AN ANSWER TO Mr. MORLEYES Firſt Chapter.
THe difference between you and I, as in relation to thoſe two ſorts of laying on of hands, you treated on in your firſt Chapter, viz. about Officers and Sick, is ſo little, that I ſhall at preſent ſay nothing to them, onely methinks you are overſeen in the beginning of this Chapter, in ſaying you would treat of thoſe layings on of hands, which you find in Scripture, and not meddle with any other: and yet there in your naming of them you have left out two, viz. that of the Saints patient ſuffering perſecution from the hands of wicked men, Luke 21.12 and ſecondly, that laying on of hands, ſubjected too in order to the receiving of the gift of the holy Ghoſt, Acts, 8. and alſo becauſe you name one which the Scripture ſpeaks not of in that way which you preach and practice it; and ſo much as to your firſt Chapter. In anſwer to your ſecond Chapter.
The firſt thing I take notice of in your ſecond Chapter, (wherein is onely indeavoured the maintaining of ſuch a2 laying on of hands, as you preach and practice) Ben. is this; (you ſay) for as much as all the doubt lies, concerning baptiſed Believers, ſubjecting themſelves to a laying on of hands, as an Ordinance of Chriſt, which they ought now to be ſound in the practice of: and as your ſpeaking to this particular, you ſay you deſire to uſe plainneſſe of ſpeech, becauſe as you ſay, you are aſſured that the Apoſtle ſpeaks truth, 1 Cor. 14.19. when he ſaith he had rather ſpeak five words to the underſtanding, then ten thouſand in an unknown tongue, and ſo you lay down this which you call a plain poſition, viz. that Baptized Believers, ought to have hands laid on them as Baptized Believers. Thom. Firſt I ſtrange you ſhould pretend to uſe ſo much plainneſs, and yet lay down ſo dark a Poſition; for had I not heard you declare your ſelf by words of mouth, I could hardly have underſtood from your Poſition, whether you do affirm it to be the duty of all Baptized Believers, or not, nor what you had meant by the terms, as, Baptized Believers: but having heard you ſay that you now hold it not to be the duty of all Baptized Believers, but onely ſuch as have faith in it, and ſeeing you have formerly Preached it to be the duty of all baptized Believers, I wonder you ſhould now confine it to ſome, unleſſe it be becauſe you cannot prove the tearm all: but you had as good have ſaid ſtill as you ſaid at firſt: for when (according to your practice) I grant it a duty for ſome believers; I will grant it a duty for all, for if you could but prove it a duty for ſome believers for theſe ends, viz. Firſt, to be put into a furth••capacity to go on to perfection: ſecondly, to compleat their ſubjection: thirdly, to compleat the order of their ſubjection; and fourthly, to demonſtrate love to Jeſus Chriſt, for which ends, you ſay, you do it: it muſt needs be the duty〈◊〉all: for it behoves all to be in a capacity, and to perfect their ſubjection, and the order of it, and to demonſtrate love to Jeſus Chriſt, as well as ſome;3 but I muſt tell you, that faith is not that Root from whence duty ſprings or receives its being; for if it were ſo, that•uty received its being from faith, then whatſoever God commands, if we do not believe it, it is not duty, and ſo no blame for, nor danger in neglect; and on the other hand if we believe Infant Baptiſme, or any thing elſe, it would become duty, if duty received its being from believing; but duty ſprings from another root, and receives its being from other cauſe, viz. from command; for as command receives its being from God, Iohn 12.49.50. ſo duty receives its beginning from command, Eccleſ. 12.13. Fear God and keep his Commandements, for this is the whole duty of man, and performance of duty receives its being from the creature, inabled thereunto by the Creator, as appears, Iſa. 5.2 4. the doing of our duty in point of believing, doth not make another thing duty: onely Faith proceeding, renders the following action ſeaſonably done; ſo by this time I hope you ſee your miſtake, in ſaying it is not their duty, except they have faith in it, and how little it will avail you for the proof of your practice. Now to the proof you bring to prove your dark Poſition. Ben. You ſay you will give us clear Scripture for the confirmation thereof, you will give us evident reaſons; and ſubſtantial pure Scripture conſequences; in the firſt place you bid us caſt our eyes upon that you call a full Text, Acts 8. from the 17. where we ſhall ſee Philip Preaching the things concerning the Kingdome of God, and the name of Jeſus; and how they that believed were baptized both men and women, and how if we pleaſe to read on, we ſhall find that the principal motives, which did induce the brethren for to ſend Peter and John to Samaria for to lay hands on them, were, firſt, becauſe they were Believers: and ſecondly, becauſe they were baptized Believers; and that theſe were the principal motives, you ſay doth plainly appear, from the 14. verſe. The term now you4 ſay carries the very life & ſtrength of the former poſitions as much as if the holy Ghoſt ſhould ſay, Now is a time to ſend ſome faithfull brethren to Samaria, for now they are Believers, now they are baptized, now it is requiſite they ſhould ſubject to laying on of hands; and indeed the very next thing which was done on their parts was, ſubjection to this truth; we do not find any thing in that interval but prayer, and that was on Peter and Johns part, and not on theirs.
Anſwer, that the Samaritans were baptized Believers, it is a truth, and that the conſideration of their having received the word of God, did move the brethren to ſend Peter and John to them, it is true; but that to lay hands on them, was the ſpeciall thing they aimed at, cannot be proved, but rather that which they did in ſpecial aim at, was that they might inſtrumentally poſſeſſe the Samaritans of the gift of the holy Ghoſt, for underſtanding that he was not fallen upon any of them: the firſt thing they did, they praied for them that they might receive the holy Ghoſt, and when they had laid their hands on them, they did receive the holy Ghoſt. From whence it appears, that the holy Ghoſt was the ſpeciall mercy they deſired to poſſeſs them with, and prayer and laying on of hands were but the inſtrumental means they uſed for the attaining of it; and as for the tearm now, it can put neither life nor ſtrength to your poſition, becauſe it is no command, the tearm now onely notes out the time of their hearing the news, which was the ſeaſon in the which they ſent Peter & John, as appears from theſe tearms: now when they heard they ſent: but that the term, now, notes or lays out any injunction upon the Samaritans to come under laying on of hands, in any ſence it is as far from proving, as it is from proving Infants Baptiſm, which is far enough, and therefore you were too forward to call it truth, before you had brought better grounds to prove it.
Secondly, ſay you to the next part of the Poſition that it is to be adminiſtred and ſubjected to next in order unto Baptiſme, is very plaine; it was when they had believed Philip's preaching the things concerning the Kingdome of God, and the name of Jeſus, they were baptized, both men and women; from whence I argue my firſt Argument: If they had not impoſition of hands as Church Officers, nor as ſick parties, then they had it as Baptized Believers, but the former is true, therefore the latter.
Anſwer. In theſe words, you ſay you will prove the next part of your Poſition, viz. that it is to be adminiſtred and ſubjected next in order unto Baptiſme; and yet no part of your Poſition ſpeaks any ſuch thing: but whether it was done next in order unto Baptiſme, or not, it will neither make for you, nor againſt me, ſeeing we differ not much about that: and though you ſay it's being done next to Baptiſme, leads you to this Argument: yet your Argument doth not ſay one word that they had it next to Baptiſme: but ſayes they had it as Baptized Believers: but for anſwer to that more anon: and whereas you render ſome Reaſons, why they had it not, as Church Officers, nor as ſick parties, in Acts 8. I grant you they had it not.
The next Scripture which you ſay, will plainly prove your Poſition, is in Acts 19.12, 5.6. that ſay you which may be gathered from this Text, is, Firſt, that thoſe people were Believers. Secondly, that they were Baptized Believers. Thirdly, that they had laying on of hands after Baptiſme, which ſay you leads you to this ſecond Argument: Thoſe who have laying on of hands next in order unto Baptiſme, they have laying on of hands as Baptized Believers: but thoſe had laying on of hands next in order to Baptiſme: therefore they had laying on of hands as baptized Believers, the latter part of the Major Propoſition may ſeem ſomewhat doubtfull: namely, although they had6 laying on of hands next in order unto Baptiſme: yet ſome may queſtion whether they had it impoſed as baptized Believers: to which I doe argue further — 3. Argument, If they had not laying on of hands, as unbaptized perſons, then they had laying on of hands as baptized perſons: but then they had not laying on of hands as unbaptized perſons, for the Text ſaith, they believed and were baptized, and then they had hands laid on them: ſo that the Concluſion followes, that they had laying on of hands as baptized perſons.
Anſwer in ſpeaking to this your third Argument, I ſhall alſo anſwer to your two Former: for you concerving that a doubt might ariſe from a latter part of the major Propoſition in your 2. Argument: to remove that doubt, you did lay downe this third Argument, in the which you tell us what you mean by termes, as baptized Believer, in your two former Arguments, as alſo in your Poſition: that is as much as to ſay, thoſe who when they have hands laid on them are not unbaptized, but baptized: Receive it as baptiſed Believers, which muſt needs be true: for unbaptiſed perſons cannot have hands laid on them as baptiſed perſons: yet this avails you nothing; for thoſe baptiſed Believers who ſuffer Perſecution from the hands of wicked men, have it as baptiſed Believers, becauſe they are ſuch; and ſo thoſe in Acts 8. who received laying on of hands in order to their receiving the Holy Ghoſt, through which as an inſtrumentall means the Holy Ghoſt was given, received it as baptized Believers.
