The Hierarchical Bishops Claim Tried at the Scripture-Bar, Part 1 · Chapter 4

The Hierarchical Bishops Claim Tried at the Scripture-Bar · Part 1 · Chapter 4

p. 69CHAP. IV. The Dr's Fourth Argument, Examined, taken from our Saviour's alledged allowance and Approbation of Episcopal Government, in his Epistles to the Seven Asian Churches.

WE do now proceed to the Dr's last Argument, to prove,P. 421. That the rightful Government of the Church is Episcopal, taken from our Saviours Allowance and Approbation thereof, in his Seven Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia, directed to the Seven Angels, called Seven Stars in His Right Hand, or the Seven Lights of the Seven Churches, Rev. 1.20. and 2.1. And in every Epistle, owned as his Angels and Messengers. The Dr. tells us, that if he can prove them to be Seven Bishops, presiding over Clergy and Laity of these Churches at that time, they are unanswerable instances of Christs Allowance and Approbation of the Episcopal Order. This trite and often Baffled Argument, taken from the supposed Episcopal Power of the Seven Asian Angels, has been so frequently scanned and tossed by Writers, on this Controversie, that the Dr. since he makes here such a Parade, should either have brought some new Strength upon the Field, or offered an Answer, to the many clear returns, given to this Argument.

p. 70However, to clear our way, in examining what the Dr. says upon this head (which is nothing else, but some Old Musty stuff repeated) I premise two things. 1. That the Collective Sense of the term, Angel, is most suitable to Scripture, and the Scope of these Epistles. 2. That allowing the Angels to be single Persons, will nothing help the Drs. design and pleading.

For the First, that the collective Sense of the term Angel, is most suitable to Scripture, and the Scope of these Epistles, appears thus. 1. This suits best the Stile of this Book, which is by mystick visional Representations, to includ many individuals: As one singular, so all the individuals of the Church, both Members and Officers, are represented by One Candlestick; And why not also, all the Ministers, by one Angel? A term which of it self, and in this place imports no Jurisdiction properly, but is immediatly referred to the Angelical frame and qualities of Ministers. 2. This is also suitable to the style of this Book, as it is Epistolare; the Address, may be to one, but it will give no Authority to that one over the rest; As an Address from the King to a Speaker in Parliament, will give the Speaker no Jurisdiction and Authority over his Fellow-Members. When our Lord said unto Peter only expresly, not to the rest of his fellow-Disciples, I will give unto thee the Keyes, &c. who but brutish and partially affected Papists, will conclud, that he was Prince or Primate over the Apostles? And that they had not, and even by this promise, an equal Authority with him, in the use of the Keys? This the Dr. must acknowledg, unless he will justify the Popes Pleading from this Text. 3. This is suitable to Scripture Prophetick Writings, and to this Book, as such, to represent many Individuals, by one singular. The Four beasts, the Twenty Four Elders, do not signify so many individual persons: The singular Names of Woman, Beast, Whore, Dragon, signify a collection of many individuals. So the one, Spirit of God, is called the Seven Spirits, with reference to his manifold operations. Dan. 8.20. One Ram, signifies many Kings of the Medes and Persians. He that will not hearken to the Priest, Deut. 17.12. i. e. The Priests in the plural. So, the Priests Lips should keep knowledg, and the Law sought at his Mouth Mal. 2.7. Here also, the Priest for Priests, in the Plural. Blest is that Servant, whom the Lord, &c. i. e. Those Servants. Particularly, as to the term Angel; It is said, Psal. 34. that the Angel of the Lord encampeth about the Godly. i. e. many Angels, since they are all Ministring Spirits to them. 4. It is suitable to Scripture, and this Book, to represent an indefinit number by a definit: Thus all Iudahs Adversaries, are represented by the Four Horns Zech. 1.18. All the Godly and the Ungodly, are represented by the Five Wise, and by the Five Foolish Virgins. The Seven Angels standing before God, Represents all the Angels. Ch. 8. of p. 71this Book; for in Ch. 7. mention is made of all the Angels, who do thus stand. And with the same indefinitness, we are to understand the Septenarie number, frequently elsewhere; as the Seven Pillars which Wisdom Hews out Prov. 9. The Seven Pastors or Shepherds, Micah. 5. The Seven Eyes Zech. 3. And in this very Book, Ch. 4.5.15. The Seven Candlesticks, Lamps, Viols. 5. As we find the Scripture, and this same Apostle, First, Naming a Multitude, and then contracting it into a Singular, as 2 Ioh. 7. v. — Many deceivers are entred into the World — Then — This is a Deceiver, and an Antichrist. And sometimes, the Individual in one Sentence, turned into a Multitude, as 1 Tim. 2.15. She shall be saved i. e. the Woman bearing Children, if they continue in Faith and Charity, i. e. such Women, in general. So, this single Angel, is turned into many, and spoken to, in the Plural, in one and the same Epistle. Thus Rev. 2.24. — Unto you, I say and unto the rest in Thyatira. Rev. 2.10. We find John changing the singular Angel into a Multitud…; Fear none of these things, which thou shalt suffer: Behold the Devil shall cast some of you into Prison, that ye may be tryed. In a word, what ever Characteristick of this Angel, the Dr. shall produce, we can make it appear, to be applicable to Presbyters or Pastors. First, Is it a Commission to Preach and Baptize? This, he will grant, belongs to all Pastors. Is it the Power of Ordination? The Scripture shews us, that this is Seated in a Presbytrie, 1 Tim. 4.14. Matth. 18.17. Is it the Ruling Governing Power? All Ministers are such Angels; All that Watch for Souls, do Rule over them, and all Labourers in the Word and Doctrin, have an equal joynt Interest in Feeding, Censuring and Ruling in the Churches, over which they are set, Heb. 13.17. 1 Thess. 5.12. And People are accordingly to submit themselves to them. Therefore, this Prostasie and Ruling Power, is no sole Prerogative of a single Angel, or supposed Bishop. Thus, it was with the Church of Ephesus, Act. 20. And it is much more suteable to understand the Angel of Ephesus, of a Plurality of Ministers, to whom, in a plain Scripture, the whole Government is found intrusted, rather than to Explain that plain Text by a Metaphor, and contrary thereunto, to set up one Angel, or Di…cesan Bishop over that Church, with sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction. The Dr. will find this our Sense of the Angel, to be no new Opinion, when he considers that Augustin. Homil. 21. upon this Book, thus takes it, Expounding the Angel of Thyatira, the Praepositi Ecclesiarum, or Governours of the Churches. So Aretas, Lib. 1. Cap. 1.2.9.10. Primas. in Apoc. Cap. 2. Ambros. Ambert. Anselm. Pererius, Victorin. Tirin, Haym. Bed. Perkins. Fox in his Meditations on the Revelation, pag. 7, 8. Pilkintoun Bishop of Durham, in his Exposition of Hag. Ch. 1. v. 13.

