A DISCOURSE Between Capt. Kiffin, and Dr. Chamberlain, ABOUT Imposition of Hands.
But when divers were hardened and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the Disciples, disputing daily in the School of one Tyrannus.
And this continued by the space of two years, so that all they who dwelt in Asia, heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.
1 Tim. 4.14.
Neglect, not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.
Printed in London at the request of a Friend. 1654.
SIR:
Forasmuch as my unfeigned zeal is to win you, and those with you, into the truth, it is necessary for me to beat you out of all those holds that would detain you from the truth. I have, therefore, published your last letter with the rest, that you may see I have expunged whatsoever might seem to reflect on you necessarily, that finding me to depart from those advantages, I might gain somewhat upon your affections, as well as judgment. 2. That your friends, yea all the friends of truth, may see that I have not published this discourse without giving you first a full view of it. And 3. That it may appear you have no more to say of consequence in this matter; for though you write that without any great difficulty, my reply might receive an answer, yet it is evident, that that answer would not avail anything, else you would not neglect what might be done without any great difficulty. And having desired the amendment of your own discourse in three places, A, B, C, (which I have done together with my answer, so much as to make it pertinent to that alteration) it is manifest you had nothing else of greater importance to be alleged, or added, so that I hope you will herein find your desire, to wit, of truth to appear, that God may be glorified in yours and other’s obedience, through Jesus Christ. Amen.
It may be all that you would have expunged is not, for even that alteration which is, was so troublesome to the press, and did so disorder the pointing, that it gave the delay of about two weeks, besides the trouble of several corrections, and alterings of the form.
London, the fourteenth of March, 1653.
Doctor Chamberlain,
Having taken a full view of the discourse in writing sent to me, I do indeed see so much satisfaction to myself in what is said, that although without any great difficulty, your reply may receive an answer, yet am I very willing the thing should stand as it doth, only as touching the introduction into the discourse, I think there is much reflection not necessary; also in the beginning of it, there is left out the substance of my answer to you, therefore only request the favor that these in the paper may be added, where I have marked them by the letters A, B, C, desiring nothing more than truth may be made appear that God may be glorified by Jesus Christ, amongst all that profess his fear.
Yours William Kiffin.
March 14. 1653.
SIR:
Forasmuch as God gave you the grace to profess the Gospel of Jesus Christ before me, I would gladly therefore that in all things you might have the preeminence; to which end I have sent you the review of the conference that was between us, that upon a mature consideration, you might leave the consultations with flesh and blood, and freely offer yourself in obedience to this command of Jesus Christ, as a means to make further progress in all the commands of the Lord, that you may certainly know that you know him, 1 John 2:3. The Lord grant once that the saints may be of one mind, to speak and do the same thing, that the unfruitful works of darkness may be abolished, and Christ alone exalted in all sovereignty. Amen.
Your loving friend to serve you in the Lord:
Peter Chamberlain.
The reason it comes so late to your hands is, First, I hoped you would have thought so upon the work, as to have desired another meeting. Secondly, The time it took in writing over; and Thirdly, That it might be consulted with by others. Now it is yet from the press sent to you in private, that (if possible) your conviction might frustrate the impression. When you have read it I pray to send it back. If you and some with you submit not to this principle, there is a necessity of publishing it in print that the untruths which I hear are spread abroad concerning the same, may be silenced.
A Discourse between Capt. Kiffin and Dr. Chamberlain, about Imposition of Hands.
Monday, 21 November 1653.
DR. Chamberlain and the Brethren at Mr. Moore’s in Lothbury were invited by Mr. Willis and others on the first day (6 Nov. 1653) to be the fifth day following (being Thursday, 10 Nov.) at the Glass-house, to assist a dispute between some of the congregation meeting with Capt. Kiffin and himself, about the imposition of hands. But the day being come Capt. Kiffin had put off the dispute slightly upon Mr. Tomlinson’s not appearing, and everyone was now depart∣ing much unsatisfied; when at the instant Dr. Chamberlain came in, and being told what had happened, he desired to speak a word, and finding it likely to be put off when the subject whereon he would discourse was known, he engaged them by the Epilogue of the Confession of the Seven Churches to make good their solemn protestation there to the whole world, that they should be ready to hear and embrace any further truth that could be offered by any, &c. and calling them to mind how once baptism was slighted by ourselves, and yet by the Presbyterians; and Cap. Kiffin’s excuses being the very same for hands, as the Presbyters to evade the disputes of baptism, whereof being publicly convinced, Cap. Kiffin promised to meet next Monday seven nights at Dr. Chamberlain’s about it (being 21 Nov. 1653) where accordingly the meeting was, and Cap. Kiffin took occasion from a book presented to him by Mr. Spittlehouse on Thursday before, to raise his discourse, saying, he was engaged to answer that book, and so continued an uninterrupted discourse of about an hour and a half. And having done his discourse and offered his arguments against the imposition of hands, and the practices, Dr. Chamberlain, after some pause, stood up, supposing he should have the like liberty of discourse without interruption, and began after this manner.
Sir, I have patiently waited for your discourse, and hope you will have the same patience towards me as I have had towards you. And though it doth not so particularly concern me to reply to what you have said concerning the book, yet I shall endeavor somewhat, as also to your arguments.
And in the first place, I will undertake to shew you that the very same arguments which you have used, are and may be made use of by those that oppose baptism.
Secondly, The same arguments will be like cannons turned upon your own selves, for non-obedience.
And thirdly, I shall prove that you have wrested most of those Scriptures.
Hereupon Dr. Chamberlain was interrupted, and Capt. Kiffin and others said that all that Capt. Kiffin was engaged to be to answer that book to which he was challenged. Dr. Chamberlain said he understood not so much, but howsoever Dr. Chamberlain desired to proceed from what had been spoken. And so began to observe, that the Captain did not engage himself to what Mr. Oates is said in the book to affirm, that the doctrine of imposition of hands belongs not to all; for he did believe it did belong unto all, and that he offered to prove from what went before, and what followed in the text, for Heb. 6:1, not laying again the foundations, imported it was once a thing done, and they must leave it to go to perfection. For else, (vs. 7, 8.) the earth that bringeth forth thorns is nigh cursing, had no application. For the apostle’s purpose is to exalt Christ, and bring the Hebrews above their doting on works to a higher pitch of contemplation, Heb. 5:12. and 6:4. Now therefore, the doctrine only is here pressed upon and not practice, because that was already done. Therefore, note how Capt. Kiffin doth here acknowledge the imposition of hands on all. But Captain Kiffin and his company interrupted Dr. Chamberlain, his proceedings, with many interruptions, and said, he had mistaken Capt. Kiffin. Whereupon after several complaints of interruption, and that upon pretense of mistake of what was said, Dr. Chamberlain desired than that Capt. Kiffin would write down what he said, and then appoint a time and place where Dr. Chamberlain might give him an answer to what he had so written. Which (with some difficulty) was concluded to be on Friday following for the writing to be sent to Dr. Chamberlain about one of the clocks, and Monday next (28 Nov. 1653,) to have the meeting at the place and hour as formerly appointed (at Dr. Chamberlain’s in White Fryers, at 1 in the afternoon) and then Dr. Chamberlain should have liberty without interruption to make answer, delivering the same also in writing, and so the company was departing.
But divers willing to improve the time, and desiring Dr. Chamberlain they should not so depart unsatisfied, The Dr. began de novo, to treat of imposition of hands, not in relation to the dispute, but as from the text. And first, he observed, That it is a doctrine it ought to be taught, and teaching doth necessarily infer practice, that they might learn, as any art or trade that youth is brought up in, who if they do not practice what they are taught, are corrected and punished. For teaching and learning are relations, as a father, and child, husband, and wife, the one infers the other. Then as a principle, whether we take it in relation to honor, as chief, or order, as first, both of these significations being proper to the original word 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉, do very strongly infer the practice. But here the interruptions were so many that Dr. Chamberlain could proceed no further. Whereupon a new agreement was made that Capt. Kiffin should propound his arguments one by one, and so dispute should begin orderly between them. Then Cap. Kiffin offered this Argument.
Argument 1. For any to practice anything as an ordinance of God without a command from God, or particular revelation from God, is unlawful, or will-worship. But to practice imposition of hands as an ordinance of God is to practice a thing without a command of God, or particular revelation. Therefore, to practice the imposition of hands as an ordinance of God is unlawful and ill-worship.
Dr. Ch. — In the first place this very argument is made use of against water-baptism, and hath the same strength. But the minor proposition is denied, for we have both command and particular revelation.
C.K. — Shew the command.
D.C. — Mat. 28:20.
Quest. C. K. — Where is it in the text quoted by you in Matt. 28:20, either expressed, or implied from any part of those words, that laying on hands is an ordinance of God?
D. C. — Answer. It is fully implied in these words, Teaching them to do all things whatsoever I command you; So that if Christ commanded the apostles to lay on hands, they were to teach the baptized disciples to do the same; unless you will argue as some do from verse 19, that because baptizing is only mentioned, and not baptized with water is named in express words, therefore it is not to be practiced; or because it is the participle, baptizing, and not ye shall baptize, therefore it is no command; but we hope you will not so argue: And therefore Captain, (ver. 20.) that whatsoever was commanded, the disciples commanded us by their writings, but imposition of hands was commanded the disciples.
C.K. — It doth not follow, that because the apostles did practice the laying of hands upon some, that therefore it lies as a general rule of practice upon all because many things were practiced by them, by virtue of some particular commands, particularly belonging to them, as tarrying at Jerusalem to wait for the pouring down of the Spirit, and many other things of that nature, which no man will say is a command binding to us.
D.C. — In this you suppose imposition of hands only upon some beloved disciples (which we grant not, neither is our inference) and so you alter the question; besides, we bring the words of the text (whatsoever I have commanded you) whence if you will infer tarrying at Jerusalem, you wrest the scriptures, for your conscience cannot but tell you that the Holy Ghost speaketh of commands to be continued to the churches and disciples, and not of occasional, temporary, or personal commands; and as for commands, whatsoever the apostles taught, we ought not to presume they had no command for it. So this being a doctrine, it infers there was a command.
C.K. — By as good a consequence I will prove necessarily the baptism of infants.
D. Ch. — But you cannot, nor more able disputants than yourself, yet you practice the like; for it is not particularly set down that women ought to break bread. I will offer you also, Phil. 4:9.
C. K. — If there were as clear a rule for laying on of hands, as there is for women partaking of the supper, it would be soon out of doubt; but there is none yet brought by you, whereas you instance, first the commission Matt. 28:20, and after Phil. 4:9, to confirm the laying on of hands, to be by virtue of the commission by you cited, let the hearers judge and consider whether in the one or in the other there is any such thing. What hath been said by you, is only that it was a practice, and that all things practiced by the apostles are therefore to be looked upon by us, to be such commands, under the authority of which we ought to practice circumcision, because it was by them, and though whatsoever things are written for our learning, yet not for our instruction.
D.C. — That there are clearer rules will appear if compared together; for women’s receiving is not to be argued, but from example, and that not express, but by way of inference under the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (disciples) or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies both men and women) or such as gladly received the word or the women that were among the Corinthians, Acts. 2:42, 20:17. 1 Cor. 11. In two of which places the Supper itself is but an inference.
But you have clear examples of laying on of hands on all the Samaritans (Acts 8:12, 14, 15, 17,) on all the Ephesians, (Act. 19:6, besides it is called a doctrine or principle for babes, Heb. 5:12, and 6:1.) And as to Matt. 28:20, strengthened with Phil. 4:9, relating to the places mentioning imposition of hands, let the hearers judge whether they be not strong inferences to prove, yea, stronger than any for women’s receiving (which I rather instance because you seem to yield on that condition) But you mistake what you affirm, I say not it was only a practice. For I allege it as a principle and doctrine from Heb. 6:1, 2, and what you infer from the practice of the Apostle, that if all, then circumcision is to be practiced also, though this be answered in the former distinction of perpetual commands, and temporal, and so of constant practices, and occasional. Yet let all the circumstances be the very same, and we say, that even in particular practices also the apostles are to be followed, but the same circumstances are not likely, and therefore not the practice.
