Laying on of Hands, Part 3
The Vſage of the Church of England.
The Church of England, Chur. of Engl.though they lop off many of the Ancient and Popiſh Superſtitions and Ceremonies herein; yet do they retain the thing, viz. Confirmation after Baptiſm by a Biſhop only, and the Subjects, viz. Baptized Children, able to ſay their Catechiſm, according to the Decrees of the Council of Conſtance, and the Gallican Councils before-mentioned. The whole Rite and Ceremony thereof, with what appertains thereto, you have at large in the Engl. Liturgy, in the Rubrick; the ſubſtance whereof you may pleaſe to take as followeth.
The Order of Confirmation or Laying on of Hands upon Children Baptized, and able to render an Account of their Faith according to the Catechiſm.
TO the end that Confirmation may be adminiſtred to the more edifying of ſuch as ſhall receive it (according to St. Paul's Doctrine, who teacheth that all things ſhould be done in the Church to the Edification of the ſame) it is thought good that none hereafter ſhall be confirmed, but ſuch as can ſay in their Mother-Tongue the Articles of the Faith, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and can alſo anſwer to ſuch Queſtions of the ſhort Catechiſm as the Biſhop (or ſuch as he ſhall appoint) ſhall by his diſcretion appoſe him; and this Order is moſt convenient to be obſerved, for divers Conſiderations;
Firſt, Becauſe that when Children come to the years of Diſcretion, and have learned what their Godfathers and Godmothers promiſed for them in Baptiſm, they may then themſelves, with their own mouth, and with their own conſent, openly before the Church, ratifie and confirm the ſame, and alſo promiſe that by the Grace of God, they will evermore endeavour themſelves faithfully to obſerve and keep ſuch things as they by their own mouths and Confeſſion have aſsented unto.
Secondly, Foraſmuch as Confirmation is miniſtred to them that are baptized, that by Impoſition of hands and Prayer, they may receive ſtrength and defence againſt all Temptations to Sin, and the Aſſaults of the World and the Devil; it is most meet to be miniſtred when Children come to that Age, that partly by the frailty of their own Fleſh, partly by the Aſſaults of the World and the Devil, they begin to be in danger to fall into ſundry kinds of Sin.
Thirdly, For that it is agreeable with the Ʋ ſage of the Church in times paſt; whereby it was ordained that Confirmation ſhould be miniſtred to them that were of perfect Age; that they being inſtructed in Chriſt's Religion, ſhould openly profeſs their own Faith, and promiſe to be obedient to the Will of God.
The Order it ſelf, this following Prayer being ſaid.
ALmighty and everlaſting God, who haſt vouchſafed to regenerate theſe thy Servants by Water, and the Holy Ghoſt, and haſt given unto them forgiveneſs of all their ſins; ſtrengthen them, we beſeech thee, O Lord, with the Holy Ghoſt the Comforter, and daily encreaſe in them thy manifold Gifts of Grace, the Spirit of Wisdom and Vnderſtanding, the Spirit of counſel and ghoſtly ſtrength, the Spirit of knowledge and true Godlineſs, and fill them O Lord, with the Spirit of thy Holy Fear, Amen.
Then ſhall the Biſhop lay his hand upon every Child ſeverally, ſaying,
DEfend, O Lord, this Child with thy Heavenly Grace, that he may continue thine for ever, and daily encreaſe in thy Holy Spirit more and more, until he come into thy everlaſting Kingdom, Amen.
Then ſhall the Biſhop ſay,
ALmighty and everlaſting God, which maketh us both to will & to do thoſe things that be good & acceptable unto thy Majeſty, we make our humble ſupplications unto thee for theſe Children, upon whom, after the example of the Holy Apoſtles, we have laid our hands, to certifie them (by this Sign) of thy Favour and Gracious Goodneſs towards them, let thy Fatherly Hand, we beſeech thee, be over them, let thy Holy Spirit ever be with them, and ſo lead them in the knowledge and obedience of thy Word, that in the end they may obtain the everlaſting Life, through our Lord Ieſus, who with thee and the Holy Ghoſt, liveth and reigneth, one God, world without end, Amen.
Then the Biſhop ſhall bleſs the Children, ſaying,
The Bleſsing of God Almighty, the Father, Son and Holy Ghoſt, be upon you and remain with you for ever and ever, Amen.
After are added theſe Directions relating to Confirmation, viz.
That the Curate of every Pariſh, or ſome other at his appointment, ſhall diligently on Sundays and Holy-days, half an hour before Evening-Prayer, openly in the Chureh, inſtruct and examine ſo many Children of his Pariſh ſent unto him, as the time will ſerve, and as he ſhall think convenient, in ſome part of this Catechiſm.
And all Fathers, Mothers, Maſters and Dames ſhall cauſe their Children, Servants and Apprentices (which have not learned their Catechiſm) to come to the Church at the time appointed, and obediently to bear and be ordered by the Curate, until ſuch time as they have learned all that is here appointed for them to learn; and whenſoever the Biſhop ſhall give knowledge for Children to be brought before him to any convenient place for their Confirmation, then ſhall the Curate of every Pariſh either bring or ſend in writing the Names of all thoſe Children of his Pariſh which can ſay the Articles of the Faith, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments; and alſo how many of them can anſwer to the other Queſtions contained in this Catechiſm.
And there ſhall none be admitted to the Holy Communion until ſuch time as he can ſay the Catechiſm, and be confirmed.
Dr. Cave, Dr. Cave.in his late Primitive Chriſtianity, upon the Subject, ſaith of our Engliſh Confirmation, That almoſt exactly according to the Primitive uſage, it is ſtill retained and practiſed in our Church at this day; and happy were it for us, were it kept up in its due power and vigour: Sure I am that many of our chiefeſt Breaches and Controverſies in Religion, do, if not wholly, in a great meaſure, owe their Birth and Riſe to the neglect and contempt of this excellent Ʋſage of the Church. p. 219.
Concerning which Rite, as uſed by the Church of England, we obſerve,
1. The Name given it, viz. Confirmation.
2. The Subjects, viz. Children Baptized in their Infancies, that are taught their Catechiſm, and are able to ſay the Creed, Lord's Prayer, and Ten Commandments in the Engliſh Tongue.
3. The Adminiſtrators, a Biſhop only; and therefore the Ceremony was ſo vulgarly called Biſhoping.
4. The Force and manner, as expr…ſs'd by the Biſhop's putting the hand upon the Head of the Children, and ſaying that Form of words directed.
