case this might be a difficult and doubtful process from the want of any accurate and authentic description of the ancestor. But in the case of ministerial descent, we have the advantage of a description not only exact but infallible, with which those who claim to be successors of the primitive ministers may be compared with rigorous exactness. Let us suppose that according to the scriptures men had sprung from two distinct originals, and that these were represented as distinguished by the same external marks which now distinguish Africans from Europeans. If any one should claim to be descended from either of these stocks, and his pretensions were disputed, the nearest approach that could be made to a solution of the question, would be by comparing the complexion, features, form, hair, &c., of the claimant, with the like particulars ascribed in scripture to the father of the race. The application of the rule might be precarious, but without specific genealogies, no better proof could be adduced, or would be called for.

This imaginary case affords a close analogy to that of apostolical succession. Certain bodies of men claim to be exclusively descended, by official derivation, from the primitive apostles, and reject the claims of others to a similar descent, upon the ground that they are not able to produce specific proofs of an unbroken succession. But when charged with the same defect in their own orders, they appeal to notoriety, as if there were no room to doubt or question their extraction. But it may be questioned, on the same grounds upon which they question that of others; and the only way in which the point at issue can be settled is by comparing the distinctive attributes of those who now profess to have succeeded the apostles in the ministerial office, with the corresponding traits of the apostles themselves. By this test we are willing to abide. We lay no claim to apostolical succession, except so far as we agree with the apostles and the primitive ministry, in doctrine, spirit, discipline, and life. And we consider our opponents as reduced to the necessity, either of submitting to the same test, or of proving in detail their individual descent from the apostles. The attempt to substitute for such proof the admitted fact, that the Anglican or Romish clergy of the present day are, as a body, the successors of the apostolic ministry, is to evade the difficulty by confounding general and particular succession, by insisting on the latter when our orders

are in question, and producing the former when their own commission is demanded. This, we say, is a virtual admission of the fact, which forms the ground of our last objection, viz. that apostolical succession, in the strict sense of the terms, and as a practical test of valid ministrations, is impracticable and therefore useless.

If then, as we have tried to show, this doctrine is not only unsupported by express command and binding example, and by any necessity arising from the nature of the ministerial office, or the ends for which it was established, but at variance with the doctrine of Christ's headship, superseded by the surer test of doctrinal conformity to apostolic teachings, contradicted by the providence of God, and practically useless even to its advocates; it is not perhaps too bold an inference from these considerations, that an incapacity to trace our ministerial authority by regular succession, step by step, to the apostles, is no conclusive argument, nor even a presumptive one, against the validity of Presbyterian orders. Here we might safely rest the defence of our ministrations against all attacks connected with this point of apostolical succession; but we cannot do justice to the strength of our position, without exhibiting the subject in another point of view. We have endeavoured to show, that the apostolical succession, which we are accused of wanting, is not essential to a valid ministry. This would suffice to justify our claims, even on the supposition that our opponents possess in the highest degree, what they demand of us, and that we, on the other hand, are utterly without it. But we have furthermore seen reason to believe that our opponents have it in a much more limited degree than that which they require of others. This, in addition to the unessential character of the advantage, would at least have the effect of bringing us nearer to a level with our neighbours, still supposing apostolical succession in the ministerial office to be altogether wanting upon our part.

But even this residuary difference between us, with respect to the validity of our pretensions, disappears when it is known, that so far as apostolical succession can be verified, the Presbyterian Church in the United States possesses it, as really and fully as the Church of England. In making this assertion, as in all the reasonings of the present article, we assume as proved already, that a superior order in the ministry to that of presby

ters is not essential to the being of the church, but that from the beginning presbyters have exercised the highest powers now belonging to the ministry. If so, it is through them that the apostolical succession must be traced, and we accordingly maintain that our orders may be just as surely traced in this way up to apostolic times, as those of any other church through bishops. The denial of this fact has, for the most part, been connected with the false assumption that the ministry of our church has been derived from that of Geneva, and depends for its validity on the ministerial authority of Calvin; whereas we trace our orders, through the original Presbytery of Philadelphia, to the Presbyterians of Ireland, and the mother-church of Scotland, which is well known to have been reformed with the concurrence and assistance of men regularly ordained in the church of Rome. The principal admixture of this Scottish element, in our earliest presbyteries, was with New England Puritans, among whom only two examples of lay-ordination are bedieved to have occurred, and whose ecclesiastical system was originally founded by regularly ordained priests of the Anglican establishment. The proportion of those members, in our primitive church courts, whose ordination was derived from more. obscure and doubtful sources, such as the Welsh and English Independents, was extremely small. Whatever then a regular succession may be worth, we can lay claim to it as far back and as certainly as any of our adversaries.

