A treatise of church-government occasion'd by some letters lately printed concerning the same subject / by Robert Burscough ...

CHAP. IX. Apostolical Authority was communicated to the Angels mention'd Revel. 1.20. who were Bishops of the Asiatick Churches.

WHat Timothy was at Ephesus, and Ti∣tus in Crete, that were the Angels mention'd Revel. 1.20. in their several Dio∣ceses: They govern'd the seven Churches of Asia with Apostolical or Episcopal Au∣thority.

This is what you oppose, and one might therefore have expected from you another Account of them, to which you would ad∣here; but you fix upon nothing, a practice very common amongst many that are en∣gaged with you in the same work, who com∣bine indeed in their attempts against the Truth, but without any steady Principles, and in great confusion.

Amongst the rest, the Assembly of Divines tell us (r), that these Titles of Angels are Mysterious and Metaphorical, and that it can∣not not be safe or solid to build on them the stru∣cture

of Episcopacy. And yet they are not of the mind of the old Alogians, who derided the Revelation of S. John (s), saying, of what advantage is it, that he talks of seven An∣gels, and of seven Trumpets? They affirm, that this Book is of singular use to Christians to the end of the world (t). They have also furnished us with Annotations on it, such as they are; and particularly without any he sitation, they give their Interpretation of this expression, which yet they would have us believe, is so Mysterious and Obscure.

As for their Argument, that Symbolical Theology is not Argumentative, it is no far∣ther to be admitted, than as it signifies, that Parables and Figures are not to be stretched beyond the plain intention of any Author: But if no determinate sense can be gather'd from them, this would make a great part of the Holy Scriptures useless to us, and leave us mightily in the dark concerning the Institu∣tion of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which yet the Reformed think, and that with good reason, they clearly apprehend. Yet after all, we do not read of the Mystery of the Angels, but of the Seven Stars, of which the Angels are the explication, and therefore must be suppos'd to be intelligible: And indeed there seems to be no difficulty in this, but what has been created by those

that would amuse us with exceptions, that they may find some way to escape.

You pretend not to have any certainty that the Title of these Angels was Meta∣phorical. For what, say you (u), if by the Name of an Angel, an Angel properly so call'd should be understood? Should this be so, then farewel to any ground for Diocesan Bi∣shops in the Directions of the Epistles to the Angels. And should it not be so, you are not unprovided of other shifts: but if they succeed no better than this, the Diocesans are safe enough. For to your Quaere 'tis easie to reply, that these Angels of the Churches could not be Celestial Spirits, unless we may believe, that one of those Spirits was faln and summon'd to repentance: that another of them had a name to live, but was dead: and that a third was wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: which, I think, is sufficiently absurd. But the Reve∣lation, you tell me, goes much upon the Hy∣pothesis and Language of Daniel; and in Da∣niel we read of the Guardian Angels of Nati∣ons, and in such a manner, that what refers to the Nations, or to their Governours, is said of the Angels themselves. Which signifies nothing to the purpose, unless you were able to shew, that to charge the Blessed An∣gels with the sins of men, and call them to

Reformation of Life hath a Congruity with the Prophetick Scheme of Daniel, or with the nature of those holy Beings, who are so constant and chearful in their obedience to the Divine Will.

Walo Messalinus (w) and some others af∣firm, that these Angels were the Churches themselves: and to comply with them, we must believe that the Angels of the Churches were the Churches of the Churches (x) which, I think, is no good sense. Grotius re∣flecting on their Exposition does justly charge it with a manifest contradicting of the Holy Scripture (y), which declares that The Candlesticks are the Churches, and that the seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches. But Whither, says he, may not men be drawn by an itch of contradiction when they dare confound those things, which the Spirit of God does so plainly distinguish? Yet I deny not that the Instructions, which did immediatly relate to the Angels were communicated by the Spirit, not only to them, but to the Churches also: it being fit that both should be made sensible how their Duty and Interest were combin'd; and en∣courage one another in the performance of

the things enjoin'd, and in carrying on the work of Reformation with the greater vi∣gour and application.

