spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;" and thus "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." We maintain then, for the reasons just quoted, that the Apostles, as Apostles, could have no successors, and that in reality they have none. The abettors of the Apostolical Succession admit the truth of our position, and feel the force of such arguments as have been stated; but still, clinging to a favourite dogma, while they receive our premises, they reject our inferences, and from the same facts we arrive at different conclusions. They contend that the officer, in the church, then termed an Apostle, was the same as the officer whom they now designate a bishop; but that shortly after the appointment, it was thought better to confine the title of Apostle to those who had personally seen the Lord Jesus; while their successors, exercising the same rights and authority, though unendowed with miraculous powers, contented themselves with the designation of Bishop-that the prelates who now rule the Church of these realms, were validly ordained by others who, by means of an unbroken spiritual descent of ordination, derived their mission from the Apostles and from our Lord; and that these ordinations descend in a direct line, and an uninterrupted series from the Apostles. Now we have already seen that the Apostles, as such, could have no successors: and it is equally clear that the office of Bishop and Presbyter is not distinct, that the one in reality is not superior to the other, but that they are one and the same office. Paul in writing to Titus says, "For this cause I left thee at Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders (presbyters) in every city, as I had appointed thee; if any be blameless, for a bishop must be blameless." Here Elders, or Presbyters, and Bishops are spoken of as identical. Titus was to ordain Elders who were blameless; and the reason assigned is, "a Bishop must be blameless." So that the terms are evidently employed indifferently, and altogether without distinction. To the Elders of the church at Ephesus the Apostle said, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers," or Bishops. Here the Elders, or Presbyters, are designated Bishops or overseers; titles indifferently applied to the Ministers or Pastors of the church at Ephesus, so that no distinction at that time existed between the two. It is of no avail to allege that the terms here are improperly applied to the persons addressed; for it is to more than one the Apostle speaks, and the existence of more than one Bishop to a single church is fatal to the notion of Diocesan Episcopacy. We have other passages at command which prove that a church had more than one Bishop; that the Apostles "ordained Presbyters in every church" where no mention is made of any appointment of Bishops; that the same qualifications were requisite for both Bishops and Presbyters; and that the Apostles entitled themselves Presbyters, not Bishops;-all of which prove that the offices were not distinct, but one and the same; that Diocesan Episcopacy has no foundation in the Word of God; and that the ordinations to the sacred office of the Ministry, of which we read in the New Testament, could not be otherwise than Presbyterian. And in these views, and in our interpretation of these passages, we are supported by such authorities as Campbell, Doddridge, Wesley, Macknight, &c. &c. Whilst we do not admit the truth of the statements respecting the office of Apostles and Bishops being distinct from and superior to that of Presbyters, or Min isters, we also maintain that the Apostolical Succession, falsely so called, and of which they boast, comes through an uncertain channel. They speak of an uninterrupted series, as so clear to those who examine the subject, as to render a doubt impossible-an unbroken chain, every link of which may be traced by those who investigate the case for themselves. Argument then has no place. Let the advocates of such a succession produce the record of their ecclesiastical genealogy, and that part of their claim is set at rest. Why, then, are such records not produced? Plainly, because none such exist. If they can be found, we ask-nay, we demand, that they be produced. We have a right to make such a demand. We make it then for our own sakes, that we may no longer persist in a schismatical and dangerous course, but repent at once of our presumption, and “thus cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord." But we also demand such a record, for the sake of those who rest on this succession. For if it cannot be found, they are left in a condition similar to that of the Priests in the days of Ezra, who in consequence of the loss of their pedigree, were regarded as polluted, and put away from the priesthood. In judging others they judge themselves, until they can show us their ecclesiastical pedigree. Are we invaders? so are they. Are we schismatical and unauthorised? so are they. Do they pronounce on us their anathemas, and predict our future destiny? in this they describe their own doom. If the doctrine under consideration be unscriptural, as we believe it is, then we are safe; but if true, as they assert it is, then they stand in jeopardy, until they can trace their pedigree; nor can they reasonably expect our confidence till they produce the record for which we call. So far from all being clear and beyond a doubt, the whole is covered with mist, and involved in uncertainty. So far from the chain being strong and unbroken, the very first links are broken in pieces and lost, and all who trust in this regular, personal succession, for the validity of their call to the Ministry, trust in an uncertainty: all who rest on this, lean on a broken reed; and all who build on this, build not on the rock, but the sand. But the succession of which we speak comes through a channel as corrupt as it is