Laying on of Hands Upon Baptized Believers, Treatise 1 · Chapter 5

Laying on of Hands Upon Baptized Believers · Treatise 1 · Chapter 5

p. 39CHAP. V.

Shewing how, and upon what ground the Baptized Churches do aſſert Laying on of hands.

HOW thoſe learned Perſons he ſpeaks of have writ and aſſerted Laying on of hands from that Text, I ſhall leave to the judicious Reader, by conſidering the Inſtances forecited; and that they hold it alſo as neceſſary to Church-Communion, might I preſume be made manifeſt, but that is not our preſent work, but rather to make the thing it ſelf appear to be an Ordinance of p. 40Jeſus Chriſt; and in order to this, thoſe two Particulars, or Principles Mr. Danvers lays down we will conſider, viz.

Firſt, That to every Ordinance of Chriſt there muſt be ſome plain poſitive word of Inſtitution to confirm it; and not only human Tradition, or farfetcht Conſequences and Inferences, ſuch as the many Volumes written of Circumciſion, and federal Holineſs, to aſſert Infants Baptiſm to be an Ordinance of Chriſt, which no ordinary Capacity can reach, and only Men of Parts and Abilities can trace, and follow in their Meanders.

Secondly, That to practiſe any thing in the Worſhip of God for an Ordinance of his, without an Inſtitution, is Will-worſhip and Superſtition, &c.

Anſw. The great Text urged for this Inſtitution, he ſays, is Heb. 6.1, 2. Therefore leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead Works, and of Faith towards God, of the Doctrine of Baptiſms, Laying on of hands, &c.

This is the Text affirmed, ſaith he, to be the great Charter of the Church, for this point of Faith and Practice; but how to find the leaſt warrant for the ſame there, he ſays we ſee not: If it was indeed ſaid, let all baptized Believers have hands laid upon them, with as much plainneſs, as let all Believers be baptized, Mat. 28.29. Acts 10.43. or, let all baptized Believers eat the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 11.24. Acts 2.41. it was ſomething to the purpoſe.

Anſw. Firſt, we grant that to every Ordinance of Chriſt there muſt be ſome word of Inſtitution, p. 41and that ſuch far-fetch Conſequence, as he minds, will not do, or be ſufficient: but that every Inſtitution muſt be laid down in ſuch plain poſitive Words, as he ſeems to affirm, viz. Let all baptized Believers have Hands laid upon them, I deny, it being none of our Principle I judg, nor theirs neither; ſince they practiſe ſuch things as Inſtitutions of Chriſt, which are no where in ſo many plain poſitive words commanded, as may hereafter be ſhewed.

But as to the other thing he minds, we do agree with him in that matter, and ſay, Whatſoever is done in the Worſhip and Service of God, without an Inſtitution, is Will-worſhip; and you ſhall ſee that our Principles agree and comport with all thoſe honeſt Proteſtant Principles concerning what we have to ſay further about Laying on of hands, &c.

But to reply to what he ſays concerning Heb. 6. it matters not whether it be Heb. 5.12. or Heb. 6.1, 2. or Acts 8.16, 17. or Acts 19.6. or any other Scripture, that is the chief Text urged to prove Laying on of hands an Ordinance and Inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt; provided that the Scripture urged on this account, will prove it ſo to be. But whereas he ſays he finds not the leaſt warrant for the ſame, I ſomewhat marvel at it, conſidering what has been formerly written, and proved from that Text, by ſeveral worthy and able Men, whoſe Books he, nor none elſe have ever yet anſwered. But it ſeems he would have it ſaid in ſo many plain words, Let all baptized Believers have hands laid upon them, or elſe all is juſt nothing that is aſſerted.

p. 42But is it in Mat. 28.19. or Acts 10.48. ſaid in ſo many plain words, Let all Believers be baptized? 'tis not ſo read in my Bible. Nay, and I affirm, that from Mat. 28.19, 20. none can prove that all Believers ought to be baptized in Water, without making uſe of ſome Inference, or ſome other Text of Scripture to prove it, for as much as Water is not expreſt or mentioned there. Suppoſe a Quaker ſhould tell you, the Apoſtles had power given them to baptize with the Holy Ghoſt, and that Chriſt commanded them to baptize all thoſe that were taught, or diſcipled, with the Spirit, and that it intends not Water in the leaſt; what would you ſay or do to refute him? Do you think you ſhould not need ſome Conſequence or other, or help from ſome other Scripture, to prove 'tis Water which is intended there?