And now to the laſt Clauſe in the Poſition, That baptized Believers are to ſubject to the adminiſtration of it as baptized Believers this is very clear: as in both theſe Scriptures is made manifeſt. The Samaritans did not reſiſt Peter and Iohn, nor thoſe certaine Diſciples at Epheſus, Paul; which is a very clear demonſtration, that they were convinced7 of the neceſſity of it: Had it not been a truth, but then to yeeld ſubjection to, I am perſwaded they would have adviſed the Apoſtles to have deſiſted from that work, and that becauſe they well knew, that whatſoever was not of Faith, was ſin.
Anſwer, that they were to ſubject to the Adminiſtration of it, as baptiſed Believers, it's granted: becauſe baptiſed Believers: if they ſubject at all, can doe no other but ſubject as baptiſed Believers, which agrees with the ſenſe of your third Argument: yet this makes nothing for it upon that account you practiſe it: And whereas in effect, you ſay they being convinced of the neceſſity of it, moved them to ſubject; I think they were as much convinced of the neceſſity of it as the Apoſtles were, when Chriſt waſhed their feet, who knew not what he intended till after he had done it, as appears, Iohn 13. v. 5. compared with verſe 12, 13, 14, 15. And although Maſter Fiſher ſaith, the Believers, Acts 8. were very Idiots if they ſubjected to that they knew no command for; he might as well have ſaid, the Diſciples of Chriſt were very Idiots, becauſe they let their Maſter waſh their feet, before they knew what he intended, as is clear from Iohn 13.5.12, 13, 14, 15. and indeed I thinke that geſture of laying on of hands in Acts 8. was uſed only as Liberty, and not as Duty, for theſe two Reaſons: Firſt, becauſe there is nothing revealed, that there was any command for that geſture. Secondly, becauſe if it had been duty, it muſt be alwayes uſed as an inſtrument for the receiving the Holy Ghoſt; or elſe when the Holy Ghoſt was given, and no hands laid on before, duty muſt needs be neglected; but we read in the Acts, of five times the Holy Ghoſt was given; and yet but two times hands laid on; it was given in Acts 20. the 4, 8, the 10. and the 19. and onely in the 8. and 19. hands laid on; which makes it appear, it was uſed as a Liberty, and not as Duty, and ſo8 alſo to us, onely command will open a door for duty; and ſuch examples as we can, and it is convenient we ſhould imitate, will open a door for Liberty. But ſome will object and ſay, examples doe bind, becauſe the Apoſtle ſaith, ſo walke as you have us for an example. Anſwer, if you looke upon the Fore-part of theſe words, you ſhall ſee a command in theſe two termes; ſo walke, the following words being doctrinall: but I believe every rationall man will grant that theſe words muſt be taken reſtrictively only to follow them in ſuch things as we can, and it is convenient we ſhould imitate them; for if we ſhould take it generally, viz. to follow them in all things they have left examples, then we muſt caſt out Devils, heale the ſick, cleanſe the Lepers, circumciſe, with many other things; which either we cannot, or elſe it is not convenient we ſhould follow them in: But then ſay you,
Well my friends, was it then a truth, and was it never repealed. I mean laying on of hands upon baptized Believers, we then reaſon further.
4th Argument, That which was once in being a truth, and never yet repealed, remains to this day in truth, in being; but laying on of hands upon baptized Believers, was once a truth in being, and never yet repealed, therefore: that it is not repealed, I thus prove.
5th Argument, That which was once in force, the Scripture making no mention of its repeal, that is not repealed; but the practiſe was once in force, and the Scripture makes no mention of its repeal. Ergo,
Anſwer, according to the ſenſe of your third Argument, I grant you, it was a truth in being, viz. that thoſe which are not unbaptized when hands are laid on them: but baptized, have it as baptized ones, and not as unbaptized ones, though the end may be Inſtrumental to be poſſeſſed of the Holy Ghoſt, as Acts the 8. or to be inſtated into office, as Acts the 6.
9〈1 page missing〉the parts of your Poſition, is in Heb. 6.1, 2. From whence you infer, that thoſe baptized Believers of the Hebr. had once ſubjected to laying on of hands, which you ſay appears from the termes, Leave, and not laying again; the Apoſtle you ſay, doth allude to the builder of a houſe, who having laid his Foundation, is to build higher till he have perfected his work; and that the Apoſtle would have the Believer, who hath begun to doe his duty, to God, to goe on to perfect it; you tell us further, that in Heb. 6.12. a laying on of hands is ſpoken of, and give us three Reaſons, why it was not in the caſe of Church Officers, nor of the ſick; and you ſay not of Perſecution, and then you conclude, That becauſe it is not meant of the three former accounts, though you ſhew no grounds againſt that of Perſecution, then it muſt needs be upon that other, viz. as baptized Believers, and how that this Scripture, Heb. 6.1, 2. is a ſtronger piece of armour, than your Antagoniſts doe imagine, for the bearing of the blame of mens imaginations, and to keep the body of your diſcourſe from being wounded.
Anſwer, that theſe Hebrewes were baptized Believers, and that they had ſubjected to laying on of hands, according to the ſenſe of your three Arguments, though not according to the manner of your practiſe, and that the Apoſtle doth allude to the builder of a houſe, and that the Believer that hath begun ought to goe forward to perfect his duty to God, all theſe I grant according to the ſenſe of your three Arguments, and that the laying on of hands ſpoken of Heb. 6.1, 2. is not meant of Church Officers, nor of the ſick, I grant, but that it is not meat to ſuffer Perſecution I doe not grant; but I ſhall ſay more to that when I come to anſwer to the things we differ about in your laſt Chapter; and then I ſhall ſee whether your ſtrong piece of armour will keep the body of your diſcourſe from being wounded or not.
The next thing you allege for the proof of your Poſition is your Conſequences: that the Church of the Jews and the Church of the Romans, had ſubjected to laying on of hands; for the Church of the Jews, your conſequence is driven from Acts 2.42. From theſe tearmes, They continued in the Apoſtles doctrine, which tearm Doctrine, you compare with that in Hebr. 6.1. and argue thus. That if they continue in the Apoſtles doctrine, then they were in the Apoſtles doctrine: but (ſay you) the former is true: therefore the latter will follow. Secondly, ſay you, if they were in ſubjection to the Apoſtles doctrine, and laying on of hands was a part of the Apoſtles doctrine, then they were in ſubjection to that: but they were in ſubjection to the Apoſtles doctrine, and laying on hands was a part of the Apoſtles doctrine. Ergo. But ſay you, this Concluſion ſome will deny, becauſe we find breaking of bread, and fellowſhip mentioned all in one verſe Act. 2. which you confeſs were doctrins of Chriſt, preached and practiſed in thoſe times, and yet you ſay, they were never part of that you call the Beginning doctrin, Hebr. 6.1, 2. And as for the Church of the Romans you conclude, they were under laying on of hands, becauſe in Romans 6. the Apoſtle tells them how they had obeyed from the heart the form of doctrin, which you apply to Hebr. 6.1. and tell us, that theſe ſix principles are the ſum of all the doctrines of the Goſpell: for (ſay you) all theſe ſeveral duties commanded in the Goſpel, may be reduced to ſome of thoſe principles; as you ſay, you could ſhew if time would permit, and ſo you conclude to ſay no more for the proof of that poſition.
Anſwer, that the tearm Doctrine, in the ſecond of Acts, is the ſame with that in Hebr. 6.1. the grounds you alleage, do not prove; and as for the Minor part of your two Arguments, viz. That Peter in Acts 2. ſpake one word11 about laying on of hands, it is denied, and you brought nothing but your own words to prove it: and in your Anſwer to the objection againſt your Concluſion, you confeſs that breaking of Bread, and Fellowſhip, were doctrines of Chriſt, preached and practiſed in thoſe times; and yet you ſay, they were never part of that you call, the Beginning doctrin, Hebr. 6.1, 2. And yet in your next page, you tell us, that thoſe ſix principles are the ſum of all the doctrins of the Goſpell, and that all thoſe ſeveral duties commanded in the Goſpell, may be reduced to ſome of thoſe principles; but how in one page you can ſhut out breaking of Bread, and Fellowſhip, from being any part of that you call the Beginning doctrine, Hebr. 6. and yet in your next page, join them all together, I know not; but at the leaſt you either forget your ſelf, or els your Judgment altered as you were writing; but ſeeing theſe laſt grounds alleged by you are but conſequences, the life of which (if they have any in them) muſt be fetched from Hebr. 6.1, 2. And becauſe all you have ſaid in this Chapter; according to the ſenſe of your third Argument, ſerves but to prove, that thoſe that have not laying on of hands as unbaptized perſons, have it as baptized perſons, which may be true in the caſe of ſufferings, or when hands are laid on, in order to the Receiving of the Holy Ghoſt: for becauſe in theſe two Caſes of ſubjection to laying on of hands, the parties ſubjecting, do it not as unbaptized, therefore they do it as Baptized; ſo though all you have hitherto ſpoken is hardly worth anſwering, yet I thought good to ſpeak a little to it; that your ſelf and others might ſee the weakneſs & unſoundneſs of it, and ſo much by way of anſwer to what is paſt, viz. Your 1. and 2. Chapter, And as for your third Chapter wherein you ſpeak of the Adminiſtrator: if ever you can prove your practice it ſelf to be warranted from command, our difference about the Adminiſtrator12 will be eaſily ended, till which time, I ſhall ſay no more to your third Chapter. In your fourth Chapter, you lay down theſe four particulars to be the ends wherefore laying on of hands is to be adminiſtred upon Baptized believers.
