A47585:89
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 3
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.
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 ⟨p. 31⟩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 Chrism, and other ridiculous Ceremonies, which was before done with Prayer and Imposition of hands without Chrism: They did, saith Mr. Baxter, make haste to corrupt it; they quickly introduced the Crosses, and Chrism; but from the beginning it was not so. And as to what he says concerning Ambrose, Jerome, 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 showed. 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 mere human Innovations,