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 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 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 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. 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. 2 ly 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 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 3 ly 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 4 ly Their fourth Reason is the same with their first 5 ly 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 't is 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 6 ly Their sixth Reason is because an Ordinance necessary to Church-Communion ought very plainly to be expressed p. 6. Answ So is this of Imposition of Hands Heb. 5.12 Heb. 6. 1 2. Acts 8. and Acts 19.6 7 ly 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 8 ly 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 done which he is convinced of as well as those three things 9 ly 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 10 ly 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
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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 't is 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 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 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 't is 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 Vnction 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 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 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 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 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 neque 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 Vtility 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 multisque 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 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 as may be seen in their Epistles to the forementioned Book of Mr. Hanmers 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. 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 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 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 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 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. 'T is 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 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 't is 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 't is 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 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 't is 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 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 't was 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
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 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 Vnto 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. 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 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 Vnction 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 't is no where written 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