power of the commission which they received from CHRIST, and by which they exercised prelatical jurisdiction, then they changed the original constitution of the Church. But can it be supposed that after CHRIST had established prelacy, as is evident from the Apostles exercising it, they would presume to alter CHRIST'S OWN institution; and when they knew too, that CHRIST had promised to be with that institution to the end of the world? This can never be admitted: but if it were, the consequence would be, that CHRIST had altered his mind, which would argue weakness. This no Christian will allow. I cannot see how it is possible to avoid these consequences. If the Apostles were prelates in consequence of their commission, as they undoubtedly were, prelacy was the original establishment, as CHRIST himself was the author of it; consequently it is of divine origin.

But it may be asked, Did not the Apostles exercise this superior jurisdiction by virtue of their extraordinary gifts? I answer, No; but by virtue of their commission. Their extraordinary gifts were the evidence that they had received a commission to instruct mankind, and to govern the Church. By these they confirmed also the truth of their doctrine. Extraordinary powers prove claims of the persons who are endowed with them; but in themselves, abstractly considered, they do not determine whether a man is an Apostle, a Presbyter, a Deacon, or a lay-believer. All these orders wrought miracles; all of them had extraordinary gifts of one kind or other. A miracle just proves what a man intends to prove by it. The Apostles wrought miracles, to prove the truth of Christianity; to prove they had a commission from CHRIST to reform the world; and that they had power to govern all orders in the Church. Stephen and Philip, who were but Deacons, wrought miracles, not to prove that they were Apostles, but to convince the Jews that the Christian religion was from GOD. Laymen wrought miracles, not to prove that they were Apostles, but to prove the truth of the Gospel. Those wonderful signs, CHRIST had promised should follow them that believe; for the purpose of convincing the world that his religion was from GOD.

If miracles, abstractly considered, were a mark of the Apostolic character, then all that had that mark were Apostles; and consequently, the number of the Apostles was very great; for the number of the believers who wrought miracles, and bore no office in the Church, was very great. But this would have confounded all orders in the Church. It is then evident, that miracles gave no distinction to the Apostles; but simply proved the claim they had to that superior authority which they exercised, and which they said they had received from CHRIST. To lay-believers, miracles were signs or proofs of the truth of their religion; but not that the workers of them were Apostles, or that they held any office in the Church. And to all, miracles were a proof of that thing for which the miracle was wrought.

It is then evident that the miraculous powers of the Apostles gave them no superiority in the Church of CHRIST. To assert the contrary, would involve the absurdity, that all who possessed extraordinary powers were also Apostles. The commission was the source of their prelatical character; and with that commission, thus involving prelacy, CHRIST promised to be to the end of the world.

From this view of the subject, it appears to me to be an unavoidable consequence, that prelacy was the government which CHRIST established in his Church; and from the whole tenor of Scripture, it appears to have been exercised by the Apostles, and to have been committed by them to single successors, who have carefully handed it down through a long series of Bishops to the present day.

I have now traced episcopacy up to its source, and to my mind, the evidence is irresistible. How it may appear to others, I cannot say; but thus much I will say, if any man will produce me stronger evidence for the canon of Scripture, and for the apostolic institution of the Christian Sabbath, I will acknowledge that I give greater weight to the evidence for episcopacy than I ought to give. And further, I will say, if any man will show me one Church under presbyterian regimen in the primitive ages, I will acknowledge episcopacy to be a mere human institution.

I will now make a few observations on your assertion, that the Christian Church was formed on the model of the Jewish Synagogue.

It should be particularly remembered, that in discussing this subject, there is but one point which needs to be brought into view, viz. whether the Christian ministry was formed after the ministry of the Synagogue. I have asserted in my twelfth Letter, that the probability lies against this supposition; and that the fact established by abundant evidence, both from the fathers and the Scripture, that a Bishop presided over numerous congregations, proves to a certainty that it was not. Against the probability that it was, I maintained that the Jewish Synagogue was not a Church by divine appointment. This is the opinion of several of the most learned men that have ever written upon the subject; and you yourself acknowledge, that it is altogether uncertain. Prideaux says, "that they (the Jews) had no Synagogues before the Babylonish captivity, is plain, not only from the silence which is of them in all the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but also from several passages therein, which evidently prove there could be none in those days. For as it is a common saying among the Jews, that where there is no book of the Law, there can be no Synagogue; so the reason of the thing proves it. For the main service of the Synagogue being the reading of the Law unto the people, where there was no book of the Law to be read, there certainly could be no Synagogue. But how rare the book of the Law was through all Judea before the Babylonish

captivity, many texts of Scripture tell us." He then gives from the Scripture sufficient evidence of this. But you think that the time of erecting them is of no consequence; and this is certainly true, if it can be made out that they were erected by divine appointment, after the captivity. But of this there is no evidence. Ezra's being an inspired man, is no proof that he established them; but if he did, it is no proof that he was directed to do so; for inspired men did many things, merely on the ground of human expediency. David made several regulations with respect to the temple service, which no one pretends were of divine appointment. Nor does the expression in the 74th Psalmthe Synagogue of GOD, prove any thing to the purpose. word synagogue means an assembly; and what those assemblies were, the learned are quite at a loss to determine. Some think they were the schools of the Prophets; and that is as likely as any thing else. Where there is such a total uncertainty, there can be no ground on which argument can be founded.