The second thing, I premise is, that the Dr. hath no advantage, tho it be yielded, that the Angel, is a single Person: For, 1. He may be the Angelus p. 72Praeses, or the Moderator Angel, not the Angelus Princeps, or the Lord Angel yea, and the Praeses or Moderator for the time, as a Speaker in Parliament. Ephesus had many Angels (Act. 20.28. 1 Tim. 5.17.) of equal Authority, who were made Bishops by the Holy Ghost, and set over that Church accordingly, and they are spoken to, in the Plural, though the Angel is named in the Singular Number. 2. This Angel, is said to have no Jurisdiction or Superiority over the rest of the Ministers, nor can the Dr. shew, where this Angel is spoken to, with reference to Ministers as subject to him, which notwithstanding, is his begged Supposition, and Petitio Principii, all along in this Argument. 3. The Parochial and Diocesan Division of the Churches, were long after this, and not until the 260 year after Christ, in the Judgment of best Antiquaries. 4. Nothing is required of this Angel, but that which is the common Duty of all Pastors. Finally, suppose it were granted to him, that a Superiority were imported in Naming this Angel, it may be a Superiority of Order, Dignity, or Gifts, and in such Moral Respects, not of Power and Jurisdiction.

The Dr, in Order to this his Scope, proposes generally the Method of his Proof, shewing, That he will prove that they were single Persons. ibid. & P. 422.2ly, That they were Persons of great Authority in these Churches. 3ly, That they were the Bishops or Presidents of these Churches. Before I examin his Proofs, it is pleasant to consider, how well this Undertaking of the Dr. answers his Scope, which all along in this Dispute, is, to prove a Succession of ordinary Officers, in the Office of Apostolat, as he calls it, and in their whole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, excluding Pastors, from the least Interest therein. By his Principles, these supposed Succeeding Prelats, are the sole Governours of Churches, have the sole Legislative Power (wherein he says, the Essence of Government consists) the Power of Consecration and Ordination to Ecclesiastick Offices, and that of the same Nature and Extent, as he supposes the Apostles had it, by vertue of their Apostolical Mission. The Bishops also, have, by his Principles, the sole Executive Spiritual Jurisdiction, Monopolized in them, as their peculiar Prerogative, viz. (as the Dr. explains it) to Cite, Examin, Admonish Offenders, Exclud from, or Admit to Church Communion, Censure or Absolve, Bind or Loose. The twelve Thrones to Judg Israels Tribes, promised to Apostles, he understands of the Authority of Judging, and of all Spiritual Jurisdiction in the Church Visible, committed to them, and by them to the Bishops, as their only Successors, in this Authority. To which, we may add, the Confirming of the Baptized, by Imposition of Hands, which he also ascribes to them, as their sole Prerogative. This the Dr. at large insists upon, from P. 433. to P. 438.

p. 73Now, to prove all these Prerogatives of the Bishops, and this Extensive Power, so paramount to all Authority, or Interest of Pastors in Government, as it renders them mere Cyphers without a Figure, from the seven Asian Angels; Because they were single Persons, or of great Authority in the Churches, or President-Bishops in these Churches, is such a Proof, as the Simplest may Laugh at. For 1. Will any Man think, that their being Saluted as single Persons, will prove this Extensive Authority? Why may not a Senate be Saluted in the Consuls, a Parliament Addressed in the Chancellor, or the House of Commons, in an Epistle to the Speaker? 2ly, Say, that they were Presidents, and admit, that they had Deference and Authority as such, as the Consul in the Senate, will this suppose, or by any Shadow of Consequence or Connection, inferr, that they had such a Power, as is here described, and such as swallows up wholly and absolutly, all Authority of the Members of Church Judicatories? Nay, the Dr. will as soon joyn the Poles together, as unite this Antecedent and Consequent. Besides, in calling them Presidents, he discovers this, and confutes himself, since the Terme, both Name and Thing, in all Languages, and in the Sense of all Men, is appropriat to such, as are set over Juridical Courts, Civil or Ecclesiastick, the Members whereof, are still supposed to have a Decisive Suffrage, and Interest in the Government. Again 3ly, The Dr. says he will prove, that they were Persons of great Authority in these Churches. But, if he speak to the Point, and prosecut his Scope, he must call it Absolute and Sole Authority, intirely exclusive of all Interest, which Pastors, or any other Church Officers, may claim therein.

