A47585:174
Laying on of hands upon baptized believers, as such, proved an ordinance of Christ…
Laying on of hands upon baptized believers, as such, proved an ordinance of Christ in answer to Mr. Danvers's former book entitled, A treatise of laying on of hands : with a brief answer to a late book called, A treatise concerning laying on of hands, written by a nameless author / by B.K. ...Laying on of hands upon baptized believers, as such, proved an ordinance of Christ in answer to Mr. Danvers's former book intituled, A treatise of laying on of hands : with a brief answer to a late book called, A treatise concerning laying on of hands, written by a nameless author / by B.K. ...
London : Printed, are to be sold by Benj. Harris ..., 1698
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Laying on of Hands UPON BAPTIZED BELIEVERS, As such, Proved both fr… › Chapter 5
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
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. 59⟩must 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 concerned 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 practised by all, and the other only to be believed? Tho what he says here has already been fully answered, yet I shall examine 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.
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.