uncertain. Many who have been thus ordained to the Priest's office, were ordained by men, heterodox in sentiment, unholy in their principles, ungodly and profligate in their lives, and cruel and tyrannical in their conduct towards others. History yields abundant evidence to substantiate these statements, and to suppose that such an ordination can render a call to the ministry valid, and constitute them the only authorised ministers of the Gospel, is to suppose that the God of truth can sanction the propagation of error; and that "the Holy one and Just" can look with complacency on that which is impure and loathsome. The succession then comes through a channel as unholy as it is uncertain, as dangerous as it is unscriptural, and as injurious to the cause of truth, as it must be offensive to God. If such a regular succession exists, and if any are in the genealogical succession, yet by sin they lose all title to, and any part in the truly Apostolical Succession. Judas sinned, and “his Bishopric was taken by another." But if even the succession of which they boast came through a channel that is both certain and pure, still it could neither constitute, nor invalidate a call to the ministry. Ordination, in the scriptural sense of the term, whatever be the form adopted, whether by imposition of hands or otherwise, is not a call to duty, but simply an appointment to office. Men are first called of God to preach the everlasting Gospel, and then by an act of the Church solemnly set apart to the work of the ministry. When any are episcopally ordained, they profess to be "inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon them that office." And unless they make this profession, whatever may be their other qualifications, ordination is refused, and the door into the ministry is properly closed against them. Here a divine call is admitted, even by those who speak of the "succession." But if any make the required profession, and sincerely believe that they are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and yet disapprove of a certain mode of church government, if they deny or even have doubts as to the scriptural character of Diocesan episcopacy, ordination to them is refused. But does this refusal on the part of man make the call of God of none effect, or disqualify the individual thus divinely called for teaching the things of God? And whether it be right in such a case to obey God or man, judge ye. Our argument then is this, that the Apostles, as such, could have no successors; that the office of Bishop and Presbyter was not distinct but identically the same, and that, therefore, the ordinations of which we read in the New Testament were of the presbyterian orderthat the succession claimed by those of a certain school comes through a channel that is both uncertain and corrupt; and that if it were both certain in the series and holy in its character, still it could neither constitute nor invalidate a call to the ministry. A divine call is essential to a good minister of Jesus Christ. Those who resemble the Apostles in moral character-in personal piety, in ministerial zeal and faithfulness, are divinely called to go and preach the Gospel to every creature." A succession of ministers thus called and qualified, is THE TRUE APOS TOLICAL SUCCESSION. 66 THE SAFETY OF GOD'S PEOPLE. "How fair and goodly is the sight Where Jacob's marshall'd tents appear! When bursts the shout of glad delight, The Lord our king is with us here.' Fair is the valley where serene The fertilizing waters flow, And scatter'd gardens deck the scene Where trees which God hath planted grow; Among the darkest powers of hell Tho' Israel's foe her ruin sought, See how in peace her children dwell; See what the Lord her God hath wrought! "And can it be that one who stands MISCELLANEOUS ARTICLES & ANECDOTES. ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS. BY THE REV. R. WALLER. THE public feeling against capital punishments, even in cases of wilful murder, appears to me to be assuming a fearful aspect; and unless some check be given to it, we cannot tell to what it may ultimately lead. For myself I feel some hesitancy in touching the question, and perhaps should not have done so, had it not been for a conversation with a friend, in which the views I expressed seemed to excite the utmost astonishment, and in consequence of which I was led to think more seriously on the subject. Knowing how difficult it is to divest the mind of prejudice, and to read without bias any thing that opposes public opinion, I must request the utmost candour on the part of the reader. I have no disposition to become "an apologist for the hangman," as some have called the advocates for capital punishments; but I would rather be called so than trample on the authority of God's word, or reflect on the wisdom, justice and benevolence of the ever blessed God, or remove the safeguards of society, and endanger human life, and thus give encouragement to the murderer. There is a point beyond which silence becomes sin. It is our duty to maintain the truth, and "earnestly to contend for the faith ;" and we are not to shrink from duty for the sake of hard names, nor for the scoffs and taunts of sarcasm. Nor am I disposed to do so; but, again allow me to bespeak your utmost candour, while you read the following remarks on this important topic. That the punishment of death on the wilful murderer is required by the Scriptures, appears to me as plain as any other truth contained in the Bible. Nor can I believe that any unbiassed mind would come to a different conclusion. If those who oppose these punishments, would confine themselves to the Scriptures, they would soon find that they were becoming "wise above what is written." It is easier to declaim against anything than to prove a point, and declamation often takes a readier and stronger hold on the public mind than