"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 dis"tribute 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 apostle," (says he) "calleth the minister, Episcopus (or "bishop) from the common and known title of the Chazan or "Overseer in the Synagogue." 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 not some other to discharge this office. "This person was called Sheliach Tsibbor, the angel of the "church, and Chazan Hakeneseth the Chazan or bishop of the "Congregation. The Aruch gives the reason of the name. The "Chazan, says he, is Sheliach Tsibbor, the angel of the church, "(or the public minister,) and the Targum 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 him"self 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 observ"ing 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, Erisxomos, 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 service and worship of the temple being "abolished, 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, pub"lic prayers, reading God's word, and preaching, &c. Hence the names of the ministers of the Gospel were the very same, the "angel of the church, the bishop which belonged to the ministers

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

"in the synagogues. There were also three deacons, or almoners, ❝on whom was the care of the poor."*

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 cities, 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 instructed 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 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

*See Lightfoot's Works, Vol. I. p. 308. and II. 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.

Jerusalem (Acts xv.) he spoke last, and expressed himself thusWherefore my sentence is, &c. 2. That Peter, after his release from prison, said to certain persons-Go show these things unto James 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 convince 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. 1. 345-352.

This argument, when stripped of all its decorations, stands thus: James was the last person who spake 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 with "pointed respect," unless they are diocesan bishops? Do no clerical meetings ever take place in the houses of any other class of ministers than diocesan bishops? Cannot messages of a public nature be sent to individual ministers of the gospel, without supposing them to be prelates? Suppose a number of Presbyterian ministers had an important communication to make to the clergy of a certain city, would it be inconsistent with their doctrine of parity to address this communication to a particular individual, most distinguished for his age, talents, piety,"

and influence, to be by him imparted to the rest of his brethren? Nay, is not this, in all Presbyterian, as well as other countries, the ordinary method of proceeding? When the clergy of any town or district convene for mutual consultation, does their assembling in the house of some aged and venerable brother in the ministry constitute that brother their bishop, in the episcopal sense of the word? To propose questions of this kind seriously is little short of an insult to the understanding of the reader. Do not facts of the very kind related of James, happen every day to Presbyterian ministers? When gentlemen who would be thought to argue, and not to trifle, condescend to amuse their readers with representations of this kind, under the garb of reasoning, it is really difficult to answer them in the language of respect or gravity.

But the fathers, it seems, assert that James was bishop of Jerusalem. Admitting this fact; and admitting, also, that there were no circumstances tending to invalidate their testimony; to what does it amount? Why, simply, that James was one of the clergy, perhaps the senior clergyman of the church of Jerusalem, and probably the most conspicuous and eminent of them all. For let it never be forgotten that our episcopal brethren themselves acknowledge, that the title of bishop was applied in the apostles' days, and for some time afterwards, to the pastors of single congregations, and of course that this term alone decides nothing in their favour. But let us sift this matter a little. Hegesippus is quoted by Eusebius as relating, that " James, the brother of our Lord, undertook, together with the apostles, the government of the church of Jerusalem."* This is the earliest writer that is brought to testify directly on the subject; and he declares that James presided over the church in Jerusalem in conjunction with the other apostles. He says, indeed, a little before, that the bishoprick of Jerusalem was given to James by the apostles, but when we come to compare the two passages, and to interpret the one by the other, the whole testimony of this writer will be found perfectly equivocal. Some of the later fathers, also, following Hegesippus, speak of James as bishop of Jerusalem; but do they tell us in what sense they employ this title? That the apostles and primitive Christians sometimes employed it in a sense different from

that which is adopted by our episcopal brethren, is confessed on all hands. And that these early writers, when they speak of James as bishop of Jerusalem, mean to say that he was a prelate, a bishop, in the modern and perverted sense of the term, is what we confidently call in question, and what Dr. Bowden, with all his brethren to aid him, cannot prove. I know that the learned professor loses all patience at intimations of this kind; but it is by no means the first time that a man has been provoked by a demand of proof, when he had nothing but assertion to produce.

But the most wonderful part of the story is, that Dr. Bowden produces Calvin as a witness in support of the episcopal dignity of James. On this point he speaks in the following terms: "So "evident is it, that James was bishop of Jerusalem, that even "Calvin thinks it highly probable that he was governor of that "church. When, says Calvin, the question is concerning dignity, "it is wonderful James should be preferred before Peter. Perhaps "it was because he was prefect of the church of Jerusalem.' In "Galat. c. II. v. 9. Calvin did not choose to speak plainer; for that "would have been in direct contravention to his ecclesiastical regi"men." 1. p. 346.

The moment I cast my eye on this quotation from Calvin, I took for granted that something had been kept back, which, if produced, would turn the tables on the professor. And this accordingly proves to be the case. The passage, as it really stands in Calvin, is as follows: "The apostle speaks of their (James, "Cephas, and John,) seeming to be pillars, not by way of contempt, "but he repeats a common sentiment. "Because from this it "follows, that what they did, ought not to be lightly rejected. When "the question is concerning dignity, it is wonderful that James "should be preferred to Peter. Perhaps this was done because he was president of the church of Jerusalem. With respect to the "word pillar, we know, that, in the very nature of things, those "who excel others in talents, in prudence, or in other endowments, "must also be superior in authority. In the church of God it is a "fact, that in proportion as any one is strong in grace in the same "proportion is honour due to him. It is ingratitude, nay, it is "impiety, not to do homage to the Spirit of God wherever he ። appears in his gifts. And further, as the people of a church can"not do without a pastor, so each particular assembly of pastors