and doing what is according to the Will of God that will make them a right constituted Church and Members in particular though you are or may be esteemed baptized Disciples Quest 2. Whether any other qualifications c. viz. then is set down in the first Question are required of God as pre-requisits to Church Communion and Church Membership if so shew us what those things are and where they are so required Answer 1. If we should grant as we do not that God requires no other qualification than what you mention as pre-requisits to Church Communion yet have you not found the Schism but must search nearer home for it if you intend to find it because you are not the men so qualified as you intimate you be as may well be perceived without secret search by any let but those qualifications you speak of be compared with the actions of those time after time that are of highest esteem amongst you 2. But if you were qualified as you say you are yet will not that prove you a Church whose Constitution is right for God requires laying on of hands which is one Principle of the Doctrine of Christ and one of the first rudiments of Christianity as you have confessed as pre-requisits to Church Communion But then you demand where God requires it as a pre-requisit to Church Communion We then demand of you where God requires Water Baptism as a pre-requisite to Church Communion If you shall say that Baptism is one Principle of Christs Doctrine so is laying on of Hands as well as Baptism numbred among the principles of Christs Doctrine Heb. 6.1 2. But if you shall say that there is more in the Scripture to be said for Water Baptism than there is for laying on of Hands we say if there be more said for Baptism in the Scripture than is for laying on of Hands all that is said cannot make it more than a foundation principle and so is laying on of hands 3. What if there be more said in the Scripture for Faith towards God than is for Baptism of Water as there is in many things agreeing to it yet is it no more than a foundation principle of Christs Doctrine and so is the Doctrine of Baptism Heb. 6.2 And will it then follow because there is more said in Scripture for Faith towards God than is said for the Baptism of Water that therefore Baptism is not required of God as a pre-requisite to Church Communion even so should it be granted that there is more said for Baptism in some one thing or more than is for laying on of Hands it doth not follow but that laying on of Hands being numbred by the Apostle among the foundation principles of Christs Doctrine as well as Baptism Heb. 6.2 is required of God as a pre-requisite to Church Communion and Membership as well as Baptism 4. Again where is the belief of the Resurrection of the Dead required of God as pre-requisite to Church Communion yet is that a principle of Christs Doctrine Heb. 6.2 and such a one that if not owned and believed you would not own such a People should be admitted to Church Communion and Church Membership If you should say that to deny the Resurrection is an Errour which makes Faith vain and concludes us yet in our sins we say that it is no more than a Principle of Christs Doctrine and so is laying on of Hands and yet you cannot shew where it s required of God viz. The belief of the Resurrection of the Dead as a pre-requisite to Church Communion it doth not therefore follow but that if you are so qualified as you say you are should you deny or not believe the Resurrection of the Body that you are a Church Communicable or Church Members therefore there is other qualifications than those you speak of pre-requisite to Church Membership and Communion Quest 3. If it shall be said that Churches ought to be found in the knowledge and practice of all Christs Doctrines We demand whether the knowledge and practice of all truths be indispensably necessary to the constituting of Churches and Church Members Answer 1. We say that Churches ought to be found in the knowledge of all Christs Doctrine not Doctrines and so we think will you say 2. We do not say never the more for that that the knowledge and practice of all truths is indispensably necessary to the constituting of Churches and Church Members for there are many truths Churches rightly constituted may be ignorant of but the first Principles of the Doctrine of Christ none ought to be ignorant of or without the knowledge and practice and be true constituted Churches and Church Members Quest 4. If you say the knowledge and practice of all truths is not indispensably necessary to the constituting of Churches and Church Members then we demand that you would define what truths the knowledge and practice whereof is so indispensably necessary as aforesaid and what truths and practices the ignorance of may be consistant with a true Church and Church Membership Answer 1. What truths the knowledge and practice of are indispensably necessary to the constituting of Churches and Church Members we have given you the definition of in our Answer to your 3d Question 2. Those truths of highest moment the ignorance of may be consistent with a true Church and Church Members are such as belong to the perfecting and compleating the Church and Church Members in Christ which a true Church may be ignorant of in her minority as the Hebrew Church was about many things Paul had to say hard to be uttered because they were dull of hearing and were still as Babes who are unskilful in the Word of Righteousness Heb. 5.11 12 13. 3. Those truths of less moment consistent with a true Church are washing of Feet saluting with a holy Kiss taking an Oath to end strife the matters of Apparel and such-like and who pray makes these things the Essentials of Communion though you falsly say they are so made no Congregation in England as we know of 4. Yet may the matter of Apparel give just cause of reproof when Church Members shall exceed the bounds of moderation and sobriety in their Apparel to the grieving wounding and offence of their fellow Brethren and may amount to a sin against Christ when they shall stop their ear and stiffen their necks against them that are so grieved and offended 5. There may be many things done by Churches and Church Members that are sinful which may justly deserve reproof and if not repented of may merit the censure of the Church The Angel of the Church of Pergamos was reproved for sin for having those in the Church that held the Doctrine of Balaam to eat meat sacrificed to Idols and to commit Fornication which Fornication was mixt Marriages as saith Josephus and we think his authority as good in this case as you can think Dr. Hammond's is in laying on of Hands 6. The Angel of
so fit neither as we could and do desire our Members would make choice of however not so fit as to be Church-Members at the Lord's Table Quest 12. If a People congregated upon profession of Faith Baptism and a Holy life be a Church of God and God requireth no other conditions in order to the constituting of Churches and Church-members as appears by the light of the former questions and â—our own practice and confession at some turns Then we demand whether he that first separated and those with him did not make a separation from such a Church and whether such a separation from the Communion of or disowning Communion with such a Church be not to make Divisions and Schism in the Body of Christ Answer 1. We have already shewed you that such a People no otherwise qualified than you are cannot be a Church rightly constituted and that God doth require more conditions than you have in order to the right constituting of Churches and Church-members 2. Nor doth it appear by any light your questions give that you have a true Church state for had we no other light to walk by in finding out â— right constituted Church than your questions we should be in the dark stumble and fall as many of late have done the more it 's to be â—amented 3. Nor doth it appear that you are a Church rightly constituted never the more for what some back-sliders have practised and confessâ— at some turns 4. You may well call them turns for tuâ—â— they are indeed for had they not turned froâ— the truth as they were taught and as they hâ— believed and as the Truth is in Jesus thâ— had never so practised and confessed as yâ—â— say they have 5. Then he that first separated from you aâ— those with him did not separate from Church whose Constitution is according to tâ—â— will of Christ 6. And then separation from you and diâ—owning Communion with you whose Churcâ— state is not true is not to make Divisions 〈◊〉 Schisms in the body For 7. The Apostle Paul after he had laid hanâ— on the twelve he found at Ephesus went into 〈◊〉 Synagogue and spake boldly for the space of thâ— Months disputing and perswading the thiâ—â— concerning the Kingdom of God Acts 19.8 8. He that separated from you and thâ— with him after they were under Laying oâ— Hands continued disputing and perswadiâ—â— the things concerning the Kingdom of Goâ— for more than the space of three months The Apostle Paul when divers were hardâ— and believed not but spake evil of the way befâ— the multitude departed from them and separaâ—â— the Disciples vers 9. 