advice for the continual welfare of the Church, there is not a syllable about placing one individual over the other Ministers, like a modern Bishop, to govern the rest. These writers will have it that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus had the excellent Timothy so fallen, as is described, Rev. ch. ii. 4, 5? This is hard to believe. But that what the Apostle predicted, Acts xx. 29, had partly taken place, is not impossible, nor very improbable.

2. The Book of Revelations is a deeply mysterious book. Several Divines of note interpret this whole matter in a mystical sense, as a representation of any Church or Churches in a similar state to each case there described, to the end of the world. See Cocceius, the very learned Mr. Mede, Dr. Henry More, the Cambridge Divine, and Forbesius, in Poli Synopsi. Pool himself seems to think that many things confirm this interpretation. Amongst others are mentioned, from More and Mede, that there were many other Churches more celebrated at that time than these seven mentioned, and which equally needed admonition and encouragements. These seven, therefore, are made the mystical representatives of the whole.

3. The term Angel, is here probably to be taken in a collective sense, as the term Beast in the 13th chapter. A similar mode of speaking is not uncommon in the Sacred Scriptures; for instance, the Angel mentioned, Rev. xiv. 6, &c., having the everlasting Gospel to preach, evidently means the faithful Ministers of God's word in general, as then going forth to preach the everlasting Gospel with more than ordinary zeal and success. Again, in Daniel, chap. 7, the same idiom is used. The four Beasts are four Kings, v. 17. The fourth Beast is the fourth Kingdom, v. 27. Now this implied the Roman Power. But this Power, for some hundreds of years, was a Republic, governed not by one person, but by a number of Senators. Yet, these are spoken of as one Beast- -one King. Every person has observed that the Revelation follows the idiom of the prophecy of Daniel. This is the case here in using the term Angel, i. e. Messenger or Minister, collectively for a number of Ministers, as Daniel uses the term Beast or King for a number of Governors possessing equal power at the same time. Durham well reasons, that as there were, undoubtedly, many Ministers in each of these churches, they must be spoken of either under the similitude of the Candlesticks, i. e. the people; or under that of Stars, i. e. the Angels or Ministers. The first is absurd; it follows therefore, that the Angel, the Star, of each church, means the ministers of that church collectively. This I think is the true sense of the place.

Some modern commentators, who decidedly believe the identity, as to order, of Bishops and Presbyters, still think that in the Apocalypse the Angel means that* Presiding Elder, or Presbyter, AFTERWARDS called

* Suppose the term Angel to mean some one Minister presiding over the other Ministers. In the first place, this only proves the fact; but gives no law binding all churches to such presidency. And secondly, the question remains, was this President a Presbyter or Bishop? Admitting the fact

Bishop, by way of eminence, as Primus inter Pares, the first amongst his equals. However, though this would not alter the state of the question at issue, I still think this opinion extremely improbable, because the whole drift of the New Testament, as we shall soon see, gives a perfect equality to the ordinary ministers of the church. It appears to me, therefore, extremely illogical, in a matter so plain, to infer the contrary from a single passage, in a very obscure and mystical book; and that, whilst the passage itself is fairly capable of an interpretation in perfect accordance with the rest of the New Testament, as is shewn in the 3rd observation. At any rate no valid argument can be drawn from so disputable a passage in favour of modern episcopacy.

To conclude this Section: Then, it appears, that there is NO POSITIVE evidence from the Sacred Scriptures for these High Church claims for Bishops as Apostles, with authority and powers, by Divine right, superior to, and incompatible with, Presbyters: there is nothing about a personal Succession; about the Ordination of Ministers, &c., belonging EXCLUSIVELY to such Apostles, BY VOLUNTARY HUMILITY called BISHOPS. There is nothing in our Lord's commission, not a word;-the plea of being really Apostles, brings their origin BELOW the sacred canon of the New Testament, and makes it human; and it is, moreover, arrogant, unsustained by their conduct, and, consequently, ridiculous;-the case of Timothy and Titus fails to support them, and the Epistles to both contradict their scheme ;— the Angels of the Apocalypse also fail them;-the whole system, as to SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY, is built on a sandy foundation, and is buttressed up by violent assumptions, strained or false analogies, forced interpretations, and, ultimately, comes to be placed, by concessions of their own, upon mere human and ecclesiastical authority. This is its proper basis. In this view of the case, they have a perfect right, if they think it the best, to adopt it, to advocate, and to recommend it to others. We fully concede this right. This is the view the Reformers of the English Church took, as we shall see in the sequel.

for the sake of argument, the chief evidence of that time will prove that this President was a Presbyter. Presbyters are said to ordain, but never Bishops. 1. Tim. iv, 14. Apostles are called Presbyters, but never Bishops; Presbyters are said to join in council with the Apostles, but never Bishops. Acts 15. St. John, in this very Book, frequently speaks of Presbyters or Elders, but he never once mentions Bishops. Justin Martyr and Tertullian speak of the Presidents in the churches in their days as Presbyters. So the judicious Hooker: "John beheld sitting about the throne of God in heaven four and twenty PRESBYTERS, the one-half, FATHERS of the Old, the others, of the New Jerusalem. In which respect the Apostles likewise gave themselves the same title, albeit that name were not proper, but common unto them with others. For of Presbyters, some were greater, some less in power, and that by our Saviour's own appointment; the greater, they which received fullness of spiritual power; the less, they to whom less was granted. The Apostles' peculiar charge was to publish the gospel of Christ to ALL nations, and to them his ordinances received by immediate revelation from himself. WHICH PREEMINENCE EXCEPTED, to ALL other OFFICES and duties incident into their order, it was in them to ordain and consecrate whomsoever they thought meet, EVEN AS our Saviour did himself seventy others of his own disciples INFERIOR Presbyters, whose commission to preach and baptize was the same which the Apostles had." Ecc. Polity, Book 5, sect. 77.

