The Searchers for Schism Searched, Treatise · Answer 29 – Question 32
Anſwer.
1. We do ſay the practice of the Apoſtles, Act. 8.17. and elſewhere, doth plainly ſhew that they had received a Command from Chriſt for what they did; and ſo muſt you ſay, unleſs you will ſay it was their own humane invention. And if you think it was practiſed by them, without command from Chriſt, and ſo their own invention, why do you not ſay ſo? But if you think they had received ſufficient Authority from Chriſt for what they did, why do you make oppoſition againſt their practice, and refuſe to follow them, as they followed Chriſt, and keep thoſe traditions they delivered.
2. But you demand, Though we read that they baptiſed both Men and Women promiſcuouſly, yet where do we read they ever laid hands promiſcuouſly upon Men and Women?
We ſay it is in ſo many words ſaid, Act. 8.12. they were baptiſed, both Men and Women; and no leſs plain it is, that Peter and John prayed and laid their hands upon them, both Men and Women. For by as good reaſon may one conclude that Peter and John were ſent by the reſt of the Apoſtles but to ſome of them that believed and were baptiſed at Samaria, as to conclude that Peter and John prayed for, and laid hands on, but ſome of them. Nor can it be as well ſaid that Philip preached to every Man and Woman in Samaria, becauſe it is ſaid that Philip went down to the City of Samaria, and preached Chriſt unto them; nor every Man and Woman in Samaria believed and Were baptiſed, though it be ſaid Samaria had received the Word: the former being true, though he had preach'd but to twenty; and the latter, though but ſix believed and were baptiſed. And to conclude all in Samaria were preached to, believed, and were baptiſed, were not logical indeed; but to conclude that Peter and John prayed for, and laid hands on the Women that Philip baptiſed, as well as they prayed for, and laid their hands on the Men he baptiſed, is Scriptural and Logical; becauſe the Women had equal right to the Gift of the Spirit (which was the end of that ſervice) by vertue of Gods Promiſe to them, as well as to men, Joel 2.28, 29. Act. 2.17, 18. Then is it Scriptural and Logical, to conclude that the baptiſed Women had equal right to the means by which the Spirit was given, as well as the baptiſed Men.
3. So that the Truth is, (whereas you ſay, That we are ſo far from having a Command for laying on of hands on all baptiſed Believers, that we have not a plain Example for it) you are ſo far from knowing and believing the Truth, that you will not ſee any Command there is, nor Example neither, for laying on of hands on baptiſed Believers, as ſuch, that you ſtill remain contradicting, and putting it from you; thereby judging your ſelves unworthy of the bleſſing of Gods holy and guiding Spirit, which to his praiſe is receiv'd thereby: There being both Command and plain Example from the Apoſtles; which Command they received from Chriſt, and Chriſt from God his Father. See this anſwered before, in Gods Oracle, page 47, 48, 49.
4. But you ſay, Dr. Hamond queſtioneth which laying on of hands is here intended, and ſaith it is probable it was upon Diſciples, for the Gift of the Spirit; and doth confeſs there is a difficulty to reſolve whether it be for the laying on of hands for Confirmation or Ordination.
Dr. Hamond and you might conclude that it was not for Ordination, had you but conſulted Paul to Timothy, when he ſaith, A Novice muſt not be choſen or ordained a Biſhop, leſt being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the Devil, 1 Tim. 3.6. Then could not Peter and John lay hands on the Baptiſed at Samaria for Ordination, becauſe they were but of yeſterday, newly come to the Faith. Moreover the very end of their laying on of hands was, That they might receive the holy Ghost, Act. 8.15. Now had your learned and judicious Doctor conſidered theſe things, he would not have ſaid it was difficult to reſolve whether the laying on of hands, Act. 8.17. was for Confirmation or Ordination.
5. But we perceive the Authority of this Doctor goes very far with you, that you will believe when he believes, and doubt of what he doubts: That if he had ſaid there is a Command for laying on of hands, and a plain Example, peradventure you would ſay ſo too. For you ſay, And therefore though laying on of hands as we practiſe it, be true; yet it is not ſo infallibly true, becauſe it depends upon our Expoſition. If you had drawn your concluſion right, from what was before premiſed by you, it muſt have been thus: Therefore though laying on of hands as we practiſe it, be true; yet it is not infallibly true, becauſe Dr. Hamond is at a ſtand about it and ſaith it is difficult to reſolve whether it be for Confirmation or Ordination: and not ſay, Becauſe it depends upon our Expoſition, which it doth not; for we have plain words and practice for it, in the Scripture, there being from this Text, Act. 8.17. plain and clear Example for laying on of hands both on Men and Woman, and not conjectural and gueſs'd at; we have good reaſon to divide from you about it.
Queſt. 30
Suppoſe we had a plain Example that they laid hands on Men and Women promiſcuouſly, this being but an Example, and no Command preceding it; how could it become binding, ſo as to give you a ground to ſeparate about it?
Anſwer.
We have plain example without ſuppoſition, that the Apoſtles laid on hands both on Men Women; yet you ſay, This being but an Example, and no Command preceding it, how could it become binding, ſo as to give us ground to ſeparate about it.
