the synagogue was the model chosen for the Church of Christ.

First he tells us, that 'the words synagogue and Church have the same signification. They both signify an assemconvened for the worship of

bly or congregation of people God.'

There are only two faults about this assertion. One is, that it goes beyond the truth; and the other, that if it were true, it would be nothing to the purpose. The word which we translate synagogue, signifies in Scripture, an assembly, for any purpose or of any kind whatever. Thus it is applied to a heap of stones, (a) and a heap of waters; (b) and where our translation speaks of the waters being gathered into one place, the Septuagint calls it a gathering into one synagogue. (c) In Ezekiel, a great army is called a great synagogue, (d) and where the Deity promises Abraham that a nation and a company of nations, shall be of him, the Greek calls it a synagogue of nations. (e) Lastly, we read twice in the Revelations, of the synagogue of Satan. (Rev. ii. 9. and iii. 9.) And these examples, which might be greatly extended, are surely enough to shew, that Synagogue does not mean a worshipping assembly, but an assembly merely.

The word translated Church, signifies any assembly convened together for any purpose, as well as for worship; of which, one example in the New Testament may suffice, where the silversmiths of Ephesus caught Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul's companions in travel, and a whole multitude rushed into the theatre, and cried out, some one thing and some another, for the assembly was confused, and the more

(α) Job viii. 17. επί συναγωγὴν λιθων κοιμᾶται,

(b) Esa. xix. 6. και ξηρανθήσεται πᾶσα συναγωγὴ ὕδατος

(c) Gen. i. 9. συναχθήτω τὸ ὕδωρ εις συναγωγήν μιαν

(d) Ezec. xxxvii. 10. και' ἔζησαν ἐπὶ τῶν ποδῶν ἁντων συναγωγή πολλή (e) Gen. xxxv. 11, ἔθνη και συναγωγαι έθνων ἔσονται εκ σου,

be

part knew not wherefore they were come together.' (Acts xix. 29, &c.) The town clerk at last appeased the tumult, and 'dismissed the assembly. In the original Greek it reads the Church was confused, and he dismissed the Church.' (f)

From these facts it must be apparent that no proper argument can be drawn from the mere terms, because both the words are heathen in their origin, and both, as I have shewn you, are applied in the simple sense of our English word assembly, or meeting. But if any inference could be adduced from the terms, it would be the very reverse of that which Dr. Miller presents to us. For since the Jews had two kinds of religious meetings among them, the one at the temple and the other at the synagogue, the assembly at the temple being the greater, and that at the synagogue the less; is not the fact that our Lord did not select the term synagogue for his Church, rather a proof that he did not intend to take the synagogue for his model? The signification of both words, would have suited his general meaning equally well, but his avoiding the word synagogue, looks assuredly much more like the intention not to imitate it, than the contrary.

The second reason of Dr. Miller is founded upon the assertion, 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.' And then my Presbyterian brother proceeds to quote the authority of Maimonides, in the twelfth century; forgetting, I presume, that he had undertaken to prove his

(f) Acts xix. 32. ἦν γὰρ ἡ ἐκκλησία συγκεχυμένη,

erat enim ecclesia confusa,

40. και ταυτα ειπών, ἀπέλυσε την εκκλησίαν.

Et hæc dicens, dimisit ecclesiam.

argument from the Scriptures. But his proposition will be found rather hostile to his main object for two reasons; first, because the temple service and the synagogue service were conducted on the same general principles; and secondly, because both were perfectly unlike the mode of the Presbyterian Church. The Doctor, indeed, says that the synagogue service was begun by the solemn reading of a portion of Scripture, thereby representing it as much as possible in the Presbyterian form. But why could he not tell us the whole truth, that the Scripture was read according to a fixed calendar, as it is with us; instead of being purely optional with the minister, as it is among our Presbyterian brethren? He goes on to say, that solemn prayers were offered up, at the end of which the people said Amen. Why does he hold back the circumstance, that these prayers were a set Liturgy, in many parts of which the people had responses similar to those of the Episcopal Litany, and that there were no extemporaneous prayers used in public among them? These facts are notorious to every man who knows the account given of the synagogue worship by Maimonides or any other Jewish Rabbi, and if the question were to be introduced into the discussion at all, it ought to have been introduced fairly.

