Vindication of the Dissertations Concerning Episcopacy, Chapter 1 · Section 7
Section VII.
Of their exception to our arguing from Symbols: Of Riſhop and Elder being the ſame.
THe laſt Conſideration now remains in theſe words, Theſe titles of Stars and Angels are myſterious and metaphoricall, It is ſaid Rev. 1. 20. The Myſterie of the ſeven Stars— And certainly it cannot be ſafe or ſolid to build the ſtructure of Epiſcopacie by Divine Right upon myſterious and metaphoricall denominations, Theologia Symbolica non eſt argumentativa, Eſpecially if we conſider that there are abundance of cleere texts that make Biſhops and Preſbyters to be one and the ſame; and it cannot be praiſe-worthy for any men (though never ſo learned in the eſteem of the world) to oppoſe certain allegorical and myſterious titles to ſo many expreſſe teſtimonies of Scripture.
2. To this the Anſwer will be ſatisfactory, though it ſhould be but briefe, that we doe not found our argument in an allegorie. For 1. though the word Stars applyed to the Governors of Churches be onelyonly figuratively ſo applyed, yet the word foreign (if the Authors of this conſideration may be believed in that which immediately preceded) ſignifies (not an Angel from Heaven, or incorporeal ſubſtance, but) a Meſſenger or Embaſſadour, ſuch as, ſay they, all Ministers are, And agreeably in that which is here annexed to prove the allegorical or myſtical phraſes (from Rev. 1. 20. the Miſtery of the ſeven Starres) it is evident, that onelyonly the word [Starres] is Symbolical or Myſtical, and as evident that the Angels are not, for it is in the explicating and not in the forming of the figure, that the Angels of the Churches are mentioned, as the things which are ſignified by the miſtery of the Starres, as the Churches themſelves by the Lamps; and therefore as it would be abſur'd to ſay that a ſymbol is explicated by a ſymbol, one myſtery by another, or proportionably that the Churches, by which the Lamps are expreſt, are a myſtical allegorical phraſe, ſo it will be as unreaſonable to affirme of the Angels, that they are a miſtery or allegorie, becauſe of the Starres it is affirmed that they are ſuch, when indeed the word Angel is the interpretation and unfolding of the myſterie, which is as far from being the miſtery, as the light is from being darkneſſe, which it expells out of the horizon, and is purpoſely ſent by God to doe ſo.
3. But then ſecondly, 'tis yet more manifeſt, that if the word Angel were here uſed figuratively (as it is evident it was not, and was ſo confeſt, when it appeared uſefull to the Objectors that it ſhould not) yet it being the ſingularity of the perſon, wherein our argument is founded, our argument is not founded on that which is myſtical, For certainely this number is a plaine Grammatical notation of a ſingular perſon, and that is proofe enough that it was not a collective body, a Preſbytery or Conſiſtory, that is meant by it. And in this all the controverſie betwixt us and the adverſary conſiſts, whether it was in many or in one in each Church, that the Eccleſiaſtical juriſdiction was veſted, and that is ſufficiently decided by that which is cleare and un…igurative in this Text, and cannot be imagined otherwiſe, but by forcing ſome figure on it, by which one Angel may be ſet for more Miniſters, which if it be done, would not by their rule be argumentative.
4. Thirdly, Whereas it is ſuggeſted, that this which we conclude from hence, is oppoſite to many expreſſe teſtimonies of Scripture, I have no more to ſay in this place, where this is onelyonly affirmed, but not attempted to be proved, but to profeſſe my perſwaſion and aſſurance (the truth of which muſt be in the proceſſe of this diſcourſe conteſted) that there is no ſuch thing, but on the contrary, that the whole Scripture, and practice, and writings of the firſt ages of the Church, and the ſucceeding through all the world, agree directly with what I conclude from the ſingularity of the Angel; And when in the following words the teſtimonies are expreſſed to be thoſe which make Biſhops and Preſbyters to be one and the ſame, This alſo will immediately vaniſh, when it is remembred, what is largely deduced in the Diſſertations, that the word Biſhop in the Scripture is never uſed for a Presbyter in our Moderne notion of the word, but conſtantly for the one ſingle Governor in a Church or City, and that if there be any truth in that which is here affirmed, Presbyters muſt be taken in a notion diſtant from that in which now we uſe it, and ſignifie, as foreign hath already been ſaid to doe, the ſingular Biſhop in each Church, and 'tis certaine ſuch an identity of the names, will never be deemed contrary to what we have concluded from the Angel, but directly confirme it for us.
5. And although here is no occaſion in this place to prove and make good this aſſertion in each part of it, (the firſt poſitivè, that foreign or Biſhop in Scripture alwayes ſignifies the ſingular Biſhop; the ſecond ſuppoſitivè, that if foreign, Biſhop, and foreign Elder, be one and the ſame in Scripture, it muſt be by interpreting foreign Elder, ſo as to ſignifie a Biſhop in all place▪) yet 'tis certaine, that this is already done at large in Diſſert. 4. cap. 6. Sect. 19, 20, 21, 22. and ſhall here againe be repeated and vindicated, when the proper place requires it, which I foreſee it will ſpeedily doe.
6. In the meane, I muſt take leave to expreſſe my preſent ſenſe, and hope that others will not thinke it too haſty, that no one of theſe five Conſiderations, nor conſequently all of them together, have at all praejudged our Concluſion (now in hand) inferred from that of the Epiſtle of Chriſt to the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches.