unworthy part, if they had confined their pleas to the sacred
writings; producing such passages from them as speak to the point, not
implicitly and darkly; but in peremptory and express terms, so as to
leave no reasonable room for hesitation or doubt. It would be
dishonourary to the BIBLE, and a gross reflection on the penman of it,
to call that an “appointment of Christ,” and an “essentially
necessary” one, which is not contained in this sacred volume, and with
such clearness and precision, that sober and impartial inquirers may
readily perceive it to be there, without foreign help to assist their
sight. And yet, such help is made necessary by episcopal writers. They
scarce ever fail of turning us to the FATHERS in vindication of their
cause; hereby virtually reflecting disgrace on the scriptures, as
though they were insufficient, simply of themselves, to bring this
controversy to an issue.
In order to reconcile the appeal that is so often made to the FATHERS
with that honour which is due to the scriptures, the episcopalian plea
is, that they consider these fathers, not as _judges_, but _witnesses_
only in their cause. But what are they brought to witness? Is it, that
episcopacy is an institution of Jesus Christ? If this is witnessed to
in the sacred books, of which we, having these in our hands, are as
good judges as they, it is sufficient. There is no need of any foreign
testimony. If it is not, no other testimony can supply this defect.
Are these fathers cited as witnesses to what was the practice in their
day? This is now generally the pretence. They may, say the
episcopalians, be properly appealed to, in order to know the truth of
FACT in the ages in which they lived. And if, from their unanimous
testimony, even from the first days of Christianity, it appears, that
GOVERNING and ordaining AUTHORITY was exercised by Bishops ONLY, in
distinction from Presbyters, and as an order in the church above them,
it would argue great arrogance, if not obstinate perverseness, to
dispute the divine original of episcopacy. But we must be excused,
however perverse we may be accounted, if we cannot bring ourselves to
think, that the practice of the church, since the apostles’ days,
however universal, will justify our receiving that as an institution
of Christ, and an essentially important one, which he himself hath not
clearly and evidently made so, either in his own person, or by those
inspired writers, whom he commissioned and instructed to declare his
will: nor can we believe the great Author of christianity would have
put the professors of it to the difficult, I may say, as to most of
them, the impossible task of collecting any thing essential to their
salvation from the voluminous records of antiquity. We are rather
persuaded, he has ordered every article that is necessary, either in
point of faith or practice, to be so fairly and legibly wrote by the
sacred penman, as that there should be no need of having recourse to
the ancient Fathers as WITNESSES, any more than judges, to ascertain
his mind. To suppose the contrary, would, in reality of construction,
substitute TRADITION the rule of essential truth, in the room of the
SCRIPTURES, which were “given by inspiration of God;” or, at least
make the former so much a part of this rule, as that the latter,
without it, would not be sufficiently complete. Such dishonour ought
not to be cast on the one only standard of the real mind of Christ.
The Bishop, in whose defence an appeal is made to antiquity, is not
related, by his office, to a single congregation of christians only,
with one or more Presbyters belonging to it; but his charge is a
diocess, consisting of a number of congregations, greater or less,
with their respective Presbyters. The inquiry therefore is, whether it
be an UNIVERSALLY ATTESTED FACT, that episcopacy, in this sense, took
place in, and through, the two first ages? A Bishop, at the head of a
number of congregations, greater or less, is an officer in the church
of Christ quite different from the pastor of a single congregation;
though he should be called Bishop, as being the HEAD-PRESBYTER, or
vested with the character of PRIMUS INTER PARES. It should be
particularly noted, which of these kinds of episcopacy has the voice
of the specified antiquity in its favour. It is willingly left with
every man of common understanding, after he has gone over the
following testimonies, to say, whether he thinks, that Bishops, after
the DIOCESAN-MODE, were known in the first ages of the church?
The Bishop, for whom the fathers are called in as WITNESSES, is an
officer in the church of an ORDER SUPERIOR to that of Presbyters, and
as distinct from it as the order of Presbyters is from that of
Deacons; the pretence being this, that Presbyters were thought to
have, in primitive times, no more right to meddle with the peculiar
work of Bishops, than Deacons have to concern themselves with the
peculiar work of Presbyters. The question therefore is, Whether it
will appear from the following evidence, to be at all a FACT, much
less an UNIVERSALLY known, and certainly attested one, that there were
Bishops, in this sense, in any church, in any part of the christian
world, within the two first centuries?