Come we to the Dr's Grand Proofs, First, That they were single Persons, he proves from this, That they are mentioned as such — the Angel of Ephesus, the Angel of Smyrna; And thus all along Addrest in the Singular Number—I know thy Works—I have a few things against thee. Ans. This Argument is abundantly removed, by what is premised, anent the Collective Sense of the Word Angel, which our Lords Addressing the the Epistle to one Angel, doth no whit Impugn, in the sense of sound Protestant Divines. For further clearing this, let us hear the Belgick Divines, upon the Text, To the Angel, i. e. to the Overseer, Inspector, or Pastor of the Church — This is set down here in the Singular Number, either, in regard of their whole Colledg, as Mal. 2.7. Under the Name of Angel in the Singular, the whole Colledg of Priests, was to be understood; or because that some one, had the Presidency among them, in Order, by whom it was to be communicat to the rest, as appears by Act. 20.17, 28. That there were more Elders or Overseers, in this Church of Ephesus, whom Paul charges in his last Farewel, to take heed to themselves, and to the whole Flock, over which the Holy Ghost had made them foreign ▪ i. e. Overseers, for to p. 74Feed the Flock. So, that it is groundless, from hence to inferr, an Episcopal Authority of one person above the rest: For, the verry matter it self, written here to the Angel of the Church, is Written for a warning to the whole Church, as appears by v. 7. here, and above Chap. 1.11. The English Divines, the Authors of Part Second, Annot. going under the Name of Pool, thus sense that Passage, Rev. 2.1. To the Angel, it appears from Act. 20.17. That there were more Ministers there than one, but they were all Angels, and from the oneness of their business, they are called one Angel. And upon Chap. 1.20. they tell us, That certain it is foreign signifies no more, than is commmon to all Ministers, viz. to be Gods Messengers, and move upon his errands. That we are to understand here, the Doctors, Pastors and Ministers of the Church, is the sense and Judgment of Cluverus, Dr. Lightfoot. Cluverus takes notice, that the Change of the Number, v. 10.19. Argues, that the Epistle is not directed to one Person. And Dr. Lightfoot shews, that this Tittle, is with allusion, to that of the Minister of the Synagogue, whose Office was publickly to read and expound the Prophets, unto the People, as these Ministers were to Read these Epistles, in the publick Congregation. Thus also Piscator, understands the whole Pastors of the Church. From whence, and from many others, which might be added, it is evident. 1. That the collective Sense of the word Angel, is Judged by them consonant to Scripture, and to the Scope of the Epistles. 2ly, That even supposing some speciality, in the Address to one person, this doth import a simple Presidency only (especially in the sense of the Belgick Divines) and that they do intirely join with us, in the Grounds, we have offered, against the Dr's supposition of an Hierarchical Bishop; and particularly from this, that the Angel, is sometimes addressed in the Plural. That Ground which the Belgick Divines, and others insist upon, taken from the Matter of the Epistles, is important; and that our Lord addresses to all the Angels of the Church, as concerning them, Rev. 1.11. Write, saith he, to the Churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, &c. And at the close of every Epistle — Hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches: And therefore, when it is said, I know thy Works, &c. — this thou hast, &c. We must understand the whole Company of Ministers, and the whole Church; because the punishment or reward, is proposed to the whole: And the Dr. will not say, that for the sin of one Bishop, the Gospel is to be removed, when other Ministers, and the Church it self is free from his evils.

The Dr. alledges, That the Angel is alwise addrest in the singular number.ibid. And to that which is adduced to prove his being addrest in the Plural; he Answers, That in these Passages, he writes, not only to the Bishops personally, but to the People, under their p. 75Government and inspection; so he understands that of Chap. 2.10. — The Devil shall cast some of you into Prison, paralelling it, with v. 13. Antipas slain among you, and v. 23.— And all the Churches shall know, &c. But, first, (not to stand upon the Drs. begging the Question, in a supposition cross to his scope) the paralells, are not every way alike. When the Lord says — all the Churches — and slain among you, &c. the Scope and Mould of these expressions, makes it evident, that both Ministers and People, are spoken of: But when immediatly after, addressing the Angel, in the Singular, he adds — the Devil shall cast some of you, into Prison, changing the Singular Angel into a Plural, it appears, that the Ministers are more directly included, as the adduced paralel, 1 Tim. 2.15. Discovers. But not to insist upon this.