Firſt, that they may be put into a further capacitie, to go on to perfection; Secondly, that they may compleat their ſubjection, as in relation unto the principles of the foundation; And thirdly, that they may compleat the order of their ſubjection; And fourthly, that they may thereby demonſtrate their love to Jeſus Chriſt.
As to your firſt end you lay down, if your kinde of laying on of hands could be proved by command, as it never hath been yet proved, yet this your end is denied, viz. That laying on of hands doth put any man into a further capacitie to go on to perſection, for theſe Reaſons: becauſe the Text you bring to prove it, Hebr. 6.1, 2. doth not ſpeak, nor hold forth any ſuch ſenſe: as I deſire the Reader will well conſider of; but I ſhall ſay more in order to the explaning of this Text, Hebr. 6. in my anſwer to your laſt chapter. A ſecond Reaſon why laying on of hands doth not put believers into a further capacitie to go on to perfection, is, becauſe not actions, but the indowments of nature, together with the teachings, and commanding part of the Scriptures, do fully capaciat men, not only to begin, but alſo to go on to ſuch perfection, as God requires of any of the ſons of men, as appears, Matth. 25.14, 15, 16, 17, 18. where it appears the noble man, namely Chriſt, called his ſervants, and delivered unto them his goods, and as in Luk 19. ver. 13. ſaid unto them, Occupy till I come; to one he gave five tallents, to another two, to another one, to every one according to his ſeveral abilities, or as every one was capable to improve; the ſecond and the firſt, to their capabilitie did improve their talents; but the third,13 though he was as able to improve one, as the other were to improve five or two, yet did not one action well-pleaſing to his Maſter; From whence, it is clear, that actions do not capaciate men for work, becauſe that this man was in a capacity, and yet had done nothing well-pleaſing to his Maſter; from all which its clear, that the indowments of nature, together with the teachings of God, do fully capaciate men, both to begin, and alſo to finiſh their dutie; and as for the other three ends, if the means you uſe in order to the attaining of them, were commanded by God, viz. Laying on of hands, ſo as you practiſe it, I ſhould not deny them: but ſeeing laying on of hands, ſo as you practiſe it, was never commanded by God, you do no more compleat your ſubjection, nor the order of it, nor demonſtrate love to Jeſus Chriſt, than they do who ſprinkle Infants: for they think, they do God as good ſervice, in ſprinkling Infants, as you do by laying on of your hands upon your account, that is, without reſpect had to healing, or receiving that great gift of the Spirit, or ordaining to office: ſo that ſeeing your kinde of laying on of hands is no where commanded by God, you do but confound your ſubjection and the order of it, and demonſtrate want of love to Jeſus Chriſt.
In the next place you tell us, that thoſe who hold, that hands were laid on in Acts 8. for the receiving of the extraordinarie gifts of the Spirit, have nothing but ſuppoſition for their ground: and all the Reaſon you can ſhew againſt it, is Firſt, becauſe the tearm extraordinarie is not found in the Text, Acts 8. Secondly, becauſe as you ſay, an ordinarie thing is as ſoon beheld as an extraordinarie. Thirdly, becauſe as you ſay, Simon Magus was a carnall wicked man, and for ought you know might be as much miſtaken in his ſeeing the Holy Ghoſt given through laying on of the Apoſtles hands, as he was in offering money14 to buy the power. Fourthly, you endeavour to prove, that the Apoſtles had no ſuch power, as to give the Holy Ghoſt, from Acts the 4.9, 10. And fiftly, your endeavouring to diſtinguiſh between the, end of a thing, and the effects of a thing.
Anſwer, though the tearm extraordinarie be not in the Text, yet you know, it notes out unto us, ſome great thing, unuſual, or not common to all; and though by way of anſwer to an objection which ſaith, the gift was extraordinarie, becauſe Simon Magus ſaw it, you ſay, Simons ſeeing of it doth not prove it extraordinarie; becauſe an ordinarie thing is as ſoon beheld as one extraordinarie; but I ſhall deſire the Reader ſeriouſly to conſider, whether ordinary reception, of the Spirit which are onely internal, and do not demonſtrate themſelves by ſuch external operations, as thoſe we call extraordinarie do; for the greater the gift is, the greater externall operations do appear; and ſo this great gift outwardly demonſtrating it ſelf, Simon ſaw it, for the common or ordinarie gifts of the Spirit, are like, if not the ſame, with that hidden Manna, and white ſtone, wherein is the new name written, which no man knowes but he that receives it, Revel. 2.17. Therefore Simon could not ſee the ordinarie, but the extraordinarie gift of the Spirit. Ergo, it was an extraordinarie gift: and this gift, the Holy Ghoſt, Acts 8. will further appear to be extraordinarie, if we compare Scripture with Scripture: for when we read of the Holy Ghoſt being given, it notes out more than an ordinatie gift, for we read of five times in the Acts, that the Holy Ghoſt was given, and in three of them it is expreſſed how they ſpake with tongues, as in Acts 2. the 10. and the 19. and in the 57. page of your Book, you confeſs, that in the 4. of the Acts where the Holy Ghoſt was given, it was an extraordinarie gift, yet there is nothing expreſſed that they ſpake with tongues, or that15 it was extraordinarie; and though in Acts 8. it is not expreſſed, that it was extraordinarie by ſpeaking with tongues, yet comparing this gift, Acts the 8. with the other four places, where the Holy Ghoſt was given in an extraordinarie way, as in Acts 2. the 4. the 10. and the 19. And obſerving the ſame tearmes, by way of falling upon them, and thoſe notable operations which Simon ſaw, and took notice of, which drew his deſire to buy the power of giving the Holy Ghoſt, through laying on of hands, it will appear it was extraordinarie; and whereas you ſay, Simon was a carnal wicked man, and for ought you know might be as much miſtaken in his ſeeing the Holy Ghoſt given through laying on of the Apoſtles hands, as he was in offering them money to buy the power; it appeares, that he was not miſtaken in what he ſaw; becauſe the Holy Ghoſt takes it for granted, in theſe words, Now when Simon ſaw, that through laying on of the Apoſtles hands, the Holy Ghoſt was given, he offered them money, ſaying, Give me alſo this power, that on whom ſoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghoſt: as if he had ſaid, that glorious and wonderfull power, which the Apoſtles had, as a gift from God, through laying on of hands, inſtrumentally to give the Holy Ghoſt, drew Simons deſire to have it himſelf; And whereas you ſay Peter and John had no ſuch power, as through laying on of hands to give the Holy Ghoſt, becauſe Peter declared to the men of Iſrael Acts 4. ver. 10. that by the Name of Jeſus did he that was cured ſtand whole before them, from whence you infer, that as Peter had not the gift of healing, ſo not the power of giving the Holy Ghoſt, yet Acts 4. and the 10. doth not prove, that Peter wanted power upon either acount: for if you look into Acts the 3. the 4, 5, 6. where Peter bad the lame man look on them; it is ſaid, he gave heed to them, expecting to receive ſomething of them, but Peter ſaid unto him, ſilver16 and gold have I none, but ſuch as I have give I thee, In the Name of Jeſus Chriſt of Nazareth, ſtand up and walk; from whence it is clear, though Peter had no ſuch power of his own procuring, yet he had it by vertue of gift from God, as appeares from theſe words, Such as I have give I thee; and if you look into Matth. 10. ver. 1. you ſhall not only ſee how that the Apoſtles had ſuch a power, but alſo how they came by it; for ſpeaking of Chriſt, the Text ſaith, He called his Diſciples, and gave them power over unclean ſpirits, to caſt them out, and to heal all manner of ſickneſs, and all manner of diſeaſes: from all which it is clear, that the twelve Apoſtles, of which Peter and John were two, had a power given them from God, to do miracles, and heal all manner of diſeaſes; and again, if Peter and John had not received from God a power inſtrumentally to give the Holy Ghoſt, through laying on of hands, Peter ſhould have reproved Simon for two faults; Firſt, for thinking that they had ſuch a power, as they had not; Secondly, for thinking that power which God gives freely, might have been purchaſed with money: but you may ſee Acts 8. v. 20, 22. when Peter comes to reprove Simon, he reproves him only for one ſingle ſin, committed by way of thought, ſaying unto him, Thy money periſh with thee, becauſe thou haſt thought that the gift of God might be purchaſed with money, and verſe 22. Peter ſaith to him, Repent therefore of this thy wickedneſs, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee: from whence it is cleer, that Simon did not ſin, in thinking Peter and John had a power, as inſtruments, through laying on of hands to give the Holy Ghoſt; becauſe Peter did not reprove him for two miſtakes in the plural, but onely for one fault in the ſingular: in theſe words, Pray God, if perhaps the thought, not the thoughts, of thine heart may be forgiven thee: ſo that it is clear, the Apoſtles had a power inſtrumentally17 through laying on of hands, to give the Holy Ghoſt; And Simon was not miſtaken in what he ſaw, nor in what he thought, as touching their power; but this one thing was his ſin, viz. in thinking that that ſpiritual power which God then gave to thoſe his ſervants Peter and John, might be purchaſed with corruptible ſilver or gold.
