Laying on of hands upon baptized believers, as such, proved an ordinance of Christ in answer to Mr. Danvers's former book intituled, A treatise of laying on of hands : with a brief answer to a late book called, A treatise concerning laying on of hands, written by a nameless author / by B.K. ...

Laying on of hands upon baptized believers, as such, proved an ordinance of Christ in answer to Mr. Danvers's former book intituled, A treatise of laying on of hands : with a brief answer to a late book called, A treatise concerning laying on of hands, written by a nameless author / by B.K. ...

Table of contents

Title page

The Epiſtle Dedicatory.

The Epiſtle to the Reader.

Laying on of Hands UPON BAPTIZED BELIEVERS, As ſuch, Proved both from Scripture and Antiquity, to be a holy Inſtitution of JESUS CHRIST.

The INTRODUCTION.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. V.

CHAP. VI.

CHAP. VII.

CHAP. VIII.

CHAP. IX.

Mr. Danvers's Concluſion.

CHAP. IX.

The Concluſion of this Treatiſe, in oppoſition to his.

A brief Reply to a Book called, A Treatiſe concerning Laying on of Hands. Written by a nameleſs Author, and publiſhed in the Year 1691.

Poſtſcript.

§

[Page]

[Page]

Laying on of Hands UPON BAPTIZED BELIEVERS, As ſuch, Proved an Ordinance of Chriſt. In Anſwer to Mr. Danvers's former Book, Intituled, A Treatiſe of Laying on of Hands.

The Second Edition.

WITH A brief ANSWER to a late Book, called, A Treatiſe concerning Laying on of Hands; written by a nameleſs Author.

By B. K.

Pſal. 119.141.

I am ſmall and deſpiſed, yet do not I forget thy Precepts.

LONDON, Printed, are to be Sold by Benj. Harris at the Upper-end of Grace-church-ſtreet, near Cornhil, 1698.

The Epiſtle Dedicatory.

[Page]

[Page]

To the Congregations of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, baptiz'd upon Confeſſion of Faith, and under Impoſition of Hands, particularly in South-Wales, and more generally throughout England; Grace, Mercy, and Peace be multiplied.

Brethren,

NOtwithſtanding the glorious Light broken forth among us in theſe later Times, yet we ſee groſs Darkneſs covering the face of the Earth; nay, and our Heavens are not ſo clear as we hope e're long to behold them: for tho the Light is come, yet the Glory of the Lord is but riſing upon us; ours is but the Morning of that long'd-for Day, and poor Sion is but looking forth of the Wilderneſs: hence are ſo many Diviſions amongſt us; we ſpeak as we ſee, and according to the Light received, and as we are bound by the Authority of Divine Precept to walk: God gradually diſcovers Himſelf, and the true Order and Form of his Houſe and Worſhip unto us: and tho we are ſtill labouring under many difficulties, having had much Rubbiſh to remove (like the Iſraelites when they came out of the 70 years Captivity) and many have endeavoured to weaken our Hands, yet through infinite Grace we may ſay, the Foundation of [Page] God's Houſe is laid: Tho ſome who would build cannot find the Wall, and ſome ſtrive to bring in a Stone of Babylon for a Corner, whilſt others endeavour to caſt away a principal Pillar, becauſe it has lain a long time corrupted and covered amongſt the Antichriſtian Rubbiſh. Reformation is a glorious work, and 'tis what we all long and breathe after. Mr. D. and others have been helpful to the Church of God with reſpect to Baptiſm, but for want of further Light have loſt their way: by which means I perceive many, in one reſpect much behind them, in another are got before them, and may (as far as I can judg) get into Canaan as ſoon as they. Impoſition of Hands is the Principle of our preſent Controverſy; and it is to be lamented, that in this day we ſhould be forced to a Work of this nature. Our Brother on this Conſideration was diſſwaded from doing what we now ſee publiſhed, and rather on this account than any other; and tho ſome judg'd it would do the Truth it ſelf much injury, by weakning the hearts or hands of thoſe eſtabliſhed in it, or enquiring after it, yet ſome judg'd it ſcarce deſerved an Anſwer: But others conſidering how well he wrote on the other Principle, thought it might the more likely tend to intangle the weak, and more unwary Chriſtian. Now as to my undertaking the Work, as I judged my ſelf uncapable in reſpect of others: ſo it was not my purpoſe to have been concerned, till put upon it by ſome in this City; and conſidering the backwardneſs of others, it the more induc'd me to it. And tho but abruptly done, yet ſuch as it is, I preſent it to the ſerious peruſal and conſideration [Page] of all, whoſe Souls long after the good, full reſtoration, and perfection of Sion; hoping the God of Truth will cauſe it to entertainment in the hearts of the humble, tho I expect it will be ſlighted by ſuch as are paſſionately opinionated of their own attainments and perſwaſions, and who are below receiving inſtruction from their Inferiours. It is the grief of ſome of you (as I believe) to ſee any whom you love and tender in the Lord, oppoſing ſo holy an Inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt; but however, this you will find in peruſal of this Diſcourſe, that tho too many Baptized Chriſtians utterly diſallow and reject it, nay ſeem not deſirous to know the Mind of God herein, yet many godly Perſons both of the Presbyterian and Independent Perſwaſions (tho dark and negligent about the buſineſs of Baptiſm) have longed, and ſearched after the knowledg and diſcovery of this Truth, nay have attained to a good underſtanding and ſatisfaction herein, having laboured after a perfect reſtoration of it to its primitive uſe and purity, refining it from the Corruptions and Mutations of the Popiſh Church, not only in reſpect of thoſe abominable additions and mixtures of Chriſm, and other ridiculous Ceremonies in its adminiſtration, but alſo of the Subject to whom of right it belongs, as abundantly appears in a Treatiſe of Mr. Jonathan Hanmar's, writ 1658. when 'tis apparent their Spirits were very hot upon it. I find Mr. Caryl (writing Epiſtolary wiſe in commendation of the ſaid Book) ſpeaking thus: I conceive (ſaith he) the Learned Author of theſe elaborate Exercitations has deſerved well of the Churches, by clearing the way of thoſe[Page]admiſſions from Scripture-grounds, and the concurrent Teſtimony of many, both Antient and Modern Writers; alſo by diſcovering and removing thoſe Popiſh Additions and Pollutions, which by ſeveral ſteps have crept into it. And further he ſays, that this ingenious and pious Overture holds forth more, than moſt Churches have hitherto attained.

Alſo Mr. Vennings's honeſt and judicious expreſſions (in his Epiſtle to the ſame Treatiſe) I can't well omit; who ſpeaking of Reformation and Godlineſs, ſaith, Either by reaſon of our dimſightedneſs, being not able to ſee afar off, nor penetrate into the depth and bottom of them, or by reaſon of the abuſive Traditions, and corrupt Gloſſes with which for many Ages they have been clouded and over-caſt, many Truths ſeem not ſo clear, but they need further clearing; among others, ſuch as relate to Church-Diſcipline and Order, have long been under debate, and not without ſome conſiderable advantage, tho I humbly conceive we have not attained ſo far as to be already perfect. It remains therefore that we preſs forward, and not be ſo paſſionately fond of our prepoſſeſt Conceptions, as not to have the patience to conſider what may be offered to us, eſpecially by ſuch as wiſh well to Sion, and deſire to ſee the Goſpel-Temple in its Beauty. If any Perſons are ſpirited to ſearch after further knowledg in theſe Affairs, to dig for it as for hid Treaſures, and when they have found a Vein of Golden Ore, to refine and ſtamp it for us, we ſhould be in readineſs to receive the Truth in the love of it, and pay the tribute and homage of Obedience for the ſake of the God of Truth, whoſe Image and Superſcription it bears.

[Page] What great and profitable Pains my much honoured Friend, the Reverend Author of the enſuing Exercitation, has taken in this one Particular preſented to conſideration, and with what Curiouſneſs without Curioſity, with what Learning without Oſtentation, &c.—you will beſt perceive by the peruſal of it; and tho my Opinion be of little ſignification, yet I cannot forbear to ſay, that as to the ſubſtance and main of the deſign I judg it of ſo conſiderable importance, that I ſee not how it can be neglected without very great prejudice to Church-Communion, to ſay no more. Haply ſome may be ſo nice as to be offended with the Name, and diſlike Confirmation for fear of Biſhoping, as if that old-faſhioned Garment had but a piece of new-nam'd Cloth put to it, and dreſt up in another Mode: if it were ſo, can no good come out of Nazareth? Bonus odor veritatis ex re qualibet: but if any are under ſuch a fear, I think I may aſſure them they are more afraid than hurt, yea afraid where no fear is, as they will quickly find if they pleaſe to come and ſee.

I could wiſh our diſſenting Brethren would weigh the matter more ſeriouſly and moderately; and ſince there has been by many of different Perſwaſions ſo diligent a ſcrutiny made ad veritatem inveſt [...]gandam, and ſuch holy longings after the mind of God herein, the reſult was hop'd to have been, a ſingular Agreement in the thing it ſelf. But it may ſeem ſtrange, I confeſs, to all diſcerning Chriſtians, that ſuch ſhould not be able to diſcover or find out the Antichriſtian pollutions and mutations in Baptiſm, in reſpect of the Subject and Manner of Baptizing; which is ſo apparently contrary to the Goſpel-rule and pattern alſo. [Page] O that the God of Iſrael would open the eyes of ſome eminent ones amongſt them, to ſee the pure chryſtal Stream of this Inſtitution of Chriſt, or help them (to uſe Mr. Vennings's phraſe) to find the Vein of this Golden Ore, ſince they will not receive it as refin'd and ready-ſtampt for them by ſuch, whoſe Skill or Faithfulneſs they ſeem to ſuſpect.

But, 1. How can they be perfect in Church-conſtitution and Order; whilſt they miſs the mark in ſo conſiderable an Ordinance as Baptiſm, taking a Stone of Babylon for a Foundation, and that for Baptiſm which is none? For it has been ſo groſly abuſed, (as a learned Writer noted in another caſe) that there is nothing remaining of it amongſt them ſave the meer Name.

And, 2. May it not be admired to ſee Men of ſuch Light and Conſcience be only pleaſed with the Theory and notional part of an Ordinance of Chriſt? They ſee it to be a Goſpel-Inſtitution, but I could never yet underſtand they are in the practice thereof; If ye know theſe things, happy are ye if ye do them.

3. But how contrary to the Rule and glorious Doctrine of the Lord Jeſus would they act, ſhould they get into the practice thereof, whilſt they ſo grievouſly err in the adminiſtration of Baptiſm, ſince that alſo wholly belongs to adult perſons, as muſt be own'd if the Scriptures be a perfect and ſufficient Rule for us to walk by, and expreſs whatever is neceſſary to know concerning this as well as things of the like nature?

But probably ſome may object, Since moſt of the Authors mentioned in this Diſcourſe for the further evincing the Truth contended for, are corrupt [Page] either in Baptiſm or laying on of hands, or both, to what purpoſe are they produced?

In anſwer to which I muſt ſay, that what's offered on the account of Authors and Antiquity, has been occaſionally done, Mr. Danvers having led us in that path. Nay, I might ſay, we are neceſſitated thereto by his means, unleſs we ſhould leave one chief part of his Book unanſwered, in regard he utterly denies the thing it ſelf, viz. Laying on of hands upon baptized Believers, as ſuch, affirming there is no mention made of any ſuch thing or practice in the Scripture: and ſecondly, in ſaying the Antient Fathers and aſſerters of it flew mainly to Tradition, and the uſage of the Church in the caſe. Should an Adverſary utterly deny Water-baptiſm, however adminiſtred, and ſay it was never commanded by Chriſt, but is a meer human Invention, or Innovation of Man; yea and affirm that all the Fathers and Confeſſors, that heretofore pleaded for it, wholly made uſe of Tradition, and uſage of the Church in vindication thereof: Would not any that is for Baptiſm judg it neceſſary, not only to prove it inſtituted by the Lord Jeſus, and practiſed by the Apoſtles and primitive Chriſtians, but alſo, in oppoſition to his Opponent, that thoſe Writers both of former and later times who contended for it, did fly to the Scripture for its proof and confirmation, tho ſome of them could not do ſo as touching the Subject and Manner of Adminiſtration? Hence it is we have took the ſame method in the defence of an Ordinance of the ſame Nature and Authority.

And now, my dear Brethren, I cannot but acquaint you, that my Spirit has been much refreſhed [Page] to hear how the work of the Lord has been carried on of late amongſt ſome of you, and the readineſs of many to receive this deſpiſed Truth. I am perſwaded the more a Truth is oppoſed, the more it gets ground, and the Saints with others inquire after it: for ſince Mr. Danvers's Book came forth, at one Meeting in London, on one day, upon my own knowledg, near 30 perſons came under the practice hereof: Vincet veritas, let Truth go on conquering, and to conquer; the Lord will ariſe and ſcatter all the clouds of Darkneſs and Oppoſition, and take away the reproach caſt upon his Servants for their Witneſs to his Truth, and Zeal for his Name. Let them be aſhamed who tranſgreſs without cauſe: if we are reproached, let us take it patiently, ſince it is for our precious Redeemer's ſake, who hath ſaid, You are my friends if you do whatſoever I command you; and in another Place, Whoſoever therefore ſhall break one of theſe leaſt Commandments, and teach Men ſo, he ſhall be called the leaſt in the Kingdom of God, Mat. 5.11.

Brethren, remember the Spirit of God pronounces them worthy of commendation who ſtand faſt, and keep the Ordinances as delivered to them, 1 Cor. 11.2. and the more we ſee evil Men and Seducers (as thoſe called Quakers and others) labouring on every ſide of us to tread under feet, and contemptuouſly deſpiſe all of them, let us ſtir up our ſelves with one heart in defence of them all; and as they are appointed as Conduit-pipes for conveyance of the Spirit and bleſſings of the Goſpel to our Souls, ſo let us walk as ſuch that experience the inward Life and Virtue of them, that thereby [Page] we may beautify the Goſpel and Doctrine of God and our Saviour in all things, having Lamps and Oil alſo in our Veſſels, viz. the form of ſound Words, and power of Godlineſs in our Hearts and Lives. And now finally, Brethren, that I may not be further tedious unto you, my breathings and deſires are, that the God and Father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, the Father of Lights, the God of all Comfort and Conſolation, would fill you with the knowledg of his Will in all Wiſdom and ſpiritual Underſtanding, grant you more clear and heavenly Communion with himſelf, and with one another in the paths of Peace and Righteouſneſs, and enable you to walk inoffenſively in all well-pleaſing, being fruitful in every good work; and that the God of all Grace would eſtabliſh, ſtrengthen and ſettle you in his Truth and Ways, that ſo you may remain unmovable like a Rock in theſe evil and perilous times, wherein ſo many turn aſide, giving ear to Seducers, Impoſtors, and lying Spirits, with which our Days ſo abound, that it will be a choice Bleſſing to be kept from falling, and preſerv'd without blame till the coming of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt.

Now that the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jeſus, the great Shepherd of the Sheep, through the blood of the everlaſting Covenant, would ſanctify you throughout, and keep you from falling, and preſent you without ſpot before him, in the day of his glorious Appearance, ſhall be the conſtant and hearty Prayer of

Your Brother and Servant for Chriſt, and his Truth ſake, Benjamin Keach.

The Epiſtle to the Reader.

[Page]

THE Subſtance of this enſuing Diſcourſe was formerly wrote and publiſhed in anſwer to Mr. Danvers's Book againſt laying on of Hands: but the former Impreſſion (called Darkneſs vanquiſhed) being quite gone, I now, upon earneſt deſires thereto, preſent thee with a new one; and the rather, becauſe I have met with a later and ſhort Tract wrote by a nameleſs Author againſt this ſacred Ordinance, which is alſo here briefly anſwer'd. I have alſo ſome hopes it may tend to eſtabliſh ſuch Churches and Chriſtians as are in the practice of it, and convince ſuch as do oppoſe it; that ſo clear and precious an Ordinance may not be loſt; Deſtroy it not for a Bleſſing that is in it. But being unwilling to be tedious to thee, I commit it to the Bleſſing of God, whoſe Appointment it is. Farewel.

Decem. 13 1697.

Laying on of Hands UPON BAPTIZED BELIEVERS, As ſuch, Proved both from Scripture and Antiquity, to be a holy Inſtitution of JESUS CHRIST.

[Page]

The INTRODUCTION.

AS it is matter of grief and trouble to many ſober and pious Chriſtians, ſo it is no leſs of admiration to ſee ſuch eminent and worthy Perſons beclouded and darkned concerning one Ordinance, that are ſo clear in, and ſo much for the practice of another. How well have ſome of our Brethren written concerning Baptiſm? And how have they defended it againſt the ſtrongeſt oppoſition, as a glorious Inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt? but yet how have they oppoſed this other ſacred Ordinance, or holy Oracle of God? Heb. 5.12. and Principle of the Chriſtian Religion, viz. Impoſition [Page] poſition of hands upon baptized Believers as ſuch? which they have ſome of them cried down as much as they have cried Baptiſm up, rendring it nothing ſave a meer human Innovation, or Antichriſtian Forgery; whereas nothing can be more clear, than that it is of the ſame nature and authority with Baptiſm, and ought equally to be contended for, being inter prima Rudimenta Fidei Chriſtianae, among the firſt Rudiments of the Chriſtian Faith. Dangerous it is to pull one ſtone out of the Foundation of the Houſe of God: the Lord open their eyes to ſee their weakneſs. However, what they have written concerning this Principle, is in this enſuing Treatiſe examined, weighed, and particularly anſwered.

CHAP. I.

MR. Danvers in his Introduction tells us, pag. 3. after having given us an Account both from Scripture, and Antiquity, of the buſineſs of Baptiſm, in its Inſtitution, Subject, Manner, and End, &c. that it may neither be unneceſſary nor unprofitable to give us an account of Laying on of hands, not only becauſe it immediately follows that of Baptiſm, Heb. 6.1, 2. but more eſpecially becauſe for Confirmation (as it has been called) it had been next after Baptiſm ſo ſolemnly aſſerted, practiſed and enjoined, both in former and later times, as an Ordinance of Chriſt, and eſſentially neceſſary to Church-Communion: But what this Laying on of hands is, and how that of [Page] Confirmation is founded on the Word of God, he tells us, he ſhall conſider, examin, and recommend it to the judgment of all diſcerning, and impartial Chriſtians.

Reply. He hath in his Treatiſe of Baptiſm done well; Jehovah bleſs his Work and Pains therein. And is it ſo in very deed? Is the ground and reaſon why he undertook to write about Laying on of hands, becauſe it immediately follows Baptiſm, Heb. 6.1, 2? Did he find it ſo clearly there? and has that of Confirmation, as it is called, been ſo ſolemnly aſſerted in former and later times as an Ordinance of Chriſt, and neceſſary to Church-Communion? Methinks if this be ſo, he ſhould have been very careful how he ſpake or wrote againſt ſuch an Ordnance, which ſo immediately follows Baptiſm according to the Scripture; and more eſpecially conſidering what he ſays about Authors and Antiquity, concerning Confirmation, or laying on of hands, it having been ſo ſolemnly aſſerted, practiſed, and enjoined, as above ſaid.

Tho for my part I judg it not worth my while to make ſuch a narrow ſearch into Authors, Canons, Decrees of General Councils, and the like, as probably he and many may do: conſidering we have the Word of Chriſt ſo plain and clear in the caſe, what need we trouble our ſelves further, eſpecially being ſatisfied, as ſome of the Fathers have ſaid themſelves, that no Doctors, nor Councils are of any authority or credit without the Word of God? Yet finding ſo many of the Antients ſpeaking ſo clearly touching this Ordinance, tho under another name, it confirms me in my belief and practice [Page] herein; and one would think it ſhould the more ſtumble them: for whatſoever credit, or eſteem ſome of thoſe Authors have whom he mentions, yet I judg he will grant ſeveral of them to be as famous as moſt who have written ſince the Apoſtles time, as hereafter may be hinted.

In the next place he tells us, what method he will obſerve in writing his Treatiſe, viz.

Firſt, Give us an account what he finds of this Rite (as he is pleaſed to call it) in the New Teſtament.

Secondly, How aſſerted and practiſed by the Antients, with the Opinions of the Fathers, and Decrees of Councils.

Thirdly, How practiſed and injoined by the Church of Rome.

Fourthly, How by the Church of England.

Fifthly, How maintained by ſome of the Preſbyterian and Independent Perſwaſions.

Sixthly, How practiſed and injoined by ſeveral of the Baptized Churches in this Nation.

Then he proceeds to ſhew, how Laying on of hands was us'd in the New Teſtament:

1. In Benediction, Mark 10.16.

2. For Healing, Mark. 6.5.

3. For conferring the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit before Baptiſm, Acts 9.17. After Baptiſm, Acts 8.14.

4. In Ordination, Acts 6.6. 1 Tim. 4.14. Acts 13.3.

Reply. I readily grant what he ſays about the ſeveral ſorts of Laying on of hands, and the uſe and end of them, but muſt needs except againſt what [Page] he ſpeaks concerning the third ſort: he affirms that Hands were laid upon Perſons for conferring the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit; and mentions two Scriptures for proof,viz. Note: See God's Oracle, p. 62, 63. Acts 9.17. and Acts 8.14, 15. in which affirmation he altogether begs the queſtion, and proves nothing, nor removes what has been ſaid to this very point. In this I muſt withſtand him, for he goes too faſt. I ſhould be glad could I be an Inſtrument in the hand of Chriſt to rectify their underſtanding herein who doubt about it; for they ſeem to be much miſtaken about that Text, Acts 9.17. but eſpecially that in Acts 8.14, 15. I ſhall therefore offer ſomething in the firſt place to this; Doth not the Scripture ſay plainly in Acts 9.17. that Ananias put his hands upon Saul, that he might receive his ſight? why ſhould he ſay then, it was for the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit? If that which is expreſt to be the effects of Ananias his putting his hands on Paul, was the only end of that Service, which is according to his own arguings upon Acts 8.14. Acts 19.16. then it was only for his ſight; for it is ſaid he received his ſight, but not a word of his receiving the Holy Ghoſt, when he laid his hand upon him: that he was ſent to Saul, that he might receive the Spirit, is granted; but whether by laying on of hands, or ſome other means, is yet to be proved: And this being an extraordinary caſe, and different from that in Acts 8.14, 15. viz. Ananias his laying hands on Saul as a blind Man, that he might receive his ſight (which anſwers to that in Mark 16.18.) and Peter and John laying [Page] their hands on them in Acts 8.14. as on baptized Believers as ſuch, for their receiving the Holy Spirit, makes nothing to the Controverſy depending, tho Mr. D. hath put them together, as if the Subject, Manner, and End, were one and the ſame.

