emanate from any individual: it emanated from a number of individuals; from the collective body of the ministers of religion. Therefore, the Star which expresses the whole light in one of these Churches, is a symbol, not of a single minister, but of her ministry collectively.'

Here it is evident, that the Doctor excludes the lay Elders from the Presbytery, and takes only that part of it which suits his purpose the preaching Presbyters. The former, he is sensible, cannot be represented by a Star, because they diffuse no light, and, consequently, the symbol would be improper. It follows, then, from his own representation, that the Presbytery is out of the question.

2. To whom then was each of the Epistles addressed? The Doctor must answer, because the Scripture says so, to the Angel of the Church; who, according to him, represented the collective body of Angels, or preaching Presbyters. Then THE Angel must have had some distinction; for if he had none, the definitive article the could not possibly be used with propriety, as its very nature is to point out, or distinguish one of a kind. Who then was this distinguished person? He must be either the Moderator of the Presbytery, or a Prelate. The latter will not be granted us; he must, therefore, be the former. This is the opinion of Beza, Dr. Campbell, and a number of other Presbyterians. But he cannot be the Moderator of the Presbytery; for he is styled the Angel of the Church; and a Moderator, as such, has not the least relation to the Church. The consequence then is irresistible-that he was the Prelate, the President, or the Bishop of the Church; to which, in this character, he bore the most intimate relation.

Nor will the reproofs and commendations be applicable to this Moderator, who to-day is, and to-morrow is not. Nay, if he were even Moderator for life, they are not applicable to him; for a man can never be blamed for the bad conduct of the Presbytery, over whom he has no control; every thing being carried by a majority of votes. Nor,

Lastly, can the Angel represent the Moderator; because an Angel is a messenger from GOD; but a Moderator, as such, is no messsnger-as such, he is not the servant of GOD; he is merely the servant of the Presbytery, created and annihilated by their breath. For these reasons, it is impossible that the Moderator can be meant by the Angel. And as we have demonstrated that the Presbytery cannot be meant, Dr. M. himself being the judge, it inevitably follows, that the Angel is the Bishop of the Church.

I now come to the Doctor's argumentum palmarium-his triumphant argument. The amount of it is this. The Bishop alone cannot be signified by the Star; for he alone does not emit all the light that is in any particular Church. The Presby ters also emit light; therefore the Star represents the whole body of the clergy. This is undoubtedly very specious, and well calculated to impose upon the generality of readers.

To this plausible argument, I answer

1. The Star and the Angel represent the same thing. This cannot be denied. Now I have proved to a demonstration, that the Angel cannot mean the whole body of the clergy. Therefore, the Star cannot be the symbol of a collective ministry.

2. I have proved that the Angel cannot represent the Moderator of a Presbytery; because the relation of the one is totally different from that of the other; and because the reproofs and commendations cannot possibly be applied to the Moderator. Therefore, the Star is not the symbol of the Moderator.

3. I have observed, that a Star is never used in Scripture to signify a plurality of ministers; and that Dr. Mason himself does not produce any instance. Therefore, the presumption is, that it does not mean so in the present case.

4. I have observed that very eminent Presbyterian divines, Blondel, Beza, and Campbell, disclaim the idea of a Star representing a plurality of ministers. This indeed is no proof; but it shows that men, as quicksighted as Dr. M. and as zealous for their system, could not see any force in his argument.

If then the Star and the Angel signify the same thing, as no one will deny; and as the Angel, and, consequently, the Star, cannot signify a plurality of ministers; yet it may be thought incumbent on me to show, that a Star can be a proper symbol of an individual, when he is not the only dispenser of light in a Church.

Now, whether I can do this or not, is very immaterial. If the Angel and the Star signify the same thing, and the Angel does not represent a plurality of ministers, it is evident, that the Star does not. The conclusion then must be, that they both represent an individual who presides over a Church, and has control over its ministers.

But I conceive there is no difficulty in showing, that a Star may be a proper symbol of an individual, even when he is not the sole dispenser of light in the Church, but has a number of luminaries under him.

1. Symbols, emblems, and metaphors, are founded on resernblance. There must be one capital point in which the analogy holds good; otherwise the figure is improper. But it is not necessary, that the sign and the thing signified should agree in all points. To deny this, would destroy all the symbolical language of Scripture. A star then is a proper symbol of the superior officer of the Christian Church; and it is not necessary, to give correctness to the symbol, that all the inferior officers should be represented by it. The Bishop is the source of authority to the Presbyters to dispense the word of life; he, therefore, with propriety, is represented by the star. Our SAVIOUR is called a Star, a Morning Star; because he is the source of light to his Church but at the same time, there are many inferior luminaries, without whose exertions the light of the Gospel could not, in an ordinary way, be diffused. The Apostles are

symbolically termed stars; but never in their collective capacity a Star; and, at the same time, Presbyters diffused the light of the Gospel throughout the world.

If we turn our eyes from sacred to profane history, we also find the same principle adopted. Emblems correspond with principals, and inferiors are not considered. In Greece and Rome, while monarchy prevailed, a single rod was the symbol of kingly power; although the kings were far from possessing all the power of their respective states. The inferior ministers of power were not contemplated by the symbol; the superior minister, as comprehending the inferior ministers, was the only object represented.

This symbol of power was adopted in consequence of a principle then prevalent, that the chief officer was the representative of the Deity. Accordingly we find, that the chief priest of Apollo, when he came to the Greeks to ransom his daughter, had a scepter in his hand, and a crown upon his head, which is called orεppa Oεoto, the crown of the god. But at the same time, the god had his inferior priests; yet the symbol was never applied

to them.

