this done because Barnabas and Saul had other business which required their presence in Jerusalem. It is said, ch. 12: 25, that they "returned (to Antioch) from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry," that is to say, when they had accomplished the errand on which the disciples of Antioch had sent them. The work of ministering to the saints was what they had to do: they did it and returned. It deserves notice, also, that the Church of Antioch sent their contributions "to the elders." They "determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea; which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." We know that Deacons had been appointed at Jerusalem. It is a remarkable circumstance, therefore, and has an important bearing on the point now under discussion, that the Antioch offering was not sent to the Deacons, but to the Elders. Many years after, Paul went to Jerusalem a second time on a similar errand. Standing on his defence before Felix at Cesarea, he said, “After many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings," Acts 24: 17; and he previously declared, when writing to the Romans in the prospect of this visit,-"Now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. When, therefore, I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain." Rom. 15: 25, 26, 28. And how warmly the apostle entered into the business, and what eager charge he took of the collection, may be seen by turning to 1 Cor. 16: 1-4, and the 8th and 9th chapters of 2d Corinthians. We there find him rejoicing to receive the gift, and to take upon him the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. 2 Cor. 8: 4, 19, 20. It appears also that Titus, an evangelist and pastor, was actively employed in the same matter of finance and Christian liberality. 2 Cor. 8: 6, 16-18, 23, 24; 9: 3-5.

Our third step in this argument is, that the conclusion which we have thus drawn from Scripture, is corroborated as a sound one by the circumstance of its having been adopted by the Reformers, and by them embodied in the Constitution of the Church of Scotland. Take the following extracts in support of our assertion.

"The office of Deacons is to receive the rents, and gather the alms of the kirk, to keep and distribute the same, as by the Ministers and Kirk shall be appointed. They may also assist in judgment with the Ministers and Elders," &c. First Book of Discipline, ch. x. § 11. If it be held that the latter clause refers to the spiritual deliberations of the session, then we say that, a fortiori, the Deacons may assist the session in judgment, when the temporal concerns of the church are before them;

and, in such a case, have we not just the Deacons' Court, as defined by the Act of last Assembly?

"The office of Deacons is to gather and distribute the alms of the poor, according to the direction of its session. The Deacons should assist the assembly (i. e. the session) in judgment, and may read publicly if need requires."-Ane short Somme of the Buik of Discipline.

"The receivers and collectors of these rents and duties must be Deacons or Treasurers, appointed from year to year in every Kirk; the Deacons must distribute no part of that which is collected, but by command of the Ministers and Elders; and they may command nothing to be delivered, but as the Kirk hath before determined," &c.-First Book of Discipline, ch. viii. § 8.

"If any extraordinary sums be to be delivered, then must the Ministers, Elders and Deacons consult, whether the deliverance of such sums doth stand with the common utility of the Kirk or not, and if they do universally condescend and agree upon the affirmative or negative, then-they may do as best seems; but if there be any controversy among themselves, the whole Kirk must be made privy; and that the matter be proponed, and the reasons, the judgment of the Kirk, with the Minister's consent, shall prevail."-First Book of Discipline, ch. viii. § 9. What have we here but the Deacons' Court again?

"Their office and power is to receive and to distribute the haill ecclesiastical goods, unto them to whom they are appointed. This they ought to do according to the judgment and appointment of the Presbyteries or Elderships," &c.-Second Book of Discipline, ch. viii. § 3.

"For officers in a single congregation, there ought to be one at the least, both to labor in the word and doctrine, and to rule" (that is, there must be a Pastor). "It is also requisite that there should be others to join in government" (that is, there must be Elders). "And likewise, it is requisite, that there be others to take special care for the relief of the poor" (that is, there must be Deacons). "These officers are to meet together at convenient and set times, for the well-ordering of the affairs of that congregation, each according to his office" (that is, there must be a Deacons' Court, consisting of Pastor, Elders, and Deacons). "It is most expedient that, in these meetings, one whose office is to labor in the word and doctrine do moderate in their proceedings" (that is, the Pastor should preside in the Deacons' Court).-Form of Presbyterial Church Government, agreed upon at Westminster, and ratified by Act of Assembly, 1645.