If these Angels were neither Celestial Spi∣rits, nor the Churches of Asia themselves; it cannot be imagin'd that they were any thing else but the Pastors of those Churches. Yet this being suppos'd, some question has been made about their number, which is omitted, says Smectymnuus, not without some mystery, lest we should understand by Angel one Minister alone and not a company. This you call a Critical nicety. But I take it to be a prophane abuse of the Holy Scripture un∣der a pretence of discovering a Mystery. 'Tis said expresly in Scripture that the seven Stars are the Angels: there were therefore just so many Angels as there were Stars. The Churches also were seven, and every Church had its distinct and peculiar Angel; and if any, notwithstanding this, deny that the number of the Angels and Churches was equal, they seem not in a capacity to be convinced of any thing by the clearest de∣monstration.

As for the conceit, that every Angel was a Company, it is inconsistent with the Scri∣pture; for the Angels are not called Con∣stellations but seven Stars. And says Suidas, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Yet if these words sometimes happen to be us'd promiscuously, we ought not however to depart from their genuine and usual signification without ne∣cessity.

Such a necessity there is not here, for an Angel no more properly signifies a Colledge of Angels than a man signifies a Troop or a Corporation. Nor are the descriptions of the several Angels applicable to a multitude, unless we will suppose that all the Elders of the respective Societies deserv'd the same particular reproof or commendation, which hath not the least shadow of Truth.

We read indeed, that the strong Cattel be∣fore whom Jacob placed his Rods generally brought forth the speckled or ringstraked, and this we impute to a Miracle, and questi∣on not the thing, because it is related by Moses in the Book of Genesis (z). But what should make all the Presbyters of each of the seven Churches have the same particular perfections or defects; the same ornaments of mind, or stains and blemishes, I cannot imagine. I am sure no such thing is re∣veal'd in Scripture, nor hath it any proba∣bility.

Yet I deny not that amongst the things that are written to the Angels, there are some instructions mingled, in which others are im∣mediatly

concern'd (a), and to whom they are addressed. And from hence Smectymnuus and the Assembly of Divines argue, that eve∣ry Angel must be understood collectively. But they might have consider'd that sometimes in the Holy Scripture, discourses begun with one are diverted to many; and with many, to one; and that without any artificial tran∣sition. For example, S. Paul in the fourth Chapter of his Epistle to the Philippians, ver. 3. writes thus, I intreat thee Yoke fellow. And he concludes his second Epistle to Ti∣mothy with these words; The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you; And one might as well infer from hence, that the Philippians were a single person, and Timothy a multitude, as conclude from the like instance, that every Angel of the several Asiatick Churches was a Presby∣tery.

We have seen, that these Angels were men, and not Celestial Spirits. We have also seen, that they were seven individual Pa∣stours, and not so many Collective Bodies. I farther add that they were distinguished by their Eminence from all other Mini∣sters within their own Precincts, and that constantly, as Bishops of their respective Churches.

1. These Angels were distinguished by their Eminence from all other Ministers in their several Churches. This is granted by Beza (b) and some other learned Presbyteri∣ans, and the thing is manifest. For if all the Presbyters in these Churches had been Angels alike or without any difference in Dignity or Order, doubtless they would have born the same Title, and then to have directed an Epistle to any of them under the name of Angel, would have been to as little purpose as to have dispatched away another Letter with no other Inscription but this, To a Senatour of Rome; in both which cases no particular person would have thought himself concern'd.

2. These Angels receiv'd not their Office with condition that they should resign it be∣fore death, or shortly be degraded from it; but they constantly retain'd their praeemi∣nence. The Christians did not distinguish their Ordinary Officers, as, some Antiqua∣ries observe (c), the Heathens did their Priests, into such as were Temporary and such as were Perpetual or for Life; For none of them were Tempo∣rary, but they were all obliged

constantly to remain in their Station unless any of them were Deposed for their Offen∣ces, or advanced into a higher Order. The Dignity, therefore, or Authority of these Angels was not limited to a certain number of days or years, but was communicated to them with a design that it should be conti∣nued in their persons. And that it was so may be gather'd also from hence, that there were Duties prescrib'd in the Epistles that were directed to them, which could not be perform'd but in their constant exercise of the same Function.