10. So he that separated from you when â—â—vers of you were hardened and believed not 〈◊〉 spake evil of that way before the multitude â—aying Laying on of hands was an invention 〈◊〉 the Devil Such a one's hands were holy and â—ould keep their heads warm with such-like as â—at departed from you and separated the â—isciples Quest 13. Whether or no to deny Communion or not to reâ—ive such so qualified into Communion as aforesaid doth not savour of pride singularity and uncharitableness And whether this doth not sympathize with the spirit of Diotrephes who did not â—â—ly refuse to receive the Brethren but forbid those â—hat would 3 John 9. Answer 1. For those under laying on of hands to deâ—y Communion and not to receive such into Communion no otherwise qualified than you â—re doth not savour of pride singularity nor uncharitableness because your Church-constitution is not right 2. If so it hath no sympathy with the spirit of Diotrephes to refuse communion with you nor to forbid those that would But it may be â—ride hardness of heart and unbelief in you â— the cause you stoop not to Christ but do â—ill persist in making opposition against a Principle of his Doctrine as you have done and now do Quest 14. Whether all that maintain such a Separâ—â—â— from any Congregations that do believe in Gâ—â— and are baptised and walk holily as aforesaid â— not guilty of Schism and the sin of Diotrepâ— aforementioned Answer This is much the same with the last questâ—â—â— therefore we shall say onely this That neiâ— all or any which maintain a Separation from â— upon the grounds we do are guilty of Schâ— or the sin of Diotrephes for we maintain â— Separation from Churches nor Church-Members rightly constituted Quest 15. Whether we who you have separated from â— denied Communion to have not used all Chrisâ— and candid ways of Accommodation that can reasonably be thought on Have we not profess'd â— you That if we saw laying on of hands in the â— you practise it a Duty we would submit to â— Have we not also declared That we are willing â— the better finding out the Truth that you shaâ—â— come and preach it among us Have we not â— promised that we would never preach or diâ— against it to avoid offending of you Nay â— we not practised this by suffering your Counâ—â—â— Elders freely to preach among us who preacheâ— your practice without any opposition from us â— further have not many desired to come under â— â— on of hands if you would not make it the bounds â— conditions of Communion and tie them from â—ning us or having Communion with us afterâ—â—rds Whether then to refuse Communion with 〈◊〉 after such large and loving Condescensions as â—se be not Schism greatly aggravated Answer 1. We believe you have of late used ways of â—ccommodation as you call them but wheâ—â—er Christian and candid we have cause to â—pect When one of you shall desire hands â—â—ght be imposed on him by the Elders upon â—s confession given under his own hand viz. â—â—ese may therefore certifie that I do believe the Doctrine of laying on of hands mentioned Heb. 6. â— be one of the first Rudiments of Christianity â—d yet now he is one of the chief Opposers of â—t laying on of hands which he prophanely to â— no more submitted to Which how Chriâ—â—â—an and candid he therein was may easily be â—â—â—cerned by any 2. What if you have professed that if you 〈◊〉 laying on of hands to be a duty in the way â— practise it you would submit to it Will 〈◊〉 make your Church-state true It is more â—â—n probable that those in the Presbyterian and â—â—dependant way are as ready candidly to proâ—â—â— That did they see Baptism as you and we â—â—â—ctise it and laying on of hands also to be â— Duty they would submit to both doth it follow that your separation and ours from tâ— is Schism 3. And what if you have declaired that â— are willing for the better finding out of Trâ— as you pretend that some under laying oâ— hands should come and preach it among yâ—â— Will that heal your sore and give you a riâ— and due Church-constitution 4. And if you have promised never to preâ— nor dispute against it and if you have practâ—â—â— so by suffering some Countrey Elders freely â— preach it among
THE SEARCHERS for SCHISM SEARCH'D Or Their pretended Questions for Conscience sake ANSWERED Wherein is proved That those Baptized Congregations under Laying on of Hands are not guilty of Schism in Separating from them Shewing Supposition to their threefold Hypothesis 1 That their Church Constitution is not true 2 Separation from them proved lawful 3 The Truth and Authority of the Doctrine about which they Separate vindicated Humbly presented to all concerned J. Griffith a cordial desirer of the flourishing 〈◊〉 of the Church in Unity and Peace with 〈◊〉 and Truth but Societas in 〈…〉 tantum abâ—st ab 〈◊〉 plâ—… nâ—…aria con 〈…〉 pariter 〈…〉 Prov. 18 17. He that is first in his own cause seemeth just but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him Printed for the Author 1669. To the Baptized Disciples not under laying on of Hands is heartily wished the true knowledge of God and sincere Love with submission to the whole Doctrine of Christ desired in the way of Truth WHen we first saw your Book read the Title and how you pretend your Questions are for Conscience sake we thought Silence for some time would be the best Answer considering what hath formerly past between us about the Difference still depending and the present face of things as they now shew themselves in the world But when we came to take a view of your Epistle finding it writ by some spirit inraged rather than one desirous of satisfaction from any serious sober conscientious scruple or doubt We were invited the more to consider your Questions and finding them to strike at the root fill'd with animosity taunting and insulting terms rather than a spirit so much as sprinkled with conscious candid and serious aims though you give your selves the name as the obscure Parents of this in some sense abortive Child of the Lovers of Truth and Peace which bespeaks the Babe both conceived and brought forth under the melevolent Aspects of some froward contentious and yet pretended glorious and Christian design Your Epistle which as the Midwife that brought the Child into the world we find ushers it in with caluminations so foul and of such a sort as if it were intended to scale Rome's Walls and bid Defiance to the Man there that usurps the Keyes of Heaven and Hell And withal that way may be made for its more laudable entrance and progress she no sooner speaks but like Athalia she cryes Treason treason the Lord's Prerogative is invaded when alas she was the Traytor her self and then she marcheth on and proclaims them she is sent to with so much pretended calmness to be like the Man at Rome usurpers of the Keyes of Hell and Death But how much the mark is missed is evident enough for who more free and ready to stop up the way to Hell and open the way to Heaven so far as lies in them by all the abilities they have and endeavours they can use than they whom you brand with the aforesaid Usurpation Though we would not make the road to Heaven as the foolish Woman and clamourous doth the way to her House saying Stolen waters are sweet and bread eaten in secret is pleasant to her guests And though your Babes-Usher hath got the knack on 't to clamour with so much scurrility by such oyly lines perhaps borrowed from some other Pen yet is it an argument of a weak Cause rather than otherwise it being usual when there is no better weapons to make use of such with this gloss The Lords Prerogative is invaded and what wilt thou do to thy great Name and the like when you your selves are the invaders of that Royal Prerogative of the Lord 's Anointed by not suffering his Princely Authority to be obeyed without controule from you and such his leige People to whom his Prerogative and Name is more dear than their lives as sufficient testimony hath been given and further may through his grace should he call for it You study against wayes of obtractation But how easie a matter is it for men to pretend to Conscience in their own Case and with the same Pen bespatter the Consciences of others with foul inormities of meer pretences under that cloak as if they made bates and pretended Conscience but let the sober inspect this new-born Babe and they will see make-bate writ in the face of him though it hath Conscience for its Name and is sirnamed a Lover of Truth and Peace and do but trace it in its proceedings and let but its conception be calculated and they will find it both conceived and brought forth to that end it being furnished with Confidence sufficient to pass it without suspition of being tardy of any such thing as make-bate while it can talk of Peace and Unity among Brethren and pretend to more than ordinary zeal to it and that it may go abroad without jealousie of the contrary all that stands in its way must be rendred as maintainers of Notions catch'd up and charged upon Conscience without regard had to the interest of Religion yea and renting and running away from all that agree not with them when there is nothing less intended by you than to run divisions among us that are united in that thing under debate And for the more effectual accomplishment of this design we must also be rendred as such that take upon them to judge all that come not up to the same dimensions with us not to have God nor to have communion with God when our judgment in that case is Those that transgress and abide not in the Doctrine of Christ have not God as his Church hath not that thereby you or any man is judged by us to have or not to have God And as for you we have before given our Testimony that we can and do love you for the Truths sake you own so far as you have gone or so far as you do own the Truth but we cannot nay we dare not love you with the love of Brethren in the true and right order of the Gospel See Gods Oracle and Christs Doctrine page 94. then have you no cause to render us as judging all but our selves in no sense to have God nor communion with God And if you have better Arguments to prove your in erest in Christ than laying on of Hands we have no cause to grieve at it but to rejoyce and can with all our hearts wish you have for laying on of Hands can be none for you and it will be well if it be none against you who have so long opposed it with so much bitterness as you have done and and still do But be we esteemed your Friends or your Enemies for saying you are not a Church rightly Constituted and so have not God as his Church we must still say it until our Judgments and Consciences be otherwise perswaded by his Word and if you will not believe what we say we must leave it to the revelation of the righteous Judgment of the Lord
