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 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 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 't is 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 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 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 't is 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 he speaks concerning the third sort he affirms that Hands were laid upon Persons for conferring the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit and
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 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 't is 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 't is 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 't is 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 'T is most palpably apparent saith he to such as are not asleep in their reading 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 Non-communion 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 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 in his late Reply Page 169 170 171. as he says of Baptism Suffer me to speak of Laying on of hands There is nothing in the Principle it self but what inclines to Piety and Vnity 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 't is 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 't is 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 Fidâ—libus communicandi that is Confirmation 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
do so too No sure 11 ly 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 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 'T is 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 't is 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 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 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 See God's Oracle p. 62 63. * 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 ☜ * See Mr. Hanmer on Confirmation the antient way of compleating Church-Members pag. 45. Independents and Presbyterians clear touching laying on of hands as refined from Popish Pollutions Those of the Antients he cites Tertul. de Bapt. ad Quintil. cap. 8. A.D. 250. Cyprian Ep. ad Jubar 73. * Dr. Hammond says 't is that of Absolution †Confirm Restaurat pag. 123. * Will any say to drink Poison or any deadly thing or take up Serpents is Milk for Babes * 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 †M. Blackwood notes the emphasis to lie in this Pronoun Relative They the Antecedent hereunto must needs be the Baptized c. * How many Women is not expressed they are seldom the lesser number Mr. D 's Innocency and Truth vindicated