This is different from the account which is given of them by Beza: for having sup∣pos'd they were no more than Presidents of the Presbyteries without Authority over them, he goes on to suppose that the Office of Presidents was Ambulatory, passing from one Presbyter to another in a circular motion. He tragically complains that it became fixed: For from hence, he says (d), The Oligarchical Tyranny the Top of which is the Antichristian Beast, had its original, to the destruction, not of the Church only, but of the World. Here is a heavy Charge, you see, at which however one need not be concern'd, for the load falls on a Chimera of his own; His Presidents, I mean, that had no Being in or near the time he speaks of. Yet if

they had any existence before their late esta∣blishment, he produces nothing to prove, that they took their turns in this manner he describes, but groundless Conjectures.

He was under such fear that Presidents or First Presbyters might grow up into Bishops or Oligarchical Tyrants, that he would al∣low them no long continuance in their Sta∣tion. For 'tis probable, he thinks (e), that their Admi∣nistration expir'd every week. And since he would have it so, he should have inform'd us, whether all that is said to have been done by the Angels, which with him are First Presbyters, or all that is prescrib'd to them, was or could be perform'd within the compass of a week: and if not, how it was applicable to them, when they had shifted their places, and were not consider'd under their former Title; Or rather, whether the Epistles were not addressed to the Angels for the time being: and if so, how it came to pass, that the same actions are ascrib'd to all that were successively placed in the same Chair. If he had consider'd these things, he had never troubled the world with his absurd conceit of Circular Presidents or weekly Moderators.

3. These Angels were Bishops of the Asia∣tick Churches. For if they were distin∣guished from all other Ministers in their se∣veral Dioceses by their Eminence and that Constantly: we have reason to think it was rather after the manner of Prelates, who are acknowledged by the Adversaries of Episcopacy to have govern'd the Church in the following and succeeding Ages, than as meer Presidents, in Beza's sense, of which there are no examples within a thousand years.

Mr. Prynne's attempt to Ʋnbishop them an∣swers the rest of his performances. He says, as many of his Brethren have also done, that Ordinary Presbyters are Angels, and this he proves from Rev. 1. 20. (f) the sense of which is the thing in question: and in his usual way of Rhetorick he condemns the contrary Opi∣nion as a Crazy conceit of a proud Episcopal brain (g). He hath advanced another as∣sertion which is a little surprizing, and in which I presume You will hardly concur with him: He tells us, 'Tis evident beyond contradiction that the Angels of God are all equal in Order, Power, Dignity, Office, De∣gree, Ministry (h). And this, he says, is an unanswerable evidence of the equality of Mi∣nisters by Divine institution. He also in∣forms

us, that Angels, being ministring Spi∣rits, have no need of Lordships, Mannors or Possessions: and hence he takes occasion to ex∣press his indignation against the Prelates for their Palaces, Mannors, Lordships, Possessions, Miters, Rochets, Vestments. His Book a∣bounds with such stuff as this, which moves one to pity rather than expose his weak∣ness. Yet it was fit some notice should be taken of it, for the sake of those, that, to the prejudice of the truth, still have his person in admiration.

But I return to the Proposition from which he diverted me: and which I think may be thus confirm'd.

1. If these Pastours that are called Angels were only so styled, as they were Presidents of the several Presbyteries, then were they the Angels of the Presbyteries, but not of the Churches; which is directly contrary to what is said of them in the Holy Scri∣pture.

2. They are said to be the seven Stars in Our Lords Right Hand ver. 16. which signi∣fies that they had such Dignity and Power as were not ascrib'd to any other Officers in their respective Churches: and if so, there is no question but our Saviour approv'd

their Function, and would support those that were so near him in the discharge of it.

3. They were called Angels in allusion to the practice of the Jews, who attributed to their High Priest the Title of Angel. For of him, I suppose, Solomon speaks, where he says, Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin, neither say thou before the Angel it was an error. Eccl. 5.6. I cannot think that Solomon here advis'd a person that had bound himself by a Vow, not to make this speech before the Messiah or any Ministring Spirits (as some Interpreters conceive) or not to attempt to delude with words any invisible Beings. It may seem he was in no danger of that: But the Royal Preacher gives him cau∣tion that he should not satisfie himself, if, by his excuses, he could impose on the High Priest, who was obliged to take cognizance of his Vows (i), but to remember that God would be an Avenger of the falshood, that was acted before his Vicegerent, however it was cover'd with the greatest art.