This was the case also under the kingly government of Rome: the symbol had respect only to the chief. But when the regal power was abolished, and the republic took its place, the symbol was altered, and instead of a single rod, a bundle of rods was used; to signify that the power of the magistrates emanated from the people, who were all deemed peers in empire. This is evident from a line in Virgil-"Non populi fasces, non purpura regum." [Not the rods of the people, not the purple of kings.] Georg. 2."

In the same marked character of symbolical language, the Chief Priest of the Christian Church was represented by a star, and the inferior Priests made no part of the thing signified. But when a number is the object of the emblem, stars are invariably the representative.

Thus it is evident, that Dr. Mason has mistaken the symbolical language of Scripture, and that he has displayed nothing but fancy.

But still the Doctor maintains, that the Angel represents the whole body of the ministers; and if so, then the Star does likewise. And to prove that Potter and Cyprian are not correct when they say, that the Angel of the Church never represents its ministry throughout the whole book of Revelations, he quotes the following passage-I saw another ANGEL fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting Gospel to preach to them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people." (Rev. xiv. 6.)

'Heaven,' says the Doctor, 'in this book, is the ascertained symbol of the Christian Church, from which issue forth the

u See JONES' Figurative Language, p. 323.

ministers of grace to the nations. As the Gospel is preached only by men, this angel who has it to preach to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, must be the symbol of a human ministry. And as it is perfectly evident that no single man can thus preach it, but that there must be a great company of preachers to carry it to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, the Angel mentioned in the text is, and of necessity must be, the symbol of that great company.'

Now, whatever may be the meaning of the passage just quoted, it is very easy to make it appear, that Dr. Mason is totally wrong in the application of it. Cyprian says, "They," the Angels, are constantly mentioned in the singular number "—which, says the Doctor, 'is not true.' Now let the reader judge for himself, whether it is true or not. Unto the Angel of the Church of Ephesus-Unto the Angel of the Church in Smyrna-To the Angel of the Church in Pergamos-Unto the Angel of the Church in Thyatira-and just so of the other three Churches. If this is not constantly mentioning the Angels in the singular number, there is no singular number. 'But if it were true,' says the Doctor, the question still is, whether the symbolical term in the singular must necessary signify only a single person?' What symbolical term? Is the word Angel, that is, one who delivers a message, symbolical? No more than the title Bishop, or Overseer-no more than the word Presbyter, or Deacon. The stars are the symbols, and the Angels are represented by them, and there are just as many stars as angels, seven of each. A Bishop or Presbyter is not a star literally, but figuratively. But a Bishop or Presbyter is literally an Angel or Messenger from God to his fellow creatures. When therefore a Messenger or Angel is addressed in the singular, and when this is done in seven distinct cases, who, that regards the propriety of language, would not suppose that they are so many persons individually considered?"

It being then evident from the address to the seven Angels, that they are to be individually considered, it follows from the commendation and threatenings applied to them severally, that they were the chicf ministers in their respective Churches. It has also been shown, that the Angel of the Church does not mean its Presbytery, however constituted; and that it must, from the very nature of the article the, be restrained to an individual of some distinction. This individual, it has been proved, cannot be the Moderator of the Presbytery; for he has no control over it, and has no relation whatever to the Church. It therefore irresistibly follows, that he is the Prelate who is strictly related to the whole Church, and to every part of it.

But why, it may be asked, may not the Angel of the Church signify, its ministry; when the Angel who flies through the

v Essays on Episcopacy.

1

heavens preaching the everlasting Gospel to the nations, means, and must mean, its collective ministry? I answer

Supposing the interpretation to be of necessity correct, the case of the seven Angels requiring a directly contrary interpretation, from the circumstances that have been mentioned-no parallel can be instituted between them. The one is proper under its peculiar circumstances, the other under its both may be proper, when the characters are different. The language is figurative, and therefore does not imply a real fact. It may mean to represent a spiritual ministry, propagating the religion of the Gospel throughout the world. But the addresses to the Angels are of a different character. They declare facts in plain language. They bestow commendations, or threaten punishments in terms of simplicity. An individual is praised—an individual is threatened. This implies power, and the alternative of choice. If the ministry of a Church was designed, a majority would give character to the whole, which would frequently be unjust. The officer who governs therefore is blamed or commended; and this officer, it has been fully proved, cannot be Moderator of a Presbytery; he must then be the Prelate or Bishop of the Church.

Accordingly we find, that Blondel, the great champion of the Presbyterian cause, acknowledges that the Angels of the seven Churches were so many individuals, to whom, as their Exarchs or Governors, the actions of the Church, whether glorious or infamous, were imputed." "w His Exarchs, however, he makes no more than standing Presidents of the Presbytery, under the control of a majority of votes; which is so repugnant to every consideration of reason and justice, that it is hard to conceive how so learned a man could have adopted the idea. Beza, Campbell, and a number of other Presbyterians, consider the Angels as the Moderators of the Presbyteries; but this is worse than Blondel's notion; for their Moderators are changeable; in the chair to-day, and out tomorrow. This makes the notion ridiculous. Pray, Sir, agree among yourselves, and then you may, with more decency, contradict us and all antiquity.

Dr. M. however, thinks he has gained his point. 'Assuming it now as proved,' says he, that the term Angel is applied in this book to a collective body, or a number of men joined in a common commission, we demand the reason of its being restricted to an individual in the Epistles to the Churches of Asia. Signifying a messenger, it is in itself as applicable to any preacher of the Gospel as to a diocesan Bishop.' Very true. But a messenger, and the messenger, where there are many, are very different. The former signifies any messenger of that number; but the latter signifies a particular messenger; and, consequently, a messenger of distinction. The article alone then settles the point.

wlis (scilicet Presbyteriorum præpositis) ceu Etapxas commissi gregis, &c. Apol. Pref. p. 6.