5. The Ends, as declared, viz. 1. To confirm Infants Baptized, and the Promiſe of the Sureties made for them therein. 2. To give the Spirit for the encreaſe of Grace, and ſtrength againſt Temptations. 3. To confirm the Ʋnity and Order of the Church, and orderly to admit them therein.
6. The Time when adminiſtred; betwixt their Baptiſm and the Supper, aſſoon as they can ſay their Catechiſm.
7. The Grounds upon which they aſſert; viz. The Ʋſage of the Ancient Church, Decrees of Councils, Apoſtles Practice.
Performed by them with very little Reverence or Caution, either how or upon whom they do it, ſaith Mr. Hanmer and Mr. Baxter.
Mr. Hanmer, p. 42. Though they deem it to be of ſome weight and conſequence, yet as uſed by them, it is little leſs than ridiculous, a meer vain and empty Ceremony; or (as the Saxon-Confeſſion terms the Romiſh Sacrament of Confirmation) Inanis Ʋmbra, an Empty Shadow; and Hommius, a vain Invention of Superſtitious men.
Mr. Baxter, In his Book Of Confirmation, p. 155. ſaith, To his knowledge it was done by the beſt of them in a careleſs hudling way, mumbling over a few formal Prayers upon perſons that they knew not whether they were Chriſtians or Infidels, or that they did ſo much as know there was a God.
In the Fifth place, We come to give you an Account how this Rite hath been aſſerted and pleaded by ſome, both of the Independent and Presbyterian Perſwaſion; ſo eſpecially by Mr. Jonathan Hanmer, in his Book called Confirmation the ancient way of compleating Church-Members: Written with great applauſe in the year 1657. And Mr. Baxter, in confirmation thereof, in his Book called Confirmation and Reſtoration the neceſſary means of Reformation and Reconciliation: Who do therein undertake to prove the neceſſity of Confirmation, a laying on of the hands of the Presbytery for the confirming and compleating Infants-Baptiſm, perfecting their Church-Memberſhip upon their Profeſſion and Confeſſion of Faith; and which they endeavour to make good by this five-fold Argument.
1. By Scripture. 2. By the Teſtimony of Fathers. 3. By Councils. 4. By the Judgment and Practice of the Waldenſes. 5. By the Judgment of many of the Reformed Divines.
I. As to Scripture.
The main Scripture he inſiſts on to prove this Confirmation by (and which as modeſtly ſaid, is a probable ground for the the ſame) is that of Heb. 6.2. And laying on of Hands. Where, as urged, it is made one of the Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt. Where,
1. Its Place is to be taken notice of, being next after Baptiſm, and as it were, an Appendix thereof, and for the moſt part immediately following it in ſuch Adult as were baptized, and the next Priviledge in the Church as ſuch did enjoy who were baptized in Infancy.
2. Becauſe the beſt Interpreters do uſually underſtand this of one or more of the three Particulars that Impoſition of hands hath relation to, viz.
1. Of the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, which was conferr'd at firſt upon many new Converts by the laying on of the Apoſtles hands, Acts 8.17, 19.
2. Of the Officers of the Church who were ordained and ſet apart unto their Offices by Prayer and Impoſition of hands. This Pareus in Heb. 6.1. Initiata erat Doctrina de Donis Spiritualibus & Miniſterio Eccleſiae; It was an Initial Doctrine concerning Spiritual Gifts and the Miniſtry of the Church, Ameſ. in Bellarm. Enervat. By Impoſition of Hands is meant the whole Miniſtry; Per Impoſitionem Manuum Miniſterium totum intelligitur.
3. Of the Confirmation of ſuch who had been baptized, who before the Church made a Profeſſion of Faith, the Adult before Baptiſm, the Baptized Infant before Confirmation. So Piſcator, Beza, Rivet, Doctors of Leyden, Anſelm, Calvin, Hyperius, Illyricus, Mr. Deering upon the place. By theſe and other Expoſitors, it is ſaid, is this place of Scripture underſtood, in part at leaſt, of Impoſition of Hands in Confirmation; which therefore in their apprehenſion, is warranted by it; as a Doctrine Fundamental that ought to be known by all, and a thing practiſed by, and taking its Riſe from the Apoſtles. And,
2. By Teſtimony of Fath.II. That it was alſo as an Apoſtolical Practice received by the Church in after-Ages, Caſſander (that Learned Papiſt, and ſo well vers'd in the Ancients, even to Miracle) tells us, Semper in Eccleſia religioſiſſimè obſervatum fuiſſe, To have been always moſt religiouſly obſerved in the Church; and therefore have you an Account thereof from many of the Fathers, viz. Dionyſ. Areopag. Clem. Roman. Juſtin Martyr's Reſponſes, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambroſe, Jerom, &c. Which being all before mentioned, we need not repeat. And,
III. The Decrees of Councils, 3. Dec. of Councils.confirming Confirmation to have been an Ancient and General Practice in the Churches of Chriſt; of which two only are mentioned, viz. The Laod. before recited, about the year 300, and the Council of Eliberis in Spain, in 305. And,
IV.4. Wald. Practice. By the Judgment and Practiſe of the Waldenſes; who received it as an Apoſtolical Inſtitution, as appears by their Apology and Confeſſion of Faith exhibited to Ʋladiſlaus K. of Hungary, Anno 1504. witneſſing to Infants-Baptiſm, and their Confirmation after, upon their Perſonal Confeſſion; which he mentions at large out of the ſame Apology, And,
V.5. Reformed Ch.From the compliance of the ſucceeding Reformed Churches; amongſt whom the Church of England is mentioned as one, who took much of the Order of Confirmation (as he ſaith) from that of the Waldenſes; part whereof he repeats; eſpecially the Concluſion, that debars any from the Holy Communion, that were not confirmed; and adds thereto the good wiſhes that Hommius, Calvin, the Leyd. Profeſſors, &c. that this Buſineſs of Confirmation was drained from Antichriſtian Mixtures, both as to Name, Nature, Matter, Form, Adminiſtrator and Subject alſo; the Romiſh Church confirming Children in their Infancies.
In whoſe Hypotheſis we have firſt,
1. The Name they give this Rite; namely, Confirmation. 2. The Subjects, Adult Perſons, all baptized in Infancy. 3. The Adminiſtrators, viz. The Presbytery-Elderſhip. 4. The End, viz. To confirm Baptiſm, give the Spirit, and orderly to admit into the Church, 5. The Time when to be adminiſtred, viz. Betwixt Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper, when they give an Account of their Faith, and deſire Church-Communion. 6. The Grounds upon which they aſſert it; viz. 1. Scriptural; eſpecially from Heb. 6.2. 2. The Sayings of the Ancients, and Decrees of Councils, confirming it to be an Apoſtolical Practice. 7. The Ʋſage and Practice of the Ancient and Modern Churches, eſpecially that of the Famous Waldenſes.
