Laying on of Hands Upon Baptized Believers, Treatise 2
A brief Reply to a Book called, A Treatiſe concerning Laying on of Hands.
Written by a nameleſs Author, and publiſhed in the Year 1691.
THE firſt Reaſon (he ſays) why they cannot own Laying on of Hands on all Believers, is, becauſe there muſt be a Command, or at leaſt ſome Example for it, pag. 3.
Anſw. We have proved in the preceding Treatiſe, that we have both a Command and Example for it, if a Command of God, and an Oracle of God, is all one: See Heb. 5.12. That which is an Oracle of God, is a Command of God; but Laying on of Hands, &c. is an Oracle of God, Ergo. And as to Examples, we have them alſo: ſee Acts 8. and Acts 19.
2ly. Becauſe (they ſay) they believe neither our Lord nor his Diſciples were under it, pag. 4.
Anſw. Our Lord, we have ſhewed, was under it; the Father laid his Hands upon him when he came out of the Water, and thereby ſealed him; the Holy Ghoſt in the likeneſs of a Dove reſted upon him: And no doubt but our Lord laid his Hands upon his Diſciples, ſince he taught this Precept as a Principle of his Doctrine, Heb. 6. 1, 2. True, we read not of their Baptiſm, nor of this neither; therefore from thence they may as well ſay they were not baptized, as that they had not Hands laid upon them.
3ly. Becauſe (ſay they) if the Apoſtles were under it, they muſt have an Adminiſtrator; and who, ſay they, ſhould that be? p. 4. But there is nothing ſaid of it, &c.
Anſw. 1. Our Lord Chriſt might be the Adminiſtrator, who is the great Shepherd and Biſhop of our Souls, as I ſaid afore.
2. And it no more follows that they were not baptized, than that they were not under Laying on of Hands; i. e. becauſe there is nothing ſaid of either.
4ly. Their fourth Reaſon is the ſame with their firſt.
5ly. Their fifth Reaſon is, becauſe, they ſay, the Church at Jeruſalem was not under it, pag. 5.
Anſw. Was not the Hebrew Church the Church at Jeruſalem? Now they, 'tis evident, were under it, or had laid it: Not laying again preſuppoſeth they had once laid it, or were under it, as well as Baptized.
6ly. Their ſixth Reaſon is, becauſe an Ordinance neceſſary to Church-Communion ought very plainly to be expreſſed, p. 6.
Anſw. So is this of Impoſition of Hands, Heb. 5.12. Heb. 6. 1, 2. Acts 8. and Acts 19.6.
7ly. Becauſe, they ſay, our Lord did leave no Ordinance as abſolutely neceſſary to Church-Communion, but ſuch as holds forth his Death and Reſurrection, p. 9. as Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper, &c.
Anſw. Who told them ſo? or doth it follow that becauſe Baptiſm and the Supper are Figures of our Lord's Death, &c. therefore this muſt be a figure of the ſame, or no Ordinance? This is not argumentative nor demonſtrative.
8ly. Becauſe Salvation is promiſed on the Terms of Faith, Repentance, and Baptiſm; and from hence they argue there is no need of any ſuch Ordinance as this of Laying on of Hands, p. 7.
Anſw. Salvation is promiſed particularly to Faith; He that believeth hath the Son, —hath Life, and ſhall be ſaved, Mark 16.16. therefore need not I be baptized? Moreover, I deny that any Ordinance gives a right to Salvation, any other ways than as it is an evidence of that Right or Title to our Conſciences. Our Right or Title is Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, or his active and paſſive Obedience only. But ſhould a Man be convinced that Laying on of Hands, Church-Communion, Order, and Diſcipline, or giving to the Poor, &c. were Duties which he omitted, would his pretended Faith, Repentance, and Baptiſm, render him a ſincere Chriſtian? No, he muſt do all things Chriſt commanded, or taught to be done, which he is convinced of, as well as thoſe three things.
9ly. Their ninth Reaſon againſt Laying on of Hands, is taken from thoſe Effects that followed this Ordinance, viz. the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit.
