Quest. CLXI., CLXII., CLXIII., CLXIV.

QUEST. CLXI. How doth the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?

ANSW. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation; not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety and intention of him by whom they are administered; but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted.

QUEST. CLXII. What is a sacrament?

ANSW. A sacrament is an holy ordinance, instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit, unto those that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation; to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces; to oblige them to obedience; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another, and to distinguish them from those that are without.

QUEST. CLXIII. What are the parts of a sacrament?

ANSW. The parts of a sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ’s own appointment; the other, an inward and spiritual grace, thereby signified.

QUEST. CLXIV. How many sacraments hath Christ instituted in his church, under the New Testament?

ANSW. Under the New Testament Christ hath instituted in his church only two sacraments; Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.

It has pleased God, in setting forth the glory of his wisdom and sovereignty to impart his mind and will to man, various ways, besides the discovery which he makes of himself in the dispensations of his providence. These are, more especially, reducible to two general heads, viz. his making it known by words, which is the more plain and common way by which we are led into the knowledge of divine truths; or else, by visible signs, which are sometimes called types, figures, or sacraments. The former of these we have already insisted on; the latter we now proceed to consider. And, in order hereunto, we are first to explain the nature, and shew what are the parts of a sacrament, as we have an account thereof in the two last of these answers; and then consider, how the sacraments become effectual means of salvation, as contained in the first, of them.

I. Concerning the nature and parts of a sacrament: In order to our understanding whereof, we shall consider,

1. The meaning of the word. It is certain, that the word sacrament is not to be found in scripture, though the thing intended thereby, is expressed in other words; and, for this reason, some have scrupled the use of it, and choose rather to make use of other phrases more agreeable to the scripture mode of speaking: But, though we are not to hold any doctrine that is not founded on scripture; yet those which are contained therein, may be explained in our own words, provided they are consonant thereunto. The Greek church knew nothing of the word sacrament, it being of a Latin original; but, instead thereof, used the word mystery; thereby signifying, that there is in the sacraments, besides the outward and visible signs, some secret or hidden mystery signified thereby. The Latin church used the word sacrament, not only as signifying something that is sacred; but as denoting, that thereby they were bound as with an oath, to be the Lord’s; as the Psalmist says, I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments, Psal. cxix. 106. and God, by the prophet, says, Unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear, Isa. xlv. 23.

The word Sacrament was used, indeed, by the Romans, to signify that oath which the soldiers took, to be true and faithful to their general, and to fight courageously under his banner; but the primitive Christians signified hereby, that, when they were called to suffer for Christ, which was, as it were, a fighting under his banner, they did in this ordinance, as it were, take an oath to him, expressing their obligation not to desert his cause. Now, since this is agreeable to the end and design of a sacrament, whatever be the first original of the use of the word, I think we have no reason to scruple the using of it, though it be not found in scripture: Nevertheless, Christians ought not to contend, or be angry with one another about this matter, it being of no great importance, if we adhere stedfastly to the explication given thereof in scripture.[52]

2. We shall now consider the nature of a sacrament, as described in one of the answers we are explaining. And here,

(1.) It is observed, concerning it, that it is an holy ordinance, instituted by Christ. What we are to understand by an ordinance, and its being founded on a divine institution, which is our only warrant to engage therein, has been before considered; and, indeed, every duty that is to be performed by God’s express command, which he has designed to be a pledge of his presence, and a means of grace, is a branch of religious worship, and may be truly styled an holy ordinance. Now, that the sacraments are founded on Christ’s institution, is very evident from scripture. Thus he commanded his apostles, to baptize all nations, Matt. xxviii. 19. and, as to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, he commanded them to do what is contained therein, in remembrance of him, Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. compared with 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25.

