CHAP. I. tion of Chillingworth's maxim would be approved DISS. I. by that pious author himself', and how far Protestants ought to support their interpretation of the word of God from the writings of the Fathers during the three first centuries, it is not our purpose here to inquire. The ablest, however, and most learned impugners of Romish errors, we may remark, have always endeavoured to show, that those errors are of comparatively recent origin; that the testimony of the early Fathers is favourable to Protestantism ; and that the Protestant views of Scripture truth have the sanction of antiquity. But we are not now concerned to maintain the authority of the Fathers on points of doctrine, however easy might be the task. Without insisting on the importance of their 1 Chillingworth himself published a short treatise on Episcopacy, the main argument of which is drawn from universal tradition. He concludes somewhat singularly in a syllogistic form, as follows: "Episcopacy is acknowledged to have been universally received in the Church presently after the Apostles' times." Between the Apostles' times and this "presently after," there was not time enough for, nor possibility of, so great an alteration. And, therefore, there was no such alteration as is pretended: and, therefore, Episcopacy being confessed to be so ancient and Catholic, must be granted also to be Apostolic. Quod erat demonstrandum.” The writer of the present essay would have introduced Chillingworth's treatise in a note at the end of the volume, did he not conceive that his readers must have already seen the same quotation, if not in the original, at least in a recent and very able publication by Mr. Rose, on the Christian ministry. The brief argument, however, of Bishop Stillingfleet, will be found quoted in note (C) at the end of the volume. ; CHAP. I. DISS. I. opinion with respect to doctrine, we are only here obliged to state, what cannot but be universally admitted, the value of their testimony with regard to facts. We only wish to ascertain from them whether, in the apostolic times, Bishops did or did not exist. The advocate of Presbytery, who would determine all questions of Church polity by Scripture alone; who would allow no voice whatever to antiquity; and who depreciates, for that purpose, the character, both moral and intellectual, of the Christian Fathers: proceeds on very dangerous ground. Is it not on their testimony, that we receive the most important of all facts, the genuineness and authenticity of the sacred canons? Do we not believe the fact, that the Gospels and Epistles were written by the inspired persons whose names they bear, because the Fathers, as credible and competent witnesses, have attested it? Is it not to the weight of their evidence that, in our disputes with unbelievers, we constantly and uniformly appeal? And the fact that Episcopacy was or was not the form of church government established by the Apostles, is a fact to which the Fathers are as competent witnesses as to any other whatsoever. It is, as Bishop Hoadley somewhere tersely expresses it, "a fact plain and simple perfectly within their knowledge: not dependent on lengthened investigations or subtilty of reasoning, but perfectly level to all capacities: a fact in which they might very easily have been contradicted, had DISS. I. they represented it falsely; and a fact in respect to which they could not, in the first ages, be biassed CHAP. I. by self-interest." When, under such circumstances, the anti-Episcopalian advocate denies the Fathers to be good and sufficient witnesses, does he not invalidate and virtually call in question their testimony in every other instance? Does he not, in his indiscreet and foolish zeal to extol the Scriptures, at the expense of antiquity, go far to demolish altogether that authority which he pretends to uphold? liminary. 3. The other circumstance remaining to be Third prepremised is, that the same precision in the use of terms to denote the different offices in the Church, must not be looked for in the Holy Scriptures as may be found in the writings of later ages. When Christianity was originally promulgated, the offices, as well as rites and ceremonies belonging to the newly modelled religion, could not at once possess appropriate designations. For, as Hooker notices, Things are ancienter than the names whereby they are called'." To supply a deficiency of this kind, either new terms must be invented to express the new ideas; or a new appropriation must be made, of terms in previous use. The latter method was the easier and the more natural, and seemed to offer less violence to language: the latter method, 66 1 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam, to see what he would call them and whatever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Gen. ii. 19. CHAP. I. DISS. I. therefore, was uniformly adopted. Words used before in a general acceptation, were set apart to be employed henceforward in a peculiar and restricted sense. One considerable disadvantage would attend this arrangement. The restricted sense of the word would not for some time be thoroughly established and confusion might occasionally arise from the employment of a term in the old signification interchangeably with the new. Thus the word EKKλnoia, which had previously meant an assembly of any kind, and which came to signify in Scripture language an assembly of Christians religiously employed; is yet, without scruple, applied by St. Luke in its previous unrestricted sense, to a concourse of Heathens unlawfully and riotously met together1. Again. the word ẞanтioμòs, or baptism, which denotes the initiatory rite of Christianity, meant originally nothing more than an ordinary cleansing by water, and is employed by St. Mark, in its old signification, to express the washing of common furniture and utensils 2. In like manner the term TíoкоTоç, or Bishop, equivalent in the Greek language to overseer or superintendant, and now restricted to the highest order of Christian ministers, is employed, sometimes 1 He dismissed the assembly (ÉKKλnoíav.) Acts. xix. 41. 2 And when they (the Pharisees) come from market, except they wash (Barrio@vrai) they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold: as the washing (Barrioμove) of cups and pots, brazen vessels and of tables, Mark vii. 4. CHAP. I. to denote an overseer of the laity, and at other times DISS. I. an overseer of the clergy; sometimes a Bishop properly so called, and at other times the pastor of a congregation. Even the dignity of the apostleship is occasionally termed an Episcopal office'. So also the word #peoẞurepos, appropriated, in a modern sense, to the second order of Church officers, was formerly expressive, in general, of advanced age, or of high dignity. In the New Testament the word is applied sometimes to the Apostles; and sometimes to the persons whom the Apostles ordained, and over whom they exercised authority. St. John more especially terms himself presbyter or elder 2. And lastly, the title diákovos or deacon, which is now peculiar to the third order of Church officers, meant originally a servant or minister; and is used by the sacred writers with so much latitude of signification, that even the apostolic office is expressed by the word diaconate (diakovía)3, and our blessed Lord himself is styled a Deacon *. It is therefore evident, that the Scriptural meaning of these three terms, referring to the three elders in the Christian ministry, can only be ascertained by strict attention to the passage where these 1 Acts i. 20. It is remarkably illustrative of our present statement, that in the 25th verse of this chapter, the same office should be termed at the same time a ministry (diakovía) and an apostleship (αποστολή.) 22 John i. 1. 3 John i. 1. 3 Acts i. 25. * Matt. xx. 28. Mark x. 45. Luke xxii. 27. |