How uncharitable (to ſay no worſe) do you here ſecretly charge the Apoſtles with practiſing that for which they had received no Command from Chriſt to practiſe? What unfaithfulneſs were it for them to ſet up their poſt by their Lord and Maſters? And if they were ſo unfaithful in one thing, how can we give them ſo much credit as to believe and follow them in any thing? But we firmly believe, and make no doubt (though you beg the queſtion, by concluding they had no Command to warrant what they did) but they had a Command from Chriſt for what they did, when they laid hands on the baptiſed Believers in Samaria, or they had never put it in practiſe, and left it upon Record for future Ages to read, as we could abundantly prove, againſt all ſuch Quarrels you or any other ſhall pick with them. You ſtill give more ground to ſeparate about it.
Queſt. 31.
But if you ſhall ſay the Apostle Paul did lay hands upon the Diſciples of Ep…eſus, Act. 19. and therefore it was ſurely commanded; we demand whether Paul did not alſo baptiſe the ſame perſons after they had been baptized into John's Baptiſm, as appears he did, verſ. 5. and why ſhould not his baptizing them again be a Fundamental Doctrine, ſince the Doctrine of BAPTISMS is as much a Fundamental Doctrine, as laying on of hands? Heb. 6.2.
And why may you not as well produce the Apoſtles Example, Act. 19. for the Explication of the Doctrine of Baptiſms, Heb. 6. ſeeing he baptiſed thoſe that had been baptiſed before, and ſo baptiſe all our Members again, that come to you; as produce this Example for the explaining the Doctrine of laying on of hands?
We demand then what can be inferred from hence to prove it an unqueſtionable Duty? And if not, why ſhould you divide about it?
Anſwer.
1. We do ſay the Apoſtle Paul did lay on hands upon the Diſciples at Epheſus, Act. 19. and therefore it was ſurely commanded him, and ſo us, Phil. 3.17. & 4.8, 9. that have believed on Chriſt through their word, John 17.20. You then demand whether Paul did not alſo baptiſe the ſame perſons, after they had been baptiſed into John's Baptiſm? And then you anſwer your ſelves, and ſay, It appears he did, verſ. 5.
And then you ask, Why ſhould not his baptizing them again be a Fundamental Doctrine, ſince the Doctrine of Baptiſms is as much a Fundamental Doctrine as laying on of hands? Heb. 6.2.
We do not ſay but his baptiſing them again was a Fundamental Doctrine.
2. But then you enquire, Why we may not as well produce the Apoſtles example, Acts 19. for the explication of the Doctrine of Baptiſms, Heb. 6. ſeeing he baptiſed thoſe that had been baptiſed before?
When we meet with the ſame caſe, we ſhall have occaſion to make uſe of that ex…mple to explain the Doctrine of Baptiſms, Heb. 6. till then, we need not.
Then you further ſay, And ſo baptiſe all your Members again that come to us, as produce this Example for the explaining the Doctrine of laying on of hands.
Had your Members known no more than the Baptiſm of John, and had been baptiſed into Johns Baptiſm; we ſhould have baptiſed them all again; but as they profeſt, and we believed, they were baptiſed in the Name of the Lord Jeſus, we had no reaſon to baptiſe them again, and ſo no occaſion to produce that Example, to explicate the Doctrine of Baptiſms, Heb. 6. as we have of laying on of hands.
And from this Example of Paul's laying on of hands on the twelve Diſciples he found at Epheſus, Act. 19. we infer that he, as well as Peter and John, Act. 8. had Chriſts Doctrine for his practice; and that therefore it is an unqueſtionable Duty. We have then good reaſon to divide from you about it.
Queſt. 32.
We demand where-ever you read of the practice of laying on of hands by Christians, before the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit were given, to enable for the Work of the Miniſtry? If you ſay it was practiſed before, then we deſire that you would ſhew us where it was practiſed?
And if it was not practiſed it was either becauſe it was not commanded before, or elſe it muſt needs be that …hey were all negligent of their Duty, which is uncharitable to conceive; or elſe it muſt needs be that though Christ did command it, yet they were to ſuſpend their practiſe of it till they had received the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit. If you ſay it was commanded before Chriſt did aſcend, but the practice was ſuſpended during the abſence of the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, becauſe there was no reaſon why the Apoſtles ſhould lay hands on others, in order to the reception of the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, when they had not received thoſe Gifts themſelves.
Then we further demand, If that laying on of hands could be proved a Command in the ſenſe you contend for, whether we may not be excuſed from either doing or receiving of it NOW, while the extraordinary Gifts are abſent, both from him that administers it, and they that receive it?
But if you ſhall ſay, This Objection lieth againſt Baptiſm, as well as laying on of hands; then we demand how that can be? Since Baptiſm was practiſed before the extraordinary Gifts were given, ſo was not this laying on of hands: Baptiſm was adminiſtred by them that never did Miracles, ſo was not laying on of hands: Again, Baptiſm was practiſed on them that had received the Gifts of the holy Ghoſt before they were baptiſed; but where do you read of any that having firſt received the holy Ghoſt before laying on of hands, that afterwards had laying on of hands adminiſtred unto them? So that till this doubt be removed, what ground have you to divide about it?