"was the chief of the Synagogue, was called "Chazan Hakeneseth, i. e. the Bishop of the "Congregation, and Sheliach Tsibbor, the Angel

“ing.

66

of the Church. And the Christian Church be modelled as near the form of the Synagogue as they could be; as they retained many "of the rites, so the form of the government was "continued, and the names remained the same. And again," In the Synagogues there was, first, one who was called the Bishop of the Congrega"tion, next the three orderers and judges of every thing about the Synagogue; who were called "Tsekenim, and by the Greeks gesCUTEgo, or แ γεροντες, that is, Elders. These ordered and "determined every thing that concerned the Synagogue, or the persons in it. Next them were "the three Parnassin or Deacons, whose charge "was to gather the collections of the rich, and "distribute them to the

poor

The next quotation shall be taken from Dr. Lightfoot, another Episcopal Divine, not less distinguished for his learning and talents. "The

66

Apostle," (says he) " calleth the minister, Epis copus, (or Bishop) from the common and known "title of the Chazan or Overseer in the Synaแ gogue." And again," Besides these, there was the public minister of the Synagogue, who "prayed publicly, and took care about reading "the law, and sometimes preached, if there were

• Observations on the 1. Can. p. 2. and 11. Can. p. 83.

.66

"not some other to discharge this office. This person was called Sheliach Tsibbor, the Angel of the Church, and Chazan Hakeneseth the Cha"zan or Bishop of the Congregation. The Aruch 66 gives the reason of the name. The Chazan, CC says he, is Sheliach Tsibbor, the Angel of the "Church, (or the public minister,) and the Tar

gum renders the word Roveh by the word "Hose, one that oversees. For it is incumbent

on him to oversee how the reader reads, and "whom he may call out to read in the law. The "public minister of the Synagogue himself read

not the law publicly, but every Sabbath he called "out seven of the Synagogue (on other days "fewer) whom he judged fit to read. He stood "by him that read, with great care observing that "he read nothing either falsely or improperly, "and calling him back, and correcting him, if " he had failed in any thing. And hence he was "called Chazan, that is Erixoros, i. e. Bishop or "Overseer. Certainly the signification of the "word Bishop, and Angel of the Church, had "been determined with less noise, if recourse "had been had to the proper fountains, and men "had not vainly disputed about the signification " of words taken I know not whence. The ser"vice and worship of the Temple being abolish"ed, as being ceremonial, God transplanted the "worship and public adoration of God used in "the Synagogues, which was moral, into the "Christian Church; viz. the public ministry,

66 ing, &c.

"public prayers, reading God's word, and preachHence the names of the ministers of "the Gospel were the very same, the Angel of "the Church, the Bishop which belonged to the "Ministers in the Synagogues. There were also "three Deacons, or Almoners, on whom was the 66 care of the poor *.”

1

The celebrated Grotius †, whose great learning and talents will be considered by all as giving much weight to his opinion on any subject, is full and decided in maintaining that the primitive church was formed after the model of the Synagogue. Many passages might be quoted from his writings, in which this opinion is directly asserted. The following may suffice. In his Commentary on Acts XI. 30. he expresses himself thus: "The "whole polity (regimen) of the Christian Church "was conformed to the pattern of the Synagogue." And in his Commentary on 1. Tim. v. 17. he has the following passage. Formerly, in large ci"ties, as there were many Synagogues, so there "were also many churches, or separate meetings " of Christians. And every particular Church "had its own President, or Bishop, who instruct

66

* See Lightfoot's Works, Vol. 1. p. 308. and 11. p. 133. †Though Grotius was bred a Presbyterian; yet being soured by what he considered as ill treatment from the Church of Holland, he discovered a strong predilection for Episcopacy. When this is considered, the declarations above cited, carry with them peculiar force.

"ed the people, and ordained Presbyters. In "Alexandria ALONE it was the custom to have but "one President or Bishop, for the whole city, who "distributed Presbyters through the city for the purpose of instructing the people; as we are 66 taught by Sozomen. 1. 14.”

The next point in Dr. Bowden's exhibition of Scriptural testimony, which demands attention, is the alleged Episcopal character of James over the church of Jerusalem.-This argument in favour of Prelacy, was wholly omitted in my former volume, not because there was any difficulty in answering it, but because it really appeared to me too frivolous to be seriously considered. Dr. Bowden, however, having no arguments to spare, has brought it forward with much confidence, and seems to consider it, like every other on the Episcopal side, as perfectly conclusive. Indeed he appears to regard me as guilty of injustice to the Episcopal cause in passing it over in silence.

But how does it appear, from the New Testament, that James was Bishop of Jerusalem? From such considerations, the advocates of prelacy tell us, as the following: 1. That in the Synod at Ferusalem, (Acts xv.) he spoke last, and expressed himself thus-Wherefore my sentence is, &c. 2. That Peter, after his release from prison, said to certain persons-Go show these things unto Fames and to the brethren. Acts XII. 17. And 3. That, in Acts XXI. 17, 18. it is said-And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the Elders were present. On these passages Dr. Bowden asks, "Why did Peter direct certain things to be communicated particularly to James, if he were not the Bishop? What induced Paul and his company to go in unto James in particular; and how came all the Elders to be with James, unless he were the Bishop? On the supposition that he bore this character every thing is natural; but on any other supposition these facts must appear very strange. I see enough to con vince me that he was the head of all the Presbyters and Congregations in Jerusalem. For I find him constantly distinguished from his clergy. He is always mentioned first, and the name of no other Presbyter, however eminent he may have been, is ever given. He is mentioned with marked respect on various occasions," &c. &c. I. 345–352.

This argument, when stripped of all its decorations, stands simply thus-James was the last person who spoke in the Synod; therefore he was superior to all the Apostles and others present! Peter requested an account of his release from prison to be sent to James; therefore James was a Diocesan Bishop! Paul and his company went to the house. of James in Jerusalem, and there found the Elders convened; therefore James was their ecclesiastical Governor!

Now, in the name of common sense, what connexion is there in this case, between the premises and the conclusion? Are no clergymen ever treated