This fact is indeed so "notorious," that it has been met, for the most part, not with a denial of the fact itself, but with an allegation, that the only apostolical succession in existence is derived through Bishops, as superior to Presbyters. It is the need of something to destroy the force of presbyterial succession, as a fact which cannot be denied, that has occasioned the perpetual and almost universal combination of the doctrine of succession with the doctrine of episcopacy, as alike essential to the organization of the church. We have ventured, however, to discuss them separately, and have thus been led to the conclusion, that the highest powers of the church belong to Presbyters as such; that succession, if derived at all, must be derived through them; and that through them we possess it no less certainly and fully than the church of England or the church of Rome. We cannot indeed, show that every link in the long chain has been without

a flaw, but neither can our adversaries do so upon their part. Until the Reformation, the two lines are coincident, and since that time, the continuation of the series of Presbyters, in Scotland, England, Ireland, and America, is as certain and notorious as that of Bishops. Supposing, then, as we of course do, that the rank, which we have claimed for Presbyters, is justly due to them, it follows necessarily, that no objection to the validity of Presbyterian orders can be founded on the want of apostolical succession; partly because it is not absolutely necessary, partly because we are as really possessed of it as any other ministry or church whatever. When any urge this argument against our ministrations, they assume two facts, both essential to the truth. of their conclusion; first, the fact that such succession is of absolute necessity, and secondly the fact that they alone possess it. If either of these assumptions is unfounded, it destroys the argument; for if succession is not necessary, it matters little who has or has it not; and if on the other hand we have as much of it as our opponents, they can have no pretext for impugning the validity of our ministrations. By disproving either of these two positions, the conclusion is destroyed. By disproving both, it is doubly destroyed, "twice dead, plucked up by the roots."

ART. V.-Christ's Second Coming: will it be Pre-Millennial? By the Rev. David Brown, A. M., Minister of St. James' Free Church, Glasgow. Edinburgh: 1846. 12mo. pp. 386.

As early as the second century, there seems to have been a general expectation in the church, that Christ would return to the earth, and spend a thousand years with his disciples. The current notion of the happiness to be enjoyed throughout this period became gradually more and more debased, until the doctrine was itself rejected by more spiritual Christians, and by some of them along with it the book of Revelation, on a single obscure passage in which the chiliastic doctrine rested. After the lapse of ages, during which it seemed to be forgotten, a new interpretation of the Apocalyptic millennium became current. This supposed the terminus a quo to be the institution of the

Christian church, and the end of the world coincident with that of the tenth century. When the general agitation, which arose at first from this belief, had been allayed by the arrival of the dreaded epoch, the millennium again ceased to be a general subject of attention till the Reformation. The Reformers seem to have bestowed little thought upon it; but towards the close of the sixteenth century, it became a favourite theme of disquisition. Some agreed that the millennium was past, but differed as to the time when. This general doctrine was maintained by Usher in his work De Ecclesia. But a new face was put upon the controversy by the Clavis Apocalyptica of Joseph Mede, who held the millennium and the day of judgment to be one and the same period, during which the church is to be freed from all existing evils, and the Jews to be converted as a nation, in a manner similar to Paul's conversion and prefigured by it. It now became the common doctrine of interpreters, that the millennium was still future, and after the end of the seventeenth century, that it should precede Christ's second coming. To this anticipated period the descriptions of the future glory of the church in the Old Testament were now applied without hesitation, and the name millennium, thus understood, became universally familiar. When revivals of religion or awakenings became frequent, they were looked upon as signs of the approaching millennium, and enthusiasts indulged their imaginations freely in defining the precise time when it was to open.

Since the commencement of the present century the doctrine has again assumed a new form or rather has resumed an ancient one in which it now extensively prevails both in Britain and America. This is the pre-millennial theory, which makes the thousand years of the Apocalypse the period of Christ's personal reign at Jerusalem, and also teaches that the dead saints will then be raised and the living transfigured, while the wicked will remain in the grave until the thousand years are past. Some of the advocates of this opinion, not content with the period of a thousand ordinary years, enlarge it to 365.000, by applying the principle of a year for a day. This pre-millennial theory has led to a more extensive study of the prophecies in general, and especially of the Apocalypse, with many varying and strange results.

These speculations have especially prevailed among the

VOL. XIX.NO. IV.

37