There were some confused discourses and provocations as if they would carry away the business with noise, Cap. Kiffin applying to us, Act. 19:15, & Col. 2:23, & Isa. 1:12. And then Dr. Chamberlain offered this argument: To teach faith without works, is to teach the faith of devils, James 2:19.
But to teach imposition of hands as a doctrine to be believed without any practice to it is to teach faith without works. Therefore it is to teach the faith of devils.
C. K. — Is our Justification by Faith or Works?
Dr. C. — Neither our faith nor our works can justify, but we are justified by the faith of Christ. A doctrine (perhaps) you are not so well read in.
Note that Capt. Kiffin answered not directly, but evaded all or most arguments,
Note also, he did not fully answer the second and third articles of the book, nor at all the fourth.
Upon Friday the 25 of Nov. 1653, (according to promise) Capt. Kiffin sent his paper by his brother, together with a l letter to prorogue the meeting till the Monday sevennight, 5 Dec. 1653, which accordingly was agreed to.
Capt. Kiffin and the rest met on Monday 5 Dec. and prayed for God’s assistance and leading us into all truth being ended, Doctor Chamberlain propounded whether it was not better to treat the subject clearly, without any relation to the dispute or the paper, that so the words or phrases which might in the least breed any disaffection might be avoided. But Mr. Spilsbury and others thought it best to answer the paper because they came to that end. And so Dr. Chamberlain desiring that no exception might be taken on either side from such expressions as the paper had occasioned, did proceed to the reading of Mr. Kiffin’s paper as followeth.
In the examination of the book lately tendered to me, I find two things requisite principally to be considered: The matter that is to be proved is, That laying on of hands upon every disciple is an ordinance of Christ to be practiced by all the aforesaid subjects.
I say, two things in the Book are tendered for the proof hereof.
1. That it is recorded as a principle to all true baptized believers, Heb. 6:1, 2.
2. That it was practiced by the apostles upon whole churches of baptized believers, for instance, Acts 8:17, and 19:6, 7, &c.
For the answer to the first of these, I do first grant, that though it is recorded as a principle or doctrine, I do deny it to be the intent of the Spirit of God in the fore-mentioned place, Heb. 6:1, 2, to hold out a practice of laying on of hands to all baptized believers, for these reasons, viz.
1. Because the apostle calls it a doctrine, not a practice.
2. Because we may clearly see by seriously weighing the scope of the apostle in this epistle, as also the 12th verse of the foregoing chapter, with the 5th verse of this chapter, that the design of the apostle was to lift up Jesus Christ in his three offices, especially that of his Priesthood, to take off those Hebrews from the esteem of their Mosaical practices, and in the 12th verse of the 5th chapter, and 6:1, 2, that he blames them for, was not the neglect of practice, for those who hold laying on of hands confess this church to be the first gospel-church which did practice that dispensation, but for not seeing into the doctrines of the gospel, which is the spirit of Christianity; so that, that the apostle blames them for neglect, it could not be for that they had done, but for that, they ought to have done. So then, the practice of laying on of hands in this scripture is not intended, but the doctrine; which doctrine appears to me indeed, to be the doctrine which was confirmed by signs and wonders from heaven, Heb. 2:4, 5, which did sometimes follow upon lay∣ing on of hands, as Acts 8:14 & 19:7, 8.
The second thing mentioned in the book, is that it was a practice upon whole baptized churches, &c. Acts 8:14. & 19:7, 8, I answer that both those instances do clearly prove what was said before that it is not a doctrine practicable to all saints, but was dispensed only for the confirmation of the gospel. For first, it is to be observed who dispensed laying on of hands: not Philip, but Peter and John, who is the foundation-layers must be the administrators of that dispensation which was for the confirmation of that foundation. And therefore I instance that those who practice may consider what they do, lest it may be said of them as it is said Acts 19:15, Paul I know, and Jesus I know, but who are ye?
I shall only tender you these few scripture reasons which are of great satisfaction to me, that laying on of hands is not a standing ordinance on every baptized disciple, viz.
1. That which is practiced by any person as an ordinance of Christ without a command of Christ in the word, or an extraordinary revelation of the Spirit, is unlawful or will-worship.
But the practice of laying on of hands on all baptized disciples is without a command in the word or an extraordinary revelation of the Spirit.
Therefore unlawful or will-worship, God may justly say as of old, Who hath required these things at your hands, &c.
2. That which is practiced as an ordinance of God, or as a means to accomplish an end, when the then end is not by any promise of God annexed to the means, is not only unsuitable to a Christian to perform, but to every rational man, and indeed, at the best, it must be a form without power.
If it is objected, But God hath promised to pour out his Spirit, Joel 2:28. Acts 2:17, and this promise may be expected to be accomplished by the laying on of hands, &c.
I Answer, That though it is true, that God has promised the pouring out of his Spirit, this is not annexed to the laying on of hands, but was dispensed without laying on of hands, as Acts 2, Acts 10:44, and sometimes before baptism, as Acts 9:17,19 & 10:44.
3. That upon the same account, one thing is practiced by us without a precept, barely because the apostles did practice it, everything practiced by them ought to be practiced by us, and then the writing of Scripture, healing the sick, raising the dead, circumcision, &c. ought to be practiced, which I suppose will in no measure be granted by sober men.
4. To practice that as an ordinance of God, which was only practiced by the apostles as foundation-layers, for the confirmation of those foundations, and that by an immediate revelation from God, without a particular written word, is in effect to proclaim to the world the laying of the foundation again, and so indeed to come under the reproof of that text, Heb. 6:1, 2, which is so often tried. Therefore, it behooves persons to be very careful what they do in this matter. These things I briefly tender without further enlargement to administer an occasion of debate upon them.
The paper being read here followeth the answer.
As the paper relates to the book mentioned, I shall not meddle with it, but leave it to the author, who is very well able to vindicate it, and take notice wherein the said paper cometh short of a full and satisfactory answer.
But as it deals with some arguments which naturally arise from the text, I shall endeavor satisfaction, and that according to my promise.
1. That these arguments are and may be used against baptism.
2. That the same arguments will be retorted against the not practicers of this ordinance.
3. That Capt. Kiffin doth wrest the scripture from the proper true meaning of the Holy Ghost.
And so we proceed to the first assertion by Capt. Kiffin.
Capt. Kif. — 1. That though the imposition of hands be recorded as a principle or doctrine, it is denied to be the meaning of the Spirit of God in Heb. 6:1, 2, to hold out the practice of laying on of hands on all baptized believers.
Dr. Ch: — Ans. To answer this by my first three rules, I say the same argument may be taken and applied to baptism, that though baptism be recorded as a principle or doctrine, it is denied to be the meaning of the Spirit of God in Heb. 6:1, 2, to hold out a practice of baptism. So that if you refute this thesis about baptism, you refute also your own thesis about the imposition of hands (which is a turning the cannon upon yourself) and by consequence, it followeth, that by changing the meaning of the Spirit of God, you wrest the scripture, Heb. 6:1, 2. But in fuller answer, I say this thesis makes void all the scripture, and may be as fully applied to any part of scripture; setting up the Scripture only as a thing to be gazed at, or looked upon, but not to be learned, obeyed, or practiced. Secondly, It thwarts the very word and design of all the scripture, for whereas the whole design of the Holy Ghost is to let us know, that not the hearers, but the doers of the word shall be saved; this thesis in direct opposition saith, Not the doers, but the hearers of the word shall be saved; which is so much the more to be considered, because that imposition of hands is an action of the body more expressly understood than baptism, or any other ordinance except washing of feet. We come now to the reason.
C. K. — 1. Because the Apostle calls it a Doctrine, not a Practice?
D. C. — Ans. Because it is not expressed in full terms water-baptism, therefore it is not water-baptism; here you see again the force of your argument against water-baptism. Secondly, The cannon against you is, That we say, because the apostle calls it a doctrine, therefore so far from being not practiced, that it ought the rather to be practiced, for without practicing no learning. And, Thirdly, your wresting of this scripture, whereas the express purpose of the Holy Ghost is therefore to teach doctrine, that disciples might do what is taught (Matt. 28:20, Matt. 7:21, 24, &c, Job 13:17, & 15:14, Jam. 1:22, 23, 24, 25, Phil. 4:9, and many other places) you wrest it to the direct contrary, and say, therefore it is called a doctrine that it might not be practiced. And if we shall answer you as you deal with us, they that teach faith without works teach the faith of devils (Jam. 2:19.) Secondly, It is absolutely denied that ever the apostle did call it not a practice; this distinction is yours and not the apostle’s.
C. K. — Your second reason is, That we may clearly see the scope of the apostle in this epistle, as also Heb. 5:12, with the 6:5, that the design of the apostle was to lift up Jesus Christ in his three offices, especially that of his priesthood, to take off the Hebrews from their esteem of their Mosaic practices. And Heb. 5:12. & 6:1, 2. that which he blames them for was not the neglect of a practice (for those who hold laying on of hands, confess this church to be the first gospel church that did practice this dispensation) but for not seeing into the doctrine of the gospel, which is the spirit of Christianity; so that if the apostle blames them for neglect, it could not be for that they had done, but for what they ought to have done. So that the practice of laying on of hands in this scripture is not intended, but the doctrine, which doctrine appears to me indeed that Doctrine which was confirmed with signs and wonders from heaven, Heb. 2:4, 5, which did sometimes follow upon laying on of hands, Acts 8:19.
D. Ch. — Ans. 1. If you read Mr. Dell’s Doctrine of Baptism, you shall find him in no lower phrases and pretenses, beating down water-baptism; for by pretense of exalting Jesus Christ, he saith, it became not him that was the master to use the baptism of a servant, nor him that was the creator to make use of the creature; and slights all actions, and contemplations, that sounds less than spiritual baptism, the very waters that he deals with are all spiritual, because John 4:10, 14, & 7:38, 39, and his words are water because John 15:3. so far is he above Moses, or John himself, in a pretended exalting of Christ.
2. This cannon also will be turned upon yourself; for if in this epistle, and places cited, the apostle only exalted Christ, then why are other epistles allowed, which (by consequence) doe not so? Or if all do, why do you instance this in particular? Your argument is void.
3. You wrest the scripture. For whereas the words expressly find fault that they went not on to perfection, leaving those doctrines and principles; you say the meaning is, they should stick fast in the contemplation of those doctrines and principles, as not being found fault with for not practicing; since you grant also, or seem so to do, that they had already practiced them. Now in further answer, we shall consider the force of this reason, that you may see yourself whether you have not been mistaken in it. It sounds thus together that because the Holy Ghost in this place meant to exalt Jesus Christ, therefore his doctrine was not to be practiced; or, (in your phrase) it was a doctrine and not a practice. Why should you imagine that the practice of Christ’s Doctrine should be an hindrance to his exaltation, either in his kingly, priestly, or prophetical office? and not rather as the prophet, If I am a master, where is my fear; if I am a father, where is my honor? (Mal. 1:6.) If Christ be a prophet, hear his doctrine; if a priest, confess your neglect; if a king, obey his commandment; this in general; but because instead of a raisin here seems to be frail, I shall pick them out one by one.
First, You affirm that in Heb. 5:12, we may clearly see the apostle's design to lift up Jesus Christ in his three offices, especially the priesthood. Though others may see it, I cannot; for though other parts of this epistle do, yet this doth not, but rather endeavors to exalt the Hebrews to progress in Christ.
Secondly, Though the phrase is now in fashion of lifting up, yet methinks it carries a kind of obscure riddle with it, that doth not so well consort with scripture phrases, nor my capacity; for I meet not with it but where it means crucifying of Christ and far be it from our purposes to do so; and where it signifies the Spirit of Christ Jesus, we ought not so to judge of the meek Spirit of Christ; indeed it agrees well with the spirit of pride and spiritual baptism of these days.
