Laying on of Hands Upon Baptized Believers, Treatise 1 · Chapter 7

Laying on of Hands Upon Baptized Believers · Treatise 1 · Chapter 7

p. 75CHAP. VII.

Further ſhewing, that Prayer, with Impoſition of Hands upon baptized Believers, remains for ever as a ſtanding or perpetual Adminiſtration.

BUT leſt any ſhould ſtill object, this Ordinance doth not continue, neither is the End attainable now, I am willing to add two or three Arguments, for the further evincing of theſe particulars.

Arg. 1. Becauſe the Lord was pleaſed to bear witneſs to, or ratify this bleſſed Ordinance or Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine, with the like Signs, Wonders, and Gifts of the Holy Spirit, as he did any other Word, Command, or Principle of the ſaid Doctrine. Now what was thus eſtabliſhed, muſt needs remain in full force to the end of the World as our duty: and dangerous it is to labour to make it void; for by the ſame Argument may an Enemy lay waſte, and take away another, yea, and conſequently every one.

Arg. 2. Becauſe it is a Foundation-principle of God's Houſe, or one of the great Pillars (next to Chriſt) on which it is built, it muſt needs remain; and very dangerous it is for any to take away a Foundation-ſtone.

'Tis very abſurd (ſaith Mr. Blackwood on Matth. p. 688.) to think that one of the ſix Foundation-principles, p. 76commended to us by the Apoſtle, ſhould ceaſe, and all the other remain to the end of the World: Nay, is not Impoſition of Hands placed in the midſt, betwixt Faith and Repentance on the one ſide, and Eternal Judgment on the other? 'tis fenced in on every ſide, there is no coming to ſlight it. 'Tis abſurd to think the Apoſtle would place one temporary Principle, that was to laſt but a ſhort time, amongst five perpetual Principles, and call them all by the ſame name of a Foundation, &c.

Arg. 3. Becauſe the Promiſe of the Spirit is very extenſive; 'tis made to all believing and obedient Souls to the end of the World; Matt. 28. ult. Teaching them to obſerve all things whatſoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always to the end of the World. John 14.15, 16, 17. If you love me, keep my Commandments; and I will pray the Father, and he ſhall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, which the World cannot receive, &c.

Dr. Jer. Taylor, p. 53. ſpeaks excellently concerning the perpetuity of this Ordinance: And from this very ground, take his own words; The perpetuity of this holy Rite appears, 1. Becauſe the great Gift of the Holy Ghoſt was promiſed to abide with the Church for ever: Repent, and be baptized every one of you, and ye ſhall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt; not the meaneſt Perſon amongst you but ſhall receive this great thing; for the Promiſe is to you, and to your Children, and to all that are afar off, even ſo many as the Lord our God ſhall call; this Promiſe is made to all, and unto all for ever. And preſently, ſpeaking as to Laying on p. 77of Hands, as God's way for the miniſtring of it; I ſay, ſuch a Solemnity (ſaith he) 'tis not eaſie to be ſuppoſed ſhould be appointed; that is, it is not imaginable that a ſolemn Rite, annex'd to a perpetual Promiſe, ſhould be tranſient and temporary: for by the nature of Relatives, they muſt be of equal abode; the Promiſe is of a thing for ever; the Ceremony or Rite was annexed to the Promiſe, and therefore this alſo muſt abide for ever.

Arg. 4. Becauſe the Spirit which is promiſed, is the Comforter that leads us into all Truth, and helps the Saints in their Teſtimony and Sufferings for Chriſt; and 'tis that by which they are ſealed alſo to the day of Redemption, Eph. 1.13. Who after that ye believed, ye were ſealed by that Spirit of Promiſe. He ſpeaks it to the Epheſians, who well underſtood his meaning, by remembring what was done to them by the Apoſtle; who a while before, after he had baptized them, laid his Hands upon them (ſaith the Doctor) ſo they received, and were ſealed with the Holy Spirit of Promiſe.

Now do not we as much need the Spirit's guidance, and to be born up in our Teſtimony, Sufferings and Temptations, as the Saints of former Ages; and to be ſealed by the Spirit of Promiſe as they did? Why then ſhould we not be willing to wait on God, in the ſame way he has preſcribed, for receiving a further increaſe of it, even in which the primitive Saints did yield obedience?

