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
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
and do not understand laying on of hands to be your duty according to the will of God to submit to 3. That if you did understand as aforesaid laying on of hands to be according to the will of God your duty you would do it 4. And you being thus qualified deâ—and whether you ought not to be esteemed aâ—â—â—urch of Christ These things premised we now answer 1. How can you be ignorant that laying on of hands is your duty to do when one of you and one that is esteemed eminent among you for parts and knowledge yea and one of the chief if not the alone Author of your Search did not very long since receive laying on of hands upon the same ground and to the same end we practise it giving of it first under his own hand as is still to be seen 2. Can he then be ignorant that laying on of hands is his duty to do according to the will of God when he shall submit to it as to one of the first Rudiments of Christianity Either he did submit with understanding or he offered the Sacrifice of Fools which know not what they do or did he design to deceive the Brethren that administred Prayer and laying on of hands upon him that so he might be the better able being now admitted a Member of a Congregation under laying on of hands and with the less suspition to undermine that part of the Foundation on which the House was built To say he did as Fools do would be too saucy a reflection to say he received laying on of hands designedly would proclaim that action of his rather Jesuitical than Christian and conclude him notorious for Hypocrisie 3. How can it be thought he should not understand prayer and laying on of hands to be a foundation-Principle of the Doctrine of Christ when he hath more than once in the presence of many people confess'd it so to be and at length confest it under his hand submited to the practise thereof as one of the first Rudiments to use his own terms of Christianity 4. But suppose he nor you understand not laying on of hands to be your duty according to the will of God will it follow that therefore you ought to be esteemed a Church of Christ rightly and duely constituted c. We believe that there are many that sprinkle their Children whose Confession of Sin and Profession of Faith in Christ we and you can own that you have so much Charity for that did they believe it to be the duty of Believers only to be baptized and not Children they would submit to Baptism themselves and never sprinkle noâ— own sprinkling of Babes more Will this give you sufficient ground to esteem them a Church of Christ You will say No And why no Because they are not baptized according to the will of God and Baptism is one Principle oâ— the Doctrine of Christ Heb. 6.2 Even so say we having so much Charity for some of you that did you understand laying on of hands to be your duty to submit to according to the will of God you would do it yet may you not be esteemed a right constituted Church though you have obeyed one Principle of the Doctrine of Christ more than they which sprinkle their Babes and are right in Faith and Repentance because you are not under laying on of hands which also is one Principle of Christs Doctrine Heb. 6.1 2. Ignorance will be no excuse where Knowledge may be had we may not own you a true constituted Church for your Ignorance 5. If you be ignorant that laying on of handâ— is your duty to submit to where is the fault Not in God He giveth liberally and upbraidetâ— not Jam. 1.5 nor in his VVord that is able tâ— make a man wise to Salvation through faith iâ— Christ Jesus 2 Tim. 3.15 Is it not written iâ— the Scriptures of Truth and hath it not beeâ— asserted both by preaching and printing as you your selves know and say Insomuch that the Light of this Truth had you not rejected it might have shined into your hearts long ere this day and you brought to the knowledge of the mind of Christ If they have not enlightened you who knows since no answer hath been given by you to those Books wherein Laying on of Hands hath been asserted especially * See Gods Oracle and Christs Doctrine p. 91. considering that you have been invited to answer them with a promise that the mistake and error should be acknowledged when you should prove laying on of hands to be no Principle of Christs Doctrine 6. You do not onely seem to plead ignorance but you give us to understand that you are resolved to believe do and suffer what from time to time shall be made known unto you c. further than your present attainments The words are good words it 's true but how can they agree with your practice For from before the time we departed from you down to this day you have been constant and unwearied opposers of laying on of hands speaking evil of the way disputing publickly against it and now lastly make opposition in your Questions for Conscience-sake as you pretend with scurrilous and taunting expressions as in several places doth appear which makes it not easie to be believed that if you are ignorant you desire to understand or understanding resolve to do as you say you will 7. Will resolving to do the Will of God when known in a fundamental give you the esteem of a Church of Christ rightly Constituted if you then it will give others we hope in your eyes the like esteem that are short