the Church of Pergamos is by the Spirit commanded to repent of this evil the command backed with a commination which proves that such must be put out of the Church that so hold much more such which so do 7. But laying on of Hands we do indeed make Essential to Church Communion because it is a Principle of the Doctrine of Christ as hath been proved now and heretofore and never was disproved by you except asking questions be refutation Quest 5. We demand whether there was not a Church of Christ in the world before his Ascention and whether any other qualification was then pre-requisite to Church Membership than Confession of Sins and Faith in Christ for the remission of them together with a being Baptized into his Name and walking in a holy life and conversation if you say any thing else was then required and practised as Essential to Church Membership shew us what that was and where it was so required and practised And if you say nothing else was then required and practised we demand whether the Church of Christ was wanting of any thing then that was Essential to its being whatever it might want as to its well-being If you say it wanted nothing then that was Essential to its being then we further demand how this People so continuing in Faith Baptism and Holiness of life could cease to be a Church of Christ after his Ascention though they might not come up to some of those others Truths that were afterward revealed when the Spirit was made manifest c. Answer 1. We do not find that Christ before his Ascension doth give the Name or Title of a Church to any but onely calls his Followers Disciples as we might enumerate a multitude of places in the Evangelists 2. We find that our Lord Jesus when Peter confessed that he was the Christ the Son of the Living God answered Peter and said Upon this Rock will I build my Church He doth not say I have built my Church upon this Rock but I will c. speaking in the future tense Hereafter when I do build it not that he had then built his Church but was about the work making all things ready as materials both for the Foundation and Building 3. Nor is what we say destitute of good reason for his Disciples might then confess and believe him to be the Christ but could not believe him dead risen ascended and that the Comforter was come upon which as upon â— Rock or sure Foundation Christ would build hiâ— Church and hath since his last Will and Testament is in force by his Death Heb. 9.16 17 for his Church now is founded upon these Basiâ— Christ is come and died for our Sins according to the Scriptures believing that we in dutâ— ought to be baptised in his Name for the Remission of them Act. 2.38 22.16 and pray with laying on of hands for the gift of the Spirit which now is come since Christ is ascended to the Father according to his promise John 16.7 to guide us into all Truth and to be with us for ever John 14.16 17. as his alone Vicar on Earth John 16.13 14 15. by which Spirit we are baptised into one body 1 Cor. 12.13 believing that as he is risen from the dead he will also raise us up at the last day John 6.40 and will come the second time sitting upon the Throne of his Glory to Judgement and to render to every man as his work shall be On all which as on a Rock or Foundation the Disciples could not be built in the time of Christs life not till after his Ascension because they were not then laid nor could not till Christ was dead risen and ascended to the Father Yet in the time of his Life as his Disciples he was diligent to instruct teach and inform them of all these things as such which should be done and accomplished in their due and appointed time viz. after he had suffered was risen and ascended to the Father But it may be objected That Christ saith Mat. 18.17 If he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church there Christ calls them a Church That doth not follow those being words of direction and instruction which Christ gives them by which they might be guided when they had received power from on high to proceed as a Church to censure unholy and disorderly Walkers not that they before they were endowed with that power from on high were to act as a Church to censure the impenitent noâ— did they as we read You may further object That Christ did break Bread with them and therefore they weâ— then a Church It is true Christ did before his Passion institute the Supper he brake the Bread and gave it to his Disciples but it was onely with the Twelve the rest of the Disciples being absent then doth it not follow that the Disciples weâ— in the capacity of a Church because the Twelve are singled out from the rest of the Disciples which shews excepting him that was lost thaâ— they were taken apart from the other Disciples as those that were appointed by the Lord to bâ— Witnesses in a more eminent way and manneâ— than the rest of all those things he should suffer And those whom Jesus had chosen and giveâ— commandment to not onely by his own mouth but through the Holy Ghost also Act. 1.2 whaâ— they should teach others to believe and observe Mat. 28.20 Breaking Bread then at this timâ— might not be solemnized as Church-communion which ought to be when the whole Body cometâ— together to commemorate the Body and Blood of Christ the one as broken the other shed and to shew the Lords death till he come but rather was instituted then by Christ at the feast of the Passover to shew them what they should after he was ascended do also to teach others what they should do and observe when they were endowed with power from on high and thereby were enâ—ighted to all things relating to Church-Power and the administration of all Church-Ordinances which until they were so impowered they were onely to wait at Jerusalem Luk. 24.49 Act. 1.4 If otherwise why should the rest of the Disciples be excluded and not called to this last Supper of the Lord If they broke Bread as a Church the rest of the Disciples had as much right to that Communion as the Twelve or else the Twelve onely were the Church and the other Disciples no part of it And if a Church why must they wait for power at Jerusalem This we humbly and modestly offer to consideration And as for the rest of your Queries and Demands which you multiply in this Question they are either removed and answered or require none further But say you further if you shall say they wanted something while Christ was among them essential to Communion then we demand whether this doth not reflect a want of care in Christ who left them so and indeed want
of understanding in those that say so For if Christ had a Church before his ascension that wanted any thing essential to its being then it was a Church and no Church at the same time which is absurd to imagine Let what is abovesaid be duly and considerately weighed and there will be no reflection upon Christ nor ignorance in those that say they were onely Disciplâ—â— and not impowered as a Church before Christs Ascension It can reflect no want of care in Christ because they could not be in any other capacity than his Scholars before the Spirit was given them noâ— were they capable to receive more than what Christ did communicate to them and leave with them until the Spirit was manifested I have many things to say but ye cannot bear them now John 16.12 Then it s no reflection upon Christ for want of care considering the time and the Disciples incapacity to bear them then Nor do we say Christ had a Church before his Ascension if they were a Church that wanted any thing essential to its being in that dispensation therefore you may keep your absurdity till you have more occasion Quest 6. We demand whether those qualifications that give us a Right to Baptism do not give us a Right to the Lords Table Answer 1. Those qualifications that give you a right to Baptism do not give you a right to the Lords Table 2. For confession of sins and profession of Faith in Christ for the pardon of them are qualifications that gives â—â—â—ht to Baptism but they do not give the person so confessing and professing a right to the Lords Table except he be first baptised by your Principles and Practice if we be not deceived by you Quest 7. We demand whether it be not sinful to make more conditions of Communion than ever God made And whether the imposing of any thing though true as the conditions of Church-membership and Communion which God hath not made a Condition be not to keep those out of the Church that Christ would have in Answer 1. We grant it is sinful to make more Conditions of Communion than ever God made 2. And to impose any thing though true as â—he Condition of Church-Membership and Communion which God hath not made a Conâ—ition is to keep those out of the Church that Christ would have in Quest 8. If Christ hath required no other conditions of Church-Communion than Confession of Sin Faith Baptism and a holy Life whether you can by an Rule deny Communion to any that are so qualified If so shew that Rule Answer 1. Though it be true that Confession of sin Faith Baptism and an holy Life be conditionâ— of Communion yet are there more conditionâ— required by Christ of Church-Communion that those for the twelve Disciples Paul founâ— at Ephesus had confessed their sin professed their faith and were baptised yea and werâ— men of holy Lives and yet they wanted somâ— conditions of Church-Communion 2. For these Disciples were ignorant of the Doctrine of Baptisms Heb. 6.2 knew no more than the Baptism of John for they had not heard whether there were a holy Ghost or noâ— Act. 19. 3. They were not under laying on of handâ— which God had appointed as the means hâ—â— which the holy Ghost was given and received both which viz. the Doctrine of Baptisms anâ— laying on of hands are Principles of the Doctrine of Christ Heb. 6.2 And therefore â— truly conditions of Church-Communion â— Water-Baptism for it is by one Spirit we aâ— all baptised into one Body 1 Cor. 12.13 4. Then not to hear whether there were holy Ghost or no as these Disciples did not â—less defect in them than for you to hear and read there is a holy Ghost promised to as many as obey Christ and you not believe the Baptism thereof but oppose and reject the means by which the Baptism of the Spirit is obtained and by which we all are baptised into one Body is a far greater defect and want of the conditions Christ requires of Church-Communion in you than was in them 5. Then can we deny Communion with you because Christ requires more conditions of Church-Communion than you yet have for which we have these Rules 2 Thess 3.6 1 Tim. 3.4 5. Cum multis aliis Quest 9. Whether the Baptised Congregations that are not under laying on of hands do not make those qualifications above mentioned absolutely necessary to Church-communion and Church-membership And if so why should you refuse Communion with them Answer 1. You may well make a question of it whether you do make those qualifications you mention before absolutely necessary to Church-communion and Church-membership when in your sixth Question you demand Whether those qualifications that give you a Right to Baptism do not give you a Right to the Lords Table Which â—mporteth That those which have a Right to Baptism by virtue of some qualifications have a right to the Lords Table by virtue of the same qualifications at the same time and if they that have a right to Baptism have at the same time a right to the Lords Table they may by right have Church-communion though they be not baptized 2. Therefore we must Answer you That we cannot tell or we do not know whether you do make those qualifications you mention absolutely necessary to Church-communion and Church-membership because in your sixth Question you more than seem to leave out Baptism as a qualification which you put in elsewhere as one 3. But if you do make all those qualifications you mention absolute necessary to church-Church-communion and Church-membership you have been already told why we refused Communion with you it will be too much in this place to say it again Quest 10. Whether you have not at some turns both by practice and professed agreements owned those for Churches and Church Members that are baptized Believers as aforesaid and if so by what rule can you refuse to have Communion with them Answer 1. It is not without cause to believe that is too true that some have been daubing with untempered morter Ezek. 13.10 11 12 13 14. to heal the hurt slightly saying Peace peace when there was no peace Jer. 6.14 having both by practice and professed agreements owned you for Churches rightly constituted 2. It were well if those that have so practised and agreed would remember from whence they are fallen and repent and do their first works before it be too late and their Candlestick be removed out of its place Rev. 2.5 3. And they their giving so much advantage to you who oppose some part of the mind of Christ which they believe and practise which is now taken up by you and used as weapons against the truth they practise doth cry aloud upon them to repent and smite upon the thigh saying What have we done 4. For if such practice and professed agreement be according to the will of God wherein they have owned you Churches and Church Members rightly constituted Communion