In the next place, the folly and inconsistency of his gloss and discourse, in this Answer, is several ways apparent: For First, He will have these Passages — I know thy works — I have some what against thee, &c. addrest Singlely to the Angel; From the singularity of which Adress, he collects, the Bishop's single and absolute Authority over these Churches. But I pray, what Sense will the Dr. make of this? Will he say, our Lord knew the Works only, of one single Bishop, of no Ministers else? That one Bishop Laboured at Ephesus, none else? That one Bishop at Ephesus, fell from his first Love, no Church Officers else? (A pityful imputation, the Dr. puts thus upon Timothy, the supposed Bishop of Ephesus, in staging him, as the only Apostat of the Church) The same may be applyed to his other Instances. — I have a few things against thee, Viz, one Bishop, no Ministers else. — Remember, whence thou art fallen, viz. The Bishop fallen only, none else. — Repent and do thy First Works; this only addrest to the Bishop, none else concerned in this Duty, but his Lordship. If he say, that these things are spoken to the Bishop, as chiefly concerned and interested; Then, besides his begging the Question, he losses his Plea, and quite ruins all his Pleading from a supposed singularity of the Address, to conclud the singularity of the person Addressed: And thus including Ministers, as concerned and interested in the prescriptions, in point of Government, he cuts the Wind-Pipe of his grand Topick and notion here.

But Secondly, we see, when he is forc't to acknowledg from the Plural Mould of the Address, that more than the Bishop, are spoken to, he gives us a fair acknowledgment, in these terms, That the Bishops, are not only written to, Personally, but also the People under their Government and inspection. But I pray, why not also Ministers and Pastors also bespoken, as well as the People? The Dr. asserting, That both Clergy and Laity, are under the Bishop's inspection. A…d it being supposible, that in these Churches, especially at Ephesus, there was at this time, a p. 76Colledge of Pastors. How come the Dr. when he supposes the Address to overstretch the person of the Bishop, and to includ more, to assert That it reaches the People only, and not to the Pastors also? This, I must confess, is odd Sense in Divinity; in these great Evangelistick Precepts and Reprensions, the Lord Addresses not solely the Bishop, but the People under him, yet not one word to Pastors. I had thought, that the Clergy and Laity being distinguished by the Dr. P. 421. and both the one and the other, in his Sense, under the Bishops Government and inspection, when he makes the Plural Address, to go beyond the Bishop, he would have cast an Eye, upon the under-Clergy, or Ministry, before the People, as concerned before them, in these important duties, or supposed Transgressions. But, we may easily discover the knack of the Dr's policy in this; For Pleading in his Second Argument,P. 423. That an Authority, in reference to Church Government, is clearly imported, in several of these directions or reprehensions, particularly, those addressed, to the Angel of Pergamus and Thyatira, in reference to Juridical Tryal, conviction and Censures: He was afraid, least by this means, he should have opened a door for Ministers claim, to the Bishop's incommunicable prerogatives, had he extended the plural Address to them, as well as to the People.

Thirdly, The Dr. having told us, That in such plural Addresses, the people under the Bishop's Government,P. 422. are included, gives for instance, that Passage, Rev. 2.10. The Devil shall cast some of you into prison. I should verrily think, he was here concerned to specifie the Clergy and Laity, and include both: For, it seems in his Sense, all the Pastors were safe, from the Thunder-clap of this warning (I know not by what shield, except that of the Drs. fancy) and there were no prisons there for Pastors, this being only spoke to the People. This charge of gross folly, upon his Mould of Reasoning (and it is gross enough, at all will) is the more evident, in that Answer to the Objection, taken from that phrase, Chap. 2.25. — unto you, and unto the rest in Thyatira; from which passage, we plead for a plural diversifying Ministers and people, under distinct Comma's. The Dr. will admit it by no means, to to be meant of any,ibid. but the People, making the term, you and the rest in Thyatria, one and the same, as distinguishing only the sound from the unsound part. in that Church. So, that it is evident, the D,. appropriats the Plural Phrases to the People only, and consequently, is exposed to the forementioned absurdities, in his way and method of pleading. That, that Passage Chap. 2.10. doth reach the Pastors, is upon several important grounds, made good by Mr. Durham, upon the place, as 1. from the remarkable change of the singular number, to the Plural. 2ly. That his was a searching tryal to the Church, whereof, it was her concern p. 77to be warned. 3ly. That the preservation of Some, was as signal a consolation in such a Tryal, as Isai. 30.20.21. See others cited by Pool Critic. upon the place.

The Dr. enquires, If Angels had not been single Persons, why are they not mentioned Plurally, as well as the People? This Querie, confirms what is now imputed to him: That they are mentioned Plurally, we have already made good, in the premised Instances. Yea the Dr. himself, answers himself, acknowledging that there is a Plurality, bespoken, in the Person of the Angels, so, that he is not, only Personally Addressed. But the Dr's strange Fetch, is, that he will allow a Plurality of the People, to be Addrest and spoken to, in one singular Bishop or Angel, but none of the Pastors at all: For which Notion (I had almost said Non-sense) no imaginable ground can be given, but the Dr's good Will to his Hierarchical Bishop, whom he would fain shape out of this Scripture, which we see, so rejects and baffles his Endeavours, that instead of any evident ground of Answer from the Text, he must needs embrace an Airy Notion of his own Brain.