C. K. — Next you say, he blames you not for not practicing, but for not seeing into the doctrine.
Dr. Ch. — Ans. It is partly confessed from Heb. 5:12, they were not spiritual enough in their practices; but Heb. 6:1, 2, shows fully where their blame lies, that it was for not pressing forward to perfection; and withal doth as it were confirm the main scope of Heb. 5:12, for not being teachers.
C. K. — So that the practice (say you) of laying on of hands is not here intended, but the doctrine?
Forasmuch as my unfeigned zeal is to win you, and those with you, into the truth, it is necessary for me to beat you out of all those holds that would detain you from the truth. I have, therefore, published your last letter with the rest, that you may see I have expunged whatsoever might seem to reflect on you necessarily, that finding me to depart from those advantages, I might gain somewhat upon your affections, as well as judgment. 2. That your friends, yea all the friends of truth, may see that I have not published this discourse without giving you first a full view of it. And 3. That it may appear you have no more to say of consequence in this matter; for though you write that without any great difficulty, my reply might receive an answer, yet it is evident, that that answer would not avail anything, else you would not neglect what might be done without any great difficulty. And having desired the amendment of your own discourse in three places, A, B, C, (which I have done together with my answer, so much as to make it pertinent to that alteration) it is manifest you had nothing else of greater importance to be alleged, or added, so that I hope you will herein find your desire, to wit, of truth to appear, that God may be glorified in yours and other’s obedience, through Jesus Christ. Amen.
It may be all that you would have expunged is not, for even that alteration which is, was so troublesome to the press, and did so disorder the pointing, that it gave the delay of about two weeks, besides the trouble of several corrections, and alterings of the form.
London, the fourteenth of March, 1653.
Doctor Chamberlain,
Having taken a full view of the discourse in writing sent to me, I do indeed see so much satisfaction to myself in what is said, that although without any great difficulty, your reply may receive an answer, yet am I very willing the thing should stand as it doth, only as touching the introduction into the discourse, I think there is much reflection not necessary; also in the beginning of it, there is left out the substance of my answer to you, therefore only request the favor that these in the paper may be added, where I have marked them by the letters A, B, C, desiring nothing more than truth may be made appear that God may be glorified by Jesus Christ, amongst all that profess his fear.
Yours William Kiffin.
March 14. 1653.
SIR:
Forasmuch as God gave you the grace to profess the Gospel of Jesus Christ before me, I would gladly therefore that in all things you might have the preeminence; to which end I have sent you the review of the conference that was between us, that upon a mature consideration, you might leave the consultations with flesh and blood, and freely offer yourself in obedience to this command of Jesus Christ, as a means to make further progress in all the commands of the Lord, that you may certainly know that you know him, 1 John 2:3. The Lord grant once that the saints may be of one mind, to speak and do the same thing, that the unfruitful works of darkness may be abolished, and Christ alone exalted in all sovereignty. Amen.
Your loving friend to serve you in the Lord:
Peter Chamberlain.
The reason it comes so late to your hands is, First, I hoped you would have thought so upon the work, as to have desired another meeting. Secondly, The time it took in writing over; and Thirdly, That it might be consulted with by others. Now it is yet from the press sent to you in private, that (if possible) your conviction might frustrate the impression. When you have read it I pray to send it back. If you and some with you submit not to this principle, there is a necessity of publishing it in print that the untruths which I hear are spread abroad concerning the same, may be silenced.
A Discourse between Capt. Kiffin and Dr. Chamberlain, about Imposition of Hands.
Monday, 21 November 1653.
DR. Chamberlain and the Brethren at Mr. Moore’s in Lothbury were invited by Mr. Willis and others on the first day (6 Nov. 1653) to be the fifth day following (being Thursday, 10 Nov.) at the Glass-house, to assist a dispute between some of the congregation meeting with Capt. Kiffin and himself, about the imposition of hands. But the day being come Capt. Kiffin had put off the dispute slightly upon Mr. Tomlinson’s not appearing, and everyone was now depart∣ing much unsatisfied; when at the instant Dr. Chamberlain came in, and being told what had happened, he desired to speak a word, and finding it likely to be put off when the subject whereon he would discourse was known, he engaged them by the Epilogue of the Confession of the Seven Churches to make good their solemn protestation there to the whole world, that they should be ready to hear and embrace any further truth that could be offered by any, &c. and calling them to mind how once baptism was slighted by ourselves, and yet by the Presbyterians; and Cap. Kiffin’s excuses being the very same for hands, as the Presbyters to evade the disputes of baptism, whereof being publicly convinced, Cap. Kiffin promised to meet next Monday seven nights at Dr. Chamberlain’s about it (being 21 Nov. 1653) where accordingly the meeting was, and Cap. Kiffin took occasion from a book presented to him by Mr. Spittlehouse on Thursday before, to raise his discourse, saying, he was engaged to answer that book, and so continued an uninterrupted discourse of about an hour and a half. And having done his discourse and offered his arguments against the imposition of hands, and the practices, Dr. Chamberlain, after some pause, stood up, supposing he should have the like liberty of discourse without interruption, and began after this manner.
Sir, I have patiently waited for your discourse, and hope you will have the same patience towards me as I have had towards you. And though it doth not so particularly concern me to reply to what you have said concerning the book, yet I shall endeavor somewhat, as also to your arguments.
And in the first place, I will undertake to shew you that the very same arguments which you have used, are and may be made use of by those that oppose baptism.
Secondly, The same arguments will be like cannons turned upon your own selves, for non-obedience.
And thirdly, I shall prove that you have wrested most of those Scriptures.
Hereupon Dr. Chamberlain was interrupted, and Capt. Kiffin and others said that all that Capt. Kiffin was engaged to be to answer that book to which he was challenged. Dr. Chamberlain said he understood not so much, but howsoever Dr. Chamberlain desired to proceed from what had been spoken. And so began to observe, that the Captain did not engage himself to what Mr. Oates is said in the book to affirm, that the doctrine of imposition of hands belongs not to all; for he did believe it did belong unto all, and that he offered to prove from what went before, and what followed in the text, for Heb. 6:1, not laying again the foundations, imported it was once a thing done, and they must leave it to go to perfection. For else, (vs. 7, 8.) the earth that bringeth forth thorns is nigh cursing, had no application. For the apostle’s purpose is to exalt Christ, and bring the Hebrews above their doting on works to a higher pitch of contemplation, Heb. 5:12. and 6:4. Now therefore, the doctrine only is here pressed upon and not practice, because that was already done. Therefore, note how Capt. Kiffin doth here acknowledge the imposition of hands on all. But Captain Kiffin and his company interrupted Dr. Chamberlain, his proceedings, with many interruptions, and said, he had mistaken Capt. Kiffin. Whereupon after several complaints of interruption, and that upon pretense of mistake of what was said, Dr. Chamberlain desired than that Capt. Kiffin would write down what he said, and then appoint a time and place where Dr. Chamberlain might give him an answer to what he had so written. Which (with some difficulty) was concluded to be on Friday following for the writing to be sent to Dr. Chamberlain about one of the clocks, and Monday next (28 Nov. 1653,) to have the meeting at the place and hour as formerly appointed (at Dr. Chamberlain’s in White Fryers, at 1 in the afternoon) and then Dr. Chamberlain should have liberty without interruption to make answer, delivering the same also in writing, and so the company was departing.
But divers willing to improve the time, and desiring Dr. Chamberlain they should not so depart unsatisfied, The Dr. began de novo, to treat of imposition of hands, not in relation to the dispute, but as from the text. And first, he observed, That it is a doctrine it ought to be taught, and teaching doth necessarily infer practice, that they might learn, as any art or trade that youth is brought up in, who if they do not practice what they are taught, are corrected and punished. For teaching and learning are relations, as a father, and child, husband, and wife, the one infers the other. Then as a principle, whether we take it in relation to honor, as chief, or order, as first, both of these significations being proper to the original word 〈in non-Latin alphabet〉, do very strongly infer the practice. But here the interruptions were so many that Dr. Chamberlain could proceed no further. Whereupon a new agreement was made that Capt. Kiffin should propound his arguments one by one, and so dispute should begin orderly between them. Then Cap. Kiffin offered this Argument.
Argument 1. For any to practice anything as an ordinance of God without a command from God, or particular revelation from God, is unlawful, or will-worship. But to practice imposition of hands as an ordinance of God is to practice a thing without a command of God, or particular revelation. Therefore, to practice the imposition of hands as an ordinance of God is unlawful and ill-worship.
Dr. Ch. — In the first place this very argument is made use of against water-baptism, and hath the same strength. But the minor proposition is denied, for we have both command and particular revelation.
C.K. — Shew the command.
D.C. — Mat. 28:20.
Quest. C. K. — Where is it in the text quoted by you in Matt. 28:20, either expressed, or implied from any part of those words, that laying on hands is an ordinance of God?
D. C. — Answer. It is fully implied in these words, Teaching them to do all things whatsoever I command you; So that if Christ commanded the apostles to lay on hands, they were to teach the baptized disciples to do the same; unless you will argue as some do from verse 19, that because baptizing is only mentioned, and not baptized with water is named in express words, therefore it is not to be practiced; or because it is the participle, baptizing, and not ye shall baptize, therefore it is no command; but we hope you will not so argue: And therefore Captain, (ver. 20.) that whatsoever was commanded, the disciples commanded us by their writings, but imposition of hands was commanded the disciples.
C.K. — It doth not follow, that because the apostles did practice the laying of hands upon some, that therefore it lies as a general rule of practice upon all because many things were practiced by them, by virtue of some particular commands, particularly belonging to them, as tarrying at Jerusalem to wait for the pouring down of the Spirit, and many other things of that nature, which no man will say is a command binding to us.
D.C. — In this you suppose imposition of hands only upon some beloved disciples (which we grant not, neither is our inference) and so you alter the question; besides, we bring the words of the text (whatsoever I have commanded you) whence if you will infer tarrying at Jerusalem, you wrest the scriptures, for your conscience cannot but tell you that the Holy Ghost speaketh of commands to be continued to the churches and disciples, and not of occasional, temporary, or personal commands; and as for commands, whatsoever the apostles taught, we ought not to presume they had no command for it. So this being a doctrine, it infers there was a command.
C.K. — By as good a consequence I will prove necessarily the baptism of infants.
D. Ch. — But you cannot, nor more able disputants than yourself, yet you practice the like; for it is not particularly set down that women ought to break bread. I will offer you also, Phil. 4:9.
C. K. — If there were as clear a rule for laying on of hands, as there is for women partaking of the supper, it would be soon out of doubt; but there is none yet brought by you, whereas you instance, first the commission Matt. 28:20, and after Phil. 4:9, to confirm the laying on of hands, to be by virtue of the commission by you cited, let the hearers judge and consider whether in the one or in the other there is any such thing. What hath been said by you, is only that it was a practice, and that all things practiced by the apostles are therefore to be looked upon by us, to be such commands, under the authority of which we ought to practice circumcision, because it was by them, and though whatsoever things are written for our learning, yet not for our instruction.
D.C. — That there are clearer rules will appear if compared together; for women’s receiving is not to be argued, but from example, and that not express, but by way of inference under the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (disciples) or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies both men and women) or such as gladly received the word or the women that were among the Corinthians, Acts. 2:42, 20:17. 1 Cor. 11. In two of which places the Supper itself is but an inference.
But you have clear examples of laying on of hands on all the Samaritans (Acts 8:12, 14, 15, 17,) on all the Ephesians, (Act. 19:6, besides it is called a doctrine or principle for babes, Heb. 5:12, and 6:1.) And as to Matt. 28:20, strengthened with Phil. 4:9, relating to the places mentioning imposition of hands, let the hearers judge whether they be not strong inferences to prove, yea, stronger than any for women’s receiving (which I rather instance because you seem to yield on that condition) But you mistake what you affirm, I say not it was only a practice. For I allege it as a principle and doctrine from Heb. 6:1, 2, and what you infer from the practice of the Apostle, that if all, then circumcision is to be practiced also, though this be answered in the former distinction of perpetual commands, and temporal, and so of constant practices, and occasional. Yet let all the circumstances be the very same, and we say, that even in particular practices also the apostles are to be followed, but the same circumstances are not likely, and therefore not the practice.