argument. This may be one reason why there is so much declamation, and so little argument in all the clamour of the public papers on this subject. But can you prove that capital punishment is sanctioned by the Scriptures? At once and unhesitatingly, I reply, Yes. And though the burden of proof rests with those who deny this, yet I have no objection to state the grounds on which I make that reply. And first, I refer to Gen ix. 5, 6. "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of every man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man.” This, be it observed, is not one of the ceremonial laws of the Jews, nor one of the judicial laws peculiar to them as a nation, but one which was enacted immediately after the flood by Jehovah, for the observance of the whole human family, and which has, therefore, been observed by all nations of the world since that period, never having been repealed unto this day. We know that some have endeavoured to explain it away, just as other texts have been explained away, or that have by tradition been made of none effect. And when a favourite theory has to be established, this is very common and sometimes easy. But it is vain to do so with this text; the meaning is too plain and clear; nor can I believe that any candid enquirer would regard this text in any other light than as an expression of the mind of God, that it is his will that wilful murder should be punished with death, and that it is his instruction and command that this should be done. Read the text, and its connection. Is it like a prophecy, as some have called it? What! Is it prophecy to describe to man what he shall eat, and what he shall not eat? What God will require respecting man's life, and the reason why he will require it, viz., because he is made in his own image? If it is a prediction, it has never been fulfilled. For who has ever considered this, when they have passed sentence of death and inflicted this punishment. None. Was there ever a prediction like this? No, no; it is no prophecy, but a plain command. "At the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of every man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.' What is the meaning of the word require, if it does not imply obligation and responsibility? So it is used in other places, see Ezek. xxxiii, 6.-Gen. xxxi. 39.— 2 Sam. iv, 11. If this is not a command, where shall we find one? "But," says an objector, “are you prepared for the consequences of your position? Are you prepared to maintain that the brother, or the nearest kinsman to the murdered person, is bound to execute this punishment, and that in all cases? For if you interpret this text literally, this is the meaning." In reply we answer, Nay. The term brother does not always signify the next of kin. It has a more extended meaning, and often applies to a nation or people, see Isa. xli. 6—Jer. xxxiv. 9—Matt. xviii. 15. În fact, "One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren."-Matt. xxiii. 8. "Have we not all one Father? hath not God created us? Why do we deal treacherously every man against our brother, by profaning the covenant of our Fathers.”— Mal. ii. 10. Besides the latter clause must be regarded as explanatory of the former. "By man, (not merely the next of kin, or a brother) shall his blood be shed;" so that this part of the command is quite fulfilled whenever that penalty is inflicted by a public officer, who is appointed to execute judgment by him who is "the minister of God," "a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil," and who "beareth not the sword in vain." The fact, that God required the Jews to punish every wilful murderer with death, may be regarded also as an interpretation of the mind of God, as expressed in the above text. For surely he would not have done so, had he not seen it both wise and necessary. But he did command them to do so, adding, "Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life."-Deut. xix, 13, 21. "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses; but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Moreover, ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death; but he shall only be put to death," &c.-Numbers xxxv, 30, 34 Read the whole passage. I know it will be said, "This is one of the judicial laws of the Jews, and therefore not applicable to other nations, or to our times." But this is not sufficient to destroy our argument. Does this enactment of God express his views of the enormity of wilful murder, and of the punishment with which it should be visited, or does it not? Was murder more atrocious among them than among others? Was it a more heinous crime then, than it is now? Why, then, should that crime be punished with death among them, and not among others? and what reason can exist that would justify and require such a punishment then, that does not exist now? And how is it that God should command the murderer to be put to death without pity, and forbid any satisfaction to be taken then, and yet, as some teach, condemn the punishment of death now? We can see no reason why murder should be punished with death at one time, and not at another. We know no reasons that would justify and require it among one people, and in one age, that do not require it among all nations, and at all times. The crime is the same at all times, and its influence on relations and on society is the same in all countries. Let those who object to capital punishments contend with these difficulties fairly, and not endeavour to quash the argument by merely saying, "This is one of the judicial laws of the Jews, and therefore not applicable to other nations, or to our times." It is an awful thing to charge God with cruelty and with folly; and, to do so must be peculiarly offensive to him. But the clamour about the cruelty of putting a murderer to death, and of the degrading and brutalizing ten |