of you in one principle of Christs Doctrine as you are of us in another and if so then ought you to esteem those in the Presbyterian and Independant way especially those of them that believe Christ died for all as you do between whom there is no fundamental difference but in Baptism of Water and that only too about the subject and manner of Baptizing and no doubt but they are as ready to attest their resolution to own and submit to Baptism as Believers or any other thing whatsoever shall from time to time be made known to them according to the will of God as you are or can be 8. And whereas you say you are not only resolved to believe and do but also to suffer c. Your actions some of you and those some none of the meanest for place and parts will rather speak the contrary witness their freeing of themselves from the yoke of Suffering by sinful swearing out-living their Testimony for Christ preferring the world and their interest therein above his righteous Cause 9. We then have cause to doubt whether you are ignorant as you insinuate and so resolved as you say but if you are we thus answer your demand That it is not any Peoples resolving to believe do and suffer what hereafter shall be made known to them c. but the knowing
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
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
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-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-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
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
â—earned and Judicious as any in the Church of England and as well read in the Customs of the â—rimitive Times tells us in his Annotations â—â—on that place That the laying on of hands there â—â—ken of is understood for a laying on of hands upâ—â— such as had fallen after Baptism 2. It 's notably done and well thought on seeing help fails you from the Scriptures to see whether the learned judicious and well-read Doctors in Mystery Babylon can lend you any But pray doth not this learned judicious and well-read Doctor tell you no where in no place of his Annotations That the baptising of Infants was a primitive Practice or that it came in near those Times by good authentick Orthodox Authority If he doth pray do you consider how you can infallibly infer from Mat. 28.19 the Baptism of Believers as you practise it since so learned a judicious and well-read Doctor was in his Judgement and Practice for sprinkling of Babes and no doubt but he so learned and wise hath something to say for his Practice 3. But this say you he further proves froâ— Paul's advice to Timothy 1 Tim. 5.2 where he â— not speaking of any other thing but Church-Censures Look again the whole Chapter thorow iâ— that a Church-Censure v. 18 19. if not theâ— that v. 22. may not be a laying on of hands suddenly upon any that had been censured by thâ— Church And this will appear more plain 〈◊〉 comparing the third Chapter with this theâ— may it be as fairly and as wisely concludeâ— That this laying on of hands which Timothy mâ—â— not be sudden in was for Ordination of Bishop and Deacons rather than a laying on of hanâ— upon such as had fallen after Baptism for where read you of such a laying on of hands in all the Scripture either taught or practised by any the deep silence thereof makes us we can neither credit the Doctor nor you in this matter though he be learned judicious and well read in the Primitive Customs But if what he saith were true yet will it do you no service because if such a laying on of hands were then practised neither you nor Dr. Hamond to help you nay take Victor and the third Council of Carthage with you also can prove such a laying on of hands to be that mentiâ—â—ed Heb. 6. which is there said to be a Principle of the Doctrine of Christ a Foundation-Principle But no more in this place to such a Scriptureless-notion 4. To your second consideration we shall say no more yet than what we have already said in answer to your former printed Questions where this is stated and by us answered See Gods Oracle and Christs Doctrine p. 39 40. But we grant You do read of a laying on of hands on the Sick but how delivered in the Commission we shall hereafter examine And you do read of laying on of hands to ordain Officers and of laying on of hands by which men received the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit But why do you not make up just half a dozen but leave out that now you brought in with the rest in your printed Questions before mentioned Luk. 21.12 But the fifth you say is that laying on of hands which was afterwards call'd Confirmation because by the Gifts of the holy Ghost the Christians were confirmed in the truth of the Gospel and though those Gifts ceased yet they continued the practice of it in the Church of Rome and many other Protestant Churches to this day 5. Here you confess that the laying on of hands mentioned in Act. 18.17 19.6 is practised by the Church of Rome and many Protestant Churches down from the primitive times to this day May we not think it strâ—â—ge if it be so that you should oppose and refuse to practise that which so many learned judicious and well-read Doctors as have been all along in the Church of Rome and many Protestant Churches do practise but rather against many take the private