But again, ſecondly; Is it ſaid in 1 Cor. 11.24. in ſo many plain words, Let all Believers eat the Lord's Supper, or in Acts 2.41, 42? The Pedobaptiſts ſay, how can you prove by ſo many plain words, that Women received the Lord's Supper? I grant 'tis eaſy to prove they did, yet when they demand ſuch plain Texts for it, how do you anſwer them? is it not by Inferences? And I ſee not how ſuch Anſwers do in the leaſt betray the truth, or the juſtice of our Cauſe; as do not our Anſwers to ſuch Queries ſo uſually brought by thoſe that aſſert Pedobaptiſm confute us, as you are pleaſed to ſay p. 54. for we are not in the leaſt againſt drawing of Inferences, or natural Conſequences from the Scripture. And would not you allow any Pedobaptiſt to urge a p. 43Text of Scripture, and infer what he will from it for his Practice, provided it may naturally be infer'd or drawn from the Premiſes or Text he brings? ſurely you, as well as we, will readily give him that liberty. But when Men ſhall mention Scriptures to prove their Principles or Practice by, and infer this or that from them, to the palpable wronging and wreſting of the Text, it being as far from the intent of the Spirit of God therein as the Eaſt is from the Weſt, as the Conſequences and Inferences brought from Circumciſion, and federal Holineſs, to prove Infants Baptiſm; they are ſuch kind of Inferences we declare againſt. But we need not trouble our ſelves with things of this nature, having the holy Scriptures ſo plain for our Practice, as Acts 8.17. Acts 19.6. and Heb. 6.1, 2. where it is called a Foundation-Principle of the Doctrine of Chriſt.

To this he ſays in p. 42. by way of Conceſſion, That Laying on of hands is a Principle of the Doctrine of Chriſt. But then he ſays, It muſt be ſuch a Laying on of hands as is ſomewhere taught or practiſed; but ſuch a Laying on of hands upon all baptized Believers, we find no where taught or practiſed: Jeſus Chriſt had no hands laid upon him by John Baptiſt, after he baptized him; neither did he give one word of it in his Commiſſion upon his Aſcenſion; neither do we read that the Church of the Hebrews practiſed any ſuch thing; for there is no mention that the 120 had Hands laid on them, nor the 3000 in Acts 2. or 5000 in Acts 4. after their Baptiſm, before they broke Bread; neither do we find the leaſt of it in any other Churches in the New Teſtament; neither in Samaria by Philip, nor p. 44Corinth, Philippi, Coloſſia, Theſſalonica, Rome, the Churches of Galatia, the Churches in Aſia, Smyrna, Thyatira, Pergamos, Sardis, Philadelphia, no nor in Epheſus, It is true Paul laid his hands upon twelve of their number upon another occaſion, as Peter and John did in Samaria, &c.

Anſw. He has ſaid here a great deal, and refuted us with as good Arguments as the Scotsman refuted Bellarmin: what is here more than meer Affirmations? he acknowledges there is a Laying on of hands which is called a Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine, but he ſays it muſt be ſuch a one as is ſomewhere taught and practiſed; but he is bold to ſay, this never was.

Anſw. Where is that Laying on of hands taught, which he affirms to be a Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine? Not that I queſtion it, I believe it was taught, tho not as one of the firſt Oracles of God, or beginning Principles of Chriſt's Doctrine; yet where does he find Laying on of hands on Officers taught? let him not be too confident; for that Scripture, affirmed by him to be a full Precept for it, 1 Tim. 5.22. is very doubtful **Dr. Hammond ſays 'tis that of Abſolution.what Laying on of hands is mentioned there. Mr.††Confirm. & Reſtaurat. pag. 123. Baxter ſaith, Some think by it is meant Impoſition of hands in Confirmation, ſome in Ordination, and ſome for Abſolution.

Let all Men here conſider his partiality; Is this a Precept in ſo many words, Lay hands on all Officers? whereas the word p. 45Officer, or Elder, is not mentioned in the Text, or Verſe, before nor after, nor elſewhere throughout that fifth Chapter: we muſt therefore have recourſe to other Scriptures in the caſe of Officers, which are full Precedents for it, as Acts 13.3. and 6.6. as we compare Heb. 6.2. Acts 8.15, 17. and 19.6. for the clearing the Truth we contend for, comparing Scripture with Scripture.

But ſecondly, The words are rather in themſelves a Caution or Prohibition than otherwiſe; will he call this a full Precept? the moſt he can aſſert from hence is this, that the words do imply that Timothy was to lay hands on ſome body, otherwiſe no room for thoſe Expreſſions; but then what kind of Laying on of hands he intends is the queſtion; whether it be only one ſort, or more, from hence it may be hard to decide. May we not conclude Paul's Counſel to Timothy thus far comprehenſive, viz. do not lay hands ſuddenly on any Man, neither to Office, let them firſt be proved, 1 Tim. 3.10. nor upon Perſons baptized as ſuch, they muſt firſt be taught, or inſtructed in the Truth they are about to practiſe; which may be gathered from Mat. 28.20. Heb. 5.12. they muſt be ſo taught, and the Truth ſo explained, that Perſons may obey the ſame in Faith, and with underſtanding.