(2.) The persons, for whom the sacraments were instituted, are the church, who stand in an external covenant-relation to God, and, as the apostle says, are called to be saints, Rom. i. 7. It is to them, more especially, that Christ, when he ascended up on high, gave ministers, as a token of his regard to them, that hereby they may be edified, who are styled his body, Eph. iv. 16. And, though these ministers are authorized to preach the gospel to all nations, which is necessary for the gathering churches out of the world; yet they are never ordered to administer the sacraments to all nations, nor, indeed, to any, especially the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, till they profess subjection to Christ, and thereby join together in the fellowship of the gospel. As the sacraments under the Old Testament dispensation, were to be administered to none but the church of the Jews, the only people in the world that professed the true religion; so, under the gospel dispensation, none have a right to sacraments but those who are therein professedly devoted to him.

3. We are now to consider the matter of the sacraments, which is set forth in general terms; and it is also called in one of the answers we are explaining, the parts of a sacrament; these are an outward and visible sign, and an inward and spiritual grace, signified thereby; or, as it is otherwise expressed, it signifies, seals, and exhibits to those who are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of Christ’s mediation. These words are often used, but not so well explained as might be desired.

(1.) It is called a sign, in which, by a visible action, some spiritual benefits are signified: This is undoubtedly true; and it is a reproach cast on God’s holy institutions, in some who deny sacraments to be divine ordinances, when they style them all carnal ordinances, beggarly elements, or a re-establishing the ceremonial law, without distinguishing between significant signs, that were formerly ordinances to the Jewish church, but are now abolished; and those that Christ hath given to the gospel church. In this idea of the sacraments, we must consider, that they agree, in some things, with the preaching of the word; namely, that hereby Christ and his benefits, are set forth as objects of our faith; and the same ends are desired and attained by both, viz. our being affected with, and making a right improvement of the blessings purchased by him, together with our enjoying communion with him; and they are, both of them, sacred ordinances, instituted by Christ, and therefore to be attended on in an holy manner: But, on the other hand, they differ, with respect to the way or means by which Christ and his benefits are set forth; inasmuch, as in the preaching of the word, there is a narration of what he hath done and suffered; and, upon this account the apostle says, Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, Rom. x. 17. whereas, in the sacraments, there is a representation thereof by signs; in which case we may apply the words of the prophet, Mine eye afflicteth mine heart, Lam. iii. 51. as there is the external symbol of Christ’s dying love, which is an inducement to us to love him again. They also differ, in that the sacraments are not only designed to instruct; but, by our act and deed, we signify our engagement to be the Lord’s.

(2.) The sacraments are also said to seal the blessings that they signify; and accordingly they are called, not only signs, but seals. It is a difficult matter to explain, and clearly to state the difference between these two words, or to shew what is contained in a seal, that is not in a sign: Some think that it is a distinction without a difference. The principal ground which most divines proceed upon, when they distinguish between them is, what we read in Rom. iv. 11. in which the apostle, speaking concerning Abraham, says, he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith[53]. But the same thing might have been affirmed concerning it, or any other significant ordinance, if the words sign and seal were supposed to be of the like import; for it is not said he received the ordinance of circumcision, which is not only a sign, but a seal; but he received that which was a sign, or a seal of the blessing about which his faith was conversant. However, that we may explain this matter, without laying aside those words that are commonly used and distinguished in treating on this subject, it may be observed, that a sign is generally understood as importing any thing that hath a tendency to signify or confirm something that is transacted, or designed to be published, and made visible: Accordingly some signs have a natural tendency to signify the things intended by them; as the regular beating of the pulse is a sign of health, smoke the sign of fire. And other things not only signify, but represent that which they give us an idea of, by some similitude that there is therein, as the picture doth its original. Other things only signify as they are ordained or designed for that use, by custom or appointment; thus, in civil matters, a staff is a sign of power to exercise an office; the seal of a bond, or conveyance, is the sign of a right that is therein conveyed, or made over to another to possess: It is in this respect that the sacraments are signs of the covenant of grace: They do not naturally represent Christ and his benefits; but they signify them, by divine appointment.