you without any oppositâ—â—â— from you will these things you call condesâ—â—â—tions make you a right constituted Chuâ— that wanted a right constitution before â—â—sides these condescentions might be just â— Christian and candid as his was that desired â— come under laying on of hands confessing iâ— be one of the first Rudiments of Christian mentioned afore 5. For there is cause to suspect that tâ— condescentions of yours were rather than Câ—â—â—stian and candid designs to raze out that â— of the foundation viz. Laying on of hanâ— that is raze out the belief and practice of â— time or divide them about it that are undeâ— as appears by what some of you have said at soâ—â— certain times viz. That in seven years timâ— should not have that esteem of laying on of hanâ— now we have And another at another 〈◊〉 should say That the Churches would stand with â—…rs in their eyes for their acting These condescentions then we say rather tended to the â—…tting laying on of hands and the esteem of 〈◊〉 out of their hearts that have submitted to it â—…t so the practice of it might perish and die in â—…e or if not so in all yet then to cause a â—…ecessity of dividing about it as great Pretenders as you be to Peace and Unity that thereby you might hide your disobedience to Christ â—nd so pass for currant a right-constituted â—hurch 6. What if some of you have desired to come â—…nder laying on of hands If they will make â—…nful conditions and bring them to us with â—…eir desire we then have just cause to keep â—…em from so sacred an Ordinance as laying on â—f hands is until they shall come to the obedience thereof upon Christs terms and conditions denying themselves and their own 7. Our refusing then communion with you â—…ough whether in reality or pretence you have â—…ade such large and loving condescentions as â—ou call them since you still want that loving condescention to Christ in obeying the Voice â—f that great Prophet doth not make us guilâ—… of Schism much less Schism greatly aggravated Quest 16. Whether there are not many among you that â— all they can to obstruct our reconciliation and â—dermine all our Endeavours after Unity cryâ—â— down and condemning all but themselves lest tâ— should most of all condemn themselves for makâ— unnecessary divisions in the Church of God Lâ—â— the Painter in Plutarch that had unskilfully painted a Cock afterwards chased away all Cocks 〈◊〉 Hens lest the imperfection of his Art should â— discovered And whether some among you in 〈◊〉 manner having made this unskilful Separation â— say no worse have not cast away all thoughts 〈◊〉 tenders of accommodation and them that tender â— lest their foul deformity of Church-breaking shoâ—â—â— be detected Answer 1. We Will and can without being ashamâ— thereof freely acknowledge That there 〈◊〉 many we hope among us that do the best aâ—â— all they can to obstruct such a Reconciliatioâ— as you would have and to undermine as yoâ— call it though we have and will play abovâ— board and deal plainly all your endeavoâ—â— for Unity upon your terms of Unity Whiâ— would rather tend to a going back than a going on to perfection and would be rather â— combination against the God of Order anâ— Truth than a right well-approved Reconciliation and Unity which he will say Amen to 2. And in so doing we cry up truth and not our our selves otherwise then servants to it and lovers of it knowing withal we are but unprofitable servants for when we have done all we have done no more than what is our duty to do nor do we cry down you nor any but as the Word of the Lord doth for your disobedience to Christ we must not say light is darkness and darkness is light wo be to us if we should 3. Neither do we obstruct your endeavours after Reconciliation and Unity from any self-condemnation of making Divisions in the Church knowing the guilt of Church-dividing is not upon us the Word of the Lord and our own Consciences not condemning us but justifying us though you unjustly do that you might cover your selves under the mantle of mens approbation which covering would be too narrow had you by your late endeavours obtained your end for your only way will be to lay your Church-Foundation right submit to that you have long quarrelled about have respect to all the commands of the Lord Jesus so will you approve your selves to God and be united to his People 4. And as for your levity and flash about the Painter and his Cock we never drove you away as being ashamed of any thing we have â—one in separating from you but were alwayes willing to meet the best of you in any place in publick Conference or otherwise by all wayes and means we lawfully might use that our practice may be seen and tryed by the Word and never upon that account chased away your Cock nor no other but have given yours battel again and again nor do we fear to let ours be seen being drawn not by the unskilful Painter in Plutarch but by the Lord Jesus in the Gospel and therefore if we chase you away from us in point of Communion it is lest the deformity of your Fabrick having but a piece or part Foundation should bring us in time to the same deformity and disorder with you Quest 17. Whether to break Communion with or separate from the Communion of a Church of Christ for some single Errour not essential to a Church state be not a wounding to the weak and a hardening to the wicked Whether it doth not keep many out of the Church that would come in and give occasion of going out to many that are in Whether Divisions from a true Church are not an in-let to Atheism and Infidelity and whether all Christians ought not to eschew Divisions as great reproaches to Christian Religion Answer 1. A known Error is not to be suffered not tollerated in the Church of God for by the same rule one may more may till the Church be fuller of stinking weeds than choice flowers and what will the weeds do but eat out the living and thriving virtue of the flowers we would not be so much the Devils friend as to give him leave to plant much less to suffer any thing of his planting to grow in the Lord's garden Errour is of the Father of Lyes 2. Errour in the Church though held but by some if suffered threatens the ruine of the whole body Thou hast them there that hold the Doctrine of Balaam c. Repent or else I will come quickly c. Errour suffered in some Members may defile the body and make it culpable of the sin of Errour and Heresie A little Leaven leaveneth the whole lump What will make the Church of God such a sinful confused unclean heap as the Church of Rome is sooner than such a tolleration 3. Yet such Errours as not eating meats though every creature
of God be good if it be received with thanks-giving and such-like being an Error not essential to church-Church-communion to break Communion with a Church of Christ for some such single Error may be a wounding to the weak and a hardening to the wicked and may keep many out of the Church that would come in and give occasion of going out to many thâ—y are in and such Divisions from a true Church may be an in-let to Atheism and Infidelity and ought to be eschewed by all Christians as great reproaches to Christian Religion and all this Errors in Fundamentals c. will do The end of the Questions grounded upon the first Hypothesis the second follows with their Answers Quest 18. But if it shall be said as some of you have Preached and Printed that laying on of Hands is essential to Church-communion and that those that are not under it have not God and are not in Communion with God it is demanded where are the Scriptures that either prove it essential to Communion and that those that are not under it have not Communion with God Answer 1. We have not only said but still do say that laying on of Hands is essential to church-Church-communion and that those who transgress against Christs Doctrine of which Doctrine laying on of Hands is a Principle as hath been confessed by you to be in these words viz. One of the first Rudiments of Christianity hath not Communion with God as his Church hath especially you who have made such wicked and absurd opposition against it as you have done See our Answer to the 12th Question 2. Whereas you demand where the Scriptures are that prove laying on of Hands to be essential to communion we say they are in Heb. 6. Acts 8.19 But if you mean where are the Scriptures that in terminis will say so we demand where are the Scriptures that in so many words will prove Baptism of Water the Resurrection of the Dead eternal Judgment to be essential to Communion every one of which you make an essential thereof if you deceive us not and if they why not laying on of Hands which is as truly as either of them a Foundation Principle of Christs Doctrine 3. And since you demand where are the Scriptures that prove those that are not under laying on of Hands have not Communion with God we tell you once again that the Scriptures proving such transgressors as you have been who have both blasphemed and prophaned that sacred Appointment of the Lords which is a Foundation Principle of his Doctrine have not Communion with God as his Church are in 2 Joh. 9. Joh. 14.24 Acts 3.22 23. with many more in the New Testament Quest 19. If it shall be said as some of you have Printed and said That they that are not under laying on of Hands have not God because they transgress and not abide in the Doctrine of Christ according to 2 Joh. 9. We demand whether this be not vain Philosophy and whether by the same reason we may not unchurch all the Churches that ever were in the world Might it not be said of the Church of the Hebrews that they had not God because they had not an acquaintance with