The fourth and final step in the argument is, that as it is now manifestly competent, both on scriptural and constitutional

grounds, that the superior office-bearers of the church should assist in administering her temporal affairs, so it is expedient and necessary, in present circumstances, that their right and power to act in conjunction with the Deacons should be recognized, and the exercise thereof provided for and regulated by the church. A moment's consideration will show this. Previous to the Disruption, the temporalities of the church were chiefly administered by the civil courts. The whole of her property was in their hands. The amount of stipends was fixed by them. They decided, in the last resort, as to the repair and building of manses, of places of worship, and in every question as to schools. Now, all is changed. All these matters are in the church's hands. And they are matters of great importance, although secular in their nature. The wrong adjustment of them would be hurtful to the highest interests of religion. To arrange and settle them in a proper manner often requires weight of character-always wisdom, experience, and knowledge of men and things. Plainly, then, it would be gross infatuation not to call in the aid of the Elders in regard to them. In many of our country congregations the temporal affairs of the church would go to wreck, if the Minister and Elders were to let them alone; and in all our congregations it would be extremely injudicious not to take the benefit of the services of the Elders, who always comprehend a large proportion of the gravest, the most sagacious, and the most influential of our members. If, indeed, it were unlawful to give the Elders any voice as to secular things, no expediency, however urgent, could warrant the church in doing it. But it is not unlawful. Scripture authorizes it. The constitution requires it. We think the Act of the late Assembly, on this subject, not only suited to the position of the church, but sound in the principle on which it proceeds. It gives the Elder no more power than belongs to him by the Word of God, and our ancient laws. And, if it is fairly and patiently wrought, we anticipate the best results.

NOTE B.

Proofs that the Laity were in primitive times represented in all the Councils of the Church by delegates of their

appointment.

We are happy to present the following elaborate testimony as collated by the Rev. Thomas John Young, of John's Island, South Carolina:

The primitive Councils were composed of the Clergy and Laity. The first Council of which we have any account, was that held for the election of a successor to the traitor Judas.

(Acts 1: 15.) It was evidently composed of the Clergy and Laity." "* The next Council, if it may be called a Council, was Laity. "The number of names together were about an hundred and twenty." The next Council, if it may be called a Council, was for the choice of Deacons. (Acts 6: 2, &c.) "The multitude of the Disciples" elected, and the Apostles ordained. The third and last Council mentioned in Scripture, (for I cannot consider the meeting of St. Paul with St. James and the Elders of Jerusalem, related in Acts 21, as a Council of the Church,) is that of which we have an account in Acts 15. Here, too, we find the Clergy and Laity assembled and deciding upon the questions proposed for consideration. For although in the 6th verse, the Apostles and Elders only are mentioned as "coming together," yet what follows, teaches us that the Laity were there also, and consenting to that which was determined upon. In the 12th verse it is said "all the multitude kept silence." In the 22d verse, "Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders, with the whole Church." And in the 23d verse, the letters go forth with the superscription, "the Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren send greeting." So much for the Councils of which

mention is made in the word of God.

In noticing the succeeding Councils, we must distinguish the different kinds which were held; for it is only with one of them that we are now concerned. There were General or Ecumenical Councils, Patriarchal or Diocesan, Provincial and Consistorial Synods.

Whether any other than Bishops or their proxies voted in the General Councils has not been decided. If we take the Council of Nice, the first General Council, as an example, it is certain, according to Eusebius and Socrates, that Presbyters, Deacons and Laics were present and took part in the discussions. The probability is that they also voted. But granting that they did not; then the Bishops may be considered as representing the Clergy, and the Emperor, without whose decree

*Supposing that the whole number of the seventy disciples were present, these, with the eleven Apostles, would make but 81 of the 120. There must have been, then, at least 39 of the Laity present.

"But in this present quire there was a multitude of Bishops, which exceeded the number of 250. But the number of the Presbyters and Deacons who followed them, of the Acoluthi, and of many other persons, was not to be comprehended." Eus. Ec. His. lib. iii. c. 8. Eng. Trans. "There were also present a great many Laics, well skilled in logic, ready to assist, each their own party.' * * * 'Against these [the patrons of Arius's opinions,] Athanasius, who was then but a Deacon of the Church of Alexandria, contended vigorously." Socrates Ec. His. lib. i. c. 8. Eng Trans.