There were some confused discourses and provocations as if they would carry away the business with noise, Cap. Kiffin applying to us, Act. 19:15, & Col. 2:23, & Isa. 1:12. And then Dr. Chamberlain offered this argument: To teach faith without works, is to teach the faith of devils, James 2:19.
But to teach imposition of hands as a doctrine to be believed without any practice to it is to teach faith without works. Therefore it is to teach the faith of devils.
C. K. — Is our Justification by Faith or Works?
Dr. C. — Neither our faith nor our works can justify, but we are justified by the faith of Christ. A doctrine (perhaps) you are not so well read in.
Note that Capt. Kiffin answered not directly, but evaded all or most arguments,
Note also, he did not fully answer the second and third articles of the book, nor at all the fourth.
Upon Friday the 25 of Nov. 1653, (according to promise) Capt. Kiffin sent his paper by his brother, together with a l letter to prorogue the meeting till the Monday sevennight, 5 Dec. 1653, which accordingly was agreed to.
Capt. Kiffin and the rest met on Monday 5 Dec. and prayed for God’s assistance and leading us into all truth being ended, Doctor Chamberlain propounded whether it was not better to treat the subject clearly, without any relation to the dispute or the paper, that so the words or phrases which might in the least breed any disaffection might be avoided. But Mr. Spilsbury and others thought it best to answer the paper because they came to that end. And so Dr. Chamberlain desiring that no exception might be taken on either side from such expressions as the paper had occasioned, did proceed to the reading of Mr. Kiffin’s paper as followeth.
In the examination of the book lately tendered to me, I find two things requisite principally to be considered: The matter that is to be proved is, That laying on of hands upon every disciple is an ordinance of Christ to be practiced by all the aforesaid subjects.
I say, two things in the Book are tendered for the proof hereof.
1. That it is recorded as a principle to all true baptized believers, Heb. 6:1, 2.
2. That it was practiced by the apostles upon whole churches of baptized believers, for instance, Acts 8:17, and 19:6, 7, &c.
For the answer to the first of these, I do first grant, that though it is recorded as a principle or doctrine, I do deny it to be the intent of the Spirit of God in the fore-mentioned place, Heb. 6:1, 2, to hold out a practice of laying on of hands to all baptized believers, for these reasons, viz.
1. Because the apostle calls it a doctrine, not a practice.
2. Because we may clearly see by seriously weighing the scope of the apostle in this epistle, as also the 12th verse of the foregoing chapter, with the 5th verse of this chapter, that the design of the apostle was to lift up Jesus Christ in his three offices, especially that of his Priesthood, to take off those Hebrews from the esteem of their Mosaical practices, and in the 12th verse of the 5th chapter, and 6:1, 2, that he blames them for, was not the neglect of practice, for those who hold laying on of hands confess this church to be the first gospel-church which did practice that dispensation, but for not seeing into the doctrines of the gospel, which is the spirit of Christianity; so that, that the apostle blames them for neglect, it could not be for that they had done, but for that, they ought to have done. So then, the practice of laying on of hands in this scripture is not intended, but the doctrine; which doctrine appears to me indeed, to be the doctrine which was confirmed by signs and wonders from heaven, Heb. 2:4, 5, which did sometimes follow upon lay∣ing on of hands, as Acts 8:14 & 19:7, 8.
The second thing mentioned in the book, is that it was a practice upon whole baptized churches, &c. Acts 8:14. & 19:7, 8, I answer that both those instances do clearly prove what was said before that it is not a doctrine practicable to all saints, but was dispensed only for the confirmation of the gospel. For first, it is to be observed who dispensed laying on of hands: not Philip, but Peter and John, who is the foundation-layers must be the administrators of that dispensation which was for the confirmation of that foundation. And therefore I instance that those who practice may consider what they do, lest it may be said of them as it is said Acts 19:15, Paul I know, and Jesus I know, but who are ye?
I shall only tender you these few scripture reasons which are of great satisfaction to me, that laying on of hands is not a standing ordinance on every baptized disciple, viz.
1. That which is practiced by any person as an ordinance of Christ without a command of Christ in the word, or an extraordinary revelation of the Spirit, is unlawful or will-worship.
But the practice of laying on of hands on all baptized disciples is without a command in the word or an extraordinary revelation of the Spirit.
Therefore unlawful or will-worship, God may justly say as of old, Who hath required these things at your hands, &c.
2. That which is practiced as an ordinance of God, or as a means to accomplish an end, when the then end is not by any promise of God annexed to the means, is not only unsuitable to a Christian to perform, but to every rational man, and indeed, at the best, it must be a form without power.
If it is objected, But God hath promised to pour out his Spirit, Joel 2:28. Acts 2:17, and this promise may be expected to be accomplished by the laying on of hands, &c.
I Answer, That though it is true, that God has promised the pouring out of his Spirit, this is not annexed to the laying on of hands, but was dispensed without laying on of hands, as Acts 2, Acts 10:44, and sometimes before baptism, as Acts 9:17,19 & 10:44.
3. That upon the same account, one thing is practiced by us without a precept, barely because the apostles did practice it, everything practiced by them ought to be practiced by us, and then the writing of Scripture, healing the sick, raising the dead, circumcision, &c. ought to be practiced, which I suppose will in no measure be granted by sober men.
4. To practice that as an ordinance of God, which was only practiced by the apostles as foundation-layers, for the confirmation of those foundations, and that by an immediate revelation from God, without a particular written word, is in effect to proclaim to the world the laying of the foundation again, and so indeed to come under the reproof of that text, Heb. 6:1, 2, which is so often tried. Therefore, it behooves persons to be very careful what they do in this matter. These things I briefly tender without further enlargement to administer an occasion of debate upon them.
The paper being read here followeth the answer.
As the paper relates to the book mentioned, I shall not meddle with it, but leave it to the author, who is very well able to vindicate it, and take notice wherein the said paper cometh short of a full and satisfactory answer.
But as it deals with some arguments which naturally arise from the text, I shall endeavor satisfaction, and that according to my promise.
1. That these arguments are and may be used against baptism.
2. That the same arguments will be retorted against the not practicers of this ordinance.
3. That Capt. Kiffin doth wrest the scripture from the proper true meaning of the Holy Ghost.
And so we proceed to the first assertion by Capt. Kiffin.
Capt. Kif. — 1. That though the imposition of hands be recorded as a principle or doctrine, it is denied to be the meaning of the Spirit of God in Heb. 6:1, 2, to hold out the practice of laying on of hands on all baptized believers.
Dr. Ch: — Ans. To answer this by my first three rules, I say the same argument may be taken and applied to baptism, that though baptism be recorded as a principle or doctrine, it is denied to be the meaning of the Spirit of God in Heb. 6:1, 2, to hold out a practice of baptism. So that if you refute this thesis about baptism, you refute also your own thesis about the imposition of hands (which is a turning the cannon upon yourself) and by consequence, it followeth, that by changing the meaning of the Spirit of God, you wrest the scripture, Heb. 6:1, 2. But in fuller answer, I say this thesis makes void all the scripture, and may be as fully applied to any part of scripture; setting up the Scripture only as a thing to be gazed at, or looked upon, but not to be learned, obeyed, or practiced. Secondly, It thwarts the very word and design of all the scripture, for whereas the whole design of the Holy Ghost is to let us know, that not the hearers, but the doers of the word shall be saved; this thesis in direct opposition saith, Not the doers, but the hearers of the word shall be saved; which is so much the more to be considered, because that imposition of hands is an action of the body more expressly understood than baptism, or any other ordinance except washing of feet. We come now to the reason.
C. K. — 1. Because the Apostle calls it a Doctrine, not a Practice?
D. C. — Ans. Because it is not expressed in full terms water-baptism, therefore it is not water-baptism; here you see again the force of your argument against water-baptism. Secondly, The cannon against you is, That we say, because the apostle calls it a doctrine, therefore so far from being not practiced, that it ought the rather to be practiced, for without practicing no learning. And, Thirdly, your wresting of this scripture, whereas the express purpose of the Holy Ghost is therefore to teach doctrine, that disciples might do what is taught (Matt. 28:20, Matt. 7:21, 24, &c, Job 13:17, & 15:14, Jam. 1:22, 23, 24, 25, Phil. 4:9, and many other places) you wrest it to the direct contrary, and say, therefore it is called a doctrine that it might not be practiced. And if we shall answer you as you deal with us, they that teach faith without works teach the faith of devils (Jam. 2:19.) Secondly, It is absolutely denied that ever the apostle did call it not a practice; this distinction is yours and not the apostle’s.
C. K. — Your second reason is, That we may clearly see the scope of the apostle in this epistle, as also Heb. 5:12, with the 6:5, that the design of the apostle was to lift up Jesus Christ in his three offices, especially that of his priesthood, to take off the Hebrews from their esteem of their Mosaic practices. And Heb. 5:12. & 6:1, 2. that which he blames them for was not the neglect of a practice (for those who hold laying on of hands, confess this church to be the first gospel church that did practice this dispensation) but for not seeing into the doctrine of the gospel, which is the spirit of Christianity; so that if the apostle blames them for neglect, it could not be for that they had done, but for what they ought to have done. So that the practice of laying on of hands in this scripture is not intended, but the doctrine, which doctrine appears to me indeed that Doctrine which was confirmed with signs and wonders from heaven, Heb. 2:4, 5, which did sometimes follow upon laying on of hands, Acts 8:19.
D. Ch. — Ans. 1. If you read Mr. Dell’s Doctrine of Baptism, you shall find him in no lower phrases and pretenses, beating down water-baptism; for by pretense of exalting Jesus Christ, he saith, it became not him that was the master to use the baptism of a servant, nor him that was the creator to make use of the creature; and slights all actions, and contemplations, that sounds less than spiritual baptism, the very waters that he deals with are all spiritual, because John 4:10, 14, & 7:38, 39, and his words are water because John 15:3. so far is he above Moses, or John himself, in a pretended exalting of Christ.
2. This cannon also will be turned upon yourself; for if in this epistle, and places cited, the apostle only exalted Christ, then why are other epistles allowed, which (by consequence) doe not so? Or if all do, why do you instance this in particular? Your argument is void.
3. You wrest the scripture. For whereas the words expressly find fault that they went not on to perfection, leaving those doctrines and principles; you say the meaning is, they should stick fast in the contemplation of those doctrines and principles, as not being found fault with for not practicing; since you grant also, or seem so to do, that they had already practiced them. Now in further answer, we shall consider the force of this reason, that you may see yourself whether you have not been mistaken in it. It sounds thus together that because the Holy Ghost in this place meant to exalt Jesus Christ, therefore his doctrine was not to be practiced; or, (in your phrase) it was a doctrine and not a practice. Why should you imagine that the practice of Christ’s Doctrine should be an hindrance to his exaltation, either in his kingly, priestly, or prophetical office? and not rather as the prophet, If I am a master, where is my fear; if I am a father, where is my honor? (Mal. 1:6.) If Christ be a prophet, hear his doctrine; if a priest, confess your neglect; if a king, obey his commandment; this in general; but because instead of a raisin here seems to be frail, I shall pick them out one by one.
First, You affirm that in Heb. 5:12, we may clearly see the apostle's design to lift up Jesus Christ in his three offices, especially the priesthood. Though others may see it, I cannot; for though other parts of this epistle do, yet this doth not, but rather endeavors to exalt the Hebrews to progress in Christ.
Secondly, Though the phrase is now in fashion of lifting up, yet methinks it carries a kind of obscure riddle with it, that doth not so well consort with scripture phrases, nor my capacity; for I meet not with it but where it means crucifying of Christ and far be it from our purposes to do so; and where it signifies the Spirit of Christ Jesus, we ought not so to judge of the meek Spirit of Christ; indeed it agrees well with the spirit of pride and spiritual baptism of these days.