Object. But ſome will ſay, We have the Spirit in as great a meaſure as you, who never came under Laying on of Hands; and what greater meaſure p. 78have you after your obedience thereto than before?

Anſ. 1. We dare not boaſt of our Indowments; we are poor and needy, and therefore willing to uſe all Advantages, and be found in every Ordinance, to meet with more of Chriſt and his Spirit; and if you have ſo much, that you need not pray, nor uſe the means God directs to for obtaining more, 'tis a rare ſtate you are arrived to.

2. If God be better than his Word, we will not complain; he hath many ways to convey his Spirit into our hearts; yet this is the great Ordinance for diſtributing of it to baptized Believers. But may we not ſay with one of the Antients, By this rite of Impoſition of Hands, God hath promiſed, and the Saints received the Holy Ghoſt? for tho (ſaith he) the Spirit of God was given extraregularly, and at all times as God pleaſed, yet this of Impoſition of Hands was foreign, this was the Miniſtry of the Spirit; we receive Chriſt when we hear, and obey his Word, we eat Chriſt by Faith; and yet the bleſſed Euchariſt is foreign, the Miniſtry of the Body and Blood of Chriſt: the Lord's Supper is appointed ritually to convey Chriſt's Body and Blood to us; ſo is Laying on of Hands ordained ritually to give us the Spirit.

Now probably ſome who are againſt the Lord's Supper, may ſay, they feed upon Chriſt, and have as much Communion with him, and Faith in him, as many of us who often partake thereof; and may be can ſay as much on this account, as you on the other: will you therefore neglect your Duty touching breaking of Bread?

There is a Promiſe of the Spirit made in Baptiſm; p. 79yet ſome may ſay, they have more of the Spirit than you or I, and yet never were baptized. Cornelius, tho he had received a large meaſure of the Spirit, yet was very willing to be baptized, and to do what ever Peter, from Chriſt's command, enjoined him. And thus the Objection is anſwered.

Object. But extraordinary Effects did accompany this Adminiſtration, and ſuch do not follow now; therefore the thing you plead for is ceaſed.

Anſw. Let Dr. Taylor ſpeak now, for I have largely anſwered this Objection elſewhere, before I met with the learned Doctor: If this be all (ſaith he, p. 57—59.) that can be ſaid in oppoſition to it, it is infinitely vain.

1. In the days of the Apoſtles, the Holy Spirit produced miraculous Effects, but neither always, nor at all in all Men; Are all workers of Miracles? do all ſpeak with Tongues? &c. the Wind bloweth where it liſteth; ſome have Gifts after this manner, ſome after that.

2. Theſe Gifts were not neceſſary at all Times, any more than to all Perſons; but the Promiſe of the Holy Spirit did belong to all, and was performed to all, but not in the like manner. Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit, of Faith, and Power, the Holy Ghoſt was given to him, to fulfil his Faith principally; working Miracles was but collateral, and incident: but there is alſo an Infuſion of the Holy Spirit to all, and that for ever, The manifeſtation of the Spirit is given to every Man, to profit withal: And therefore if the Grace be given to all, there is no reaſon that the ritual Miniſtration of that Grace ſhould ceaſe, on pretence that the Spirit is not given extraordinarily.

p. 803. Thoſe extraordinary Gifts were indeed at firſt neceſſary; (he gives ſeveral reaſons thereof) one, becauſe of them who could not receive the underſtanding of an incorporeal Nature; that if afterwards they be not ſo done, they may be believed by thoſe things which were already done: another, becauſe of the ſtate of the Church. But the greater Gifts (ſaith he) were to abide for ever; therefore 'tis obſervable that St. Paul ſays, that the Gift of Tongues is one of the leaſt and moſt uſeleſs things, a meer ſign, and not ſo much as a ſign to a Believer, but to Infidels and Ʋnbelievers.