Again ſay you Antagoniſt, Suppoſe it ſhould be granted by way of ſuppoſition, that theſe in receiving the Holy Ghoſt, did receive the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, yet this is nothing to prove what they ſay, viz. That laying on of hands upon Baptized believers, was to this end, that they might receive the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; and why? here is a great miſtake in laying down this to be one end; for in this here is no difference put between the End of a thing, and the Effect of a thing: men commonly propoſe their end before hand, that is before they do their work, but the effect followes the work done: as for inſtance, the end wherefore the Husband-man plowes and ſowes, is that he may have his ground fruitfull; the effect it may ſo fall out, it will be barren again: the end wherefore ſuch a one builds a houſe is, that he may dwell in it; the effect perhaps may ſo fall out, that it may be blown down of winds, and ſo become uſeleſs. Again, I ſhall give you another inſtance: two Miniſters of Chriſt, they go to ſuch a place to preach, their end is to convert ſouls, the effect is, they are claped up in priſon, and perſecuted, as ſome have been: and ſo you conclude, the gift of the Holy Ghoſt was not the end, but the effect of their laying on of hands.
Anſwer, you ſay, ſuppoſe it were granted, that theſe in receiving the Holy Ghoſt, did receive the extraordinary giſts of the Spirit, yet it will not prove, that they laid on hands to that end, becauſe as you ſay, we greatly miſtake in not putting a difference between the end and the18 effect of a thing: but I muſt tell you, I think that you have not dealt fairly: for at firſt you ſeem to us, as if you would diſtinguiſh between the end and effect of one and the ſame thing, and yet in your three inſtances the ends & effects you ſpeak of, relate to ſeveral cauſes; For though it is true, the end wherfore the husbandman plowes and ſowes, is that he may have his ground fruitfull; yet though barrenneſs fall out, it is no effect of his plowing and ſowing; for the natural and proper effect of plowing and ſowing, is to make the ground fruitfull, and barrenneſs is the effect of ſome croſs cauſe, as either blaſting, or overmuch drought, or ſome ſuch like. And ſecondly, it is true, the end wherefore a man builds a houſe, is that he may dwell in it, but if the effect be blowing down, yet this effect ariſeth not from the mans building of it, but from another croſs cauſe, viz. great winds. And thirdly, if any of Chriſts Miniſters go to any place to preach, it is true, their end is to convert ſouls, but if they be clapt up in priſon, it is no effect of their preaching, though you ſeem to affirm it is, for preaching bears no ſuch bitter fruit as impriſonment, but their impriſonment is the fruit or effect of a contrary croſs cauſe, viz. the malicious proceedings of wicked men the Devills inſtruments: ſo that it is clear, you ſaid, we were miſtaken in not diſtinguiſhing between the end of a thing, and effect of a thing; it is clear, your ſelf is miſtaken; becauſe the end and effect you ſpeak of, belong not to one and the ſame thing, but receive their beings from direct contrary cauſes: now that which a man deſires, or aimes at, or layes down as the end wherefore he uſeth meanes, is the ſame which through the meanes inſtrumentally is effected or brought to paſs; again, the Husbandmans deſire, or aim, or end, is through the uſe of meanes to enjoy a plentifull harveſt; and if no croſs cauſe prevent, the thing effected, or brought to paſs, is a plentifull harveſt: ſo that it is clear, the19 end, aim, or deſire, and the thing effected, is one and the ſame in ſubſtance; and all you have ſaid makes nothing againſt their opinion, who hold, that the great and large gift, the Holy Ghoſt, was the end wherefore Peter and John laid on their hands Acts 8. for in verſe 15. it is ſaid, they prayed for it, which argues, it was their own end and deſire to have it, and ſo much by way of Anſwer to your fourth Chapter.
As to your fift Chapter, the ſubſtance of what you ſay here, is included in your former grounds, and is alſo anſwered in my foregoing matter, and therefore for brevities ſake, I ſhall take notice onely of ſuch things as I have not already anſwered: and in the firſt place, though you confeſs in your Book, page the 51. that in former times the Holy Ghoſt did attend the practice of laying on of hands, and in page the 53. do grant, that thoſe twelve men Acts the 19. did receive the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; and yet you deny, that the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit are eſſential to it, from Hebr. 6.1, 2. and therefore you muſt tell your Antagoniſt, that laying on of hands will ſtand as firm and unmoveable, in theſe our dayes, without any ſuch extraordinary appearances of the Spirit, as formerly, for theſe Reaſons; firſt, becauſe the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit were to confirm the doctrine of the Goſpel, and it being confirmed, there needs no ſuch extraordinary gifts to that end, and ſo you conclude, they confirmed laying on of hands, as well as the reſt of Chriſts doctrine, putting no difference between actions and doctrine; a ſecond reaſon why you conclude, that miracles, and the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, are not eſſential to laying on of hands, is, becauſe theſe extraordinary appearances of God, are not eſſential to any other Ordinances of God, as you inſtance in Preaching and Praying, Acts 10, and Acts 4.
Anſwer, although you grant the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit did attend laying on of hands, Acts 19. yet you deny they were eſſential to it: becauſe you ſay. Hebr. 6.2. no extraordinary gift followed laying on of hands; but in this you have laid a ground for your own miſtakes, by comparing that ſort of ſubjection to laying on of hands, Hebr. 6.2. to that ſort in Acts 19. where they ſubjected in order to the receiving of the Holy Ghoſt, but in Hebr. 6.2. I ſhall hereafter make it appear, that they ſubjected in order to the filling up the meaſure of the ſufferings of Chriſt, therefore you muſt not think to make us believe, that the extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghoſt is not eſſential to that kind of laying on of hands, Acts 8. and the 19. becauſe it is not eſſential to that contrary kind of ſubjection to laying on of hands, Hebr. 6.2. neither becauſe it is not eſſential to preaching, and ſome kind of prayer, for indeed preaching, and ſome kind of prayer were never appointed to be inſtrumental for giving the extraordinary gift, the Holy Ghoſt, but the proper effect of preaching, is to convey the ordinary gifts of the Spirit, as inlightning, and many other comfortable Receptions, ſo that though the extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghoſt be not eſſential to preaching, it never being appointed as the means through which this gift ſhould be given, yet they may be and are eſſential to that kind of laying on of hands, through which they were given, and never failed, as Acts the 8. & Acts the 19. The Scripture ſpeaking but of thoſe two times that this ſort of laying of hands was uſed; ſo that I wonder that you ſhould ſay as you do, viz. That we may no more ty up the reception of the extraordinary gift, the Holy Ghoſt, to laying on of hands, then we may to preaching the Word; becauſe, as you ſay, the extraordinary gift, the Holy Ghoſt, did attend preaching, as well as laying on hands; And this you ſay, though you may ſee Acts the 8. & the 10. this gift,21 the Holy Ghoſt, was given through laying on of hands, but though we find Acts the 19. this gift was given when they were at preaching, yet never through preaching. And whereas you ſay, the extraordinary gift, the Holy Ghoſt, did confirm laying on of hands Acts the 8. as well as it did Preaching Acts the 10. I anſwer, it did confirm laying on of hands Acts the 8. ſo as to beſpeak the lawfulneſs of the uſe of that means being uſed in order to the ſame end, viz. receiving the Holy Ghoſt: And ſo did miraculous healing confirm or beſpeak the lawfull uſe of laying on of hands, to that end, viz. to heal.
But again, it is true, and you confeſs it in the 6. page of your Book, that the non-being of the gift of healing in the Church doth beſpeak the uſeleſneſs of laying on of hands to that end, viz. to heal.
