope was the richest land owner in Italy, the gift of territory by the Lombard King, Luitprand, the still richer and more extensive donation of Pepin, of France, the grant of Charlemagne,-it is diffi-, cult to see what connection these things have with Metropolitans and Provinces. Nay, it may as well be remembered, that in order to carry out their plans, the Archbishopric of Ravenna was assumed, by two Popes, to themselves! It cannot be the Temporal Power, then, that we must consider here, but the Spiritual Supremacy.

We remember, years ago, to have seen, somewhere, the shrewd observation, that there was a sense in which Popery grew out of the Primitive Church; that is to say, that the Primitive Church was capable of being corrupted and perverted into Popery. History proves the truth of this assertion. And we may carry out the observation even further, and say, that could any Church organization, doctrine, or worship prove that it could, by no possibility be thus corrupted or perverted into Popery, it would only prove that it was not the organization, doctrine, or worship of the Primitive Church.

In this sense, then, Popery might follow Metropolitans and Provinces, as indeed it did; but so it might, also, follow Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, or the two Orders of Presbyterianism, or the no-particular-Orders of Congregationalism. In all these cases, the questions would remain to be asked and answered, Is this a true development, or only a corruption? Has it grown out of these things, or displaced them? Is the process one of carrying out, or of destroying? We may as well say, at once, that we regard the assertion that the Papacy grew out of Metropolitans and Provinces, if anything more is

meant by it than what we have just said, as a patent instance of that most vulgar of all fallacies, post hoc ergo propter hoc. In any other view than the one indicated above, Metropolitans and Provinces have just as much to do with Popery as, in old Latimer's sermon, Tenterden steeple had with the Goodwin sands, and they have no more.

What, more than anything else, gave the Roman Church power and rule over other Churches? Appellate jurisdiction. And this though often claimed as granted at Nice-was first given by the Council of Sardica in 347. The third Canon of that Council allowed an appeal from Provincial Judgments, to the Bishop of Rome. In other words, it overrode the rights of Metropolitans, in favor of the Roman See. And from that day forward, it was by the extinction of Metropolitan as well as Episcopal rights, that Rome advanced; till this Sardican grant-intended perhaps only to be given to Julius of Rome personally-of authority "to receive and try appeals of Bishops, who wished to appeal from the decisions of Synods," was enlarged into "authority to evoke causes to Rome, to summon Bishops, ex-officio, and to proceed to review and set aside the Judgments of Councils.* The great barriers against the Papacy, were, first, Diocesan, and next, Metropolitan Bishops. And the way that Popery grew out of them, was by destroying them.

The student of Ecclesiastical History can readily test the entire correctness of this assertion. Take the case of Damasus, Bishop of Rome, (A. D. 366,) and the way in which, by the aid of the Emperor Gratian, he subjected the Metropolitans; take the instance of Innocent I., (A. D. 402,) and his assumptions of hyper-Metropolitical power over Illyria, rebuked, as they afterwards were, by an Imperial statute; take the attempt of Zosimus (A. D. 417) to transfer the Metropolis of Southern France from Vienne to Arles; and, later on, of Leo I., (A. D. 440,)† to change it back to Vienne; take the far later instance of Hincmar, of Rheims; take, in a word, the

whole course of History, and the conclusion is the same. The Papacy was elevated on the ruins of Metropolitan and DioAnd this, we think, can hardly be called a

cesan power. development.

Whatever else, then, the Provincial System may be, it is Primitive and anti-Papal. Under what modifications, and in what precise form, it shall be received among us, is a question which demands our careful consideration. In some form or another, we must have it. In one cumbrous, unwieldy, dangerous form, we have it now. Shall we never have it in any other?

ART. IV. THE MORAVIANS AND THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE.

(1.) Spangenberg's Life of Nicholas Lewis Count Zinzendorf, Bishop and Ordinary of the Church of the United Brethren. London: 1838.

(2.) Text Book of Church History. By Dr. JOHN HENRY KURTZ. Vol. II. Philadelphia: 1862.

(3.) John Wesley's Journal; Philip's Life and Times of Whitefield; Burk's Life of Bengel, &c., &c.

AMONG the plans lately proposed for the restoration of Unity among Protestants, one is, that Non-Episcopalians shall consent to a sort of compromise, by consenting to receive the Episcopate and Episcopal Ordination from the Moravians. This, it is urged, will enable Protestant Episcopal Churchmen to regard their Orders as valid, and so prepare the way for something like Visible Unity among us.

Now, we see, in the outset, several objections to any such scheme as this. In the first place, we have not observed the first intimation that the Sects about us desire any such Visible Unity, or any real Visible Unity whatsoever. As far as they have indicated any feeling or any opinion on the subject, they do not regard such Unity as of the slightest importance; nay, many of them are evidently opposed to it, and would, if really called out, contend against it with all their might. The Rev. Dr. Bacon, of New Haven, Conn.,-a clear-headed man, who represents the Congregational theory, and which is the prevailing theory throughout large portions of the North and North-West, recently furnished a paper for one of the meetings of the Christian Union Society, in which this whole matter of outward Visibility was treated, (from his stand-point,) logically and ably. The paper, however, was quietly and significantly ignored; though it was, in fact, the paper of the meeting. The fundamental principle of Congregationalism is,

that the Christian Ministry is not a positive Institution of Jesus Christ; but that it originates, immediately and directly, from the people; in whom, primarily, this power is supposed to be lodged; in other words, startling as the position appears, that the people, not Jesus Christ, are the true ultimate source of Ecclesiastical and Ministerial power. And then, as to the nature of the Ministry itself; it is contended, by Congregationalists, and we believe it to be held by nineteen-twentieths of the New School Presbyterians,-that the Christian Ministry is not a distinct Order of men; and hence, strictly speaking, that there is no such thing as a Christian Ministry in distinction from the people at large.

In proof that we have stated this theory correctly, we quote from the "Congregational Catechism," the modern text-book of the System, and we commend the extracts to those among us who believe that Unity with these Sects is among the things either possible or desirable :

QUESTION 13. "Where does all Ecclesiastical power and authority reside?" ANSWER. "Primarily in the individual communities or local Churches."*

QUES. 14. "Whence does a local Church derive all its power?" ANS. "From the good pleasure of God, authorizing and requiring Christians to form themselves into Churches, and to regulate all their proceedings according to their discretion, in conformity with the laws of God."t

QUES. 16. "What is it that imparts official power to the officers of a Church?" ANS. "Their election or appointment by the Church, according to its by-laws, and their formal induction into office agreeably to the same laws."‡

QUES. 54. "Did Ordination convey to the person official powers which he could not otherwise possess?" ANS. "No. The ordination was rather a recognition of him as one already clothed with official powers by virtue of his previous election or appointment to office."§

QUES. 56. "Who had the power of ordaining officers in the primitive Church?" ANS. "Those, doubtless, who had the power of electing or appointing such officers, provided they were competent to conduct the solemn exercises in a proper manner;" that is, the people,|| &c.

QUES. 57. "Did the officers of the primitive Church, by virtue of their ordination, become a distinct order of men from the people!" ANS. "No! They did not become a distinct order of men," &c.¶

*

Cong. Cat., p. 12. Ibid., p. 13. Ibid., p. 13. §Ibid., p. 47. Ibid., p. 48. Ibid., pp. 48, 49.