Thirdly, This muſt needs be granted on all hands, that without ſome Inference, or help of other Scripture, Laying on of hands for Ordination cannot be proved from this Text, which Mr. Danvers will not admit us to do; we muſt have every Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine in ſo many p. 46plain words, and from Chriſt's own mouth too, or elſe 'tis no Inſtitution.

Object. But may be, ſome will ſay, he urges other Scriptures to prove Laying on of hands on Officers, pag. 54. Acts 6.6. & 13.3, &c.

Anſw. Granted, yet thoſe are only brought as Examples (for ſo indeed they are) and not Precepts; and there is none urged by him to prove it commanded, ſave that we have ſpoken to, 1 Tim. 5.22. and what can be produced ſave clear Precedents on that account, I know not.

But now as to Impoſition of hands on baptized Believers as ſuch, we have not only clear Examples, but alſo the Scripture ſhews it was taught as a poſitive Command and Inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt, or what was commanded by him; which I ſhall fully ſhew from Heb. 6.1, 2. where the Apoſtle writing of the ſix Principles, or Foundation-Doctrines of Chriſt, uſes the word foreign in the 1ſt Verſe, and foreign in the 2d Verſe, that is Word and Doctrine; ſo this of Laying on of Hands, amongſt other Principles, the Apoſtle there, by the Spirit of God, calls the Word and Doctrine of Chriſt: now the Words of Chriſt, and Commands of Chriſt, are Terms ſynonymous, or of the like import; as Deut. 10.4. ſhews, where the ten Commandments are called in the margin ten Words, as moſt ſuting with the Hebrew Text. Again, John 14.21. with 23. and 24. v. compared with verſ. 21. further evinces it; He that hath my Commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: In Verſ. 23. If any Man love me, he will keep my Words; and in Verſe 24. called Sayings: and the Word is ſaid in John 7.16. to be the Father's, p. 47and Chriſt's Word ſaid to be what he had from the Father. So now, Laying on of hands, as well as Repentance, Faith and Baptiſm, is the Word and Doctrine of Chriſt, and therefore equally to be obſerved and obeyed by all the Saints, being one of the Principles, or Fundamental Truths, which the Hebrew Church, at the Command and Word of Chriſt, came under the practice of, Heb. 5.12. and 6.1, 2. Moreover this Principle is, by the ſaid Author to the Hebrews, called one of the Oracles of God, which he tells them they had need again to be inſtructed in; plainly implying they had once been taught it, and were in the practice thereof. Now the Oracles of God are the Commands of God; ſee Acts 7.38. where the ten Commandments are called lively Oracles; compared with Rom. 3.2. Ʋnto them were committed the Oracles of God. Methinks this might convince any diſſatisfied Perſon, that Laying on of hands, as well as the other Principles, was taught and commanded by Jeſus Chriſt.

But yet again, conſider that what the Apoſtles wrote to the Churches as the Word of Chriſt, ought to be owned by all that are Spriritual, to be the Commands of God, 1 Cor. 14.37. But verſ. 38. If any will be ignorant, let him be ignorant. Yet not withſtanding what we ſay on this Account, ſtill I find this Objection brought againſt this Appointment, viz.

Object. Where is Laying on of hands commanded by Chriſt? we find nothing of it in the Commiſſion, Mat. 28.

p. 48Anſw. 1. Why ſhould you make ſuch a ſtir about an expreſs Command? muſt it be plainly laid down, or expreſt in the Commiſſion, or elſe no Divine Inſtitution? Does not this make as much every way againſt Laying on of hands upon Officers, as againſt that on baptized Believers as ſuch? We account that Man very malicious who reſolves to wound his Neighbour, tho himſelf be wounded thereby.

2. We have as plain Precedents for Laying on of hands on baptized Believers, as we have on Officers, Acts 8.16, 17. and Acts 19.6. yea and more than bare Examples for it: it is called a Principle of the Doctrine of Chriſt; but where that on Officers is call'd ſo I know not: for that the Laying on of hands in Heb. 6.2. cannot intend that on Officers, has been clearly proved by divers Arguments; and that it intends Laying on of hands on the Baptized for the Spirit of Promiſe, and to confirm them in the Faith newly received, is not only our light and apprehenſion, but has alſo been aſſerted to be the ſenſe of that Text by many Antient and Modern Divines of ſeveral Perſwaſions, as has been ſhewed.

Object. But ſuch a Laying on of hands you contend for, was no where practiſed; John did not lay hands upon Chriſt.

Anſw. We will grant you, John Baptiſt did not lay hands on the Lord Jeſus; it cannot be rationally concluded he ſhould, conſidering the leſſer is bleſſed of the greater. Baptiſm might be adminiſtred by John, it being a figure of Chriſt's Death, Burial, and Reſurrection; but the promiſed Spirit, which is the end of the Ordinance p. 49of Laying on of hands, is ſaid to be Chriſt's own gift, Eph. 4.7. But tho John laid not his hands on Chriſt, being not a fit Adminiſtrator thereof, yet I may ſay, the Father laid his hands upon him, and the Spirit came down viſibly in the likeneſs of a Dove, and reſted on him juſt after he came out of the Water; and this might, as many of the Learned affirm, contain the ſubſtance of this Adminiſtration contended for.