And ſo on the other hand, I ſhall affirm, that the nonbeing of power in the Church inſtrumentally, through laying on of hands, to give the Holy Ghoſt, doth beſpeak the uſeleſneſs of laying on of hands to that end: And ſo I conclude, that though God hath the ſame power now, as he had then, yet, if in his wiſedom he ſees it no•convenient to will the giving of the ſame gifts now, as he did then, his power doth not accompliſh it: for his power doth act ſuitable to his will; for, if in his will, he doth not determin a thing, then by his power he doth not effect it; and ſo he divides to every one ſeverally as he will, 1 Cor. 12.11. And when in his wiſdom he ſees it convenient to give thoſe glorious gifts into his Church, as he did formerly, he can again begin the diſpenſation of them without the uſe of outward inſtruments, as he did at the firſt to the Apoſtles, Acts 2.1, 2, 3, 4.
And as to the things you call effects of your laying on of hands, viz. as you ſay, a moſt ſweet and precrous communion, and a delightfull fellowſhip in the Goſpell; Secondly,22 more of the manifeſtation of Gods Spirit to their ſouls. Thirdly, to be further ſtrengthened in Gods way; for your firſt effects, viz. A moſt ſweet and precious communion, you inſtance in thoſe Acts the 2.41, 42, 46. in which place there is not one word mentioned, that ever they had hands laid on them, and therefore though they had a ſweet Communion, yet it did not ariſe from laying on of hands; and as for theſe three particulars which you call effects, you might more properly have laid them down, as three more ends, which though they are propounded before hand yet for ſuch, are the ſame with effects, and then, though you had not attained to them, yet at the leaſt we ſhould have thought you ſhould have deſired them; but now you have laid them down as effects, what ever you may ſay, I with many other can from ſad experience teſtify, that in inſteed of a ſweet and reall Communion in the Church of Chriſt; your kinde of laying on of hands hath effected nothing but an unſavory outſide Communion, and hath furniſhed our meetings with many vain janglings. And Secondly, inſteed of more of the manifeſtations of Gods Spirit, I ſee nothing but unſound arguments effected by your kinde of laying on of hands. And thirdly, inſteed of being further ſtrengthened in Gods way, there are many can witneſs with me from ſad experience, how that your kind of laying on of hands hath weakned the Church of Chriſt, and fruſtrated many proceedings which tended for the good of the Church of Chriſt, as in the relation to the choice and ordination of Officers; and alſo much hindred the increaſe of the Church: but how you will anſwer theſe things you know not. I confeſs you have cited many excellent Scriptures in theſe two laſt Chapters, if you had not wrong applied them; but having wrong applied them, they are of the more dangerous conſequence: therefore let all that fear God, take heed; and ſo much as to your fift chapter.
23In your laſt chapter, you ſay, that ſome do queſtion whether this is any command of Jeſus Chriſt, viz. laying on of hands upon Baptized Believers: but by the way I muſt tell you, that this is like many other of your raſh and improper aſſertions, for laying on of hands upon Baptized Believers, is an action, not a command, for command receives its being from God, but actions receive their being from the creature, enabled thereunto by the Creatour: but I ſhall take your meaning, namely, that you mean that there is a command from Jeſus Chriſt, which injoins Baptized Believers to ſuffer hands to be laid upon them; for proof of which you ſay, doctrines are equivalent to commands, and how Robert Everat at a diſpute at Tharpe, did grant, that doctrine and command are tearms equivalent, and then you ſay, that in the ſecond epiſtle of John verſe the 6. compared with the 9. we ſhall find, that the ſame thing which is called command in the one place, is called doctrine of Chriſt in the other; but that is but your own words; but becauſe I love plain dealing, ſuppoſe it ſhould be granted, that doctrins are equivalent to commands, yet it will not follow, that their proper quality is one and the ſame; for the proper quality of doctrine is to teach, and the proper quality of command is to bind or oblige the creature to the doing the thing taught; yet their equivalency doth appear, in that they as branches ſpring both from one root, and like ſtreams flow both from one fountain, and thirdly, the one hath as much authoritie to teach, as the other hath to command: yet as in relation to their proper ſignification or quality they are two diſtinct things, as I ſaid before: But if it were ſo that doctrine and command could be proved to be both one in all reſpects, yet they that have neither doctrine nor command for their practice, are never the neerer, as you have not.
But becauſe your practice, viz. laying on of hands upon24 Baptized Believers, as a diſtinct thing, for which as you ſay, Chriſt hath given order by it ſelf, without reſpect had to the attaining that great gift, the Holy Ghoſt, which we call extraordinary, or without reſpect had to inſtating into office, or healing infirmities, or to the ſuffering perſecution, I ſay, becauſe this your practice will appear to be either a truth or an error, from the right underſtanding of that Text, Hebr. 6.1, 2. Therefore I ſhall deſire to take that counſell which Paul gave to Timothy, 2 Tim. 2.15. Namely, rightly to divide the Word of Truth: and now, firſt, I ſhall endeavour to ſhew the weakneſs and unſoundneſs of thoſe things you conclude, or lay down from Hebr. 6.1, 2. and then declare what I underſtand from it; only this, I think we agree in, viz. That the tearm Principles in this place ſignifies only beginning things, and not at all chief things: becauſe then this abſurdity would follow, viz. That then the Hebrews muſt leave the chief things, and go on to practiſe thoſe of leſs concernment; and as for the tearm foundation which doth as it were open the ſenſe of the former tearm Principles, it alſo notes out only the beginning of things; and now what you ſay from the Text, and ſo now I ſhall take notice of your laying down Laying on of hands, Hebr. 6.2. to be a part of the foundation of the Church: for you running a parallel between Moſes and Chriſt, in the 80. page of your Book, you cite the 1 Chro. 28.12. to prove that David had command from God for every thing done in the material houſe or Temple; where ſay you, Was there a command for the ſtones to be laid upon the ſoundation in the firſt houſe? and then ſay you, Is there not a command for lively ſtones to be laid upon the foundation in the latter houſe? which you deſire may be well conſidered, and ſo I hope it ſhall. Anſwer, Firſt, conſider what you are here proving, a command: for it is laying on of hands, or ſubjection to laying on of25 hands ſpoken of in Hebr. 6.2. which laying on, or ſubjection to laying on of hands, you do here cleerly note out unto us to be a part of that foundation, upon which the lively ſtones are to be laid now in this latter houſe; and for my further ſatisfaction of this, to be your opinion, I have not my ground only from what you ſay in print, but alſo upon a certain time at Earlſhilton, as you were a preaching to a great audience, about laying on of hands, you were ſhowing the weakneſs of that opinion of thoſe who held, that the laying on of hands Hebr. 6.2. was meant of Officers, in denial of which you ſaid, that it could not be that; becauſe there cannot be officers in a City before the foundation of the City be laid: And when you had ended your ſpeech, I deſired you to tell me what you meant by the City, and what by the foundation; you told me, that by the City, you meant the Church; and by the foundation, you meant theſe ſix particulars which you called principles, to be the foundation of the City, which is the Church; the ſame doth Mr. Fiſher affirm in his long argument, and two or three times more in his book; but now I deſire you and all other whom it may concern, to conſider what you have made the foundation of the Church of, viz. of the creatures actions, works or duties; for repentance is the creatures action, work or duty, and ſo is faith John 6.29. and ſo is Baptiſm, and ſo is ſubjection to laying on of hands; and alſo Faith, to the Reſurrection and eternal Judgment; Now theſe being all actions, works or duties, of the creature (being imperfect in the beſt of Saints) are too ſandy to make a foundation for the Church; But if it could have been proved (as it never can) that the actions of the creature are the foundations of the Church, yet you would render your ſelves confuſed builders, in bringing that which you call a part of the Churches foundation, and lay it upon the top of the houſe after it is built; for I have heard you26 grant in your exerciſe at Markfield, that Faith and Baptiſm do render a Church rightly conſtituted, and if ſo, then that you call a part of the foundation is laid upon the houſe after it is built, and not onely ſo, but you lay it upon every ſingle ſtone belonging to this houſe, if they will ſuffer it, but wiſe builders do not uſe to do ſo; therefore in this alſo, you render your ſelves confuſed builders: but when you ſee that the actions of the creature will prove too ſandy a foundation for the Church of Chriſt to be built upon, then you ſay you mean Chriſt in his doctrine, or to ſpeak plainly, that this doctrine it ſelf is the foundation of the Church, as in page the 29. of your Book, line 16, 17.
But for anſwer to this, though it is true, the doctrines of Chriſt are uſefull and very excellent in their places, and for thoſe ends and uſes God hath appointed them, yet they cannot be the foundation of the Church, for theſe reaſons: Firſt, becauſe of the unſuitability of the matter; for the reſt of the matter of the Church doth conſiſt of lively ſtones, believing-men, and women, Pet. 2. And what muſt the reſt of the matter, viz. the foundation, be made of words? that cannot be, becauſe tis inconſiſtent with the reſt of the matter of the houſe.
