The Searchers for Schism Searched, Treatise · Answer 25 – Question 28
Anſwer.
1. Your demand here is, Where the Text ſaith the laying on of hands is a Foundation-Doctrine, or a part of the Foundation of Chriſtianity? Oh ſtrange! Are you ſtill ignorant of that, not-withſtanding one of you confeſſed it to be one of the firſt Rudiments of Chriſtianity, & ſo ſubmitted to the practice of it? It is to be feared he did not lye to men but God, when he ſo confeſſed and practiſed; and yet ſecretly and mentally reſerve, That it was no part of the Foundation of Chriſtianity; as he here doth not only query, but plainly affirm. But we will gratifie you once more, and tell you, That Text Heb. 6.1, 2. ſaith, Not laying again the Foundation of —laying on of hands.
2. Then you demand, Whether there can be any other Foundation laid, than that which is laid, Which is Jeſus Chriſt? And go from querying to arguing; being put to this lamentable and deſperate ſtraight, that rather than you will acknowledge laying on of hands to be a foundation-Principle, you will deny Repentance, Faith, the Doctrine of Baptiſms, the Reſurrection of the Dead, and eternal Judgement, to be a foundation, or any part of the foundation of Chriſtianity: for it appears by your argument that you hold that it is no part of the foundatio… of Chriſtianity to repent and confeſs our ſins and to believe in Chriſt for the pardon of them nor no part of the foundation of Chriſtianity t… be baptiſed in the Name of the Lord Jeſus, an… to practiſe Prayer, with laying on of hands, tha… we might receive the Spirit; to which end laying on of hands was and is practiſed, that every Member might be baptiſed by that one Spiri… into one Body; nor no part of the Foundatio… of Chriſtianity to believe the Reſurrection o… the Dead, and eternal Judgement. And pray, ſeeing the Spirit in Heb. 6.1, 2. ſaith they ar… Foundations, (for thus you and we read, No laying again the foundation of Repentance from dea… works, and Faith towards God, the Doctrine of Baptiſms, and of laying on of Hands, and of the Reſurrection of the Dead, and of eternal Judgement) and they be (as you ſay) no part of the foundation of Chriſtianity, what are they the foundation of then? Judaiſm, or Paganiſm? For … foundation they are, and we relieve of Chriſtianity. But you thus reaſon:
If there can be no other foundation than Jeſu… Chriſt, then is not Faith, nor Repentance, nor Laying on of hands, nor the believing the Reſurrectio… of the Dead, nor eternal Judgement, a foundatio… or part of the foundation of Christianity. But there can be no other foundation laid than Jeſus Christ. Ergo, Repentance, Faith, Baptiſm, and Laying on of hands, the belief of the Reſurrection of the Dead, and eternal Judgement, cannot be a foundation, or part of the foundation of Chriſtianity.
We deny the conſequence of your major Propoſition: For all theſe that you ſay cannot be a foundation, nor no part of the Foundation of Chriſtianity, the Spirit of God ſaith they are Foundation, Heb. 6.1. and the Spirit tels the Epheſians they were built upon the foundation of the Apoſtles and Prophets, Jeſus Chriſt himſelf being the chief Corner-ſtone, Epheſ. 2.20. And were they not built on that foundation as Chriſtians? If they were built thereon as Chriſtians, which you cannot deny, then ſure that foundation was part of the foundation of Chriſtianity, which foundation is not another, but the ſame mentioned Heb. 6.1.
3. Nor will your next Argument prove your major: For though Chriſt be the foundation of all thoſe Duties, as the Author, the great Doctor and Teacher of them, and the chief Corner-ſtone; yet doth it not follow; but that theſe Duties be the Principles of his Doctrine, and the Foundation of Chriſtianity; being in plain terms ſaid to be ſo by the Spirit of God, in the fore-cited places.
4. Neither doth this hinder but that Chriſt is the Foundation, and that other foundation can no man lay, than Chriſt; which thoſe do, who from the heart obey this form of Doctrine, Rom. 6.17. for by Repentance we ſee our wretched and undone condition without Chriſt; by Eaith we ſee our ſins pardoned, out perſons juſtified and accepted by Chriſt; by being baptiſed into his Name, we actually acknowledge his Death for our ſins, and a waſhing of them away, and that he is riſen, and we with him, to newneſs of life; by prayer and laying on of hands, we wait therein upon God, for the Spirit which he promiſed to ſend from the Father, John 15.26. by which we are all baptiſed into his Body, and have the witneſs in our ſelves, that we are the Children of God; by the belief of the Reſurrection of the Body, we wait in hope of the glory of God, and acknowledge that Chriſt is riſen, and is the Reſurrection and the Life; and that we ſhall, though dead, be raiſed up to life by him at the laſt day; and by the belief of eternal Judgement, we look for his coming to judge both the Dead and the Living; and that we ſhall all appear before the Judgement-Seat of Chriſt, and there receive according to the things done in our Body, whether they be good or bad, with the Reward either of eternal Joy, or everlaſting ſhame and contempt. So that in deed, he that builds not upon theſe foundation-Principles, lays not Chriſt the foundation, not can he be a Chriſtian. So inſeparable is Chriſt and theſe Principles of his Doctrine, that he cannot be laid the Foundation without theſe are laid, nor can theſe be laid the foundation without Chriſt; for had not Chriſt been a Prince and a Saviour, able to ſave all that come unto God by him, there had been no foundation for theſe. And whoſo ſhall refuſe to ſubmit to theſe, as the Principles of his Doctrine, Chriſt will be no Saviour to them. And this is the very ſence of the Text, to which the whole body of Scripture agrees and conſents: for the Apoſtle doth not deny Chriſt to be the Foundation, when he ſaith theſe Principles of his Doctrine are; nor doth he deny theſe are, when he ſaith Chriſt is, 1 Cor. 3.11, 12. as you abſurdly argue. And who knows not, that knows any thing in Chriſtianity, that he that falls away from one of theſe foundation-Principles, viz. the Reſurrection of the Dead, falls from Chriſt, and denies him to be the foundation: If Chriſt be not riſen, your faith is vain, you are yet in your ſins, 1 Cor. 15.17. Then thoſe cannot be denied to be the foundation, but Chriſt muſt be denied alſo.