4. To every ordinary and perpetual Miniſtry, at firſt there were extraordinary Effects, and miraculous Conſignations: We find 3000 converted at one Sermon, 5000 at another; and Perſons were miraculouſly cured by Prayer, at the viſitation of the Sick; and Devils caſt out in the converſion of a Sinner: And now tho we ſee no ſuch extraordinary Effects, it follows not that the Viſitation of the Sick, Preaching, Sermons, &c. are not ordinary and perpetual Miniſtrations; and therefore to fancy that Invocation of the Holy Spirit, and Impoſition of Hands is to ceaſe, when the extraordinary and temporary Contingencies of it are gone, is too trifling a fancy to be put into the balance againſt ſo ſacred an Inſtitution, relying upon ſo many Scriptures.

5. He argues yet further, ſhewing tho the Gifts of Tongues, and outward Miracles, remain not with the Church, yet the greater, or more tranſcendent Gifts of the Spirit do continue, viz. Sanctification and Power, Fortitude and Faith, Hope and Love, &c. Theſe are (ſaith he) the Miracles of Grace, to throw down the pride of Lucifer, to p. 81tread on the great Dragon, and to triumph over our ſpiritual Enemies, to cure a diſeaſed Soul, to be unharmed by the poiſon of Temptation, &c. This is more than to receive the Spirit, or a power of Miracles, and ſupernatural Products in a natural Matter; for this is from a ſupernatural Principle, to receive ſupernatural Aids to a ſupernatural End, in the Diviner ſpirit of a Man; and this being more miraculous than the other, it ought not to be pretended that the diſcontinuance of extraordinary Miracles ſhould cauſe the diſcontinuance of an ordinary Miniſtration; and this is that (ſaith he) which I was to prove.

He proceeds to other Reaſons, but I think he has ſaid enough; and therefore I ſhall return to Mr. Danvers, p. 48. who labours againſt the ſtream, and would make us believe that the Laying on of Hands upon Timothy, 2 Tim. 1.6. and 1 Tim. 4.14. are the ſame; which muſt be rejected, ſince ſeveral Reaſons have been given to the contrary, that have not in the leaſt been removed. That Timothy had Hands laid upon him twice, tis evident; i. e. ſoon after his Baptiſm, and when ordained to Office. One good reaſon for it is given by Mr. Blackwood: Paul (ſaith he) ſpeaks of ſuch Gifts, as were given by the Laying on of his own Hands, foreign; but the Impoſition in Ordination was by the Hands of the Elderſhip, 1 Tim. 4.14. where the Greek words are foreign, ſignifying a conjunction of Perſons; but 2 Tim. 1.6. is foreign, to denote the act of one Man.

And doubtleſs ſuch an Expoſition as Mr. Danvers gives, too much reflects on the Apoſtle, who hated nothing more than Pride and Arrogancy: Surely he would not have appropriated to himſelf p. 82alone, what was done by others as well as himſelf.

But again, I am perſwaded our Brethren are ſenſible of what has been ſaid in reſpect of thoſe Gifts Timothy received through Layings on of Hands, which have been ſhewed by ſeveral to be different, (one only relating to his Office, or Miniſterial Power committed to him; the other to ſuch Gifts as are proper to all the Saints) tho they take no notice of it.

I am loth to ſay, that all that Mr. Danvers has done in his ſmall Tract, has been to darken Counſel with words without knowledg; yet one would admire to conſider how confuſedly he hath writ on this Subject, who ſeems to blame us for being ſo poſitive as to what Laying on of Hands is intended in Heb. 6.1, 2. which is, as if a Maſter ſhould blame his Scholar for affirming A is A, and B is B: Surely if we have not perfectly learned our firſt Leſſon, or Rudiments of our Profeſſion, we ſhall never be good Tutors of others: The Apoſtle blames the Hebrews, ch. 5.22. for being ſuch ill Proficients, that they had gone no further; and you ſeem to blame us for going ſo far, as to affirm poſitively what are the firſt Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt. But give me leave to tell you, it is as eaſy to know what Laying on of Hands is intended Heb. 6. as what Baptiſm our Saviour refers to, Mat. 28.20.