In the General Council of Constantinople three Presbyters subscribe among the Bishops. See Con. Constant. Tom. p. 297. Bingham lib. ii. c. 19, 13, says that Habertas gives several other instances out of the Council of Chalcedon, 2d of Nice, 8th Council, against Photius and others. See also Jewel's Apology, c. vi. § 12.

the acts of General Councils were not binding, as representing the Laity.‡

That others, besides Bishops, sat and voted in Patriarchal and Provincial Synods, (the latter corresponding to our General Convention,) is demonstrable from ancient history and the acts of those Synods.* The evidence for which, it is not necessary to cite, as our concern is with a still lower Council, corresponding to our Diocesan Conventions. As, however, our Conventions, whether General or Diocesan, are formed on the

See Barrow. Pop. Supremacy. Supposition vi. § 3, page 200, edition A. D. 1700.

*"Upon this account [the Novatian schism] a very great Synod was assembled at Rome, consisting of sixty_Bishops; but of Presbyters and Deacons the number was greater." A. D. 251. Eus. Ec. Hist. lib. vi. c. 43. Eng. Trans.

*

"These men [referring to some who had been carried away by the Novatian schism, but were now returning to the Church] * divulged all his subtle devices and villanies * * in the presence both of a sufficient number of Bishops, and also of a great many Presbyters and Laics." Com. Ep. ad Fab. Eus. Ec. H. lib. vi. c. 43. Eng. Trans.

At the Council of Antioch, held A. D. 269 or 270, Presbyters, Deacons and Laics were present. Eusebius, lib. vii. c. 28, after mentioning the names of several of the Bishops, says, "and a great many more may be reckoned; who together with Presbyters and Deacons, were convened in the aforesaid city, &c. &c." The Circular letter of that Council runs in the name of certain Bishops and Presbyters, (whose name are given,) and of "all the rest of the Bishops of the neighboring cities and provinces which are with us, the Presbyters, and Deacons, and the Churches of God." Eus. Ec. His. lib. vii. c. 30.

"We ought to take notice," says Valesius, in a note on the above passage, "of the inscription of this Epistle: For we find here, not the names of Bishops only, but also of Presbyters and Deacons, and of the Laity also. The same we may see in the acts of the Council of Carthage [A. D. 256], in which Cyprian was President, and in the Council of Eliberis" [A. D. 305]. Council of Eliberis, A. D. 305. "Residentimus etiam 36 (al 26) Presbyteris, adstantibus Diaconibus et omni plebe." Con. Elib. Proœm.

Council of Arles, A. D. 314. In the Imperial rescript, by which Constantine summoned Chrestus, Bishop of Syracuse, to this Council, we find the following:

“Ευζεύξας σεαυτῶ καί δύο γέ τινας τῶν ἐκ τοῦ δευτέρου δρόνου” associating with you two of the second throne [or order]. Eus. Ec. Hist. lib. x. c. 5.

The names of most of the Bishops who attended the Council of Arles are lost, as well as many of those of the Prtsbyters; "yet the names of 15 Presbyters are yet remaining.' Bingham lib. ii. c. 19, § 12. Con. Arelat. i. in catalogo eorum consilio interfuerunt.

Council at Rome, under Hilary, A. D. 465. "Residentibus etiam UNIVERSIS Presbyteris, adstantibus quoque Diaconis, &c., &c." Con. Rom. ap. Justel. Tom. i. page 250.

Council at Rome, under Felix, A. D. 487. The names of seventy-six Presbyters are mentioned that sat together with the Bishops in Council, the Deacons standing by them, &c. Con. Rom. ap. Justel. Tom. i., p. 255.

Council at Rome, under Symmachus, A. D. 499. Sixty-seven Presbyters and six Deacons subscribed in the very same form of words as the Bishops did. "Subscripserunt Presbyteri numero 67. Cœlius Laurentius Archipresbyter tituli Praxedis hic subscripsi et concensi Synodalibus constitutis, atque in hac me profiteor manere sententia," &c. Con. Rom. ap. Justel. Tom. I., p. 259.

Council at Rome, under Symmachus, A. D. 502. Thirty-six Presbyters are named. "Residentibus etiam Presbyteris, Projectitio, Martino, &c. Adstantibus quoque Diaconis, &c. Con. Rom. ap. Just. Tom. i., p. 261. Council at Bracara, A. D. 563. "Considentibus simul Episcopis, præsenti