5. But then when you leave arguing, and query again, Whether this be not the ſence of the Text, when the Author ſays, Heb. 6. he would …o… lay again the foundation of Repentance, and the foundation of Faith, and the foundation of the Doctrine of Baptiſms, and the foundation of Laying on of hands, &c. Here now you ſay the Author himſelf ſays theſe are the foundation, as ſtoutly and as confidently as you denied them ſo to be before; and theſe he ſaith he will not lay again, Not laying again the foundation of Repentance, &c. Heb. 6.1. but will go on to perfection; though we doubt not but he intended no leſs but that Chriſt was the chief Corner-ſtone, the foundation of all theſe Principles and firſt Rudiments of Chriſtianity. He then concludes that they ought not to lay the foundation again, but to leave them, and to go on to perfection; and if they did not go on unto perfection; but fall from the foundation they had laid, there would be no renewing them again unto Repentance, no laying the foundation the ſecond time.
And then you argue again, If then the faith and obedience mentioned Heb. 6. be the Gold, Silver, and precious Stones, that we build upon this foundation, according to 1 Cor. 3.12. and not the foundation it ſelf, &c.
If it be as you ſay, is not laying on of hands, which is among them, neither Gold, Silver, nor a precious Stone? If not, it muſt be Wood, Hay, Stubble; and yet you ſay the Author of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews ſays it is a Foundation; but it is the Foundation, we ſay, with Jeſus Chriſt, himſelf being the Chief Corner-ſtone on which the Chriſtian Church is built, Epheſ. 2.20. Then it follows, except this foundation be laid, all and every part of it, the Houſe can never be; though where the foundation is laid, there are other things without which the Houſe may be, though not ſo well and compleatly be. And in like manner we ſay, This Foundation Heb. 6. and every Principle of it, the belief and practice of, is abſolutely neceſſary to the being of Gods Houſe; and yet there are other things, the belief and practice of, is neceſſary to the further edification of Gods Houſe, without which, it cannot ſo well be. And ſince here we ſeem in ſome ſort to agree, you had done well if you had told us what in your opinion thoſe things are, without which the Houſe of God can never be; ſeeing you ſay that Repentance and Faith, &c. are no parts of the foundation of Chriſtianity; and how Chriſt can be laid the Foundation, and thoſe Principles and Foundations mentioned Heb. 6. neither believed nor practiſed.
But not to dwell any longer on this, our anſwer to your laſt demand in this Queſtion, is, That the Houſe cannot be, except the Foundation be laid in whole, not in part; and laying on of hands on all baptiſed Diſciples, being one Principle of the Foundation, muſt be neceſſary to its being; without which, a Church rightly conſtituted can never be. And this we have proved, whether you will believe it, or no. And therefore we are not guilty of Schiſm in making a Separation from you.
Queſt. 26.
We demand, Why that laying on of hands, Heb. 6. which you ſay is called a foundation, may not be figuratively underſtood for the holy Spirit which was given thereby, and which they were ſaid to partake of, verſ. 4. the Gift whereof was a great ſupport to the profeſſion of the Chriſtian Faith, and for that reaſon the Doctrine of the Spirit might there be underſtood for one of the Doctrines of Chriſt, which he taught his Diſciples once and again, before his departure from them? We demand why may not this be ſo, ſince the Scripture doth uſually ſpeak after this manner, putting the Cup for the Wine contained in it; and the Bread and Wine, for the Body and Blood of Christ, which are but the means by which the Body and Blood of Chriſt are commemorated; in like manner men are ſaid to be Enemies to the Croſs of Christ, when they ſlight thoſe advantages that acrue to the world, which he obtained by his ſuffering thereupon? And whether that laying on of hands, Heb. 6. may not by the ſame figure of ſpeaking, be put for the reception of the Spirit, which was ſo neceſſary to the firſt eſtabliſhing a Chriſtian Church? Heb. 2.3, 4. How ſhall we eſcape, if we neglect ſo great Salvation, which at the firſt began to be ſpoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him? God alſo bearing them witneſs, both with ſigns and wonders, and with divers miracles and gifts of the holy Ghoſt, acding to his own will.
Anſwer.
1. Before you ſaid, Laying on of hands was no foundation; and now here you demand, Why that laying on of hands, Heb. 6. which we ſay is called a Foundation, may not figuratively be underſtood for the holy Spirit that was given thereby? We perceive you would be content it ſhould be nothing, or any thing, but what it is ſaid by the Spirit of God to be.
And again, you demand, Why this may not be ſo, ſeeing the Scripture doth uſually ſpeak after this manner; putting the Cup for the Wine contained in it; and the Bread and Wine, for the Body and Blood of Chriſt, which are but the means by which the Body and Blood of Chriſt are commemorated?
2. Well, for Argument-ſake, what if we ſhould ſay it may be ſo underſtood? We hope you will not ſay, Though we are to take the Wine for the Cup, that the Cup is not by inſtitution to be uſed, as a decent and neceſſary means to convey the Wine to our mouths, that ſo we may drink the Wine: And ſo though the Bread and Wine be taken for the Body and Blood of Chriſt, and are but the means to commemorate his Body and Blood; yet we hope you 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 onelyonly 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.