A ſecond reaſon why doctrines cannot be the foundation of the Church, is, becauſe of the ſhortneſs of their duration, in compariſon of the duration of the Church, as will appeare thus: for when men have done ſinning, that doctrine which teacheth repentance ſhall ceaſe; and when we injoy that by ſenſe, which we have now but by Faith, the doctrine which teacheth us to believe, ſhall ceaſe; and when we have wholly mortified the old man, and are perfectly riſen to newneſs of life, that doctrine which teacheth Baptiſm ſhall ceaſe; and when the Tyrant or oppreſſor is taken off, that doctrine which teacheth ſufferings from the hands of wicked men ſhall ceaſe; and when the Reſurrection and27 eternal Judgment are paſt, theſe doctrins which teach as in relation to them ſhall ceaſe: now if theſe doctrins ſhould be the foundation of the Church, when the Church comes in its moſt triumphant ſtate, viz. after the Reſurrection, it will have loſt its foundation: Ergo, not for that uſe.
Thirdly, doctrins cannot be the foundation of the Church, becauſe God hath appointed them for another uſe, viz. to fit the matter for the building; Secondly, for to inform the builder how to lay the fitted matter into the building; And thirdly, how to order it well, when it is built; and therefore, it is compared to a Hammer, and to an Axe, and to a Line: ſo that it cannot be the foundation, but rather the Inſtrument wherewithall the builder fits his matter for the building, as Chriſt told his diſciples, John the 15.3. ſaith he, You are clean through the Word which I have ſpoken to you, where you ſee the Word fits the matter for the houſe, by clenſing of it; and in the 2 Tim. 3.17. It is ſaid, that the Scripture ſerves to perfect the man of God, and throughly to furniſh him to every good work; and ſo preſents the matter, viz. The lively ſtones, fit for their maſters uſe: now the doctrine being the chief inſtrument which fits the matter for the houſe, no wiſe builder will lay his tooles under the houſe for the foundation of it: ſo that you may ſee from theſe three reaſons, that though doctrines be excellent in their place, and for that end and uſe God hath appointed them, yet they cannot be the foundation of the Church: But if we look into 1 Cor. 2.11. Paul tells us what is the foundation, in theſe words, Other foundation can no man lay, than that which is, Jeſus Chriſt: Now, I deſire you, and the Impartial Reader, to conſider, whether it is his perſon or his doctrine, which all along in Scripture is called Jeſus Chriſt, for that which is properly called Jeſus Chriſt is the foundation of the Church; now if we take him for the foundation, which28 is indeed the foundation, and none other can be laid, then the Church ſhall never want a foundation: as in John the 8.35. Chriſt ſaith of himſelf, The ſon abides in the houſe for ever: and therefore it ſtall never be unprovided.
Queſtion. But ſome may ſay, upon what account is Chriſt the foundation of the Church, as in his Perſon?
Anſwer. Chriſt is the foundation of the Church in Perſon, upon this account, in that he is the firſt born of many Brethren, Rom. 8.29. Firſt in the Fathers love, the firſt fruits of them that ſlept; and firſt upon every account; and ſo the firſt lively ſtone in this ſpiritual building, which muſt needs be the beginning of this building, and the beginning of this building is the foundation of this building; and ſo you ſee Chriſt is the foundation or beginning of the Church, and none other can be laid; and he having three places in this ſpiritual houſe, is alſo ſaid to be the chief Corner-ſtone, Epheſ. 2.20. And thirdly, he is alſo the head of this houſe, Epheſ. 1.22.
And ſo the wiſdom and goodneſs of God doth moſt gloriouſly appear, in making choice of ſuch a holy, perfect, durable and lovely lively ſtone, to be the foundation, cornerſtone, and head of this houſe. Therfore take heed of putting Chriſt out of any of his places, and ſetting other things in his ſtead, for it is not a ſleight matter to put any of the things of God out of their proper places. Now we have ſeen that theſe particulers, Heb. 6.1, 2. cannot be the foundation of the Church, neither in reſpect of actions, nor doctrine; let us examin what thoſe foundations, or principles are, Heb. 6.1, 2. The Authour exhorts the Hebrews to leave the principles or foundation, which tearm foundation, explains what is meant by the tearm principles, viz. the beginning, for foundation is a beginning, leaving the beginning, may ſome ſay of what? why? ſaith the Author, according to Mr. Tindals tranſlation, which you confeſs in your Book, page29 the 74. is a plain tranſlation, and I alſo in that place, Heb. 1, 2. Judge it to be the trueſt tranſlation that ever I ſaw: for faith the Author, leaving the beginning of Repentance, of Faith, of Baptiſm, of Doctrine, of Laying on of hands, of Reſurrection, and eternal Judgment; So that it is clear, that the Author doth not apply the tearm foundation, or beginning, to the whole worke of repentance, nor the whole work of Faith, nor to the whole work of any of the other five, but only the firſt ſteps or degrees of repentance, are here called foundation, or beginning, and ſo the firſt ſteps are degrees of all the reſt: but if the tearm foundation or beginning, ſhould here have been applyed to the whole work of Repentance, and ſo of all the reſt, we muſt leave out the tearm of, and read it thus, therfore leaving the foundation Repentance, Faith, Baptiſm, Doctrine, Laying on of hands, Reſurrection, and Eternal Judgment.
And if the whole ſum of theſe ſhould be the foundation, and the foundation ſo to be left, as to go on to perfection in degrees of higher doctrine and practice, and if that be true, which you ſay in the 23. page of your Book, that thoſe ſix you call principles, are the ſum of all the doctrine of the Goſpell; then men leaving, as the exhortation counſells, thoſe things which you ſay are the ſum of all the doctrine of the Goſpell, men are left uncapable of perfecting any thing in relation to doctrine or practice of a higher nature, for there can be none beyond the number all; But on the other hand, if we apply the tearm foundation or beginning, not to the whole work, but only to the firſt ſteps or degrees of repentance, and ſo of all the reſt, then men are left in a full capacity to leave the firſt degrees, and to go on to perfection, as to what is behind: the teacher having laid the firſt ſteps or degrees of teaching, may paſs from that, and go on by degrees, till he30 hath perfected teaching, and ſo the practitioner alſo may leave the firſt ſteps or degrees of repentance, faith, & all the reſt, and go on to perfection in the remaining degrees of repentance, with all the reſt; we cannot begin and perfect repentance, faith, nor any of the reſt, all at once.
For the Teacher in his firſt Sermon, may either expreſly or implicitly, in the vertue of them, lay the firſt degrees of all ſorts of teaching: as for inſtance, Mark 16.16. There is a ſhort ſermon in theſe words; He that believes and is Baptized ſhall be ſaved.
Here may be ſaid to be implicitly the firſt degrees of all ſorts of teaching; but if the Teacher will perfect what he hath begun, he muſt by going on from one degree to another, expreſly ſhow, that to faith muſt be joyned faithfulneſs in all particulers, and to Baptiſm muſt be joyned mortification of ſin, and reſurrection to newneſs of life, or els, neither Faith nor Baptiſm will avail for ſalvation; and ſo the Practitioner may lay the firſt degrees of repentance, both internal and external, at his firſt converſion, but till he have done ſinning, he cannot perfect the work of repentance: and ſecondly, though he may begin the work of faith, at his firſt converſion, yet till he be perfect in knowledge he cannot perfect faith: for knowledge muſt precede faith.
And thirdly, though he may begin Baptiſm: yet he cannot be ſaid to have perfected it untill he hath quite mortified ſin, and is wholly riſen to newneſs of life.
And fourthly, though a Saint may begin his duty of ſufferings, at his firſt converſion, ye he muſt daily take up the croſs of Chriſt, and follow him towards perfection in ſufferings, Hebr. 2.10.
And fiftly, though a ſaint may begin faith to the reſurrection and eternal Judgement, at his firſt converſion, yet he cannot attain to the perfect knowledge of, and faith in31 them, untill he be a very ſtrong Chriſtian indeed: as appeares from Paul, who was at that time paſt a babe in Chriſt, Phil. 3.10, 11. where he deſires to know Chriſt, and the power of his Reſurrection, and the fellowſhip of his ſufferings, being made conformable to his deaty, if by any meanes I may attain to the reſurrection of the dead, not as though I had already attained, or, were already perfect, but I follow after it, &c.
So that you may ſee, that the attaining to perfection as to theſe particulars; is a task ſufficient for the time of a Chriſtian mans life: ſo you ſee what is here meant by leaving the principles or foundation, and what it is to go unto perfection, viz. To leave the beginning part of teaching and practice, and go on by degrees towards perfection in both.