The

But what renders it certain that the Synagogue was not a Church of divine appointment, is, that it was totally destitute of mystical rites, or sacramental signs. There never was a Church of divine appointment without these. What if baptism was administered to Heathen converts? It was not done, so far as we know, by divine appointment. There was no way of admission into covenant with GoD but by circumcision. Baptism alone was not sufficient: that rite therefore did not make a man a member of the Synagogue: it was necessary that he should first be made a member of the Jewish Church by circumcision. Baptism was a mere traditionary practice, like many other washings among the Jews, but without a divine warrant; and consequently, was not a sacrament. But as the Church of God never was without some sacramental sign, or federal right, the Synagogue was not a Church of divine appointment.

But you tell your readers, that I am daring in speaking as I do, because I cannot determine when Synagogues were instituted, by whom, and from what source the suggestion or command to establish them came.' Now, Sir, this uncertainty is the very reason of my being so daring. When no mortal can say any thing about their origin, either as to time or authority, no mortal but yourself would draw a parallel between what we are sure is, and what we are sure is not a Church, from its having no federal rites, and no ministry by divine appointment. For in all fair reasoning, where there is not the least evidence, there is no ground to rest an assertion upon.

But you say, 'Granting that the Synagogue was a mere human institution; that it made no part of the Jewish Church properly so called; and that no Jew was under any obligation to attend on its service;-what does he gain by the concession? Nothing. It is so far from destroying my argument, that it does not affect

c Connections, Vol. II. p. 535.

VOL. II.-13

or even touch it.' Now, to be short; your argument depends upon the following circumstances. "Every particular Synagogue had three classes of officers, a Bishop, Elders, and Deacons; the peculiar office of a Bishop, (or, as he was sometimes called, the Angel) of the Church, [Synagogue] was to preside in the public service, and lead the devotions of the people;-that the principal duty of the bench of Elders, was to assist in ruling the Synagogue, and administering its discipline; and that the Deacons, though sometimes called to the performance of other services, were particularly charged with collecting and distributing alms for the poor.' There were also in the Synagogue ordination by the imposition of hands--reading the sacred Scriptures, expounding them, and offering up public prayers.' Now, your conclusion is, that from a coincidence of names, duties, and other circumstances, the Christian Church was formed on the plan of the Jewish Synagogue; and, consequently, episcopacy is not diocesan, but congregational.

To all these particulars I have given distinct answers in my twelfth Letter; but you have taken good care, as usual, not to examine the force of them. I shall not transcribe what is there written, but request my readers to peruse that letter with attention. The following essential points of disparity, however, deserve to be noticed again. The Bishop of the Synagogue had no presidency, or moderatorship over the Elders; the Bishop of the Christian Church had, by the consent of all parties. The first had no divine commission, the last had: the one had no authority of any kind out of his own synagogue; the other had authority over numerous congregations. The one administered no sacraments; the other did. The one was the messenger or angel of GOD; the other the messenger or angel of the people. And yet, notwithstanding these essential points of difference, the one was the copy of the other, because they had the same name, and both of them preached and prayed! And even the title overseer might just as well have been taken from the Greek supervisors of cities, and the Roman overseers of districts, as from the minister of the Synagogue.

Again: There was also an essential difference between the Elders of the synagogue, and of the Christian Church. The latter preach and administer sacraments; the former did nothing of the kind. This entirely destroys the analogy; and besides, the title was in existence ages before Synagogues had a being. Your lay-Elders indeed bear some analogy to the Elders of the Synagogue; and as the latter had no divine warrant, so neither have the former, if we may reason from analogy. Deacons also, or those who were employed in inferior ministries, we find in the temple, the Synagogue, the temples of the Heathen, and in the Christian Church.

Now, what a strange thing it is, that a man should argue from trifling coincidences in religious institutions, and when there are essential points of difference, that the one was copied from the

other! No, Sir, it is highly improbable, that the ALMIGHTY would take for the pattern of his Church a human institution. It is much more probable, that the external economy of the Christian Church was conformed in all things material to the Jewish Church, as will appear from an enumeration of particulars. The congregation of Israel was divided into twelve tribes, under the twelve patriarchs; so is the Church of CHRIST founded on the twelve Apostles. Besides these, CHRIST appointed other seventy also; in correspondence with the seventy Elders, who assisted Moses in his ministry. Aaron was appointed a high priest, under whom were the priests, and subservient to both, the order of the Levites. There were then three orders in the Jewish Church; in the Christian three likewise, the Apostles, the Presbyters, and the Deacons; to the first of which succeeded the Bishops. There were in the Jewish Church, prayers, praises, benedictions, and federal rites; so there are in the Christian Church: preaching indeed was wanting in the temple service. The whole Jewish economy, according to St. Paul, was, in its main points, typical of the Christian dispensation. And surely, upon this principle, it would be a strange thing, if there was not a conformity between the ministries of the Christian and Jewish Churches; when both were founded on the same authority; but that the ministry of the Christian Church, which is divine, should be conformed to the ministry of the Synagogue, which is human.

But whatever may be thought of the analogy in either case, one thing I think an impartial mind will feel the force of-the abundant proof given, that diocesan episcopacy was the original institution. This is proof from fact, that the Christian ministry was not conformed to that of the Synagogue; and consequently destroys every thing that can be said in favour of the supposition.

I have now closed this part of the debate, and shall proceed in my next to what you have said with respect to the principles of the Reformers.

LETTER XII,

REV. SIR:

I SHALL now endeavour to show, that your observations on the opinions of the Reformers of the Church of England, are totally groundless.

You attempt to destroy the credit of Heylin and Collier. With the first I have no concern, as I have not quoted him to establish any point relating to the Reformers of our Church; why then you have named him, I cannot see. Thus much