Thus to that pregnant Passage, Chap. 2.24. which we adduce to prove the Angel, ibid.to be Addrest Plurally, viz. To you, I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira: Where there is a clear Distinction made betwixt the Plural you, viz. the Pastors, and the rest in Thyatira, viz. the People. The Dr. has no other Shift, but that pitiful one, viz. That the Ancient Greek Manuscripts, leave out the Conjunction foreign, and Read it, To you the rest in Thyatira, distinguishing the Seduced, from the not Seduced; And therefore, cannot be meant of the Angel, who is always Addrest in the Singular Number. But, 1. This Shift baffles most of all the old Greek Copies; the Reading he embraces, being supposed Mantytecla's Manuscript, baffles all the Episcopal English Clergy, concerned in our last Translation, who, notwithstanding all their Zeal for Episcopacy, as appears in their various and unsound Translation of the Term foreign, yet durst not make this Adventure with the Dr, but with the Current of Ancient Copies, Read the Text, with the Conjunction: Notwithstanding, that in their Preface to the Reader, they assert their Diligence, in Searching the Original Text. I need not stand here to recount, the large Testimony and Cloud of Witnesses, the Body of Protestant Divines, Translators and Interpreters, all concurring in this our Sense and Reading, in Contradiction to the Dr's Conceit and Exception. See Paraeus, Arethas, Ribera, Dr. More, who expresly taketh the you, to import the Pastors; Beza, &c. But, 2ly, This Conjecture and Answer, is clearly Cross to the Text: For, (1.) The Adversative, but, in the beginning of v. 24. clearly limits the you here, and distinguishes it from the you, meant of the People, p. 78in the close of v. 23. (2.) The Conclusion of this verse, clears this to Conviction — I will put upon you, none other burden — hold fast — Pray, by what Logick, will the Dr. exclud Ministers, and includ the People only, in this Plural Phrase? Were no Ministers kept unpolluted? Or, were there some other burdens, to be put upon them, than what they had already? And are they excluded from holding fast' till Christ come, what is received from him, and only the People concerned herein, as contradistinct from the Bishop? Sure I am, such absurd Consequeuces, might cover with Blushes, the Asserters of this Opinion. I might add, that even granting the Dr, the Advantage of this Gloss, and leaving out the Conjunction, and admitting with Grotius, that thus the Sound are distinguished from the Unsound in this Church, the Dr. would be pitifully puzzl'd to prove, that none of the Clergy, as he calls them, is in both these Classes, and consequently, that the Plural Phrase, doth not stand for us, even in this Discriminating Sense: But this, we insist not upon.

To proceed to the Dr's second Proof, (p. 423.) of our Lords Allowance and Approbation of Episcopal Government in these Epistles, viz. That they were Persons of great Authority: This he proves from the Title of Angel, shewing them to be Persons of Office and Eminency; Christ also, Directing to them the Epistles, to be communicat to their Churches. To which, he adds another Proof, taken from the Authority, which is supposed to be exercised by some of these Angels, and competent to others; He gives Instance, of the Angel of Ephesus, trying the false Apostles, which imports a Juridical Tryal; the Blame laid upon the Angel of Pergamus, for having them that held the Doctrin of Balaam, and of the Nicolaitans, which shews his Power to have cast him out; upon the Angel of Thyatira, for suffering Iezabel to Teach, which shews, that it was in his Power, and that he had Authority to eject her and her Followers. Ans. The Dr's Proofs of Authority in these Angels and Churches, in reference to Government, are good and sound, and accorded to by all Divines. But he has left behind him two Points of his Proof, in reference to his Scope, which are (to use our Scottish Proverb) the Tongue of the Trump, and without which, all his Discourse, is but like Sand without Lime. 1. He says, "They were single Persons of great Authority: But he has not yet made good, that they were single Persons, nor offered to Answer the pregnant Grounds pleaded by our Divines, to prove the contrary, and that the Collective Sense of the Term Angel, is most suteable to the Scripture, and the Tenor and Scope of these Epistles. 2ly, Supposing them single Persons, he has not proved, either from the Title of Angel, or their Authority imported in these Epistles, that it reached any further, than that of Presidents; or that the Authority here Instanced, was Monopolized, p. 79and so inhanced in them, as to exclud intirely, all the Pastors therefrom. The contrary whereof (besides the Proofs we offered in the beginning) we heard the Belgick Divines make out, and give Instance, particularly, with reference to Ephesus; to the Elders or Ministers of which Church, Paul committed the whole Government, as the propper Governours and Bishops thereof, Act. 20.28. And therefore, even supposing the Angel, a single Person, he cannot be supposed, in Contradiction to that Scripture, to have had such Authority and Power, as did Inhance, or Exclud that of the Pastors and Bishops of Ephesus, so clearly therein asserted and held out. The Dr. acknowledges, That what our Lord writes, is not to this Angel personally, but also to the People, P. 422. But I pray, how will the Dr. set up his March-stone, and shew us the Limitation of these Instructions, in Point of Government, distinguishing the Person of the Bishop from the Pastors, since, neither the Supposition, that the Bishop is a single Person, will prove this, nor the Honourable Title of Angel, (as the Dr. calls it) a Title suteable to all Pastors, who are Angels and Messengers of the Lord of Hosts, by their Office; Nor, can the Dr. flee to the Refuge of the Authority supposed in these Prescriptions, without a palpable begging of the Question. And as for the Communicating of the Epistles to the Churches, as Directed to them; This is so suteable to the Angelus Praeses, or to any President, or Mouth of a Meeting, that it hath no imaginable Strength, to bear the Weight of the Dr's Conclusion.