opinion of some few who by their opinion if true do not contradict nor oppose that laying on of hands mentioned by you in the fifth of your numerations considering withall that the Doctors in Rome and in many Protestant Churches do not consent to such a practice as laying on of hands when they receive any that are fallen after Baptism at this day 6. In your next you seem to thrust in by head and shoulders another sort of laying on of hands or if not another ground the Apoâ—â—les and primitive Churches had to practise the former you numerate than the Authority of Christs Doctrine when you say It was practised by them by way of accomodation to the Jewish Customs as you say appears in Moses laying his hands upon Joshua Numb 18.19 22 23. Deut. 34.9 and so Jacob blessed the Children of Joseph by laying his hands upon them Doth it appear from those places and passages you quote that the Apostles and primitive Churches did practise laying on of hands by way of Accommodation to the Jewish Customs We think when you consider better what you say you will not be of that mind For may it not is well be concluded That the Apostles practised the Baptism of Water by way of Accommodation to the Jewish Customs as appears because the Jews among their Customs had divers washings Heb. 9.10 And is not this as good a proof of the one as yours is of the other 7. And what though the people brought their Children to Christ for him to bless Mat. 19.13 in observation of a Jewish Custom and the Ruler of the Synagogue did the like Mark 5.23 And what if it should be granted that Christ did lay his hands on them to confer Blessings on the one and to heal the other by way of Accommodation to the Jewish Customs Will it follow therefore that his Apostles after his passionâ— when he had blotted out the hand-writing oâ— Ordinances nailing them to his Cross Col. 2â— 14. Ephes 2.15 and after his Resurrection when he had given them their Commission Mat. 28.19 20. yea and after he was ascended and had sent them according to his Promise the Spirit of Truth which should guide them into all Truth should practise laying on of hands by way of Accommodation to the Jewish Customs and call it a Principle of Christs Doctrine Heb. 6.1 Surely no man in his right mind will so conclude But leaving this too as a Scriptureless-notion we will proceed 8. You then demand Which of all these layings on of hands is intended Heb. 6. and is that which we call a Doctrine of Christ You have been told long since which laying on of hands is intended Heb. 6. that it is that practised by the Apostles Act. 8.17 19.6 for which let the Reader consult Gods Oracle and Christs Doctrine from page 41. to page 54. where this Question is stated by you and answered yea and clearly proved to be that laying on of hands on baptised Believers as such and
will allow us to use the Bread and Wine as the means to commemorate the Lords Body and Blood and not reject it and cast it off as useless So in like manner if laying on of hands be a figurative speech and understood for the Spirit that was given thereby we hope you must allow that laying on of hands ought to be used and practised as the means by which the Spirit was obtained and is given as well as you will the Cup and the Bread and Wine in your figurative instances and we desire no more 3. But we further say That laying on of hands is not figurative but is a plain practical Ordinance joyned with solemn and fervent Prayer to the most High in the Name of Christ for his holy Spirit that according to his faithful and never-failing promise them that believe and are baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ might receive the Spirit by which as the means the Spirit was given to some of the Baptised in the primitive times in more than an ordinary manner and was necessary to the establishing Christian Churches than which extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit given then is a confirmation to us now that not onely the other Principles of the Doctrine of Christ are to be believed and practised but this in debate also as one Principle of the Foundation of Christianity God having confirmed them all to be the Word spoken and Foundation-Doctrine taught by the Lord bearing witness to them both with Signs and Wonders and divers Miracles and Gifts of the holy Ghost according to his own will and then how shall we escape if we neglect so great Salvation Heb. 2.3 4. Quest 27. If you shall say That simply the Act and Ceremony it self as you practise it is put for a Foundation Doctrine of Christ then we demand Whether the Apostles ever taught any thing for a Doctrine of Christ whereof we do not read Christ did either preach or practise before his Ascension And if you say That Christ did teach and practise laying on of hands upon all Disciples both Men and Women before his Ascension or any thing from which such a practice may be inferred pray shew it and we will believe it Answer 1. We say That Prayer and Laying on of hands as we practise is a Principle of the Doctrine of Christ one of the first Rudiments of Christianity But you demand Whether the Apostles ever taught any thing for a Doctrine of Christ whereof we do not read Christ did either preach or practise before his Ascension 2. What is it to the purpose when Christ taught laying on of hands whether before his