Moreover, In this way Chriſt Jeſus was viſibly ſealed by God the Father after he was baptized: ſaith Dr. Taylor, Confirm. p. 12. He had another, or new Adminiſtration paſt upon him for the reception of the Holy Spirit, and this was done for our ſakes; we alſo muſt follow that Example: and it plainly deſcribes to us the Order of this Adminiſtration, and the Bleſſing deſigned to us; after we are baptized we need to be ſtrengthned and confirmed. And again he ſaith (citing a paſſage of Optatus) Chriſt was waſhed when he was in the hands of John, and the Father finiſhed what was wanting; the Heavens were opened, God the Father anointed him, the Spiritual Ʋnction preſently deſcended in the likeneſs of a Dove, and ſate upon his Head, and was ſpread all over him when he was anointed of the Father; to whom alſo, leſt Impoſition of hands ſhould ſeem to be wanting, the Voice of God was heard from the Cloud, ſaying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleaſed. I ſhall leave this to conſideration.

Object. But further you affirm, that Chriſt did not lay hands upon his Diſciples.

Anſw. And how do you come to know he did not? may be you will ſay, 'tis no where written p. 50that he did. But pray where do you read that the 12 Diſciples, or Apoſtles of Chriſt, were baptized? Doth it follow becauſe we read not of their Baptiſm, they were not baptized?

Obj. But you ſay, there is not one word of it in the Commiſſion.

Anſw. 1. There is not one word in the Commiſſion, as I have ſhewed, concerning any Laying on of hands, yet you own that upon Officers to be a Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine.

2. There is not one word in the Commiſſion concerning the Reſurrection of the Dead, nor of Eternal Judgment, nor Prayer, nor Aſſembling together, nor other things that are undoubtedly Goſpel-Truths and Inſtitutions; yet tho they are not expreſt, they are included, as thoſe words plainly hold forth, Teach them to obſerve all things whatſoever I have commanded you: And ſurely every one may ſee, unleſs he wilfully ſhut his eyes, that there are many more Precepts implied in the words of the Commiſſion than are expreſt; for if nothing muſt be received for Goſpel-Inſtitutions but what are expreſt in the Commiſſion, you muſt throw away the greateſt part of thoſe Precepts you call Commands, or Appointments of Jeſus Chriſt.

Object. But you proceed, and ſay, That the Church of the Hebrews practiſed no ſuch thing, for there is no mention that the hundred and twenty had hands laid upon them, nor the three thouſand, Acts 2.

Anſw. That the Church of the Hebrews practiſed this Ordinance as well as other Churches, is plain in Heb. 6.1, 2. As they repented, believed, p. 51and were baptized, ſo they were under the practice of Laying on of hands: for that is a practical Ordinance all confeſs; Not laying again, ſaith the Author, Repentance from dead Works, &c. this plainly ſheweth they had once laid all thoſe Foundation-principles.

Object. But may be, you will ſay, there is nothing of this ſignified in Acts 2. when that Church was firſt gathered.

Anſw. 'Tis very clear you are miſtaken; for is it not ſaid Acts 2.42. They continued in the Apoſtles Doctrine? which they could not do, if they had not ſubmitted to every Part or Precept of it; and is not Laying on of hands, as well as Baptiſm, and thoſe other Principles, part thereof? 'tis called the Apoſtles Doctrine, Acts 2. in Heb. 6.2. Chriſt's Doctrine; not the Apoſtles any other ways than they were taught it by, and received it from the Lord Jeſus: and let none conclude they were not taught Laying on of hands, becauſe not plainly expreſt, or particularly laid down Acts 2. for we may as well conclude, the Apoſtle taught them not the Reſurrection of the Dead, nor Eternal Judgment, ſince we read nothing there to that purpoſe: Doubtleſs Philip, Acts 8. preached Baptiſm to the Eunuch, how ſhould he elſe cry out, Lo here is Water, what doth hinder me from being baptized? yet we read not one word of Philip's preaching of it to him. The Author to the Hebrews (writing to this very People) ch. 5.12. tells us, They had need to be taught again which are the firſt Principles of the Oracles of God; therefore it follows clearly, they had been taught it, and had practiſed it, as chap. 6.1, 2. proves.

p. 52Mr. Danvers goes on, and affirms, that we find not the leaſt mention of it in any of the Churches in the New Teſtament, neither in Samaria after Philip had baptized them, nor Corinth, Philippi, Coloſſia, Theſſalonica, Rome, Galatia, Smyrna, Thyatira, Pergamos, Sardis, Philadelphia, no nor Epheſus.