But Secondly, to proceed to that Scripture Acts 8.14. where mention is made of Peter and John's laying their hands on baptized Believers in Samaria, which our Brethren affirm was alſo to confer the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit; but how much they are miſtaken herein, ſhall be examined: Since it appears not that the Apoſtles at Jeruſalem did either ſend Peter and John to Samaria upon that account, or that they laid their hands upon thoſe believing Samaritans to that only end, 'tis very ſtrange Mr. D. or others ſhould affirm any ſuch thing; therefore to prevent this miſtake, let us once again examine theſe Texts; Now when the Apoſtles, which were at Jeruſalem, heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they ſent unto them Peter and John, who when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, ('tis not ſaid the extraordinary Gifts, but the Holy Spirit, thoſe you ſee are the expreſs words) for as yet (ſaith the Text) he was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jeſus: then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghoſt, Verſ. 14, 25. I know 'tis objected from the following words, that the Spirit came upon them in ſome viſible or extraordinary manner, becauſe Simon ſaw, that thro' laying on of the Apoſtles hands the Holy Spirit was given. This is [Page] only a ſuppoſition: for who can tell what kind of Manifeſtations of the Spirit might appear in them, to convince Simon that they had the Holy Spirit? The Text doth not ſay, they either ſpake with Tongues, or wrought Miracles. But if for arguments ſake, we ſhould grant they receiv'd the Spirit in ſome extraordinary manner, as thoſe in Acts 19. it would not follow, that this was the abſolute end of this Service; for if we may reaſon as they and others have done after this manner, that what was the effects of their laying their hands upon them, was the end why they laid on their hands, and that End is by none attained in theſe days, therefore Laying on of hands is not practicable in theſe days; we ſhall ſhew you the ſad Conſequences and Abſurdities that would follow ſuch an Inference. To proceed, 'tis ſaid Acts 4.31. that when the Apoſtles had prayed, the place was ſhaken where they were aſſembled; Now mark, becauſe this Miracle was wrought as the effect of their praying, can it be thought that was the end of Prayer, or that we muſt not pray becauſe no ſuch effects are wrought now? And when Philip had baptized the Eunuch, Acts 8.39. 'tis ſaid the Spirit caught away Philip, that the Eunuch ſaw him no more: what a ſtrange thing was this that followed Baptiſm? But now becauſe this Miracle followed as the effect of that Adminiſtration then, ſhall we conclude it was the end of the Ordinance of Baptiſm? But again in Acts 10.44. while Peter was preaching the Word to Cornelius, and unto thoſe that were in his Houſe, 'tis ſaid, The Holy Ghoſt fell on all them that heard the Word, ſo that they ſpake with Tongues, &c. [Page] Now ſhall we ſay, the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, or Miracles, were the end of Preaching, becauſe ſuch kind of Effects followed preaching? Surely none will argue ſo, that underſtand themſelves: for if that was the End of preaching, becauſe it was the Effect that followed, and that Effect now never following, we may ſay as many do, Preaching is ceaſed, if he and others argue right: for ſuch and ſuch extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit followed (ſay they) when baptized Believers did come under laying on of hands in the Apoſtles days, and theſe Gifts are not given now; therefore that Ordinance is ceaſed, it being only for the Confirmation of the Goſpel.

Now ſay I, by the ſame Argument, all the Inſtitutions of Chriſt may be denied, as well as laying on of hands: As Firſt, Meeting and aſſembling together; ſee Acts 2.1. 'tis ſaid, They were all met together with one accord in one place, and ſuddenly there came a Sound from Heaven as of a ruſhing Wind, and it filled all the Houſe where they were ſitting. Verſ. 2. And there appeared unto them cloven Tongues like fire, and ſat upon each of them. Verſ. 3. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghoſt, and began to ſpeak with Tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Here is no mention of any other Ordinance, ſave only aſſembling together, God graciouſly being pleaſed firſt to confirm the Time of Worſhip under the Goſpel, viz. the firſt Day of the Week, for ſo was the day of Pentecoſt, as Tradition has handed it down: and mind what effects followed. But,

[Page] Firſt, 'Tis not ſo now, ſhall we therefore aſſemble together no more? *

Secondly, When the Apoſtles prayed, the Houſe was ſhaken, but 'tis not ſo now; doth Prayer therefore ceaſe to be a duty?

Thirdly, When Chriſt was baptized, there was a voice heard from Heaven, ſaying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleaſed; and the Spirit came down in likeneſs of a Dove. And when the Eunuch was baptized, the Spirit caught away Philip; but ſuch Effects follow not now when Perſons are baptized; ergo it's not the duty of any to be baptized now, if theirs be right Reaſon.

Fourthly, Peter preached to the Jews, Acts 2. and at one Sermon three thouſand were converted: And he preached to Cornelius, Acts 10. and while he preached, the holy Spirit came upon them that heard the Word, that they ſpake with Tongues, and magnified God, But ſuch Effects as theſe follow not now when we preach; ergo no Man is authorized to preach now, by their arguing.

Fifthly, When Paul laid his hands on thoſe baptized Believers, Acts 19. the holy Spirit came upon them, and they ſpake with Tongues, &c. but theſe Effects follow not now when baptized Believers have hands laid upon them; [Page] muſt we therefore lay hands no more? Surely we have no more reaſon to neglect or lay this aſide, than we have all the other Ordinances, conſidering the like Effects followed them reſpectively, as well as Laying on of hands: But contrariwiſe I muſt needs ſay, inſtead of being ſtumbled, or weakned in my Faith and Practice concerning laying on of hands, from the conſideration of thoſe extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit being the Effects that followed once or twice as expreſt in the Scripture, that I am thereby abundantly confirmed, and eſtabliſhed in it, and that becauſe I find every Goſpel-Ordinance and Inſtitution of Chriſt was in the primitive time more or leſs confirmed, according to Heb. 2.4. by Signs, Wonders, and divers Miracles, and Gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, according to his own Will. And finding this Ordinance of Impoſition of Hands, ſo viſibly owned by Jehovah, and wonderfully confirmed by the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, like as Aſſembling together, Prayer, Preaching, and Baptizing hath been; it is, I ſay, of an eſtabliſhing nature to me. And I ſee no ground to except againſt this Ordinance more than any of the other, notwithſtanding what ever hath been ſaid or written againſt it from hence. And becauſe I know it has ſtumbled many, that the end of laying on of hands, Acts 8.19. was for the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, I ſhall be the larger upon this particular, fully to remove and take off this Objection, which in part has already been done. But to proceed, I affirm again that the end of that laying on of Hands, Acts 8.14, 15. and Acts 19.6. was not [Page] for the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, and I argue thus:

Firſt, Becauſe it was never propounded as the End of it, neither can it be prov'd it was. What can they inſtance in the Caſe, ſince what they mention of ſuch and ſuch Effects which followed, proves nothing in the leaſt?

Secondly, It could not be for the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, or Miracles, becauſe not promiſed unto baptized Believers as ſuch, nor was it ever given but to ſome particular Perſons; only I grant, the Holy Spirit is promiſed to all, as he is the Comforter, according to John 14.16. If ye love me, keep my Commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he ſhall ſend you another Comforter, even the Spirit of Truth, which ſhall abide with you for ever. All the Diſciples of Chriſt who believe, and are baptized, have the Spirit promiſed to them, as further might be made appear, Act. 2.38. Then ſaid Peter, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jeſus Chriſt for the remiſſion of Sins, and ye ſhall receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit; for the Promiſe is to you, and to your Children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God ſhall call. The Spirit being ſo plainly promiſed to all that were obedient to Jeſus Chriſt, or the Called of God, the Apoſtles that were at Jeruſalem, hearing how God had called by his bleſſed Word and Spirit, the Samaritans to Obedience, they well knew, and were aſſured that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, was their Right, Promiſe and Privilege, as well as any other Goſpel-Believers; and therefore ſent them Peter and John, that they might receive (through [Page] the uſe of that holy Ordinance) the Promiſe of the Father: and upon conſideration that the Samaritans were Gentiles, or a mixt People, or ſuch as were not of the Seed of Abraham according to the Fleſh, and ſome of the firſt of the Gentile Race that were called by the preaching of the Goſpel, Jehovah was pleaſed to give ſome viſible ſign and demonſtration of his receiving them into his Grace and Favour, to ſatisfy any of the Jewiſh Diſciples that might doubt concerning the extent of the Bleſſings of Chriſt and the Goſpel: for palpable it is that for ſome time after the Death and Reſurrection of Chriſt, few of the Apoſtles themſelves underſtood the glorious intent and purpoſe of the Almighty, in bringing in the Gentiles, making them fellow-Heirs, and of the ſame Body,, and Partakers of his Promiſe in Chriſt, through the Goſpel, Eph. 3.6. This I conceive to be one reaſon, why God ſo viſibly own'd the Ordinance of Laying on of hands when adminiſtred, as well as for the Confirmation of the Ordinance it ſelf; and that Chriſt might convince them he had made good his Promiſe, John 14.16. But if you will ſtill ſay, that the Reaſon, End, or Cauſe why Peter and John did lay their hands on thoſe baptized Believers, was not for the Spirit, the Comforter, as ſo conſidered, but for the extraordinary Gifts thereof, I ſhall proceed to a third Reaſon; and thus I argue:

Thirdly, Either Peter and John, when they laid their hands on thoſe Believers, and prayed for the Spirit, prayed in Faith, or not in Faith: If in Faith, then they had (I preſume) ſome [Page] ground or Promiſe of God and Chriſt, to build their Faith upon, as to what they prayed for: But if it was for the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, as ſome affirm, where ſhall we find any ſuch Promiſe that they might ground their Faith upon? And is it not ſinful to pray for that which God has no where promiſed, conſidering what the Scripture ſaith, Rom. 14.23? There are divers Promiſes, as hath been hinted, made by God of giving the Spirit, I grant, but not the extraordinary Gifts †. God promiſed, he would pour out his Spirit on his Servants and Hand-maids; and our Lord Jeſus in John 14.16. promiſed, the Comforter to all that love him, and keep his Commandments: And in Acts 2.38. it is promiſed to all that repent, and are baptized; And doubtleſs it was by virtue of theſe Premiſſes, or Promiſes of the like nature, that Peter and John prayed, and laid their hands on thoſe Believers in Samaria, and Paul on thoſe at Epheſus, Acts 19. or elſe ſhew us what Ground or Promiſe they had.

If you ſay, the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit were promiſed; then ſay I, they were promiſed to Perſons of ſuch or ſuch a Name, or ſo or ſo qualified. Now ſurely none will ſay, to Perſons of [Page] ſuch or ſuch a Name; therefore it muſt be promiſed to Perſons ſo or ſo qualified, and thoſe Qualifications alſo muſt be known: if the Qualifications be not Repentance, Faith, and Baptiſm, then aſſign what they are: If you ſay, Faith and Repentance be the Qualifications; then ſay I, the Promiſe of the extraordinary Gift is made to every Chriſtian Man and Woman; yea and every ſincere Believer muſt receive thoſe Gifts, or God doth fail of his Promiſe: For I am ſure there is not one Soul that is a Believer indeed, having obeyed from the heart the form of Doctrine taught and delivered to the Saints, but hath more or leſs received the Spirit of God, according to the Promiſe or Promiſes made to them as Perſons ſo and ſo qualified or called, as hath already been minded.

Fourthly, The end of that Laying on of hands, Acts 8. could not be for the extraordinary, Gifts of the Spirit, becauſe thoſe extraordinary Gifts, or Miracles, ſerve not for them that believe, but for them that believe not. Now can any think, Peter and John were ſent by the Apoſtles from Jeruſalem to thoſe that had received the Word, and were baptized in Samaria, for the profit and benefit only of the Unbelievers there, that they, viz. ſuch as did not believe in Samaria, might by beholding the Miracles, or extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit given to them that did believe, be convinced that Jeſus was the Chriſt? Surely no Man can think, or imagine ſuch a thing, eſpecially conſidering the Text ſays plainly, They were ſent to them that had received the Word, and were baptized; ſent for [Page] their particular Comfort, and further Conſolation in Chriſt Jeſus, that ſo they might ſtand compleat in the whole Will of God, and might be made Partakers of the Spirit of Promiſe made to every believing Soul baptized, Acts 2.38. for as much as it was their right, and they ſtood in great need of it, as all poor Souls do who enter themſelves under Chriſt's Banner: For as our Lord Jeſus, after he was baptized, had the Spirit deſcending upon him, and was ſtraightway expoſed to temptation from the Devil; even ſo are all his Followers, when they take up the Profeſſion of the Goſpel, to expect to meet with ſore Trials, Temptations, and Afflictions, and therefore have need of more of the Spirit to ſtrengthen, encourage, ſupport, and comfort them, and to give them further aſſurance of the Love of God, that they may not flag, nor be diſheartned, but may be abundantly enabled to overcome all Enemies and Oppoſition, and remain faithful to the Lord Jeſus unto the death. To this end doubtleſs the Apoſtles ſent Peter and John from Jeruſalem; who when they came, pray'd and lay'd their hands upon thoſe Men and Women baptized, even for the Holy Spirit of Promiſe, for their particular profit, comfort and benefit, and not for extraordinary Gifts or Miracles, which was ('tis plain from Heb. 2.4.) for the Confirmation of the Goſpel to them that believe not, (according to 1 Cor. 14.22.) Wherefore Tongues are for a ſign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not; but propheſying ſerveth not for them that believe not, but them which believe.

[Page] Fifthly; This being ſo, it could not be for the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, that the Apoſtles laid their hands on thoſe in Samaria, becauſe there was no need of further Miracles, foraſmuch as Philip had wrought ſuch mighty Miracles and Wonders in that City before, in ſo much that they were all convinced; yea the very Sorcerer himſelf believed, and continued with Philip, and wondred, beholding the Miracles and Signs which were done, Acts 8.13. Surely the Apoſtles at Jeruſalem hearing of thoſe things, and how the People, yea the whole City, were convinced and ſatisfied that Jeſus was the Chriſt, would never have ſent Peter and John to do that work which was ſo effectually done before by Philip; and therefore I conclude, that that laying on of hands Acts 8. was not for Tongues, Miracles, or the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, as our Brethren affirm: and this being ſo, my work is near done already; for if they miſs in giving us a true Account how Laying on of hands was uſed in the New Teſtament, they miſs in the main caſe of all; and if that Laying on of hands, Acts 8.14, 15. and Acts 19. was not for the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, the greateſt Objection is anſwered, and the chief ſtumbling-block taken out of the way of God's People: For if Prayer, and Laying on of hands was practiſed upon baptized Believers as ſuch, as a Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine, for the promiſed Spirit, the Comforter as ſo conſidered, which is the abſolute Right, Portion, and Privilege of every believing Soul to the end of the World, then doubtleſs the Ordinance muſt needs remain in full force and virtue [Page] as God's way, means, or method of conveyance of the ſaid Spirit to all his Choſen always, even until the end. But becauſe I ſhall have occaſion to ſpeak more to this anon, I forbear inlarging upon it here.

CHAP. II.

Shewing that tho this holy Inſtitution of Chriſt hath been corrupted by Antichriſt, yet it ought not therefore to be rejected.

MR. Danvers, Pag. 6. proceeds to ſhew how Laying on of hands has been aſſerted by the Antients, and by the Canons and Decrees of ſeveral Councils; Pag. 15. how by the Church of Rome; Pag. 17. how by the Church of England; Pag. 24. how aſſerted by ſome both of the Presbyterian and Independent Perſwaſion, &c.

What earnings or advantage he could propound to himſelf by filling up ſo many Pages in his Book with Stories of this kind, I know not. Many (as I am informed, and ſome in my owm hearing) do judg what he has done in this reſpect, makes more againſt himſelf than us; Nay ſome, who are for this Ordinance, ſeem to be much confirmed by what he has ſaid concerning Antiquity in reſpect thereof, and look upon themſelves as beholden to Mr. Danvers for his pains in ſearching into Authors, and in producing ſo much, both from Antient and Modern Writers, [Page] for Laying on of hands as immediately following Baptiſm, and as neceſſary to Church-Communion: And I muſt confeſs, I did not think ſo much could have been produced from Authors and Antiquity in the caſe, as I perceive there may, having through his means, according as I am capable, made ſome ſearch; Tho I muſt ſay, if there were ten times more to be urged on that account, had we not the Authority of God's Word to warrant our Practice, it would ſignify nothing: For we will ſay with Ignatius; Whoſoever ſpeaks more than is written, altho he faſt, altho he keep his Virginity, altho he work Miracles, altho he propheſy, yet let him ſeem to thee a Wolf amongſt the Sheep: Epiſt. ad Hierom.

But to proceed, I wonder Mr. Danvers ſhould condemn, and wholly caſt away Laying on of hands upon baptized Believers, and have nothing to do with it, becauſe it had been corrupted by the falſe Church; the Subject, and Manner of Adminiſtration being quite altered, and changed; the Ordinance, or pure Inſtitution being turned into abominable Superſtition: may he not as well caſt away Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper alſo, ſince they have been every way as much corrupted, changed, and polluted as this? Nay, what Ordinance has not? Our work is to diſcover, and remove all Popiſh Additions and Pollutions, which in the days of darkneſs crept in, that ſo we may ſee every Inſtitution ſhining forth in its primitive purity and ſplendor; and not reject any Ordinance of Chriſt, becauſe polluted by Antichriſt. What tho (as he ſaid) thoſe Popes, Councils, and Fathers, that enjoined and [Page] impoſed Infants Baptiſm for an Ordinance of Chriſt, enjoined that of Confirming Infants?

Reply. If it was as early corrupted, altered, and changed as Baptiſm, ought we not, ſince God has given us the Light of his Word and Spirit, to recover it from thoſe Corruptions as well as Baptiſm? Infants Baptiſm we all ſay, is a Popiſh Tradition, or humane Innovation; yet is Baptiſm Chriſt's Ordinance: ſo in like manner we ſay, is laying on of hands upon Infants, or ſuch as have only been baptized in Infancy, a meer Popiſh Rite, and Innovation: yet Laying on of hands upon baptized Believers as ſuch, is an Ordinance of Chriſt, as divers worthy Men have clearly proved from God's Word▪ And tho the Antient Fathers and Councils he ſpeaks of, together with thoſe of the Church of Rome and England, do wholly fly unto Tradition, to prove their practice of Laying on of hands upon Children; this will no more weaken our practice of Laying on of hands upon baptized Believers, than their flying to Tradition, and Uſage of the Church, to prove their Infants Baptiſm, weakens our practice of baptizing Believers.

Moreover, thoſe of the falſe Church, who wholly make uſe of Tradition to prove their Pedobaptiſm, might without doubt, had God been pleaſed to open their eyes, ſeen that Baptiſm was a Divine Inſtitution practiſed by the Apoſtles; even ſo might they alſo have eaſily ſeen, that that Laying on of hands practiſed by the Apoſtles next after Baptiſm, was Chriſt's holy Appointment; tho they could not find their ridiculous [Page] Rite, and Popiſh Ceremony of Confirming Children ſo to be, there being not the leaſt Word of God for it.

But from what our Opponents ſay of Authors, I obſerve, that in the Antichriſtian Church, ever ſince the Apoſtacy from the good old way of the Goſpel, there has been ſomewhat practiſed and kept up in the room and imitation of that Laying on of hands (inſtituted by Chriſt, and practiſed by the Apoſtles) upon baptized Believers as ſuch, and as neceſſary to Church-Communion, as well as they have kept up ſomething they call Baptiſm, in imitation of the true Baptiſm. And 'tis evident, that as the Romiſh Church has abominably corrupted the Ordinance of Baptiſm as to the Subject and Manner of Adminiſtration, and added many ridiculous, and ſuperſtitious Fopperies to it; even ſo they have done by Laying on of hands: The Silver is become droſs, and the Wine mixed with Water, Iſa. 1.22. He ſhall (ſaith Daniel) think to change Times and Laws (ſpeaking of the little Horn) and they ſhall be given into his hand, &c. Chap. 7.25.

But to proceed, do our Brethren utterly detect all thoſe impious Forgeries and Ceremonies uſed in Baptiſm, and contended for by thoſe Fathers, Councils, and corrupt Churches they ſpeak of, and ſo clearly witneſs againſt them, for changing the Subject, and Manner of Baptizing; and yet all the while hold for Baptiſm it ſelf, and faithfully contend for it; yea and conclude too, notwithſtanding thoſe Abuſes, and Corruptions by the Antients, and in the falſe Church, Baptiſm all along was maintained? this I ſay, rather confirms [Page] and proves the thing it ſelf to be an Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt than otherwiſe (tho not as they perform and practiſe it) why cannot they do the like concerning that Rite of Popiſh Confirmation? We do detect and abominate all thoſe ſuperſtitious Ceremonies uſed by them, and witneſs againſt them for changing of the Subject, viz. from baptized Believers to ſprinkled Infants, or ſuch as were rantiſed in their Infancy; and yet contend for the thing it ſelf, as practiſed in the Apoſtles time: and little reaſon they have to blame us herein; ſince the work of Reformation, or to labour to reduce Ordinances to their primitive Purity and Luſtre, is by all accounted a glorious Work; yea, and it is a full and compleat Reformation we all long for, not only for one Ordinance to be reſtored and refined from the droſs, and abominable filth of Popiſh Traditions, but every Appointment and Ordinance of Chriſt.

Mr. Danvers, p. 30. (having given us an account how Laying on of hands, or Confirmation, has been aſſerted and practiſed,

By the Antients;

By Councils;

By the Church of Rome;

By the Church of England;

By ſome of the Independent, and Presbyterian Perſwaſion;

And Laſtly, By ſome of the Baptized Churches) He comes to examine upon what ground ſuch a great Ordinance has been, and is enjoined.