C. K. — Next you say, he blames you not for not practicing, but for not seeing into the doctrine.
Dr. Ch. — Ans. It is partly confessed from Heb. 5:12, they were not spiritual enough in their practices; but Heb. 6:1, 2, shows fully where their blame lies, that it was for not pressing forward to perfection; and withal doth as it were confirm the main scope of Heb. 5:12, for not being teachers.
C. K. — So that the practice (say you) of laying on of hands is not here intended, but the doctrine?
Dr. Ch. — Ans. It is not said that place doth enjoin the Hebrews to have the imposition of hands again, no more than baptism, or repentance from dead works, &c. But quite contrary, that they should go forward, and build higher; nor is it fair dealing, but a wresting of the meaning of the practicers of that ordinance, to offer this as if we urged it to be practiced again by the same parties, but you do wrest the Scriptures, 2 Pet. 3. so that we may the better bear with you for wresting either our words or meanings. But this we say, that by this scripture it is clear they are principles, they are doctrines, they are milk, they are foundations; for as for the inference and manner of practicing we prove from other scriptures, as Christ suffered not a scripture to go alone, Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4, Deut. 8:3, but testified that man liveth by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, according to what he practiced at that time against the temptations of the Devil.
C.K. — Which Doctrine appears to you to be that which was confirmed with signs and wonders, Heb. 2:4, 5.
D. C. — That this doctrine was confirmed with signs and wonders from heaven is confessed, Acts 8:14, & 19:6. Therefore, it follows, How shall we escape if we neglect so great Salvation? Heb. 2:3. But that signs and wonders are called this doctrine of baptism, and of imposition of hands, is an inverting, and perverting of scriptures; besides, it is just as Master Dell and others overthrow water-baptism from 1 Cor. 1:14. that because he thanked God he baptized none but Crispus and Gaius, &c. therefore he recanted his Baptism, when as the next verse tells us, it was lest they should say he had baptized into his name so that they pretend to know Paul’s mind and reason better than himself; so the Holy Ghost saith here, it is the doctrine of baptisms, and you say it is the doctrine of miracles. The Holy Ghost saith, they should learn these doctrines, and you say they should stick in them, and ponder them; or else, because there is a doctrine, or somewhat to be learned from baptism, and imposition of hands, therefore we should not practice them.
C. K. — These are the conclusions which (namely signs and wonders) say you, did sometimes follow upon imposition of hands, Act. 8:19.
D. C. — Then the confirmation did but sometimes follow the Gospel, and this shows how you err, not knowing the scripture, nor the true doctrine of imposition of hands.
C. K. — The second point you come to is, that the instances of Acts 8:14, & 19:7, 8, for the practice upon baptized churches, do clearly prove what was said before, that it is not a doctrine practicable to all saints, but was dispensed only for the confirmation of the gospel.
C.K. — Which Doctrine appears to you to be that which was confirmed with signs and wonders, Heb. 2:4, 5.
D. C. — That this doctrine was confirmed with signs and wonders from heaven is confessed, Acts 8:14, & 19:6. Therefore, it follows, How shall we escape if we neglect so great Salvation? Heb. 2:3. But that signs and wonders are called this doctrine of baptism, and of imposition of hands, is an inverting, and perverting of scriptures; besides, it is just as Master Dell and others overthrow water-baptism from 1 Cor. 1:14. that because he thanked God he baptized none but Crispus and Gaius, &c. therefore he recanted his Baptism, when as the next verse tells us, it was lest they should say he had baptized into his name so that they pretend to know Paul’s mind and reason better than himself; so the Holy Ghost saith here, it is the doctrine of baptisms, and you say it is the doctrine of miracles. The Holy Ghost saith, they should learn these doctrines, and you say they should stick in them, and ponder them; or else, because there is a doctrine, or somewhat to be learned from baptism, and imposition of hands, therefore we should not practice them.
C. K. — These are the conclusions which (namely signs and wonders) say you, did sometimes follow upon imposition of hands, Act. 8:19.
D. C. — Then the confirmation did but sometimes follow the Gospel, and this shows how you err, not knowing the scripture, nor the true doctrine of imposition of hands.
C. K. — The second point you come to is, that the instances of Acts 8:14, & 19:7, 8, for the practice upon baptized churches, do clearly prove what was said before, that it is not a doctrine practicable to all saints, but was dispensed only for the confirmation of the gospel.
D.C. — 1. If it were dispensed only for the confirmation of the gospel, it doth not follow it should not be dispensed on all, since all ought to have the gospel confirmed.
2. How doth this hold, because it was upon all then, therefore it must be but on some, or none at all now; or what was then done must not be now?
3. So spiritual baptizers of water-baptism were in the infancy of the church, it must not be now, and they have a more seeming reason, John must decrease, but Christ must increase, John 3:30.
4. This cannon is planted against you because whole-bodied churches did it then, your neglect is condemned by a cloud of witnesses, even whole-bodied churches, and they by their example will rise up in judgment against you.
5. You wrest this scripture also, for whereas the purpose of the Holy Ghost is to record this, that it might be written for our instruction and learning, Rom. 15:4. You say it is written not at all for our learning, but because we should not practice it.
C. K. —But you add a reason because Peter and John laid on hands and not Philip.
2. How doth this hold, because it was upon all then, therefore it must be but on some, or none at all now; or what was then done must not be now?
3. So spiritual baptizers of water-baptism were in the infancy of the church, it must not be now, and they have a more seeming reason, John must decrease, but Christ must increase, John 3:30.
4. This cannon is planted against you because whole-bodied churches did it then, your neglect is condemned by a cloud of witnesses, even whole-bodied churches, and they by their example will rise up in judgment against you.
5. You wrest this scripture also, for whereas the purpose of the Holy Ghost is to record this, that it might be written for our instruction and learning, Rom. 15:4. You say it is written not at all for our learning, but because we should not practice it.
C. K. —But you add a reason because Peter and John laid on hands and not Philip.
D. C. — This is to set up Paul, Apollos, Cephas, nay we must come to ordination, and the Pope, if we follow this argument close at heels; but first,
(According to promise) against water-baptism, Peter, John, and Paul are thought to baptize with the Holy Ghost, Acts 8:14, Acts 19:6. therefore none ought to baptize but Peter, Paul, John, or such as have the Holy Ghost.
Because Peter and John laid on hands, it argues how great an ordinance you neglect, and therefore your condemnation the greater, because they gave an example, Phil. 3:17, & 4:9.3. It shews your great disorder, that since Philip (though doing miracles) must not lay on hands, but Peter and John from the church at Jerusalem; you want this order and ordinance, and (probably) the other gifts of the Holy Ghost, which should lead you into further truths, because you are so far from being taught again, that you have not learned at all which be the principles of the foundation of Christ, for if any man will do the will of Christ he shall know of his doctrine whether it be of God, John 7:17, and not if any man will hinder doing of his will.4. Therefore fourthly, you wrest these scriptures, Acts 8, & 19, which are written to comfort us, and encourage and confirm the doctrine and practice to us, and you make it to dishearten and deter us from it.
C. K. — Lastly, You say foundation layers must be foundation confirmers.
D. C. — 1. This is so argued by Mr. Dell and others.
2. This cannon is against you, for therefore these have both laid and confirmed a foundation against you.
3. Shall I say, you wrest no scriptures because you allege none? or shall I suppose you wrest the scripture where Simon Magus thought that imposition of hands did give the Holy Ghost? but Peter curst him for thinking it less than the gift of God, Acts 8.20.
Therefore, though you upon no grounds threaten, Acts 19:15, and did the other day threaten Gal. 1:8, 9. So I shall only offer these scriptures to your consideration, Acts 13:8, 9, 10, 11, Heb. 10:28, 29, Jam. 2:17, 18, 19, 20. But as I pray, so I believe, and hope better things of you, but I provoke you, if by any means I may save you from disobedience, and resisting the Holy Ghost; I come now to try your arguments in the frontispiece, or title, whereof you call them scripture reasons, and yet no direct scripture quoted. Secondly, you thrust in a word there of a standing ordinance, a trick that many have lately found out to null either all, or any piece of the Scripture at their pleasure; indeed it is but crying out, it is not a landing ordinance, and the Scripture itself, and all truth with it falls unto the ground, and doth homage to what new doctrine or scripture soever any Ranter, Jew, or Jesuit shall set up; your argument follows.
C. K. — Arg. 1. That which is practiced by any person as an ordinance of Christ, without a command of Christ in the word, or an extraordinary revelation of the Spirit, is unlawful, or will-worship.
But the practice of laying on of hands on all baptized believers is without a command in the word or an extraordinary revelation; therefore unlawful, or will-worship; God may say, who hath required?
D. C. — Ans. To this I formerly answered, that many have used the same argument against water-baptism because they acknowledge nothing commanded but what is (totidem verbis) in so many words set down, which can be nowhere found of baptism, and at this rate all the ordinances of Christ will be evaded one after another; for when all is said that can be, it will not be found, I Jesus Christ command thee John, or Thomas, to do this or that duty; but I take that to be a command of Christ, which hath the force of a command in scripture, whether it be in gospel or epistles, and can so maintain it, and in that sense, I deny the minor, and say we have both command and especial revelation; First, for a command, we have it Mat. 28:20, for whatsoever, is a doctrine of the apostles is a command of Christ, but the imposition of hands is a doctrine of the apostles; the minor is granted by you in your first assertion, where you say you grant it is a doctrine or principle, but not to be practiced, and the text doth also number it up amongst the doctrines and principles.
The major is the very words of the text, Teaching them to do all things whatsoever I command you; unless you will deny that doctrine is teaching, or that the apostles taught what they were not commanded, as some have presumptuously affirmed.
As concerning the instance of staying at Jerusalem, and preparing the Passover, which were temporary acts, and not doctrines, I am persuaded you dare not infer it (upon second thoughts) from the text, nevertheless against all such cavils let circumstances be the same, and they also shall be obeyed; therefore for your instead of, Who hath required these things at your hands? Isa. 1:12, read, Cursed be he that doth the work of the Lord negligently, Jer. 48:10, and of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, &c. Heb. 10:29, that doth add or diminish from the will of the dead, Gal. 3:15, sealed with the blood of the Testator, Heb. 9;13, 14, 15, 16, &c. so that it is concluded in Revel. 22:18, 19, that whosoever addeth, the plagues of the book shall be added, and whosoever taketh away, his name shall be taken out of the book of life, with many other places to like purpose; we have many other arguments to prove it a command of Christ, but I shall now prove it by special revelation.
D. C. — Arg. That which is contained in the word, and discovered to very few that read that word, is discovered by special revelation. But the imposition of hands is a doctrine and practice contained in the word, and discovered but to very few that read that word; therefore, the doctrine and practice of imposition of hands is by special revelation.
C. K. — 2 Arg. Your second syllogism, or argument, must be supposed one, for you have not made it so.
That which is practiced as an ordinance of God, or as a means to accomplish an end, when the then end is not by any promise of God annexed to the means, is not only unsuitable to a Christian to perform, but to every rational man, and indeed at the best it must be but a form without power; now I suppose you mean laying on of hands is so; ergo.
D. C. — Ans. I will not accept against anything that I can any way pass over, therefore to take all your expressions in the best sense I can, I consent to your major, and do not only deny your minor, but affirm also that there is not the least ordinance, command, principle, or doctrine of Jesus Christ, but hath many general promises, and some of them particular, as Matt. 5:19, John 14:15, 16, 23, 24, 15:7, 10, 14. 1 John 2:3, 3:22, 5:2, 3, these in general. Now in particular, for the imposition of hands, in regard it is properly an act of saints, to appropriate the benefit of their prayer on the person prayed for, Acts 6:6, 8, 15, 17. Jam. 5:14,13. We have first divers examples which are recorded for our instruction to encourage us and be as a promise to us, that the God and Father to them is our God and Father, as Deut. 34:9, 1 Tim. 4:14, 2 Tim. 1:6, 5:22, Acts. 8:17,19, 6:9, 17.
