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
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
that this abundantly testifies that the Original of this Ceremony flowed from the Apostles Before I proceed I might cite a passage full to the same purpose as the Judgment of the Learned Assembly of Divines which take as follows out of their Annotations on Heb. 6.2 Laying on of hands say they is usually called Confirmation which stood first in examining those that had been baptized what progress they had made in Christianity Secondly In praying for them that God would continue them in the Faith and give them more Grace strengthning them by his Holy Spirit they laid their hands upon them whence the Apostolical Constitution was called Laying on of Hands Moreover What Mr. Baxter speaks upon this account I can't well omit Confirmat p. 124 125. If the Vniversal Church of Christ saith he have used Prayer and Laying on of hands as a practice received from the Apostles and no other beginning of it can be found then we have no reason to think this Ceremony ceased or to interpret the foresaid Scripture contrary to this practice of the Vniversal Church But the Antecedent is true ergo And if any say Anointing and Crossing were antient I answer saith he First That they were as antient in the Popish use as the matter of a Sacrament or necessary Signs is not true nor proved but frequently disproved by our Writers against Popish Confirmation Secondly Nor can it be proved that they were as antient as indifferent things Thirdly We prove the contrary because they were not in Scripture-times there being no mention of them Fourthly So that we bring Antiquity but to prove the continuance of a Scripture-practice and so to clear the practice of it But the Papists plead Fathers for that which the Scripture is a stranger unto I shall close this with Reverend Mr. Hooker The antient Custom of the Church saith he Eccles Polit. p. 351. was after they had baptized to add thereto Imposition of hands with effectual Prayer for the illumination of God's most Holy Spirit to confirm and perfect that which the Grace of the said Spirit had already begun in Baptism for the means to obtain the Graces which God doth bestow are our Prayers and our Prayers to that intent are available as well for others as for our selves But to pass by this I intreat the Reader to consider that tho we have urged the Testimony of several Authors who are one with us in the main concerning our Practice herein yet we build not upon Men or Tradition but on the Word of God neither do we suppose any necessity for us to take up new weapons to defend so plain a Truth since our Adversaries have been so sufficiently worsted and put to flight by the Sword of the Spirit as used by several eminent Saints in times past What we have mentioned of Authors we have been in part forced to by what Mr. Danvers and others have said of them And that leads me to what he speaks pag. 40. of the Scripture-grounds on which the Baptists have asserted this Rite as he calls it and founded this Practice of Laying on of hands upon baptized Believers as necessary to Church-Communion as before especially held forth Heb. 6.1 2. tho not affirmed with that sobriety and modesty as the other from Probability but rather Infallibility denying fellowship to any that do not receive it c. CHAP. V. Shewing how and upon what ground the Baptized Churches do assert Laying on of hands HOW those learned Persons he speaks of have writ and asserted Laying on of hands from that Text I shall leave to the judicious Reader by considering the Instances forecited and that they hold it also as necessary to Church-Communion might I presume be made manifest but that is not our present work but rather to make the thing it self appear to be an Ordinance of Jesus Christ and in order to this those two Particulars or Principles Mr. Danvers lays down we will consider viz. First That to every Ordinance of Christ there must be some plain positive word of Institution to confirm it and not only human Tradition or far-fetcht Consequences and Inferences such as the many Volumes written of Circumcision and federal Holiness to assert Infants Baptism to be an Ordinance of Christ which no ordinary Capacity can reach and only Men of Parts and Abilities can trace and follow in their Meanders Secondly That to practise any thing in the Worship of God for an Ordinance of his without an Institution is Will-worship and Superstition c. Answ The great Text urged for this Institution he says is Heb. 6.1 2. Therefore leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ let us go on to perfection not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead Works and of Faith towards God of the Doctrine of Baptisms Laying on of hands c. This is the Text affirmed saith he to be the great Charter of the Church for this point of Faith and Practice but how to find the least warrant for the same there he says we see not If it was indeed said let all baptized Believers have hands laid upon them with as much plainness as let all Believers be baptized Mat. 28.29 Acts 10.43 or let all baptized Believers eat the Lord's Supper 1 Cor. 11.24 Acts 2.41 it was something to the purpose Answ First we grant that to every Ordinance of Christ there must be some word of Institution and that such far-fetch Consequence as he minds will not do or be sufficient but that every Institution must be laid down in such plain positive Words as he seems to affirm viz. Let all baptized Believers have Hands laid upon them I deny it being none of our Principle I judg nor theirs neither since they practise such things as Institutions of Christ which are no where in so many plain positive words commanded as may hereafter be shewed But as to the other thing he minds we do agree with him in that matter and say Whatsoever is done in the Worship and Service of God without an Institution is Will-worship and you shall see that our Principles agree and comport with all those honest Protestant Principles concerning what we have to say further about Laying on of hands c. But to reply to what he says concerning Heb. 6. it matters not whether it be Heb. 5.12 or Heb. 6.1 2. or Acts 8.16 17. or Acts 19.6 or any other Scripture that is the chief Text urged to prove Laying on of hands an Ordinance and Institution of Jesus Christ provided that the Scripture urged on this account will prove it so to be But whereas he says he finds not the least warrant for the same I somewhat marvel at it considering what has been formerly written and proved from that Text by several worthy and able Men whose Books he nor none else have ever yet answered But it seems he would have it said in so many plain words Let all baptized Believers have hands laid upon them or else all
