、

sion into the Christian Church. But there was no such rite of admission into the Jewish Synagogue. The holy Eucharist exhibits CHRIST's body broken, and his blood shed upon the cross; and whoever eats the mystical, sacramental bread, and drinks of the mystical, sacramental cup, with faith and penitence, partakes of the benefits of CHRIST's death and passion. These two rites set the Christian Church at a great distance, and givę it a very different character, from the Jewish Synagogue.

4. The latter was principally a school of morality; but the former is both a school of morality and religion; for there never was any religious institution without mystical, symbolical rites. From the first promise of a Redeemer, which was the foundation of the Christian Church, to its completion by CHRIST, after his resurrection, God's mercy to fallen man was signified by mystical rites, and man's obedience put to the trial, by demanding from him an observance of these rites. And wherever those rites are wanting, the religion of a fallen. creature is wanting. This was strikingly the case in the Jewish Synagogue. Its worship, therefore, was materially different from that of the Christian Church.

The

5. The Jewish Synagogue was not only thus materially different, but still further, it was no Church at all. The Greek word EKKAnoia, from EкKaλEw, to call out, signifies a society called, or chosen out of the world. Till it is so called out of the world, or from the mass of mankind, it can have no being; "but it cannot call itself, any more than a man can bring himself into the world. Our Christian calling is as truly the work of God, and as much independent of ourselves, as our natural birth."b Church is not a mere voluntary association, as the Jewish Synagogue was; an association that might be shaped into any form which men please to give it, and which might be abolished and revived according to men's humour; but it is a society formed by GOD, and into which fallen, sinful men are introduced by his ministers, with some mystical rite, expressive of God's good will towards them; a society, in which the forgiveness of sins is promised and granted by GOD, and upon which the HOLY GHOST sheds his influences to qualify its members for eternal happiness. These characters are essential to a divinely instituted Church; but the Jewish Synagogue was totally destitute of them. therefore, was no Churchi.

It,

What further proves this point, if it need any further proof, is, that the Jewish Church was composed of all circumcised Jews, united together by the Temple service and priesthood. Into this society all the males were introduced by the mystical rite of circumcision, and they could not with impunity decline this association. Not so in the Jewish Synagogue. No man was under an obligation to be a member of that; he might, or might not, just as he pleased; for it was a mere human institution. It

b Rev. WILLIAM JONES' Essay on the Church, p. 26.

was enough for him, if he attended the temple service, and complied with its rites and ceremonies: to this he was obligated, and no human power could absolve him from it. To him the temple was the centre of religious unity, and not the synagogue. The synagogue, therefore, was no part of the Jewish Church.

6. As the temple service and priesthood were the centre of unity to the Jews, so in the Christian Church, the public worship, and sacraments, and ministry, (whether the ministry be, strictly speaking, a priesthood or not,) is the centre of religious unity; and no one, upon Christian principles, can be deemed a member of CHRIST's visible, mystical body, who has not been baptized, and thereby received into the Christian Church. Of these, the Jewish Synagogue was totally destitute; and was never considered, either by Jews or Christians, as a centre of unity. The Christian Church then being so essentially different, could not have been formed upon the plan of the Jewish Synagogue.

By attending to these important considerations, we shall be able with ease to determine the correctness of your reasoning upon this point.

You observe, first, 'the temple service was throughout, typical, and ceremonial, and of course, was done away by the coming of CHRIST.' This, Sir, is by no means correct. In the temple service, there were prayers, and praises, and blessings; so there were in the Jewish Synagogue, and so there are in the Christian Church. In every religious institution, there must necessarily be some points of coincidence; but to argue from this, that any particular institution was copied from another, when the resemblance arises from the very nature of the case, is extremely weak. At this rate, I can prove that the temple service was taken from the worship of the Egyptian Isis and Osiris, and that of the Christian Church, from the worship in the temples of the Persian Magi. Where GOD is worshipped with any tolerable rationality, there must necessarily be a mixture of moral acts with ceremonial observances. The few points of coincidence, therefore, between the synagogue and the Christian Church, necessarily springing out of the very nature of those institutions, afford no ground whatever for asserting, that CHRIST's Church was formed after the Jewish Synagogue. Nay, had the latter never existed, the former would have been just what it is.