Anſw. The ſame Effects followed all other Goſpel-Ordinances: this we have alſo anſwered in the precedent Treatiſe.
10ly. Their tenth Reaſon is, becauſe the Holy Spirit was ſometimes given without Laying on of Hands, pag. 8.
Anſw. The Holy Spirit is promiſed to them that are baptized; but becauſe ſome received the Spirit before baptized, needed they not be baptized? In Acts 10.44. Cornelius received the Spirit, to confirm the Miniſtration of the Word to the Gentiles before baptized, yet was commanded to be baptized; nor had he ſo much of the Spirit as to need no more; and therefore came under this Ordinance alſo. Beſides, becauſe God may ſtep out of his uſual way, muſt we do ſo too? No ſure.
11ly. Their eleventh Reaſon is, becauſe none but ſuch Perſons as were eminently gifted did impoſe Hands, &c.
Anſ. The Apoſtles did all they did as eminently gifted: but if they are not to be followed by all regular Paſtors, or Elders (only ordinarily gifted) in Laying on of hands, then not in Preaching, Baptizing, nor in the Adminiſtration of any other Goſpel-Ordinance: but this is alſo fully anſwered in the preceding Treatiſe.
In pag. 17, 18, &c. they would make the Reader conclude that the Hebrews being ſaid to be dull of Hearing, and ſo needed to be taught again the firſt Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt, doth not refer to theſe ſix Principles, but to Matters relating to the Prieſtly Office of Chriſt, &c.
Anſw. 'Tis true, the Apoſtle was about to inſtruct them into higher Myſteries, viz. about Chriſt's Prieſthood; but he found them to have need of Milk, and not ſtrong Meat: And moſt evident it is, that by ſtrong Meat he refers to the things which he proceeds to inſtruct them in; but the Milk he ſpeaks of are theſe things, viz. Repentance, Faith, Baptiſm, and Laying on of Hands, &c.
They hardly underſtood the firſt Rudiments or A B C of the Chriſtian Faith: but to ſuppoſe that Milk, or thoſe firſt Principles he ſpeaks of, is the ſtrong Meat, is prepoſterous. True, Chriſt is properly the Foundation; but by the Foundation here is meant thoſe firſt Principles which every Babe in Chriſt was to be inſtructed in, and to practiſe, and then to go on to perfection.
Doth it follow, becauſe 'tis ſaid, not laying again the Foundation of Repentance, &c. that the Apoſtle only refers to Chriſt, who is the Foundation of our Salvation, and of every Principle of the Chriſtian Religion? Evident it is that the firſt Principles of the Doctrine of Chriſt are here called the Foundation-principles, not that they are all Fundamentals of Salvation, but of Church-conſtitution: for we will not ſay (nor any elſe we hope) that none can be ſaved who are not baptized, and come not under Laying on of Hands; yet every true regular Church, and regular Member, ought to be under the practice of both thoſe Principles.
But I ſee no need to add any thing further in anſwer to this Treatiſe, it ſeeming to me to have the leaſt of Argument in it of any Book I have ſeen writ againſt this Ordinance.
FINIS.
Poſtſcript.
NOw tho I am fully eſtabliſhed in this Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine, and do believe it is of the ſame nature with Baptiſm, yet I am not of the opinion that ſuch Members in a Church, who are convinced of it, and are under it, ought to ſeparate themſelves from the Church, becauſe the other Members of the ſaid Church ſee it not: no, but they ought to bear one with another, until God ſhall pleaſe to open their eyes. —We all ſee but in part, and know but in part; therefore ought to bear one with another. Yet let that Church who are of one Mind and Judgment in this matter, walk as they have received; and let all take heed how they ſet light by any Holy Precept and Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine, much leſs to teach Men to break the leaſt of his Commandments, or to caſt ſuch under contempt and reproach, who in conſcience towards God ſpeak and write according to the Light they have received in this and other Caſes. Muſt we be their Enemies for telling them the truth? Farewel.
End of the text · Benjamin Keach, Laying on of Hands Upon Baptized Believers (1698)