Laying on of Hands Upon Baptized Believers, Treatise 1 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III
Shewing who the Antients are, and of their Credit and Authority who have born witneſs to Laying on of Hands.
ADmit we grant what Mr. Danvers ſpeaks concerning Dionyſius the Areopagite, and the Decretal Epiſtles of the firſt Popes, to be impious Lies and Forgeries, ſhall we therefore conclude they are all ſuborned Witneſſes. viz. the Antients who have written concerning Laying on of Hands? Surely many of the Fathers who have born witneſs thereunto, are generally received, and their Authority approved as the beſt of human Writers: What ſay you to Tertullian, ſhall we call him a Knight of the Poſt? Take his Teſtimony: (A.D. 200. de Bapt. c. 6.) Manus imponitur per benedictionem, advocans & invitans Spiritum Sanctum; tunc ille Sanctiſſimus Spiritus ſuper emundata, & benedicta Corpora, libens à Patre deſcendit. After Baptiſm the Hand is impoſed by Bleſſing, and calling and inviting of the Holy Spirit, who willingly deſcends from the Father on the Bodies that are cleanſed and bleſſed. Moreover he ſaith:Tertul. de Bapt. ad Quintil. cap. 8. It is the fleſhly, or outward act of Baptiſm, that we are dipt in water; the ſpiritual effects, that we are freed from our Sins: Then follows Laying on of hands, the Diſpenſer inviting the Spirit of God by Prayer. And being cleanſed by Baptiſmal Water (ſaith he) we are diſpoſed for the Holy Spirit, under the Hands of the Angel of the Church. And further, ſpeaking concerning the happy ſtate of the Church in this day, he ſaith, (de Script. cap. 36.) She believeth in God, ſhe ſigns with Water (that is, baptizeth) ſhe clothes with the Spirit, (viz. by Impoſition of hands) ſhe feeds with the Eucharist, and exhorts to Martyrdom; and against this Order or Inſtitution ſhe receives no Man.
Another Witneſs I ſhall call in, ſhall be Euſebius (not the Pope of that Name) but Euſebius Pamphilus, who lived in the time of Conſtantinus Magnus the Emperor, about three hundred Years after Chriſt; he certifies fully to our purpoſe, (lib. 7. c. 2.) that the antient manner of receiving Members into the Church, was with Prayer, and Laying on of hands. Doubtleſs by calling it the antient manner, he muſt needs refer to the Apoſtles time.
Again, Euſebius declareth, (lib. 6. c. 26.) That one Novatus being ſick was baptized, if it may be called a Baptiſm (ſaith he) which he received, for he obtained not after his recovery that which he ſhould have done by the Canon of the Church, to wit Confirmation by the Hands of the Biſhop; which having not obtained, how can he be ſuppoſed to have received the Holy Spirit? This was about the Year 260. 'Tis alſo to be noted, that in neither of thoſe places, nor any where elſe in Euſebius, is the leaſt mention made of Croſſing, or Chryſm, in the adminiſtration of this Ordinance.
A.D. 250. Cyprian. Ep. ad Jubar. 73.Cyprian ſhall be the next, whom none I ſuppoſe take for a ſuborned Witneſs: having urged that of the Apoſtles going to Samaria, to impoſe Hands on thoſe that Philip had baptized, (ſaith he) which Cuſtom is alſo deſcended to us, that they who are baptized, might be brought by the Rulers of the Church, and by Prayer, and Impoſition of Hands obtain the Holy Ghost. Again ſaith St. Cyprian, (Ep. ad Steph. de Haereticis, Ep. 72.) It is of no purpoſe to lay Hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit, unleſs they receive the Baptiſm of the Church. I might produce Origen, in his 7th Homily upon Ezekiel, who ſpeaks concerning it.
Alſo Hierom, who anſwers this Queſtion, viz. Why he that is baptized in the Church, doth not receive the Holy Ghost, but by Impoſition of hands, ſaith he (Dial. ad Lucifer.) This Obſervation for the honour of the Prieſthood, did deſcend from the Scriptures; If you ask me where it is written? 'tis anſwered, in Actibus Apoſtolorum, in the Acts of the Apoſtles.