Reply. Doubtleſs it concerns us all to ſee what ground, or Scripture-warrant we have for whatever we do, or is done in the Worſhip and Service [Page] of God; and as to Confirmation or Laying on of hands, as aſſerted and practiſed by ſome he ſpeaks of, I marvel not that they leave the Scripture, and fly to Tradition: For firſt, as to that which the Popiſh Church calls an Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt, 'tis ſo blaſphemous and ridiculous (as he well obſerves) that the very naming of the particulars thereof may fully detect the folly and impiety of it; whether reſpecting the Name, which is called Chryſm, Ʋnction, Perfection, &c. or the Nature, which is done by putting the ſign of the Croſs, with the Biſhop's finger, in the forehead of the Confirmed, with theſe words: I ſign thee with the ſign of the Croſs, and with the Chryſm of Salvation, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Party being in a white Garment, his Head bound with Linen, his Hair cut, and attended with Goſſips, or Sureties; this is (ſaith Mr. Danvers) what ſeveral Popes and Councils have by their Canons and Decrees determined, and enjoined as the great Sacrament of Confirmation, pag. 3.

Reply. Well might Hommius tell us, that it is not only contrary to the Scriptures, but Blaſphemous and Idolatrous, and the vain Invention of ſuperſtitious Men. And well might Tilenus call it, an Excrement of Antichriſt: And Ameſius ſay, the reaſons given for the ſame by the Papiſts, are both empty, and vain; and Mr. Calvin cry out againſt it, as is minded by Mr. Danvers. To which I might add a paſſage out of a Treatiſe of Mr. Hanmer, a Presbyterian, who tho very clear as touching Laying on of hands upon Adult Perſons Baptized before they are admitted to the [Page] Lord's Table, yet cries down the Papiſts practice herein in reſpect of manner and form; they uſe (ſaith he) anointing with Chryſm, a compound of Oil and Balſam, conſecrated by the Biſhop; which as it was never inſtituted by Chriſt nor his Apoſtles, ſo ſaith he (as ſome affirm) it had its original from Calixtus Biſhop of Rome, Anno 218, who ordained Confirmation to be performed with Chryſm, which before was done with impoſition of hands without Chryſm. Note: ☜ And further he ſpeaks of the form, which (ſaith he) they make to lie in theſe words: Conſigno te ſigno Crucis, & confirmo te Chryſmate ſalutis, in nomine Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti: I ſign thee with the ſign of the Croſs, and confirm thee with the Chryſm of Salvation, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt; A meer humane invention and device (ſaith Mr. Hanmer) that has not the leaſt ſhadow for it from the Scripture *See Mr. Hanmer on Confirmation the antient way of compleating Church-Members, pag. 45.. Alſo another exception he brings againſt the Popiſh way of Laying on of hands, viz. in reſpect of the Subject, they confirming Infants, when according to the Apoſtolical Inſtitution it belongs only to ſuch as are Adult. And it appears that Calvin from hence bore his witneſs againſt Confirmation, viz. in reſpect of the abuſe and corruption of it, as appears in his Inſtitut. lib. 4. cap. 19. To which agrees the Teſtimony of Chemnitius: Our Men (ſaith he) have often ſhewed, that the Rite of Confirmation, if the unprofitable ſuperſtitious[Page]Traditions, and ſuch as are repugnant to the Scripture, were removed, may piouſly be uſed to the edification of the Church, according to the conſent of the Scripture. Exercitat. upon Confirm. pag. 65.

That Calvin owned Confirmation, or Laying on of hands, to be a Divine Inſtitution, take his own words: Nam ne (que) ſatis pro ſua utilitate commendari poteſt ſanctum hoc Inſtitutum, nec Papiſtae ſatis exprobari tam flagitioſa Corruptela, quod illud in pueriles vertendo Ineptias, non modo ſuſtulerunt è medio, ſed eo quoque ad impurae & impiae Superſtitionis praetextum turpiter ſunt abuſi. For neither can this holy Inſtitution (ſaith he) be enough commended for its Ʋtility, nor the Papiſts be ſufficiently upbraided with their ſo flagitious corruption of it, that by turning of it into childiſh Fopperies, they have not only taken it away, but have alſo ſo far ſhamefully abuſed it, for a colour of an impure and impious Superſtition. And further he ſaith: Adulterinam enim illam Confirmationem, quam in ejus locum ſurrogarunt, inſtar Meretricis, magno Ceremoniarum ſplendore, multiſ (que) pomparum fucis, ſine modo ornant. For they do beyond meaſure deck that Adulterous Confirmation, which they have ſubſtituted in its room, like a Harlot, with great ſplendor of Ceremonies. If therefore (ſaith that worthy Author in his ſaid Excercitat. p. 51.) Confirmation ſhall be drained from theſe mixtures of humane Inventions that have for a long time ſo defaced and deformed it, viz. not called it a Sacrament; if their Popiſh matter (both remota, and proxima) of anointing with conſecrated Chryſm the forehead of the Confirmed in the form of a Croſs, be removed; [Page]if neither Infants nor Children, who are not yet arrived to years of diſcretion, be admitted, but ſuch as are Adult, who are able to give an account of their Faith, and the work of Grace upon their hearts; finally if thoſe feigned Effects, mentioned by them as the end and uſe of it, together with thoſe idle Additions that have betided it in the declining times of the Church, be rejected and caſt off; and if done only with Prayer and Laying on of hands, for the admiſſion of Perſons as full Members, to the enjoyment of all Church-Privileges, as moſt agreeable to that of the Apoſtolical and primitive times; it will (ſaith he) I conceive be found to be exceeding uſeful and advantageous, as a thing requiſite, if not neceſſary to a right Reformation, and the reducing of the Churches of Chriſt to their native beauty, and primitive pureſt ſtate and conſtitution, &c.

And that it might appear it was not only his own Judgment, together with Calvin, and Chemnitius, he produceth ſeveral other eminent Lights of the Reformed Churches, viz. Peter Martyr, the Divines of Leyden, Pareus, Rivet, Peter du Moulin, Didoclavius, as all witneſſing to Laying on of hands upon the Baptized as ſuch, as an Apoſtolical Inſtitution, and that which ought to be practiſed by the Churches of Chriſt, being refined from all Popiſh Corruptions and Additions, as the beſt Expedient, and readieſt way to a happy Reformation, according to the primitive Pattern. To which I might add Mr. Caryl, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Ralph Venning, and Mr. G. Hughes, who all ſpeak the ſame things concerning Confirmation, [Page] as may be ſeen in their Epiſtles to the forementioned Book of Mr. Hanmers, Note: Independents and Presbyterians clear touching laying on of hands, as refined from Popiſh Pollutions, in commendation, and approbation thereof: and indeed to ſee how clear they be in their underſtandings concerning this Ordinance of Laying on of hands, and how learnedly and judiciouſly they have laboured to recover it from thoſe Popiſh Mixtures, and curſed Pollutions of the Romiſh Church, hath been of a refreſhing nature unto me; tho I can't but admire in the mean while, they ſhould ſtill remain ſo blind and dark concerning Baptiſm, not perceiving how that alſo hath been as vilely corrupted and changed from the Apoſtolical Inſtitution, in reſpect of the Subject and Manner of Adminiſtration, as well as in regard of thoſe idle and ridiculous Forgeries and Additions of Chryſms. Conſignations, Albes, Salt, Spittle, Sureties, &c. which they witneſs againſt. Now were but their eyes ſo opened as to recover and drain Baptiſm from Popiſh Corruptions or Alterations upon this account alſo, how would it add to the beauty and perfection of their Confirmation and Reformation, (provided according to their Light they would alſo get into the practice of both) and what glorious Churches might they ſoon come to be, yea excel many of the baptized Congregations in reſpect of the plain Form, Order, and Conſtitution of the Houſe of God according to the primitive Pattern? But to proceed, there are few, or none as I can gather, do oppoſe this Ordinance ſave ſome of the Baptiſts, of which Mr. [Page] Danvers may be reckoned the chief; for beſides theſe modern Writers, already mentioned, who ſpeak ſo fully concerning Laying on of hands with prayer to God for more of his Holy Spirit of Promiſe, and as an orderly admiſſion unto Church-Communion, the perſwaſion or judgment of the Aſſembly of Divines concerning this Ordinance, I might alſo produce how clearly they agree with the forementioned Presbyterian and Independent Miniſters herein, as you may ſee in their Annotations on Heb. 6.

But no more of this at preſent, leſt we too far digreſs from the matter in hand; what we have here ſaid, is in anſwer to Mr. Danvers, in reſpect of the Rite it ſelf, or thing called Confirmation, and how to be rejected (as we have a cloud of Witneſſes agreeing with us herein) and how to be maintained, owned, and practiſed by the Churches of Chriſt.

I ſhall now return to Mr. Danvers, Note: Thoſe of the Antients he cites. pag. 32. he having in pag. 31. ſhewed us how blaſphemous and abominable a thing the Rite of Confirmation is, as aſſerted by the Antients, and Decrees of General Councils, and practiſed by corrupt Churches; in the next place he comes to enquire what Credit or Authority the Fathers or Doctors are of that witneſs to it, whoſe Authority he labours to diſprove, calling them ſuborned Witneſſes and Knights of the Poſt.

CHAP. III

[Page]

Shewing who the Antients are, and of their Credit and Authority who have born witneſs to Laying on of Hands.

ADmit we grant what Mr. Danvers ſpeaks concerning Dionyſius the Areopagite, and the Decretal Epiſtles of the firſt Popes, to be impious Lies and Forgeries, ſhall we therefore conclude they are all ſuborned Witneſſes. viz. the Antients who have written concerning Laying on of Hands? Surely many of the Fathers who have born witneſs thereunto, are generally received, and their Authority approved as the beſt of human Writers: What ſay you to Tertullian, ſhall we call him a Knight of the Poſt? Take his Teſtimony: (A.D. 200. de Bapt. c. 6.) Manus imponitur per benedictionem, advocans & invitans Spiritum Sanctum; tunc ille Sanctiſſimus Spiritus ſuper emundata, & benedicta Corpora, libens à Patre deſcendit. After Baptiſm the Hand is impoſed by Bleſſing, and calling and inviting of the Holy Spirit, who willingly deſcends from the Father on the Bodies that are cleanſed and bleſſed. Moreover he ſaith:Note: Tertul. de Bapt. ad Quintil. cap. 8. It is the fleſhly, or outward act of Baptiſm, that we are dipt in water; the ſpiritual effects, that we are freed from our Sins: Then follows Laying on of hands, the Diſpenſer inviting [Page]the Spirit of God by Prayer. And being cleanſed by Baptiſmal Water (ſaith he) we are diſpoſed for the Holy Spirit, under the Hands of the Angel of the Church. And further, ſpeaking concerning the happy ſtate of the Church in this day, he ſaith, (de Script. cap. 36.) She believeth in God, ſhe ſigns with Water (that is, baptizeth) ſhe clothes with the Spirit, (viz. by Impoſition of hands) ſhe feeds with the Eucharist, and exhorts to Martyrdom; and against this Order or Inſtitution ſhe receives no Man.

Another Witneſs I ſhall call in, ſhall be Euſebius (not the Pope of that Name) but Euſebius Pamphilus, who lived in the time of Conſtantinus Magnus the Emperor, about three hundred Years after Chriſt; he certifies fully to our purpoſe, (lib. 7. c. 2.) that the antient manner of receiving Members into the Church, was with Prayer, and Laying on of hands. Doubtleſs by calling it the antient manner, he muſt needs refer to the Apoſtles time.

Again, Euſebius declareth, (lib. 6. c. 26.) That one Novatus being ſick was baptized, if it may be called a Baptiſm (ſaith he) which he received, for he obtained not after his recovery that which he ſhould have done by the Canon of the Church, to wit Confirmation by the Hands of the Biſhop; which having not obtained, how can he be ſuppoſed to have received the Holy Spirit? This was about the Year 260. 'Tis alſo to be noted, that in neither of thoſe places, nor any where elſe in Euſebius, is the leaſt mention made of Croſſing, or Chryſm, in the adminiſtration of this Ordinance.

[Page] Note: A.D. 250. Cyprian. Ep. ad Jubar. 73. Cyprian ſhall be the next, whom none I ſuppoſe take for a ſuborned Witneſs: having urged that of the Apoſtles going to Samaria, to impoſe Hands on thoſe that Philip had baptized, (ſaith he) which Cuſtom is alſo deſcended to us, that they who are baptized, might be brought by the Rulers of the Church, and by Prayer, and Impoſition of Hands obtain the Holy Ghost. Again ſaith St. Cyprian, (Ep. ad Steph. de Haereticis, Ep. 72.) It is of no purpoſe to lay Hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit, unleſs they receive the Baptiſm of the Church. I might produce Origen, in his 7th Homily upon Ezekiel, who ſpeaks concerning it.

Alſo Hierom, who anſwers this Queſtion, viz. Why he that is baptized in the Church, doth not receive the Holy Ghost, but by Impoſition of hands, ſaith he (Dial. ad Lucifer.) This Obſervation for the honour of the Prieſthood, did deſcend from the Scriptures; If you ask me where it is written? 'tis anſwered, in Actibus Apoſtolorum, in the Acts of the Apoſtles.

Ambroſe is cited by Mr. Danvers himſelf; with Auguſtin, and others, whoſe Authority is not queſtioned: To which I might add Chryſoſtom, Theodoret, &c. Several others, yea many might be produced, beſides thoſe he calls ſuborned Witneſſes; and yet have we far better Authors and Witneſſes to defend this ſacred Truth; for we have the Authority of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, 'tis left on record amongſt the firſt Principles of his Doctrine; we have the Teſtimony of the Apoſtles Peter and John; and one not inferior to [Page] them, viz. bleſſed St. Paul, (Heb. 5. 12. and 6. 1, 2.) as hath, and ſhall (God aſſiſting) be made further evident: And upon no better Authority, I muſt confeſs, is this ſacred Ordinance impoſed upon us.

But now to ſpeak more directly to Mr. Danvers, what he inſiſts on in pag. 33. about the Rite of Confirmation, as practiſed in the Church of Rome, and as corrupted from the pure Inſtitution, we readily grant it is of no better Authority than Infants Baptiſm. And as touching what he ſpeaks of Rivet, (Controv. Tom. 2. Exercit. p. 44.) that it was neither inſtituted by Chriſt, nor his Apoſtles, 'tis ſpoken with reſpect of the Popiſh manner with Chryſm, and other ridiculous Ceremonies, which was before done with Prayer and Impoſition of hands without Chryſm: They did, ſaith Mr. Baxter, make haſte to corrupt it; they quickly introduced the Croſſes, and Chryſm; but from the beginning it was not ſo. And as to what he ſays concerning Ambroſe, Jerom, Auguſtin, and ſome others, it is granted, they lived in thoſe times when the Church was adulterated, and the holy Appointments of Chriſt corrupted, and changed from their primitive purity; yet this makes no more againſt the holy Ordinance of Laying on of hands, than it doth againſt Baptiſm, and the Supper of our Lord, &c. as I have already ſhewed. All that Mr. Danvers hath ſaid hitherto of Tradition, and Fathers, makes only againſt the Church of Rome and England, and others who have drunk of the Whores Cup; thoſe things which they cry up for Apoſtolical Traditions, are nought elſe ſave meer human Innovations, [Page] and curſed Inventions of corrupt Men. I ſhall cloſe this with a paſſage of Dr. Jer. Taylor, who treating about Laying on of hands upon baptized Perſons as ſuch, ſaith, This was antient, and long before Popery entred into the World; and that this Rite has been more abuſed by Popery than by any thing. As to what Mr. Danvers ſpeaks of the Waldenſes, that the true ones were againſt Impoſition of hands; if that be true, yet it muſt be underſtood of the Popiſh Confirmation, which they diſowned as a Sacrament, accompanied with Ceremonies; for ſo I find they expreſs themſelves: Such a Confirmation, I grant, they witneſs againſt, as being none of Chriſt's Inſtitution, but introduced by the Devil's Inſtigation; 'twas the corruption of it, and not the thing it ſelf, doubtleſs they witneſs againſt: but that they owned not Laying on of hands at all after Baptiſm, before admiſſion was granted to the Lord's Table, I judg too hard for any to make appear. But if they were ignorant of this Truth, 'tis no marvel, conſidering the Day they lived in.

Object. If it be objected, they with other Churches and People he mentions, were much enlightned into the Truths of the Goſpel.

Anſw. That is no good Argument, ſince glorious Reformers, and eminent enlightned Souls, may notwithſtanding lie ſhort of ſome Inſtitution of the Almighty, as appears both in the Old and New Teſtament: What glorious Light had David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Joſiah, and many others of the Godly Kings and Prophets in Juda? And yet one thing plainly laid down in the Book of the Law, they were ſhort in, nay, as ſome judg, [Page] they did not ſee it, viz. ſitting in Booths in the Feaſt of the 7th Month; of which we read in Nehem. 8. 13, 14. They found written (ſaith the Text) in the Law which God commanded by Moſes, that the Children of Iſrael ſhould dwell in Booths, in the Feaſt of the ſeventh Month. Verſ. 15. And all the Congregation of them, that were come again out of Captivity, made Booths, and ſate under the Booths: For ſince the days of Joſhua the Son of Nun, unto that day, had not the Children of Iſrael done ſo; and there was very great gladneſs, verſe 47.

CHAP. IV.

Shewing upon what ground ſome of the Independent and Presbyterian Perſwaſion have aſſerted Laying on of hands on baptiſed Perſons.

IN Pag. 36. Mr. Danvers having done with Tradition and Fathers, he tells us, he will conſider the Scripture-grounds urged in proof hereof by the Independents, and thoſe of the Presbyterian Perſwaſion; In the firſt place (which is the principal) Heb. 6.1, 2. which he ſaith, Mr. Hanmer modeſtly expreſſes to be but a probable ground.

To which I ſhall give this anſwer, that tho Mr. Hanmer uſes ſuch a Phraſe (viz. calling Heb. 6.1, 2. a probable ground) he doth not ſay, 'tis [Page] but a probable ground; and thoſe that read his Book ſhall find, that by the Teſtimony of divers famous Men, he abundantly endeavours to prove it to be abſolutely the Laying on of hands intended in that Scripture. (See Page 25, 26.) And ſince I find many eminent Men ſpeaking ſo plainly on this account of Heb. 6. 1, 2. and to ſatisfy ſome Perſons herein, and prevent miſtakes, take a few inſtances out of Mr. Hanmer, as the Judgment of ſeveral Divines upon that Text.

The firſt I ſhall cite is Didoclavius, who of three Interpretations of this Text, mentioned by him, admits of this, Cap. 2. viz. Laying on of hands after Baptiſm, and before admitted to the Lord's Table: And gives a reaſon why it may be called Confirmatory; Nempe ratione Eccleſiae approbantis, & confirmantis ſua approbatione examinatum, ad verum illud ac genuinum Confirmationis Sacramentum admittentis: (viz.) Becauſe of the Churches approving, and by their approbation confirming of the Perſon examined, and admitting him unto that true and genuine Rite of Confirmation.

The next is Major on Heb. 6.2. On this place (ſaith he) all that I have ſeen (mark) underſtand it of Impoſition of hands on ſuch as have been baptized only. Bullinger.

Mr. Hooker, Lib. 5. Sect. 6. in his Appendix, Pag. 3. alledging T.C. thus ſpeaking, Tell me, why there ſhould be any ſuch Confirmation, ſeeing no one Tittle thereof can be found in Scripture? Thus anſwers ironically, except the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, chap. 6. 2. be Scripture; plainly intimating (ſaith Mr. Hanmer) he thought that place [Page] to be a ſufficient ground for it, and that to be the meaning of the Apoſtle there.

Mr. Parker, de Polit. Eccleſ. lib. 3. c. 15, 16. refuting the Arguments of ſuch as plead for Epiſcopal Confirmation, at large aſſents (ſaith our Author) to what is by me delivered.

First, ‘He ſhews the general nature, and end of it, viz. admiſſion of Members into the Communion of the Church, which accordingly was uſed towards ſuch as were converted. This Impoſition of hands (ſaith he) Heb. 6.2. is that very Eccleſiaſtical Union, by a ſolemn profeſſing of Faith, and admiſſion into the Church.’

Secondly, ‘He ſhews the neceſſity of it from this Text, Heb. 6.2. (ſaith Mr. Hanmer.)’

Thirdly, That it ought to be done publickly, and before the Church: Et hic ordo inter gravia negotia agitur, enim de membro recipiendo, publicum hoc est, & publici juris, & ideo non niſi Eccleſiae conſenſu ejuſdem, cui adjungendus est competens, perficiendus. This courſe is to be reckoned among the weighty affairs, it is a publick thing, and of publick right; for the matter in agitation is concerning the receiving of a Member, and therefore not to be performed without the conſent of that ſame Church, to which the Competent is to be joined.

Fourthly, ‘He ſhews the Antiquity thereof, and that 'tis an Apoſtolical Inſtitution, and the practice of the Antient Church.’

He further affirms, pag. 28. that Piſcator ſo underſtood Heb. 6. 1, 2. viz. to mean Laying on of hands upon the Baptized; Alſo Beza, Paraeus, [Page] and Rivet, whoſe words take as follows [...]mpoſitio manuum, cujus mentio fit, Heb. 6.2. referenda est ad ſolennem Baptizatorum Benedictionem, quae à Paſtoribus ſolebat fieri, eos in Chriſtianiſmi vocationis confirmantibus: Impoſition of hands, whereof mention is made Heb. 6.2. is to be referred to the ſolemn Benediction of the Baptized, which was uſed to be performed by the Paſtors, confirming them in the calling of Chriſtianity. He mentions the Doctors of Leyden, ſhewing this to be their ſenſe upon this Text alſo.

Calvin, who gives this only as the chief thing intended by the Apoſtle in this place, from hence draws this remarkable Inference; wherein (ſaith Mr. Hanmer) he plainly declares his apprehenſions concerning the Original and Antiquity of this practice in the Church of Chriſt: Hic unus locus, &c. This one place (ſaith he) abundantly teſtifies that the-original of this Ceremony, viz. Confirmation, or Laying on of hands, flow'd from the Apoſtles, which yet afterwards was turned into a Superſtition; as the World almost always degenerates from the best Inſtitutions into Corruption: Wherefore to this day this pure Inſtitution [mark] ought to be retained, but the Superſtition to be corrected. Why ſhould Mr. Danvers preſume to ſay theſe Men confeſs the Scripture is but a probable ground, and that Tradition and Antiquity is the more certain? And again ‘that there is nothing but a faint inſinuation from the Scripture to ground Laying on of hands upon? What Men can ſpeak more fully to a Text?’