In the next place, let us come to examin what ſort or kind of ſubjection to laying on of hands, is meant in Heb. 6.2. that we minde the parties ſpoken to, as ſubjectors to, and not Adminiſtrators of laying on of hands, I think it is granted on both ſides: and that this ſubjection to laying on of hands, was not in relation to their receiving offices; nor in relation to their receiving healing, is out of diſpute between you and I; For, it is not poſſible, that all the Church of the Hebrews, ſhould receive Offices; neither is it likely, they were all ſick, ſo as to have hands laid on them, to heal them; neither did they ſubject to that end, as to receive the extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghoſt; neither was it ſuch a ſubjection to hands, as you plead for, viz. That Saints ſhould have hands laid on them, meerly as conſidered Baptized believers, without reſpect had to office, or healing, or receiving the great gift the Holy Ghoſt; or ſuffering perſecution from the hands of wicked men; becauſe that ſubjection to hands, Hebr. 6.2. relates to a doctrine of Chriſt, but this which you plead for, and uſe without reſpect32 had to the forementioned things, was never taught by Chriſt nor his Apoſtles: Ergo, it is no kin to that, in Hebr. 6.2. but if you ſay, it was taught in Acts 8. I anſwer, there was not one word expreſſed by way of teaching, in relation to any ſorts of ſubjection to laying on of hands, as I have formerly ſhewed; moreover, that laying on of hands Acts. 8. was uſed to this end inſtrumentally, to give the Holy Ghoſt, as I have already proved at large.
And as your kinde of laying on, or ſubjection to laying on of hands, was never taught by Chriſt, nor his Apoſtles; neither did they ever give command for it: Ergo, it cannot be that ſpoken of Hebr. 6.2. So ſeeing it cannot be meant of any of the former: Therefore it muſt needs be meant of ſubjection to ſuffering, from the perſecuting hands of wicked men, for theſe following reaſons: Firſt, becauſe upon that account Chriſt taught it, Luke 21.12. Matth. 10.38. Marke 8.34. and upon this account Paul alſo taught it, 2 Tim. 3.12. and ſecondly, upon this account, Chriſt commanded it, Luke 9.23. If any man will be my Diſciple, let him take up his Croſs daily, and follow me; and ſo Paul, Phil. 1.29. It is given as in the behalf of Chriſt, not only to believe, but alſo to ſuffer for his ſake.
And thirdly, becauſe upon this account, Chriſt, our Captain and Leader, was under it, Matth. 26.67. then did they ſpit in his face, and buffetted him, and others ſmote him with the palmes of their hands.
And fourthly, it muſt needs be it, becauſe of the Greek tearm Kiron, which relates to him which inflicts puniſhment upon the Saints, which renders him in his ſo doing evill, wicked, or far worſe, as the tearm Kiron ſignifies.
And fiftly, ſubjection to ſuffer from the perſecuting hands of wicked men, muſt needs be intended Hebr. 6.2. becauſe there is no other ſort of ſubjection to laying on of33 ſteps or degrees of, and to go on by degrees, as to the perfecting of the ſame work of ſubjection.
Theſe reaſons grounds alleged by me, to prove that that ſort of ſubjection tohands, Heb. 6.2. is meant of the Saints ſuffering perſecution from the hands of wicked men, being well conſidered, I am ſure will prove the truth of it, againſt all the reaſons that can be brought to the contrary.
As touching ſubjecting as Officers, all the Saints are not in a capacity, nor in relation to healing, and as for that ſort of ſubjection done in order to the receiving the Holy Ghoſt, it is begun and ended all at once, as is clear from Acts the 8. for we never read, that they never ſubjected more upon that account, and the ſame you affirm in your own Book, and though all the Saints are not in a capacity to leave the firſt ſteps or degrees, and go on to perfection in point of ſubjection, as to any of theſe three ſorts, viz. in relation to Office, healing, and receiving the Holy Ghoſt, yet all the Saints are in a full capacity to leave the firſt degrees of ſufferings, from the hands of wicked Men, and as occaſion is offered go on to perfection, as their Captain and leader hath done Heb. 2.10. ſo that you ſee, or at leaſt wiſe may ſee, that it is clear that, that ſubjection to laying on of hands, ſpoken of Heb. 6.2. muſt needs be meant of ſuffering perſecution from the hands of wicked Men. Firſt, becauſe upon that account Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught it. Secondly, becauſe upon that account Chriſt and his Apoſtles gave command for it. Thirdly, becauſe upon that account Chriſt and his Apoſtles were underſtood. Fourthly, becauſe the Greek tearm Kiron Heb. 6.2. notes out unto us, that they who perſecute Gods people, are evill and wicked men; and the laſt reaſon is not the leaſt, it is becauſe there is no other ſort or kind of ſubjection34 laying on of hands, which all the Saints are in a capacity to leave the foundation or beginning part of, and go to perfection to higher degrees of the ſame ſubjection; but it may be ſome may queſtion, how all the Saints may be ſaid to ſuffer by laying on of hands from wicked Men: ſeeing wicked Men by way of ſtripes do not lay their hands upon all the Saints.
Anſwer. Though it is true, it is not likely all the Saints ſhould ſuffer ſtripes from the material hands of wicked Men; yet if the Saints ſuffer impriſonment, or death, or any other hurt by means of him, who it may be never touched them with his own material hands, they may be ſaid to ſuffer from or under their hands, as in Jer. 26.14. where you may ſee in the 8th. ver. that Jeremiah was apprehended and taken Priſoner, and in the 14. ver. he ſaid unto them, As for me, I am in your hands, do with me as it ſeemeth good unto you; here you ſee, that Jeremiah tels them, that he was in their hands, which term hands implies nothing but that he was their Priſoner and under their cuſtody, not that he could be properly ſaid to be in one ſingle hand, he ſpeaking to many Men: And ſo Acts 12.1, 2, 3. it is ſaid, that Herod the King ſtretched forth hands to vex certain of the Church, and having killed James with the Sword, and he ſaw that pleaſed the Iews, he proceeded further and impriſoned Peter alſo.
From whence it is clear, that the Saints ſuffering from the power or wicked Plots of Men may be ſaid to ſuffer from or under their hands, though their material hands never touch them; for no Man will conclude that Herod ſtretching out the hands of his Body could vex the Church, or that he killed Iames, or impriſoned Peter with his own material hands; but on the contrary, being ſet on work through malice, by his power commanded his ſervants35 to do it; ſo you ſee the Saints may properly be ſaid to ſuffer under the hands of wicked Men, though they never ſmite them with their material hands; ſo you ſee this queſtion is fully anſwered.
In the next place, I ſhall come to ſhew the weakneſs and unſoundneſs of thoſe reaſons you lay down againſt this ſubjection to laying on of hands Heb. 6.2. to be meant of the ſame ſuffering perſecution from the hands of wicked Men.
Firſt you ſay it is very abſurd, or ſtrange, to think that Chriſtian Men ſhould be perſecuted.
Anſwer. In theſe words you diſcover either Ignorance, or elſe unfaithfulneſs; for that I plead for was not perſecuting, but to ſuffer perſecution, therefore you diſcover unfaithfulneſs, in that you ſeem, as if this were the opinion of ſome, when I am perſwaded you never heard any Man ſay it was his opinion, that Chriſtian Men ſhould be perſecutors. Secondly, you diſcover Ignorance, becauſe you mind thoſe parties ſpoken to Heb. 6.2. as Adminiſtrators, whereas it is clear they were ſubjectors to, and not Adminiſtrators of laying on of hands in no ſenſe at all, ſo that theſe words of yours, make nothing againſt the Saints ſubjection, Heb. 6.2. to be meant of ſuffering perſecution under the hands of wicked Men.
In the next place you ſay it cannot be ſo meant, becauſe this laying on of hands Heb. 6.2. particularly belongs to Chriſtian Men in point of ſubjection. Let us leave the Doctrine in this ſay you, Saints are active, but in ſufferings they are Paſſive, therefore ſay you, it cannot be meant ſuch a ſort of laying on of hands.
To which I anſwer, here you grant truth, which in your former words you ſeemed to deny it; in this reaſon you ſay it appertains to Chriſtian Men in point of ſubjection; but36 when as you ſay it cannot be meant of ſufferings, becauſe they are exhorted to leave the Doctrine, and you ſay in this Saints are active, but in ſufferings they are Paſſive, though in leaving the firſt degrees, & going on higher in ſom ſenſe they may be ſaid to be Active, yet Saints that have hands laid on them, upon what account ſoever it is, they are Paſſive, for they ſuffer others to do it, and therfore not Active, ſo that this confuſed reaſon makes nothing againſt its being meant of ſuffering perſecution.
Your next reaſon, why it cannot be meant of ſuch a kind of ſubjection to laying on of hands; becauſe the Saints of God are often to ſuffer perſecution for the Goſpel, but as to the laying on of hands declared Heb. 6.2. they are but once to undergo, as is evident from the precedent Scripture, let us go forth to perfection, and now no more lay the foundation.
Anſwer. In that you ſay the Saints are often to ſuffer perſecution for the Goſpel, it is true, and that ſerves to prove that which I affirm, viz. That Saints are to leave the beginning part of ſufferings, and go on to perfection in them.
But whereas you ſay that Saints are but once to undergo that kind of laying on of hands, Heb. 6.2. you plainly declare what you underſtand by leaving the beginning, & going on to perfection, viz. That the Saints ſhould leave ſubjection to that ſort or kind of laying on of hands, which you conceive to be firſt practized, and then go on to perfection in relation to the number of thoſe ſorts or kinds of laying on of hands which remain.