But, on the other hand, a seal, according to the most common acceptation of the word, imports a confirming sign[54]: Yet we must take heed that we do not, in compliance with custom, contain more in our ideas of this word, than is agreeable to the analogy of faith: Therefore, let it be considered, that the principal method God hath taken for the confirming our faith in the benefits of Christ’s redemption, is, his own truth and faithfulness, whereby the heirs of salvation have strong consolation, Heb. iv. 17, 18. or else the internal testimony of the Spirit of God in our hearts. The former is an objective means of confirmation, and the latter a subjective; and this the apostle calls our being established in Christ, and sealed, having the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts, 2 Cor. i. 21, 23.

This is not the sense in which we are to understand the word as applied to the sacraments; since if we call them confirming seals, we intend nothing else hereby, but that God has, to the promises that are given to us in his word, added these ordinances; not only to bring to mind this great doctrine, that Christ has redeemed his people by his blood; but to assure them, that they who believe in him, shall be made partakers of this blessing; so that these ordinances are a pledge thereof to them, in which respect God has set his seal, whereby, in an objective way, he gives believers to understand, that Christ, and his benefits, are theirs; and they are obliged, at the same time, by faith, as well as in an external and visible manner, to signify their compliance with his covenant, which we may call their setting to their seal that God is true; as we may allude to that expression of our Saviour, He that hath received his testimony, hath set to his seal that God is true, John iii. 33. The sacraments are God’s seals, as they are ordinances given by him for the confirmation of our faith, that he would be our covenant-God; and they are our seals, or we set our seal thereunto, when we visibly profess, which ought to be done also by faith, that we give up ourselves to him, to be his people, and desire to be made partakers of the benefits which Christ hath purchased, in his own way. Thus concerning the sacraments, as being signs and seals of the covenant of grace.

There is another expression, used in this answer, that needs a little explication; namely, when the sacraments are said, not only to signify and seal, but to exhibit the benefits of Christ’s mediation. To exhibit, sometimes signifies to shew, or present to our view; which word, if it be so understood in this place, imports the same as when it is said, that the sacraments are signs or seals thereof, or significant ordinances for the directing and exciting our faith, as conversant about what we are to understand thereby. Again, to exhibit, sometimes signifies to give, communicate, or convey; and because it is not only distinguished from signifying and sealing in the definition which we have of a sacrament in the Shorter Catechism; but is described as that by which Christ and his benefits are applied unto believers; therefore, I am inclined to think, that it is in this latter sense that the word is to be taken in the answer which we are explaining; and if so, we must distinguish between Christ’s benefits being conveyed, made over, exhibited, or applied, by the gift of divine grace, through the effectual working of the Spirit; and this being done by an ordinance, as an external means of grace; accordingly I am bound to conclude, that as the Spirit of God gives these blessings to believers, who engage in a right manner therein; so this grace is represented, and God’s people have ground to expect, as far as an ordinance can be the means thereof, that they shall be made partakers of these benefits.

We may also observe, that, though the sacraments are appointed to signify to all that partake of them, that Christ has purchased salvation for his people; or, that the work of redemption is brought to perfection: Yet it is they alone that engage herein by faith, who can look upon them as signs or seals to confirm their faith, that they have a right to the benefits of Christ’s redemption, as not only signified, but exhibited or applied to them: In this sense the sacraments are signs to them that believe, in such a way as they are to no others.

4. We are now to consider the persons to whom the sacraments are given; and these are described as those who are within the covenant of grace. To be within the covenant of grace, implies in it, either a being externally in covenant with God, or a being internally and spiritually so, as interested in the saving blessings thereof.