But, then, to claim a Divine right for this system, and for this EXCLUSIVELY of all others; and that so as to declare that no Ministry, except ordained by these modern Apostles, is valid; that ALL the ordinances of all the Protestant Churches in Europe besides, are VAIN, and without the promise of Christ, is such a piece of blind and bigotted arrogance, as to deserve severe exposure and rebuke. It is designed to promote a spirit of exclusiveness and intolerance: may such designs perish for ever; and may all Ministers learn that they are brethren; and that all who love the Lord Jesus Christ, in sincerity, are one!

E

SECTION IV.

THE GENERAL SPIRIT AND SCOPE OF THE GOSPEL OPPOSED TO THIS HIGH CHURCH SCHEME.

"True it is concerning the Word of God, whether it be by misconstruction of the sense, or by falsification of the words, wittingly to endevor that any thing may seem Divine which is not, or any thing not seem which is, were plainly to abuse and even to falsifie Divine evidence, which injurie offered but unto men is most worthily counted hainous. Which point I wish they did well observe, with whom nothing is more familiar than to plead in these Causes, the Law of God, the Word of the Lord; who notwithstanding when they come to alleage what Word and what Law they meant, their common ordinary practice is, to quote BY-SPEECHES in some historicall Narration or other, and to urge them as if they were written in most exact forme of Law. What is to add to the Law of God, if this bee not? When that which the Word of God doth but deliver historically, we conster without any warrant as if it were legally meant, and so urge it further then wee can prove that it was intended, doe wee not adde to the Lawes of God, and make them in number seeme more then they are ? It standeth us upon to be carefull in this case. For the sentence of God is heavy against them, that wittingly shall presume thus to use the Scripture." Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity. B. 3, § 5. These words of this celebrated Defender of the Church of England exactly describe, and justly censure, the conduct of these High Church Excommunicators. They pretend to plead “the law of God," or Divine authority, for their scheme of excommunicating the other Protestant Churches of Europe, while, " notwithstanding, when they come to alledge what word and what law they meant, their common ordinary practise is, to quote by-speeches in some historical narration or other, and to urge them as if they were written in most exact form of law." So, if the subject of the alms of the Church be historically treated, and the Greek term for Messengers be used, which was also applied to those extraordinary Ministers, by it denominated Apostles; this is immediately caught at in order to create a second order of Apostles, to whom modern Bishops are to be the exclusive Successors. If St. Paul wishes Timothy to abide at Ephesus for a special purpose, named in the request, this must make him Bishop of Ephesus. St. Luke says, (Acts, xxi. 17, 18,) "And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present." Bishop Taylor makes this by-speech, or historical narration, formally the "second

66

evidence of Scripture," that St. James was Bishop of Jerusalem, "Why (went they in) unto James?" he asks. Why not rather into the Presbytery, or College of Elders, if James did not eminere, were not the ǹyouμevos, the Praepositus or BISHOP of them all ?" p. 71. To be sure, the weary Travellers must go in somewhere; but does the simple fact of their calling at a certain brother's house, prove that he was Bishop of the place? Besides, how absurd to degrade an Apostle into a Bishop-a universal commission into a local one, to a single city! Well, let us read verses 7, and 8, of this very chapter. "And when we had finished our course from Tyre, we came to Ptolemais, and saluted the brethren, and abode with them one day. And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Cæsarea and we entered into the house of Philip the Evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him." Here, then, we make Philip the Evangelist, who was one of the seven DEACONS, Bishop of Cæsarea. What solemn trifling is all this! Nothing is more calculated to destroy the authority of Scripture itself than this mode of interpretation. The champions of Popery excel in it. They may do it consistently, because they have supreme authority to make the Scriptures say what they please. They often labour to prove the uncertainty of the meaning of the Scriptures, in order to increase their priestly authority. Their people have bound themselves to believe them, by giving up the right of private judgment. Thus the monstrous errors of Popery are received, on what they call the authority of the Church, (i. e. the dicta of their Priests,) as the truths of God's Holy Word. Such is the method of proof used by these writers, quoting" byspeeches in some historical narration, and urging them as if they were written in most exact form of law," in order to prove the divine right of their scheme, and that to the exclusion of all from the pale of the Christian Church who do not conform to it. "What is to add to the Law of God, if this be not? When that which the Word of God doth but deliver historically, we conster without any warrant as if it were legally meant, and so urge it further than we can prove that it was intended, do we not adde to the Laws of God, and make them in number seeme more than they are? It standeth us upon to be careful in this case. For the sentence of God is heavy against them, that wittingly shall presume thus to use the Scripture." Such a procedure can supply no proofs; it leads to much perversion of the public mind; and is dangerous in its consequences to the authors themselves, and to the cause of Religion in the world.

It is a point which the reader cannot too carefully mark, that the proof-proof, clear, plain, and strong-lies upon these advocates to produce. In strictness, there NEEDS NONE against this scheme: if their proofs fail to support it, it FALLS OF ITSELF. Their proofs are such as the judicious Hooker has above described. They are, in truth, no proofs. The system, therefore, falls by its own weight. This is enough to a serious, reflecting mind.