The Bishop, in whose favour the ancient Fathers are said universally
to speak, is one to whom the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF GOVERNMENT has been
committed by the appointment of Jesus Christ, or his apostles as
commissioned by him. Says the famous Bishop Hoadly, treating of the
government of the church, as belonging to Bishops only, in the above
appropriated sense, “And here—I think I may say, that we have as
universal and as unanimous a testimony of all writers, and historians
from the apostles’ days, as could reasonably be expected or desired:
every one, who speaks of the government of the church, in any place,
witnessing, that episcopacy was the settled form; and every one, who
hath occasion to speak of the original of it, tracing it up to the
apostles’ days, and fixing it upon their decree.—Were there only
testimonies to be produced, that this was the government of the church
in all ages, it would be but reasonable to conclude it of apostolical
institution;—but when we find the same persons witnessing, not only
that it was episcopal, but that it was of apostolical institution, and
delivered down from the beginning as such, this adds weight to the
matter, and makes it more undoubted. So that here are two points to
which they bear witness, that this was the government of the church in
their days, and that it was of apostolical institution. And in these
there is such a constancy and unanimity, that even St. Jerom himself
traces up episcopacy to the very apostles, and makes it of their
institution.”—He adds, “All churches and christians, as far as we
know, seem to have been agreed, in this point, amidst all their other
differences, as universally as can well be imagined.” One would
suppose, from the peremptory manner in which this citation is
expressed, that the FACT it affirms was so evidently clear, as to
leave no room for the least doubt. Those, who may think it worth while
to look over the _testimonies_ brought to view, in the following
pages, will perhaps, by critically observing their real and just
import, be surprized, that any man of learning, who professes a regard
to truth, should speak of it, and with such a degree of assurance, as
the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF ALL AGES from the apostles, that
episcopacy, in the impleaded sense, was the “form of government in the
church in their day,” and that it was by “apostolical institution;”
especially, if they should not be able to find, as it is certain they
will not, so much as a single witness, for two hundred years, whose
evidence is clear, direct, express, and full, in affirming, either
that this was the form of government in the church, or that it was
ever instituted by Christ, or his apostles: so far is it from the
truth, that this is a FACT UNANIMOUSLY and CONSTANTLY TESTIFIED TO,
even from the beginning, and through all ages.
The Bishop, for the support of whose claims antiquity is repaired to,
is one with whom the SOLE POWER of ORDINATION is lodged; insomuch,
that he only can convey holy orders conformably to the appointment of
Jesus Christ; and should Presbyters presume to do this, they would
take that upon them which they have no more a right to, than Deacons
have to baptise, or administer the Lord’s supper. This part of the
UNANIMOUS report of ALL AGES concerning the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT of Bishops
deserves most of all the special notice of the reader; and he is
particularly desired, as he goes along, to point out to himself, for
his own satisfaction; or to others, for their information, any one
among all the testimonies he will have placed before his view, that
plainly and directly affirms the RIGHT OF ORDINATION to be peculiar to
Bishops as a distinct order from Presbyters, and superior to them; or
that this right was ever thus exercised by them. If he should not be
able to do this, as unquestionably he will not, how strange must that
affirmation appear, which says in the most positive terms, not only
that this is FACT, but a fact CONSTANTLY and UNANIMOUSLY witnessed to
by the fathers, in ALL AGES from the days of the apostles.
The Bishop, in whose defence antiquity is pleaded, is vested with the
power of CONFIRMATION, according to the mode of the church of England;
and it is appropriated to him as his right in distinction from all
others. But I need not assure the reader, he will in vain look to find
it a FACT, within the two first ages, that Bishops were either vested
with, or ever exercised this power. For he must come down below these
ages, before a word is said, by any one of the fathers, relative to
this superstitious practice. Tertullian is the first that mentions it;
and he mentions likewise some other corruptions, which had got mingled
with christianity in that day.
In short, the question in debate, so far as it relates to FACT, is,
not whether there were officers in the christian church, known by the
name of Bishops in the apostolic age, and down along through the two
first centuries? We join with the episcopalians in affirming this to
be a truth universally testified to in those times: but the proper
question is, what is FACT with reference to the ORDER of these
Bishops, and the POWERS PECULIAR TO THEIR OFFICE, and as EXERCISED by
them in it? The name of Bishop is one thing, and the POWER claimed
for, or exercised by him, is another. The dispute is, not about the
name, but the power appropriated to it. This therefore should be
heedfully attended to by all, in their examination of the evidences
that will be produced; and they may, in this way, clearly and
satisfactorily determine, each one for himself, whether it be at all
an attested FACT, much less a CONSTANT and UNANIMOUSLY ATTESTED ONE,
from the apostles days, and down along through the two first ages, as
well as after ones, that Bishops were vested with, and did actually
exercise, the above specified powers, which are at this day claimed
for them, as the appropriate work of their office by divine
appointment?
CHAUNCY’S VIEW OF EPISCOPACY.
Footnote 56:
_See vol. II. page 86._
Footnote 57:
_See vol. III. page 424-426. and vol. II. page 205._
Footnote 58:
_See Vol. III. p. 12._
Quest. CLXV.
QUEST. CLXV. _What is baptism?_
ANSW. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ
hath ordained the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of
ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and
regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption and resurrection unto
everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly
admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and
professed engagement, to be wholly and only the Lord’s.
