A MESSENGER SENT To remove some mistakes; OR A DESIROUS INSTRUMENT For the promoting of TRUTH, UNITY, PEACE and LOVE in the CHURCH of CHRIST.  
By way of Answer to a Book, untruly and improperly entitled, A vindication of that righteous principle of the Doctrine of Christ called laying on of hands upon Baptised believers.  
By THOMAS MORRIS, a servant of Jesus Christ.  
Also Robert Everards' three Questions propounded to Benjamin Morley about his practice of laying on of hands, with his Answer, and R. E. Reply.  
Study to show thyself approved unto God; a workman that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth 2 Tim. 2.15.  
To the Law, and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this rule, it is because there is no light in them, Isa. 8.20.  
LONDON, Printed for R. E. and are to be Sold by Richard Moon, at the seven Stars near the North Door of Paul's Church. 1655.   

To all that love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.  
DEar Brother, and Brethren, I, taking notice of the design of Antichrist, whose trouble it is to see the Church of Christ increase, and his honour flourish, it being the decay of his worldly honour and wicked Government, and so he hath as from the very root of envy against the honour of Jesus Christ, and the good of his Church, his, viz. Anti-christs' honour, and interest being concerned in his design, which moves him to endeavour the ruin of Christ's honour, and of his people in that, he hath in these last days endeavoured to confound Christ's Church, and the way his people walk in, by using Instruments to persuade them to shift obedience to God's Ordinances, especially in point of Baptism, and breaking of Bread, pretending as if he hath brought in a new dispensation by way of Revelation and immediate inspiration, consisting of the power of Godliness without the form; sometimes appearing like an Angel of light in point of opinion, and sometimes like a civil honest man for matter of conversation, thinking the Church of Christ could not have espied his painted blasphemy in point of opinion, nor his dissembling hypocrisy in using civil honesty as a cloak for his Knavery; so that under pretence of bringing men over to serve Christ in a higher dispensation, as he calls it, he might bring them to serve himself in a blasphemous way, giving God the lie, in saying he hath not commanded the Saints now to be Baptised in water, nor to hold visible Communion in the Supper, or breaking of Bread; and thus he endeavours to divide the Church of Christ by this means: but when he could not prevail utterly to confound the Church this way, Christ having some stout Soldiers, who as instruments under God did withstand him, he now attempts utterly to ruin the Church of Christ another way; for finding many in the Church, whom he cannot by his former design deceive, they were so zealous for obedience to God's Ordinances, he now lays his bait where he thinks it is most likely to catch, viz. in actions relating to Ordinances, and so with something like truth, which is not truth, but an error so neatly dressed with truth's habit, that few are able to look through truth's habit, so as to see the ugly shape of error that barks under it: he strikes at the very being of the Church; and therefore seeing God's honour and the Church's Peace and well being is so much concerned in it, I desire all my dear Brethren and Friends, as they with me tender God's honour and the Churches well being, Impartially to read and deliberately to consider this following Treatise, the which if you do, though Antichrist hath prevailed with some, who have a great influence upon the Churches to be Instrumental for the promoting of his defence, though I verily believe they know it not, but as some zealous Presbyters do, when they sprinkle Infants think they do God good service, you shall see this error stripped of truth's habit, and laid open in its own colours; and whereas Brother Morly in his Epistle to the Reader seems to be the more confident in his way, because the Bishops kept the name of God's Ordinances, of which, saith he, laying on of hands was one; but I must tell him and you, that for my part I dare not receive neither the name nor nature of Baptism, nor laying on of hands, as from what the Bishops said or did, no further than they said and did according to the rule of Scripture; and so if your practice had been such a one, as had been taught by way of Doctrine, and enjoined by way of Command from Scripture, it had been well; but your practice of laying on of hands being such a one as is neither taught by way of Doctrine, nor enjoined by way of Command, is of the more sad and dangerous consequence, as sad experience hath proved; so hoping you will take the Counsel of the Spirit of God by the Apostle; 2 Cor. 13. viz. To examine yourselves whether you be right in the Faith or not, I shall refer you to the following discourse for further satisfaction, and rest and remain,  
Your Fellow Servant in the Faith and Fellowship of the Gospel, THOMAS MORI●.   

TO THE READER.  
READER,  
THough upon the reading of this following Treatise, thou mayst discover two friends contending one against another, yet take heed that thou dost not stumble and fall; for though an unhappy difference is now fallen out in the Church of Christ, yet it is no new thing, for in the Apostles time Acts 17.2.7.10. there was great contention amongst the Brethren, whether or no Circumcision was of necessity to salvation; therefore think it not strange that Brethren should differ in some things; for if thou dost stumble, thou mayst fall and perish, when the parties differing may be reconciled and live for ever; but if it should so unhappily fall out, that this one thing should cause us to break our visible Communion, yet know, that I hope we have all of us better learned Christ, than to turn back again to the beggarly rudiments of the National Church of England; so hoping thou wilt be wise for God's glory and thine own good, I shall leave thee to him, who is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. 3.9. and would have all men saved 1 Tim. 2.4.  
And shall still remain a well wisher to thy Soul. THOMAS MORRIS.   

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