But that your opinion cannot be true upon this account, I thus prove, becauſe though it is true, that all the Saints may ſubject to on ſort of laying on of hands, viz. that of ſuffering perſecution, its not poſſible all the Saints by37 way of ſubjection, ſhould perfect the number of ſorts or kinds of laying on of hands, becauſe all the Saints ſhall never ſubject as Officers, nor as ſick parties, nor by way of receiving the extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghoſt.
And ſeeing this, therefore your opinion that Men ſhould leave the beginning, or firſt ſort, and go on to perfection as to the number of ſorts that remain of laying on of hands, cannot be true, becauſe it is not poſſible all the Saints ſhould do it; and as it cannot be true upon your account to leave the firſt, and to go on to perfection as to the number of ſorts of laying on of hands, on the other hand it both may and muſt be true, from Heb. 6.2. that Saints are to leave the firſt ſteps or degrees of ſubjection to one ſingle laying on of hands, and go on to perfection in the remaining degrees of the ſame ſubjection, to one and the ſame ſort of laying on of hands, which will hold true in the caſe of ſuffering perſecution, and not in any other, as I have already proved.
His third reaſon againſt ſubjection to laying on of hands, Heb. 6.2. to be meant of ſuffering perſecution, is, becauſe the laying on of hands, we here contend for it is a principle of Chriſts Doctrine, whereas contrary ways for wicked to perſecute the Saints is a principle of the Devils Doctrine.
Anſwer. See how confuſed your own reaſons render you in your opinion; for in the beginning of your foregoing reaſon, you confefs that the laying on of hands, Heb. 6.2. peculiarly belongs to Chriſtian Men in point of ſubjection, and yet in this your third reaſon, have turned the Caſe quite contrary, in that you ſeem to note out unto us, that thoſe parties inſtructed by the Doctrine of Chriſt, Heb. 6.1, 2. were layers on, and not ſubjectors to laying on of hands.
38But if you agree with me, that the parties inſtructed by the Doctrine of Chriſt, Heb. 6.2. were ſubjectors to, and not layers on of hands, as that you muſt do, except you can prove all the Church of the Hebrews to be Adminiſtrators.
So that Chriſt teaching the Saints to ſuffer for the Goſpel, though it be from or under the hands of wicked Men, is no point of the Devils Doctrine, but of his own, and you have deceived your ſelf, becauſe in this your third reaſons you ſeem to apply this point of Chriſt, teaching to layers on, and not to ſubject to laying on of hands.
So that you may clearly ſee the weakneſs, and unſoundneſs of all theſe reaſons you have rendred againſt my opinion from, Heb. 6.2. viz. that ſubjection to laying on of hands there held forth, is meant of the Saints ſuffering perſecution from the hands of wicked Men for the Goſpels ſake; But again Maſter Fiſher denyes that it is meant of the Saints ſuffering perſecution from the hands of wicked Men; becauſe ſaith he, it is included in the Doctrine of Baptiſms, and therefore would be confuſion and a tautology to expreſs it over again under the tearm Laying on of hands.
Anſwer. Becauſe I would have no objection unanſwered, I ſhall ſay ſomething to this ſubtle reaſon, and firſt it is improper to apply or call Baptiſm, or any of the other five by the name of Doctrine, as will appear, becauſe there muſt be a clear diſtinction put between Doctrine or teaching matter; onely which comes from God, and the thing taught, which on the Creatures part is to be perforformed: For Repentance, Faith, Baptiſm ſufferings for the Goſpel, Faith in the Reſurrection and general Judgement being the Creatures actions, performed either internally or externally, being capaciated thereto by vertue39 of the doctrinal or teaching matter, which comes from God, muſt needs be improperly called Doctrine, and therefore Maſter Tindal in his Tranſlation, ſets down the tearm Doctrine; which our common Tranſlations apply to be Baptiſm, as a diſtinct thing by it ſelf, between Baptiſm and laying on of hands, Heb. 6.2. and ſo partly Baptiſm and laying on of hands, which you ſo often tell us follows next in order the one to the other, ſo that you may ſee how improper it is to call Baptiſm, or any other action of the Creature by the name of Doctrine, ſeeing it belongs onely to the Creators teaching, and not to the Creatures action, In the next place Maſter Fiſher reading it Baptiſms Heb. 6.2. in the Plural number is not like to be true. 1. Becauſe moſt of the Greek Copies, if not all, and many of our common Tranſlations, and Maſter Tindals, which is one of the antients, plain, and ſoundeſt Tranſlations, we find, read it Baptiſm in the ſingular number.
Again to read Baptiſm, Heb. 6.2. in the Plural, cannot be right, becauſe it cannot be proved that all the Church of the Hebrews to whom this was ſpoken, were either Baptized with ſufferings, or with the Spirit, that they were not Baptized within or under ſufferings is clear, becauſe the Baptiſm of ſufferings conſiſts of an over-flowing, or an over-whelming meaſure of ſufferings, which many, if not all times takes in death it ſelf, as for inſtance the two Sons of Zebedec, and alſo Chriſt himſelf, Luke 12.50. where ſaith he, But I have a Baptiſm to be Baptized with, and how am I pained till it be accompliſhed.
From whence its clear, that every degree of ſufferings is not the Baptiſm inſuffering; becauſe Chriſt had ſuffered very many things before he ſpake theſe words, and yet he ſaith, he had his payning or ſtreightning Baptiſm40 to be Baptized with ſtill, ſo that every degree of ſufferings is not the Baptiſm in ſufferings.
But as the tearm Baptiſm ſignifies in all caſes, ſo it muſt be an over-flowing, or an over-whelming meaſure, which renders a Man Baptized with ſufferings, with which meaſure of ſufferings it cannot be proved, that the Church of the Hebrews were all Baptized; for though they had ſuffered great afflictions, yet it was no other than what Chriſt had ſuffered before he begun his Baptiſm of ſufferings, viz. to be made a mocking ſtock.
And as it is in the caſe of being Baptized in ſufferings, ſo it is in the caſe of being Baptized in or with the Spirit; for every degree of receiving the Spirit, will not render a Man Baptized with the Spirit, as is clear from Acts 1. ver. 5. where in the 4. ver. Chriſt commanded his Diſciples not to depart from Jeruſalem, but wait for the promiſe of the Father, which ſaith he ye have heard of me.
And then in the 5. ver. ſaith, John truly Baptizea with water; but ye ſhall b•Baptized not many days hence.
Where we may obſerve, that the Diſciples here ſpoken of too, were not yet Baptized with the Spirit; for if they had, it need not be promiſed to be diſpenſed upon them a few dayes after.
And though they had not the Baptiſm of the Spirit when theſe words were ſpoken to them, yet they received ſo much of the Spirit, as that they were true believers, true converts born of the Spirit, which render Men capable of Salvation able to caſt our Devils, and to heal all manner of ſickneſs and diſeaſes, Mat. 10.1. and yet not Baptized with the Spirit.
So that you ſee every degree of receiving the Spirit, is not the Baptiſm of the Spirit; but it muſt be ſuch an overflowing meaſure of the Spirit, whereby a Man is able by41 an immediate power to ſpeak all Languages, as appears from Acts the 2. ver. 2, 3, 4. compared with Acts the 1. v. 4.5. Where Acts the 1. v. 5. it was promiſed to be given to them a few days after, and in Acts 2. being ſome days after, you ſee it was given; and alſo it was, viz. a power to ſpeak with tongues, which all beleivers in thoſe days were not able to do, as is clear from 1 Cor. 12.29, 30.
So that we may ſee from theſe grounds which I have laid down, how at that time not, any of thoſe ſpoken to, Heb. 6.1.2. were Baptized in ſufferings.
Neither is it likely they could all ſpeak with tongues, and ſo not be Baptized with the Spirit; ſo that Maſter Fiſher reaſons againſt that ſubject to laying on of hands, Heb. 6.2. to be meant in the caſe of ſuffering perſecution for the Goſpels ſake, grounded upon that text, reading Baptiſm in the Plural is quite taken of, and he that well conſiders what I have ſpoken in this Book, may ſee the weakneſs and unſufficiency of all the grounds he hath alleaged by his laying on of hands.
And alſo here is diſcovered the miſtakes of thoſe who put no difference between, to be Born of the Spirit, and to be Baptized with the Spirit; which fits Men to Preach the Goſpel to all Nations; which was the ſpecial end of that gift, as appears from Luke 24.49. compared with Acts the 1. ver. the 5. Chap. 2. v. 4.
Thus with as much moderation and tenderneſs as I could, and not let you ſuffer, I have anſwered to the ſubſtance in what is contained in your Book. I might have been larger; but that I think I ſhall be forced again to put Pen to Paper, as in relation to this thing, I intreat you and all others who it may concern, not to ſlight or condemn any42 thing that is here ſpoken of, till you have often read and well conſidered it, and if God ſhall have uſed me as an Inſtrument to ſpeak convincingly to the conſciences of any, I deſire that they will give God the Glory, and ſtrive to learn that heard leſſon of Self-denyal.