Secondly, we are encouraged and stirred up by a particular promise from Christ’s own mouth, to pray for whatsoever we will Matt. 18:19, John 14:12, 13,15, 7:16, 23, 26. 1 John 3:22. & 5:14, 15, 16, Matt. 21:21, 22, and in his name for the Spirit, Luke 11:13. Yea, it is observable, that as the Father ratified the ordinance of baptism on Jesus Christ, by sending on him the Holy Ghost; so is it notable that the Father ratified imposition of hands upon prayer twice, Act. 8:17; 19:6, which he never did on baptism save only when Jesus was baptized; but if we will, notwithstanding such a cloud of witnesses, put this ordinance from us, and count ourselves unworthy of the Holy Ghost, let us know, that he that hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his, Rom. 8:9, but is a reprobate, 2 Cor. 13:15, and his body is none of the temples of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:15.
(According to promise) against water-baptism, Peter, John, and Paul are thought to baptize with the Holy Ghost, Acts 8:14, Acts 19:6. therefore none ought to baptize but Peter, Paul, John, or such as have the Holy Ghost.
Because Peter and John laid on hands, it argues how great an ordinance you neglect, and therefore your condemnation the greater, because they gave an example, Phil. 3:17, & 4:9.3. It shews your great disorder, that since Philip (though doing miracles) must not lay on hands, but Peter and John from the church at Jerusalem; you want this order and ordinance, and (probably) the other gifts of the Holy Ghost, which should lead you into further truths, because you are so far from being taught again, that you have not learned at all which be the principles of the foundation of Christ, for if any man will do the will of Christ he shall know of his doctrine whether it be of God, John 7:17, and not if any man will hinder doing of his will.4. Therefore fourthly, you wrest these scriptures, Acts 8, & 19, which are written to comfort us, and encourage and confirm the doctrine and practice to us, and you make it to dishearten and deter us from it.
C. K. — Lastly, You say foundation layers must be foundation confirmers.
D. C. — 1. This is so argued by Mr. Dell and others.
2. This cannon is against you, for therefore these have both laid and confirmed a foundation against you.
3. Shall I say, you wrest no scriptures because you allege none? or shall I suppose you wrest the scripture where Simon Magus thought that imposition of hands did give the Holy Ghost? but Peter curst him for thinking it less than the gift of God, Acts 8.20.
Therefore, though you upon no grounds threaten, Acts 19:15, and did the other day threaten Gal. 1:8, 9. So I shall only offer these scriptures to your consideration, Acts 13:8, 9, 10, 11, Heb. 10:28, 29, Jam. 2:17, 18, 19, 20. But as I pray, so I believe, and hope better things of you, but I provoke you, if by any means I may save you from disobedience, and resisting the Holy Ghost; I come now to try your arguments in the frontispiece, or title, whereof you call them scripture reasons, and yet no direct scripture quoted. Secondly, you thrust in a word there of a standing ordinance, a trick that many have lately found out to null either all, or any piece of the Scripture at their pleasure; indeed it is but crying out, it is not a landing ordinance, and the Scripture itself, and all truth with it falls unto the ground, and doth homage to what new doctrine or scripture soever any Ranter, Jew, or Jesuit shall set up; your argument follows.
C. K. — Arg. 1. That which is practiced by any person as an ordinance of Christ, without a command of Christ in the word, or an extraordinary revelation of the Spirit, is unlawful, or will-worship.
But the practice of laying on of hands on all baptized believers is without a command in the word or an extraordinary revelation; therefore unlawful, or will-worship; God may say, who hath required?
D. C. — Ans. To this I formerly answered, that many have used the same argument against water-baptism because they acknowledge nothing commanded but what is (totidem verbis) in so many words set down, which can be nowhere found of baptism, and at this rate all the ordinances of Christ will be evaded one after another; for when all is said that can be, it will not be found, I Jesus Christ command thee John, or Thomas, to do this or that duty; but I take that to be a command of Christ, which hath the force of a command in scripture, whether it be in gospel or epistles, and can so maintain it, and in that sense, I deny the minor, and say we have both command and especial revelation; First, for a command, we have it Mat. 28:20, for whatsoever, is a doctrine of the apostles is a command of Christ, but the imposition of hands is a doctrine of the apostles; the minor is granted by you in your first assertion, where you say you grant it is a doctrine or principle, but not to be practiced, and the text doth also number it up amongst the doctrines and principles.
The major is the very words of the text, Teaching them to do all things whatsoever I command you; unless you will deny that doctrine is teaching, or that the apostles taught what they were not commanded, as some have presumptuously affirmed.
As concerning the instance of staying at Jerusalem, and preparing the Passover, which were temporary acts, and not doctrines, I am persuaded you dare not infer it (upon second thoughts) from the text, nevertheless against all such cavils let circumstances be the same, and they also shall be obeyed; therefore for your instead of, Who hath required these things at your hands? Isa. 1:12, read, Cursed be he that doth the work of the Lord negligently, Jer. 48:10, and of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, &c. Heb. 10:29, that doth add or diminish from the will of the dead, Gal. 3:15, sealed with the blood of the Testator, Heb. 9;13, 14, 15, 16, &c. so that it is concluded in Revel. 22:18, 19, that whosoever addeth, the plagues of the book shall be added, and whosoever taketh away, his name shall be taken out of the book of life, with many other places to like purpose; we have many other arguments to prove it a command of Christ, but I shall now prove it by special revelation.
D. C. — Arg. That which is contained in the word, and discovered to very few that read that word, is discovered by special revelation. But the imposition of hands is a doctrine and practice contained in the word, and discovered but to very few that read that word; therefore, the doctrine and practice of imposition of hands is by special revelation.
C. K. — 2 Arg. Your second syllogism, or argument, must be supposed one, for you have not made it so.
That which is practiced as an ordinance of God, or as a means to accomplish an end, when the then end is not by any promise of God annexed to the means, is not only unsuitable to a Christian to perform, but to every rational man, and indeed at the best it must be but a form without power; now I suppose you mean laying on of hands is so; ergo.
D. C. — Ans. I will not accept against anything that I can any way pass over, therefore to take all your expressions in the best sense I can, I consent to your major, and do not only deny your minor, but affirm also that there is not the least ordinance, command, principle, or doctrine of Jesus Christ, but hath many general promises, and some of them particular, as Matt. 5:19, John 14:15, 16, 23, 24, 15:7, 10, 14. 1 John 2:3, 3:22, 5:2, 3, these in general. Now in particular, for the imposition of hands, in regard it is properly an act of saints, to appropriate the benefit of their prayer on the person prayed for, Acts 6:6, 8, 15, 17. Jam. 5:14,13. We have first divers examples which are recorded for our instruction to encourage us and be as a promise to us, that the God and Father to them is our God and Father, as Deut. 34:9, 1 Tim. 4:14, 2 Tim. 1:6, 5:22, Acts. 8:17,19, 6:9, 17.
Secondly, we are encouraged and stirred up by a particular promise from Christ’s own mouth, to pray for whatsoever we will Matt. 18:19, John 14:12, 13,15, 7:16, 23, 26. 1 John 3:22. & 5:14, 15, 16, Matt. 21:21, 22, and in his name for the Spirit, Luke 11:13. Yea, it is observable, that as the Father ratified the ordinance of baptism on Jesus Christ, by sending on him the Holy Ghost; so is it notable that the Father ratified imposition of hands upon prayer twice, Act. 8:17; 19:6, which he never did on baptism save only when Jesus was baptized; but if we will, notwithstanding such a cloud of witnesses, put this ordinance from us, and count ourselves unworthy of the Holy Ghost, let us know, that he that hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his, Rom. 8:9, but is a reprobate, 2 Cor. 13:15, and his body is none of the temples of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:15.
C. K. — Obj. Next, you suppose an objection, if it is objected; But God hath promised to pour out his Spirit, &c. Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17, and this promise may be expected to be accomplished by the laying on of hands, &c.
Ans. Your answer, Though it is true that God hath promised the pouring out of his Spirit, yet this is not annexed to the laying on of hands, but was dispensed without the laying on of hands, as Acts 10:44, and sometimes before baptism, as Act. 9:17, 19 & 10:44.
D. C. — Reply. The objection you make you may as easily unmake, you are the potter, and have power over your own clay, but we make not our objection in this manner, nor from that text, yet we may consider what is in your answer worthy observation, that though the promise of the Holy Ghost is annexed to baptism, Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 2:38, 39. yet the Holy Ghost was not so tied to it; but you grant it to be before in Acts 9:17 & 10:44, and this renders your own answer invalid to your own objection; so mightily do they mistake that undertake to fight against the truth.
C.K. — 3 Arg. That upon the same account that one thing is practiced by us without a precept, barely because the Apostles did practice it, everything practiced by them ought to be practiced by us; and then the writing of scripture, healing the sick, raising the dead, circumcision, &c, ought to be practiced, which I suppose will in no measure be granted by sober men.
D. C. — Ans. This may have the force of a syllogism with some instances but is a bare discourse, and the very same that is used by the opposers of water-baptism, and in the second place may be used by any against your church-meetings, and supper of the Lord, and women’s receiving, but I answer thus;
Ans. Your answer, Though it is true that God hath promised the pouring out of his Spirit, yet this is not annexed to the laying on of hands, but was dispensed without the laying on of hands, as Acts 10:44, and sometimes before baptism, as Act. 9:17, 19 & 10:44.
D. C. — Reply. The objection you make you may as easily unmake, you are the potter, and have power over your own clay, but we make not our objection in this manner, nor from that text, yet we may consider what is in your answer worthy observation, that though the promise of the Holy Ghost is annexed to baptism, Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 2:38, 39. yet the Holy Ghost was not so tied to it; but you grant it to be before in Acts 9:17 & 10:44, and this renders your own answer invalid to your own objection; so mightily do they mistake that undertake to fight against the truth.
C.K. — 3 Arg. That upon the same account that one thing is practiced by us without a precept, barely because the Apostles did practice it, everything practiced by them ought to be practiced by us; and then the writing of scripture, healing the sick, raising the dead, circumcision, &c, ought to be practiced, which I suppose will in no measure be granted by sober men.
D. C. — Ans. This may have the force of a syllogism with some instances but is a bare discourse, and the very same that is used by the opposers of water-baptism, and in the second place may be used by any against your church-meetings, and supper of the Lord, and women’s receiving, but I answer thus;
First, You dispute out of things not granted, supposing it without precept, which we do not. Secondly, If by the word (barely) either you suppose there is no precept for us to follow the examples, and practices, then have you not well read the scriptures, and we have already proved that we have a precept; but if you intend it as a distinction between such actions as were occasional, and temporary, and were not properly said to be practiced by the apostles (which I suppose you do) I acquiesce in your distinction, but then the word practice loseth its force; wherefore I shall make bold with your proposition thus; That what was barely once, or occasional, or but upon temporary commands acted by the apostles, without any further precept or practice, ought not to be practiced by us; but then this serves not your turn against imposition of hands; then if you say, that many things were practiced by them which are not to be practiced by us, or which we have no precept to follow, this is utterly denied, for their examples, doctrines, and practices were binding commands, yea the very examples of all saints and churches in good and lawful, or commendable things.
The Apostles’ doctrines are perfect commands, yea the very commands of Christ, Mat. 28:20, & 1 Cor. 14:37, Phil. 4:9. And the Apostles themselves used that authority, 2 Thes. 3, 4, 6, 12. 1 Thess. 4:2, 2 Pet. 3:2. Yea Paul alone as from the Lord, 1 Cor. 7:10, for we are built upon the foundations of the apostles, and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, Eph. 2:20.
