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
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
is just nothing that is asserted But is it in Mat. 28.19 or Acts 10.48 said in so many plain words Let all Believers be baptized 't is 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 't is 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 't is 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 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 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 Scots-man 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 what Laying on of hands is mentioned there Mr. 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 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 plain words and from Christ's own mouth too or else 't is 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 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
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 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 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 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 'T is very absurd saith Mr. Blackwood on Matth. p. 688. to think that one of the six Foundation-principles 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 't is fenced in on every side there is no coming to slight it 'T is 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 't is 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 of Hands as God's way for the ministring of it I say such a Solemnity saith he 't is 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
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