[Page]But to proceed, he adds Hyperus, who ſaith, Impoſition of hands, Heb. 6.2. was in the confirmation of thoſe that had been baptized and rightly inſtructed, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. He urgeth ſeveral other Perſons of the ſame mind, as Illyricus, Mr. Deering, &c.

To which I might add what Mr. Hughes late of Plymouth in his Ep. to Mr. Hanmer's Book, mentions on this account, ſpeaking of Heb. 6.2. It is by ſome glorious Lights in the Church (ſaith he) underſtood of Confirmation, in that Phraſe of Impoſition of hands, annexed to Baptiſm, Heb. 6. Whence it is ſaid, that this abundantly teſtifies that the Original of this Ceremony flowed from the Apoſtles.

Before I proceed, I might cite a paſſage full to the ſame purpoſe, as the Judgment of the Learned Aſſembly of Divines, which take as follows, out of their Annotations on Heb. 6.2. Laying on of hands, ſay they, is uſually called Confirmation; which ſtood firſt, in examining thoſe that had been baptized what progreſs they had made in Chriſtianity. Secondly, In praying for them, that God would continue them in the Faith, and give them more Grace, ſtrengthning them by his Holy Spirit, they laid their hands upon them: whence the Apoſtolical Conſtitution was called Laying on of Hands.

Moreover, What Mr. Baxter ſpeaks upon this account I can't well omit, Confirmat. p. 124, 125. If the Ʋniverſal Church of Chriſt (ſaith he) have uſed Prayer, and Laying on of hands, as a practice received from the Apoſtles, and no other beginning of it can be found; then we have no reaſon to think this Ceremony ceaſed, or to interpret the foreſaid [Page]Scripture contrary to this practice of the Ʋniverſal Church. But the Antecedent is true, ergo. And if any ſay, Anointing and Croſſing were antient; I anſwer (ſaith he)

Firſt, That they were as antient in the Popiſh uſe as the matter of a Sacrament, or neceſſary Signs, is not true, nor proved, but frequently diſproved by our Writers againſt Popiſh Confirmation.

Secondly, Nor can it be proved, that they were as antient as indifferent things.

Thirdly, We prove the contrary, becauſe they were not in Scripture-times, there being no mention of them.

Fourthly, So that we bring Antiquity but to prove the continuance of a Scripture-practice, and ſo to clear the practice of it: But the Papiſts plead Fathers for that which the Scripture is a ſtranger unto.

I ſhall cloſe this with Reverend Mr. Hooker: The antient Cuſtom of the Church (ſaith he, Eccleſ. Polit. p. 351.) was, after they had baptized, to add thereto Impoſition of hands, with effectual Prayer for the illumination of God's moſt Holy Spirit, to confirm and perfect that which the Grace of the ſaid Spirit had already begun in Baptiſm: for the means to obtain the Graces which God doth beſtow, are our Prayers; and our Prayers to that intent are available as well for others as for our ſelves.

But to paſs by this, I intreat the Reader to conſider, that tho we have urged the Teſtimony of ſeveral Authors, who are one with us in the main concerning our Practice herein, yet we build not [Page] upon Men or Tradition, but on the Word of God; neither do we ſuppoſe any neceſſity for us to take up new weapons to defend ſo plain a Truth, ſince our Adverſaries have been ſo ſufficiently worſted and put to flight by the Sword of the Spirit, as uſed by ſeveral eminent Saints in times paſt. What we have mentioned of Authors, we have been in part forced to by what Mr. Danvers and others have ſaid of them. And that leads me to what he ſpeaks, pag. 40. of the Scripture-grounds on which the Baptiſts have aſſerted this Rite (as he calls it) and founded this Practice of Laying on of hands upon baptized Believers, as neceſſary to Church-Communion, as before eſpecially held forth, Heb. 6.1, 2. tho not affirmed with that ſobriety and modeſty, as the other from Probability, but rather Infallibility, denying fellowſhip to any that do not receive it, &c.

CHAP. V.

Shewing how, and upon what ground the Baptized Churches do aſſert Laying on of hands.

HOW thoſe learned Perſons he ſpeaks of have writ and aſſerted Laying on of hands from that Text, I ſhall leave to the judicious Reader, by conſidering the Inſtances forecited; and that they hold it alſo as neceſſary to Church-Communion, might I preſume be made manifeſt, but that is not our preſent work, but rather to make the thing it ſelf appear to be an Ordinance of [Page] Jeſus Chriſt; and in order to this, thoſe two Particulars, or Principles Mr. Danvers lays down we will conſider, viz.

Firſt, That to every Ordinance of Chriſt there muſt be ſome plain poſitive word of Inſtitution to confirm it; and not only human Tradition, or farfetcht Conſequences and Inferences, ſuch as the many Volumes written of Circumciſion, and federal Holineſs, to aſſert Infants Baptiſm to be an Ordinance of Chriſt, which no ordinary Capacity can reach, and only Men of Parts and Abilities can trace, and follow in their Meanders.

Secondly, That to practiſe any thing in the Worſhip of God for an Ordinance of his, without an Inſtitution, is Will-worſhip and Superſtition, &c.

Anſw. The great Text urged for this Inſtitution, he ſays, is Heb. 6.1, 2. Therefore leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead Works, and of Faith towards God, of the Doctrine of Baptiſms, Laying on of hands, &c.

This is the Text affirmed, ſaith he, to be the great Charter of the Church, for this point of Faith and Practice; but how to find the leaſt warrant for the ſame there, he ſays we ſee not: If it was indeed ſaid, let all baptized Believers have hands laid upon them, with as much plainneſs, as let all Believers be baptized, Mat. 28.29. Acts 10.43. or, let all baptized Believers eat the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 11.24. Acts 2.41. it was ſomething to the purpoſe.

Anſw. Firſt, we grant that to every Ordinance of Chriſt there muſt be ſome word of Inſtitution, [Page] and that ſuch far-fetch Conſequence, as he minds, will not do, or be ſufficient: but that every Inſtitution muſt be laid down in ſuch plain poſitive Words, as he ſeems to affirm, viz. Let all baptized Believers have Hands laid upon them, I deny, it being none of our Principle I judg, nor theirs neither; ſince they practiſe ſuch things as Inſtitutions of Chriſt, which are no where in ſo many plain poſitive words commanded, as may hereafter be ſhewed.

But as to the other thing he minds, we do agree with him in that matter, and ſay, Whatſoever is done in the Worſhip and Service of God, without an Inſtitution, is Will-worſhip; and you ſhall ſee that our Principles agree and comport with all thoſe honeſt Proteſtant Principles concerning what we have to ſay further about Laying on of hands, &c.

But to reply to what he ſays concerning Heb. 6. it matters not whether it be Heb. 5.12. or Heb. 6.1, 2. or Acts 8.16, 17. or Acts 19.6. or any other Scripture, that is the chief Text urged to prove Laying on of hands an Ordinance and Inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt; provided that the Scripture urged on this account, will prove it ſo to be. But whereas he ſays he finds not the leaſt warrant for the ſame, I ſomewhat marvel at it, conſidering what has been formerly written, and proved from that Text, by ſeveral worthy and able Men, whoſe Books he, nor none elſe have ever yet anſwered. But it ſeems he would have it ſaid in ſo many plain words, Let all baptized Believers have hands laid upon them, or elſe all is juſt nothing that is aſſerted.

[Page]But is it in Mat. 28.19. or Acts 10.48. ſaid in ſo many plain words, Let all Believers be baptized? 'tis not ſo read in my Bible. Nay, and I affirm, that from Mat. 28.19, 20. none can prove that all Believers ought to be baptized in Water, without making uſe of ſome Inference, or ſome other Text of Scripture to prove it, for as much as Water is not expreſt or mentioned there. Suppoſe a Quaker ſhould tell you, the Apoſtles had power given them to baptize with the Holy Ghoſt, and that Chriſt commanded them to baptize all thoſe that were taught, or diſcipled, with the Spirit, and that it intends not Water in the leaſt; what would you ſay or do to refute him? Do you think you ſhould not need ſome Conſequence or other, or help from ſome other Scripture, to prove 'tis Water which is intended there?

But again, ſecondly; Is it ſaid in 1 Cor. 11.24. in ſo many plain words, Let all Believers eat the Lord's Supper, or in Acts 2.41, 42? The Pedobaptiſts ſay, how can you prove by ſo many plain words, that Women received the Lord's Supper? I grant 'tis eaſy to prove they did, yet when they demand ſuch plain Texts for it, how do you anſwer them? is it not by Inferences? And I ſee not how ſuch Anſwers do in the leaſt betray the truth, or the juſtice of our Cauſe; as do not our Anſwers to ſuch Queries ſo uſually brought by thoſe that aſſert Pedobaptiſm confute us, as you are pleaſed to ſay p. 54. for we are not in the leaſt againſt drawing of Inferences, or natural Conſequences from the Scripture. And would not you allow any Pedobaptiſt to urge a [Page] Text of Scripture, and infer what he will from it for his Practice, provided it may naturally be infer'd or drawn from the Premiſes or Text he brings? ſurely you, as well as we, will readily give him that liberty. But when Men ſhall mention Scriptures to prove their Principles or Practice by, and infer this or that from them, to the palpable wronging and wreſting of the Text, it being as far from the intent of the Spirit of God therein as the Eaſt is from the Weſt, as the Conſequences and Inferences brought from Circumciſion, and federal Holineſs, to prove Infants Baptiſm; they are ſuch kind of Inferences we declare againſt. But we need not trouble our ſelves with things of this nature, having the holy Scriptures ſo plain for our Practice, as Acts 8.17. Acts 19.6. and Heb. 6.1, 2. where it is called a Foundation-Principle of the Doctrine of Chriſt.

To this he ſays in p. 42. by way of Conceſſion, That Laying on of hands is a Principle of the Doctrine of Chriſt. But then he ſays, It muſt be ſuch a Laying on of hands as is ſomewhere taught or practiſed; but ſuch a Laying on of hands upon all baptized Believers, we find no where taught or practiſed: Jeſus Chriſt had no hands laid upon him by John Baptiſt, after he baptized him; neither did he give one word of it in his Commiſſion upon his Aſcenſion; neither do we read that the Church of the Hebrews practiſed any ſuch thing; for there is no mention that the 120 had Hands laid on them, nor the 3000 in Acts 2. or 5000 in Acts 4. after their Baptiſm, before they broke Bread; neither do we find the leaſt of it in any other Churches in the New Teſtament; neither in Samaria by Philip, nor [Page] Corinth, Philippi, Coloſſia, Theſſalonica, Rome, the Churches of Galatia, the Churches in Aſia, Smyrna, Thyatira, Pergamos, Sardis, Philadelphia, no nor in Epheſus, It is true Paul laid his hands upon twelve of their number upon another occaſion, as Peter and John did in Samaria, &c.

Anſw. He has ſaid here a great deal, and refuted us with as good Arguments as the Scotsman refuted Bellarmin: what is here more than meer Affirmations? he acknowledges there is a Laying on of hands which is called a Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine, but he ſays it muſt be ſuch a one as is ſomewhere taught and practiſed; but he is bold to ſay, this never was.

Anſw. Where is that Laying on of hands taught, which he affirms to be a Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine? Not that I queſtion it, I believe it was taught, tho not as one of the firſt Oracles of God, or beginning Principles of Chriſt's Doctrine; yet where does he find Laying on of hands on Officers taught? let him not be too confident; for that Scripture, affirmed by him to be a full Precept for it, 1 Tim. 5.22. is very doubtful *Dr. Hammond ſays 'tis that of Abſolution. what Laying on of hands is mentioned there. Mr.†Confirm. & Reſtaurat. pag. 123. Baxter ſaith, Some think by it is meant Impoſition of hands in Confirmation, ſome in Ordination, and ſome for Abſolution.

Let all Men here conſider his partiality; Is this a Precept in ſo many words, Lay hands on all Officers? whereas the word [Page] Officer, or Elder, is not mentioned in the Text, or Verſe, before nor after, nor elſewhere throughout that fifth Chapter: we muſt therefore have recourſe to other Scriptures in the caſe of Officers, which are full Precedents for it, as Acts 13.3. and 6.6. as we compare Heb. 6.2. Acts 8.15, 17. and 19.6. for the clearing the Truth we contend for, comparing Scripture with Scripture.

But ſecondly, The words are rather in themſelves a Caution or Prohibition than otherwiſe; will he call this a full Precept? the moſt he can aſſert from hence is this, that the words do imply that Timothy was to lay hands on ſome body, otherwiſe no room for thoſe Expreſſions; but then what kind of Laying on of hands he intends is the queſtion; whether it be only one ſort, or more, from hence it may be hard to decide. May we not conclude Paul's Counſel to Timothy thus far comprehenſive, viz. do not lay hands ſuddenly on any Man, neither to Office, let them firſt be proved, 1 Tim. 3.10. nor upon Perſons baptized as ſuch, they muſt firſt be taught, or inſtructed in the Truth they are about to practiſe; which may be gathered from Mat. 28.20. Heb. 5.12. they muſt be ſo taught, and the Truth ſo explained, that Perſons may obey the ſame in Faith, and with underſtanding.

Thirdly, This muſt needs be granted on all hands, that without ſome Inference, or help of other Scripture, Laying on of hands for Ordination cannot be proved from this Text, which Mr. Danvers will not admit us to do; we muſt have every Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine in ſo many [Page] plain words, and from Chriſt's own mouth too, or elſe 'tis no Inſtitution.

Object. But may be, ſome will ſay, he urges other Scriptures to prove Laying on of hands on Officers, pag. 54. Acts 6.6. & 13.3, &c.

Anſw. Granted, yet thoſe are only brought as Examples (for ſo indeed they are) and not Precepts; and there is none urged by him to prove it commanded, ſave that we have ſpoken to, 1 Tim. 5.22. and what can be produced ſave clear Precedents on that account, I know not.

But now as to Impoſition of hands on baptized Believers as ſuch, we have not only clear Examples, but alſo the Scripture ſhews it was taught as a poſitive Command and Inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt, or what was commanded by him; which I ſhall fully ſhew from Heb. 6.1, 2. where the Apoſtle writing of the ſix Principles, or Foundation-Doctrines of Chriſt, uſes the word [...] in the 1ſt Verſe, and [...] in the 2d Verſe, that is Word and Doctrine; ſo this of Laying on of Hands, amongſt other Principles, the Apoſtle there, by the Spirit of God, calls the Word and Doctrine of Chriſt: now the Words of Chriſt, and Commands of Chriſt, are Terms ſynonymous, or of the like import; as Deut. 10.4. ſhews, where the ten Commandments are called in the margin ten Words, as moſt ſuting with the Hebrew Text. Again, John 14.21. with 23. and 24. v. compared with verſ. 21. further evinces it; He that hath my Commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: In Verſ. 23. If any Man love me, he will keep my Words; and in Verſe 24. called Sayings: and the Word is ſaid in John 7.16. to be the Father's, [Page] and Chriſt's Word ſaid to be what he had from the Father. So now, Laying on of hands, as well as Repentance, Faith and Baptiſm, is the Word and Doctrine of Chriſt, and therefore equally to be obſerved and obeyed by all the Saints, being one of the Principles, or Fundamental Truths, which the Hebrew Church, at the Command and Word of Chriſt, came under the practice of, Heb. 5.12. and 6.1, 2. Moreover this Principle is, by the ſaid Author to the Hebrews, called one of the Oracles of God, which he tells them they had need again to be inſtructed in; plainly implying they had once been taught it, and were in the practice thereof. Now the Oracles of God are the Commands of God; ſee Acts 7.38. where the ten Commandments are called lively Oracles; compared with Rom. 3.2. Ʋnto them were committed the Oracles of God. Methinks this might convince any diſſatisfied Perſon, that Laying on of hands, as well as the other Principles, was taught and commanded by Jeſus Chriſt.

But yet again, conſider that what the Apoſtles wrote to the Churches as the Word of Chriſt, ought to be owned by all that are Spriritual, to be the Commands of God, 1 Cor. 14.37. But verſ. 38. If any will be ignorant, let him be ignorant. Yet not withſtanding what we ſay on this Account, ſtill I find this Objection brought againſt this Appointment, viz.

Object. Where is Laying on of hands commanded by Chriſt? we find nothing of it in the Commiſſion, Mat. 28.

[Page] Anſw. 1. Why ſhould you make ſuch a ſtir about an expreſs Command? muſt it be plainly laid down, or expreſt in the Commiſſion, or elſe no Divine Inſtitution? Does not this make as much every way againſt Laying on of hands upon Officers, as againſt that on baptized Believers as ſuch? We account that Man very malicious who reſolves to wound his Neighbour, tho himſelf be wounded thereby.

2. We have as plain Precedents for Laying on of hands on baptized Believers, as we have on Officers, Acts 8.16, 17. and Acts 19.6. yea and more than bare Examples for it: it is called a Principle of the Doctrine of Chriſt; but where that on Officers is call'd ſo I know not: for that the Laying on of hands in Heb. 6.2. cannot intend that on Officers, has been clearly proved by divers Arguments; and that it intends Laying on of hands on the Baptized for the Spirit of Promiſe, and to confirm them in the Faith newly received, is not only our light and apprehenſion, but has alſo been aſſerted to be the ſenſe of that Text by many Antient and Modern Divines of ſeveral Perſwaſions, as has been ſhewed.

Object. But ſuch a Laying on of hands you contend for, was no where practiſed; John did not lay hands upon Chriſt.

Anſw. We will grant you, John Baptiſt did not lay hands on the Lord Jeſus; it cannot be rationally concluded he ſhould, conſidering the leſſer is bleſſed of the greater. Baptiſm might be adminiſtred by John, it being a figure of Chriſt's Death, Burial, and Reſurrection; but the promiſed Spirit, which is the end of the Ordinance [Page] of Laying on of hands, is ſaid to be Chriſt's own gift, Eph. 4.7. But tho John laid not his hands on Chriſt, being not a fit Adminiſtrator thereof, yet I may ſay, the Father laid his hands upon him, and the Spirit came down viſibly in the likeneſs of a Dove, and reſted on him juſt after he came out of the Water; and this might, as many of the Learned affirm, contain the ſubſtance of this Adminiſtration contended for.

Moreover, In this way Chriſt Jeſus was viſibly ſealed by God the Father after he was baptized: ſaith Dr. Taylor, Confirm. p. 12. He had another, or new Adminiſtration paſt upon him for the reception of the Holy Spirit, and this was done for our ſakes; we alſo muſt follow that Example: and it plainly deſcribes to us the Order of this Adminiſtration, and the Bleſſing deſigned to us; after we are baptized we need to be ſtrengthned and confirmed. And again he ſaith (citing a paſſage of Optatus) Chriſt was waſhed when he was in the hands of John, and the Father finiſhed what was wanting; the Heavens were opened, God the Father anointed him, the Spiritual Ʋnction preſently deſcended in the likeneſs of a Dove, and ſate upon his Head, and was ſpread all over him when he was anointed of the Father; to whom alſo, leſt Impoſition of hands ſhould ſeem to be wanting, the Voice of God was heard from the Cloud, ſaying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleaſed. I ſhall leave this to conſideration.

Object. But further you affirm, that Chriſt did not lay hands upon his Diſciples.

Anſw. And how do you come to know he did not? may be you will ſay, 'tis no where written [Page]that he did. But pray where do you read that the 12 Diſciples, or Apoſtles of Chriſt, were baptized? Doth it follow becauſe we read not of their Baptiſm, they were not baptized?

Obj. But you ſay, there is not one word of it in the Commiſſion.

Anſw. 1. There is not one word in the Commiſſion, as I have ſhewed, concerning any Laying on of hands, yet you own that upon Officers to be a Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine.

2. There is not one word in the Commiſſion concerning the Reſurrection of the Dead, nor of Eternal Judgment, nor Prayer, nor Aſſembling together, nor other things that are undoubtedly Goſpel-Truths and Inſtitutions; yet tho they are not expreſt, they are included, as thoſe words plainly hold forth, Teach them to obſerve all things whatſoever I have commanded you: And ſurely every one may ſee, unleſs he wilfully ſhut his eyes, that there are many more Precepts implied in the words of the Commiſſion than are expreſt; for if nothing muſt be received for Goſpel-Inſtitutions but what are expreſt in the Commiſſion, you muſt throw away the greateſt part of thoſe Precepts you call Commands, or Appointments of Jeſus Chriſt.

Object. But you proceed, and ſay, That the Church of the Hebrews practiſed no ſuch thing, for there is no mention that the hundred and twenty had hands laid upon them, nor the three thouſand, Acts 2.

Anſw. That the Church of the Hebrews practiſed this Ordinance as well as other Churches, is plain in Heb. 6.1, 2. As they repented, believed, [Page] and were baptized, ſo they were under the practice of Laying on of hands: for that is a practical Ordinance all confeſs; Not laying again, ſaith the Author, Repentance from dead Works, &c. this plainly ſheweth they had once laid all thoſe Foundation-principles.

Object. But may be, you will ſay, there is nothing of this ſignified in Acts 2. when that Church was firſt gathered.

Anſw. 'Tis very clear you are miſtaken; for is it not ſaid Acts 2.42. They continued in the Apoſtles Doctrine? which they could not do, if they had not ſubmitted to every Part or Precept of it; and is not Laying on of hands, as well as Baptiſm, and thoſe other Principles, part thereof? 'tis called the Apoſtles Doctrine, Acts 2. in Heb. 6.2. Chriſt's Doctrine; not the Apoſtles any other ways than they were taught it by, and received it from the Lord Jeſus: and let none conclude they were not taught Laying on of hands, becauſe not plainly expreſt, or particularly laid down Acts 2. for we may as well conclude, the Apoſtle taught them not the Reſurrection of the Dead, nor Eternal Judgment, ſince we read nothing there to that purpoſe: Doubtleſs Philip, Acts 8. preached Baptiſm to the Eunuch, how ſhould he elſe cry out, Lo here is Water, what doth hinder me from being baptized? yet we read not one word of Philip's preaching of it to him. The Author to the Hebrews (writing to this very People) ch. 5.12. tells us, They had need to be taught again which are the firſt Principles of the Oracles of God; therefore it follows clearly, they had been taught it, and had practiſed it, as chap. 6.1, 2. proves.