I shall also shew you how their very examples are commandments, Phil. 4:9. Whatsoever you have heard and seen in me, do, 1 Cor. 4:6, & 11:1. Be ye followers of me; and these are Paul’s particular examples, but in the plural, the apostle’s examples are fully commanded, Phil. 3:17, & 2 Thes. 3:7, 9. If we will yet go higher, Christ’s examples are fully commanded, 1 Cor. 11:1, Jo. 13:15, & 1 Jo. 2:6, & 1 Pet. 2:21, yea God himself, Eph. 5:1. Followers of God, be holy, for God is holy, 1 Pet. 1:16. Be perfect, as our heavenly Father, Mat. 5:48. And if we will go lower, we have likewise commands to follow the examples of saints, Heb. 6:12. & 13:7. And for this cause, the Thessalonians are so commended for following of the examples of Christ and his apostles, 1 Thes. 1:6, yea and of other churches in Jerusalem, 1 Thes. 2:14. If we yet go further, Titus and Timothy were commanded to be examples for others to follow, 1 Tim. 4;12; Tit. 2:7. And so of elders, 1 Pet. 5:3, yea to the very women to be examples and teachers of the younger, 1 Tim 5, Tit. 2:3, 4, & 1 Pet. 3:1. What shall I say? The very examples of the wicked are useful, Heb. 4:11, & 2 Pet. 2:6, & 1 Cor. 10:6, 11.
Obj. But you will say, if it is a commandment to follow examples, then either all, or some; if all, it were a contradiction, if but some, then which?
Ans. This is easily answered, by 3 John 11, Follow what is good, shun what is evil.
Obj. But you will then object, How should we know?
Ans. Phil. 4:8. will tell you.
C. K. — As for your instances in writing scripture, &c, I shall answer them one after another.
D. C. — For scripture, it were well if we did write nothing else, but you mean new foundations, but that cannot be 1 Cor. 3:11, but every man may build upon this foundation, 1 Cor. 14:33, so it is not hay and stubble, for that will be burnt, 1 Cor. 3:12, 13. The Apostles writ not Scripture from themselves, but from the Lord.
And if you will press it so far, if Jesus Christ himself gave us new scripture (which is but a bare supposition) we ought to write scripture-foundations, for we must follow examples wherein they are examples, viz. obedience to the word of Christ, and of all that are sent by Christ, not that come of themselves, or are sent by men.
Your second instance of healing the sick, I look upon it so far from your purpose, that I esteem it a constant duty, Mark 16:18, with Jam. 5:15. For I suppose we even grow wicked for want of faith, and do witness the time of the coming of Christ, Luke 18:8, through our infidelity. We come now to your fourth and last argument.
C. K. — Arg. 4. To practice that as an ordinance of God, which was only practiced by the apostles, as foundation-layers, for the confirmation of those foundations, and that by an immediate revelation from God, without a particular written word, is in (effect) to proclaim to the world the laying of the foundation again, and so indeed to come under the reproof of that text, Heb. 6:1, 2, which is so often urged; therefore it behooves persons to be very careful what they do in this matter, &c.
D. C. — This contains many positions and affirmations, and hath scarce the face of an argument, but of a complication of many suppositions, every of which must be examined, whether they be not mere suppositions of no force; therefore,
Supposition 1. You suppose this imposition of hands only practiced by the apostles, which is manifestly proved to be otherwise, both in Acts 13:3, where others than apostles laid their hands on the very apostles themselves: Paul and Barnabas, who were apostles, as appears, Acts 14:4,14, & 1 Cor. 9:5. Secondly, you may find it in 1 Tim. 4:14, performed by elders. Yea, you may find it a practice also of Timothy by authority and order of the gospel, as is implied, 1 Tim. 5:22, where the original will easily clear from those mistakes, which our English renders it subject to, for it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all which promiscuously in English are rendered laying on of hands, though of very wide difference in sense. Lastly, it is spoken as to other believers than apostles, Mar. 16:18, which runs into a perpetual ordinance to them that believe, Jam. 5:14.
Supposition 2. Your next supposition is, that they only practiced imposition of hands as foundation-layers (a supposition that perhaps chiefly misguides you from your obedience, but we find it practiced by the apostles themselves upon another account, even in those places which you so mistake, Acts 8:14, & 19:6, for they were already confirmed in the faith of the Gospel, they were not brought by the imposition of hands to believe, such miracles were of another nature, and upon such as believed not; as Acts 3:5, 6, 7, 8, &c. & 6:8, & 8:6, and all throughout the Gospels and the Acts, for the word saith expressly, that signs are not for them that believe, but for them that believe not, 1 Cor. 14:22. Let us, therefore, be men, and not children in understanding, as there the apostle exhorts, 1 Cor. 14:20. Secondly, we find the very chief of the apostles and others practicing of it, where the gospel was already confirmed with signs; and no sign at all is mentioned to follow these impositions, Acts 6:6, & 13:3.
Supposition 3. Your third supposition is, That they did it not without an immediate revelation, and there is no immediate revelation mentioned in any place for doing it. For Acts 6, it is upon a disorder of the church it was first propounded, and when the apostles’ sayings pleased the multitude, then it was done, Acts 8. It was when the apostles had heard that Samaria had received the Gospel, then they sent Peter and John, Acts 19. It was when the Ephesians knew not whether there was a Holy Ghost or not and is not baptized into the name of Jesus, then they were both baptized, and had imposition of hands; yea in Acts 13:3, which is the most likely a revelation of any, there is none for the imposition of hands, but for separating Paul and Barnabas, &c.
Supposition 4. You suppose no written word when as above nine or ten written words lie idle, and are of no use nor meaning for want of this practice, and better it was they were blotted out of your books than to continue records against your disobedience, as Acts 2:41, & 14:23, & 6:6, & 8:17, & 13:3, & 19:6, & 1 Tim. 3. & 4:14, 2 Tim. 1:6, Tit. 1. added to the Church 42. Apostles; doctrine Heb. 6:2, 1 Tim. 4:14, & 5:22, and multitudes of places already mentioned.
Supposition 5. Whereas you suppose it, therefore, a laying again of the foundation, we cannot but look upon it as a taking away a foundation and depriving yourselves of what you never had, and comes under the danger of 2 Thess. 2:8, where ignorance (which opposeth doctrine) and disobedience (which opposeth commands) are both together punished with vengeance in flaming fire; therefore the counsel of Gamaliel as very good, Lest we be found fighters against God, and so run the judgment of Heb. 2:3, & 10:28,27, & 12:25. But I pray for, and desire with much longing, yea I hope it will be otherwise with you, which the Lord God our heavenly Father grant, through Jesus Christ. Amen.
Dr. Ch. answer to C. K.'s paper being thus read, C. K. replied, That he sent not in his Paper as a full answer to the thing in question, but as an occasion of further debate. And Dr. Ch. having urged, That without the practice of laying on of hands there was no use of Heb. 6:2. C. K. replied, That it was for the confirmation of the gospel, and indeed the result of all the discourse that followed might be summed up into these two assertions.
On Capt. K.'s side, it was only for the confirmation of the gospel.
D. Ch. Assertion was, That laying on of hands was a precept of Christ, to appropriate the prayers of the Church to the person prayed for, For C. K. proofs, Heb. 2:3, 4. Dr. Ch. were Acts 8:17, & 13:3, &c, 6:6. C. K. offered three things to make D. Ch. assertion invalid, one was, That Doctrine did not infer practice. Because that under the doctrine of baptism sufferings were contained, yet men must not willingly go and expose themselves to suffering, and martyrdom.
That gifts are not now given by prayer as then they were; and
That Acts 8, Peter and John were sent after the preaching of Philip to confirm the gospel to the Samaritans, and Paul, after John's preaching, to confirm it to the Ephesians, Acts 19.
But Dr. Ch. took off his first argument by daily experience, that there was no need to seek after sufferings; and secondly by scripture, for that, all that would live godly shall suffer persecution, 2 Tim. 3:12, Heb. 12:8, & 1 Pet. 2:21, & 4:12.
2. That prayers certainly were not without gifts, unless the prayers were not in faith; as for the particular gift of tongues it is not needful, for being all of one tongue, it was now barbarism to speak with many unknown tongues, 1 Cor. 14:11. Besides that, tongues are for a sign, a judgment, not to those that believe, but to those that believe not verse 22. For even the very gift of tongues was not that the apostles might speak in unknown phrases but in a language well known to the auditory, Acts 2:8, 11. And the Corinthians are reproved all along that chapter for this carnal ambition of tongues, for the Holy Ghost giveth not gifts but to edification, but for such gifts of the Holy Ghost as the Holy Ghost mentioneth Rom. 12, & 1 Cor. 12, we have them by prayer, and faith, and humility, and love, and joy in the Holy Ghost, are increased by prayer, and by the Spirit we are all led into what truth we have, and are led into all truth as we have need, yea all prayers that are made are for the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is promised us, Luke 11:13, without which we are none of Christ’s, Rom. 8:9, but reprobates, 2 Cor. 13:5. Yea and we have the gift of tongues so far as it is good and perfect, For every good and perfect gift cometh from above, Jam. 1:17. and everyone that studieth attaineth not to tongues, nor can every man boast of the Holy Ghost that doth miracles, since Christ will not know some of them, Mat. 7:22, 23, and it is given to false prophets, and the beast to work miracles, Matt. 24:2, 2 Thess. 2:9. & 19, 20, Rev. 13:13,16,19. Now to come in particular to see whether Acts 8; Acts 19, make for C. K. or Dr. Ch. (being alleged by both.) In the first place, if imposition of hands were for confirmation of the gospel, then never more need to be practiced than now, wherein there is so much doubting, yea so much opposing of truth, and so little faith; but to the places quoted, Acts 8, it appeareth they were confirmed in the gospel before, for they believed, and were baptized, both men and women, ver. 12, and had not neglected the great salvation of Christ, though preached but by a deacon, Acts 6:5, an evangelist, Acts 21:8, not a Foundation-layer (if none but apostles were foundation-layers) or writers or scriptures, yet God confirmed his doctrine by miracles of divers kinds, vers. 5, 6, 7, 8, so that this end of miracles from Heb. 2:4, is clearly taken off before the imposition of hands came.
But on the other side, that they were sent from the church at Jerusalem, that they prayed for them, that by laying on of hands they did appropriate their prayer, and signify whom they prayed for, is apparent from the text, and that on whomsoever they laid their hands they received the Holy Ghost, verses 14, 15, 17. So likewise Acts 19, they were already confirmed in the gospel, and were baptized into the name of Jesus, verse 5, before they received the Holy Ghost, verse 6, and surely Paul did not neglect prayer (which was mentioned to be practiced in all other places of laying on of hands) before he laid on his; so in Acts 6:6, there was no confirmation of the gospel, nor so much as a miracle, and yet there was the appropriating of the benefit of the prayer to the persons prayed for; but then C. K. allowed Imposition of hands to officers, did he not then (as was said by Mr. Willis,) contradict himself, when he would allow no practice but a bare notional doctrine?
1. So that it was very evident, that laying on of hands was not for confirmation of the Gospel, in regard there was no laying on of hands anywhere, but where the Gospel was already confirmed by preaching, and sometimes by miracles, and believed and obeyed.
But it was apparent that it was an appropriating of the benefit of the prayers to the persons prayed for, in regard that hands were laid on all those that were prayed for.
2. It was apparent by Capt. K’s. confession, that it is still a practice as well as a doctrine since he allows it to officers, and then how he will sever it from all, unless by the rule of Diotrephes, 3 John 3, we know not.
3. It is apparent, That the apostles only were not layers on of hands (which C. K. infers, under the notion of foundation-layers, and foundation-confirmers) in that the Ephesians, Acts 13. the presbytery, 1 Tim. 4:14, laid on hands; and Timothy himself is advised, 1 Tim. 5, and the elders of the church, Jam. 5, about laying on of hands, and it is enlarged in general to believers, Mark 16:18.
FINIS.
The Apostles’ doctrines are perfect commands, yea the very commands of Christ, Mat. 28:20, & 1 Cor. 14:37, Phil. 4:9. And the Apostles themselves used that authority, 2 Thes. 3, 4, 6, 12. 1 Thess. 4:2, 2 Pet. 3:2. Yea Paul alone as from the Lord, 1 Cor. 7:10, for we are built upon the foundations of the apostles, and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, Eph. 2:20.