(1.) They who are externally in covenant, are such as are visibly so; who are called by his name, professedly devote themselves to him, and lay claim to him as their God: These, if they are no otherwise in covenant, are said to be in Christ, as the branch which beareth no fruit, is said to be in the vine, John xv. 2. like those whom the prophet speaks of, when he says, Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, which swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth nor in righteousness, Isa. xlviii. 1. they have, indeed, the ordinances which must be reckoned a very great privilege; they have the external overtures of divine grace, the convictions and strivings of the Spirit; and accordingly they are, in God’s way, in which he is sometimes pleased to work special grace, which, when he does, they may conclude themselves to have more than the external blessings of the covenant, which is what we are next to consider: Therefore,

(2.) Others are internally or spiritually in covenant, children of God by faith: These are such as are true and real members of Jesus Christ, by a federal or conjugal union with him: They have the same mind as was in him, and receive vital influences from him, being made partakers of the Spirit. They have, not only professedly, but by faith, embraced him in all his offices, surrendered up themselves unto him, to be entirely his; their understandings to be guided and directed, their wills and affections to be governed by him, and are desirous to be disposed of by him, in the whole conduct of their lives. And, as to the privileges which they partake of, they have not merely a supposed, but a real interest in all the benefits which Christ hath purchased, have a right to his special care and love, which will render them safe and happy, both here and hereafter.

Now, with respect to both these; they are, each of them, supposed to attend on the sacraments: The former, indeed, have not a right to the saving blessings signified thereby, and therefore, if they know themselves to be strangers to the covenant of promise, they profess, by engaging in this ordinance, to lay claim to that which they have no right to: However, if this be not discernible in their conversation, which is blameless in the eye of the world, men, who are not judges of their hearts, have no warrant to exclude them from the sacraments. But, on the other hand, they who are savingly, or internally in covenant, have not only a right to those ordinances in common with others; but Christ and his benefits, as was before observed, are exhibited and applied to them, as they have ground to conclude, by faith, that they have an interest in all the blessings which he has purchased.

5. We are now to consider, what those benefits are that Christ communicates to his people in the sacraments, which are signified thereby: These are either,

(1.) Such as are common to the whole church, which are relative and external, rather than internal, as hereby they are distinguished from those that are without. These are advantages, though not of a saving nature: Thus the apostle says, What advantage hath the Jew, or, what profit is there in circumcision, Rom. iii. 1, 2. To which he replies, much every way, or in many respects, q. d. it is an honour which God has put on the church, as taking them into a visible relation to himself, and giving them the means of grace, in which they are more favoured than the rest of the world: Or,

(2.) There are those benefits of Christ’s mediation, which are more especially applicable to believers; and, in this respect, God makes every ordinance, and the sacraments in particular, subservient to the increase of their faith, and all other graces. As faith is wrought under the word, it is farther established and increased by the Lord’s supper, as will be considered under a following answer; and as they have herein an occasion to exercise their mutual love to one another, so they have communion with Christ, which has a tendency to carry on the work of grace begun in the soul, and farther to enhance their love to Christ, who is eminently set forth and signified herein; and, from the view they have of their interest in him, arises a stronger motive and inducement to hate all sin, that tends to dishonour him, in the whole course of their lives. We are now to consider,

II. How the sacraments become effectual means of salvation; or from whence their efficacy is derived, to answer that great end.

1. Negatively. They do not become effectual means of salvation by any power in themselves to answer this end; for we are not to suppose, that they are more than ordinances, by which God works those graces which we receive under them; which it is his prerogative alone to confer. Again, it is farther observed, that this privilege is not derived from the piety or intention of them by whom the sacraments are administered; who, though they are styled stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. iv. 1. as persons to whom the administration thereof is committed; yet they have not the least power to confer that grace which is Christ’s gift and work: Thus the apostle says, Who then is Paul, or who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave unto every man, chap. iii. 5.[55]

This is contrary to what the Papists maintain, who suppose that the efficacy of the sacraments arises, partly from an internal virtue which there is in them, to confer grace, (which they illustrate by a far-fetched similitude, taken from the virtue which there is in food, to nourish the body, which is nothing to the purpose, since no external act of religion can have a tendency to nourish the soul, without the internal efficacious grace of the Spirit accompanying it;) and partly from the design or intention of the priest that administers them, as they are consecrated and designed, by him, for that end.

