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 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 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 't is 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 't is 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 't is granted the Antients and their Followers ever since have erred not only in the Subject but in divers Circumstances 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 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
this Truth 't is 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 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 't is 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 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 't is 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 and Rivet whose words take as follows â—â—â—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 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
in some other way yet we ought not to neglect our Duty 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 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. 'T is the Holy Spirit that enlightens the eyes of our Vnderstandings 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. 'T is the Holy Spirit that revives and quickens us and makes us lively in the Paths of Righteousness Joh. 6.63 Col. 2.13 3. 'T is 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 't is he that guides us into all Truth and brings Christ's Words to our remembrance Joh. 14.26 4. 'T is the Holy Spirit that comforts us when cast down 't is from hence we receive all Heavenly Consolation Joh. 14. 16 26. 5. 'T is the Holy Spirit that makes us profit under the Word and means of Grace 't is 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. 'T is 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 7. 'T is by the Spirit we cry Abba Father 't is that which bears witness with our Spirits that we are the Children of God Rom. 8. 13 15 16. 8. 'T is by the Holy Spirit we mortify the Deeds of the body Gal. 5.22 't is by that we live and stand and are confirmed in Christ Jesus and sanctified throughout 9. 'T is from the Holy Spirit that all heavenly Grace and spiritual Gifts flow 't is he that divides to every man severally as he will 1 Cor. 12. 5 8 9. 10. 'T is 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. 'T is the Holy Spirit by which we are sealed to the day of Redemption Eph. 1.13 12. 'T is by the Spirit we are made strong and enabled to overcome all Enemies and helped to triumph over Death 1 Cor. 15. 55 57. 't is 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 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 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 Vsurpations 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 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 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 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