But ſecondly, You may be aſſured were we at a loſs in the caſe, we ſhould never come to learn of you; for Mr. D. by his own grant, pag. 49. ſignifieth he had not attained to a certain knowledg of it, nor was able to be poſitive in the caſe; many p. 83things being hard and difficult to be underſtood, which thoſe that are ignorant, wreſt, ſaith he, &c.

Anſw. No marvel if ignorant Men are at a loſs, and captivated in their underſtandings, abuſing and wreſting thoſe myſterious places, or things contained in Paul's Epiſtles, when Men of knowledg ſhall loſe themſelves in ſuch a plain and eaſy path, I knew a Man (may be learned too) who a while ago, knew not but that Baptiſm, and Laying on of hands, &c. in Heb. 6.1, 2. might intend thoſe legal Waſhings, and Laying on of Hands upon the heads of Bullocks, ſacrificed in the time of the Law. I am glad to find other Oppoſers of this Truth of another Judgment. Would Men deny themſelves, and not truſt their own underſtandings, they might ſoon ſee the way plain before them, that thoſe firſt Principles of the Oracles of God, called Milk for Babes, and not ſtrong Meat, are none of thoſe things ſpoken of by Peter, ſo hard to be underſtood.

But ſince Mr. D. ſays, he will not leave us in the dark, but reſolves to give us his apprehenſion of this Text, in which he thinks he has the mind of Chriſt, pag. 49, 50. we will proceed.

Yet this let me premiſe, that what he has laid down as his Judgment on this Text, Mr. Tomlinſon has very well anſwered in a Treatiſe lately printed, pag. 22, 23. and ſhewed the ridiculouſneſs of ſuch an Expoſition. I fear Mr. D. did not implore the Throne of Grace for Light and Direction before he begun to write on this Subject, he is ſo much beclouded as to the meaning of this Scripture. He conceives, that the ſix p. 84Principles mentioned here, are very comprehenſive, and may take in the ten Commandments, the Lord's Supper, and ſeveral other things: Nay he ſays, that Repentance and Faith may comprehend all, both the negative and poſitive part of Holineſs.

Anſw. 1. If the whole of Religion, or Doctrine of Godlineſs is comprehended in theſe ſix Principles, why ſhould the Apoſtle call them firſt Principles? 'tis improper to call thoſe the firſt that comprehend all: by this Argument, when the Foundation is laid, the whole Building is finiſhed.

2. And if the whole of Piety, or Holineſs, be included in the two firſt Principles, Repentance, and Faith, there was no need to enumerate any more: Nay, by this Argument, obedience to Chriſt in Baptiſm, and Laying on of Hands, together with the belief of the Reſurrection and Eternal Judgment, are not comprehended in the negative or poſitive part of Holineſs: to what purpoſe then have we ſpent our time in writing about either of theſe Principles?

3. But again, as Mr. Tomlinſon minds, How could it be the weakneſs of theſe Hebrews, that they had need to be taught them again? or how could the Apoſtle ſay, he would leave them to go on to perfection? &c, Surely if in theſe firſt Principles all Religion be comprehended, he would not do well to leave them; it might rather have been their perfection ever to remain there, viz. in preaching, ſtudying and practiſing of them, and go no further; or if we muſt needs leave them, we muſt leave all Religion and Holineſs, and ſo turn Ranters, Atheiſts, or Quakers.

4. But, if the whole Body of Religion and p. 85Holineſs is comprehended in theſe ſix Principles, then no Chriſtian had gone further; nay, nor perfectly learned the A B C of his Profeſſion, and we muſt always be learning them▪ and ſo ever be but Babes in Chriſt: and no reaſon had the Apoſtle to blame the Hebrews that they had gone no further, ſince in thoſe beginning Principles were comprehended the whole of their Duty.

5. And ſince theſe Principles are in the Apoſtle's ſenſe to be looked upon as Milk, and for Babes; what then is the Meat? and who are the ſtrong Men? Surely when we have done with our Milk, the Feaſt is ended; and there is no after-Diſh, to ſpeak according to the nature of this Metaphor.