That Exposition and what I infer from it, may be confirm'd from the 42d. Chapter of Isaiah ver. 19. where we find this expostula∣tion, Who is deaf as my Messenger (k)? But the the Original may well be rendred, who is

deaf as my Angel? And this doubtless was not an Angel of Light: nor can an inspir'd Prophet be thought so stupid as the person was, against whom that complaint was made. His Character is not so applicable to any as the High Priest, whose duty indeed it was to understand the Will of God and instruct others: but at that time, it seems, himself had great need of admonition, which yet he was in no readiness to receive.

The like use of the word we meet with in Malac. 2.7. For I make no question, but what the Prophet speaks there of the Priest, is to be understood of the High Priest, or, that it is he who is styled the Angel (l) of the Lord of Hosts, at whose mouth the people were required to seek the Law. And it may seem that the High Priests were not only cal∣led Angels, whilst they were inabled as the Messengers of the Almighty to reveal his mind by Ʋrim and Thummim, but after the period to which the Cessation of these Oracles is assign'd by Jose∣phus (m) himself. For Dio∣dorus Siculus (n) speaking of the Jews and their High Priest, says, They esteem him an Angel to convey to them the commands of God.

And from what has been said, I collect, that there was an Analogy between the Jewish High Priest, and every Angel of the Asiatick Churches; that both of them were Governours in Chief, and had their subordi∣nate Officers, and that the Presbyters and Deacons were subject to the one as the Priests and Levites were to the other.

But, say you (o), Should it be yielded that the Jews had any such practice to attri∣bute the Title of Angel to their High Priest, what could this amount to in our case, since every Bishop is not a High Priest in the sense of the Jews? For in their sense there could be but one, and then that one amongst the Christians must be a Pope. And to the Pope you would do no small service, if you may be permitted to make Inferences for him from this Analogy; for you stretch it as far as he desires, and beyond what is consistent with Scripture and the common sense of Christians in the best Ages; with both which it agrees, that there should be one Bishop in a Diocese, resembling the High Priest within the bounds of his Jurisdiction. Farther than this, the similitude may not be extended, unless it be said, that as there is but one Catholick Church, which is the My∣stical Israel, so Mystically there is but one Bishop. For all the Bishops were anciently

esteem'd as one; and what was done by one in the due exercise of his Office, was esteem'd the Act of the whole Colledge. A Notion that supposes an equality of all Bishops in their Office and Authority, and consequently is so far from affording any advantage to the Popes, that it directly opposes their pre∣tences, and has sometimes been us'd, to very good purpose, to prevent their Usurpa∣tions and check their Ambition.

4. The Epistles directed to these Angels are such as suppose them to have had Juris∣diction over all others, both Ministers and People, within their respective Dioceses: And on this it is that I principally in∣sist.

Our Lord, says Arethas (p) does by the Angel treat with the Church, as if by the Master a person should discourse of one that is under his Government: knowing that the Master is wont to esteem those things as his own which are done by his Scholars, whether they were worthy of honour or reproach. But he might have added, that a Master could then only justly be charged with the irre∣gularities of his Scholars, when he had power, but did not exercise it, to prevent their mis∣carriages. And how much this is the case

here may partly appear from this conces∣sion of Blondel. The actions of the Church, says that learn∣ed Man (q), whether they were glorious or infamous were imputed to the Angels as their Exarchs or Chief Governours. They were therefore more than Moderators in a Presby∣tery, and had full power to correct abuses. And this is what may be illustrated from the following instance, which I have chosen out of several that might be given.

The Angel of the Church of Pergamus is celebrated for his personal Virtues. He dwelt where Satan's seat was, and yet he held fast the name of Christ, and denyed not the Faith in those days when Antipas the faithful Martyr was slain. C. 2. v. 13. But some defect was imputed to him as a Go∣vernour, I have a few things against thee, saith the Lord, because thou hast them there that hold the doctrine of Balaam, &c. So thou hast also them which hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate, ver. 14, 15. And from hence we may gather, that it was in his power to suppress those pernicious Doctrines and Sects that disturb'd the

Church, and for this purpose the concur∣rence of any Coordinate Officers was not necessary. He could not alledge, that he wanted Authority, or that others controul'd him in his proceedings against enormities: But as it was laid to his charge alone, that he had not stopt the mouths of Gainsayers: so he alone was warn'd to repent for this want of Discipline, lest the Lord should come quickly and fight against him with the sword of his mouth, ver. 16. Since therefore this Angel had full power of reforming Abuses, since the defect of that Reformation is intirely imputed to him: Since there is not the least appearance that he had any Collegues join'd in Commission with him, whose Votes were necessary for the perfor∣mance of what was expected from him: and since he alone is represented as respon∣sible for the miscarriages of the Christians at Pergamus, 'tis manifest, that they were all under his Jurisdiction. He might have Subordinate Officers, but he had no Equals.