I shall also shew you how their very examples are commandments, Phil. 4:9. Whatsoever you have heard and seen in me, do, 1 Cor. 4:6, & 11:1. Be ye followers of me; and these are Paul’s particular examples, but in the plural, the apostle’s examples are fully commanded, Phil. 3:17, & 2 Thes. 3:7, 9. If we will yet go higher, Christ’s examples are fully commanded, 1 Cor. 11:1, Jo. 13:15, & 1 Jo. 2:6, & 1 Pet. 2:21, yea God himself, Eph. 5:1. Followers of God, be holy, for God is holy, 1 Pet. 1:16. Be perfect, as our heavenly Father, Mat. 5:48. And if we will go lower, we have likewise commands to follow the examples of saints, Heb. 6:12. & 13:7. And for this cause, the Thessalonians are so commended for following of the examples of Christ and his apostles, 1 Thes. 1:6, yea and of other churches in Jerusalem, 1 Thes. 2:14. If we yet go further, Titus and Timothy were commanded to be examples for others to follow, 1 Tim. 4;12; Tit. 2:7. And so of elders, 1 Pet. 5:3, yea to the very women to be examples and teachers of the younger, 1 Tim 5, Tit. 2:3, 4, & 1 Pet. 3:1. What shall I say? The very examples of the wicked are useful, Heb. 4:11, & 2 Pet. 2:6, & 1 Cor. 10:6, 11.
Obj. But you will say, if it is a commandment to follow examples, then either all, or some; if all, it were a contradiction, if but some, then which?
Ans. This is easily answered, by 3 John 11, Follow what is good, shun what is evil.
Obj. But you will then object, How should we know?
Ans. Phil. 4:8. will tell you.
C. K. — As for your instances in writing scripture, &c, I shall answer them one after another.
D. C. — For scripture, it were well if we did write nothing else, but you mean new foundations, but that cannot be 1 Cor. 3:11, but every man may build upon this foundation, 1 Cor. 14:33, so it is not hay and stubble, for that will be burnt, 1 Cor. 3:12, 13. The Apostles writ not Scripture from themselves, but from the Lord.
And if you will press it so far, if Jesus Christ himself gave us new scripture (which is but a bare supposition) we ought to write scripture-foundations, for we must follow examples wherein they are examples, viz. obedience to the word of Christ, and of all that are sent by Christ, not that come of themselves, or are sent by men.
Your second instance of healing the sick, I look upon it so far from your purpose, that I esteem it a constant duty, Mark 16:18, with Jam. 5:15. For I suppose we even grow wicked for want of faith, and do witness the time of the coming of Christ, Luke 18:8, through our infidelity. We come now to your fourth and last argument.
C. K. — Arg. 4. To practice that as an ordinance of God, which was only practiced by the apostles, as foundation-layers, for the confirmation of those foundations, and that by an immediate revelation from God, without a particular written word, is in (effect) to proclaim to the world the laying of the foundation again, and so indeed to come under the reproof of that text, Heb. 6:1, 2, which is so often urged; therefore it behooves persons to be very careful what they do in this matter, &c.
D. C. — This contains many positions and affirmations, and hath scarce the face of an argument, but of a complication of many suppositions, every of which must be examined, whether they be not mere suppositions of no force; therefore,
Supposition 1. You suppose this imposition of hands only practiced by the apostles, which is manifestly proved to be otherwise, both in Acts 13:3, where others than apostles laid their hands on the very apostles themselves: Paul and Barnabas, who were apostles, as appears, Acts 14:4,14, & 1 Cor. 9:5. Secondly, you may find it in 1 Tim. 4:14, performed by elders. Yea, you may find it a practice also of Timothy by authority and order of the gospel, as is implied, 1 Tim. 5:22, where the original will easily clear from those mistakes, which our English renders it subject to, for it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all which promiscuously in English are rendered laying on of hands, though of very wide difference in sense. Lastly, it is spoken as to other believers than apostles, Mar. 16:18, which runs into a perpetual ordinance to them that believe, Jam. 5:14.
Supposition 2. Your next supposition is, that they only practiced imposition of hands as foundation-layers (a supposition that perhaps chiefly misguides you from your obedience, but we find it practiced by the apostles themselves upon another account, even in those places which you so mistake, Acts 8:14, & 19:6, for they were already confirmed in the faith of the Gospel, they were not brought by the imposition of hands to believe, such miracles were of another nature, and upon such as believed not; as Acts 3:5, 6, 7, 8, &c. & 6:8, & 8:6, and all throughout the Gospels and the Acts, for the word saith expressly, that signs are not for them that believe, but for them that believe not, 1 Cor. 14:22. Let us, therefore, be men, and not children in understanding, as there the apostle exhorts, 1 Cor. 14:20. Secondly, we find the very chief of the apostles and others practicing of it, where the gospel was already confirmed with signs; and no sign at all is mentioned to follow these impositions, Acts 6:6, & 13:3.
Supposition 3. Your third supposition is, That they did it not without an immediate revelation, and there is no immediate revelation mentioned in any place for doing it. For Acts 6, it is upon a disorder of the church it was first propounded, and when the apostles’ sayings pleased the multitude, then it was done, Acts 8. It was when the apostles had heard that Samaria had received the Gospel, then they sent Peter and John, Acts 19. It was when the Ephesians knew not whether there was a Holy Ghost or not and is not baptized into the name of Jesus, then they were both baptized, and had imposition of hands; yea in Acts 13:3, which is the most likely a revelation of any, there is none for the imposition of hands, but for separating Paul and Barnabas, &c.
Supposition 4. You suppose no written word when as above nine or ten written words lie idle, and are of no use nor meaning for want of this practice, and better it was they were blotted out of your books than to continue records against your disobedience, as Acts 2:41, & 14:23, & 6:6, & 8:17, & 13:3, & 19:6, & 1 Tim. 3. & 4:14, 2 Tim. 1:6, Tit. 1. added to the Church 42. Apostles; doctrine Heb. 6:2, 1 Tim. 4:14, & 5:22, and multitudes of places already mentioned.
Supposition 5. Whereas you suppose it, therefore, a laying again of the foundation, we cannot but look upon it as a taking away a foundation and depriving yourselves of what you never had, and comes under the danger of 2 Thess. 2:8, where ignorance (which opposeth doctrine) and disobedience (which opposeth commands) are both together punished with vengeance in flaming fire; therefore the counsel of Gamaliel as very good, Lest we be found fighters against God, and so run the judgment of Heb. 2:3, & 10:28,27, & 12:25. But I pray for, and desire with much longing, yea I hope it will be otherwise with you, which the Lord God our heavenly Father grant, through Jesus Christ. Amen.
Dr. Ch. answer to C. K.'s paper being thus read, C. K. replied, That he sent not in his Paper as a full answer to the thing in question, but as an occasion of further debate. And Dr. Ch. having urged, That without the practice of laying on of hands there was no use of Heb. 6:2. C. K. replied, That it was for the confirmation of the gospel, and indeed the result of all the discourse that followed might be summed up into these two assertions.
On Capt. K.'s side, it was only for the confirmation of the gospel.
D. Ch. Assertion was, That laying on of hands was a precept of Christ, to appropriate the prayers of the Church to the person prayed for, For C. K. proofs, Heb. 2:3, 4. Dr. Ch. were Acts 8:17, & 13:3, &c, 6:6. C. K. offered three things to make D. Ch. assertion invalid, one was, That Doctrine did not infer practice. Because that under the doctrine of baptism sufferings were contained, yet men must not willingly go and expose themselves to suffering, and martyrdom.
That gifts are not now given by prayer as then they were; and
That Acts 8, Peter and John were sent after the preaching of Philip to confirm the gospel to the Samaritans, and Paul, after John's preaching, to confirm it to the Ephesians, Acts 19.
But Dr. Ch. took off his first argument by daily experience, that there was no need to seek after sufferings; and secondly by scripture, for that, all that would live godly shall suffer persecution, 2 Tim. 3:12, Heb. 12:8, & 1 Pet. 2:21, & 4:12.
2. That prayers certainly were not without gifts, unless the prayers were not in faith; as for the particular gift of tongues it is not needful, for being all of one tongue, it was now barbarism to speak with many unknown tongues, 1 Cor. 14:11. Besides that, tongues are for a sign, a judgment, not to those that believe, but to those that believe not verse 22. For even the very gift of tongues was not that the apostles might speak in unknown phrases but in a language well known to the auditory, Acts 2:8, 11. And the Corinthians are reproved all along that chapter for this carnal ambition of tongues, for the Holy Ghost giveth not gifts but to edification, but for such gifts of the Holy Ghost as the Holy Ghost mentioneth Rom. 12, & 1 Cor. 12, we have them by prayer, and faith, and humility, and love, and joy in the Holy Ghost, are increased by prayer, and by the Spirit we are all led into what truth we have, and are led into all truth as we have need, yea all prayers that are made are for the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is promised us, Luke 11:13, without which we are none of Christ’s, Rom. 8:9, but reprobates, 2 Cor. 13:5. Yea and we have the gift of tongues so far as it is good and perfect, For every good and perfect gift cometh from above, Jam. 1:17. and everyone that studieth attaineth not to tongues, nor can every man boast of the Holy Ghost that doth miracles, since Christ will not know some of them, Mat. 7:22, 23, and it is given to false prophets, and the beast to work miracles, Matt. 24:2, 2 Thess. 2:9. & 19, 20, Rev. 13:13,16,19. Now to come in particular to see whether Acts 8; Acts 19, make for C. K. or Dr. Ch. (being alleged by both.) In the first place, if imposition of hands were for confirmation of the gospel, then never more need to be practiced than now, wherein there is so much doubting, yea so much opposing of truth, and so little faith; but to the places quoted, Acts 8, it appeareth they were confirmed in the gospel before, for they believed, and were baptized, both men and women, ver. 12, and had not neglected the great salvation of Christ, though preached but by a deacon, Acts 6:5, an evangelist, Acts 21:8, not a Foundation-layer (if none but apostles were foundation-layers) or writers or scriptures, yet God confirmed his doctrine by miracles of divers kinds, vers. 5, 6, 7, 8, so that this end of miracles from Heb. 2:4, is clearly taken off before the imposition of hands came.
But on the other side, that they were sent from the church at Jerusalem, that they prayed for them, that by laying on of hands they did appropriate their prayer, and signify whom they prayed for, is apparent from the text, and that on whomsoever they laid their hands they received the Holy Ghost, verses 14, 15, 17. So likewise Acts 19, they were already confirmed in the gospel, and were baptized into the name of Jesus, verse 5, before they received the Holy Ghost, verse 6, and surely Paul did not neglect prayer (which was mentioned to be practiced in all other places of laying on of hands) before he laid on his; so in Acts 6:6, there was no confirmation of the gospel, nor so much as a miracle, and yet there was the appropriating of the benefit of the prayer to the persons prayed for; but then C. K. allowed Imposition of hands to officers, did he not then (as was said by Mr. Willis,) contradict himself, when he would allow no practice but a bare notional doctrine?
1. So that it was very evident, that laying on of hands was not for confirmation of the Gospel, in regard there was no laying on of hands anywhere, but where the Gospel was already confirmed by preaching, and sometimes by miracles, and believed and obeyed.
But it was apparent that it was an appropriating of the benefit of the prayers to the persons prayed for, in regard that hands were laid on all those that were prayed for.
2. It was apparent by Capt. K’s. confession, that it is still a practice as well as a doctrine since he allows it to officers, and then how he will sever it from all, unless by the rule of Diotrephes, 3 John 3, we know not.
3. It is apparent, That the apostles only were not layers on of hands (which C. K. infers, under the notion of foundation-layers, and foundation-confirmers) in that the Ephesians, Acts 13. the presbytery, 1 Tim. 4:14, laid on hands; and Timothy himself is advised, 1 Tim. 5, and the elders of the church, Jam. 5, about laying on of hands, and it is enlarged in general to believers, Mark 16:18.
FINIS.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. If an answer is needed, we will respond.