Again, P. 45. as Mr. Danvers would have Repentance and Faith to comprehend both the negative and poſitive part of Holineſs; ſo he proceeds to tell us how comprehenſive Laying on of hands is; That it takes in all ſorts that are ſpoken of, viz. Miracles, Healings, and Gifts, that were for the Confirmation of the Goſpel, and the Inveſtiture of Church-Officers, &c.

Anſw. This is as true as the former, and as good Divinity every whit; and when he has anſwered our Arguments againſt this ſtrange Expoſition, we will argue that Point further. But doth he not hereby make Laying on of hands for miraculous Healing a perpetual Adminiſtration, it being a part (in his ſenſe) of the Foundation of God's Houſe? We have ſhewed why it cannot intend that on Sick Perſons, nor on Officers of the Church; and as to extraordinary Gifts for p. 86Confirmation of the Goſpel, if he mean that ſpoken of Acts 8.17. and 19.6. we utterly deny it, and clearly prove the contrary, that it was not the end of that Service, &c. no more than of Aſſembling together, Prayer, Preaching, &c. ſince ſuch Miraculous Effects followed more or leſs every one of thoſe, and other Goſpel-miniſtrations, as well as Laying on of hands on baptized Believers. This conſidered, 'tis ſtrange he ſhould reaſon after this manner.

But we further ſay, there is but one Laying on of hands intended in Heb. 6.1, 2. becauſe 'tis expreſt in the ſingular number, Laying on of hands, and not Layings, &c.

Mr. Danvers ſaith This is a meer Criticiſm, and hath nothing of truth in it. He affirms that Laying on of hands, is as plural as Baptiſm. This is all the Anſwer he gives; ſee page 51.

Anſw. If a bare Affirmation may be taken for a Proof in this, we are anſwered, and Mr. Danvers has done his buſineſs; what is here more? I deſire to know how he would write were he to diſtinguiſh between one Hand and ſeveral, ſince Hands are in the Plural Number? The Adminiſtrator is not to lay one only, but both his Hands: there can be no diſtinguiſhing (if this Man is not miſtaken) between one and divers kinds; for wherever the Scripture ſpeaks but of one ſort (in our Opponents judgment) 'tis expreſs, as it is here, viz. Laying on of hands, and ſo as plural: ſee 1 Tim. 4.14. I need not ſay more, only cite a Paſſage of a Learned Writer upon this very Place, and Objection; 'Tis moſt palpably apparent (ſaith he) to ſuch as are not aſleep in their reading p. 87of that Text, Heb. 6.1, 2. that it ſpeaks in the ſingular Number, of one Laying on of hands alone, and not of Laying on of hands, as it muſt have been expreſt, had he meant more kinds of Impoſition of hands than one: for tho Hands be the Plural Number, 'yet [note] Laying, which is the Phraſe you ſpeak to, or elſe you ſpeak nihil ad Rhombum, is a Subſtantive of the Singular Number, both in the Engliſh and the Greek.

But to proceed: Mr. D. p. 51, 52. gives us the ground of his Offence concerning the nature or manner of our maintaining this Principle of Impoſition of Hands.

1. Negatively, he tells us wherein his offence lies not, viz. Not becauſe we pray for a bleſſing on our Brethren and Siſters, or for the practice or geſture of Lifting up, or Laying on of hands; provided it be not urged as of abſolute neceſſity, &c. But,

2. When impoſed as an Inſtitution of Chriſt, a beginning Doctrine, or Oracle of God, a Foundation of Chriſtian Religion, to which every Diſciple of Chriſt ought to ſubmit on penalty of Noncommunion, for rejecting a Fundamental Principle, tho not one word of Inſtitution, Command, Precept, or Example for the ſame; and that under pretence of receiving more of the Spirit of Chriſt thereby, which is a Spirit of Love, Meekneſs, &c. There appears the Spirit of uncharitableneſs, judging. rending, and dividing the Body of Chriſt, and for aſſerting for Doctrine and Practice, the Cuſtoms and Commands of Men: it is for theſe things our Offences lie ſo well founded upon Deut. 4.2. and 12.23. Rev. 22.18. Prov. 30.6.

p. 88Anſw. 1. Could we have ſuch a liberty as to make a holy Inſtitution of Chriſt only a formal or civil Ceremony or Geſture, or a thing indifferent, to do, or not do; our Brethren, it ſeems, would not be offended.