There is also an absurd notion which is maintained by some Protestants, as well as the Papists, viz. that the sacrament of baptism, administered to infants, washes away the guilt of original sin, and gives them a right and title to heaven, so that by virtue thereof they are saved, if they happen to die before they commit actual sin: But this account of the manner in which the sacraments become effectual to salvation, is absurd to the last degree; for it puts a sanctifying and saving virtue into that which is no more than an outward and ordinary means of grace. And as to what respects the efficacy of the sacraments, arising from the intention of him that administers them; that is, to lay the whole stress of our salvation on the secret design of men, in whose power it is supposed to be, to render or prevent these ordinances from being means of grace; which is in the highest degree derogatory to the glory of God.

2. Positively. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they were instituted. As, without Christ we can do nothing, John xv. 5. so without his blessing we can receive nothing. Ordinances are only the channel through which grace is conveyed; but Christ is the author and finisher of faith; and this he does by his Spirit, when he brings the heart into a good frame, and excites suitable acts of faith and love in those who are engaged in those ordinances, and maintains the lively impressions thereof, which have a tendency to promote the work of grace in the whole conduct of their lives.

III. We proceed to consider, what sacraments Christ has instituted under the New Testament-dispensation. It hath pleased God, in every age of the world, to instruct his people by sacramental signs, as an addition to those other ways, in which he communicates his mind and will to them. Even our first parents, in their state of innocency, had the tree of life; which was a sacrament or ordinance for their faith, that if they retained their integrity, and performed the conditions of the covenant which they were under, they might hereby be led into a farther conviction that they should certainly attain the blessings promised therein: And, some think, that the tree of knowledge, of good and evil, was another sacramental sign, whereby they were given to understand, that if they sinned, they should die. And paradise, in which they were placed, was a sacrament, or a kind of type of the heavenly state; inasmuch as there is an allusion to it in that promise, to him that overcometh, will I give to eat of the tree of life, that is in the midst of the paradise of God, Rev. ii. 7. and heaven is, in another place called paradise, Luke xxiii. 43. Others think the Sabbath was a sacramental sign to our first parents, of that eternal sabbatism which they should celebrate in a better world, in case they yielded perfect obedience as being the condition of the covenant they were under. However, I desire not to be too peremptory as to this matter; it is enough to my present purpose, to consider the tree of life as a sacrament; whereby it appears, that God instituted such signs from the beginning of the world: But this having been insisted on elsewhere[56], we pass it over, and proceed to consider,

That, after the fall of man, there were sacramental signs, instituted as ordinances for the faith of the church in the promised Messiah; especially sacrifices, which signified their expectation that he would make atonement for sin, by the shedding of his blood. Under the ceremonial law there was a large body of sacramental ordinances, or institutions, otherwise called, types of Christ, and the way of salvation by him; some of which were occasional; as manna, the water of the rock, and the brazen serpent in the wilderness, &c. others were standing ordinances in the church, as long as the ceremonial law continued; as circumcision, the passover, and many things contained in the temple-service. These were the sacraments under the Old Testament: But, having taken occasion to speak something concerning them elsewhere[57], I shall confine myself to those sacraments which Christ has instituted under the New Testament; which are only two, baptism, and the Lord’s supper.