and so consequently did not abide in all the Doctrine of Christ relating to his Priestly Office and whether those many things that the Author had to say concerning Christs high Priesthood where the Doctrine of Christ and Christs Oracles or the Authors own inventions if they were Christs Oracles or sayings which they could not receive because they were dull of hearing then they did transgress them or why doth the Author find fault with them And if they did transgress his sayings and Oracles and yet were a Church and still in communion and are call'd Babes in Christ how dare you say they that abide not in all Christs sayings have not God Did not the Churches in Asia transgress and might it not be said of them that they did not abide in all Christs Doctrine when Ephesus left her first love when Pergamos retained those in communion that held the Doctrine of Balaam and the Nicholaitans and the Church of Sardis kept their communion with those that had defiled their garments and the Laodiceans are charged with Luke-warmness and with being self-conceited and so are the Church of Corinth in suffering the incestuous person for which they ought by Christs Doctrine to have been humbled we demand where the Scriptures do declare these to be no Churches or incommunicable though in many things they did transgress the sayings and did not continue or abide in all the Doctrines and Oracles of God but if for all these they were still owned as Churches how then dare you say of them or of any that should fail like them that they are no Churches and have not communion with God because they abide not in all his Doctrine May not we rather turn the edge of that Argument upon your selves thus They that God owns for Churches you sin in disowning but God owns those for Churches that fail and come short of many things that Christ taught them therefore you sin in disowning them Answer 1. We say again as some of us have Printed and said That you who have transgressed at such a rate as you have done and still do against the Doctrine of Christ have not God as his Church according to 2 Joh. 9. nor is this vain Philosophy as you vainly enquire but sound words and wholsome Doctrine which some of you will find to your sorrow in the day of account if you repent not 2. Nor can any Church rightly constituted be unchurched by this reason Because Churches rightly constituted do not transgress against the Doctrine of Christ but continue in it and have both the Father and the Son nor can it be said of the Hebrew Church that they had not God because they understood not all those things hard to be uttered relating to the Priestly Office of Christ because they had laid all the Principles of Christs Doctrine Heb. 5.12 and 6.1 2. which you have not and continued in them Act. 2.42 which you do not Their fault for which the Apostle blames them was their slack and slow growth for the time they had been a Church built upon the Rock Christ and the Foundation-Principles of his Doctrine by which neglect they became dull of hearing and were yet but as Babes unskilful in the Word of Righteousness and therefore he exhorts them to go on to perfection Heb. 6.1 that they might redeem their lost time and avoid the danger they stood in of falling away from what they were partakers of their danger being such that if they should still continue slothful and negligent and not go on to perfection they would at length fall from and not continue in the Doctrine of Christ on which they were built which if they did there was no renewing them by repentance 3. And indeed those things of which they were ignorant were
those parts of the Doctrine of Christ that belong'd to perfection and their further growing up in him but not the Foundation or beginning part of Christians Nor though they were dull of hearing and could not receive those things hard to be uttered relating to the Priestly Office of Christ yet were they not Denyers Opposers and Disputers against it as you have been against laying on of hands more than twenty years 4. The Churches in Asia were true constituted Churches and yet they transgressed and did not abide in all Christs Doctrine for which cause though the Spirit commends them in some things they would not have God long as his Church except they repented of those Transgressions I will remove thy Candlestick out of its place except thou repent Rev. 2.5 By which it may plainly be perceived that their not abiding in the Doctrine of Christ would unchurch them that were true constituted Churches without Repentance and doing their first works though we will not say that they were ipso facto declared no Churches of Christ and such as have no communion with God as his Church Though we dare say that you whose Church-constitution was never right have not God as his Church and we dare say That the Churches in Asia and the Church of Corinth for suffering the incestuous person and for saying some of them the Resurrection was past c. after all lawful endeavours made and means used to purge them from those evils had they not repented but still persisted in their Sin and Impenitency they would soon find they should cease to be a Church in God and incommunicable for their not abiding in the Doctrine of Christ and Oracles of God And thus much we darâ— say of them or of any that fail like them Thaâ— then as afore they are no Churches have noâ— communion with God as his Church becausâ— they abide not in all his Doctrine 5. Your Argument then is not of such forcâ— to turn the edge of ours upon us as you think â— for we answer it by distinction thus If in youâ— minor Proposition by failing and coming shoâ—â— of many things Christ taught them you meaâ— fundamental things we deny your minor Oâ— if you mean a failing and coming short of man â— things Christ taught as in the Churches of Asia and the Church of Corinth joyned with impenitency all lawful means being used to purgâ— them we then likewise deny your minor Bâ—â— if you do not mean Fundamentals nor sins joyned with Impenitency as is aforesaid then â— say God owns such for Churches and wâ— should sin if we did not though they fail anâ— come short of perfection in many things Bâ— then it follows not that God owns or that 〈◊〉 ought to own such for Churches that fail anâ— come short in Fundamentals or the first Rudâ—ments of Christianity as you do Quest 20. Whether it be not an abuse of that Text 2 Johâ— to infer from the Doctrine of Christ there mentiâ—â—ed That there can be no Churches nor Churcâ— Members where every thing that Christ taught is â—â—t observed and continued in When by Doctrine â—ere a man of a short sight may perceive is meant â—â—e confessing that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh â— appears vers 7. which whosoever abideth not in â—ut shall deny hath not God and if this be not the â—ense but the other viz. That he that continues â—ot in all Christs sayings hath not God and is no Member of Christ then either your selves are no Church or else you are all perfect and guilty of no 〈◊〉 because all sin is a transgressing Christs Doctrine â—â—d he that saith he hath no sin is a Lyar and the â—ruth is not in him 1 John 1.10 Answer 1. Who did you ever know infer from â— Joh. 9. That there can be no Churches nor Church-members where every thing Christ â—â—ught is not observed and continued in 'T is â—rue we say that every Principle of the Doâ—trine of Christ which he taught as the first Ruâ—iments of Christianity must be observed and â—ontinued in or else there can be no Church â—or Church-Members rightly constituted And â— observed believed and practised and not â—ontinued in they that now are a Church right â—n constitution may as afore is said cease to â—e a Church for their transgressing and not aâ—iding in the Doctrine of Christ 2 John 9. 2. But you say By Doctrine in that place is â—eant as a man of a short sight may perceive the confessing that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh â— appears vers 7. Suppose this should be tâ— meaning we demand whether every one thâ— verbally so confesseth and doth not verbally dâ—ny Christ to be come in the Flesh doth answâ—â— the mind of the Spirit in that Text and haâ— both the Father and the Son so long as he abâ—deth by such a Confession we think you wiâ—â— not so say for if you should then must yoâ— own Rome to be a Church of Christ Becausâ— they stoutly confess with their mouths and â—bide by it that Christ is come in the flesh yeâ— and will burn them that shall deny it now â— this be the meaning of the Text then hath Româ— both the Father and the Son and doth not transgress but continue in the Doctrine of Chrisâ— and thousands more besides who will thus confess Christ to be come in the flesh but know yoâ— not that in works they deny him If then â— man short-sighted may see that by Doctrine â— meant a confessing of Christ to be come in thâ— flesh that confession must be more than verbâ—â— as a man very short-sighted may perceive anâ— that by confessing Christ is to own him to be â— Prince and a Saviour to believe obey and tâ— do what he hath taught and to continue in hiâ— Doctrine So then though it may be as yoâ— say yet is it not to be thought that onely thâ— single and alone confessing of Christ to be comâ— in the flesh is there meant by Doctrine â— being so comprehensive a word that it contains in it no less if not more than the foundation-â—â—rt mentioned Heb. 6. And therefore they that transgress and abide not in that fundamental part viz. Repentance Faith the Doctrine of Baptisms Laying on of Hands the Resurrection from the Dead and eternal Judgment have not God as his Church but he that continues in the Doctrine of Christ hath both the Father and the Son Then is it no abuse of the Text to say as the Text saith But you rather abuse us to say that we infer that there can be no Churches nor Church-Members that continue not in every thing that Christ taught and that they have not God nor are no Members of Christ But we say They cannot be Churches rightly constituted that abide not in Christs Doctrine for they have not God and so saith the Text. And yet there may be Churches truly stated that are not perfect and that will not say they have no sin