[Page]Mr. Danvers goes on, and affirms, that we find not the leaſt mention of it in any of the Churches in the New Teſtament, neither in Samaria after Philip had baptized them, nor Corinth, Philippi, Coloſſia, Theſſalonica, Rome, Galatia, Smyrna, Thyatira, Pergamos, Sardis, Philadelphia, no nor Epheſus.

Anſw. I cannot but admire at ſuch affirmations: but firſt, as to the Church in Samaria, 'tis granted Philip did not lay hands on them after he had baptized them; he being only a Deacon, it might not upon that account concern, or belong to him to impoſe hands on them: and beſides, God had other work for him to do, viz. the Converſion of the Eunuch. Yet moſt evident it is, when the Apoſtles and Brethren at Jeruſalem heard that the People in Samaria had received the Word of God, and were baptized, rather than they ſhould lie ſhort of any part of their duty, eſpecially that in which ſo great a Bleſſing is promiſed, they would ſend Peter and John to pray and lay their hands upon them; and that it was not for the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, has been clearly proved. And as to the Church at Rome, 'tis ſaid plainly Rom. 6.17. That they had obeyed from the heart that Form of Doctrine delivered to them: And what Form can the Apoſtle intend ſave that in Heb. 6.1, 2? we read of no other delivered to the Saints for their obedience. And as to the Church of Epheſus, we read of their coming under this Ordinance when firſt planted, Acts 19.6.

2. And now as to ſome other Churches he ſpeaks of, I grant we read not of their practiſing [Page] this Ordinance; yet what doth this make againſt it? For where do we read of their Repentance or Faith, of their being baptized, or their believing the Reſurrection of the Dead, or Eternal Judgment? There is nothing ſpoken of ſeveral Churches as to any of theſe other Principles; and it is very obſervable, that we read but of one or two Churches that practiſed the Lord's Supper: yet none doubt but all the Churches continued in the practice of it, God's way being the ſame in every Church, 1 Cor. 4.17. If in ſome Scriptures it is ſpoken of as the duty and practice of the Saints, tho not expreſt in all places, it matters not; for if what is the duty of one Believer as a Believer, be the duty of every Believer, then there is no need for the Almighty to ſpeak of every particular Church's obedience either to Baptiſm, Laying on of hands, or the Lord's Supper, &c.

One thing I cannot but call over again, owned and confeſſed by Mr. Danvers, viz. That there is a Laying on of hands reckoned amongſt the Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt.

Anſ. 'Tis well he will grant this; nay, and it is one of his firſt Teachings, he alſo acknowledges: then I hope he will allow us to ſay, Chriſt taught a Laying on of hands as a Foundation-principle; and if he taught it, 'twas that it might be practiſed as a Foundation, or beginning Truth; and then ought not all to yield obedience thereto? For as every Perſon is actually to repent, believe, and be baptized, ſo each one ought to come under the practice of Laying on of hands, it being of the ſame extent, nature and [Page] quality with the other, and joined to them; and it cannot be ſaid to be obeyed otherwiſe than by practice; as in Baptiſm, I do not yield obedience by believing other Perſons were or ought to be baptized, but by being baptized my ſelf. We grant that ſome Act done upon, or Practice done by others, may be teaching to us, tho not ingaged in our own Perſons to do the ſame; but then it muſt not be ſuch a fundamental Principle and Practice as this, being of the ſame nature with Repentance, Faith, and Baptiſm; Will it ſerve my turn to believe 'tis another Man's duty to repent? Surely no, I muſt repent and believe my ſelf, or elſe I neglect my duty.

Object. And whereas he tells us in pag. 43▪ of other beginning Teachings, proper for all baptized Babes.

Anſw. 1. He pretends to take the ſtumbling-block out of the way of God's People: But in this 'tis palpable he rather caſt one in their way; will he make new Foundation-Principles, or call thoſe beginning Principles of Chriſt's Doctrine, or of Church-Conſtitution, which God no where ſo calls? We ſay, ſuch only are to be accounted beginning Principles, which God's Word declares ſo to be.

2. It appears as if he would make Laying on of hands for miraculous healing, to be that in Heb. 6. which has been fully anſwered again and again; they ſhould have refuted Mr. Griffith and Mr. Rider, before they inſiſt on this: I think it needleſs on that account to ſpeak any thing to it, and ſhall only refer the Reader to their excellent Books for ſatisfaction. But this I muſt ſay, that [Page] that Laying on of hands for healing belongs not to Babes as ſuch; ſtrong Men, and Fathers may be ſick, and have need of it, as well as others: beſides, this ſort concerns not all (no, only ſick Perſons) and may be practiſed again and again, as oft as Perſons may be ſick, or under bodily infirmities; but that Principle that is one of the beginning words of Chriſt's Doctrine, is only to be laid, or practiſed once, Heb. 6.1. Not Laying again, &c. 2ly. Unbelievers had hands laid upon them for healing, and therefore I might alſo argue it appertains not unto Babes as ſuch: Moreover, anointing with Oil is left as the Ordinance for healing in the Church.

3. Mr. Danvers ſhould make a difference between what Chriſt taught as a Promiſe or Gift to ſome particular Perſons, and what he taught as a general Practice; that which is minded in Mark 16. is laid down promiſſory-wiſe to ſuch as ſhould have the gift of Faith, or the Faith of Miracles *, and is therefore nothing to the purpoſe.

4. They diſtinguiſh not between the Word or Doctrine of Chriſt, and Miracles, which were for the confirmation thereof, which in Mark 16.20. the Spirit doth; which cauſeth their miſtake.

But, do they not confute themſelves by thus arguing? they own the Doctrine of Laying on of hands to be a Foundation-principle of Chriſt; but this they ſpeak of here muſt needs be granted to be temporary, being for the confirmation of the [Page] Word, as he himſelf confeſſeth; and every Word or Ordinance of Chriſt, as I have ſhewed, was more or leſs confirmed with Signs, and Wonders according to this Promiſe of Chriſt. I ſhall ſay no more to this, but proceed to his next Objection.

2. Object. Page 44. If every one of theſe Principles in Heb. 6.2. are ſo abſolutely to be taken in by Babes, and without which we are not to eſteem them communicable, what do you ſay to the Doctrine of Baptiſms, in the Text one of the Principles? muſt all be baptized with the Baptiſm of the Spirit, and of Sufferings? &c.

Anſw. We anſwer, by diſtinguiſhing between that Baptiſm that is a practical Duty, and that which is taught or laid down by our Lord Jeſus to be believed: that that is commanded, ought abſolutely to be obeyed by every Babe; and 'tis as neceſſary for every Babe to believe the Doctrine of Sufferings, which Jeſus Chriſt preached to all that would follow him and be his Diſciples; this was that which he taught, Mat. 20.22, 23. to the two Sons of Zebedee, that they (and conſequently all God's Children) ſhould more or leſs be baptized with. In the World (ſaith Chriſt) you ſhall have tribulation, John 16.33. 'Tis neceſſary every Saint ſhould be inſtructed into this, and believe this, that through much Tribulation we muſt enter into the Kingdom of God, Acts 14.22. and all thoſe who will live godly in Chriſt Jeſus, shall ſuffer perſecution, 2 Tim. 3.12. We ſay not, that every one muſt actually forſake Houſe, and Lands, and Life for Chriſt's ſake, and the Goſpel, or elſe be none of his Diſciples, but be ready in holy diſpoſition ſo to do when call'd to it.

[Page]And as to the Baptiſm of the Spirit, that the Spirit is promiſed to every true Believer, ſee Joel 2.28, 29. which Peter (Acts 2.17. compared with verſ. 38, 39.) applies indefinitely to all penitent baptized Perſons, whether Jews or Gentiles, as their Right by promiſe of the Father to receive; and not to them of that Generation only, but alſo to ſuch as ſhould repent, and be baptized in all ſucceeding Ages; this Promiſe is one and the ſame with that in John 7.38. called Rivers of Water, implying fillings *Fillings with the Spirit may be taken in a comparative ſenſe, God giving more or greater meaſures of it in the New Teſtament diſpenſation, & ſince the Aſcenſion of Chriſt, than before. with the Spirit. In Acts 2.38. 'tis ſaid to be the Gift of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 11.17. like Gifts. In Acts 8.15. the Holy Spirit: which the Apoſtles in the belief of the promiſe, Joel 2. and Joh. 14.16. Acts 2.38, prayed for. From which Scriptures it appears, that all Believers are under the like Promiſes of the Holy Ghoſt, on like terms of Repentance, Faith, &c. And according to the meaſure of Faith given us by Chriſt, may our fillings with the Holy Spirit be.

And thus it is the duty of every Diſciple to believe he ſhall receive, or be baptized with the Spirit, (according as the Will of the ſame Spirit is, that divides to every Man the particular meaſures thereof) having the Promiſe of a faithful and never-failing God to rely upon; provided he go on in his Obedience, as directed in the bleſſed Word, for the attaining of it.

[Page] Object. But if it be objected, none are baptized with the Holy Spirit, but ſuch as receive it viſibly, and in its extraordinary Gifts.

Anſw. 1. Suppoſe none are ſo baptized now, yet all the Saints are to believe the Promiſe of the Spirit, and do receive it too; and doth not God perform his Promiſe, becauſe none ſo receive the Spirit, viz. to be baptiz'd therewith? 1 Cor. 12.13.

2. All are to believe the Baptiſm of the Spirit was given in the Apoſtles days to confirm the Goſpel or Word of Chriſt. And 'tis to be obſerved, that Paul to the Epheſians (on whom he had impoſed hands, Acts 19.6. and the ſpake with Tongues, and propheſied) takes no notice of thoſe viſible Gifts, but ſaith, In whom alſo after ye believed, ye were ſealed with the Holy Spirit of Promiſe, Eph. 1.13. plainly ſhewing 'tis the great Benefit received, and enjoyed by Believers, to be ſealed by the Spirit: 'tis not matter of rejoicing to work Miracles, as 'tis to know our Names are written in Heaven. And thus we have explained the Doctrine of Baptiſms.

Now to what he ſays in the 3d place, p.45. That the Laying on of hands, Heb. 6.2. may reſpect the Laying on of hands upon the Miniſtry for their ſolemn Inveſtiture into their Office, whether Deacons, Elders, or Meſſengers, which he ſays is neceſſary to be taught, known, and underſtood by all, tho all are not commanded into the perſonal practice of it, for all are not Prophets, Apoſtles, Teachers; and 'tis moſt remarkable, that the Doctrine, or teaching of Laying on of hands, is all that is mentioned in this Scripture; all baptized Believers[Page]must be taught it, that's plain, but that they are obliged therefore to practiſe it, is not here or elſewhere to be found.

Anſw. Before I give a further Anſwer to this grand Objection, I can't but obſerve how he miſtakes the Text, i. e. than the Doctrine, or teaching of Laying on of hands only is mentioned in this Scripture; why does he ſpeak thus of Impoſition of hands only? may he not as well ſpeak ſo concerning Repentance, Faith, and Baptiſm, as of this Principle? i. e. they alſo are neceſſary only to be taught and known by all, and none concern'd in the perſonal practice of them? Would any judg this Good Divinity? What reaſon can he give, ſeeing all the four are practical Ordinances, that the three firſt ſhould be taught ſo as to be perſonally practis'd by all, and the other only to be believ'd? Tho what he ſays here has already been fully anſwer'd, yet I ſhall examin this Text further, and make it evident, that the Laying on of hands in this Text cannot intend or be meant that upon Church-Officers, but muſt mean that ſort now contended for; and I am more willing to ſpeak further to this Objection, becauſe this being anſwered, our work is done.

1. Mind that the Apoſtle is ſpeaking only here of the firſt Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt; are they not ſo called? i. e. Doctrinae Chriſtianae Initia, ſeu Rudimenta; the Beginnings or Rudiments of Chriſtian Doctrine: Or, as Beza, Prima Chriſtianiſmi Principia; the first Principles of Chriſtianity. Now Laying on of hands on Officers, is not a beginning Principle, nor of the Alphabet of the Chriſtian Religion, I think they [Page] will not affirm it ſo to be. May not a Church, or People, profeſs and practiſe the firſt or beginning Principles of Religion, and proceed very far in the way of Chriſtianity, and yet have no Officers orderly ordained amongſt them?

But 2. Theſe Principles appertain to the Foundation of God's Houſe, being ſuch on which the Houſe is built; they are all equal in kind, nature, and quality, and one not to be without the other, God having joined them together as all of one rank, for the bearing up this Spiritual Fabrick, ſee verſ. 1. But laying on of hands on Officers, is an Ordinance of another rank and nature; a Church muſt be firſt gathered, or conſtituted, and Perſons make a conſiderable progreſs in the Profeſſion of Religion, before they can orderly be choſen, or ordained to the Office of Elders or Deacons: In ſhort, Officers are not for the being, but well-being of the Church; and therefore ſuch a Laying on of hands cannot be intended here. We read of Churches who had no Officers amongſt them, Tit. 1.5, 6. If a Miniſter were to preach unto a People what are the Fundamentals of a Goſpel-Church, viz. what Perſons ought to do, that ſo in an orderly way they may be congregated together in the fellowſhip of the Goſpel, or be made regular Members of the viſible Church, would he tell them Laying on of hands on Officers is one Principle? Surely no; he would not affirm this to be one of the Rudiments of Chriſtian Practice (that which firſt of all a Chriſtian ſhould be inſtructed in and come under, that he may have a being in God's Houſe) nor a Foundation-principle of Church-Conſtitution; [Page] but that the Laying on of hands ſpoken of Heb. 6. is ſo, nothing is more evident: for if it be a Principle of the Foundation, either it muſt be a Fundamental of Salvation, or of Church-Conſtitution; but none will ſay of the former, therefore it wuſt be of the latter.

3. That it cannot intend Laying on of hands on Church-Officers, might appear further, becauſe 'tis joined to, or coupled with Baptiſm; why ſhould Laying on of hands on Officers, be by the Spirit of God laid down after this ſort? Repentance from dead Works, and Faith towards God; the Doctrine of Baptiſms, and Laying on of hands; the Reſurrection from the Dead, and Eternal Judgment. May we not ſafely argue, that the Laying on of hands, which follows here in order of words, is what followed in order of practice? See Acts 8.17. and 19.6. And is it not according to what they acknowledg ſound reaſoning in another caſe upon Mat. 28.20. and Mark 16. that Baptiſm mentioned in the Commiſſion, joined to, and following Faith and Illumination in order of words, is what the Apoſtles in order of practice, viz. after Faith and Illumination, did baptize with? Acts 2.41. Acts 8. and 10. But that was the Baptiſm of Water, which therefore is only intended in the Commiſſion, &c. And thus by comparing Scripture with Scripture, we may be ſatisfied in thoſe things, which at firſt ſeem'd doubtful.

4. It cannot be meant here, becauſe all the Church of the Hebrews, as well as that in Samaria, Acts 8. (and conſequently all other Churches) had laid, or come under this Principle, as they [Page] had laid Repentance, Faith, and Baptiſm, when they were Babes: Now, who can reaſonably imagine, either that the whole Church of the Hebrews were Officers, or that Officers are Babes in Chriſt? That this is the Laying on of hands on baptized Believers, is eaſy to underſtand: 1. Becauſe taught to Babes, Heb. 5.12. 2. Babes are capable, or meet ſubjects thereof. 3. Babes have need of it, as Children of Milk. 4. Babes we read were in the practice thereof, Acts 8. and 19.5. Becauſe it belongs to them as ſuch, and were at firſt taught it, Heb. 5. and 6.1, 2. this cannot be ſaid of any other ſort. I ſhall ſay no more, only add ſomething out of Dr. Jer. Taylor, of Confirm. p. 45—48. full to our purpoſe, which conſidering the learning and worthineſs of the Author, I judg may be uſeful; what he minds, take as followeth, ſpeaking of Laying on of hands, called Confirmation: We have ſeen (ſaith he) the Original from Christ, the practice and exerciſe of it in the Apoſtles, and the first Converts in Chriſtianity: what I ſhall now remark is, That this is eſtabliſhed and paſſed into a Chriſtian Doctrine; the Warranty for what I ſay, is Heb. 6.1. where the holy Rite of Confirmation, ſo called from the effects of this Adminiſtration, and exprest by the ritual part of it, Impoſition of hands, is reckoned a fundamental Point; and here are ſix fundamental points of St. Paul's Catechiſm, which he laid as the Foundation, or beginning of the Inſtitution of the Chriſtian Church; and therefore they who deny it, dig up Foundations. Now that this Impoſition of hands is what the Apoſtle uſed in confirming the Baptized, and invocating the Holy Spirit upon them, [Page]remains to be proved; which is done, by ſhewing, 1. It cannot intend Abſolution; nor 2. Ordination. And this is evident:

1. Becauſe the Apoſtle would henceforth leave to ſpeak of the Foundation, and go on to perfection, that is to higher Myſteries; now in Rituals there is none higher than Ordination.

2. The Apoſtle ſaying he would ſpeak no more of Impoſition of Hands, preſently diſcourſes of the myſteriouſneſs of the Evangelical Prieſthood, and the Honour of that Vocation; by which 'tis evident he ſpeaks nothing of Ordination in the Catechiſm, or Narratives of Fundamentals.

3. This alſo appears from the Context, not only becauſe Laying on of hands is immediately ſet after Baptiſm, but becauſe in the very next words of his Diſcourſe, he enumerates and apportions to theſe Ordinances their proper proportioned Effects, i. e. to Faith and Baptiſm, Illumination; to Laying on of hands, the taſting the Heavenly Gift, and being made Partakers of the Holy Spirit; by the thing ſignified declaring the Sign, and by hopes of the Reſurrection, taſtes of the good things of the World to come: He that falls from this ſtate, and turns Apoſtate from this whole Diſpenſation, digging down, and turning up theſe Foundations, ſhall never be built again; he can never be baptized again, and never confirmed any more: If he remains on theſe Foundations, tho he ſins, he may be renewed [...], by Repentance, and by reſuſcitation of the Spirit, if he had not wholly quenched him; but if he renounces the whole Covenant, diſown and cancel theſe Foundations, he is deſperate, he can never be renewed. This is the full explication of[Page]this excellent place, and otherways it cannot be explicated; but therefore into this place any notice of Ordination cannot come; no Senſe, no Myſtery can be made of it, or drawn from it, but by the interpoſition of Confirmation: The whole Context is clear, rational and intelligible. He cites Calvin, and Chryſoſtom, as ſpeaking the ſame things upon this place, p. 50.

To theſe I might add Eſtius on Heb. 6.1, 2. 'Tis (ſaith he) undoubtedly to be underſtood of that Laying on of hands, which was adminiſtred to the Faithful preſently after Baptiſm, of which St. Luke ſpeaks, Acts 8. & 19. I might produce Grotius and Heming, and other modern Authors, upon the ſame place: But having upon occaſion mentioned ſeveral before, I ſhall cloſe this with a paſſage out of Eraſmus on Heb. 6.1. The first ſtep to Chriſtianity (ſaith he) is Repentance of our former Life, next that Salvation is to be hoped from God, next that we be purged in Baptiſm from our filth, next that by Laying on of hands we receive the Holy Spirit, &c.

CHAP. VI.

Opening, and further proving Laying on of hands from Acts 8.16, 17. and 19.6. Alſo ſhewing the Judgment of Antient and Modern Writers upon thoſe two Places.

MR. Danvers having laboured to weaken the proof of our Practice from Heb. 6.1, 2. [Page] (tho all he ſays ſignifies nothing) comes p. 45. to examine Acts 8.17. and 19.6. which we affirm to be full Precedents for Laying on of hands upon baptized Believers. The ſum of his Objections, or the way he takes to invalidate what we infer from thence, take as follows, p. 46.

Object. As to that of Samaria, it is ſaid that ſeveral being converted in that City, and baptized by Philip, who wrought many Miracles, and continued ſome time with them, Acts 8.13. yet did not he impoſe hands upon them as we read of: the Church of Jeruſalem hearing that Samaria had received the Word of God, and that the Spirit was not fallen upon any of them, viz. in a viſible manner, (which was a Phraſe attributed to thoſe extraordinary Meaſures frequently given in thoſe days, Acts 10.44. which ſometimes did fall upon them before Baptiſm, and ſometimes after) ſent Peter and John, who it ſeems were extraordinarily gifted by God, ſo that on whomſoever they prayed, and laid their hands, the Spirit was viſibly, extraordinarily, and immediately given; and 'tis ſaid they laid their hands upon them, but how many 'tis not ſaid; ſurely not upon all, for Simon by his profane offer diſcovered he had neither lot nor part therein, tho baptized, &c.

Anſw. The firſt thing he hints at, as an Objection againſt our Practice from this place, is becauſe Philip laid not his hands upon them, after he had baptized them: Which we have anſwered already; but this I muſt ſay now, that if Peter and John laid their hands on thoſe Believers in Samaria, as Men miraculouſly gifted, or by virtue of their extraordinary Attainments, it might [Page] ſeem ſtrange that Philip laid not his hands upon them, being (tho but a Deacon) endowed with thoſe extraordinary Gifts, and had wrought wonderful Signs and Miracles in the ſame City before: The reaſon therefore why Philip did not impoſe hands upon them was,

1. Becauſe not miniſterially capacitated ſo to do, it not belonging to him on the account of his Office, nor his extraordinary Gifts and Endowments. This alſo I might further ſhew, becauſe the Church at Jeruſalem did not ſend to Samaria Men ſimply indowed with miraculous Gifts, but ſuch as had Miniſterial Power and Authority as the Servants of Chriſt, in his Name to compleat and perfect what was wanting among them.

'Tis an Act (ſaith Dr. Hammond on Acts 8.17.) reſerved to the Rulers of the Church, and not communicated or allowed to inferiour Officers, ſuch as Philip the Deacon here.

2. But whereas Mr. Danvers ſeems to affirm, that as ſome in the primitive time had the Gift of Healing, ſo others had the Gift or Power to give the Holy Spirit; 'tis utterly denied, and the contrary has often been proved, for that 'tis only the Gift of God, and Chriſt's bleſſed Prerogative; they were found in their Duty, they prayed, and laid on their hands, and left the iſſue to God to give the Spirit, according to his promiſe and good pleaſure.