The Papists, indeed, have added five more to them, though without a divine warrant; to give countenance to which, they pervert the sense of some scriptures, occasionally brought for that purpose. One of the sacraments which they have added, is, what they call holy orders; whereby they authorize persons to perform the office of priests, or deacons: This they do by the imposition of hands, and at the same time pretend to confer the Holy Ghost: The former, they suppose to be the sign, the latter the thing signified; but this was not designed to be a sacrament given to the church; for the sacraments are ordinances that belong to all believers, and not only ministers. And, as for the imposition of hands, whether it be considered as an ancient form of praying for a blessing on persons, or as used in setting others apart to an office; it seems principally to have respect to these extraordinary gifts, which they expected to qualify them for the discharge thereof; which gifts being now ceased, the imposition of hands cannot be reckoned a sacramental sign; and the blessing conferred, to wit, the Holy Ghost, from whom they received those extraordinary gifts, is no longer to be signified thereby.

Another sacrament which the Papists add, is that of confirmation; by which they pretend, that children, who, in baptism, were made members of Christ, are strengthened and confirmed in the faith; and receive the Holy Ghost, in order to their performing their baptismal vow: But, whatever engagement they are laid under, by this ordinance, it is God alone that can confirm or strengthen, and enable them to walk answerable thereunto; which is a grace not in the power of man to bestow, nor can it be by any ordinance.

Another sacrament they speak of, is pennance; in which, after auricular confession made to the priest, and some external marks of sorrow expressed by the penitent, he is to perform some difficult service enjoined, which they call pennance; whereby he makes satisfaction for his sins, upon which, he is absolved from them. But this is an abominable practice, by which persons are rather hardened in sin, than delivered from it. It is derogatory to Christ’s satisfaction, and has not the least appearance of a sacrament, or ordinance of God’s appointment.

Another sacrament that they have added, is extreme unction; taken from James v. 14, 15. where the apostle speaks of sick persons being anointed with oil in the name of the Lord; and it is said, the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and, if he has committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. But to this it may be replied, that though this practice of anointing the sick with oil, was observed in the first age of the church, while the miraculous gift of healing was continued; yet it is now ceased; therefore no such significant sign is to be used. And, as for forgiveness of sins, mentioned by the apostle that seems not to have been conferred by the use of that sign; but it was humbly expected and hoped for, as an answer of prayer: It is therefore a very preposterous thing to reckon this among the sacraments, under the gospel dispensation.

Another Sacrament that the Papists add, is that of matrimony; for which, they have very little shadow of reason; but, because, they suppose, the apostle calls it a great mystery, Eph. v. 32. which word, the Greek church used to signify a sacrament: But he does not intend hereby, that marriage is a mystery; but the union between Christ and his church, which is illustrated by the conjugal union, is so called[58]; and, indeed, it is not an ordinance given to the church, but to mankind in general, heathens as well as Christians. Therefore nothing can be more absurd than to suppose, that it is one of the sacraments Christ hath instituted in the gospel-church; and, according to their opinion, the priests are excluded from this sacrament, inasmuch as they are forbidden to marry, as the laity are excluded from the sacrament of holy orders; so that when they pretend to add to those institutions, which Christ hath given to the church, or invent sacraments, which he hath not ordained, they betray not only their own folly, but bold presumption; therefore we must conclude, that there are only two sacraments that Christ hath given to his church, to wit, baptism, and the Lord’s supper; which are particularly considered in some following answers.

Footnote 52:

Sacrament is the word used by the Vulgate for mystery, and this is a much more probable meaning of the term as used by the early christians.

Footnote 53:

Και σημειον ελαβε περιτομης, σφραγιδα της δικαιοσυνης της πίστεως.

Footnote 54:

When these two are distinguished by divines, the one is generally called, signum significans; the other signum confirmans; or, the former is said, significare; the latter, obsignare.

Footnote 55:

It were to be wished, the inspired books had been more generally honoured, as the only sufficient rule of judgment, by those who have wrote in favor of episcopacy, upon the plan of a DIVINE RIGHT; and the rather, as they speak of it, not merely as an institution of the gospel, but an essentially necessary one: insomuch, that gospel ordinances will be invalid, unless administered by those, who have been episcopally vested with holy orders.

In a matter of such momentous concern, they would not have acted an 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.