Part 21

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.

There are several things mentioned in this answer, of which, it is said, to be a sign and seal, _viz._ of our engrafting into Christ, and obtaining remission of sins by his blood, of our regeneration by his Spirit, our adoption, and resurrection unto eternal life, which include in them all the benefits of Christ’s mediation; which have been particularly explained under some foregoing answers: But there is one that contains in it all the rest; and accordingly it is generally expressed, by divines, as that which is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, and all the duties, obligations, and privileges that are either enjoined or bestowed therein. What this covenant is, together with the blessings thereof, and how the grace of God is manifested therein, has been likewise considered under some foregoing answers[65]. Therefore all that I shall now add concerning it, is, that it contains all the promises in which our salvation is included, of which there is one that comprehends all the rest, whereby it is often expressed, namely, that God will be a God unto his people, Gen. xiv. 1. _their shield, and exceeding great reward_, chap. xvii. And elsewhere that he will _put his laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts, and will be to them a God; and they shall be to him a people_, Heb. viii. 10. There are very great privileges contained in this relation, namely, our being under the special care and protection of Christ, having a right to what he has purchased, and that inheritance which he has laid up in heaven for his children, their enjoying communion with him here, and being made happy with him hereafter.