Object. But probably ſome may object, We read of none but the Apoſtles that laid hands on baptized Believers; and tho they acted not by virtue of their miraculous Endowments, nor had power to give the Holy Spirit, yet they might act herein by virtue of their extraordinary call unto that Office.

[Page] Anſw. I affirm that they acted in all other Ordinances, yea, and did whatſoever they did in the Worſhip and Service of Chriſt, by virtue of the ſaid extraordinary Call unto the Miniſtry, as well as in this: But doth it therefore follow that nothing the Apoſtles practiſed is a Precedent or Rule unto us, as ſome ignorantly have affirmed, unleſs ſo called of God, and endowed as they were?

3. Had not Matthias the ſame power to adminiſter Ordinances (who was mediately called to his Office by the Church) as the other Apoſtles immediately called by Chriſt Jeſus? and is not the End and Work of the Office (however called to it) one and the ſame? viz. the work of the Miniſtry, the perfecting the Saints, and edifying the Body of Chriſt, Eph. 4.

4. We read hardly of any that preached the Word Authoritatively, or officiated in any Goſpel-adminiſtration by virtue of their Office, beſides the extraordinary Apoſtles; and therefore if what they did be not a Law or Rule to us, and to all ordinary Miniſters, to the end of the World, we ſhall be at a loſs in many other reſpects: It muſt therefore be granted, that what they taught and practiſed as an Ordinance of Chriſt, and foundation-Principle of his Doctrine, they delivered it unto faithful Men, that were their Succeſſors, that they might be able to teach others alſo, 2 Tim. 2.3. And this agrees with Phil. 4.9. Thoſe things that you have both learned and received, heard and ſeen in me, do; and the God of Peace ſhall be with you.

5. Had it been a Service for that Day only, [Page] and none to be Adminiſtrators thereof but thoſe great Apoſtles, it would not have been left as a ſtanding, or foundation principle in God's Houſe, and been joined to Faith, and the Reſurrection.

In the 2d place, he would have us believe the end of that Adminiſtration was for the extraordinary or viſible Gifts of the Holy Spirit, which we have clearly refuted; yet I ſhall ſay further, that by his arguing, the Apoſtles reſolved that all the Church at Samaria, yea and that at Epheſus, ſhould have the extraordinary Gifts, ſince they laid their hands on all that were baptized, without exception. Nay, it follows roundly, that where ever the Apoſtles found any particular Diſciple, or Diſciples, that had not received thoſe viſible, or extraordinary Gifts, they were to lay their hands on them to that end: For I preſume Mr. Danvers judges, had Paul found 1200, as he found 12, at Epheſus, who had not received, nor heard of the Holy Ghoſt, he would have laid hands on them; which preſuppoſes alſo, that thoſe miraculous Gifts were promiſed, and belong to every particular Member in the Church, which is directly contrary to 1 Cor. 12.4, 7, 8, 9, 29, 30. for tho (as we have proved) the Holy Spirit be promiſed to every ſincere Believer in the Lord Jeſus, yet are not the extraordinary Gifts promiſed to any in particular, being only reſerved in the boſom or breaſt of the Almighty, to whom, and after what manner he will diſtribute them. 1 Cor. 12.4. There are diverſities of Gifts, but the ſame Spirit; to one is given by the ſame Spirit, the word of Wiſdom; to another the word of Knowledg; to another Faith; to another the gift [Page]of Healing, by the ſame Spirit; to another the working of Miracles; to another Prophecy; to another diſcerning of Tongues, v. 8, 9, 10. Are all Prophets? are all workers of Miracles? have all the Gift of Healing? do all ſpeak with Tongues? &c. Hence nothing can be clearer than this, that tho all have right to the Spirit, yet but very few had the extraordinary Gifts thereof in the primitive Times.

The Third thing Mr. Danvers ſeems to affirm, is, that all in Samaria that were baptized, had not hands laid upon them, becauſe it is ſaid of Simon, he had no part nor lot in that matter.

1. Here he begs the Queſtion, taking for granted, that Simon had not hands laid upon him; but why might not Simon have lot and part in that matter, if by Lot and Part be meant the viſible, or miraculous Gifts of the Spirit, ſince Hypocrites may partake of them, as our Saviour plainly ſignifies, and alſo doth our Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 13.1, 2?

2. He might come under the Ordinance, and yet his heart not being right with God, he might not have any part or lot in the bleſſed Comforter, the Spirit of Promiſe; which the World receiveth not, nor can an unſanctified Heart partake of.

3. Their reception of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, was partly to convince the Apoſtles and Believers themſelves that Chriſt had made good his promiſe of ſending the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, to them.

4. By Lot or Part in that matter, may not be meant partaking of the ritual, or external part of the Ordinance, but rather refers to his deſire of [Page] having power to be an Adminiſtrator of it upon others, ſo that the Holy Spirit might be given to thoſe he laid his hands on. But,

5. If we ſhould grant Simon had not hands impoſed upon him, which I rather incline to, yet would it not hurt our Cauſe in the leaſt, becauſe he might be diſcovered to be a profane Wretch before it came to be his lot to partake thereof: if therefore it appears, and may be granted, that all that were baptized in Samaria came under this Appointment ſave Simon, we have as much as we deſire: And ſurely this cannot rationally be denied by any that read the words, verſ. 12. When they believed they were baptized, both Men and Women. Compare this with verſ. 16. that the Holy Spirit was fallen on none of them †M. Blackwood notes the emphaſis to lie in this Pronoun Relative They; the Antecedent hereunto muſt needs be the Baptized, &c. only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jeſus. Muſt not they, and them, mean all who are ſaid to be baptized? So likewiſe when 'tis ſaid ver. 13. they laid their hands upon them; doth not them intend the very ſame they prayed for? and ſhall we think they did not pray for them all? had not all the like need of God's Spirit? and is it not promiſed to all the Sons and Handmaids? Or ſhall we think the Apoſtle did not pray for the Women as well as the Men, the weaker Veſſels, as well as the ſtronger? In Mat. 28.19, 20. (as 'tis well noted by Mr. Fiſher) 'tis ſaid, Go, teach all Nations, baptizing them; and in the words following, teaching them to obſerve all things I have commanded you. By them muſt [Page] needs intend them all, and every of them that were made Diſciples, and baptized.

One word or two further concerning what Mr. D. objects againſt us from Acts 19.6. from the Effects that followed this Adminiſtration; he ſtill arguing as if that were the abſolute End thereof: Which, as a great Doctor well obſerves, is too trifling a fancy to be put in balance againſt so ſacred an Inſtitution. But let us examin this Scripture a little more: Have you received the Holy Spirit ſince ye believed? (ſaith our Apoſtle.) They ſaid unto him, We have not ſo much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit. Ʋnto what then were ye baptized? &c. Two things are here very remarkable.

1. That the Holy Spirit (according to the ſenſe of the Apoſtle inquiring after their reception of it) is the undoubted Right of every baptized Believer in Chriſt Jeſus, appears from theſe two expreſſions; Have ye received the Spirit ſince ye believed? (No.) Ʋnto what then were ye baptized? It ſeems ſtrange (as if Paul ſhould ſay) that you having believed in Chriſt, and been baptized, have not yet received the Holy Spirit, ſince it is the great Legacy our Lord and Maſter left to every one of his Diſciples?

2. 'Tis evident that whoſoever was baptized after Chriſt's reſurrection in his Name was inſtructed into the Promiſe of the Holy Ghoſt, and conſequently into Laying on of Hands, the outward Ceremony, or Miniſtry of it, belonging to them as Perſons ſo conſidered. Paul ſeems to queſtion their Baptiſm, ſince they were wholly ignorant of that glorious Promiſe of Bleſſing, annexed [Page] thereto; which conſidered, may fully ſatisfy any unbiaſſed Perſon that the extraordinary or miraculous Gifts could not be the End of this Adminiſtration: and as touching thoſe Effects that followed, 'tis clear the like Effects followed all other Ordinances as well as this.

Object. And whereas Mr. D. preſumes to ſay, They were ſome of the Church of Epheſus; and again, not the whole Church.

Anſw. 1. Can it be thought that thoſe were at that time Members of the Church, and yet ſo ignorant of the Holy Spirit? And ſurely Paul would not have baptized them again, if they had been Members of the Church before.

2. They are not called the Church, nor of the Church, nor ſome of the Church, but certain Diſciples; yea, and ſuch as appears were only inſtructed into the Baptiſm of John.

3. Tho we read but of 12 that had hands laid on them, which was the number of the Men *How many Women is not expreſſed, they are ſeldom the leſſer number. that Paul found at that time who lay ſhort of their Duty and Privilege in that reſpect; ſince we ſee the Spirit was their Right, as baptized Believers, it follows that it is the duty of every Believer to yield obedience to this Ordinance, as well as thoſe twelve. The way of God touching the Adminiſtration of Goſpel-Inſtitutions being one and the ſame in all the Churches of the Saints, notwithſtanding what has already been offered, may be a ſatisfactory Anſwer to Mr. D. concerning what he minds from thoſe two Scriptures: yet finding ſo many [Page] Learned Men, both antient and of later times, agreeing with us in their Expoſitions on theſe two Places; and not knowing but their Words may with ſome take more place than what ſuch a one as I may ſpeak, I'll cite a Paſſage or two.

Cyprian, ſpeaking of Acts 8.17. ſaith, It was not neceſſary they ſhould be baptized again, only what was wanting, was performed by Peter and John, that by Prayer and Impoſition of Hands the Holy Spirit ſhould be invocated.

Saith Hierom on the Acts of the Apoſtles, We find another Inſtance of the Celebration of this ritual Myſtery, for it is ſignally exprest of the Baptized at Epheſus: Paul firſt baptized them, and then laid his Hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit. And theſe Teſtimonies are the great Warranty for this holy Ordinance.

Eucherites is cited by Dr. Taylor p. 43. ſpeaking, thus: The ſame thing now done in Impoſition of Hands on ſingle Perſons, is no other than what was done upon all Believers in the deſcent of the H. Spirit.

He mentions Zanchius, ſaying, I wiſh the Examples of the Apoſtles and Primitive Churches were of more value amongſt Chriſtians. It were well if they were ſo, (ſaith the Doctor) but there is more than meer Examples; theſe Examples of ſuch Solemnities, the Apoſtles are our Maſters in them, and have given Rules and Precedents for the Church to follow: this is a Chriſtian Law, and written (as all Scriptures are) for our Inſtruction.

Eſtius on Heb. 6.2. affirms that the Laying on of Hands mentioned Acts 8.17. Acts 19.6. by St. Luke, is that of Confirmation, whereby the Spirit of God is given to Perſons baptized, wherewith[Page]with they being ſtrengthned, confeſs the Name of Chriſt undauntedly among the Enemies of the Faith. And again (ſaith he) That Hands were wont to be laid upon Perſons baptized, after the example of the Apoſtles, all Antiquity teacheth.

Dr. Hammond alſo in his Annot. on Acts 8.17. ſaith; That it was Confirmation, may appear probable, becauſe it ſo ſoon attended their Converſion and Baptiſm. When the Apoſtles which were at Jeruſalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they ſent Peter and John, verſ. 14. Which agrees well (ſaith he) with that of Confirmation, which is an Act reſerved to the Rulers of the Church, and not communicated or allowed to inferior Officers, ſuch as Philip the Deacon here.

And then paraphaſing upon Acts 19.6. he ſaith, After this Paul by Impoſition of hands, and benediction, gave them Confirmation, by which means the Holy Spirit came on them.

Mr. Ralph Venning in his Remains, ſpeaking of Acts 8.17. and 19.6. gives his underſtanding upon them; That it was the practice of the Apoſtles, after they had baptized Perſons, ſooner or later, to lay Hands upon them.

Thus from what has been ſaid, I hope it may appear to all inquiring Souls, in oppoſition to what Mr. Danvers ſaith, page 47. that theſe two Places are clear Precedents and Rules for this Practice, as well as Heb. 6.1, 2. and other Scriptures we have inſiſted upon, for as much as there was a Laying on of Hands practiſed immediately after Baptiſm, and with much certainty upon every Member, or baptized Believer, and to ſuch an End as is attainable in theſe times.

CHAP. VII.

[Page]

Further ſhewing, that Prayer, with Impoſition of Hands upon baptized Believers, remains for ever as a ſtanding or perpetual Adminiſtration.

BUT leſt any ſhould ſtill object, this Ordinance doth not continue, neither is the End attainable now, I am willing to add two or three Arguments, for the further evincing of theſe particulars.

Arg. 1. Becauſe the Lord was pleaſed to bear witneſs to, or ratify this bleſſed Ordinance or Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine, with the like Signs, Wonders, and Gifts of the Holy Spirit, as he did any other Word, Command, or Principle of the ſaid Doctrine. Now what was thus eſtabliſhed, muſt needs remain in full force to the end of the World as our duty: and dangerous it is to labour to make it void; for by the ſame Argument may an Enemy lay waſte, and take away another, yea, and conſequently every one.

Arg. 2. Becauſe it is a Foundation-principle of God's Houſe, or one of the great Pillars (next to Chriſt) on which it is built, it muſt needs remain; and very dangerous it is for any to take away a Foundation-ſtone.

'Tis very abſurd (ſaith Mr. Blackwood on Matth. p. 688.) to think that one of the ſix Foundation-principles, [Page]commended to us by the Apoſtle, ſhould ceaſe, and all the other remain to the end of the World: Nay, is not Impoſition of Hands placed in the midſt, betwixt Faith and Repentance on the one ſide, and Eternal Judgment on the other? 'tis fenced in on every ſide, there is no coming to ſlight it. 'Tis abſurd to think the Apoſtle would place one temporary Principle, that was to laſt but a ſhort time, amongst five perpetual Principles, and call them all by the ſame name of a Foundation, &c.

Arg. 3. Becauſe the Promiſe of the Spirit is very extenſive; 'tis made to all believing and obedient Souls to the end of the World; Matt. 28. ult. Teaching them to obſerve all things whatſoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always to the end of the World. John 14.15, 16, 17. If you love me, keep my Commandments; and I will pray the Father, and he ſhall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, which the World cannot receive, &c.

Dr. Jer. Taylor, p. 53. ſpeaks excellently concerning the perpetuity of this Ordinance: And from this very ground, take his own words; The perpetuity of this holy Rite appears, 1. Becauſe the great Gift of the Holy Ghoſt was promiſed to abide with the Church for ever: Repent, and be baptized every one of you, and ye ſhall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt; not the meaneſt Perſon amongst you but ſhall receive this great thing; for the Promiſe is to you, and to your Children, and to all that are afar off, even ſo many as the Lord our God ſhall call; this Promiſe is made to all, and unto all for ever. And preſently, ſpeaking as to Laying on [Page] of Hands, as God's way for the miniſtring of it; I ſay, ſuch a Solemnity (ſaith he) 'tis not eaſie to be ſuppoſed ſhould be appointed; that is, it is not imaginable that a ſolemn Rite, annex'd to a perpetual Promiſe, ſhould be tranſient and temporary: for by the nature of Relatives, they muſt be of equal abode; the Promiſe is of a thing for ever; the Ceremony or Rite was annexed to the Promiſe, and therefore this alſo muſt abide for ever.

Arg. 4. Becauſe the Spirit which is promiſed, is the Comforter that leads us into all Truth, and helps the Saints in their Teſtimony and Sufferings for Chriſt; and 'tis that by which they are ſealed alſo to the day of Redemption, Eph. 1.13. Who after that ye believed, ye were ſealed by that Spirit of Promiſe. He ſpeaks it to the Epheſians, who well underſtood his meaning, by remembring what was done to them by the Apoſtle; who a while before, after he had baptized them, laid his Hands upon them (ſaith the Doctor) ſo they received, and were ſealed with the Holy Spirit of Promiſe.

Now do not we as much need the Spirit's guidance, and to be born up in our Teſtimony, Sufferings and Temptations, as the Saints of former Ages; and to be ſealed by the Spirit of Promiſe as they did? Why then ſhould we not be willing to wait on God, in the ſame way he has preſcribed, for receiving a further increaſe of it, even in which the primitive Saints did yield obedience?

Object. But ſome will ſay, We have the Spirit in as great a meaſure as you, who never came under Laying on of Hands; and what greater meaſure [Page]have you after your obedience thereto than before?

Anſ. 1. We dare not boaſt of our Indowments; we are poor and needy, and therefore willing to uſe all Advantages, and be found in every Ordinance, to meet with more of Chriſt and his Spirit; and if you have ſo much, that you need not pray, nor uſe the means God directs to for obtaining more, 'tis a rare ſtate you are arrived to.

2. If God be better than his Word, we will not complain; he hath many ways to convey his Spirit into our hearts; yet this is the great Ordinance for diſtributing of it to baptized Believers. But may we not ſay with one of the Antients, By this rite of Impoſition of Hands, God hath promiſed, and the Saints received the Holy Ghoſt? for tho (ſaith he) the Spirit of God was given extraregularly, and at all times as God pleaſed, yet this of Impoſition of Hands was [...], this was the Miniſtry of the Spirit; we receive Chriſt when we hear, and obey his Word, we eat Chriſt by Faith; and yet the bleſſed Euchariſt is [...], the Miniſtry of the Body and Blood of Chriſt: the Lord's Supper is appointed ritually to convey Chriſt's Body and Blood to us; ſo is Laying on of Hands ordained ritually to give us the Spirit.

Now probably ſome who are againſt the Lord's Supper, may ſay, they feed upon Chriſt, and have as much Communion with him, and Faith in him, as many of us who often partake thereof; and may be can ſay as much on this account, as you on the other: will you therefore neglect your Duty touching breaking of Bread?

There is a Promiſe of the Spirit made in Baptiſm; [Page] yet ſome may ſay, they have more of the Spirit than you or I, and yet never were baptized. Cornelius, tho he had received a large meaſure of the Spirit, yet was very willing to be baptized, and to do what ever Peter, from Chriſt's command, enjoined him. And thus the Objection is anſwered.

Object. But extraordinary Effects did accompany this Adminiſtration, and ſuch do not follow now; therefore the thing you plead for is ceaſed.

Anſw. Let Dr. Taylor ſpeak now, for I have largely anſwered this Objection elſewhere, before I met with the learned Doctor: If this be all (ſaith he, p. 57—59.) that can be ſaid in oppoſition to it, it is infinitely vain.

1. In the days of the Apoſtles, the Holy Spirit produced miraculous Effects, but neither always, nor at all in all Men; Are all workers of Miracles? do all ſpeak with Tongues? &c. the Wind bloweth where it liſteth; ſome have Gifts after this manner, ſome after that.

2. Theſe Gifts were not neceſſary at all Times, any more than to all Perſons; but the Promiſe of the Holy Spirit did belong to all, and was performed to all, but not in the like manner. Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit, of Faith, and Power, the Holy Ghoſt was given to him, to fulfil his Faith principally; working Miracles was but collateral, and incident: but there is alſo an Infuſion of the Holy Spirit to all, and that for ever, The manifeſtation of the Spirit is given to every Man, to profit withal: And therefore if the Grace be given to all, there is no reaſon that the ritual Miniſtration of that Grace ſhould ceaſe, on pretence that the Spirit is not given extraordinarily.

[Page]3. Thoſe extraordinary Gifts were indeed at firſt neceſſary; (he gives ſeveral reaſons thereof) one, becauſe of them who could not receive the underſtanding of an incorporeal Nature; that if afterwards they be not ſo done, they may be believed by thoſe things which were already done: another, becauſe of the ſtate of the Church. But the greater Gifts (ſaith he) were to abide for ever; therefore 'tis obſervable that St. Paul ſays, that the Gift of Tongues is one of the leaſt and moſt uſeleſs things, a meer ſign, and not ſo much as a ſign to a Believer, but to Infidels and Ʋnbelievers.

4. To every ordinary and perpetual Miniſtry, at firſt there were extraordinary Effects, and miraculous Conſignations: We find 3000 converted at one Sermon, 5000 at another; and Perſons were miraculouſly cured by Prayer, at the viſitation of the Sick; and Devils caſt out in the converſion of a Sinner: And now tho we ſee no ſuch extraordinary Effects, it follows not that the Viſitation of the Sick, Preaching, Sermons, &c. are not ordinary and perpetual Miniſtrations; and therefore to fancy that Invocation of the Holy Spirit, and Impoſition of Hands is to ceaſe, when the extraordinary and temporary Contingencies of it are gone, is too trifling a fancy to be put into the balance againſt ſo ſacred an Inſtitution, relying upon ſo many Scriptures.

5. He argues yet further, ſhewing tho the Gifts of Tongues, and outward Miracles, remain not with the Church, yet the greater, or more tranſcendent Gifts of the Spirit do continue, viz. Sanctification and Power, Fortitude and Faith, Hope and Love, &c. Theſe are (ſaith he) the Miracles of Grace, to throw down the pride of Lucifer, to [Page]tread on the great Dragon, and to triumph over our ſpiritual Enemies, to cure a diſeaſed Soul, to be unharmed by the poiſon of Temptation, &c. This is more than to receive the Spirit, or a power of Miracles, and ſupernatural Products in a natural Matter; for this is from a ſupernatural Principle, to receive ſupernatural Aids to a ſupernatural End, in the Diviner ſpirit of a Man; and this being more miraculous than the other, it ought not to be pretended that the diſcontinuance of extraordinary Miracles ſhould cauſe the diſcontinuance of an ordinary Miniſtration; and this is that (ſaith he) which I was to prove.

He proceeds to other Reaſons, but I think he has ſaid enough; and therefore I ſhall return to Mr. Danvers, p. 48. who labours againſt the ſtream, and would make us believe that the Laying on of Hands upon Timothy, 2 Tim. 1.6. and 1 Tim. 4.14. are the ſame; which muſt be rejected, ſince ſeveral Reaſons have been given to the contrary, that have not in the leaſt been removed. That Timothy had Hands laid upon him twice, tis evident; i. e. ſoon after his Baptiſm, and when ordained to Office. One good reaſon for it is given by Mr. Blackwood: Paul (ſaith he) ſpeaks of ſuch Gifts, as were given by the Laying on of his own Hands, [...]; but the Impoſition in Ordination was by the Hands of the Elderſhip, 1 Tim. 4.14. where the Greek words are [...], ſignifying a conjunction of Perſons; but 2 Tim. 1.6. is [...], to denote the act of one Man.

