Lightfoot and others have shown, a public minister in every synagogue, called the angel of the church, or bishop of the congregation. This officer was an ordinary minister of one particular synagogue, and nothing like a diocesan prelate; and as the term in question is employed in reference to the very subject before us, and as applicable. to that very synagogue service from which the christian forms are confessedly in great part drawn, until sufficient reason can be shown that it is here used in another sense, we must feel abundantly justified in rejecting every other, and retaining this.

But it is to be still further urged, as a plain refutation of the prelatic character of these angels, and in proof of the position that they were congregational ministers, and not diocesan prelates, that the stars are represented as fixed in their several candlesticks, and therefore as parochial bishops, and not prelates. Take them at their very best estate, therefore, and it is impossible to magnify the proportions of these angels into diocesan bishops. Even in the fourth century there were no more christians at Ephesus than could meet in one church, or, at most, in two. So also, as Ignatius informs us, the church at Smyrna ordinarily worshipped and communicated in one church, even in his time. The same is shown by Ignatius to have been the case with the church at Philadelphia, and elsewhere. With what face, then, can it be pretended, that these angels were prototypes of existing diocesan bishops, with their dioceses of indefinite extent, embracing an indefinitely large number of churches, when they were no more, supposing them to be individuals, than the presiding officers of their several presbyterial churches? They were, in fact, parish ministers, and not diocesan prelates. Dioceses there were none for two hundred and sixty years after Christ, and, of necessity, there could be no diocesans, nor any officers tantamount to prelates. Let it then be acknowledged, as Beza has said, that by these angels were meant the presidents, in the several presbyteries connected with these seven churches, and how will this advantage the cause of prelacy? In no manner or degree. Such presidents we believe to have existed in the apostolic churches, and to have had other presbyters associated with them, as well as seniors or elders, and deacons, in proportion to the extent and demands of their parish. But where the church was small, there the president would be found without any other pres

1) See Owen's Plea, p. 30, and Clarkson's Prim. Episc.

2) See shown in Owen's Plea, p. 33, and Clarkson, and in B. ii. ch. ii.

byters, as in the case of Gregory Thaumaturgus. Now such presidents are our presbyterian pastors, and our moderators. Our existing pastors and moderators are clothed with all the powers, and discharge all the duties, of these apostolical and primitive presidents. But, that these angels were more than this, cannot be proved. Where is it proved? Where are they said to be of an order distinct from and superior to presbyters? In what epistle are they said to possess or to exercise the sole power of jurisdiction, or of ordination? When Christ gave his promises to Peter, did he not do it in the name of the rest of the apostles, as Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Optatus, and others say,1 and not as implying any preeminence or lordly supremacy in Peter? And when he directs his epistles to the churches of Asia, to the angels of those churches, by what logic are we to conclude that these angels, if individual personages, were of a superior order to their fellow-angels, or any thing more than the presidents of these churches? This whole argument is a mere petitio principii, a begging of the question, and, when forced to its utmost limits, is favorable to presbytery and not to prelacy.

Neither can prelatists discover any solid ground on which to build their vain hypothesis. They are, therefore, found to contradict, gainsay, and refute one another, and thus prove the futility of their scheme. 'We see,' says Stillingfleet, 'what miserable, unaccountable arguments those are, which are brought for any kind of government, from metaphorical, or ambiguous expressions, or names promiscuously used.'2

1) See Reynold's Confer. with Hart, c. 4, § 3, ad finem.

2) See the very strong language of archdeacon Mason, in Vind. of the Ref. Ch. pp. 173-176, in Goode's Div. Rule of Faith, vol. ii. pp. 98, 99. On this whole argument, see, as above, Jameson's Fundamentals of the Hierarchy, part ii. § 5, pp. 140, &c. 154,

155. Boyse's Anct. Episc. p. 351, &c. Pierce's Vind. of Presb. Ordin. part ii. p. 103. Dr. Rice in Evang. Mag. vol. x. p. 594. Jameson's Cyprianus Isot. p. 449. Baxter on Episc. pp. 69, 70. Smectymnuus, pp. 52-59. Milton's Prose Wks. vol. i. p. 187, &c. Prynne's English Lordly Prelacy, vol. ii. ch. ix. pp. 479–484.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE ALLEGED PRELATICAL CHARACTER OF THE JEWISH CHURCH EXAMINED AND DISPROVED.

§ 1. The argument, founded upon the prelatical character of the Jewish hierarchy, examined.

HAVING thus disposed of the objections urged by prelatists against the presbyterian system, founded upon the alleged existence of certain prelates in the apostolic churches, we now proceed to notice some other objections.

There is no argument more strongly urged by prelatists, than the analogy between their hierarchy and that of the Jewish church. There were then three orders of priests in the Jewish church; there was the high priest, and the sons of Aaron, and the Levites.'1 The Levites are thus made to correspond to the order of deacons - the priests to that of presbyters—and the high priest to that of prelates. This was probably the favorite argument with ancient prelatists.2 Certain it is, that it is the main stay, the corner-stone of the popish hierarchists.3

Now, on this argument, we remark, First, it is absurd. To infer the character of the christian ministry from an abrogated priesthood, is surely an absurdity, which might well have been left to an age of darkness. Speaking of this

1) See Dodwell's One Altar, Beveridge's Cod. Can. Ecc. Prim. Vind. Lib. ii. c. 11, § 11. Burnet's Obs. on the 2d Canon, p. 52. Potter on Ch. Govt. pp. 48, 49, Am. ed. Wks. of Rev. W. Jones, of Nayland, vol. iv. p. 355. See also Saravia on the Priesthood. Dr. Monro's Inquiry, p. 27. Sage's Vind. of Cypr. Age, ch. ix. § 4, &c.