The Dr's. Third and last proof, of our Lords approbation of Episcopal Government in these Epistles, and that the Angels, were Bishops of these Churches, and Presidents thereof, is drawn from the Testimony of most Primitive Antiquity (as he calls it) for which he Cites the anonymous tract of Timothy's Martyrdom mentioned,P. 424. Bibleotheca patrum, N. 244. Shewing that Iohn, Two or Three years after his return from Patmos, assisted with the seven Bishops of that Province, he assumed to himself; the Government of it; which Seven, were the Angels here here Addrest; these Churches lying within the Lydian or Proconsular Asia, of which Ephesus was Metropolis: And therefore, these Seven Bishops, by whom he Governed the Province of Ephesus, are the Seven Angels, all within that Province. He adds; That Austin call the Angels of Ephesus, praepositos Ecclesiae, Epist. 162. and the Seven Angels, praepositi Ecclesiarum, Comment. in Rev. That Ambrose in 2 Cor. 11. referring to these Angels, tells us, that by Angels, are meant the Bishops. Ans. 1. Since the Dr. calls these Angels, Bishops and Presidents over these Churches, in propounding this Proof, if he intend only Presidents, he will fall utterly short of his design and scope of evincing that Episcopal Power, which he ascribs p. 80to them; a President, and one, who has all Authority, Monopolized in him, being quite distinct things: If he intend by Presidents of the Churches, such as are set over it in a general Sense; Are not all Pastors in Scripture, called such, as are set over God's People, and have the Tittles of foreign If the Dr. will have them such Presidents over the Churches, as had monopolised and enhanced in their persons, all Authority of Government, a President being of far larger extent, and surely with a relation to a Church, it is not all one, to say, such a person is President of a Church, and a Sole President: As it it is not all one to say, such a man, is Minister of London, and the Sole Minister. For, all Ministers in the Scripture Sense, are Presidents over the Churches. But 2ly. since the Dr. draws his supposed demonstrative evidence of the power and Authority of these Seven Angels, addrest by our Lord, in these Epistles, and of the nature and extent of that Office, which is indigitat by the term Angel, and consequently the meaning of the prescriptions, given to them, from Primitive Antiquity (as he calls it) I would know▪ whether the Dr. will own this Principle, that Antiquity, or even that which he calls Primitive (or the First human Testimony, secluding the Scriptures, or of the First Ages, after the Canon of the Scriptures) is the infallible Rule and Commentarie, for understanding the Nature and Office of Church Officers, mentioned in Scripture. If the Dr. will not own this Principle, his evidence by his own confession; is no evidence; For, an evidence, which will fail and not reach the conclusion, is no evidence at all; and in the best construction, no proper evidence without restriction,s and limitations added. If the Dr. hold the Affirmative, then I would urge him thus.

First, If Mens Testimony, or the Churches Primitive practice, tho never so early, must be the Key and Comment in this Case, of the Scripture Sense, of the Character and description of Church Officers, and able solely to found our Faith and persuasion hereanent, why may not also, human practice and profession of the Church, simply considered, determin our Faith and prectice, as to every Scripture Truth, and duty therein held out? For, the Dr. can assign no difference, nor upon admitting the antecedent, shew the least shaddow of a ground, which will limit and enervat the consequence.

Secondly, If this be admitted, I would know, whether he will not thus set up an higher tribunal, than the Scriptures, as to the ground and Rule of our Faith and practice, and in opposition to the Apostle Paul. 1 Cor. 2.4. make our Faith stand in mans Wisdom, not in the Wisdom of God and his Power; and in contradiction to the Apostle Peter, 2 Pet 1.20.21. make the Scriptures of a privat Interpretation, as if the Prophesie had come by the will of Man: For, if I must believe no otherwise, anent the Office of these p. 81Angels, and the Scriptures pointing out the same, than according to the human Testimony of after-Writers, or the Testimony and Practice of supposed Bishops, their pretended Successors; then the custom and practice of fallible Men, becomes the foreign, the ratio, and demonstration, a priori, the great and chief ground, why I believe Scriptures, to have such a Sense, and no other. And thus we will give Men, a Dominion over our Faith, which resolves ultimatly into an human practice and Testimony of fallible Men: A Principle, which no sound Protestant will own. Besides, that the proof of the Assumption of the Argument, and to instruct this Matter of Fact, and that all Primitive Antiquity, (as he calls it) doth testify for the Bishop, which he has shapen out, would inextricably baffle his indeavours, as is above cleared: It being evident, that as, the Writings of many of the First Writers, are lost, and not a f…w corrupted; So, many, Eminent for Piety and Learning, have written nothing in the First Ages, which are therefore generally acknowledged, to be very dark, in the Matter of Fact. The Affirmative proof, lying upon the Dr. he is obliged to make it appear, that neither the one, nor the other, has contradicted his supposed Testimonies, else he but beats the Air, and has said nothing to the purpose.