Anſw. I cannot but admire at ſuch affirmations: but firſt, as to the Church in Samaria, 'tis granted Philip did not lay hands on them after he had baptized them; he being only a Deacon, it might not upon that account concern, or belong to him to impoſe hands on them: and beſides, God had other work for him to do, viz. the Converſion of the Eunuch. Yet moſt evident it is, when the Apoſtles and Brethren at Jeruſalem heard that the People in Samaria had received the Word of God, and were baptized, rather than they ſhould lie ſhort of any part of their duty, eſpecially that in which ſo great a Bleſſing is promiſed, they would ſend Peter and John to pray and lay their hands upon them; and that it was not for the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, has been clearly proved. And as to the Church at Rome, 'tis ſaid plainly Rom. 6.17. That they had obeyed from the heart that Form of Doctrine delivered to them: And what Form can the Apoſtle intend ſave that in Heb. 6.1, 2? we read of no other delivered to the Saints for their obedience. And as to the Church of Epheſus, we read of their coming under this Ordinance when firſt planted, Acts 19.6.

2. And now as to ſome other Churches he ſpeaks of, I grant we read not of their practiſing p. 53this Ordinance; yet what doth this make againſt it? For where do we read of their Repentance or Faith, of their being baptized, or their believing the Reſurrection of the Dead, or Eternal Judgment? There is nothing ſpoken of ſeveral Churches as to any of theſe other Principles; and it is very obſervable, that we read but of one or two Churches that practiſed the Lord's Supper: yet none doubt but all the Churches continued in the practice of it, God's way being the ſame in every Church, 1 Cor. 4.17. If in ſome Scriptures it is ſpoken of as the duty and practice of the Saints, tho not expreſt in all places, it matters not; for if what is the duty of one Believer as a Believer, be the duty of every Believer, then there is no need for the Almighty to ſpeak of every particular Church's obedience either to Baptiſm, Laying on of hands, or the Lord's Supper, &c.

One thing I cannot but call over again, owned and confeſſed by Mr. Danvers, viz. That there is a Laying on of hands reckoned amongſt the Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt.

Anſ. 'Tis well he will grant this; nay, and it is one of his firſt Teachings, he alſo acknowledges: then I hope he will allow us to ſay, Chriſt taught a Laying on of hands as a Foundation-principle; and if he taught it, 'twas that it might be practiſed as a Foundation, or beginning Truth; and then ought not all to yield obedience thereto? For as every Perſon is actually to repent, believe, and be baptized, ſo each one ought to come under the practice of Laying on of hands, it being of the ſame extent, nature and p. 54quality with the other, and joined to them; and it cannot be ſaid to be obeyed otherwiſe than by practice; as in Baptiſm, I do not yield obedience by believing other Perſons were or ought to be baptized, but by being baptized my ſelf. We grant that ſome Act done upon, or Practice done by others, may be teaching to us, tho not ingaged in our own Perſons to do the ſame; but then it muſt not be ſuch a fundamental Principle and Practice as this, being of the ſame nature with Repentance, Faith, and Baptiſm; Will it ſerve my turn to believe 'tis another Man's duty to repent? Surely no, I muſt repent and believe my ſelf, or elſe I neglect my duty.

Object. And whereas he tells us in pag. 43▪ of other beginning Teachings, proper for all baptized Babes.

Anſw. 1. He pretends to take the ſtumbling-block out of the way of God's People: But in this 'tis palpable he rather caſt one in their way; will he make new Foundation-Principles, or call thoſe beginning Principles of Chriſt's Doctrine, or of Church-Conſtitution, which God no where ſo calls? We ſay, ſuch only are to be accounted beginning Principles, which God's Word declares ſo to be.

2. It appears as if he would make Laying on of hands for miraculous healing, to be that in Heb. 6. which has been fully anſwered again and again; they ſhould have refuted Mr. Griffith and Mr. Rider, before they inſiſt on this: I think it needleſs on that account to ſpeak any thing to it, and ſhall only refer the Reader to their excellent Books for ſatisfaction. But this I muſt ſay, that p. 55that Laying on of hands for healing belongs not to Babes as ſuch; ſtrong Men, and Fathers may be ſick, and have need of it, as well as others: beſides, this ſort concerns not all (no, only ſick Perſons) and may be practiſed again and again, as oft as Perſons may be ſick, or under bodily infirmities; but that Principle that is one of the beginning words of Chriſt's Doctrine, is only to be laid, or practiſed once, Heb. 6.1. Not Laying again, &c. 2ly. Unbelievers had hands laid upon them for healing, and therefore I might alſo argue it appertains not unto Babes as ſuch: Moreover, anointing with Oil is left as the Ordinance for healing in the Church.