The third argument of Dr. Miller is derived from the allegation, that the titles given to the officers of the Synagogue were transferred to the officers of the Christian Church.

In every synagogue,' says he, there were a Bishop, a bench of elders, and deacons.' I should have been gratified if our zealous antagonist had referred to some Biblical authority, book and chapter, for this sweeping asseveration, which I cannot hesitate to pronounce an absolute error. The term elders, indeed, he may find in the synagogue,

because it is every where in the book of God, and I may add elsewhere, since it signifies old men, or seniors. We read in the most ancient part of the Bible, of the elders of Israel, especially of the seventy elders; and the elders of the people are mentioned continually. So in the New Testament, we find the same word used currently, without having any more reference to the synagogue, than to the temple. But as to Apostle, Bishop, or Deacon, applied to the officers of the synagogue, there is not one solitary instance of it in the Scriptures, and the Doctor knows it well. (a)

The work of the celebrated Buxtorf, on the Jewish Synagogue, is at least in the first rank of authorities on this subject, and, I will state what he says in relation to its modern officers, for your greater satisfaction.

'Every synagogue,' says he, has a person that acts as its Precentor and reader, who leads the people in prayer with a high and clear voice and also its minister or servant, whose office it is to keep the synagogue clean, to light the lamps, to take charge of the keys, and other like services. These two receive their salary from the public treasury of the synagogue.'

The other officers of the synagogue are stated by this author to be four. One who dictates to the reader what persons he shall call to read and it is their custom, if there be a person of a sacerdotal family present, to call him first,

(a) In Mark v. 22. Acts xiii. 15. Acts xviii. 8. and Acts xviii. 17, the ruler of the Synagogue is mentioned, and no where else that I find in the New Testament. Now in all these places the title is the same, yourάywyos; literally, the chief of the Synagogue. And in Luke iv. 20. the minister of the Synagogue is called 'väηgéτηs, a term nowhere applied to the officers of the Christian Church, as an official designation.

I extract from the third Volume of Horne's Introd. Ed. of 1826, p. 241. the statement he gives on the subject of the officers of the synagogue.

then a Levite, then an Israelite. The other three offices are sold at auction: one consists in taking the cover from the sacred roll and replacing it again; the second, in holding the wood on which it is rolled, which they call the tree of life; and the third, in elevating the sacred roll; carrying it around, raised on high; and shewing it to the people. It would require the help of a lively imagination, one would suppose, to convert these into the offices of the Christian Church. As to stated preachers-men whose office consists in explaining the word of God, I see no trace of any su provision among the arrangements of the synagogue. Where there is a Rabbi capable, he instructs at his pleasure. (b)

For the maintenance of good order, there were in every Synagogue, certain officers, whose business it was to see that all the duties of religion were decently performed therein. These were 1. Aqziovvaywyos, or ruler of the Synagogue. (Luke xiii. 4. Mark v. 22.) It appears from Acts xiii. 15. collated with Mark v. 22. and John vi. 59. that there were several of these rulers in a Synagogue. They regulated all its concerns, and gave permission to persons to preach. They were always men advanced in age, and respectable for their learning and probity. The Jews term them Hacamim, that is, sages or wise men, and they posessed considerable authority.' 'These rulers likewise had the power of inflicting punishment on those whom they judged to be rebelling against the law; in allusion to which circumstance, Christ forewarned his disciples that they should be scourged in the Synagogue. (Matt. x. 17.) 2. 'Next to the Agiovvayayos, or ruler of the Synagogue, was an officer whose province it was to offer up public prayer to God for the whole congregation: hence, he was called Sheliach Zibbor, or the angel of the Church; because, as their messenger, he spoke to God for them.'

3. The Chazan appears to have been a different officer from the Sheliach Zibbor, and inferior to him in dignity. He seems to have been the person, who in Luke iv. 20. is termed 'vënqetηs, the minister, and who had the charge of the sacred books.'

(b) Buxtorf. De. Synagog. Jud. Ed. Basil. A. D. 1712, p. 286. 7. 8. Hic tria habent officia, circa quae sunt ambitiosi, et superstitiosi. Primum est a Complicatio; munus complicandi et replicandi librum :