Ambroſe is cited by Mr. Danvers himſelf; with Auguſtin, and others, whoſe Authority is not queſtioned: To which I might add Chryſoſtom, Theodoret, &c. Several others, yea many might be produced, beſides thoſe he calls ſuborned Witneſſes; and yet have we far better Authors and Witneſſes to defend this ſacred Truth; for we have the Authority of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, 'tis left on record amongſt the firſt Principles of his Doctrine; we have the Teſtimony of the Apoſtles Peter and John; and one not inferior to them, viz. bleſſed St. Paul, (Heb. 5. 12. and 6. 1, 2.) as hath, and ſhall (God aſſiſting) be made further evident: And upon no better Authority, I muſt confeſs, is this ſacred Ordinance impoſed upon us.
But now to ſpeak more directly to Mr. Danvers, what he inſiſts on in pag. 33. about the Rite of Confirmation, as practiſed in the Church of Rome, and as corrupted from the pure Inſtitution, we readily grant it is of no better Authority than Infants Baptiſm. And as touching what he ſpeaks of Rivet, (Controv. Tom. 2. Exercit. p. 44.) that it was neither inſtituted by Chriſt, nor his Apoſtles, 'tis ſpoken with reſpect of the Popiſh manner with Chryſm, and other ridiculous Ceremonies, which was before done with Prayer and Impoſition of hands without Chryſm: They did, ſaith Mr. Baxter, make haſte to corrupt it; they quickly introduced the Croſſes, and Chryſm; but from the beginning it was not ſo. And as to what he ſays concerning Ambroſe, Jerom, Auguſtin, and ſome others, it is granted, they lived in thoſe times when the Church was adulterated, and the holy Appointments of Chriſt corrupted, and changed from their primitive purity; yet this makes no more againſt the holy Ordinance of Laying on of hands, than it doth againſt Baptiſm, and the Supper of our Lord, &c. as I have already ſhewed. All that Mr. Danvers hath ſaid hitherto of Tradition, and Fathers, makes only againſt the Church of Rome and England, and others who have drunk of the Whores Cup; thoſe things which they cry up for Apoſtolical Traditions, are nought elſe ſave meer human Innovations, and curſed Inventions of corrupt Men. I ſhall cloſe this with a paſſage of Dr. Jer. Taylor, who treating about Laying on of hands upon baptized Perſons as ſuch, ſaith, This was antient, and long before Popery entred into the World; and that this Rite has been more abuſed by Popery than by any thing. As to what Mr. Danvers ſpeaks of the Waldenſes, that the true ones were againſt Impoſition of hands; if that be true, yet it muſt be underſtood of the Popiſh Confirmation, which they diſowned as a Sacrament, accompanied with Ceremonies; for ſo I find they expreſs themſelves: Such a Confirmation, I grant, they witneſs againſt, as being none of Chriſt's Inſtitution, but introduced by the Devil's Inſtigation; 'twas the corruption of it, and not the thing it ſelf, doubtleſs they witneſs againſt: but that they owned not Laying on of hands at all after Baptiſm, before admiſſion was granted to the Lord's Table, I judg too hard for any to make appear. But if they were ignorant of this Truth, 'tis no marvel, conſidering the Day they lived in.
Object. If it be objected, they with other Churches and People he mentions, were much enlightned into the Truths of the Goſpel.
Anſw. That is no good Argument, ſince glorious Reformers, and eminent enlightned Souls, may notwithſtanding lie ſhort of ſome Inſtitution of the Almighty, as appears both in the Old and New Teſtament: What glorious Light had David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Joſiah, and many others of the Godly Kings and Prophets in Juda? And yet one thing plainly laid down in the Book of the Law, they were ſhort in, nay, as ſome judg, they did not ſee it, viz. ſitting in Booths in the Feaſt of the 7th Month; of which we read in Nehem. 8. 13, 14. They found written (ſaith the Text) in the Law which God commanded by Moſes, that the Children of Iſrael ſhould dwell in Booths, in the Feaſt of the ſeventh Month. Verſ. 15. And all the Congregation of them, that were come again out of Captivity, made Booths, and ſate under the Booths: For ſince the days of Joſhua the Son of Nun, unto that day, had not the Children of Iſrael done ſo; and there was very great gladneſs, verſe 47.