And doubtleſs ſuch an Expoſition as Mr. Danvers gives, too much reflects on the Apoſtle, who hated nothing more than Pride and Arrogancy: Surely he would not have appropriated to himſelf [Page] alone, what was done by others as well as himſelf.

But again, I am perſwaded our Brethren are ſenſible of what has been ſaid in reſpect of thoſe Gifts Timothy received through Layings on of Hands, which have been ſhewed by ſeveral to be different, (one only relating to his Office, or Miniſterial Power committed to him; the other to ſuch Gifts as are proper to all the Saints) tho they take no notice of it.

I am loth to ſay, that all that Mr. Danvers has done in his ſmall Tract, has been to darken Counſel with words without knowledg; yet one would admire to conſider how confuſedly he hath writ on this Subject, who ſeems to blame us for being ſo poſitive as to what Laying on of Hands is intended in Heb. 6.1, 2. which is, as if a Maſter ſhould blame his Scholar for affirming A is A, and B is B: Surely if we have not perfectly learned our firſt Leſſon, or Rudiments of our Profeſſion, we ſhall never be good Tutors of others: The Apoſtle blames the Hebrews, ch. 5.22. for being ſuch ill Proficients, that they had gone no further; and you ſeem to blame us for going ſo far, as to affirm poſitively what are the firſt Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt. But give me leave to tell you, it is as eaſy to know what Laying on of Hands is intended Heb. 6. as what Baptiſm our Saviour refers to, Mat. 28.20.

But ſecondly, You may be aſſured were we at a loſs in the caſe, we ſhould never come to learn of you; for Mr. D. by his own grant, pag. 49. ſignifieth he had not attained to a certain knowledg of it, nor was able to be poſitive in the caſe; many [Page]things being hard and difficult to be underſtood, which thoſe that are ignorant, wreſt, ſaith he, &c.

Anſw. No marvel if ignorant Men are at a loſs, and captivated in their underſtandings, abuſing and wreſting thoſe myſterious places, or things contained in Paul's Epiſtles, when Men of knowledg ſhall loſe themſelves in ſuch a plain and eaſy path, I knew a Man (may be learned too) who a while ago, knew not but that Baptiſm, and Laying on of hands, &c. in Heb. 6.1, 2. might intend thoſe legal Waſhings, and Laying on of Hands upon the heads of Bullocks, ſacrificed in the time of the Law. I am glad to find other Oppoſers of this Truth of another Judgment. Would Men deny themſelves, and not truſt their own underſtandings, they might ſoon ſee the way plain before them, that thoſe firſt Principles of the Oracles of God, called Milk for Babes, and not ſtrong Meat, are none of thoſe things ſpoken of by Peter, ſo hard to be underſtood.

But ſince Mr. D. ſays, he will not leave us in the dark, but reſolves to give us his apprehenſion of this Text, in which he thinks he has the mind of Chriſt, pag. 49, 50. we will proceed.

Yet this let me premiſe, that what he has laid down as his Judgment on this Text, Mr. Tomlinſon has very well anſwered in a Treatiſe lately printed, pag. 22, 23. and ſhewed the ridiculouſneſs of ſuch an Expoſition. I fear Mr. D. did not implore the Throne of Grace for Light and Direction before he begun to write on this Subject, he is ſo much beclouded as to the meaning of this Scripture. He conceives, that the ſix [Page]Principles mentioned here, are very comprehenſive, and may take in the ten Commandments, the Lord's Supper, and ſeveral other things: Nay he ſays, that Repentance and Faith may comprehend all, both the negative and poſitive part of Holineſs.

Anſw. 1. If the whole of Religion, or Doctrine of Godlineſs is comprehended in theſe ſix Principles, why ſhould the Apoſtle call them firſt Principles? 'tis improper to call thoſe the firſt that comprehend all: by this Argument, when the Foundation is laid, the whole Building is finiſhed.

2. And if the whole of Piety, or Holineſs, be included in the two firſt Principles, Repentance, and Faith, there was no need to enumerate any more: Nay, by this Argument, obedience to Chriſt in Baptiſm, and Laying on of Hands, together with the belief of the Reſurrection and Eternal Judgment, are not comprehended in the negative or poſitive part of Holineſs: to what purpoſe then have we ſpent our time in writing about either of theſe Principles?

3. But again, as Mr. Tomlinſon minds, How could it be the weakneſs of theſe Hebrews, that they had need to be taught them again? or how could the Apoſtle ſay, he would leave them to go on to perfection? &c, Surely if in theſe firſt Principles all Religion be comprehended, he would not do well to leave them; it might rather have been their perfection ever to remain there, viz. in preaching, ſtudying and practiſing of them, and go no further; or if we muſt needs leave them, we muſt leave all Religion and Holineſs, and ſo turn Ranters, Atheiſts, or Quakers.

4. But, if the whole Body of Religion and [Page] Holineſs is comprehended in theſe ſix Principles, then no Chriſtian had gone further; nay, nor perfectly learned the A B C of his Profeſſion, and we muſt always be learning them▪ and ſo ever be but Babes in Chriſt: and no reaſon had the Apoſtle to blame the Hebrews that they had gone no further, ſince in thoſe beginning Principles were comprehended the whole of their Duty.

5. And ſince theſe Principles are in the Apoſtle's ſenſe to be looked upon as Milk, and for Babes; what then is the Meat? and who are the ſtrong Men? Surely when we have done with our Milk, the Feaſt is ended; and there is no after-Diſh, to ſpeak according to the nature of this Metaphor.

Again, P. 45. as Mr. Danvers would have Repentance and Faith to comprehend both the negative and poſitive part of Holineſs; ſo he proceeds to tell us how comprehenſive Laying on of hands is; That it takes in all ſorts that are ſpoken of, viz. Miracles, Healings, and Gifts, that were for the Confirmation of the Goſpel, and the Inveſtiture of Church-Officers, &c.

Anſw. This is as true as the former, and as good Divinity every whit; and when he has anſwered our Arguments againſt this ſtrange Expoſition, we will argue that Point further. But doth he not hereby make Laying on of hands for miraculous Healing a perpetual Adminiſtration, it being a part (in his ſenſe) of the Foundation of God's Houſe? We have ſhewed why it cannot intend that on Sick Perſons, nor on Officers of the Church; and as to extraordinary Gifts for [Page] Confirmation of the Goſpel, if he mean that ſpoken of Acts 8.17. and 19.6. we utterly deny it, and clearly prove the contrary, that it was not the end of that Service, &c. no more than of Aſſembling together, Prayer, Preaching, &c. ſince ſuch Miraculous Effects followed more or leſs every one of thoſe, and other Goſpel-miniſtrations, as well as Laying on of hands on baptized Believers. This conſidered, 'tis ſtrange he ſhould reaſon after this manner.

But we further ſay, there is but one Laying on of hands intended in Heb. 6.1, 2. becauſe 'tis expreſt in the ſingular number, Laying on of hands, and not Layings, &c.

Mr. Danvers ſaith This is a meer Criticiſm, and hath nothing of truth in it. He affirms that Laying on of hands, is as plural as Baptiſm. This is all the Anſwer he gives; ſee page 51.

Anſw. If a bare Affirmation may be taken for a Proof in this, we are anſwered, and Mr. Danvers has done his buſineſs; what is here more? I deſire to know how he would write were he to diſtinguiſh between one Hand and ſeveral, ſince Hands are in the Plural Number? The Adminiſtrator is not to lay one only, but both his Hands: there can be no diſtinguiſhing (if this Man is not miſtaken) between one and divers kinds; for wherever the Scripture ſpeaks but of one ſort (in our Opponents judgment) 'tis expreſs, as it is here, viz. Laying on of hands, and ſo as plural: ſee 1 Tim. 4.14. I need not ſay more, only cite a Paſſage of a Learned Writer upon this very Place, and Objection; 'Tis moſt palpably apparent (ſaith he) to ſuch as are not aſleep in their reading [Page]of that Text, Heb. 6.1, 2. that it ſpeaks in the ſingular Number, of one Laying on of hands alone, and not of Laying on of hands, as it muſt have been expreſt, had he meant more kinds of Impoſition of hands than one: for tho Hands be the Plural Number, 'yet [note] Laying, which is the Phraſe you ſpeak to, or elſe you ſpeak nihil ad Rhombum, is a Subſtantive of the Singular Number, both in the Engliſh and the Greek.

But to proceed: Mr. D. p. 51, 52. gives us the ground of his Offence concerning the nature or manner of our maintaining this Principle of Impoſition of Hands.

1. Negatively, he tells us wherein his offence lies not, viz. Not becauſe we pray for a bleſſing on our Brethren and Siſters, or for the practice or geſture of Lifting up, or Laying on of hands; provided it be not urged as of abſolute neceſſity, &c. But,

2. When impoſed as an Inſtitution of Chriſt, a beginning Doctrine, or Oracle of God, a Foundation of Chriſtian Religion, to which every Diſciple of Chriſt ought to ſubmit on penalty of Noncommunion, for rejecting a Fundamental Principle, tho not one word of Inſtitution, Command, Precept, or Example for the ſame; and that under pretence of receiving more of the Spirit of Chriſt thereby, which is a Spirit of Love, Meekneſs, &c. There appears the Spirit of uncharitableneſs, judging. rending, and dividing the Body of Chriſt, and for aſſerting for Doctrine and Practice, the Cuſtoms and Commands of Men: it is for theſe things our Offences lie ſo well founded upon Deut. 4.2. and 12.23. Rev. 22.18. Prov. 30.6.

[Page] Anſw. 1. Could we have ſuch a liberty as to make a holy Inſtitution of Chriſt only a formal or civil Ceremony or Geſture, or a thing indifferent, to do, or not do; our Brethren, it ſeems, would not be offended.

2. Were it a true Charge he brings, he would have cauſe to be offended with us; but whether it be a Principle of the Doctrine of Chriſt, and an Oracle of God, or a Tradition of Men, which we contend for, let the impartial Reader judg. Here is nothing offered by our Opponent to deſerve any further Anſwer; it calls more for Reprehenſion than Confutation. Who ſeemed more cenſorious than Mr. Danvers, who charged his Brethren with what they moſt abominated, viz. tearing and dividing the Body of Chriſt, Will-worſhip, nay being under the dreadful Curſe of Adding to the Word of God?

3. Whether we are guilty of Schiſm, rending and tearing the Body of Chriſt, or thoſe who neglect his Words, or Foundation-Principle of his Doctrine (I might ſay reject it) is fully manifeſted in a late Book Intituled, The Searchers for Schiſm ſearched, that has not yet been anſwered.

4. May not the Independents and others charge you on the account of Baptiſm, with rending and tearing the Body of Chriſt, ſince you deny Breaking of Bread with them, on that Conſideration as ſome do with you about Laying on of hands, a Principle of the ſame nature? Doth not Mr. Wills in his Anſwer to your former Book of Baptiſm, charge you in much like words, as you do us here? And truly, if I miſtake not, Mr. D. has cleared us from Schiſm, and well anſwered himſelf [Page] in his late Reply, Page 169, 170, 171. as he ſays of Baptiſm:Note: Mr. D's Innocency and Truth vindicated. Suffer me to ſpeak of Laying on of hands; There is nothing in the Principle it ſelf but what inclines to Piety and Ʋnity: It being deſigned by Chriſt not only to promote Sanctification, but to further Love and Peace, in the way of Righteouſneſs and Truth.

Why ſhould Baptiſm be eſteemed the whole and only Inlet into the viſible Church, when 'tis but one of the Six Fundamental Principles of Church-Conſtitution? Why ſhould he have a greater eſteem for one than for another Inſtitution? Did our Brethren ſee Laying on of hands to be an Ordinance of the ſame nature with Baptiſm, I might hope they would not be of the mind ſome are of: 'tis ſad when a Fundamental Principle of Chriſtian Religion ſhall be made indifferent. I have a tender reſpect to all that love Chriſt, yet dare not violate that Holy Order left in his Word, knowing how ſeverely he has manifeſted his diſpleaſure againſt ſuch as have been negligent therein.

5. Now tho we grant Baptiſm an Initiating Ordinance, yet not that alone. There are two Doors to be paſſed through, (ſaith a Learned Writer) before we can come ad adyta & intima Eccleſiae penetralia, viz. Baptiſm, and Laying on of hands: whereof the latter properly and immediately gives admittance.

Mr. Hanmer, p. 22. cites ſome antient Chriſtians ſpeaking thus: Confirmatione protinus data plena authoritas, & jus Corpori Chriſti & ſanguini cum omnibus Fid [...]libus communicandi: that is, Confirmation[Page](or Impoſition of hands) forthwith gives full authority and right of Communion in the Body and Blood of Chriſt. And in another place ſaith the ſame Perſon; He that was not confirmed, was not admitted to the Euchariſt.

Doubtleſs if the Church of Judea, firſt planted in the order of the Goſpel, is to be followed, or if that which was the practice of ſome of the Churches, was alſo of every Church, then both theſe Ordinances, as well as the other beginning Principles, muſt precede, or are prerequiſite to Church-Communion and Fellowſhip.

Object. But doth not this ſtraiten and narrow the Interest of Jeſus Christ?

Anſw. Mr. Danvers's Reply to Mr. Wills about Baptiſm, is a very good anſwer: viz. This (ſaith he) is no other than Reformation in all Ages (ſince the Antichriſtian defection) hath been charged with, and particularly that Reformation that has been endeavoured in that other Ordinance of the Lord's Supper; therefore the Presbyterians cry out againſt the Independents for ſinful Schiſm, Fomentèrs of Faction, and narrowing of Chriſt's Intereſt, in their reſpective Separations, and Church-Communions. The ſame do the Prelats ſay to the Presbyterians; and the very ſame do the Papiſts ſay to the Epiſcoparians.

If Mr. D. in the work of Reformation excels, or has more light than ſuch he ſpeaks of, in reſpect of Church-Conſtitution and Communion, and reſolves to purſue his work, tho he is reproach'd on this account; why ſhould he blame us, who, according to our light, labour after a pure and perfect Reformation? or doth he judg [Page] he has got to ſuch a degree of knowledg, that he is perfect, and needs no more light nor inſtruction, and that the laſt Stone of Reformation and Reſtoration here is laid, becauſe Baptiſm ſhines forth in its primitive purity? Remember him who ſaid (ſuch was his Humility) What I know not, teach thou me. and Apollos, tho mighty in the Scriptures, could ſtoop to the Counſel and Inſtruction of Aquila and Priſcilla, tho much inferior to him, who taught him the way of God more perfectly, Act. 18.26.

6. Ought not we to ſtand faſt, and hold the Traditions we have been taught? and is not this worthy of Commendation? what ſaith the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 11.2. Now I praiſe you Brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the Ordinances as they were delivered unto you. And are we not commanded to withdraw from every Brother that walks diſorderly, and not after the Traditions we have received? Beſides, can we comfortably have Communion with ſuch as oppoſe a Command of God, nay, that make it but a Tradition of Men, and an Antichriſtian Innovation? And as in all Fundamentals of Salvation, ſo in thoſe of Church-Conſtitution, we ought to be agreed, before we can orderly ſit down together.

7. But to ſay no more, I would caution all our Brethren to take heed what they affirm on this account, I mean concerning us, and this ſacred Inſtitution, ſince they ſeem ſo cloudy in their underſtanding about thoſe Scriptures urged as the great Warranty for our Practice: If God has hid (for reaſons beſt known to himſelf) this [Page] Truth of Impoſition of hands from their eyes, as he hath the holy Ordinance of Baptiſm from the Independents, &c. it will be their wiſdom to forbear Reflections; let them not be angry, leſt it be found to be a Truth of God▪ and they conſequently prove offended at Chriſt himſelf, who left this as well as Baptiſm amongſt the beginning-principles of his Doctrine. Why ſhould they be offended at us for having an equal love to all the Commandments of Chriſt? I would hope they have reaſon to judg, 'tis from hence we ſo earneſtly contend with them on this account.

8. I cannot but marvel, that our Brethren ſhould call Laying on of hands, a Doctrine, or Tradition of Men, and render thoſe who plead for it, guilty of adding to the Word of God; and yet receive ſuch into Communion at the Lord's Table, as are in the practice of it. What uncharitable thoughts do they retain of their Brethren? and what guilt, on this Conſideration, do they bring on their own Souls?

But let me cloſe with one Caution more; ſince they know 'tis as ſinful every way to diminiſh from God's Word as to alter or add to it, let them take heed leſt they be found guilty therein.

We have now traced Mr. D. quite through, and have little more to do: In page 53. he labours to remove an Objection brought againſt him from Antiquity; and ſince he has fairly ſtated it, take it in his own words.

As to the point of Antiquity, tho 'tis granted the Antients, and their Followers ever ſince, have erred not only in the Subject, but in divers Circumſtances[Page]about this Rite of Impoſition of hands, yet in-as-much as there has been all along ſuch a witneſs born to the thing it ſelf, it makes for its Apoſtolicalneſs, and confirms our Practice therein. Now take his Anſwer to it: It doth not appear (ſaith he) that ſuch a Witneſs hath been born all along thereto for Mr. Baxter ingenuouſly acknowledges that Juſtin Martyr, Ireneus, and others in thoſe times are ſilent about it, &c. And thoſe Authorities that are pretended to aſſert the ſame in the firſt Centuries, have been proved to be ſpurious and ſuppoſititious. 2ly. That pretence of antient Preſcription, without the Word of God to warrant it, can never juſtify the Divine Authority of any Practice.

Anſw. 1. We fully agree with him, viz. whatever is found in antient Preſcriptions concerning this, or any Practice, ſignifies nothing, if God's Word doth not witneſs to it: But having ſuch evident proof from God's Word to warrant this Precept, we never judged it worth while to ſearch into▪ Authors concerning it; neither ſhould we have cited any now, had we not been forc'd by our Oppoſers. And as to what he ſays concerning Mr. Baxter's ingenuous Confeſſion, that Juſtin Martyr and Ireneus are both ſilent about it, it ſignifies very little; for firſt, we have nothing but Mr. Baxter's ſay-ſo for it, who may be has overlook'd ſome places of theſe Authors, or probably not met with all their Works. But,

2. Since their Silence only is pretended, it carries no great force with it; muſt we of neceſſity produce all the Antients expreſly witneſſing thereto, or elſe is all nothing that is brought from Antiquity in the Caſe? We have mentioned ſeveral [Page] antient Witneſſes, and ſome of the 2d and 3d Centuries, which are neither ſpurious, ſuppoſititious, ſuborn'd Witneſſes, nor Knights of the Poſt, tho Mr. D. is pleaſed ſo to call them.

And now to conclude, we muſt ſay again, againſt what is mention'd, p. 54. that there is a clearer Precept for Impoſition of hands on baptized Believers as ſuch, than can be urged for that on Church-Officers, or the obſervation of the firſt Day of the Week, &c.

I have ground to conclude Mr. D. thinks it his duty to keep holy the firſt Day of the Week, as the Chriſtian Sabbath.

We gave Mr. D. no ground to ſay that which he did of us, viz. Reproach the Wiſdom of Christ, and ſlight the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, as tho we had not a ſufficient Direction therein in all parts of God's Worſhip. God forbid we ſhould be guilty of ſuch things! Rome and others may herein juſtly be charged; but our Souls witneſs againſt it as an abominable Aſſertion.

And that remarkable Expreſſion of Dr. Owen's, as Mr. D. calls it, we can with all readineſs and ſimplicity cloſe in with; and judg it neceſſary once more to recite it, viz. This then they who hold Communion with Chriſt, are careful of, they will admit nothing, practiſe nothing in the Worſhip of God, private or publick, but what they have his Warrant for: for unleſs it comes in his Name, with Thus ſaith the Lord Jeſus, they will not hear an Angel from Heaven; they know the Apoſtles themſelves were to teach the Saints only what Chriſt commanded them. Communion with God, p. 171.

The Doctor's Rule is ever to be followed, the [Page] Lord open his eyes; for how doth this clearly overthrow all his Arguments for Infant-Baptiſm? &c. But what injury doth it do us, who can ſay, Thus ſaith the Lord Jeſus? 'tis left on record amongſt the firſt Principles of his Doctrine, Heb. 6. 1, 2. 'tis a Command of God, if the Oracles of God be his Command, Heb. 5.12. which ſure none will deny; ſince the Apoſtle Paul, and Stephen (a Man full of the Holy Spirit) affirm them ſo to be. We believe what the Doctor ſaith, viz. that the Apoſtles were to teach nothing but what Chriſt commanded them, to whom they were obedient therein: and ſurely then all may ſee a Divine Inſtitution for this Practice; for was it not taught to the Hebrew Church? Heb. 5.12. And did not Peter and John teach it to the Saints at Samaria? and Paul to the Diſciples at Epheſus, and to Timothy? yea, and made them obedient thereto? Acts 8.17. & 19.6. 2 Tim. 1.6.

If Laying on of hands were not an Ordinance of God, and of Divine Inſtitution (ſaith Mr. Blackwood Annot. on Matth. p. 690.) then the Apoſtles in the adminiſtration thereof had practiſed Will-worſhip; nay, which is more, had left a Rule of Will-worſhip unto us, Heb. 6.1. But 'tis abſurd to think that the Apoſtle would do either of theſe; therefore Laying on of hands upon baptized Perſons is an Apoſtolical Inſtitution.

Far be it from us, or any Chriſtian, to harbour ſo uncharitable thoughts of the bleſſed Apoſtles, viz. that they would do any thing in Chriſt's Name without his Warrant. If any Man, ſaith Paul, think himſelf to be a Prophet, or Spiritual, let him acknowledg that the things I write unto you, [Page]are the Commandments of the Lord, 1 Cor. 14.37. Compare this with Rom. 15.18. For I will not dare to ſpeak of any of thoſe things, which Chriſt hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word or deed.

CHAP. VIII.

Containing a few Motives or Arguments, provoking and encouraging to Obedience to the Holy Ordinance of Impoſition of Hands.

BEfore I conclude, I judg it neceſſary to offer two or three Motives, to ſtir up to Obedience ſuch as deſire to be found ſincere Followers of the Lord Jeſus, and of the primitive Saints, and to walk in all the Commandments of the Lord blameleſs; and to conſider, whether they do not lie ſhort of their Duty and Privilege, whilſt they omit or neglect this precious (tho deſpiſed) Ordinance of Impoſition of Hands.