2. Were it a true Charge he brings, he would have cauſe to be offended with us; but whether it be a Principle of the Doctrine of Chriſt, and an Oracle of God, or a Tradition of Men, which we contend for, let the impartial Reader judg. Here is nothing offered by our Opponent to deſerve any further Anſwer; it calls more for Reprehenſion than Confutation. Who ſeemed more cenſorious than Mr. Danvers, who charged his Brethren with what they moſt abominated, viz. tearing and dividing the Body of Chriſt, Will-worſhip, nay being under the dreadful Curſe of Adding to the Word of God?

3. Whether we are guilty of Schiſm, rending and tearing the Body of Chriſt, or thoſe who neglect his Words, or Foundation-Principle of his Doctrine (I might ſay reject it) is fully manifeſted in a late Book Intituled, The Searchers for Schiſm ſearched, that has not yet been anſwered.

4. May not the Independents and others charge you on the account of Baptiſm, with rending and tearing the Body of Chriſt, ſince you deny Breaking of Bread with them, on that Conſideration as ſome do with you about Laying on of hands, a Principle of the ſame nature? Doth not Mr. Wills in his Anſwer to your former Book of Baptiſm, charge you in much like words, as you do us here? And truly, if I miſtake not, Mr. D. has cleared us from Schiſm, and well anſwered himſelf p. 89in his late Reply, Page 169, 170, 171. as he ſays of Baptiſm:Mr. D's Innocency and Truth vindicated. Suffer me to ſpeak of Laying on of hands; There is nothing in the Principle it ſelf but what inclines to Piety and Ʋnity: It being deſigned by Chriſt not only to promote Sanctification, but to further Love and Peace, in the way of Righteouſneſs and Truth.

Why ſhould Baptiſm be eſteemed the whole and only Inlet into the viſible Church, when 'tis but one of the Six Fundamental Principles of Church-Conſtitution? Why ſhould he have a greater eſteem for one than for another Inſtitution? Did our Brethren ſee Laying on of hands to be an Ordinance of the ſame nature with Baptiſm, I might hope they would not be of the mind ſome are of: 'tis ſad when a Fundamental Principle of Chriſtian Religion ſhall be made indifferent. I have a tender reſpect to all that love Chriſt, yet dare not violate that Holy Order left in his Word, knowing how ſeverely he has manifeſted his diſpleaſure againſt ſuch as have been negligent therein.

5. Now tho we grant Baptiſm an Initiating Ordinance, yet not that alone. There are two Doors to be paſſed through, (ſaith a Learned Writer) before we can come ad adyta & intima Eccleſiae penetralia, viz. Baptiſm, and Laying on of hands: whereof the latter properly and immediately gives admittance.

Mr. Hanmer, p. 22. cites ſome antient Chriſtians ſpeaking thus: Confirmatione protinus data plena authoritas, & jus Corpori Chriſti & ſanguini cum omnibus Fid…libus communicandi: that is, Confirmation p. 90(or Impoſition of hands) forthwith gives full authority and right of Communion in the Body and Blood of Chriſt. And in another place ſaith the ſame Perſon; He that was not confirmed, was not admitted to the Euchariſt.

Doubtleſs if the Church of Judea, firſt planted in the order of the Goſpel, is to be followed, or if that which was the practice of ſome of the Churches, was alſo of every Church, then both theſe Ordinances, as well as the other beginning Principles, muſt precede, or are prerequiſite to Church-Communion and Fellowſhip.

Object. But doth not this ſtraiten and narrow the Interest of Jeſus Christ?

Anſw. Mr. Danvers's Reply to Mr. Wills about Baptiſm, is a very good anſwer: viz. This (ſaith he) is no other than Reformation in all Ages (ſince the Antichriſtian defection) hath been charged with, and particularly that Reformation that has been endeavoured in that other Ordinance of the Lord's Supper; therefore the Presbyterians cry out againſt the Independents for ſinful Schiſm, Fomentèrs of Faction, and narrowing of Chriſt's Intereſt, in their reſpective Separations, and Church-Communions. The ſame do the Prelats ſay to the Presbyterians; and the very ſame do the Papiſts ſay to the Epiſcoparians.