Thirdly, The Scripture (as hath been proved) ascribing to Pastors, the Power of Order and Jurisdiction, and even to the Pastors or Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus, (the Angel whereof, is First here addrest,) Act. 20.28. Compared with 1. Tim. 4.14. 1. Pet. 5.2.3. 1 Cor. 5.4.5. When this Scripture account of the Office and Authority of Pastors (which, surely is Antiquity, prior to the Dr's most Primitive Antiquity, and of far greater veneration) stands cross to his pretended Primitive Testimonies of the Bishops ▪ Power, and both are laid in even Ballances together, which of the two, will preponderat? The Dr. for shame, will not say the Second; Hence I inferr, that he must either accord his Human Testimonies with Scripture, or quite this Plea. And next, he must acknowledg, that he stands obliged to Answer the premised Scripture accounts of the Pastors Office, and our Arguments drawn therefrom, before his Human Testimonies deserve the least value or notice.

Again, Fourthly, We may here ply …he Dr, with a Notion and Argument of his own Mould, The Dr. thinks it strange, how we can suppose the Church, to have so suddenly altered the Government, from Presbytrie to Episcopacy, if Presbytrie was her first Government. But I would ask the Dr, since its evident in Scripture, that Pastors and Presbyters, have both the Name and Thing of the Scripture Bishop, and consequently Episcopal Authority ascribed to them, yea, and in the premised Scriptures, several such paralells, its actual Exercise supposed to be inherent in, and competent to them: And in special, since the Elders and Pastors of the p. 82Church of Ephesus, are enjoyned by Paul, in his last Farewel, to exercise Episcopal Authority joyntly over that Church, without the least Hint of any Episcopal President over them, and this after all his Prescriptions to Timothy, and the Exercise of his Evangelistick Office there; whence came all this sudden Universal Change in Iohns time, that all this Episcopal Authority, competent before, to Pastors of Churches, and particularly of Ephesus, is Monopolized in the Person of one Bishop? How came all the Churches of Asia, to be so suddenly cast in this Mould? And to press the Querie a little further, if there was such an Universal Authority of Bishops in Iohns time, and thus acknowledged and attested by all the Primitive Antiquity, as the Dr. pretends, yea and acknowledged by Ierom himself, as well as by Augustin and Ambrose, how comes Ierom to say, that even in his time, the Elders were subject to the Bishop, by Custom, not Divine Dispensation (Comment on Tit.) and on Isai. 3. that they had in his time [Caetus Presbyterorum) a Meeting or Court of Presbyters, which he calls an Apostolick Senat? How comes a Presbytrie to be mentioned in the Council of Ancyra, Canon 18? How comes Ambrose (or, a Father, Coetaneous to him) upon Eph. 4. to assert, that after the Church was enlarged [caepit alio modo gubernari] it began to be Governed after another manner; than at first; and — that [non per omnia conveniunt, &c.] the Government of the Church, in his time, was not every way suteable and square, to the Apostolick Appointment? How comes Augustin (Epist. 10.) to assert with Ierom, that by Custom of the Church, Episcopatus was major Presbyterio? How comes Firmili…nus (apud Cyprian. Epist. 78.) to assert, that the Pastors or Presbyters [possident ordinandi potestatem) possesses the Power of Ordination; And these Presbyters, he calls [Praepositi] Presidents or Rulers, using that very Term, from which the Dr. draws the Episcopal Authority of these Angels? Yea Chrysostom on 1 Tim. asserts, that [inter Presbyterum & Episcopum inter est ferme nihil] there is almost no difference betwixt the Bishop and Presbyter; and that which is spoken by Paul to the one, agrees also to the other. Now, if there be such Harmony in the Testimony of the Ancients, in point of the Bishops Power, as the Dr. pretends, I would fain know, what means this immusical Jarring, and palpable Contradiction to his Assertion, and even by these very Fathers, whom he brings for his Vouchers?

Hence, Fifthly, it appears that the Dr's Proofs from these Testimonies, and his pretended Argument, from all Primitive Antiquity, is pitifully Lame, and short of his Design, upon two important Grounds. 1. That his Witnesses, are not Harmonious, several of them, giving a palpably Cross Testimony to him. 2. In that they do not assert that sole Authority of Bishops, and that absolute Inhanced Power, which he alledges: For, no Man of Sense, can draw this Consequence, from the general Name of Bishops, p. 83used by him, or from a simple calling of them Presidents, will conclud them to be such, as he pretends, yea, and not such de Facto, far less Iure Divino, since in other places, they are found clear and positive in a contrary Assertion: And therefore, unless the Dr. will Stage these Fathers, whom he mentions, as the most Arrant, Self-contradicting, Non-sensical Fools, that ever Spoke or Wrote, he must needs acknowledg, with us, that they use the Term Bishop, in a general Sense, and as common both to such foreign or Presidents, as had then obtained, and to other Pastors. So that in such Characters, appropriat to such Persons, they could neither understand, an Episcopal Presidency, founded upon a Divine Right, and Apostolical Institution, as the Dr. pretends, nor such an absolute Power, as swallows up and Inhances all Authority of Pastors in Government, which he also asserts.