Passion or after or before his Ascention or after by his Spirit It sufficeth he did teach it for it is one of the Principles of his Doctrine And can it be a Principle of his Doctrine and he not teach it We are certain it cannot And taught it was likewise by his Apostles for a Doctrine-Principle and an Oracle of God Heb. 5.12 6.1 and they did not only teach but practise it also Act. 8.17 19.6 And do you think they would both teach and practise it and never receive it from Christ but must invent it themselvs We cannot believe you do so think Then was it taught by Christ and taught and practised by his Apostles as a foundation-Principle And that sufficeth us and might you if you were willing and obedient See this answered before in Christs Doctrine p. 58. Quest 28. If laying on of hands upon all baptised Believers be to be practised in your sence as an indispensable Duty then we demand Why all the other Principles in Heb. 6. should be expresly and particularly commanded believed or practised in Christs time and not this as it is practised by you if there be that weight in it as you lay upon it c. Answer 1. If laying on of hands say you upon all baptised Believers be to be practised in our sence as an indispensable Duty then you demand Why all the other Principles Heb. 6. should be expresly commanded believed and practised in Christs time and not this as it is practised by us if there be that weight in it as we lay upon it We told you above that it matters not when Christ taught laying on of hands whether in the time of his Life or not And whereas you say That Faith and Repentance the Baptism of Water the Resurrection of the Dead and eternal Judgement were in Christs time plainly taught Pray where did Christ in the time of his Life before his Ascension or after it either so plainly command baptising with water Though we do not deny but there was both Faith Repentance the Resurrection and eternal Judgement plainly enough taught according to that Dispensation and so they were before Christs Incarnation by the Prophets of old nor do we deny but grant that there was Authority enough from Heaven for the Baptism of Water then practised and that there was them that did fore-tell that the holy Spirit should be afterwards given and so it was by the Prophet Joel all which were as preparatives to what afterward Christ should command and teach when he had suffered and was risen and all power in Heaven and Earth was given unto him Mat. 28.18 So John was sent to prepare the way and he taught the Baptism of Repentance saying They should believe on him that was to come so that between both the Faith and the Baptism then and that after Christ was come had suffered ascended and the holy Ghost was given there must needs be a vast difference therefore as you affirm Paul baptised the twelve Disciples he found at Ephesus again because they were onely baptised into John's Baptism who as was his Baptism so was his Doctrine of Faith and Repentance John verily baptised with the Baptism of Repentance saying to the People That they should believe on him which should come after him that is on Christ Jesus Act. 19.4 From whence or from which Dispensation we do not take the Authority of the Foundation-Doctrine of Christ no not of Repentance Faith Baptisms Laying on of hands Resurrection and eternal Judgement but from Christ dead risen and ascended to the Father from whom he sent his holy Spirit to confirm them all to be his Doctrine on which he hath built his Church Yet might these Principles be nay doubtless were left and commanded by Christ before his Ascension which they better understood and put in practice when they were endowed with power from on high Acts 2. by the Spirit of Truth which Christ sent to them to guide them into all Truth John 16.13 and of them whom Christ commanded by word of mouth to observe and teach these Principles have we received them as the Doctrine of the Lord Jesus of which Doctrine laying on of hands on baptised Believers â— such is one Principle taught also by the Apostles and by them practised Acts 8.17 19. â— And if we
then you will not onely say but do something Quest 40. Again whereas you have both Preached 〈◊〉 Printed that you cannot prove laying on of handâ— as you practise it any otherwise than by Inferenâ— and Deductions how can you be so daringly confident as to call those things Gods Oracles and Essentials of Religion that are but your interpreâ—â—tions of Scripture unless with the Church of Rome you will say the Church cannot err Not but that we believe many profitable truths may be collected and infer'd by consequence from Scripture And Conjectures as one well observes if mannerly observing their distance and not impudently obtruding themselves for certainties deserve if not to be received to be considered So that if Laying on of Hands in your sense should be a truth yet it being but conjecturally so We Query why it should be advanced into the number of those express Duties which are essential to Salvation and Church Communion Answer How can you be so daringly impudent as to forge such an untruth and say that we have both Preached and Printed that we cannot prove laying on of hands as we practise it otherwise then by Inferences and Deductions where is such a thing Printed or who ever Preached so that hath not turned back to his vomit