For in many things we offend all James 3.2 Quest 21. If you shall say That by denying Communion to those that abide not in the Doctrine of Christ you mean such as abide not in Fundamentals not but that you could have Communion with those that err and differ from you in the Circumstantials of Religion as some of you have said and others have printed Then we demand what those Circumstantial Errors are And whether they are not tranâ—gressions of the Word Doctrine Sayings Coâ—mands or Oracles of Christ If they be transgressions of the Sayings and Oracles of Christ c. thâ— we demand whether that argument is not ridiculouâ— that saith They have no communion with God thâ— abide not in all the Sayings and Doctrines of Chrisâ— c And then what becomes of your great cry yâ—â— make against us for not continuing in all the Dâ—ctrines and Sayings of Christ and that whoevâ—â— doth not continue in all hath no communion witâ— God when your selves allow there may be communion where Errors are circumstantial and thereâ— tacitly acknowledge what other whiles you opposâ— viz. That they that abide in all Christs Doctrinâ— may notwithstanding have communion with God Answer 1. We have already told you That no knowâ— Error ought to be suffered in the Church noâ— do we say we can have communion with thosâ— that maintain any thing contrary or in opposition to the Doctrine of Christ Yet as you say â— we can have communion with those that diffeâ— from us in Circumstantials but to give ouâ— selves or others an allowance to err in Fundamentals would be a crime as bad as an allowance in any fleshly and actual sin 2. You then demand what those Circumstantials are and whether they be not transgressions of the Word Sayings Doctrine Commands or Oracles of Christ we say no they â—re not transgressions against Christs Doctrine c. but such things as may be done or left â—ndone and no sin committed against God But say you what are those Errors It is an â—rror to refuse and deny the eating of meats â—ecause every creature of God is good and nothing â—o be refused if it be received with thanksgiving Yet if my Brother be weak and will eat herbs â—nd will be offended if I eat flesh we will not â—reak communion with him because he will eat â—o flesh nor eat flesh our selves lest we cause â—â—r weak Brother to stumble and be offended this is to err in circumstantials and all other â—hings of the like kind that may or may not be done and no Law of Christ broken for transgressions of the Word and Doctrine of Christ must not be tollerated in the Church of Christ he must be heard in all things and if â—o that Argument is not ridiculous but reâ—ains firm and untouched that saith They â—â—ve not God as his Church who transgress â—nd abide not in the Dostrine of Christ 3. And then that great cry as you call it â—e make against you for your disobedience to Christ is still remaining where it was our â—oices will be lifted up as high as ever until â—ou do from the heart obey that form of Doctrine which was delivered to the Primitive Saints Rom. 6.17 nor do we allow Communion where Errors are except you mean such â— is above expressed longer than the erronioâ—â— can be orderly dealt with therefore we do noâ— tacitly acknowledge as you imagine whâ—â— other-while we oppose Quest 22. But if you shall say you intend by Christs Doctrine those six Principles contained Heb. 6. aâ—â— that whoever agrees with you in them doth agrâ—â— in fundamentals and with such you can communicate then we demand why some of you refuse communion about an Oath others about mixt Marriages others about washing of Feet others â— you refuse communion with such as are under layinâ— on of Hands if they do hold communion with thâ— that are not under laying on of Hands others refuse communion in matters of Apparel others â—bout Blood and things strangled What reason haâ— you for these divisions unless you will say all thâ—â— are Fundamentals and if they be then what aâ—â— your circumstantials you talk of and whether 〈◊〉 have not adopted more Fundamentals than ever yoâ— found in the 6th of the Hebrews And whethâ—â— you may not by the same reason if that Notion â— Christs not taking flesh of the Virgin get but Proselytes enough adopt that also into the number â— Fundamentals as well as the rest and so at lâ— leave us no circumstantials to differ about for â— can well remember when laying on of Hands wâ— â—ot esteemed a Fundamental Doctrine but the â—ractisers of it for some time kept their communion with us till it had made a Party and then 〈◊〉 was advanced to the dignity of Fundamental â—nd afterwards we were esteemed too mean to keep â—â—mpany with those that so esteemed it and have 〈◊〉 all the fore-mentioned Opinions bid fair for the â—me advancement and will they not be so esteemed when they which are the Abettors of them â—hink they have numbers and opportunities for that â—â—rpose And may they not by the same arguments which 〈◊〉 use to separate from us separate from you when â—â—ey believe any thing to be a Doctrine of Christ â—hich you do not And do you not by this means furnish men with â—eapons to divide Churches into Atoms till they â—â—ve made Gods spiritual House like his literal House that shall not have one Stone left upon another which will not be thrown down Will they â—â—t argue thus They which abide not in the Doâ—trine of Christ have not God but such as are not â—or washing of feet saluting with a holy kiss and â—â—ch as are for taking an Oath though to end strife 〈◊〉 for eating of Blood and things strangled and â—uch as being under laying on of hands yet communicate with them that are not under it together â—â—th such as do not eat a Supper before breaking of â—ead and such as marry out of the Church and â—â—ch as believe Christ took flesh of the Virgin Mary all these do not abide in the Doctrine of Christ and therefore they have not God Where will not this kind of reasoning run you at last Answer 1. You know we say and do intend by Christâ— Doctrine those six Principles mentioned Heb. 6. and that whoever agrees with us in Fundamentals we can have Communion with provided their Conversation be according to the Gospel 2. We refuse communion with those thâ—â— take some Oaths because Christ doth forbid such swearing Mat. 5.34 Jam. 5.12 and also because such as take them abjure their obedience to Christ and swear obedience to thâ— Doctrines and Commandments of men 3. We refuse communion about mixt Marriages because they are forbid both in the Olâ— and New Testament The Church of Pergamâ—â— must not have them among them that hold sucâ— Doctrine 4. We know of none that refuse communicâ— about washing of Feet 5. We refuse communion with those
that aâ—â— under laying on of hands if they have communion with those that are not under laying on 〈◊〉 hands because it is disorder and confusion anâ— also a transgression against the Doctrine â— Christ 6. We do not refuse communion in matteâ— of Apparel otherwise than is said in the Answer to the fourth Question 7. There is sufficient ground to deal with such Members as will eat Blood and things strangled to the trouble and offence of their fellow-Brethren Act. 15.29 21.25 for we would have you to know that Members of Churches may hold that in their Judgments and Practice and that in their Lives though they are under all the first Principles of the Oracles of God that may deserve the censure of the Church and yet the Church not adopt them first Rudiments of Christianity for we have no Fundamentals adopted by us nor do we own more than those Heb. 6. for all this taunting Talk of yours And yet we shall say That there is good reason why we should differ with those that deny the Doctrine of the Trinity and that Christ is the second Person in it God of one substance with the Father yea and refuse communion with them that say he is a creaâ—ed Being and was not nor had no being before he was conceived in the Womb of the Virgin Mary and indeed this wicked and absurd opinion did get Proselytes and found opportunity to make a Schism in the Body of Christ 8. Your memory fails you as well as you say you can remember for we can better know and remember that before we came under laying on of hands we did esteem it a Foundation-Principle and submitted to it as to one but did indeed keep and continue with you for some time preaching disputing and perswading you to obey the Lord Jesus but other communion we had none until many of you were hardened and believed not but spake evil of this way before the multitude then we departed and separated the Disciples 9. There is none by our Arguments we have to separate from you can separate from us because we still continue through the grace of God in the Doctrine of Christ nor say things are of the Doctrine of Christ that are not Nor do we by what means we take to defend that Truth which you oppose put Weapons into the hands of any to divide Churches but the means you take to resist the Truth will furnish those that list to make use of them wiâ— Weapons to fill the Church with Error and Siâ— till it becomes as filthy as Rome it self 10. Therefore though you would argue uâ— falsly into great inconveniencies we may be â—uiâ— it upon your selves from what you maintain â— and argue thus If communion may be helâ— with them that disown the practice of laying on of hands then with them that disown anotheâ— Principle of the Doctrine of Christ and so â— third and them that adore two Gods the truâ— God and a dumb Idol sinful Marriages thâ— Christ is a meer created man and onely a Goâ— made as Moses and David was and sinful swearing Then may we not break communion though all Rome's trash and filth should be brought in And where will this kind of reasoning run you at last Here ends their Questions grounded upon their second Hypothesis The third follows with our Answers to them Quest 23. But if you shall say Laying on of hands is reasoned by the Scripture Heb. 6. to be a Doctrine of Christ and a Foundation-Doctrine and therefore though some Opinions may be called Foundation-Doctrines without warrant yet that doth not hinder but you may call a Doctrine so when you have â— Warrant as you have for this and therefore if 〈◊〉 differ from you in denying a Fundamental Doctrine you can have no communion with us We demand How you can infallibly infer your â—ractice from this Text Heb. 6. if you do but conâ—â—der first That there are many learned men of the Church of England who though they practise layâ—â— on of hands upon all their Members as you do 〈◊〉 as you so they use their endeavours to prove â—h a practice from hence yet Dr. Hamond as â—â—arned and Judicious as most of that Way and as 〈◊〉 read in the Customs of the Primitive Times 〈◊〉 us in his Annotations upon that place that the laying on of hands there spoken of is understood for a laying on of hands upon such as had fallen after Baptism which was done to signifie their Restoration to the Church And this he further proves from Paul's advice to Timothy 1 Tim. 5.22 where he is not speaking of any other thing but Church-Censures as how that an Elder should not be accused but by two or three Witnesses vers 19. that those that sin should be rebuked before all ver 20. and that he should not in judging Offenders 〈◊〉 any thing by partiality vers 21. neither lay oâ— hands too suddenly upon any that had been censureâ— by the Church and had not truly repented of theiâ— sins lest he thereby became partaker of theâ—â— sins c. We from hence demand Which of all these laying on of hands is intended Heb. 6. and is thâ— which you call a Doctrine of Christ And whether if the laying on of hands spoken of Heb. 6 â— a Doctrine of Christ it is not more safe to understand it for that Doctrine which Christ preached 〈◊〉 practised and his Apostles afterwards practised â— healing the Sick than for those other laying oâ— hands which Christ never taught nor practised â— which the Apostles never practised in conformitâ— a Command but by way of Accommodation to â— laudable Customs of the Jews as they did in diâ— other Cases and if they did practise that oâ— laying on of hands Acts 8. 