6. Baptized Churches S. Fiſher. Jo. Griffith. W. Rider T. Grantham.6. The Ʋſage of ſeveral Baptized Churches in the Nation.
Sixthly and laſtly, We come to give you an Account how that this Rite of Laying on of Hands hath been aſſerted and practiſed by ſeveral Baptized Congregations, who have by their Writings maintained and defended, That Laying on of Hands upon all Baptized Believers, is an Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt, eſſentially neceſſary to Church-Fellowſhip and Communion, and that none are to be admitted to the Lord's Supper without it; and which they endeavour to make good, eſpecially from Heb. 6.2. Which they conclude to be a Laying on of Hands upon all Baptized Believers.
1. Becauſe it is reckoned amongſt the Foundation-Principles, Doctrines and Oracles of God. And, 2. Becauſe they find the Church of Samaria, Acts 8.17. and the Church of Epheſus did practiſe accordingly immediately after Baptiſm; which therefore they do conclude was both Chriſt's Precept and the Practice of all the Churches in the New Teſtament.
Amongſt whom reſpecting this Practice, we obſerve,
1. The Name Name.they give this Rite, viz. Laying on of Hands.
2. The Subjects, viz. All Baptized Believers, Subject.Men and Women.
3. The Adminiſtrators Admin.viz. The Elders or Presbyters.
4. The End, End.for the promiſed Spirit to confirm the Baptized, and orderly to admit into the Church.
5. The Time Time.or Order in which this is adminiſtred; betwixt Baptiſm and the Supper, or preſently after the Baptiſm.
6. The principal Ground Principal Groundupon which they aſſert it, viz. The Scripture; eſpecially from Heb. 6.2. Acts 8.17, 19.
Thus have you an Account of this Rite, Wherein all Parties do agree.not only from Scriptures, but how it hath been owned and practiſed ſince the firſt times, by ſeveral ſorts; and who notwithſtanding the vaſt differences among them in the Ceremonial part, yet do all of them harmoniouſly agree in the following Subſtantials, viz.
That there is a warrantable ground to conclude that the Hands of the Biſhop, Elder, or Presbyter ſhould be impoſed upon every Baptized Perſon for the receiving of the Spirit, or Confirmation, and that without it none ought to be admitted to the Lord's Supper.
It remains therefore in the next place, that we conſider the ſaid Grounds upon which ſo great an Ordinance is enjoined, and which we find to be either Tradition or the Scripture.
1. That of Tradition (which is principally aſſerted by the firſt four) is made good either from the Sayings of the Ancients, and Decrees of Councils, or the Uſage of the ancient Churches.
2. And that of Scripture, which is principally urged by the two latter, is eſpecially from Heb. 6.2. compared Act. 8.17. & 19.6. Which we ſhall examine diſtinctly and apart.
Tradition.And firſt, As to the Sayings of the Ancients, that are avouched to make this good, we ſhall firſt conſider what they ſay about this Rite; and 2. Of what Credit and Authority the ſaid Authors are who be produced for the ſame.
And firſt, As to the Rite it ſelf, which they would make us believe to be ſo great an Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt, we find it to be ſo blaſphemous and Ridiculous, that the very naming of the Particulars thereof, may be ſufficient to detect the Folly and Impiety thereof to all diſcerning Chriſtians. Whether reſpecting the Name, which they call Chryſm; Ʋnction, Perfection, Confirmation, of which the Scripture is ſo much a ſtranger; or the Nature, which muſt be by putting the Sign of the Croſs with a Biſhop's greas'd Finger, in the Forehead of the Confirmed, with theſe words of Blaſphemy, I ſign thee with the Sign of the Croſs, and with the Chryſm of Salvation, in the Name of the Father, Son and Spirit, the Party being in a white Garment, his Head bound with Linnen, his Hair cut, and attended with Goſſips or Sureties. And this is that which the ſeveral fore-cited Popes and Fathers have reported to be Apoſtolical; and the ſeveral Councils have by their Canons and Decrees determined and enjoyned as the great Sacrament of Confirmation, and ſo tranſcendent alſo to Baptiſm it ſelf; and which without diſpute (we muſt believe) was ſo much the appointment and practice of Chriſt and the Apoſtles, and as yet practiſed accordingly by the Church of Rome to this day.
Concerning which Hommius Hommiustells us, That it is not only unknown and contrary to the Scriptures, but blaſphemous and Idolatrous, and the vain Invention of ſuperſtitious men.
And Tilenus, Tilenusupon their lifting it up above Baptiſm, and confining it only to a Biſhop's hand, ſaith, That they make an Excrement of Antichriſt ſo much more excellent than the Sacrament of Chriſt, by how much they make a Biſhop excel a common Prieſt, or an ordinary perſon. Syntag. Part 2. c. 58. §. 15.
And Ameſius ſaith,Ameſ. The Reaſons given by the Papiſts for the ſame, are both empty, and impious. Bel. Enervat. c. 4.
And notably Mr. Calvin, Calvin.In Pref. ante Catechiſ. inter Opuſcul. That beyond meaſure they have d…ckt this Adulterous Confirmation like an Harlot, with great ſplendor of Ceremonies, and many pompous Gauderies; moreover, while they will adorn it, they do it with execrable Blaſphemies, boaſting that it is a Sacrament more worthy than Baptiſm, and calling them half-Chriſtians, whoever have not been beſmear'd with their ſtinking Oyl; but in the mean while their whole action contains nothing elſe but Hiſtrionical Geſtures, or rather wanton Apiſh Plays without any Art or emulation, &c.