If the Angels of the Churches had such power as I have ascrib'd to them, there is no ground to suspect that they unjustly usurp'd it. For if it be a good Argument that the Text it self of the Old Testament had not been corrupted by the Scribes and

Pharisees, when our Saviour and his A∣postles were upon Earth, that neither of them laid it to the charge of those wicked men: we may conclude from the Epistles directed to these Angels, that our Lord was not offended at the Station which they had in the Churches, since he censures their faults and makes that no part of them. But this is not all that may be said for it: He plainly signifies his approbation of it, both in condemning their former remisness, and in exciting them to greater vigour, in the exer∣cise of their Office.

This agrees exactly with the Historical Accounts that we have of the first Age, and particularly with what Clemens Alexandri∣nus (r) relates of S. John; who, as he tells us, visited the Regions adjacent to Ephesus, partly that he might form Churches, partly that he might add fit persons to the Clergy, and partly that he might Ordain Bishops. And if there be any doubt remaining, of what Quality they were; it may be resolv'd from hence, that the Bishop of a City not far from Ephesus, is said to be a person placed over All (s): which Character

could belong to a Prelate only. And as it is probable that this Prelate was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna, so it is manifest from the Transaction which I have mention'd, that those of his Order were of Divine or Apostolical Appointment.

Notes

• (r)

  Jus Divin. Minist. Evang. par. 2. p. 75.
• (s)

  Epiphan. Haeres. 51. n. 32.
• (t)

  Argument before their Annot. on the Revelations.
• (u)

  P. 48.
• (w)

  C. 4. p. 184.
• (x)

  Vid. usser. Armachan. Dissert. praefix. Polycarp. & Ignat. Epist. c. 18.
• (y)

  Grot. de Imp. Sum. Potest. C. 11. Sect. 6. p. 343.
• (z)

  Gen. 30
• (a)

  Rev. 2.10, 24.
• (b)

  Vid. Bez. Annot. in Apoc. 2.1.
• (c)

  Vid. Octav. Falconer. In∣script. Athlet. p. 39.40. Ez. Spanhem. de Praestant. Numism. p. 696, 697, 698. Henrici Noris Cenotaph. Pisan. Dissert. 1. p. 72, 73. Johan. Harduin. Num. Antiq. Illustrat. p. 84.400, 401.
• (d)

  Bez. in Apocal. 2.1.
• (e)

  Hebdomadicam hanc 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fuisse probahile est. Bez. Vid. Sarav. de divers. Minist. grad. p. 338.
• (f)

  P. 124.
• (g)

  P. 128.
• (h)

  P. 133.
• (i)

  Levit. 5.4, 5, 6.
• (k)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sym••. ach.
• (l)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. LXX.
• (m)

  Joseph. Ant. Jud. l. 3. c. 8.
• (n)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Diod. Sic. apud Phot. Cod. 244. Col. 1153.
• (o)

  P. 48.
• (p)

  Areth. in Apoc. 1.20. p. 661, 662.
• (q)

  Iis (scilicet Presbyteric∣rum Praepositis) ceu 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 commissi gregis tam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quam pudenda ex aequo imputari potuere, & à Domino ipso Ecclesia∣rum Asiaticarum Angelos Calesti∣bus monitis ad fidei constantiam armante imputata Sunt. Blond. Apolog. Prae••at. p. 6.
• (r)

  Clem. Alex. de Div. Salv. p. 110.
• (s)

  Smyrnam vocat hanc Ur∣b••…••… Auctor Chronici Alexandrini, Annotante Valesio. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Su∣pra omnis constitutus. Interpret. Wal. Messal. p. 229.