Laying on of hands upon baptized believers, as such, proved an ordinance of Christ…

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, ⟨p. 32⟩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 ancient, and long before Popery entered 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 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,