2. What their Authorities.Secondly, From the Authorities themſelves urged in proof hereof; concerning whom, we may ſo well ſay, as is the Doctrine, ſo are the Doctors, viz. Thoſe that are firſt cited to deliver the ſame, the very naming of whom, may be ſufficient to detect the Cheat, we having already by ſubſtantial evidence proved, that all thoſe firſt-recited Authorities, viz. Dionyſ. Areopag. Clem. 4. Ep. Juſtin Martyr's Reſponſ. Hyginus's Decree, and the Decretal Epiſtles of thoſe firſt Popes, to have been Impious Lies and Forgeries, things that in after-Ages, by the Riſe of the Myſtery of Iniquity, were feigned and invented by ſome Monks and Friers, and put upon thoſe men of Name of the firſt Ages, the better to countenance thoſe Antichriſtian Impieties that were to be impoſed upon the World, for Apoſtolick; for by ſuch Lies and Forgeries, did the man of ſin aſcend the Throne. And is there not good ground think you, to ſuſpect the Juſtice and Truth of that Cauſe, that cannot otherwiſe be defended nor maintained, but by ſuborned Witneſſes, and Knights of the Poſt; for upon no better Authority, have they impoſed this which they call the Sacred Rite of Confirmation, Infants-Baptiſm, Exorciſm, and a hundred ridiculous Ceremonies more, which they would perſwade us to believe were Apoſtolical; though as to this of Confirmation, ſome of themſelves are conſtrained to acknowledge,Rivet. nec ab Apoſtolis, nec à Chriſto fuiſſe Inſtitutio, &c. That it was neither inſtituted by Chriſt or his Apoſtles, but by Pope Calixtus, Anno 218. Rivet's Controv. Tom. 2. Yet ſo intoxicated with the Whores Cup were all theſe Councils, upon no better grounds to decree it, and all theſe after-Doctors, as Ambroſe, Jerom, Auſtin, and others, to aſſert and plead it for an Ordinance of Chriſt; which was not only ſo contrary to the Scripture, but ſo blaſphemous and ridiculous, as before.
And if it had been an Apoſtolical Tradition to practiſe this, as the firſt Councils decreed, and the Fathers and others practiſed, viz. for many hundred years, as a Baptiſmal Rite, to be performed at one and the ſame time with Baptiſm, whether upon Infants or Adult, and to whom alſo as perfect and compleat Chriſtians, they gave the Euchariſt; how came the after-Councils to be ſo bold, to alter and change it from Infancy to the Adult ſtate, put…ing it upon them only for ſo many Ages; and the Church of Rome afterwards to alter and change it again, returning it to its firſt practice, leaning upon the Validity of thoſe firſt Authorities; concerning whom, though it is no wonder that they ſhould hold faſt ſuch impious Forgeries, and have recourſe to ſuch lying Fables, to maintain it; yet it is matter of admiration, to find our Proteſtant-Writers and Churches to fly to theſe Authorities, both Fathers and Councils, to create ſome colourable pretence for Confirmation?
Objection as to the Waldenſ. Church.But what do you ſay to the Practice of the Waldenſian Church; to whom you have aſcribed ſo much Authentickneſs? Who, as you obſerve, were ſuch early Witneſſes for Truth; as well as eminent oppoſers of the Romiſh Church in all their Fopperies; who yet, as it appeareth, have aſſerted and practiſed Confirmation, as you have at large in the forecited Apology to King Laodiſlaus, King of Hungary and Bohemia.
Anſw.To which I ſay, That it is moſt manif ſt, as I have already demonſtrated that that Apology was not from the Waldenſes, as the Preamble it ſelf declares; but from ſome of thoſe Profeſſors diſtinguiſhed by the name Huſſites, who held much with thoſe of the Reformed Way in Germany: and not the Taborites or Waldenſian Brethren, who alſo inhabited in Bohemia, and other parts of Germany, Poland, and Hungary. And that thoſe true Waldenſes were of a quite contrary Opinion, appears by their Ancient Confeſſions of Faith; an eminent Inſtance whereof you'l find in their Treatiſe of Sacraments, in Paul Perin, p. 329. and in Morland's Hiſtory, p. 175. in theſe words; viz.
As for the Sacrament of Confirmation, which we find not inſtituted either by Chriſt or his Apoſtles; for Chriſt, the Pattern of all his Church, was not confirmed in his Perſon, and he doth not require that there ſhould be any ſuch thing in Baptiſm, but only pure Water; and that ſuch a Sacrament is not found needful for Salvation; whereby God is blaſphemed, and which was introduced by the Devil's inſtigation, to ſeduce the People, and to deprive them of the Faith of the Church, and that by ſuch means they might be drawn the more to believe the Ceremonies, and the neceſſity of Biſhops.
It is alſo to be taken notice of,Juſtin Martyr give no account in his Apology, that Juſtin Martyr, in his Apology, giving an Account of the Faith and Practice of the Churches in thoſe days to Antonius Pius, takes not the leaſt notice hereof, though he recounts all their Services and Ceremonies in Worſhip with great Plainneſs.
It is alſo not unworthy our obſervation, that the Novatians, Novatians.that worthy famous Church and People, did, as Joſeph Vicecomes tells us, oppoſe this Buſineſs of Confirmation in Century 3. Vicecomes, l. 28. p. 372.
And alſo it is manifeſt out of Breerwood, Nor in the Greek Churchesthe eminent Recorder of the Antiquities of the Greek Churches, that the Greeks did impugn and reject that of Confirmation. Br. p. 127. out of Paſ. De Rep. Moſch. p. 40. And particularly tells us that the Neſtorians Neſtorians.did not practiſe it. p. 124. out of Bib. Pat. p 1054.
That the Abyſſines Abyſſinesinhabiting Preſter John's Countrey, did not practiſe it. Br. p. 167. Ex Alv. Hiſt. Aethiop. c. 5.
Muſcov.And that the Muſcovites omit it, Br. p. 136. Ex Jo. Metrop. Ruſſ. in Epiſt. ad Epiſc. Rom. apud Sigiſm. De Reb. Muſc. p. 31.
Cophti nor Jacobites.And that there is no mention either of the Cophti in Egyp. or Jacobites in Syria, that ever practiſed this Rite.
It is alſo manifeſt out of the Confeſſions of Faith of the Belgick Churches, eſteeming themſelves the true and immediate Succeſſors of the Waldenſes; recorded at large in the Dutch Martyrol. or Bloody Theater, printed in 1660. That there is no mention of any ſuch practice as Impoſition of Hands upon all baptized perſons amongſt them either formerly or latterly.
3. The Scripture Ground.In the next place we ſhall conſider the Scripture-ground that is urged and produced in proof hereof, eſpecially by the two latter; which we find to be principally from Heb. 6.2. The Doctrine of Baptiſm, laying on of Hands, foreign, which Mr. Hanmer Mr. Hanmer.acknowledgeth to be the chief; and (though as he modeſtly expreſſeth himſelf) but a probable ground from the Scripture to found it upon, being there made one of the Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt, and placed next after Baptiſm, and as it were an Appendix thereof, and which for the moſt part, immediately followed it in ſuch Adult as were baptized, and the next priviledge of the Church (he ſaith) that ſuch did enjoy as had been baptized in Infancy; and that many of the beſt Interpreters did uſually underſtand this place to mean, in part at least, of Impoſition of Hands in Confirmation; though he doth confeſs others did alſo take it to mean Impoſition of Hands in Ordination; and others, the whole Doctrine of laying on of hands, as expreſt in the Scripture; but eſpecially leans upon the Tradition, and the Ʋſage, and Practice of the Church in all Ages, p. 26, 27.