Motive 1. Brethren, Conſider, you have the holy Pattern of the Saints of old to ſtir you up to a diligent ſearch in the Book of God's Law, to find out what his Mind and Will may be concerning you. How glad were the Children of Iſrael, when upon enquiry they found out that long-neglected Ordinance of ſitting in Booths in the Feaſt of Tabernacles? Neh. 8.14,—17. they did not then contend againſt it, or raiſe Objections, ſaying it has not been done for many years: Samuel, David, Hezekiah, and Joſiah did it not, who had glorious [Page] Light, and were great Reformers; and we have no immediate Viſion, or miraculous Appearance of God to revive this Inſtitution.

We find nothing of this nature ſtumbled them, but as they found it written, they ſet about the Work, and there was great Joy: They were not like many Souls in our days, who make Objections againſt Baptiſm and Laying on of hands; ſuch and ſuch eminent Men (ſay they) ſee it not, practiſe it not; 'tis not an Inſtitution of Chriſt; if it were, ſure Mr. ſuch a one (a learned Miniſter and Brother) would be for it; he is a Man of greater light and underſtanding than you, &c. 'Tis no marvel they are thus beclouded, whilſt their eyes are ſo fixt on Men; and inſtead of walking by the perfect Light of God's Word, walk by the Light of thoſe that are ſo imperfect.

Motive 2. Conſider that by a univerſal obedience to Chriſt, you will appear to be his Diſciples indeed, and of the Remnant of the Woman's Seed, Rev. 12.17. Yea you will enter into ſtrong bands of Alliance and Friendſtip with the Lord Jeſus: You are my Friends (ſaith he) if you do whatſoever I command you, Joh. 15.14. This alſo will add boldneſs to the Saints. Then ſhall I not be aſhamed (ſaith David) when I have reſpect to all thy Commandments.

Mot. 3. Let the Nature of the Ordinance move you to conſider your fault and neglect herein; and as you deſire that the Church you have given up your ſelves to walk in the order of the Goſpel with, being knit and fitly framed together, may grow into a Holy Temple in the Lord. Be ſure ſee there is no defect in the Foundation, take heed [Page] it wants not one principal Pillar; and let none ſpeak ſlightingly of this Inſtitution, leſt he provoke Jeſus Chriſt thereby. Did he command any thing in vain? And by the ſame Argument you adventure to caſt off this Principle, another may do ſo by Baptiſm, and conſequently all the reſt; and ſo in time God's Spiritual Houſe be like unto the literal Temple, viz. not have one Stone left upon another which will not be thrown down.

Motive 4. Conſider that thoſe bleſſed Promiſes God has made of giving the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, which the World cannot receive, are entailed to the obedient Soul; if we will have the Bleſſing, we muſt be found in our Duty. And how has God crowned this Service, as has been ſhewed, with wonderful manifeſtations thereof? Nay, conſider what meaſure ſoever God has given thee of his Spirit, by waiting upon him in other Ordinances; yet this of Impoſition of hands Chriſt has appointed as the Miniſtry thereof to baptized Believers as ſuch: to every particular Inſtitution there is ſome ſpecial and peculiar Bleſſing annexed; and 'tis ordained as God's ordinary way for the conveyance of it, as I might largely ſhew, in reſpect of Preaching the Word, Baptiſm, the Lord's Supper, Church-Cenſures, &c. and the like alſo in this of Laying on of hands: and tho God is not tied to this or that Ordinance, yet he hath tied us to the exact obſervation of them: He may anticipate his own Order, and give us the Mercy promiſed (in part) in ſome other way; yet we ought not to neglect our Duty.

[Page]Becauſe I have obtained Faith in ſome other than God's uſual way for the begetting it, ſhall I not hear the Word preached, for the further increaſing it in my Heart? Again, becauſe I have remiſſion of Sins, and other Bleſſings promiſed in Baptiſm before baptized, ſhall I reject that Ordinance? Sure Cornelius did not do ſo, Acts 10. 45, 47. And again, I feed by Faith on Jeſus Chriſt, and receive his Fleſh which is Meat indeed, and his Blood which is Drink indeed; ſhall I therefore refuſe the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper, which is appointed as the Miniſtry of his Body and Blood? God forbid. Even ſo, let none neglect this Appointment, nothwithſtanding any Gift, or Meaſure of the Holy Spirit they have received, ſince it has pleaſed God to direct to it, and left it in his Houſe as a perpetual Miniſtration; Deſtroy it not, for a Bleſſing that is in it, Iſa. 65.8.

Motive 5. Conſider the great need thou haſt of the Holy Spirit, yea and of a further increaſe thereof, tho I ſhould grant thou haſt received it already; for without it none can ſavingly believe, nor call Jeſus Lord. Yet there is a further Promiſe made to thee, as thou art a Believer in Jeſus Chriſt: and what can a poor Saint do without the Spirit? what Temptations doſt thou meet with, what Luſts and Corruptions ſtill haſt thou to mortify? and what outward Tribulations art thou (who profeſſeſt the Goſpel) expoſed to? O therefore uſe all means, and particularly this, which God injoins thee, that thou mayſt obtain a further meaſure and increaſe of the Spirit of God.

[Page] Motive 6. Laſtly, Conſider the excellent and unſpeakable worth and uſefulneſs of the Holy Spirit; O what ſpiritual Profit and Advantage do the Saints of God receive hereby!

1. 'Tis the Holy Spirit that enlightens the eyes of our Ʋnderſtandings, 1 Cor. 2. 10, 11, 12, 13. Eph. 1.17. we cannot ſee afar off, without our Eyes are anointed with this Eye-ſalve: And O what Beauty do we hereby behold in Jeſus Chriſt! how are our Souls taken with inviſible Objects! and what an empty and nothing-World is this, when we look through the Proſpect-glaſs of the Spirit of God upon it!

2. 'Tis the Holy Spirit that revives and quickens us, and makes us lively in the Paths of Righteouſneſs, Joh. 6.63. Col. 2.13.

3. 'Tis the Spirit that leads us in the way we ſhould walk, Rom. 8.14. yea and makes them Paths of peace and pleaſantneſs unto our Souls, Prov. 3.17. 'tis he that guides us into all Truth, and brings Chriſt's Words to our remembrance, Joh. 14.26.

4. 'Tis the Holy Spirit that comforts us when caſt down; 'tis from hence we receive all Heavenly Conſolation, Joh. 14. 16, 26.

5. 'Tis the Holy Spirit that makes us profit under the Word and means of Grace; 'tis that which maketh our Souls to grow and flouriſh in the Courts of the Lord's Houſe, Heb. 4.2. 1 Cor. 3.6.

6. 'Tis the Spirit that helps us to pray, helps our Infirmities, and teacheth us what to pray for, and gives us acceſs at the Throne of Grace; yea makes Interceſſion for us with groanings that cannot be uttered, Rom. 8.26.

[Page]7. 'Tis by the Spirit we cry Abba Father; 'tis that which bears witneſs with our Spirits, that we are the Children of God, Rom. 8. 13, 15, 16.

8. 'Tis by the Holy Spirit we mortify the Deeds of the body, Gal. 5.22. 'tis by that we live and ſtand, and are confirmed in Chriſt Jeſus, and ſanctified throughout.

9. 'Tis from the Holy Spirit that all heavenly Grace and ſpiritual Gifts flow; 'tis he that divides to every man ſeverally as he will, 1 Cor. 12. 5, 8, 9.

10. 'Tis the Holy Spirit which is the Earneſt of our Inheritance, and which gives an Aſſurance of the purchaſed Poſſeſſion unto our Souls, Eph. 1. 10, 14.

11. 'Tis the Holy Spirit by which we are ſealed to the day of Redemption, Eph. 1.13.

12. 'Tis by the Spirit we are made ſtrong, and enabled to overcome all Enemies, and helped to triumph over Death, 1 Cor. 15. 55, 57. 'tis by the Spirit we know that when our earthly Houſe is diſſolved we have a Building of God, a Houſe not made with hands, eternal in the Heavens, 2 Cor. 5.1. Theſe things conſidered, let none blame us that we ſo earneſtly contend for the Holy Ordinance of Prayer with Impoſition of Hands, in which God has promiſed, and ſo ſweetly communicated, as through a Conduit-Pipe, ſuch bleſſed Water of Life to our Souls. Shall it not trouble our Spirits, when Perſons labour to take away the Childrens Bread, or ſpill any of their ſweet and heavenly Milk upon the ground?

CHAP. IX.

[Page]

In anſwer to the Concluſion of Mr. Danvers's Book.

Mr. Danvers's Concluſion.

THus you have had a candid Account of the riſe, growth, and progreſs of this Rite of Confirmation, or Laying on of hands, from the beginning to this day, (amongſt all that have owned it) with the Authorities on which it hath been found, and impoſed; together with a genuine Examination of the Grounds and Reaſons each Party have given to juſtify the ſame: And may we not upon the whole, fairly come to the following Concluſions? viz.

1. That there doth not appear to be the leaſt Scripture - precept, or Practice for any ſuch Ordinance of Confirmation, or an impoſing of[Page]hands upon all the Baptized before they break bread, or are admitted into Church-communion.

2. That the Inſtances produced to prove it an Apoſtolical Tradition, are impious Lies and Forgeries.

3. That the Authorities by which it hath been heretofore enjoined, were nothing but Antichriſtian Can. & Decrees.

4. That the most eminent Witneſſes and Confeſſors that oppoſed the Antichriſtian Ʋſurpations and Innovations, have all along witneſſed againſt, and impugned this of Confirmation, viz. the Novations, Donatiſts, Waldenſes, Greek Churches, & Wickliſſians.

All which are worthy the ſerious conſideration of all ſober and judicious Chriſtians, and eſpecially recommended to them, who having rejected Infants, and imbraced Believers Baptiſm, do yet cleave to this Practice,[Page]with theſe following Obſervations, viz.

1. It is moſt manifeſt that thoſe Popes, Councils and Fathers, that have enjoined and impoſed Infants ſprinkling for a Sacrament, or an Ordinance of Christ, have enjoined this alſo as ſuch.

2. That the principal Arguments pretended for the one, have been urged and pleaded for the other alſo, viz. Apoſtolical Tradition, and pretended Inferences and Conſequences from Scripture.

3. That the famous Churches and Confeſſors, that have oppoſed Infants ſprinkling as ſuperſtitious, Popiſh and Antichriſtian, have upon the ſame account oppoſed this alſo.

4. That it doth not appear that any baptized Church or People, did ever in any Age or Country own ſuch a Principle, or Practice to this day, except ſome in this Nation in theſe late times.

CHAP. IX.

[Page]

In anſwer to the Concluſion of Mr. Danvers's Book.

The Concluſion of this Treatiſe, in oppoſition to his.

REider, Thou haſt had a faithful, and impartial Account of the riſe, growth, and progreſs, of this holy, tho contemned Ordinance of Impoſition of hands, from the beginning of the Goſpel-Miniſtration to this day; and how aſſerted amongſt many Perſwaſions, with the Authorities on which it has been enjoined; together with the grounds given by Antient and Modern Writers to juſtify it: And from the whole we alſo may come to theſe following Concluſions; viz.

1. That there appears full and ample Precept and Practice from Scripture for this Ordinance of Impoſition of hands on all baptized Believers as ſuch, before admitted to the Lord's Table.

[Page]2. That the Inſtances to prove it an Apoſtolical Tradition or Inſtitution, are the pious Sayings, and written Verities of Chriſt's Diſciples.

3. That the Authorities by which it was at firſt enjoined, were none elſe ſave Great Jehovah, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

4. That many eminent Writers both antient and modern, have born witneſs for it.

All which is worthy to be minded, and commended to the conſideration of thoſe who having rejected Infants, and imbraced Believers Baptiſm, do oppoſe a Principle of the ſame nature, and annexed to it, with theſe following Obſervations.

1. It is moſt manifeſt that thoſe Popes, Councils, and Fathers, that have corrupted, polluted, and changed the holy Ordinance of Baptiſm, and the Lord's Supper, did alſo change, alter, and corrupt this of Impoſition of Hands.

2. That tho the principal Arguments the Church [Page] of Rome, and others who have drunk of the Whore's Cup, do bring to defend the Rite called Confirmation, is humane Tradition, and far-fetch'd Conſequences from Scripture, yet there is plain Scripture-proof for the holy Inſtitution of Impoſition of hands upon baptized Believers.

3. That many godly Perſons in ſeveral ages have oppoſed Popiſh laying on of hands, on the ſame account that we reject Popiſh Baptiſm, and not otherwiſe.

4. It appears not that any baptized Church in any Country, have denied Impoſition of hands upon Believers baptized, as ſuch, to be an Inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt, nor ever writ againſt it, as ſome in this Nation have done; (no ways for their Credit, nor Honour of the Goſpel.)

Theſe things being ſo, it may be enquired what ground and reaſon our Brethren in this Nation had at firſt, or have now, to oppoſe this Divine Inſtitution of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt.

Notes

*

The Seekers uſe this Objection againſt all Ordinances, ſaying none are impowered to adminiſter any, becauſe not ſo indowed with Power from on High; and their Arguments fully agree with theirs herein againſt laying on of Hands. Of this let the rational judg.

↵

†

If any ſhould object againſt me Mark 16.17, 18. and ſay, miraculous Gifts are promiſed to ſuch as do believe, &c. I anſwer, that by believing, cannot be meant the Grace of Faith in that place; for if it ſhould, we may ſay, no man doth now believe, or hath true Faith in Chriſt: it is therefore meant of the extraordinary Gift of Faith, or Faith of Miracles, according to 1 Cor. 12.9. and 13.2. He that ſo believes, nothing can be too hard for him.

↵

*

Will any ſay, to drink Poiſon, or any deadly thing, or take up Serpents, is Milk for Babes?

↵

A brief Reply to a Book called, A Treatiſe concerning Laying on of Hands.
Written by a nameleſs Author, and publiſhed in the Year 1691.

[Page]

THE firſt Reaſon (he ſays) why they cannot own Laying on of Hands on all Believers, is, becauſe there muſt be a Command, or at leaſt ſome Example for it, pag. 3.

Anſw. We have proved in the preceding Treatiſe, that we have both a Command and Example for it, if a Command of God, and an Oracle of God, is all one: See Heb. 5.12. That which is an Oracle of God, is a Command of God; but Laying on of Hands, &c. is an Oracle of God, Ergo. And as to Examples, we have them alſo: ſee Acts 8. and Acts 19.

2ly. Becauſe (they ſay) they believe neither our Lord nor his Diſciples were under it, pag. 4.

Anſw. Our Lord, we have ſhewed, was under it; the Father laid his Hands upon him when he came out of the Water, and thereby ſealed him; the Holy Ghoſt in the likeneſs of a [Page] Dove reſted upon him: And no doubt but our Lord laid his Hands upon his Diſciples, ſince he taught this Precept as a Principle of his Doctrine, Heb. 6. 1, 2. True, we read not of their Baptiſm, nor of this neither; therefore from thence they may as well ſay they were not baptized, as that they had not Hands laid upon them.

3ly. Becauſe (ſay they) if the Apoſtles were under it, they muſt have an Adminiſtrator; and who, ſay they, ſhould that be? p. 4. But there is nothing ſaid of it, &c.

Anſw. 1. Our Lord Chriſt might be the Adminiſtrator, who is the great Shepherd and Biſhop of our Souls, as I ſaid afore.

2. And it no more follows that they were not baptized, than that they were not under Laying on of Hands; i. e. becauſe there is nothing ſaid of either.

4ly. Their fourth Reaſon is the ſame with their firſt.

5ly. Their fifth Reaſon is, becauſe, they ſay, the Church at Jeruſalem was not under it, pag. 5.

Anſw. Was not the Hebrew Church the Church at Jeruſalem? Now they, 'tis evident, were under it, or had laid it: Not laying again preſuppoſeth they had once laid it, or were under it, as well as Baptized.

6ly. Their ſixth Reaſon is, becauſe an Ordinance neceſſary to Church-Communion ought very plainly to be expreſſed, p. 6.

[Page] Anſw. So is this of Impoſition of Hands, Heb. 5.12. Heb. 6. 1, 2. Acts 8. and Acts 19.6.

7ly. Becauſe, they ſay, our Lord did leave no Ordinance as abſolutely neceſſary to Church-Communion, but ſuch as holds forth his Death and Reſurrection, p. 9. as Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper, &c.

Anſw. Who told them ſo? or doth it follow that becauſe Baptiſm and the Supper are Figures of our Lord's Death, &c. therefore this muſt be a figure of the ſame, or no Ordinance? This is not argumentative nor demonſtrative.

8ly. Becauſe Salvation is promiſed on the Terms of Faith, Repentance, and Baptiſm; and from hence they argue there is no need of any ſuch Ordinance as this of Laying on of Hands, p. 7.

Anſw. Salvation is promiſed particularly to Faith; He that believeth hath the Son, —hath Life, and ſhall be ſaved, Mark 16.16. therefore need not I be baptized? Moreover, I deny that any Ordinance gives a right to Salvation, any other ways than as it is an evidence of that Right or Title to our Conſciences. Our Right or Title is Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, or his active and paſſive Obedience only. But ſhould a Man be convinced that Laying on of Hands, Church-Communion, Order, and Diſcipline, or giving to the Poor, &c. were Duties which he omitted, would his pretended Faith, Repentance, and Baptiſm, render him a ſincere Chriſtian? No, he muſt do all things Chriſt commanded, or taught to be [Page] done, which he is convinced of, as well as thoſe three things.

9ly. Their ninth Reaſon againſt Laying on of Hands, is taken from thoſe Effects that followed this Ordinance, viz. the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit.

Anſw. The ſame Effects followed all other Goſpel-Ordinances: this we have alſo anſwered in the precedent Treatiſe.

10ly. Their tenth Reaſon is, becauſe the Holy Spirit was ſometimes given without Laying on of Hands, pag. 8.

Anſw. The Holy Spirit is promiſed to them that are baptized; but becauſe ſome received the Spirit before baptized, needed they not be baptized? In Acts 10.44. Cornelius received the Spirit, to confirm the Miniſtration of the Word to the Gentiles before baptized, yet was commanded to be baptized; nor had he ſo much of the Spirit as to need no more; and therefore came under this Ordinance alſo. Beſides, becauſe God may ſtep out of his uſual way, muſt we do ſo too? No ſure.

11ly. Their eleventh Reaſon is, becauſe none but ſuch Perſons as were eminently gifted did impoſe Hands, &c.

Anſ. The Apoſtles did all they did as eminently gifted: but if they are not to be followed by all regular Paſtors, or Elders (only ordinarily gifted) in Laying on of hands, then not in Preaching, Baptizing, nor in the Adminiſtration of any [Page] other Goſpel-Ordinance: but this is alſo fully anſwered in the preceding Treatiſe.

In pag. 17, 18, &c. they would make the Reader conclude that the Hebrews being ſaid to be dull of Hearing, and ſo needed to be taught again the firſt Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt, doth not refer to theſe ſix Principles, but to Matters relating to the Prieſtly Office of Chriſt, &c.

Anſw. 'Tis true, the Apoſtle was about to inſtruct them into higher Myſteries, viz. about Chriſt's Prieſthood; but he found them to have need of Milk, and not ſtrong Meat: And moſt evident it is, that by ſtrong Meat he refers to the things which he proceeds to inſtruct them in; but the Milk he ſpeaks of are theſe things, viz. Repentance, Faith, Baptiſm, and Laying on of Hands, &c.

They hardly underſtood the firſt Rudiments or A B C of the Chriſtian Faith: but to ſuppoſe that Milk, or thoſe firſt Principles he ſpeaks of, is the ſtrong Meat, is prepoſterous. True, Chriſt is properly the Foundation; but by the Foundation here is meant thoſe firſt Principles which every Babe in Chriſt was to be inſtructed in, and to practiſe, and then to go on to perfection.

Doth it follow, becauſe 'tis ſaid, not laying again the Foundation of Repentance, &c. that the Apoſtle only refers to Chriſt, who is the Foundation of our Salvation, and of every Principle of the Chriſtian Religion? Evident it is that the firſt Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt are here [Page] called the Foundation-principles, not that they are all Fundamentals of Salvation, but of Church-conſtitution: for we will not ſay (nor any elſe we hope) that none can be ſaved who are not baptized, and come not under Laying on of Hands; yet every true regular Church, and regular Member, ought to be under the practice of both thoſe Principles.

But I ſee no need to add any thing further in anſwer to this Treatiſe, it ſeeming to me to have the leaſt of Argument in it of any Book I have ſeen writ againſt this Ordinance.

FINIS.

Poſtſcript.

[Page]

NOw tho I am fully eſtabliſhed in this Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine, and do believe it is of the ſame nature with Baptiſm, yet I am not of the opinion that ſuch Members in a Church, who are convinced of it, and are under it, ought to ſeparate themſelves from the Church, becauſe the other Members of the ſaid Church ſee it not: no, but they ought to bear one with another, until God ſhall pleaſe to open their eyes. —We all ſee but in part, and know but in part; therefore ought to bear one with another. Yet let that Church who are of one Mind and Judgment in this matter, walk as they have received; and let all take heed how they ſet light by any Holy Precept and Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine, much leſs to teach Men to break the leaſt of his Commandments, or to caſt ſuch under contempt and reproach, who in conſcience towards God ſpeak and write according to the Light they have received in this and other Caſes. Muſt we be their Enemies for telling them the truth? Farewel.

Information about this book

Title statement

Laying on of hands upon baptized believers, as such, proved an ordinance of Christ in answer to Mr. Danvers's former book intituled, A treatise of laying on of hands : with a brief answer to a late book called, A treatise concerning laying on of hands, written by a nameless author / by B.K. ...

Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.

Edition statement

1698

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2006-06 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A47585

ID [STC]

Wing K74

ID [STC]

ESTC R8584

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12328058

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12328058

ID [VID]

59587

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A47585)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 59587)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 189:5)

Source

— Laying on of hands upon baptized believers, as such, proved an ordinance of Christ in answer to Mr. Danvers's former book intituled, A treatise of laying on of hands : with a brief answer to a late book called, A treatise concerning laying on of hands, written by a nameless author / by B.K. ..., Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.. The second edition..

Extent

[12], 110, [1] p.

Printed, are to be sold by Benj. Harris ...,. London :: 1698.. (The "epistle dedicatory" signed: Benjamin Keach.) (The statement of responsibility appears after the edition statement.) (Reproduction of original in British Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.