Another erroneous ground, which, I conceive, you have taken upon this point, is contained in the following assertion: that 'the synagogue worship was that part of the organized religious establishment of the Old Testament Church, which, like the decalogue, was purely moral and spiritual, or at least, chiefly so; and, therefore, in its leading characters, proper to be adopted under any dispensation.' Now, Sir, if I do not greatly deceive myself, I have shown, that the synagogue worship was no part at all of the Jewish Church, that it was destitute of some of the essential characters of a Church, and that the people were not obliged, by any divine authority, to attend its service. The religious,

indeed, frequented it, but not under the idea of its being the service of a Church-that, no Jew could possibly have entertained, without entertaining a principle that would necessarily have produced schism. Our SAVIOUR, too, and his Apostles, frequented the synagogue, as they would have done any moral and religious association; but they give us not the least hint, that they thought it a part of the Old Testament Church. Indeed, it is so evident that neither Jews nor Christians ever considered the synagogue as a part of the Church, that it is not worth while to say any thing more upon the subject. It could not be a Church in the proper meaning of the word, as has been already observed; for a Church is a divine institution; but the synagogue was altogether human, and, therefore, essentially different.

This I take to be the root of the error into which, I conceive, so many have run upon this subject. Once settle the true notion of a Church, and all that you have said to prove your point falls, of course, to the ground.

Another argument that you use to prove conformity between the synagogue and the Christian Church, is, that the words synagogue and church have the same signification. This, from a scholar, is astonishing. How easy and evident is the distinction! They both imply an assembly, and so far, therefore, they agree. In this sense, the word synagogue may always be changed for the word church; but here we must stop-we can go no farther. I have shown that a church is an assembly of a particular nature, marked with particular characters, divinely instituted in its ministry, in its sacraments, in its principle of unity; and, therefore, at a great distance from a mere synagogue or assembly of people met together even for religious purposes. The community of signification, then, between a 'synagogue,' or assembly,' and a 'church,' so far as they mean a collection of people, is one of the greatest fallacies that I have ever seen. It is that which logicians call an imperfect enumeration, or a false induction; when, from one or two points of coincidence, a general proposition is inferred.

You appear to me, Sir, to be sensible that this mode of reasoning will not be deemed of much weight, for you say, 'I am aware that this coincidence in the meaning of these words is not absolutely conclusive. These are soft words. It should be said this is a perfect sophism; and, therefore, deserves contempt.

Your next argument in favour of your hypothesis, is, that 'the mode of worship adopted in the Christian Church by the Apostles, was substantially the same with that which had long been practised in the synagogue.'

To this I have already given a reply, viz. that wherever there is any rational worship, there must necessarily be some points of coincidence. In the Jewish temple there were prayers a praises in the synagogue that was also the case; and in the Christian Church, we worship GoD in the same manner. This

arises from the very nature of religion. Accordingly, we find these things in every modificatien of gentilism. What is the inference? Is it, that all modes of worship were taken from one particular model? Certainly not.