The method in which we shall endeavour to explain this answer shall be,
I. To prove that baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, instituted
by Christ, in which there is to be, some way or other, the application
of water.
II. That this is to be performed in the name of the Father, of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost. And,
III. What is signified therein, and what engagements are laid upon the
person baptized.
I. To prove that baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, instituted
by Christ, in which there is to be, some way or other, the application
of water. Here let it be considered,
1. That there must be the application of water; and that either by
dipping the person that is to be baptized into the water, or by pouring
or sprinkling water upon him; otherwise it doth not answer the proper
and literal sense of the word _baptize_.[59] It is true, we sometimes
find the word used in a metaphorical sense; as when our Saviour speaks
of the _baptism_ that he _was to be baptized with_, Matt. xx. 22. Luke
xii. 50. whereby he intends the sufferings he was to endure in shedding
his blood upon the cross: And it is elsewhere taken, by a metonymy, for
the conferring the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, which they
were given to expect after Christ’s ascension into heaven, and the
apostles were first made partakers of at the day of Pentecost, which
immediately followed it; wherein there appeared unto them cloven
tongues, like as of fire, that sat upon each of them, as a sign that
they should be filled with the Holy Ghost, and speak with other tongues,
and be enflamed with a holy zeal for Christ’s glory and interest; which
was accordingly fulfilled, and seems to be the sense of the word
baptism, as taken in this figurative sense; but we understand the word
in the most proper sense thereof; and therefore suppose that it must be
performed with water.
As to what respects the mode of baptism, or the application of water,
whether the water is to be applied to the person baptized, or he put
into it, that, I purposely wave the consideration of, till we are led to
speak concerning the subjects of baptism, that we may insist on the
several matters in controversy, between those that maintain, and others
that deny infant baptism, together, which we shall have occasion to do
under the next answer: Whereas, I am ready to persuade myself, that what
I shall advance under this, together with that which respects the
improvement of baptism, will not be much contested by those who are in a
different way of thinking, with respect to the subjects of baptism, and
the mode of administering it.
2. We are now to consider, that baptism is a sacrament of the New
Testament; and therefore it differs from those baptisms, or washings,
that were frequently practised under the Old Testament dispensation;
concerning which, the apostle says, that it _stood in meats and drinks,
and divers washings_, Heb. ix. 10. or _baptisms_[60]. Thus we read of
many instances in which persons were washed under the ceremonial law:
This was an ordinance used in the consecration of persons to holy
offices; as it is said, that _Aaron and his sons_ were to be _brought to
the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and washed with water_,
Exod. xxix. 4. and Lev. viii. 6. when they were consecrated to be
priests. Again, when they ministered in holy things, or came near unto
the altar, it is said, they _washed, as the Lord commanded Moses_, Exod.
xl. 32. for this reason the laver was set between the tent of the
congregation and the altar, and water put therein to wash in; and they
washed their hands and their feet therein, ver. 30, 31. And this
ceremony was used by them, when they were subject to divers
uncleannesses; thus, in the method of cleansing the leper, he was to
_wash himself_, and, _after that_ might _come into the camp_, Lev. xvi.
8, 9. The same thing was to be done by those who were liable to
uncleannesses of another nature, Deut. xxii. 10, 11.
These ceremonial washings, when applied to persons, seem to be ordained
to signify their consecration, or dedication, to God, in some of the
instances before mentioned; and in others, they signified the means
which God had ordained to cleanse the soul from moral impurity; which
was denoted by the ceremonial uncleannesses which they desired to be
purified from. These ordinances, indeed, expired together with the rest
of the ceremonial law: Nevertheless, it is very evident, from the
institution of gospel-baptism, that the sign is retained; though there
are some circumstances in the thing signified thereby, in which it
differs from those baptisms which were formerly used by the Jewish
church. They were hereby devoted to God, to observe that peculiar mode
of worship which he prescribed by the hand of his servant Moses; we are
devoted to God, as those who hereby signify our obligation to walk
according to the rules prescribed by Christ in the gospel. They also
used this ordinance, to signify the cleansing virtue of the blood of
Jesus, who was to come, and the Spirit that was to be poured forth, as
consequent thereupon; we use it to signify or express our faith in what
Christ has accomplished, and in the grace which the Spirit works
pursuant thereunto; therefore we call it an ordinance of the New
Testament.