1. To whom, and to all of his Perſwaſion, I ſay, That if their Infants Baptiſm be a Nullity, which they pretend hereby eſpecially to confirm, and is the main deſign of his and Mr. Baxter's Treatiſes; that their practice hereupon falls to the ground; for if their Hypotheſis be naught and rotten, their Theſis cannot be ſound that is built upon it: but that it is ſo, the foregoing Treatiſe of that Subject doth amply diſcover; proving with great clearneſs, that it was an Invention and Inſtitution of man, yea, of the man of Sin; calculated on purpoſe to out Chriſt's Baptiſm, and to defile his Church; and this appearing to be of the ſame Piece, contrived and ordered by the ſame Heads and Hands, it is meet, that as they have lived, ſo they ſhould die together.
And ſecondly, We may conclude rationally, If Infants were capable of Baptiſm, they were as capable at the ſame time, of laying on of hands (as firſt inſtituted and practiſed) and of the Supper alſo, as Auſtin and others tell us they had them all together, and not firſt baptize them, and then many years after (and no body knows how and when) confirm them; for if one be a Foundation or beginning Doctrine, as the other, they have done beſt and moſt according to Rule and Reaſon, that have practiſed it immediately, and not deferr'd it.
And thirdly, Since the Scripture is, as confeſs'd, but a probable ground, and that of Tradition, Antiquity, and conſtant Uſage of the Church, the more certain; the latter appearing ſo invalid upon all the foregoing Conſiderations, that faint inſinuation from that Scripture, cannot be a ground ſufficient to build that Practice upon.
And to which laſtly, we will add Mr. Baxter's Sober Cautions, enough to ſhake the confidence of any that have no better Ground for the Practice; as we find them in p. 127, 128, 129. of his Confirmation: Where, after he had with all his might endeavoured to eſtabliſh it both from Scripture and Antiquity, doth, according to his wonted manner, in a few Lines unſay more than he had ſaid in all the reſt, viz.
M. Baxt. Sober Cautions1. That we do not find that God inſtituted this Sign as a Matter of neceſſity, ſtill without interruption to be uſed; but only that by holy men it was applied as a convenient Sign or Geſture to the works in which they uſed it; even as lifting up of hands in Prayer, was ordinarily uſed as a fit Geſture, not wilfully to be neglected without cauſe, and yet not of flat neceſſity; or as Kneeling in Prayer, is ordinarily meet, but not always neceſſary; we find no more Scripture for the one or for the other: which ſhews how little Reaſon there is to make it matter of Neceſſity. The Ancient Church alſo uſed it ſo variouſly, as that it is plain they fixed it to no one Caſe alone; of the divers Caſes in which they impoſed hands on the Catechumens, and four times on the Penitents and divers others, as; ſaith he, you may ſee in Albaſpinaeus's Obſervat. p. 31, 32.
2. We find that Kneeling in Prayer, and lifting up of hands, were often omitted; ſo we find that ſometimes the Holy Ghoſt is given before Baptiſm or Impoſition of Hands, Acts 10. And we find not that the Apoſtles uſed it at all, viz. for Confirmation; though I confeſs the Negative Arguing is infirm; yet it ſeems not probable that this was always done.
3. It was ſomewhat ſuſpicious to find in Juſtin Martyr's Deſcription of the Chriſtian Churches practices, no mention of this, nor any Sacrament but Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper, nor any of the Roman Ceremonies; and Irenaeus and ſome others alſo are ſilent in it too.
4. God maketh no Ceremonies under the Goſpel ſo neceſſary, except the two Sacraments; nor layeth ſo great a ſtreſs on them as under the Law; and therefore we are not to interpret the Goſpel as laying mens Salvation, or the Peace of the Church on any Ceremonies, unleſs we find it clearly expreſs'd.
5. For all that I have ſaid from Scripture for Impoſition of Hands in Confirmation (though the Lawfulneſs of it is proved past Doubt) yet the proof of the Duty of uſing it, is liable to ſo many Objections, as that I muſt needs confeſs that the Goſpel-tenderneſs, and the ſenſe of our mutual Infirmities, and our care of tender Conſciences, and of the Churches Peace, ſhould reſtrain all the Sons of Piety and Peace from making it a matter of flat neceſſity, and forcing them that ſcruple to ſubmit to it.
The Scripture-Gr. upon wch the Bapt. have founded it.We come in the next place to conſider the Scripture-Grounds upon which the Baptiſts have aſſerted this Rite, and founded this Practice of impoſing hands upon all Baptized Believers; and ſo eſſentially neceſſary to Church-Communion, and which, as before, you find to be eſpecially held forth from Heb. 6.12. Though affirmed not with that Sobriety and Modeſty as the other from Probability, but rather Infallibility; and therefore impoſe it accordingly, denying Fellowſhip to any that do not ſo receive it; and as ſome have in Print aſſerted, as neither being Babes in Chriſt, nor having Communion with God; as Mr. Griffith in his Book hath it, call'd God's Oracle, p. 87. And the reaſon of this their great Confidence from this Text, is, as you have heard, twofold; firſt, Becauſe Laying on of hands is reckoned amongſt the beginning-Teachings. And ſecondly, Becauſe they find it, as they ſay, practiſed accordingly, Acts 8.17. Acts 19.6.
To the Trial and Examination thereof, we ſhall therefore apply our ſelves, and ſee whether theſe have diſcovered a better Baſis to found this Practice upon, than thoſe that have gone before.
And in order thereto, we ſhall in the firſt place lay down theſe two following Principles, ſo fully owned by themſelves, as a Line to carry us through the Work, viz.
1. That to every Ordinance of Chriſt there muſt be ſome plain poſitive word of Inſtitution to confirm it. And neither Humane Tradition, nor far-fetcht Conſequence and Inference, ſuch as the many Volumes that have been written from 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.
2. That to practiſe any thing in the worſhip of God for an Ordinance of his, without an Inſtitution, is Will-Worſhip and Superſtition. But how their Aſſertions will comport with theſe honeſt Proteſtant Principles, we ſhall preſently ſee.
The great Text urged for the Inſtitution of this Ordinance, 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 Baptiſm, and of laying on of hands, and of Reſurrection of the Dead, and of Eternal Judgment.
