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
Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.
Page  102


In answer to the Conclusion of Mr. Danvers's Book.

The Conclusion of this Treatise, in opposition to his.

REider, Thou hast had a faithful, and impar∣tial Account of the rise, growth, and progress, of this holy, tho contemned Ordinance of Imposition of hands, from the beginning of the Gospel-Ministration to this day; and how as∣serted amongst many Per∣swasions, with the Autho∣rities on which it has been enjoined; together with the grounds given by An∣tient and Modern Writers to justify it: And from the whole we also may come to these following Conclusions; viz.

1. That there appears full and ample Precept and Practice from Scripture for this Ordinance of Imposi∣tion of hands on all bap∣tized Believers as such, before admitted to the Lord's Table.

Page  1032. That the Instances to prove it an Apostolical Tradition or Institution, are the pious Sayings, and written Verities of Christ's Disciples.

3. That the Authorities by which it was at first en∣joined, were none else save Great Jehovah, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

4. That many eminent Writers both antient and modern, have born wit∣ness for it.

All which is worthy to be minded, and commend∣ed to the consideration of those who having rejected Infants, and imbraced Be∣lievers Baptism, do op∣pose a Principle of the same nature, and annexed to it, with these following Observations.

1. It is most manifest that those Popes, Coun∣cils, and Fathers, that have corrupted, polluted, and changed the holy Ordi∣nance of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, did also change, alter, and corrupt this of Imposition of Hands.

2. That tho the princi∣pal Arguments the Church Page  104 of Rome, and others who have drunk of the Whore's Cup, do bring to defend the Rite called Confirma∣tion, is humane Traditi∣on, and far-fetch'd Conse∣quences from Scripture, yet there is plain Scripture-proof for the holy Institu∣tion of Imposition of hands upon baptized Believers.

3. That many godly Persons in several ages have opposed Popish laying on of hands, on the same ac∣count that we reject Po∣pish Baptism, and not o∣therwise.

4. It appears not that any baptized Church in any Country, have denied Imposition of hands upon Believers baptized, as such, to be an Institution of Jesus Christ, nor ever writ against it, as some in this Nation have done; (no ways for their Credit, nor Honour of the Gospel.)

These things being so, it may be enquired what ground and reason our Brethren in this Nation had at first, or have now, to oppose this Divine In∣stitution of the Lord Jesus Christ.