If Mr. D. in the work of Reformation excels, or has more light than ſuch he ſpeaks of, in reſpect of Church-Conſtitution and Communion, and reſolves to purſue his work, tho he is reproach'd on this account; why ſhould he blame us, who, according to our light, labour after a pure and perfect Reformation? or doth he judg p. 91he has got to ſuch a degree of knowledg, that he is perfect, and needs no more light nor inſtruction, and that the laſt Stone of Reformation and Reſtoration here is laid, becauſe Baptiſm ſhines forth in its primitive purity? Remember him who ſaid (ſuch was his Humility) What I know not, teach thou me. and Apollos, tho mighty in the Scriptures, could ſtoop to the Counſel and Inſtruction of Aquila and Priſcilla, tho much inferior to him, who taught him the way of God more perfectly, Act. 18.26.

6. Ought not we to ſtand faſt, and hold the Traditions we have been taught? and is not this worthy of Commendation? what ſaith the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 11.2. Now I praiſe you Brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the Ordinances as they were delivered unto you. And are we not commanded to withdraw from every Brother that walks diſorderly, and not after the Traditions we have received? Beſides, can we comfortably have Communion with ſuch as oppoſe a Command of God, nay, that make it but a Tradition of Men, and an Antichriſtian Innovation? And as in all Fundamentals of Salvation, ſo in thoſe of Church-Conſtitution, we ought to be agreed, before we can orderly ſit down together.

7. But to ſay no more, I would caution all our Brethren to take heed what they affirm on this account, I mean concerning us, and this ſacred Inſtitution, ſince they ſeem ſo cloudy in their underſtanding about thoſe Scriptures urged as the great Warranty for our Practice: If God has hid (for reaſons beſt known to himſelf) this p. 92Truth of Impoſition of hands from their eyes, as he hath the holy Ordinance of Baptiſm from the Independents, &c. it will be their wiſdom to forbear Reflections; let them not be angry, leſt it be found to be a Truth of God▪ and they conſequently prove offended at Chriſt himſelf, who left this as well as Baptiſm amongſt the beginning-principles of his Doctrine. Why ſhould they be offended at us for having an equal love to all the Commandments of Chriſt? I would hope they have reaſon to judg, 'tis from hence we ſo earneſtly contend with them on this account.

8. I cannot but marvel, that our Brethren ſhould call Laying on of hands, a Doctrine, or Tradition of Men, and render thoſe who plead for it, guilty of adding to the Word of God; and yet receive ſuch into Communion at the Lord's Table, as are in the practice of it. What uncharitable thoughts do they retain of their Brethren? and what guilt, on this Conſideration, do they bring on their own Souls?

But let me cloſe with one Caution more; ſince they know 'tis as ſinful every way to diminiſh from God's Word as to alter or add to it, let them take heed leſt they be found guilty therein.

We have now traced Mr. D. quite through, and have little more to do: In page 53. he labours to remove an Objection brought againſt him from Antiquity; and ſince he has fairly ſtated it, take it in his own words.

As to the point of Antiquity, tho 'tis granted the Antients, and their Followers ever ſince, have erred not only in the Subject, but in divers Circumſtances p. 93about this Rite of Impoſition of hands, yet in-as-much as there has been all along ſuch a witneſs born to the thing it ſelf, it makes for its Apoſtolicalneſs, and confirms our Practice therein. Now take his Anſwer to it: It doth not appear (ſaith he) that ſuch a Witneſs hath been born all along thereto for Mr. Baxter ingenuouſly acknowledges that Juſtin Martyr, Ireneus, and others in thoſe times are ſilent about it, &c. And thoſe Authorities that are pretended to aſſert the ſame in the firſt Centuries, have been proved to be ſpurious and ſuppoſititious. 2ly. That pretence of antient Preſcription, without the Word of God to warrant it, can never juſtify the Divine Authority of any Practice.