This is the Text which is affirmed to be the great Charter of the Church for this Point of Faith and Practice;Granth. but how to find the leaſt Warranty for the ſame therein, 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 10.48. Or, Let all Baptized Believers eat the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 11.24. Acts 2.41, 42. It was ſomething to the purpoſe.
Obj. 1 But is it not reckoned amongſt the Principles, Foundation, Doctrine and Oracles of God?
Anſw. It is very true, the Doctrine of Laying on of hands is here reckoned amongſt the Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt [or his beginning-teachings]; but then it muſt be ſuppoſed to be ſuch a laying on of hands as was ſomewhere taught and practiſed. But ſuch a laying on of hands upon all Baptized Believers, we find no where taught or Practiſed. Jeſus Chriſt our great Example (as the Waldenſes ſo well obſerve) had no hands laid upon him by John Baptiſt after he baptized him; neither did he lay hands upon all his Diſciples before they broke Bread; neither did he give one word of it in his Commiſſion upon his Aſcenſion; nor do we read that this Church of the Hebrews practiſed any ſuch thing; for there is no mention that the 120 had hands ſo laid upon them; nor the 3000 in Chap. 2. or 5000 in Chap. 4. after their Baptiſm, before they broke Bread: Neither do we find the leaſt of it in any other of the Churches in the New Teſtament; neither in Samaria, by Philip, after he baptized them, nor Corinth, Philippi, Coloſs, Theſſalonica, Rome, the Churches of Galatia, Churches in Aſia, Smirna, Thyatira, Pergamus, Sardis, Philadelphia; no, nor in Epheſus: It is true, Paul laid hands upon twelve of their number, upon another occaſion, as Peter and John did in Samaria; whereof you have an Account hereafter; nor in the Churches in Syria, Antioch, Lyſtra, Derbe, &c.
Obj. 2 But why ſhould laying on of hands be reckoned amongſt the beginning-Principles, and called the Doctrine of Laying on of hands, if it was not to be practiſed by all? for none doubts but laying on of hands was a Practice, and this Practice was to be taught to all Baptized Believers; yea, the Babes in Chriſt; and therefore muſt it needs be practiſed by all.
Anſw. This, it is true, has gone for the Inſtitution and great Ground upon which it hath been urged and impoſed; but how much of Fallacy and Falſhood is in this Argument, you will eaſily diſcern, as though no act done upon, or Practice done by others, might be matter of Doctrine or teaching to us, without being engaged in our own perſons to do the ſame: were not all the Miracles that Chriſt and his Apoſtles did, matter of Doctrine, and much Edification and Inſtruction from them, and yet not for our imitation and practice?
Obj. 3 But this in the Text reſpects ſome of Chriſt's beginning-teachings; his firſt words, that is, Milk for Babes, and can you tell us of any but ſuch as is proper for all baptized Babes, or new-baptized Believers?
Anſw. Yes no doubt; for what ſay you to thoſe words of Chriſt in the Commiſſion it ſelf, which you cannot deny to be beginning-words? Mar. 16. Where it is expreſly ſaid, That the Baptized ſhall in his Name caſt out Devils, ſpeak with new Tongues, take up Serpents, drink poyſon, and not hurt them; and alſo ſhall lay hands on the ſick, and they ſhall recover. And ſo did the baptized Believers accordingly in thoſe days, going out and preaching, the Lord working with them, and confirming the Word with Signs following: But is this the ſtanding Ordinance to all baptized Believers to the world's end? This was indeed that laying on of hands properly called Confirmation; whereas afterwards a laying on of hands of another nature, was ſo called, and introduced; ſo that here you have then a laying on of hands amongſt Chriſt's firſt Teachings for Tongues, Healing and Miracles neceſſary and profitable to be taught to all, even the meaneſt Babes, for Confirmation; as Heb. 2.3, 4. 1 Cor. 14.22. Acts 8.8. Mark 16.20. Which yet I preſume none will ſay that every Believer ought to practiſe.
Anſw. 2 Secondly, If every one of theſe Principles in Heb 6. are ſo abſolutely to be taken in by Babes, and without which, we are not to eſteem them communicable; what do you ſay to the Doctrine of Baptiſms in the Text, one of the Principles and Foundations of the Goſpel? it is not ſaid the Doctrine of Baptiſm. Muſt all be baptized with the Baptiſm of the Spirit and of Suffering alſo, or not to be received into Communion?
Anſw. 3 And Thirdly, As to Laying on of Hands mentioned amongſt theſe Principles in the Text, as it may reſpect the Laying on of hands upon the Miniſtry, for their ſolemn Inveſtiture into their Office, whether Deacons, Acts 6. Elders, 1 Tim. 1.14. or Meſſengers, Acts 14. (whereby they are ſet apart to tranſact in the whole Order, and in all the Ordinances of God's Houſe; and wherein every particular Member comes to be concerned, not only reſpecting the Adminiſtrations performed by them, but the reciprocal Duty incumbent upon each of them towards thoſe their Overſeers ſo ſet over them.) It becomes neceſſary therefore to be taught, known, and underſtood by all, and that in the beginning-Teachings, though all and every Member are not concerned in the Perſonal Practice thereof; for all are not Prophets, Apoſtles, Teachers. And it is moſt remarkable, that the Doctrine or Teaching of laying on of hands, is all that is mentioned in this Scripture; all baptized Believers muſt be taught it, that's plain; but that they are obliged therefore to practiſe it, is not here or elſewhere to be found.
Obj. 4 But what do you ſay to Acts 8.17. & 19.6. Are there not two expreſs Preſidents for ſuch a laying on of Hands immediately after Baptiſm, as we infer from hence, concluding that theſe two Texts aforeſaid, give ſufficient warranty ſo to determine?
Anſw. It is true, this hath been ſo received and urged by thoſe that ſo practiſe; but how warrantably, we ſhall farther examine. We read indeed of laying on of hands for the giving of the Spirit in three places; one whereof, Acts 9.17. was before Baptiſm; and theſe two mentioned, after; ſo that there is no poſitive Concluſion to be fetcht from the Preſidents, whether before or after; as it was in the matter of Healing, which was given ſometimes by laying on of hands, ſometimes by words of Faith ſpoken to the Sick, ſometimes by Prayer, ſometimes by ſending Handkerchiefs, ſometimes by their very Shadows; ſo alſo was the Spirit given ſometimes by laying on of hands, ſometimes by Prayer, ſometimes by Preaching or Prophecying, ſometimes before, ſometimes after Baptiſm.