19. in obedienâ— a Command shew those Commands and also your practice of laying on of hands on all you baptise both Men and Women who have no such Blessing to communicate as they had doth agree with their practice and we shall be satisfied And since we read of divers laying on of hands and divers men are differently perswaded concerning that in Heb. 16. yea and such men whose interest leads them to think of it as you do and yet they cannot reasonably so understand it we demand Whether this is not a sufficient ground for us to doubt whether the laying on of hands practised by you be instituted by God Whether it can reasonably and infallibly be inferred from this Text And if not whether it be not great presumption for you to judge all incommunicable that come not up to you in a matter that is so dubitable Answer 1. Never put an if to it for we do say laying on of hands mentioned Heb. 6. is one Principle of the first Oracles of God and of the Doctrine of Christ one of the first Rudiments â—f Christianity c. You then demand How â—â—om this Text Heb. 6. we can infallibly infer â—ur practice Considering Dr. Hamond as
these Principles of his Doctrine that he cannot be laid the Foundation without these are laid nor can these be laid the foundation without Christ for had not Christ been a Prince and a Saviour able to save all that come unto God by him there had been no foundation for these And whoso shall refuse to submit to these as the Principles of his Doctrine Christ will be no Saviour to them And this is the very sence of the Text to which the whole body of Scripture agrees and consents for the Apostle doth not deny Christ to be the Foundation when he saith these Principles of his Doctrine are nor doth he deny these are when he saith Christ is 1 Cor. 3.11 12. as you absurdly argue And who knows not that knows any thing in Christianity that he that falls away from one of these foundation-Principles viz. the Resurrection of the Dead falls from Christ and denies him to be the foundation If Christ be not risen your faith is vain you are yet in your sins 1 Cor. 15.17 Then those cannot be denied to be the foundation but Christ must be denied also 5. But then when you leave arguing and query again Whether this be not the sence of the Text when the Author says Heb. 6. he would â—oâ— lay again the foundation of Repentance and the foundation of Faith and the foundation of the Doctrine of Baptisms and the foundation of Laying on of hands c. Here now you say the Author himself says these are the foundation as stoutly and as confidently as you denied them so to be before and these he saith he will not lay again Not laying again the foundation of Repentance c. Heb. 6.1 but will go on to perfection though we doubt not but he intended no less but that Christ was the chief Corner-stone the foundation of all these Principles and first Rudiments of Christianity He then concludes that they ought not to lay the foundation again but to leave them and to go on to perfection and if they did not go on unto perfection but fall from the foundation they had laid there would be no renewing them again unto Repentance no laying the foundation the second time And then you argue again If then the faith and obedience mentioned Heb. 6. be the Gold Silver and precious Stones that we build upon this foundation according to 1 Cor. 3.12 and not the foundation it self c. If it be as you say is not laying on of hands which is among them neither Gold Silver nor a precious Stone If not it must be Wood Hay Stubble and yet you say the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says it is a Foundation but it is the Foundation we say with Jesus Christ himself being the Chief Corner-stone on which the Christian Church is built Ephes 2.20 Then it follows except this foundation be laid all and every part of it the House can never be though where the foundation is laid there are other things without which the House may be though not so well and compleatly be And in like manner we say This Foundation Heb. 6. and every Principle of it the belief and practice of is absolutely necessary to the being of Gods House and yet there are other things the belief and practice of is necessary to the further edification of Gods House without which it cannot so well be And since here we seem in some sort to agree you had done well if you had told us what in your opinion those things are without which the House of God can never be seeing you say that Repentance and Faith c. are no parts of the foundation of Christianity and how Christ can be laid the Foundation and those Principles and Foundations mentioned Heb. 6. neither believed nor practised But not to dwell any longer on this our answer to your last demand in this Question is That the House cannot be except the Foundation be laid in whole not in part and laying on of hands on all baptised Disciples being one Principle of the Foundation must be necessary to its being without which a Church rightly constituted can never be And this we have proved whether you will believe it or no. And therefore we are not guilty of Schism in making a Separation from you Quest 26. We demand Why that laying on of hands Heb. 6. which you say is called a foundation may not be figuratively understood for the holy Spirit which was given thereby and which they were said to partake of vers 4. the Gift whereof was a great support to the profession of the Christian Faith and for that reason the Doctrine of the Spirit might there be understood for one of the Doctrines of Christ which he taught his Disciples once and again before his departure from them We demand why may not this be so since the Scripture doth usually speak after this manner putting the Cup for the Wine contained in it and the Bread and Wine for the Body and Blood of Christ which are but the means by which the Body and Blood of Christ are commemorated in like manner men are said to be Enemies to the Cross of Christ when they slight those advantages that acrue to the world which he obtained by his suffering thereupon And whether that laying on of hands Heb. 6. may not by the same figure of speaking be put for the reception of the Spirit which was so necessary to the first establishing a Christian Church Heb. 2.3 4. How shall we escape if we neglect so great Salvation which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him God also bearing them witness both with signs and wonders and with divers miracles and gifts of the holy Ghost acding to his own will Answer 1. Before you said Laying on of hands was no foundation and now here you demand Why that laying on of hands Heb. 6. which we say is called a Foundation may not figuratively be understood for the holy Spirit that was given thereby We perceive you would be content it should be nothing or any thing but what it is said by the Spirit of God to be And again you demand Why this may not be so seeing the Scripture doth usually speak after this manner putting the Cup for the Wine contained in it and the Bread and Wine for the Body and Blood of Christ which are but the means by which the Body and Blood of Christ are commemorated 2. Well for Argument-sake what if we should say it may be so understood We hope you will not say Though we are to take the Wine for the Cup that the Cup is not by institution to be used as a decent and necessary means to convey the Wine to our mouths that so we may drink the Wine And so though the Bread and Wine be taken for the Body and Blood of Christ and are but the means to commemorate his Body and Blood yet we hope you
that say Christ is the Foundation and those Principles cannot be a Foundation nor no part of the Foundation of Christianity will not be against it if some of us do say that Christ being the Chief Corner-stone in that Foundation Heb. 6. and so that text Prov. 9.1 may allude to seven 2. And pray is there not as good a harmony and analogy between Prov. 9.1 Heb. 6.1 and Ephes 2.20 as you can have ground of proof from Numb 18.19 22 23. and Deut. 34.9 That the Apostles in divers cases laid on Hands not in conformity to a Command but by way of accommodation to the laudable Customs of the Jewes as in your 23d Question you do 3. You go about to prove from those places and conclude the Apostles did so but who do you know either by Printing or Preaching undertake to prove that laying on of hands is Commanded or is a Duty to be practised from Prov. 9.1 as you do to prove the other from those places mentioned above something might be offered from thence as is aforesaid and by way of illustration Then is your talk but idle about Romes seven Sacraments and the twelve Foundations of Jerusalems Wall and your Lesbian Rule for who would make the Rule conform to the Work more than you which have built your house irregularly and crooked and so would if you could tell how have the Word which is the Rule conform to your Work Quest 38. And whereas the Scripture tells us of several laying on of hands and we have oftentimes demanded how you prove that the laying on of hands as practised by you is that spoke of in Heb. 6. you answer if we would have a proof in so many words that saith such a laying on of hands as you practise is there mentioned we must seek one our selves for you have none then we demand whether you arâ— not very uncharitable to exclude any from the Communion of Gods Church because they cannot see that to be a Duty which you have no plain Text for the proof of by your own Confession Answer 1. As often as you have demanded how we prove that the laying on of hands we practise is that meant Heb. 6. so often you have been answered but you may well blush for shame that so falsly render what we have said in this matter Do we say as you conclude that we have no plain Text to prove laying on of hands to be a Duty where or when did any of us ever say so You quote indeed Gods Oracle and Christs Doctrine page 52. but 't is page the 53. and there let the most prejudiced Reader use but reason see and judge whether you are not most injurious to the truth and us and let any impartial Reader weigh well what is said before in that Book and they will find we have sufficiently proved that the laying on of Hands on baptised Believers as such is that laying on of hands mentioned Heb. 6. there said to be a Foundation-Principle 2. It is true there is no Text that doth say in so many words that that laying on of hands Heb. 6. is the laying on of hands to heal the sick nor that to set men apart to Office in the Church nor that it is Laying on of Hands on baptised Believers What then Christ saith Go teach all Nations baptizing them Matth. 