This considered, with what is above offered, doth so fully cut off the Dr's third Argument, which he prosecutes, P. 424, 425, &c. that nothing needs be further added, as there might be with Advantage, if a particular Examen, were made of his Citations. The Folly of his first Headless Testimony appears, in that it makes the Apostle Iohn to assume a new Archiepiscopal Chair, or Primacy over the Asian Churches; The Sottishness of which Conceit, and the Contrariety thereof to the Scripture Account of the Apostolick Office, is evident to any of common Sense, since the Apostles, by vertue of their Office, which extended to all Churches, planted and to be planted, were Ministers thereof, in actu exercito, and yet this Apostle must be assisted with seven Bishops, forsooth, to support his new Archiepiscopal Chair over that Province. The Citation speaks of a Province in general, which the Dr. will needs have, to be that of Ephesus, and the seven Angels, must be these seven Bishops, by whom he governed that Province. Again, the Angel is called by Augustin, the Praepositus or President; therefore, he was an Hierarchical President, as the Dr. has shapen out: What Consequence is this? As to what He adds out of Ignatius and Irenaeus, in reference to Polycarp's Episcopacy over Smyrna, from Eusebius (Lib. 4. Cap. 15.) and Polycrates's Episcopacy over Ephesus (Lib. 5. Cap. 24.) we have spoken to it already, and to the Credit to be given to these supposed Epistles, as likeways to Eusebius's History. Besides, that in Eusebius (Lib. 5. Cap. 23.) Irenaeus calls Anycetus, Pius, Heginus, Telesphorus, Xistus, Presbyters of the Church of Rome [Presbyteri illi qui te praecesserunt] We also, did shew, that he thus expresses himself further [Nec Polycarpus, Anyceto suasit, ut servaret qui sibi Presbyterorum quibus successerat, consuetudinem servandam esse diceret] We have also already made appear, that Polycarp his supposed Bishop, disownes the Office and Doctrin imputed to him by the Dr, since, Writing to the Philippians, he ownes only Bishops and Deacons, as the p. 84two Orders of Ministry, and perswades the Philippians to be subject to their Presbyters and Deacons, as to God and Christ. To which we may add, that Bishop Bilson himself, acknowledges (Perpet. Gov. P. 158, 159.) that Elders at first did govern by common Counsel. For what he adds of Eusebius's Testimonies, anent the existent Bishops in several of these Churches, when Iohn wrote to them, it is abundantly removed by what is said above, in reference to the Sense and Acceptation of the Term Bishop, by Ancient Writers, as likewise by that which we have often observed of Eusebius himself. The Dr. adds a Passage of Paraeus, which we shall take notice of, he tells us, that Paraeus proves out of Aretas Caesariensis, that Antipas the Faithful Martyr, mentioned Rev. 2.13. was Bishop of Patmos, immediatly before the Angel of that Church,P. 426. to whom Iohn wrote, and that that Angel, was one Gaius who (as he proves out of Clement) succeeded to Antipas, in the Episcopal Chair. Paraeus, says indeed, that these of Pergamus, had cruelly slain Antipas, but adds [quis fuerat, ex Historia parum constat] that there is no Light from History, who he was. He adds [Aretas Pastorem ejus Ecclesiae fuisse sensit sub Domitiano fortem fidei assertorem, &c.] that Aretas thinks he was Pastor of that Church, and under Domitian, a Strenuous Asserter of the Faith, and Burnt in a Brazen Bull. He adds, that he to whom our Lord wrote, might be tempted to lay aside his Office, for fear of the like Punishment, &c. But what the Dr. adds of an Episcopal Chair, and of his Name, Paraeus says nothing, neither doth he ascribe to Antipas any other Office, than that of Pastor, seeming to take these Churches for Congregational. And if the Office, to which the Angel succeeded, was that of a Pastor only, where is our Dr's Episcopal Chair, which he here assigns him? Besides, Paraeus affirms the History to give no certain sound, touching the Office and Character of Antipas: Neither doth he mention any thing of Clement. The Authors of the second part of Annot. under the Name of Pool, do affirm, That no Ecclesiastick History, makes mention of Antipas, and that he seems to have been a Person of obscure Note; And that no History giving Account of him, has inclined some to think this Epistle, is wholly Prophetical, and that Antipas signifies all such, as oppose the Pope, as if it were the same with, Antipapa.

The Dr's Conclusion upon the whole of this his discourse and Argument from the Seven Asian Angels, P. 426.is, That it being apparent, that there were Bishops, presiding in each of these Churches, when Iohn wrote, consequently they had the Government of these Churches committed to them, since he Writes to them as Governours and Overseers of these Respective Churches; So, that they being Bishops, our Saviour, in these Epithets, allows and approves of the p. 85Episcopal Order. But, by what is above replyed, it is evident, that nothing which the Dr. has adduced, amounts to prove the existence of any such Bishops, as he has shapen out, in one, or all of these Churches: And therefore, our Lords writing to these Angels, gives not the least shaddow of allowance or approbation of that Episcopal order, which he asserts. And so,P. 427. to the Dr's Summ of all (as he expresses it) viz: That the Episcopal form, is of Divine Right; upon Ground of our Saviours Institution, Seconded by the Practice of the Apostles, and conformity of the Primitive Churches; and our Lords express approbation We may confidently repone, from what is above replyed, that it is evident, that the high-flown Hierarchy, he pleads for, has no Foundation▪ either in our Lords Institution, or the Practice of the Apostles, is noways Authorised by the Conformity of the Primitive Church, or our Saviours Approbation, in his Epistles to the Asian Churches, but as opposit to all these, is by the Churches of Christ, to be rejected and disowned.