But concerning theſe two Scriptures ſo much inſiſted upon, and impoſed to be the Preſident and Pattern for all Churches, and for every Member in the Church, let us put them to trial.
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, as v. 13. yet did he not impoſe hands upon any of them that we read of. The Church of Jeruſalem hearing that Samaria had received the Word of God, and that the Spirit was fallen upon none of them (viz. in a viſible manner which was the proper phraſe attributed to thoſe extraordinary meaſures of the Spirit ſo frequently given to the Saints in thoſe days; as, Act. 10.44.11.15, 16, 17. Which ſometimes did fall upon them before Baptiſm, as Acts 10. and ſometimes after, as Acts 2, 1.4.31. without laying on of hands) did therefore ſend Peter and John, who it ſeems, were extraordinarily gifted by God; ſo that on whomſoever they prayed and laid hands, the Spirit was viſibly, extraordinarily and immediately given; as ver. 18. As healing to the ſick, by thoſe that had that Gift alſo given by God, (from whom every good Gift came) and who accordingly, 'tis ſaid, laid their hands upon them,; but how many of them 'tis not ſaid; ſurely not upon all; for Simon by his prophane Offer, diſcovered he had neither received the Wiſdom nor Grace thereof, and had neither Lot or part therein, though baptized; and ſo 'tis ſaid they received the Spirit in ſuch a manner that it was viſible to the Spectators.
And as to that of Epheſus, Acts 19.6. Paul it ſeems, finding ſome of the Church there, that had not received the Spirit after they had believed and were baptized, viz. in that viſible manner ſo uſually given in thoſe days, layes his hands upon twelve men of their number; (it is not ſaid all the Church) who thereupon, did immediately receive the Spirit, in ſuch a degree, that it was demonſtrated by ſpeaking with Tongues and Prophecying.
So that in neither of theſe two places (ſo much urged for the Explanation of Heb. 6.2. And to be a Preſident and Rule for us, to the end of the world) can we find that there was a laying on of hands immediately after Baptiſm, nor with any certainty upon all and every Member of the Church, nor to ſuch an end as can be attainable in after-times.
And as to that of 2 Tim. 1.6. Wherein Paul exhorts Timothy to ſtir up the Gift that was in him by putting on of his hands, aſſerted to be a laying on of hands of this kind, as urged, not Ordination; is,
Firſt, a begging, not proving the Queſtion.
Secondly, It is manifeſt that Timothy had the hands of the Presbytery laid on him, which none doubts to be Ordination; and that Paul and Barnabas were the Presbyters that did ordain in thoſe Churches of Aſia, is very manifeſt, Acts 14.23. Wherein by God's Bleſſing upon his Ordinance, there was a Gift received, and to be ſtirred up; and therefore in ſaying, Stir up the Gift that was in him by putting on of his hands, and neglect not the Gift that was in him, which was given by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, whereof Paul was one, ſeems to mean one and the ſame thing, and not two things, as urged; and to be no other than thoſe ordinary Miniſterial Attainments, which by giving attendance to Reading, Meditation, Prayer, Exhortation and Doctrine, was to be encreaſed and ſtirred up.
Therefore ſince not the leaſt Syllable of Inſtitution, neither Precept nor Preſident can be found out for ſuch a Practice, may we not fuily conclude in the words of our Agreement, that for any to practiſe any thing in the Word of God without an Inſtitution from the Word of God, is Will-worſhip and Superſtition.
Obj. 6 But if this be not the laying on of hands intended in the Text, what is it? If we have miſs'd the ſence and ſcope of the Apoſtle, pray you give us a better, or let ours ſtand.
Anſw. Suppoſe we are not able to tell you, nor to be poſitive or peremptory in the Caſe, many things being hard and difficult to be underſtood, which ſome that are ignorant wreſt, &c. would our Ignorance warrant you, to ſet up your Inferences and Concluſions, as Oracles and Ordinances, without any Evidence or Authority from the Word, and be thereby confirmed in your confident Aſſertions? It may be enough to have evinced to you, that yours is not, cannot be that Ordinance of Chriſt, that Principle and Foundation-Doctrine, ſo confidently aſſerted by you. Yet not to leave you in the Dark, take here my apprehenſion of this Text, and wherein I am perſwaded I have the mind of Chriſt, viz.
The Apoſtle,Heb. 6.12. opened. the better to gain their Attention to the great Doctrine of the High Prieſthood, tells them in the foregoing Chapter, by way of reproof, how dull of hearing they had been in times paſt, how little they had improved Time or Talent, what little progreſs they had made in Chriſtianity, and what Babes they yet were therein, and who, inſtead of bearing ſtrong meat in Doctrine he was delivering to them, they ſtood in more need of Milk, and to be taught again thoſe beginning-words of God, wherein in their firſt planting they had been inſtructed; which notwithſtanding for the preſent he would forbear to preſs upon them, but go forward in his Deſign.
Not laying again the Foundation of Repentance and Faith, the Doctrine of Baptiſmes, Laying on of Hands, Reſurrection and Judgment, which are all the Principles that are here enumerated; which ſome call five, ſome ſix, and ſome ſeven; though as to the number, if they muſt be taken for all the beginning Principles, I conceive we muſt either ſuppoſe them very comprehenſive, or elſe many muſt be left out, as the Ten Commandments, and ſeveral of the Inſtitutions, ſuch as the Lord's Supper, which I preſume will go for a beginning-teaching as well as Baptiſm.
Therefore we muſt ſuppoſe that Repentance and Faith muſt comprehend all, both the Negative and Poſitive part of Holineſs; thoſe of Baptiſmes and Laying on of Hands, the Inſtitutions, Priviledges and Order in the Church of God; Reſurrection and Judgment, the whole of our Hope and Happineſs for the time to come; and particularly that Doctrine of laying on of hands, to contain not only thoſe laying on of hands by which the miraculous Healings and ſpiritual Gifts were attained for confirmation of the Goſpel, but thoſe laying on of hands for the inveſtiture of the Church-Officers, who were to tranſact the whole order of God's Houſe, for the edification of each Member, and therefore neceſſary to be taught to every one. And this is that, which amongſt the reſt they had need to be taught, and might have been teachers of themſelves; viz. what was the end, uſe, bleſſing and benefit of ſuch a Rite in the ſeveral Miniſtrations thereof; but no ground in the leaſt to confirm it to one particular, much leſs to ſuch an one of which no Syllable either here, or in the whole Book of God.
Obj. 6 But why would you infer, that we by the Doctrine of Laying on of hands, may take in all the Laying on of hands ſpoken of? whenas it is ſaid laying on of hands in the Singular, and not layings on of hands in the Plural Number; therefore muſt reſpect only one ſort of laying on of hands.