3. Mr. Danvers ſhould make a difference between what Chriſt taught as a Promiſe or Gift to ſome particular Perſons, and what he taught as a general Practice; that which is minded in Mark 16. is laid down promiſſory-wiſe to ſuch as ſhould have the gift of Faith, or the Faith of Miracles **Will any ſay, to drink Poiſon, or any deadly thing, or take up Serpents, is Milk for Babes?, and is therefore nothing to the purpoſe.

4. They diſtinguiſh not between the Word or Doctrine of Chriſt, and Miracles, which were for the confirmation thereof, which in Mark 16.20. the Spirit doth; which cauſeth their miſtake.

But, do they not confute themſelves by thus arguing? they own the Doctrine of Laying on of hands to be a Foundation-principle of Chriſt; but this they ſpeak of here muſt needs be granted to be temporary, being for the confirmation of the p. 56Word, as he himſelf confeſſeth; and every Word or Ordinance of Chriſt, as I have ſhewed, was more or leſs confirmed with Signs, and Wonders according to this Promiſe of Chriſt. I ſhall ſay no more to this, but proceed to his next Objection.

2. Object. Page 44. If every one of theſe Principles in Heb. 6.2. 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? muſt all be baptized with the Baptiſm of the Spirit, and of Sufferings? &c.

Anſw. We anſwer, by diſtinguiſhing between that Baptiſm that is a practical Duty, and that which is taught or laid down by our Lord Jeſus to be believed: that that is commanded, ought abſolutely to be obeyed by every Babe; and 'tis as neceſſary for every Babe to believe the Doctrine of Sufferings, which Jeſus Chriſt preached to all that would follow him and be his Diſciples; this was that which he taught, Mat. 20.22, 23. to the two Sons of Zebedee, that they (and conſequently all God's Children) ſhould more or leſs be baptized with. In the World (ſaith Chriſt) you ſhall have tribulation, John 16.33. 'Tis neceſſary every Saint ſhould be inſtructed into this, and believe this, that through much Tribulation we muſt enter into the Kingdom of God, Acts 14.22. and all thoſe who will live godly in Chriſt Jeſus, shall ſuffer perſecution, 2 Tim. 3.12. We ſay not, that every one muſt actually forſake Houſe, and Lands, and Life for Chriſt's ſake, and the Goſpel, or elſe be none of his Diſciples, but be ready in holy diſpoſition ſo to do when call'd to it.

p. 57And as to the Baptiſm of the Spirit, that the Spirit is promiſed to every true Believer, ſee Joel 2.28, 29. which Peter (Acts 2.17. compared with verſ. 38, 39.) applies indefinitely to all penitent baptized Perſons, whether Jews or Gentiles, as their Right by promiſe of the Father to receive; and not to them of that Generation only, but alſo to ſuch as ſhould repent, and be baptized in all ſucceeding Ages; this Promiſe is one and the ſame with that in John 7.38. called Rivers of Water, implying fillings **Fillings with the Spirit may be taken in a comparative ſenſe, God giving more or greater meaſures of it in the New Teſtament diſpenſation, & ſince the Aſcenſion of Chriſt, than before.with the Spirit. In Acts 2.38. 'tis ſaid to be the Gift of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 11.17. like Gifts. In Acts 8.15. the Holy Spirit: which the Apoſtles in the belief of the promiſe, Joel 2. and Joh. 14.16. Acts 2.38, prayed for. From which Scriptures it appears, that all Believers are under the like Promiſes of the Holy Ghoſt, on like terms of Repentance, Faith, &c. And according to the meaſure of Faith given us by Chriſt, may our fillings with the Holy Spirit be.

And thus it is the duty of every Diſciple to believe he ſhall receive, or be baptized with the Spirit, (according as the Will of the ſame Spirit is, that divides to every Man the particular meaſures thereof) having the Promiſe of a faithful and never-failing God to rely upon; provided he go on in his Obedience, as directed in the bleſſed Word, for the attaining of it.

p. 58Object. But if it be objected, none are baptized with the Holy Spirit, but ſuch as receive it viſibly, and in its extraordinary Gifts.

Anſw. 1. Suppoſe none are ſo baptized now, yet all the Saints are to believe the Promiſe of the Spirit, and do receive it too; and doth not God perform his Promiſe, becauſe none ſo receive the Spirit, viz. to be baptiz'd therewith? 1 Cor. 12.13.

2. All are to believe the Baptiſm of the Spirit was given in the Apoſtles days to confirm the Goſpel or Word of Chriſt. And 'tis to be obſerved, that Paul to the Epheſians (on whom he had impoſed hands, Acts 19.6. and the ſpake with Tongues, and propheſied) takes no notice of thoſe viſible Gifts, but ſaith, In whom alſo after ye believed, ye were ſealed with the Holy Spirit of Promiſe, Eph. 1.13. plainly ſhewing 'tis the great Benefit received, and enjoyed by Believers, to be ſealed by the Spirit: 'tis not matter of rejoicing to work Miracles, as 'tis to know our Names are written in Heaven. And thus we have explained the Doctrine of Baptiſms.

