Vindication of the Dissertations Concerning Episcopacy, Chapter 1 · Section 6
Section VI.
Of the word Angel, and Starre, pretended to be common to all Ministers. Of Meſſenger, and Embaſſadour. The ſingularity of the word Angel.
THe fourth conſideration is, That the word Angel (which is the title given to thoſe ſuppoſed Biſhops) doth not import any peculiar juriſdiction, or praeeminence, but is a common name to all Miniſters, and ſo is uſed in Scripture. For all Miniſters are Gods Meſſengers and Embaſſadours ſent for the good of the elect, and therefore the name being common to all Miniſters, why ſhould we thinke that there ſhould be any thing ſpoken to one Miniſter, that doth not belong to all? The ſame may be ſaid of the word Starre (which is alſo a title given to thoſe ſuppoſed Metropolitans) It is evident that all faithfull Miniſters are called Starres in Scripture, whoſe duty is to ſhine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of Doctrine, and holineſſe of converſation; There is nothing in theſe titles that argue theſe Miniſters to be Biſhops in our brethrens ſenſe: Inſomuch as had they not been called Biſhops by ſome authors that ſucceeded them, (who spake of former times in the language of their owne times) this way of arguing would have been counted ridiculous.
2. …o this conſideration I might, if it were needfull, reply, 1. That the word Angel is no where uſed for any other Officer or Miniſter in the Church, ſave onelyonly the Prophets (ſuch as Haggai. c. 1. 13. and John Baptiſt, Mat. 11. 10.) and the chiefe Prieſt, Mal. 2. 7.
3. Secondly, that, as to the words Meſſenger, and Embaſſador, there is in ordinary ſpeech ſome conſiderable difference betweene them, the latter having in it a connotation of dignity, ſuſtaining the perſon of the King, from whom he is ſent immediately, which is not applicable to the former; And agreeably when it is uſed of St. Paul and Timothy, in whoſe name that Epiſtle is written [foreign, wee are Embaſſadors, 2 Cor. 5. 20.] there is added foreign, for, or, in the name, and authority of Chriſt, and againe wee pray you foreign, which we well render, in Chriſts ſtead, as his proxies, for to Embaſſadors are; which being there applied to S. Paul an Apoſtle, and to Timothy, one imployed by him immediatly to preach and plant the faith, and after to governe in the Church, may be proportion belong to the Biſhops their ſucceſſors peculiarly.
4. Thirdly, that as the word foreign ſignifies a Meſſenger, or Nuntio, ſo the word foreign, Apoſtle (according to the origination of it from foreign to be ſent) ſignifies alſo without any conſiderable difference, but yet is never thought fit, either in Scripture, or in the ſtyle of the Church to be applied to ordinary Miniſters, but onelyonly to thoſe ſent immediately by Chriſt, as he by his Father to plant and rule Churches, and to thoſe who firſt ſucceeded them, or were imployed by them in that great office.
5. But that which wholly fruſtrates the deſigne of the conſideration, is this, that the ſingularity of the perſon, (one Angel in each of the ſeven Churches) is all that wee argue from, in this matter; For as to the power and authority in each Church, That is certainly pretended to (and not declin'd) by the Preſbyterian as well as the Prelatiſt, the onelyonly Queſtion is, whether it be placed in one over the reſt, or in more than one, ruling together in common, and from the ſtyle of Chriſts Epiſtle to the Angel of the Church of Epheſus, and the like in each of the ſeven, wee thinke we conclude regularly, that it was one, it being certaine that the ſingular number is not the duall or plurall, and that [Angel] is a perſon, not an aggregate body or multitude.
7. And to the ſame purpoſe againe wee conclude not from the mention of the Starres, not from their light or ſhining, but from their number, but ſeven in all, no more than there are Churches, i. e. one onelyonly in each Church; And we know there is difference betweene a Star and an Aſteriſme or conſtellation, one ſingle light, and a conjunction of many; And accordingly Mr. Brightman, that is reſolved not to finde this truth in that Text, is forced to deale plainely, and to tell us, that the Epiſtles are not each of them ſent to any one Angel, but to the Colledge of Paſtors, nec uni alicui Angelo mittuntur, ſed toti, ut ita dicam, collegio Paſtorum, in Apoc. c. 2. 1. which being ſufficiently contrary to the evidence of the Text, which reads foreign to the Angel, in the ſingular, he thinkes fit to adde his reaſon for it; Non enim unus erat Angelus Epheſi ſed plures, nec inter iſtos aliquis Princeps, for there was not … Angel of Epheſus, but many: nor any one among thoſe principall or chiefe, which is the begging of the Queſtion, or proveing his aſſertion onelyonly by aſſerting it; whereas Beza finding himſelfe more preſt by the force of the place, is forced to render it foreign i. e. foreign, to the Angel, i. e. to the preſident, quem nimirum oportuit inprimis de his rebus admoneri, who was in the firſt place to be admoniſhed of theſe things.
8. What the foreign in the uſe of the Antient Church properly ſignifies, is ſhowne at large out of Juſtin Martyr, Dionyſius Biſhop of Corinth, Marcellus Ancyranus and the Councell of Epheſus, Diſſert. 4. c. 17. directly the ſame that we meane now by Biſhop; But that I pretend not to thinke Beza meant by it (his Prolepſes and eſpouſed Principles leading him another way) All that I obſerve from the citation, is, that by the ſingularity of [foreign the Angel] not Angels, he was forced to confeſſe a ſingle perſon to be underſtood, which is contrary to Mr. Brightman, and thoſe that comprehend a Colledge of Presbyters under the title, which being yeilded, I doubt not but our other evidences already produced (which muſt not be at every turne repeated) from the Catalogue of Biſhops in the Church of Epheſus, &c. and the judgement of the Vniverſal Church concerning thoſe ſingle perſons, will conclude them indeed foreign, not in Beza's notion, but in Juſtin Martyrs (who was much a more competent judge) i. e. the very Biſhops which we pretend them to be: And truly I cannot diſcerne any weake part (which may hazard being counted ridiculous) in this way of arguing.