Your third argument in favour of your hypothesis has as little force in it as the preceding. You say, 'The titles given to the officers of the synagogue were transferred to the officers of the Christian Church;' and your presumptive inference from this is, that the one was probably copied from the other. No mode of reasoning can be more fallacious than this. The title of Bishop, which was sometimes given to the minister of the synagogue, you very well know, Sir, signifies an overseer, as it is rendered, Acts xx. 4. This very title the Athenians gave to those officers whom they sent to supervise the cities under their government: they were called ETLOKOTOL KAι puλakes-bishops and guardians. In the same sense, Plutarch often uses the word, as when he calls Numa the bishop of the vestal virgins. Cicero also informs us, that Pompey made him overseer, or bishop of Campania, and the whole sea coast. Now, Sir, I think I am full as much at liberty to indulge my fancy, as you are to indulge yours; and to suppose, that the Apostles in forming the ministry of the Christian Church, had an eye to the Athenian and Roman governments, and that they regulated the powers of the Christian Bishop by those of the civil Bishop. If there be any thing in sameness of title, I see not why my presumptive argument is not as good as yours. And as to the Elders, translated ПpeobυTEрOL by the Seventy, we read of them ages before the synagogue had an existence; and we know that they were no more than civil rulers among the Jews. The framers of the synagogue service and ministry adopted this title for their rulers. You might, therefore, with as much propriety, infer from this circumstance, that the synagogue was formed upon the model of the Sanhe drim, as that the Christian Church was formed upon the plan of the synagogue. The title too of Deacon, which is very indefinite, and generally signifies an inferior minister, we find in the Christian Church, the Jewish synagogue, and the Heathen temples. And yet these slight coincidences afford you ground to presume, that the Church of CHRIST was formed upon the plan of the synagogue; and that too when the former is essentially different from the latter, and also in opposition to complete evidence that episcopacy was not congregational, but diocesan.

Your fourth presumptive proof is, that, Not only the titles of officers, but also their characters, duties, and powers, in substance, were transferred from the synagogue to the Christian Church. The Bishop or Pastor who presided in each synagogue, directed the reading of the law; expounded it when read; offered up public prayers; and, in short, took the lead in conducting the public service of the synagogue. This description

C SUIDAS in Episcopo.

d In Numa.

e Ad Atticum, 1. 7...

applies with remarkable exactness to the duties and powers of the Christian Bishop.'

To this, much reply is not necessary. It has been fully proved, that the characters of the Jewish and of the Christian Bishop were essentially different. The Jewish was not the minister of GOD to the people, but the minister of the people to GOD. The Christian Bishop is the minister of CHRIST, his Ambassador to the people, the Steward of his household, holding a commission from him to minister in holy things, and to beseech men in CHRIST's stead to be reconciled to GOD. This is an important distinction, which makes the characters of these two officers essentially different. The one holds a divine commission; the other a human: the one carries from GoD a message of life, and peace, and everlasting salvation; the other was merely the mouth of the people, and their instructer in the law of Moses ;and in that respect was called the angel, or messenger of the people to speak to God in prayer for them, but not the angel of GOD with a message of peace to the people;-the one administers the seals of the covenant of grace, and preaches authoritatively; the other had no seals entrusted to him; nor did he preach by divine authority. So grossly, Sir, do you err, when you assert, that the Jewish and Christian Bishop were of the same character.

And as the characters of these two officers were materially different; so also, of necessity, were their duties and powers. This has been sufficiently evinced by the foregoing observations.

Further The Elders also of the Jewish synagogue, were essentially different from the Elders of the Christian Church. The latter have a divine commission for preaching the word, and administering the sacraments; the former confined themselves entirely to the temporalities of the synagogue. They rather correspond with the lay-Elders of your Church, and like them derived their authority from the congregation. These, in the New Testament, are called the Rulers of the synagogue, and are of a totally different character from the Presbyters, or Elders of the Christian Church., So also the inferior ministers of the synagogue, who were called chazanim, that is, overseers, and whom we call Deacons, differed materially from the Deacons of our Church, and in several respects from the Deacons in yours. "They had," says Prideaux, "the charge and oversight of all things in the synagogue; they kept the sacred books of the Law and the Prophets, and other holy Scriptures, as also the books of their public liturgies, and all utensils belonging to the synagogue. And particularly, they stood by and overlooked them that read the lessons out of the Law and the Prophets,

f Connections, Vol. II. p. 554.

f

g That a form of prayer was used in the Synagogue no one denies. But Dr. M. took care not to include that in his points of conformity.

VOL. I.-14