the sacred Scriptures; for instance, by the two witnesses, Rev. xi, 3, nobody understands two precisely, but a number of witnesses; and the angel mentioned, Rev. xiv, 6, &c., having the everlasting gospel to preach, evidently means all 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. And compare Dan. viii, 3, 20, where a ram signifies the kings of Media and Persia. Again, in Daniel, chap. vii, the same idiom is used. The four beasts are four kings, ver. 17. The fourth beast is the fourth kingdom, ver. 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, that is, 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. And what further confirms this interpretation, is, that the angel of the church of Smyrna is addressed in the plural, chap. ii, 10; and the angel of the church of Thyatira likewise is addressed in the plural, ver. 24, "Unto the angel of the church of Thyatira write unto you I say," &c. 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, that is, the people; or under that of stars, that is, 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 Revelation of St. John, the angel means that*

* 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, 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

presiding elder or presbyter, afterward called bishop, by way of eminence, as primus inter pares, the first among nis equals. However, though this would not alter the state of the question at issue, I still think this opinion presbyters, but never bishops; presbyters are said to join in council with the apostles, but never bishops. Acts xv. St. John, in this very book, frequently speaks of presbyters or elders, but he NEVER CLOS 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 fulness 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 deliver them his ordinances received by immediate revelation from himself. WHICH PRE-EMINENCE 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 v, sec. 77.) Dr. Rainolds, an illustrious defender of Protestantism, thus interprets the passage in his Conference with Hart: "Presbyters were constituted bishops by the Holy Ghost, that they might superintend and feed the flock and that this might be more effectually accomplished by their united counsel and consent, they were accustomed to meet together in one company; and to elect one as president of the assembly and moderator of the proceedings: whom Christ, in the Revelation, denominates the angel of the church, and to whom he writes those things which he meant him to signify to the others. And this is, the person to whom the fathers afterward in the primitive church denominated the bishop."*

Now this is all perfectly consiste.it with the constitution of those Christian churches where no high Church episcopacy is found. The superintendents in the Lutheran church, and among the Wesleyan Methodists, have every whit as much authority as is here supposed: yet all this exists in fact and practice where all the ministers, by divine right, are equal. Many Protestant writerst grant that Peter had some sort of priority among the apostles; and many of the fathers speak of the same: the Papists, therefore, argue that the pope, as Peter's suc cessor, has universal lordship over all ministers and churches. Their argument is quite as well sustained from Scripture, as the argument of high Churchmen is for the lordship of bishops. Dr. Barrow grants that Peter might have such a primacy "as the primipilar centurion had in the Legion, or the prince of the senate had there, in the Roman state; at least, as among earls, baronets, &c., and others, co-ordinate in de * Rainolds's Conference, cap. iv, in Alt. Dam., p. 47.

Barrow on the Supremacy, supp. ii, sec. v and vi, p. 104, 4to., ed 1080

extremely improbable, because the whole drift of the New Testament, as we shall soon see, gives a more perfect equality to the ordinary ministers of the church, than this hypothesis would require. 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, while the passage itself is fairly capable of an interpretation in perfect accordance with the rest of the New Testament, as is shown in the third 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, is unsupported by the New Testament, and is contradicted by the fathers themselves; 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.

gree, yet one hath a precedence of the rest."*

Yet he maintains the

power of the apostles was equal; their rights and authority, as apostles, the same. Hence, suppose such a primacy of one presbyter as president over the rest, and that such were the angels of the churches in the Revelation, yet the power of all the presbyters would, notwithstanding this, be equal; their rights and authority the same.

* Barrow on the Supremacy, supp. ii, sec. v and vi, p. 49, 4to., ed. 1080

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 the Church of England are VAIN, and without the promise of Christ: this, we say, s such a piece of blind and bigoted 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 HOLY, CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLICAL CHURCH, built, not upon the traditions of men, bu upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesu Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.

SECTION IV.

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

TRUE it is," says the judicious Hooker, "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 than wee can prove that it was intended, doe wee not adde to the lawes of God, and make

them in number seeme more than 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.' 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 alleage what word and what law they meant, their common ordinary practice 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, (a term 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. Again, 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, in historical narration, (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 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 youμevos, the præpositus, or bishop of them all?"t

* Ecclesiastical Polity, b. iii, sec. 5.

+ Episcop. Ass., p. 71. And Mr. Sinclair, in his "Vindication of Episcopal or Apostolical Succession," makes a mighty parade of this nonsensical argument, pp. 24-27. But he destroys it utterly by betraying its foolishness in the two following particulars: 1. That by it an apostle is ELEVATED to be a BISHOP of a single city!! 2. That consistently with this, he actually has the hardihood and infatuation to make James, as bishop of Jerusalem, PRESIDE OVER THE APOSTLES themselves in the council at Jerusalem. Fine work! a bishop lording it over the apostles!! These absurdities are genuine results of the argument. He quotes, as historic evidence for it, an acknowledged