Anſw. Which is a meer Criticiſm, and has nothing of Truth in it; the Doctrine of laying on of hands is as much Plural, and may reſpect the teaching of all ſorts, of laying on of hands, as the Doctrine of Baptiſmes reſpects all ſorts of Baptiſmes.
Obj. 7 But why ſhould any be offended that we pray for a Bleſſing upon our Brethren or Siſters after their Baptiſm, or upon their admiſſion into the Church, whereby the whole may alſo take the better notice for whom we pray?
Anſw. To which I anſwer, that we are not offended at a practice of that kind, be it lifting up or laying on of hands, provided it be not urged as a thing of abſolute neceſſity; while the Biſhops of old uſed many Ceremonies, people were not ſo much concerned; but when they would impoſe them as neceſſary, and Inſtitutions of Chriſt, that broke the Peace, and occaſioned much miſchief; ſo to all ſuch laying on of hands, a beginning-Doctrine, or Oracle of God, a Foundation of Chriſtian Religion, to which every Member and Diſciple of Chriſt ought to ſubmit, upon penalty of Non-Communion for the neglecting or rejecting a Foundation-Principle, though no one word of Inſtitution, Command, Precept, or Example for the ſame; and that under pretence of receiving more of that Spirit of Chriſt thereby, which is a Spirit of Love, Meekneſs, Humility, Tenderneſs, Peace, Edification, there appears to be more of that other Spirit of uncharitable judging, rending, tearing, and dividing the Body of Chriſt; and for aſſerting for Doctrine and Practice the Cuſtoms, Commandments and Traditions of men; it is for theſe things our Offence lies, as ſo well founded upon Deut. 4.2. & 12.32. Rev. 22.18. Prov. 30.6.
There are two Objections more that I have lately met with, that I think very neceſſary to give ſome Anſwer to; the one is this, viz.
Obj. 8. That as to the Point of Antiquity, though ('tis granted) the Ancients and their Followers ever ſince, have ſo much erred, not only in the Subject, but divers Circumſtances about this Rite of Impoſition of hands; yet inaſmuch as there hath been all along ſuch a Witneſs born to the thing it ſelf, it makes much for its Apoſtolicalneſs, and confirms our Practice therein.
Anſw. 1. To which, I ſay, That it doth not appear that ſuch a Witneſs hath been born all along thereto; for as Mr. Baxter ſo ingenuouſly acknowledgeth, that Juſtin Martyr, Irenaeus, and others in thoſe times are as ſilent about it, as the Scripture is that any of the Apoſtles did ever ſo practiſe it in the firſt times; thoſe Authorities that are pretended to aſſert the ſame in the firſt Centuries, having been proved to be ſo ſpurious and ſuppoſititious.
Anſw. 2. But Secondly, If the Practice of it ſhould be granted to be as ancient as the keeping of Eaſter and Lent, Dioceſan Biſhops, and Patriarchs, and many other things that have been ſo generally received and practiſed, it no more proves it therefore to be Apoſtolical than each of them; For a pretence to Ancient Preſcription, without a Word of God to warrant it, can never juſtifie the Divine Authority of any Practice.
Obj. 9. The other is this, viz. That as to poſitive Scripture-Inſtitution, ſo much called for to juſtifie our practice of laying on of hands upon all the Baptized, from Precept or Example, it is not only unreaſonable, but dangerous, as to many Truths, to be demanded (as hath in expreſs words been lately told me) for where is the plain word either for Women's receiving the Lord's Supper, or to lay on hands upon Officers?
In anſwer whereto, I muſt needs ſay I am much grieved and aſtoniſhed at ſuch prevarication; and than which, what can more betray the Truth and Juſtice of your Cauſe? for do not your own Anſwers to ſuch like Inſtances, ſo uſually brought by the Paedobaptiſts, ſufficiently confute you? And do you not know that if we had not plain and poſitive Scripture for both, that we would not practiſe either? For is not 1 Cor. 11.28. compared with 1 Tim. 2.4, 5. & Gal. 3.28. a ſufficient Precept for Womens Receiving? And Acts 1.14. with Chap. 2.42, 44. ſubſtantial evidence for the Practice thereof? And as for laying on of hands upon Officers; is not 1 Tim. 5.22. a full Precept? And Acts 6.6. & 13.3. & 14.23. 1 Tim. 4.14. as clear Preſidents for the ſame? And may we not warrantably ſay, Let there be but as good Scripture-Authority produced for laying on of Hands upon all Baptized Believers before they are permitted to partake of the Lords Supper, and it ſhall ſuffice? But to ſet up a Practice in God's Worſhip, without a warranty from his Word by ſome plain poſitive Rule and Direction (the thing pleaded for by you) is no leſs (in my Judgment) than to give countenance to all the Antichriſtian Innovations, to let go at once the ſtrongeſt Hold of Proteſtantiſm, reproach the Wiſdom of Chriſt, and ſlight the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, as though we had not a ſufficient direction therein in all parts of God's Worſhip.
And therefore to all thoſe worthy Sayings to this purpoſe, of thoſe Eminent men mentioned in the Treatiſe of Bapt. p. 93. I ſhall add that moſt remarkable Expreſſion of Dr. Owen; which you'l find in his Communion with God, D. Owen.p. 171. viz. This then they who hold Communion with Chriſt, are careful of, they will admit of nothing, practiſe nothing in the Worſhip of God, private or publick, but what they have his warrant for; for unleſs it comes in his Name, with Thus ſaith the Lord Jeſus, they will not hear an Angel from Heaven; they know the Apoſtles themſelves were to teach the Saints only what Chriſt commanded them, Mat. 28.20.
By which ſound and wholeſom Rule well obſerved, we are delivered from all Humane Inventions and Traditions; and by which Confirmation, Infants-Baptiſm, Lent, Eaſter, &c. and a hundred more of like import, are turned out of doors, as accuſing Chriſt of unfaithfulneſs, and the Scripture of inſufficiency.
And to which purpoſe, T. G. himſelf hath ſo very well urged lately to Dr. Stillingfleet, about Infant-Baptiſm, from Dr. Fulk out of Irenaeus; Irenaeus.viz. When the Hereticks are reproved out of Scripture, they fall to accuſing the Scriptures, as if all is not well in them, and that the Truth cannot be found out of them that know not Tradition: And therefore that Tertullian ſaith, Take away theſe things from the Hereticks, (which they hold with the Ethnicks) that they may ſtay their Queſtions upon the Scripture only.