Laying on of Hands, Conclusion
The Concluſion.
THus you have had a candid Account of the Riſe, Growth and Progreſs of this Rite of Confirmation or Laying on of Hands, from the beginning to this day (amongſt all Perſwaſions that have owned it) with the Authorities upon which it hath been founded and impoſed; together with a genuine Examination of the Grounds and Reaſons each Party have given to juſtifie the ſame. And may we not upon the whole, fairly come to the following Concluſions? viz.
1. That there doth not appear to be the leaſt Scripture-Precept or Practice for any ſuch Ordinance of Confirmation, or an Impoſing of Hands upon all the Baptized before they break Bread, or are admitted into Church-Communion.
2. That the Inſtances produced to prove it an Apoſtolical Tradition, are impious Lies and Forgeries.
3. That the Authorities by which it hath been heretofore enjoyned, were nothing but Antichriſtian Canons and Decrees.
4. That the moſt eminent Witneſſes and Confeſſors that oppoſed the Antichriſtian Ʋſurpations and Innovations, have all along witneſſed againſt and impugned this of Confirmation, viz. The Novatians, Donatiſts, Waldenſes, Greek Churches, Wickliffians, &c.
All which are worthy the ſerious Conſideration of all Sober and Judicious Chriſtians, and are eſpecially recommended to them, who having rejected Infants, and embraced Believers-Baptiſm, do yet cleave to this Practice, with theſe following Obſervations, viz.
1. That it is moſt manifeſt that thoſe Popes, Councils and Fathers, that have enjoyned and impoſed Infants ſprinkling for a Sacrament, or an Ordinance of Chriſt, have enjoyned this alſo as ſuch.
2. That the Principal Arguments that have been pretended for the one, have been urged and pleaded for the other alſo; viz. Apoſtolical Tradition, and pretended Inferences and Conſequences from Scripture.
3. That the Famous Churches and Confeſſors that have oppoſed Infants-ſprinkling, as Superſtitious, Popiſh and Antichriſtian, have upon the ſame account, oppoſed this alſo.
4. That it doth not appear that any Baptized Church or People did ever, in any Age or Countrey, own ſuch a Principle or Practice to this day, except ſome in this Nation in theſe late Times.
But then it may well be enquired, if this be ſo Novel a thing amongſt the Baptiſts, how came thoſe in this Countrey ſo to receive and practiſe it, as before aſſerted?
To which I give the following Account, as I have received it under the Hand of one that affirms to have had the perfect knowledge thereof, as being an eye and ear-witneſs of the ſame, and who certifies to this purpoſe, viz.
How, when and why, laying on of hands was practiſed by the Bapt. in this Nation.That about the year 1646, ſome 27 years ſince, one Mr. Cornwell, heretofore a publick Preacher, then a Member and Miniſter of a Baptized Congregation in Kent, was a great Aſſerter of this Principle and Practice; who coming about that time into that Baptized Congregation, then meeting in the Spittle Biſhopſgate-Street, Lond. did from Heb. 5.12, 13. & 6.1, 2. preach the neceſſity of Laying on of Hands; inferring from thence, thoſe that were not under laying on of hands, were not Babes in Chriſt, had not God, nor Communion with God. Whereupon, ſeveral of the ſaid Congregation were perſwaded to come under that Practice; and which notwithſtanding, the Church in Tenderneſs indulged to them, upon their promiſe of a peaceable demeanour in the Church. Notwithſtanding which their ſaid Promiſe, they did afterwards not only preſs their ſaid Perſwaſion uncharitably, as they had been taught by their aforeſaid Teacher; viz. That none were Babes in Chriſt, nor had Communion with God without it; therefore not to be communicated with in Church-Ordinances (and as after was publiſhed in Print, by a Leading Brother amongſt them, in a Book called God's Oracles, and Chriſt's Doctrine) but made a Rent and a Separation for the ſame; and from that very Schiſm propagated the ſame Principle and Practice amongſt many others in the Nation ever ſince, who have kept that diſtance from their Brethren (not owning the ſame) as not eſteeming or communicating with them as the true Church of God, becauſe defective in one of the beginning Principles or Foundations of the Christian Religion.
Now this being a true Narrative as to matter of Fact; doth it not naturally follow?
Firſt, That ſuch a Principle ſo ſuck'd in, and received, is founded in groſs Ignorance and Error? For what can more ſavour of Darkneſs and Error, than to make our Adoption and Communion with God to depend upon ſome External Act done? As though Chriſt himſelf was utterly miſtaken, when he tells us, That as many as receive him, have the priviledge to become the Children of God, even as many as do believe in his Name, John 1.12, 13. And the Apoſtle alſo in confirmation thereof, That we are all the Children of God by Faith in Chriſt Jeſus, Gal. 3.26. And, that of his own Will we are begotten by the word of Truth, Jam. 1.16. But this Doctrine aſſerts our New-Birth in another way, by the Laying on of Hands after Baptiſm (and as though perſons might be baptized that were not Children of God; but afterwards to be made ſo by this new way;) thereby confirming the Superſtition of the Papiſts, in their Idolizing this Rite above all other Ordinances, as before.
And Secondly, The Principle (upon this account) appears not more erroneous, than the Practice upon it, corrupt and vicious; viz. to make a Separation from the Church upon it, ſo contrary not only to known Order, Diſcipline and Duty, but their declared Promiſe; and therefore muſt not all thoſe Churches of that Conſtitution, neceſſarily be ſuppoſed to be founded in Sin and Schiſm, as well as in great Error and Ignorance? and concerning which unnatural and undue Separation, I hear ſome of Eminency amongſt them, have lately ſo had their Conviction, as to plead Reformation therein with their Brethren, and who I doubt not, from the true ſenſe of the bitter fruit (even the Gall and Wormwood that hath been brought forth thereupon) will naturally be led to conſider the Root from whence it hath ſprung, viz. the miſtaken Principle, as here diſcovered; for as our Saviour tells us, Mat. 7.17, 18. That it is the corrupt Tree that brings forth the evil fruit; and that as the good Tree cannot bear evil fruit, ſo the corrupt Tree cannot bear good fruit. All which is recommended to the ſerious Conſideration of the Impartial and Judicious; not doubting but the day is haſtning, when not only all Antichriſtian Fogs and Darkneſs, but all Mists of Error and Ignorance, ſhall be diſpelled; and that the God of Truth will ſo ſend out his Light and Truth, and cauſe it ſo to ſpring up out of the Earth, that Knowledge ſhall fill the Earth as the waters cover the Sea; when Diſcord and Diviſion ſhall ſo ceaſe amongſt his People, that they ſhall not with their Babyloniſh Language vex one another any more, but with one Lip and Shoulder ſhall ſerve the Lord with one conſent. And for the ſpeedy accompliſhing and fulfilling ſuch amiable and acceptable Promiſes, let all the Upright ſay Amen, Amen.
FINIS.
End of the text · Henry Danvers, Laying on of Hands (1674)