Anſw. 1. We fully agree with him, viz. whatever is found in antient Preſcriptions concerning this, or any Practice, ſignifies nothing, if God's Word doth not witneſs to it: But having ſuch evident proof from God's Word to warrant this Precept, we never judged it worth while to ſearch into▪ Authors concerning it; neither ſhould we have cited any now, had we not been forc'd by our Oppoſers. And as to what he ſays concerning Mr. Baxter's ingenuous Confeſſion, that Juſtin Martyr and Ireneus are both ſilent about it, it ſignifies very little; for firſt, we have nothing but Mr. Baxter's ſay-ſo for it, who may be has overlook'd ſome places of theſe Authors, or probably not met with all their Works. But,

2. Since their Silence only is pretended, it carries no great force with it; muſt we of neceſſity produce all the Antients expreſly witneſſing thereto, or elſe is all nothing that is brought from Antiquity in the Caſe? We have mentioned ſeveral p. 94antient Witneſſes, and ſome of the 2d and 3d Centuries, which are neither ſpurious, ſuppoſititious, ſuborn'd Witneſſes, nor Knights of the Poſt, tho Mr. D. is pleaſed ſo to call them.

And now to conclude, we muſt ſay again, againſt what is mention'd, p. 54. that there is a clearer Precept for Impoſition of hands on baptized Believers as ſuch, than can be urged for that on Church-Officers, or the obſervation of the firſt Day of the Week, &c.

I have ground to conclude Mr. D. thinks it his duty to keep holy the firſt Day of the Week, as the Chriſtian Sabbath.

We gave Mr. D. no ground to ſay that which he did of us, viz. Reproach the Wiſdom of Christ, and ſlight the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, as tho we had not a ſufficient Direction therein in all parts of God's Worſhip. God forbid we ſhould be guilty of ſuch things! Rome and others may herein juſtly be charged; but our Souls witneſs againſt it as an abominable Aſſertion.

And that remarkable Expreſſion of Dr. Owen's, as Mr. D. calls it, we can with all readineſs and ſimplicity cloſe in with; and judg it neceſſary once more to recite it, viz. This then they who hold Communion with Chriſt, are careful of, they will admit 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. Communion with God, p. 171.

The Doctor's Rule is ever to be followed, the p. 95Lord open his eyes; for how doth this clearly overthrow all his Arguments for Infant-Baptiſm? &c. But what injury doth it do us, who can ſay, Thus ſaith the Lord Jeſus? 'tis left on record amongſt the firſt Principles of his Doctrine, Heb. 6. 1, 2. 'tis a Command of God, if the Oracles of God be his Command, Heb. 5.12. which ſure none will deny; ſince the Apoſtle Paul, and Stephen (a Man full of the Holy Spirit) affirm them ſo to be. We believe what the Doctor ſaith, viz. that the Apoſtles were to teach nothing but what Chriſt commanded them, to whom they were obedient therein: and ſurely then all may ſee a Divine Inſtitution for this Practice; for was it not taught to the Hebrew Church? Heb. 5.12. And did not Peter and John teach it to the Saints at Samaria? and Paul to the Diſciples at Epheſus, and to Timothy? yea, and made them obedient thereto? Acts 8.17. & 19.6. 2 Tim. 1.6.

If Laying on of hands were not an Ordinance of God, and of Divine Inſtitution (ſaith Mr. Blackwood Annot. on Matth. p. 690.) then the Apoſtles in the adminiſtration thereof had practiſed Will-worſhip; nay, which is more, had left a Rule of Will-worſhip unto us, Heb. 6.1. But 'tis abſurd to think that the Apoſtle would do either of theſe; therefore Laying on of hands upon baptized Perſons is an Apoſtolical Inſtitution.

Far be it from us, or any Chriſtian, to harbour ſo uncharitable thoughts of the bleſſed Apoſtles, viz. that they would do any thing in Chriſt's Name without his Warrant. If any Man, ſaith Paul, think himſelf to be a Prophet, or Spiritual, let him acknowledg that the things I write unto you, p. 96are the Commandments of the Lord, 1 Cor. 14.37. Compare this with Rom. 15.18. For I will not dare to ſpeak of any of thoſe things, which Chriſt hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word or deed.