The Searchers for Schism Searched, Treatise · Answer 15 – Question 19
Anſwer.
1. We believe you have of late uſed ways of …ccommodation, (as you call them) but whe…er Chriſtian and candid, we have cauſe to …pect: When one of you ſhall deſire hands …ght be impoſed on him by the Elders, upon …s confeſſion given under his own hand, viz. …eſe may therefore certifie that I do believe the Doctrine of laying on of hands, mentioned Heb. 6. … be one of the first Rudiments of Chriſtianity; …d yet now he is one of the chief Oppoſers of …t laying on of hands which he prophanely (to … no more) ſubmitted to: Which how Chri…an and candid he therein was, may eaſily be …cerned by any.
2. What if you have profeſſed, that if you … laying on of hands to be a duty, in the way … practiſe it, you would ſubmit to it? Will … make your Church-ſtate true? It is more …n probable that thoſe in the Presbyterian and …dependant way, are as ready candidly to pro…, That did they ſee Baptiſm as you and we …ctiſe it, and laying on of hands alſo, to be … Duty, they would ſubmit to both; doth it follow that your ſeparation and ours from t… is Schiſm?
3. And what if you have declaired that … are willing for the better finding out of Tr… (as you pretend) that ſome under laying o… hands ſhould come and preach it among y… Will that heal your ſore, and give you a ri… and due Church-conſtitution?
4. And if you have promiſed never to pre… nor diſpute againſt it, and if you have pract… ſo, by ſuffering ſome Countrey Elders freely … preach it among you, without any oppoſit… from you; will theſe things you call condeſ… tions, make you a right conſtituted Chu… that wanted a right conſtitution before? … ſides, theſe condeſcentions might be juſt … Chriſtian and candid as his was, that deſired … come under laying on of hands, confeſſing i… be one of the firſt Rudiments of Chriſtian mentioned afore.
5. For there is cauſe to ſuſpect that t… condeſcentions of yours were (rather than C… ſtian and candid) deſigns to raze out that … of the foundation, viz. Laying on of han… that is, raze out the belief and practice of … time, or divide them about it that are unde… as appears by what ſome of you have ſaid at ſo… certain times, viz. That in ſeven years tim… ſhould not have that eſteem of laying on of han… now we have: And another at another … ſhould ſay, That the Churches would ſtand with …rs in their eyes for their acting. Theſe condeſcentions then, we ſay, rather tended to the …tting laying on of hands, and the eſteem of … out of their hearts that have ſubmitted to it, …t ſo the practice of it might periſh and die in …e; or if not ſo in all, yet then to cauſe a …eceſſity of dividing about it, as great Pretenders as you be to Peace and Unity, that thereby you might hide your diſobedience to Chriſt, …nd ſo paſs for currant a right-conſtituted …hurch.
6. What if ſome of you have deſired to come …nder laying on of hands? If they will make …nful conditions, and bring them to us with …eir deſire, we then have juſt cauſe to keep …em from ſo ſacred an Ordinance as laying on …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, …ough whether in reality or pretence you have …ade ſuch large and loving condeſcentions, (as …ou call them) ſince you ſtill want that loving condeſcention to Chriſt, in obeying the Voice …f that great Prophet, doth not make us guil… of Schiſm; much leſs Schiſm greatly aggravated.
Queſt. 16.
Whether there are not many among you that … all they can to obstruct our reconciliation, and … dermine all our Endeavours after Unity; cry… down and condemning all but themſelves, leſt t… ſhould moſt of all condemn themſelves, for mak… unneceſſary diviſions in the Church of God? L… the Painter in Plutarch, that had unskilfully painted a Cock, afterwards chaſed away all Cocks … Hens, lest the imperfection of his Art ſhould … diſcovered. And whether ſome among you in … manner, having made this unskilful Separation, … ſay no worſe, have not caſt away all thoughts … tenders of accommodation, and them that tender … leſt their foul deformity of Church-breaking ſho… be detected?
Anſwer.
1. We Will and can (without being aſham… thereof) freely acknowledge, That there … many we hope among us, that do the beſt a… all they can to obſtruct ſuch a Reconciliatio… as you would have, and to undermine (as yo… call it, though we have and will play abov… board, and deal plainly) all your endeavo… for Unity, upon your terms of Unity: Whi… would rather tend to a going back, than a going on to perfection; and would be rather … combination againſt the God of Order an… 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 …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 th…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.