2) See Epiphanius. Hær. xxix. § 4, in Wilson, p. 145.

3) Bellarmine de Cler. cap. 14. Tileni Parænesis. cap. 2. On this basis is erected the supremacy of the pope. See this very fully illustrated, in Jameson's Cyprianus Isot. pp. 178, 183, 184, 264, 273, 275.

4) See Letters on the Fathers, p. 3, by an Episcopalian.

argument, Dr. Nolan says:1 'But as analogical proofs, however ingenious and pretty, in the way of illustration, supply but pitiful substitutes for argument, I must be pardoned for passing them over without a further expression even of my contempt. It will suffice to observe upon this subject at present, that they are so little conclusive, in establishing the required similarity, that opinions, as wide as those which they pretend to reconcile, are held as to the objects which they undertake to assimilate, so little apparent is the resemblance. They are thus cited, with equal justice and confidence, by those who suppose the government of the church committed to presbyters or bishops.' Secondly; this argument proves too much for anglican prelates. Since, if it proves any thing, it will prove the supremacy of a single head over the whole church, with temporal jurisdiction also, and not the existence of an order of prelates, each of whom claims independent jurisdiction. But this destroys the supreme headship of Christ, and must therefore be rejected. It would prove, also, not three orders, nor even seven, but something like thirty-one; since, under the Jewish hierarchy, there were 1. Levites. 2. Heads of families over them. 3. Rulers, or the chief of the heads. 4. over them, Ithamar. 5. over both priests and Levites, Eleazer. 6. over all, the high priest.3 The priests were divided into the several orders of Katholickon; the seven Immarcalim; the Gizbarim; overseers, of whom there were fifteen orders, and presidents. So, also, the Levites were divided into the templar levites, porters, singers, musicians, treasurers, provincial levites, &c.4

Thirdly, this argument has led to great and serious evils. This idea being once introduced, drew after it other errors. It led to the monopolizing of all power by the clergy; to the exclusion of the laity from all ecclesiastical rights; to the doctrine of sacramental efficacy, ritual formality, and ceremonial purification; to the doctrine of a priesthood; sacrifices, altars and penances; absolutions, jubilees, and indulgences;

1) The Cathol. Char. of Christ'y. pp. 238, 239.

2) See, under argument fourth, this position made good by further arguments.

3) See Stillingfleet, Iren. part ii. ch. iií. p. 172. Archbishop Usher says, also, (The Original of Bishops and Metropolitans, briefly laid down. Printed 1703, in Scott's Coll. of Tracts. Lond. 1814, 4to. vol. xii. p. 268,) that the priests were superior to the Le

vites, no man doubteth; and that there was not a parity, either betwixt the priests or betwixt the Levites themselves, is manifest, by the word of God; wherein mention is made of the heads and rulers, both of the one and of the other, 1 Chron. 24: 6, 31, and Ezra 8: 29.

4) See Lewis's Origines Hebrææ or Antiq. of the Heb. Republic. Lond. 1774, vol. i. B. ii. c. 5 and 12.

to the entire ritual of popery, into which was incorporated the great mass of the Mosaic; to the spiritual despotism of popery; to the national establishments of christianity; to the system of tithes; and to the secular aggrandizement of the clergy.1 These and other pestiferous evils, which have so deformed and corrupted the church of God, may be all traced to this original fountain of bitterness and death. The theoretical and practical evils to which these notions of a theocracy gave rise, lasted through many centuries, and, with the exception of the scattered witnesses of the truth in each century, were first opposed by the pure light of genuine christianity, diffused by the reformation.3

Fourthly, this argument utterly fails. The analogy is not sustained. The high priest was not an order distinct from the priests, but was a single individual and himself a priest; while the Levites were not in sacred orders at all, no more than our church sextons now are. The scriptures speak of the whole priesthood, high priest and all, as one order.4 Aaron, therefore, and Eleazer, who succeeded him, are never styled, in the books of Moses, any thing but priests. Neither was the title of high priest given exclusively to one person, but also to the chiefs of the twenty-four courses of priests.5 The high priest was admitted to his office without any ordination by which a new order might be conferred. The high priest did not ordain the inferior priests, nor were these made to depend for orders upon him. The high priest did not confirm the people. In case of the pollution of the high priest, a common priest officiated in his stead. Neither was the supreme and exclusive right of government and jurisdiction committed to his hands. The high priesthood, therefore, instead of being a representation of the prelatic order, was, as if by design, so constituted as to overthrow the essential powers and prerogatives claimed by this order; while, on the other hand, this order of prelates has no manner of resem blance to the high priesthood in those things, by which it was cardinally distinguished. Besides, Aaron and his sons were the princes of their tribe, so that their eminence arose, not

1) See Mendham's Venal Indulgences and Pardons of the Ch. of Rome, p. 10. See also Milton's Reason of Ch. Govt. B. i. ch. iii. Wks. i. p. 90, &c.

2) See Campbell's Lect. on Eccl. Hist. L. x. parti. Gibbon's Decl. and Fall, vol. i. ch. xv. See how it is employed by Whitgift, Def. p. 220, in Jameson's Cyp. Isot. p. 191, and by