in some degree or hath not out-lived his love to those Principles he had received and was once built on May you not be ashamed of this when we have again and again by Printing Preaching and otherwise proved laying on of hands as practise it to be a Foundation-Principle of Christs Doctrine by plain and uninterpreted Scripture and without Inferences and Deductions as fully as any Duty that is practical can be proved without them and was never refuted by you yet how then can you stand in the face of God and his Congregation when you dare do thus Had there been upon you the feeling thoughts of those Texts Rev. 21.8 22.15 you would not have brought forth such a Monster into the world it being therefore false what you say we dare be so confident as to call laying on of hands as we practise it one of the first Principles of the Oracles of God and an essential of Religion without saying with the Church of Rome the Church cannot err we will leave that for you to say and with as much manners and modesty as the authority of so sacred an Ordinance will permit Laying on of Hands then is a Truth and such a one as is by Christ and his Apostles not by us advanced as you call it into the number of those express Duties which are Essential to Church-Constitution and Church-Communion FINIS POST-SCRIPT SInce the Searchers for Schism did direct their Questions to the Baptized Congregations under Laying on of Hands and did expect an Answer from them as appears by the latter end of their Epistle it may by some be thought strange that I should undertake to Answer them seing they were propounded to the above-said Congregations in general That therefore which hath moved me thereunto was partly the importunity of some Friends it being some considerable time after I saw their Questions ere I had any thoughts to offer any thing in Answer to them at least in so publick a manner thinking it was more the Concern of some other of my Brethren to engage now than mine because I had once and again appeared in Print according to my ability in answer to those gainsayers and opposers of laying on of hands but they being silent whose Zeal for Truth should as I might well hope and expect have put them with much forwardness upon the work together with the report that went abroad how many young and weak Christians were somewhat moved and stumbled others that have declined in some sort the Truth did boast and were encouraged put me upon this third Encounter being not well able to forbear having to this day praised be the Lord my God remaining in me some love to Christ and to that sacred and precious Word of his viz. Laying on of Hands yea and to the souls of them who are ready to be tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine and among the rest by the blast which was blown from the Bellows of those Questions which their Authors pretend are for Conscience sake but however whether they were for Conscience-sake or for Strife and Contention this I can truly say they are answered with good conscience to God and love to the Authors of them that God may be glorified by their obedience and by the establishing and confirmation of the Churches in the Doctrine of the Lord Jesus from part of which at least it both hath been and still is the more it is to be lamented the endeavour of some especially the Authors of these Questions who not only now but heretofore have laboured to trouble the peace of them which have obeyed that form of Doctrine which Christ taught and was delivered by his Apostles to the primitive Saints But let my ends and aims in what I have writ be what I say they are yea and had I the Pen of never so ready and exquisit a Writer yet must I not expect nor do but to be smitten for my love and pains by them who bend their tongue like their bow for lyes but are not valiant for the Truth upon the Earth it being too commonly seen that he which departs from iniquity makes himself a prey when he that runs with a multitude to do evil shall have honour and praise but however I am esteemed my comfort is I seek not the honour nor praise of men neither do I fear the slanderous tongues of any mine only end as God knoweth being their soul eternal felicity who shall carp at me be it the Inquirers or others and therefore should they reward me with evil for the good I intend them they will in so doing wrong themselves and not me I will then leave the issue of these Anâ—wers of their Questions to the Lord heartily desiring that Truth and Righteousness were imbraced in sincere love by all them that name the Name of Christ that there may be a departing from Iniquity and Error which is the cause of all Divisions and then and not till then will the Wound be healed Had the Searchers for Schism then considered that their Disobedience to and Errour in a Fundamental-Principle is the cause why those under Laying on of hands can have no Communion with them which I hope this brief Answer to their Questions may help them to see they would not be so irrational to conclude that Schism should be found where Truth is obeyed and walked in but that it is more likely by far to be where Errour and Disobedience dwells and such to be â—â—e Dividers who refuse to obey but no more â—ow only desiring the Lord to make my poor Endeavours a Blessing to the Souls of them and all others and then I have my End VALE