The next point which it is necessary for me to review, is the Epistles to the seven Churches of the Lesser Asia. On this head you have made but few observations; relying on Dr. Mason's luminous and able Review of the Episcopal Essays in the Christian Magazine.' To the Doctor's light, then, let us turn our eyes. But this shall be the subject of my next letter.

REV. SIR:

LETTER XI.

THE principle on which Dr. Mason proceeds is that the Stars and Angels are not to be considered individually, but that each Star and Angel is a symbol for the ministry of each of the seven Churches. That Stars are symbolically expressive of ministers, I readily grant; and I grant further, that when the words are used without restriction, we have no right to infer superior and inferior grades of ministers. The question then simply is, whether there are any conditions in the text, which warrant us to say, that there was a superior minister in each of the seven Churches? The Doctor thinks there are none; and endeavours to prove it by several considerations.

Before I notice what he has said, it may be well to observe, that there were numerous congregations of Christians in the several cities named in the text. We know from the Scriptures, that in Ephesus there were thousands of converts, and a body of Presbyters; and you say, there were lay Elders also. Consequently, if by the Angel of the Church of Ephesus is meant the whole Presbytery, as you and Dr. Mason represent the matter, the words of the text must agree with the office of a lay Elder; but as that office relates solely to discipline, the symbol Star and the term Angel, cannot possibly correspond with the lay, as well as with the clerical part of the Presbytery; consequently the Doctor's principle falls to the ground.

Let us now examine whether this is really the case.

1. With respect to the Church of Ephesus. Chap. ii. 1. Unto the Angel of the Church of Ephesus write. 2. I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are Apostles and are not, and hast found them liars: 3. And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. 4. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. 5. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except VOL. II.-11

thou repent. 6. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

The propriety of a symbol depends altogether upon analogy. A star which sheds material light, is a very proper symbol of a minister who diffuses intellectual light. But the lay Elders, who do not preach the word of life, diffuse no intellectual light; and as they are an essential part of the Presbytery, the Star cannot possibly be the symbol of that collective body.

Again: The Angel, according to the Doctor, represents the Presbytery of the Church. But the word, as every one knows, signifies a messenger. Now, the lay Presbyters deliver no message from the LORD OF HOSTS; and as there can be no Presbytery without them, consequently the Angel cannot represent the Presbytery.

'But do not the star and the Angel represent the clerical part of the Presbytery? They do, if the Scripture says so; but the text says no such thing; therefore it is mere assumption.

Further: A Star in the sacred writings, is never used for the symbol of a plurality of ministers. The Doctor himself produces no such instance. He says, 'JESUS CHRIST is a Star; the twelve Apostles are stars-and so are the Apostate Clergy, figured by the third part of the stars, which the dragon cast down with his tail to the earth.' This is very correct; but who does not see that stars being the symbols of ministers, and a star being the symbol of ministers, are very different? No instance that I know of can be produced from the Scriptures, of a single star being the symbol of a plurality of ministers. The symbol would not be correct; a constellation would be the proper representative.

The Doctor might therefore have saved himself the trouble of quoting More, and Fulk, and Mede, and Stillingfleet. They all speak of stars being proper symbols of ministers; but not one of them says that, a star is used as a symbol of a plurality of ministers.

But supposing it to be the case, that the Stars do not represent the lay Elders, who do not preach the word; and that a ŝingle star is never used for a plurality of ministers; yet, on the other hand, how can a single star represent a single Minister, when he is not the only source of light in a Church? It will not, be maintained, Dr. M. supposes, 'that the Bishop alone did all the preaching, gave all the instruction, and set all the example: i. e. emitted all the light on account of which Ministers are called Stars. The other clergy had some share in these useful functions. They too preached the word: they too taught from house to house: they too let their light shine before others, Now, one Star being appropriated to one Church, as one candle is to one candlestick; it follows from the nature of the comparison, that as one candle is the full complement of light for one candlestick; so one Star is the full complement of light for one Church. But the light which shone in these Churches did not

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 Presbyters 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 reserblance. 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.)

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.