3. Baptism was instituted by Christ. This is evident from the commission
he gave to his apostles, not only to preach the gospel to all nations,
but to _baptize them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost_, Matt. xxviii. 19.[61] and this he appointed to be a
standing ordinance in the church, throughout all the ages thereof; on
which account he promises, in the following words, that he will _be
with_ his ministers, in fulfilling the commission that he gave them to
execute, _unto the end of the world_: Therefore, we must conclude, that
it is a standing ordinance in the church, and not designed to be
observed only during the first age thereof, till Christianity
universally obtained. This we assert in opposition to the Socinians, who
suppose, that baptism was, indeed, instituted by Christ; but the design
hereof, was only to be an external badge, or sign, of the heathens
embracing the Christian religion, as they were formerly initiated into
the Jewish church by that ceremonial washing that was then in use: But
the contrary to this will appear from what we shall have occasion to
speak to, under a following head, when we consider what baptism was a
sign and seal of; which is equally applicable to the church in our day,
as it was to those who lived in the first planting thereof.
II. It is farther observed, that baptism is to be performed in the name
of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This contains in it a
professed acknowledgment, in this solemn act of dedication of the divine
Trinity; and accordingly it is an act of religious worship, in which
God’s right to the persons baptized, is publicly owned, and an
intimation given, that all saving blessings, which are desired or
expected in this ordinance, are given by the Father, through a Mediator,
purchased by the Son, and applied by the Holy Spirit. This includes in
it much more than a being baptized by the authority of these divine
persons; which is all that some of the Antitrinitarians will allow to be
meant by, in their name: For though no ordinance can be rightly
performed but by a divine warrant, yet this warrant is equally extended
to the administering, or engaging in any other ordinance; and therefore,
a being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
signifies more than this; namely, a person’s being dedicated to them; in
which dedication, a solemn profession is made, that they have a right to
all religious worship, which we are obliged to perform as well as that
all our hope of salvation is from them: Therefore, some think, that this
idea, which is principally intended in the form of baptism, would be
better expressed, if the words of institution[62] were rendered _into
the name_ of the Father, &c. as it is rendered elsewhere, Gal. iii. 27.
where the apostle is speaking of a person’s being _baptized into
Christ_[63], and explains it as denoting a _putting on Christ_; or a
professing, as it is said, ver. 29. that _we are Christ’s_. Thus they
who are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are
denoted hereby, to be professedly their servants and subjects; under an
indispensible obligation to put their trust in, and hope for, all saving
blessings from them, according to the tenor of the gospel.
It is enquired, by some, whether it be absolutely necessary, in the
administration of this ordinance, explicitly to make mention of the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? and some assert, that it is not;
because we read of persons being _baptized in the name of Jesus_, in
Acts xix. 5. without any mention of the name of the Father, or Holy
Ghost; and in chap. viii. 16. the same thing is mentioned, as it is
said, _They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus_. But to this it
may be replied, that it does not appear, that this was the express form
of words used in baptizing those that are here mentioned; but it only
argues, that the ordinance was administered, and that Christ’s name and
glory was proclaimed therein: So that, though the other divine persons
are not particularly mentioned, it does not follow from thence, that
they did not adhere to the express words of institution, which were
given to the apostles; it might as well be argued, that John did not
baptize in the name of any of the Divine persons; since when we read of
his baptism, it is said, _I baptize you with water_; but it does not
thence follow, that he did not baptize them in the name of God; inasmuch
as he plainly confesses that _God sent him to baptize with water_, John
i. 33.
But, that this matter may be set in a just light, we must distinguish
between a person’s omitting to mention the Son or Holy Ghost, in the
form of baptism, as denying them to be divine persons, (in which case
the ordinance is invalid;) and his doing this for no other reason, but
because he thinks that we are not to be tied up to a particular form of
words, but may sometimes baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost; and, at other times, in the name of Jesus: In this case, I
will not say that the ordinance is invalid; but yet, his manner of
administering it, will be highly offensive to many serious Christians,
and can hardly be reckoned an instance of faithfulness to Christ; who
has, by an express command, intimated what words are to be used therein.
III. We are now to consider, what is signified in baptism, and what
engagements are laid on the person baptized. There are some, especially
among the Socinians, who maintain, that it is only an external, or
visible badge of Christianity in general, signifying a person’s right to
be called a Christian, or a professor of that religion, which was
instituted by our Saviour; and their design herein seems to be, that
they might evade the force of the argument which we bring to prove the
divinity of the Son and Spirit, from their being the object of that
religious worship, which according to our explication thereof, is
contained in it. Did they intend, by being a Christian, the same thing
as we do, namely, a subjection to Christ, as a divine person, or a
professed obligation which we are laid under, to worship God the Father,
through the Son, by the Spirit, we should have no contention with them
about this matter: But since we are not agreed as to the meaning of
being a Christian, especially, since they intend no more hereby than our
being obliged to adhere to a certain scheme of religious worship
prescribed by Christ, of what kind soever it be, in like manner as a
person is called a Mahometan, because he embraces Mahomet’s Alcoran as a
rule of faith, we cannot think this general account of baptism, as an
external badge of Christianity, to be a sufficient explication of what
is intended by it as a sign, or significant ordinance.