28.19 And the Scripture mentions several Baptisms and there be some that deny Baptism of Water where have you a Text that in so many words will say That the Baptism of Water which you practise is the Baptism-Christ commanded Mat. 28.19 You must confess you have none and can it be fairly honestly concluded that therefore you have no plain Text for the proof of your practice as you do by us let the Reader consult Gods Oracle and Christs Doctrine from page 44. to page 54. where it is sufficiently proved That the laying on of hands mentioned Heb. 6. is the laying on of hands on baptised Believers practised by the Apostles Acts 8.17 and 19.6 Then are we not uncharitable though we exclude you from the Communion of Gods Church because you do not do your Duty which we have plain Texts and sound Reason for the proof of Quest 39. And whereas you say the Apostles practice must expound the 6th of the Hebrews in this case as well as in Water-Baptism we answer so it shall But then where did they lay hands on Women and where did they Command laying on of hands in the Name of the Lord Jesus as they did in Baptism Acts 12.8 Acts 10.47.48 and where did they lay hands ON any after they had received the gifts of the Spirit but we do find they Baptized them afterwards I and Commanded such to submit to it in the Name of the Lord Jesus produce us the like Instances and you say something Answer If the Apostles practice shall expound Heb. 6. as well as in the case of Baptism Then have you never a Text in all the Scripture that will in so many words say Christ meant Water-baptism when he saith Go teach all Nations baptizing them but must expound the Commission by their practice and then how unworthily have you done by the Truth concluding as you do in the 38. Question But then instead of doing what you say the Apostles practice shal expound you leave the matter and ask where they laid hands on Women Why we told you that before you may read Acts 8. and then you ask where they Commanded laying on of hands in the Name of Christ We will leave that to you to determine in whose Name the Apostles did it and commanded it then you ask where did they lay on hands on any after they received the gifts of the Spirit though we have answered this twice before but you never spoke one word to that Case you so falsly render and then as falsly conclude that we confess we have no plain Text for the proof of laying on of hands but bid us produce the like Instances and we say something Suppose there be not the like Instances to be produced in all occasional Circumstances or otherwise in Baptism oâ— Water as is in those Principles of Faith aâ—â— Repentance will all that can be said for thâ— Baptism of Water be nothing except theâ— can be produced is many Instances agreeing â— all respects to Baptism as agrees in expressneâ— of terms to Repentance and Faith if so anâ— if Baptism of Water be no Duty except as 〈◊〉 foresaid you will not be able nor none else to give such proof for water Baptism nor some other practice you will own to enforce the duâ—â— of it on any that shall oppose you VVâ— having said then so much for laying on of hand as you will never be able to un-say from Scripture or Reason nor can answer except it bâ— by granting it to be by Scripture proved a Foundation-Principle of Christs Doctrine and accordingly submit to it upon Christs terms anâ—
by no rule can be refused but ought to be maintained and held with you 5. But we say whatever some have practised and professedly agreed that you are not Churches nor Church Members rightly constituted because you have not yet laid all the principles of the foundation but are wanting in some one if not more of the first rudiments of Christianity as you have confessed laying on of Hands to be We therefore refuse Communion with you by the above-mentioned rules in our Answer to your 8th Question Quest 11. But if you shall deny you have so owned them then we demand whether you that are under laying on of Hands do not daily receive such into your Communion that have been converted and baptized by those not under laying on of Hands without taking an account of their Faith or baptizing them again If it shall be answered you do so receive them because they had confessed their Faith and were baptized before then we demand whether such as you so receive were converted by or made their confession to and received their baptism from the Church or the World If you say they were the Church how dare you separate from them you own to be Gods Church though less perfect If you say they were the World they made their confession to and did receive their baptism from then shew us whenever God intrusted the world with or otherwise how the world came by a power to take a Confession of Faith and to administer a lawful Baptism If you shall say they that Baptized them you so receive were neither the Church nor the World then shew us a middle state of men that are intrusted with the lawful and due Administration of Gods Ordinances that are neither the Church nor the World if not doth not this practice of yours declare you own those for a Church of Christ that are not under laying on of Hands c. Answer 1. We confess that we which are under laying on of hands have received to laying on of hands and then to Communion some from you not under laying on of hands nor did we take account of their Faith nor baptize them again because we were satisfied in both not inquiring who converted them thinking that not material so they were converted 2. To your next demand we say They were neither Baptized by the Church nor the World but by Disciples and therefore we dare to separate from you though not from them that God owns for his Church though they should be less perfect 3. To your third demand we say Men and Women may be converted and baptized and yet they that convert and baptize them neither the Church nor the World 4. Philip Asts 8. converted and baptized the Samaritans and the Eunuch but Philip was neither the Church nor the World But you will say Philip was a Member and a Deacon of the true Church 't is true he was but then Apollos who taught diligently the things of the Lord at Ephesus and elsewhere and it s beyond a supposition to say the twelve Disciples Acts 19. were baptized by him but if not by him by some other whose attainments were no more than his and he if he did not baptize them might as lawfully as teach the things of the Lord and by as good authority might Baptize them as they that did if he did not and he was neither the Church nor a Member rightly Constituted for he at that time knew only the Baptism oâ— John Acts 18.25 5. So the Men and Women Philip Baptized at Samaria were not a Church complete in their constitution though they had confessed their sins believed and were baptized but were thereby made materials fit and framed ready to be put into the Building which the Apostles Peter and John were sent by the rest of the Apostles from Jerusalem to do who prayed and laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost Acts 8.14 then were they all Baptized by one Spirit into one Body according to 1 Cor. 12.13 before which they were not a Church nor Church-members according to right and true Church-constitution nor were they the World because they were Believers baptized So in like manner the twelve Disciples Paul found it Ephesus Acts 19. were not a Church because they were not baptized by that one Spirit into one Body nor were they and Apollo's the World because they were Believers baptized they are said to be Disciples Acts 19.1 6. Then is there a middle-state of men that were neither the Church nor the World that were entrusted with the lawful due Administrations of some of God's Ordinances as Apollos who taught and baptized or if he did not baptize yet some other did no more authorized than he and if one might lawfully an hundred might by the same rule that were in no other capacity than he 7. Then doth not our practice in receiving some that you have converted and baptized as afore declare we own you for Churches that are not under laying on of hands 8. And whereas you again demand Whether it was not agreed on at a general Meeting of Elders That such as believe and are baptized were in the account of the Scripture to be estimated a Church We say we know of no general Meeting of Elders where any such thing was ever agreed though we are apt enough to believe that at a meeting of some Elders there have been such non-scriptural agreements made 9. But such agreements you speak of make work for Repentance let them be made by whom they will and well may it be said of those Elders that make such agreements as was once said of the Hebrew Church they have need that one teach them again which be the first Principles of the Oracles of God Heb. 5.12 10. And to your demand Whether it hath not been permitted by and practised among us that those which are under laying on of Hands may and do lawfully marry with those that are not under laying on of Hands We say it hath been so permitted and practised and since from thence you demand Whether this was not and is not esteemed by us a marrying in the Church and in the Lord We say that it is not a marrying in the Church though we say it may be a marrying in the Lord since Believers baptized may be out of the World and in the Lord though not a right and true Church-state constituted according to the pattern Christ appointed The Samaritans that believed and were baptized and Apollos and those twelve Disciples mentioned afore were in the Lord yet not a Church as hath been shewed Thus you see we do not own you a Church in the Lord therefore you may spare your last demand Whether it be not prodigiously absurd to own you a Church in the Lord till we do own you a Church in the Lord and yet deny you a Church in the Lord. And whereas you say you have Members fiâ— to make us husband wives Truly not