Now to what he ſays in the 3d place, p.45. That the Laying on of hands, Heb. 6.2. may reſpect the Laying on of hands upon the Miniſtry for their ſolemn Inveſtiture into their Office, whether Deacons, Elders, or Meſſengers, which he ſays is neceſſary to be taught, known, and underſtood by all, tho all are not commanded into the perſonal practice of it, for all are not Prophets, Apoſtles, Teachers; and 'tis moſt remarkable, that the Doctrine, or teaching of Laying on of hands, is all that is mentioned in this Scripture; all baptized Believers p. 59must be taught it, that's plain, but that they are obliged therefore to practiſe it, is not here or elſewhere to be found.

Anſw. Before I give a further Anſwer to this grand Objection, I can't but obſerve how he miſtakes the Text, i. e. than the Doctrine, or teaching of Laying on of hands only is mentioned in this Scripture; why does he ſpeak thus of Impoſition of hands only? may he not as well ſpeak ſo concerning Repentance, Faith, and Baptiſm, as of this Principle? i. e. they alſo are neceſſary only to be taught and known by all, and none concern'd in the perſonal practice of them? Would any judg this Good Divinity? What reaſon can he give, ſeeing all the four are practical Ordinances, that the three firſt ſhould be taught ſo as to be perſonally practis'd by all, and the other only to be believ'd? Tho what he ſays here has already been fully anſwer'd, yet I ſhall examin this Text further, and make it evident, that the Laying on of hands in this Text cannot intend or be meant that upon Church-Officers, but muſt mean that ſort now contended for; and I am more willing to ſpeak further to this Objection, becauſe this being anſwered, our work is done.

1. Mind that the Apoſtle is ſpeaking only here of the firſt Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt; are they not ſo called? i. e. Doctrinae Chriſtianae Initia, ſeu Rudimenta; the Beginnings or Rudiments of Chriſtian Doctrine: Or, as Beza, Prima Chriſtianiſmi Principia; the first Principles of Chriſtianity. Now Laying on of hands on Officers, is not a beginning Principle, nor of the Alphabet of the Chriſtian Religion, I think they p. 60will not affirm it ſo to be. May not a Church, or People, profeſs and practiſe the firſt or beginning Principles of Religion, and proceed very far in the way of Chriſtianity, and yet have no Officers orderly ordained amongſt them?

But 2. Theſe Principles appertain to the Foundation of God's Houſe, being ſuch on which the Houſe is built; they are all equal in kind, nature, and quality, and one not to be without the other, God having joined them together as all of one rank, for the bearing up this Spiritual Fabrick, ſee verſ. 1. But laying on of hands on Officers, is an Ordinance of another rank and nature; a Church muſt be firſt gathered, or conſtituted, and Perſons make a conſiderable progreſs in the Profeſſion of Religion, before they can orderly be choſen, or ordained to the Office of Elders or Deacons: In ſhort, Officers are not for the being, but well-being of the Church; and therefore ſuch a Laying on of hands cannot be intended here. We read of Churches who had no Officers amongſt them, Tit. 1.5, 6. If a Miniſter were to preach unto a People what are the Fundamentals of a Goſpel-Church, viz. what Perſons ought to do, that ſo in an orderly way they may be congregated together in the fellowſhip of the Goſpel, or be made regular Members of the viſible Church, would he tell them Laying on of hands on Officers is one Principle? Surely no; he would not affirm this to be one of the Rudiments of Chriſtian Practice (that which firſt of all a Chriſtian ſhould be inſtructed in and come under, that he may have a being in God's Houſe) nor a Foundation-principle of Church-Conſtitution; p. 61but that the Laying on of hands ſpoken of Heb. 6. is ſo, nothing is more evident: for if it be a Principle of the Foundation, either it muſt be a Fundamental of Salvation, or of Church-Conſtitution; but none will ſay of the former, therefore it wuſt be of the latter.

3. That it cannot intend Laying on of hands on Church-Officers, might appear further, becauſe 'tis joined to, or coupled with Baptiſm; why ſhould Laying on of hands on Officers, be by the Spirit of God laid down after this ſort? Repentance from dead Works, and Faith towards God; the Doctrine of Baptiſms, and Laying on of hands; the Reſurrection from the Dead, and Eternal Judgment. May we not ſafely argue, that the Laying on of hands, which follows here in order of words, is what followed in order of practice? See Acts 8.17. and 19.6. And is it not according to what they acknowledg ſound reaſoning in another caſe upon Mat. 28.20. and Mark 16. that Baptiſm mentioned in the Commiſſion, joined to, and following Faith and Illumination in order of words, is what the Apoſtles in order of practice, viz. after Faith and Illumination, did baptize with? Acts 2.41. Acts 8. and 10. But that was the Baptiſm of Water, which therefore is only intended in the Commiſſion, &c. And thus by comparing Scripture with Scripture, we may be ſatisfied in thoſe things, which at firſt ſeem'd doubtful.