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
he may be renewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Repentance and by resuscitation of the Spirit if he had not wholly quenched him but if he renounces the whole Covenant disown and cancel these Foundations he is desperate he can never be renewed This is the full explication of this excellent place and otherways it cannot be explicated but therefore into this place any notice of Ordination cannot come no Sense no Mystery can be made of it or drawn from it but by the interposition of Confirmation The whole Context is clear rational and intelligible He cites Calvin and Chrysostom as speaking the same things upon this place p. 50. To these I might add Estius on Heb. 6.1 2. 'T is saith he undoubtedly to be understood of that Laying on of hands which was administred to the Faithful presently after Baptism of which St. Luke speaks Acts 8. 19. I might produce Grotius and Heming and other modern Authors upon the same place But having upon occasion mentioned several before I shall close this with a passage out of Erasmus on Heb. 6.1 The first step to Christianity saith he is Repentance of our former Life next that Salvation is to be hoped from God next that we be purged in Baptism from our filth next that by Laying on of hands we receive the Holy Spirit c. CHAP. VI. Opening and further proving Laying on of hands from Acts 8.16 17. and 19.6 Also shewing the Judgment of Antient and Modern Writers upon those two Places MR. Danvers having laboured to weaken the proof of our Practice from Heb. 6.1 2. tho all he says signifies nothing comes p. 45. to examine Acts 8.17 and 19.6 which we affirm to be full Precedents for Laying on of hands upon baptized Believers The sum of his Objections or the way he takes to invalidate what we infer from thence take as follows p. 46. Object As to that of Samaria it is said that several being converted in that City and baptized by Philip who wrought many Miracles and continued some time with them Acts 8.13 yet did not he impose hands upon them as we read of the Church of Jerusalem hearing that Samaria had received the Word of God and that the Spirit was not fallen upon any of them viz. in a visible manner which was a Phrase attributed to those extraordinary Measures frequently given in those days Acts 10.44 which sometimes did fall upon them before Baptism and sometimes after sent Peter and John who it seems were extraordinarily gifted by God so that on whomsoever they prayed and laid their hands the Spirit was visibly extraordinarily and immediately given and 't is said they laid their hands upon them but how many 't is not said surely not upon all for Simon by his profane offer discovered he had neither lot nor part therein tho baptized c. Answ The first thing he hints at as an Objection against our Practice from this place is because Philip laid not his hands upon them after he had baptized them Which we have answered already but this I must say now that if Peter and John laid their hands on those Believers in Samaria as Men miraculously gifted or by virtue of their extraordinary Attainments it might seem strange that Philip laid not his hands upon them being tho but a Deacon endowed with those extraordinary Gifts and had wrought wonderful Signs and Miracles in the same City before The reason therefore why Philip did not impose hands upon them was 1. Because not ministerially capacitated so to do it not belonging to him on the account of his Office nor his extraordinary Gifts and Endowments This also I might further shew because the Church at Jerusalem did not send to Samaria Men simply indowed with miraculous Gifts but such as had Ministerial Power and Authority as the Servants of Christ in his Name to compleat and perfect what was wanting among them 'T is an Act saith Dr. Hammond on Acts 8.17 reserved to the Rulers of the Church and not communicated or allowed to inferiour Officers such as Philip the Deacon here 2. But whereas Mr. Danvers seems to affirm that as some in the primitive time had the Gift of Healing so others had the Gift or Power to give the Holy Spirit 't is utterly denied and the contrary has often been proved for that 't is only the Gift of God and Christ's blessed Prerogative they were found in their Duty they prayed and laid on their hands and left the issue to God to give the Spirit according to his promise and good pleasure Object But probably some may object We read of none but the Apostles that laid hands on baptized Believers and tho they acted not by virtue of their miraculous Endowments nor had power to give the Holy Spirit yet they might act herein by virtue of their extraordinary call unto that Office Answ I affirm that they acted in all other Ordinances yea and did whatsoever they did in the Worship and Service of Christ by virtue of the said extraordinary Call unto the Ministry as well as in this But doth it therefore follow that nothing the Apostles practised is a Precedent or Rule unto us as some ignorantly have affirmed unless so called of God and endowed as they were 3. Had not Matthias the same power to administer Ordinances who was mediately called to his Office by the Church as the other Apostles immediately called by Christ Jesus and is not the End and Work of the Office however called to it one and the same viz. the work of the Ministry the perfecting the Saints and edifying the Body of Christ Eph. 4. 4. We read hardly of any that preached the Word Authoritatively or officiated in any Gospel-administration by virtue of their Office besides the extraordinary Apostles and therefore if what they did be not a Law or Rule to us and to all ordinary Ministers to the end of the World we shall be at a loss in many other respects It must therefore be granted that what they taught and practised as an Ordinance of Christ and foundation-Principle of his Doctrine they delivered it unto faithful Men that were their Successors that they might be able to teach others also 2 Tim. 2.3 And this agrees with Phil. 4.9 Those things that you have both learned and received heard and seen in me do and the God of Peace shall be with you 5. Had it been a Service for that Day only and none to be Administrators thereof but those great Apostles it would not have been left as a standing or foundation principle in God's House and been joined to Faith and the Resurrection In the 2d place he would have us believe the end of that Administration was for the extraordinary or visible Gifts of the Holy Spirit which we have clearly refuted yet I shall say further that by his arguing the Apostles resolved that all the Church at Samaria yea and that at Ephesus should have the extraordinary Gifts since they laid their