4. It cannot be meant here, becauſe all the Church of the Hebrews, as well as that in Samaria, Acts 8. (and conſequently all other Churches) had laid, or come under this Principle, as they p. 62had laid Repentance, Faith, and Baptiſm, when they were Babes: Now, who can reaſonably imagine, either that the whole Church of the Hebrews were Officers, or that Officers are Babes in Chriſt? That this is the Laying on of hands on baptized Believers, is eaſy to underſtand: 1. Becauſe taught to Babes, Heb. 5.12. 2. Babes are capable, or meet ſubjects thereof. 3. Babes have need of it, as Children of Milk. 4. Babes we read were in the practice thereof, Acts 8. and 19.5. Becauſe it belongs to them as ſuch, and were at firſt taught it, Heb. 5. and 6.1, 2. this cannot be ſaid of any other ſort. I ſhall ſay no more, only add ſomething out of Dr. Jer. Taylor, of Confirm. p. 45—48. full to our purpoſe, which conſidering the learning and worthineſs of the Author, I judg may be uſeful; what he minds, take as followeth, ſpeaking of Laying on of hands, called Confirmation: We have ſeen (ſaith he) the Original from Christ, the practice and exerciſe of it in the Apoſtles, and the first Converts in Chriſtianity: what I ſhall now remark is, That this is eſtabliſhed and paſſed into a Chriſtian Doctrine; the Warranty for what I ſay, is Heb. 6.1. where the holy Rite of Confirmation, ſo called from the effects of this Adminiſtration, and exprest by the ritual part of it, Impoſition of hands, is reckoned a fundamental Point; and here are ſix fundamental points of St. Paul's Catechiſm, which he laid as the Foundation, or beginning of the Inſtitution of the Chriſtian Church; and therefore they who deny it, dig up Foundations. Now that this Impoſition of hands is what the Apoſtle uſed in confirming the Baptized, and invocating the Holy Spirit upon them, p. 63remains to be proved; which is done, by ſhewing, 1. It cannot intend Abſolution; nor 2. Ordination. And this is evident:

1. Becauſe the Apoſtle would henceforth leave to ſpeak of the Foundation, and go on to perfection, that is to higher Myſteries; now in Rituals there is none higher than Ordination.

2. The Apoſtle ſaying he would ſpeak no more of Impoſition of Hands, preſently diſcourſes of the myſteriouſneſs of the Evangelical Prieſthood, and the Honour of that Vocation; by which 'tis evident he ſpeaks nothing of Ordination in the Catechiſm, or Narratives of Fundamentals.

3. This alſo appears from the Context, not only becauſe Laying on of hands is immediately ſet after Baptiſm, but becauſe in the very next words of his Diſcourſe, he enumerates and apportions to theſe Ordinances their proper proportioned Effects, i. e. to Faith and Baptiſm, Illumination; to Laying on of hands, the taſting the Heavenly Gift, and being made Partakers of the Holy Spirit; by the thing ſignified declaring the Sign, and by hopes of the Reſurrection, taſtes of the good things of the World to come: He that falls from this ſtate, and turns Apoſtate from this whole Diſpenſation, digging down, and turning up theſe Foundations, ſhall never be built again; he can never be baptized again, and never confirmed any more: If he remains on theſe Foundations, tho he ſins, he may be renewed foreign, by Repentance, and by reſuſcitation of the Spirit, if he had not wholly quenched him; but if he renounces the whole Covenant, diſown and cancel theſe Foundations, he is deſperate, he can never be renewed. This is the full explication of p. 64this excellent place, and otherways it cannot be explicated; but therefore into this place any notice of Ordination cannot come; no Senſe, no Myſtery can be made of it, or drawn from it, but by the interpoſition of Confirmation: The whole Context is clear, rational and intelligible. He cites Calvin, and Chryſoſtom, as ſpeaking the ſame things upon this place, p. 50.

To theſe I might add Eſtius on Heb. 6.1, 2. 'Tis (ſaith he) undoubtedly to be underſtood of that Laying on of hands, which was adminiſtred to the Faithful preſently after Baptiſm, of which St. Luke ſpeaks, Acts 8. & 19. I might produce Grotius and Heming, and other modern Authors, upon the ſame place: But having upon occaſion mentioned ſeveral before, I ſhall cloſe this with a paſſage out of Eraſmus on Heb. 6.1. The first ſtep to Chriſtianity (ſaith he) is Repentance of our former Life, next that Salvation is to be hoped from God, next that we be purged in Baptiſm from our filth, next that by Laying on of hands we receive the Holy Spirit, &c.