There has been a renewed interest in recent years among evangelical Baptists in theological retrieval and renewal. I am particularly thankful for the efforts of Baptist theologians such as Luke Stamps and Matthew Emerson (at the Center for Baptist Renewal), J. Matthew Pinson, and Michael A. G. Haykin who follow in the footsteps of men such as Timothy George by calling Baptists to retrieve from the great Christian tradition with the hope that it will lead to renewal. Their work encourages Baptists to retain their unique identity while also drawing on the “Great Tradition” for further insight, renewal, and reform.
However, the doctrine of the laying on of hands has received little attention, even among those interested in Baptist renewal. [1] This lacuna is striking since the doctrine of the laying on of hands was an important practice and a significant source of tension and debate among the seventeenth-century English General Baptists and even some Particular Baptists. But for those who affirmed the laying on of hands as a biblical and perpetual ordinance for the church, the practice, though greatly corrupted in the post-apostolic era, was worth restoring to its primitive purity.
To consider the practice of the laying on of hands, we will examine the writings of the English Baptists John Griffith (1621/22–1700), Thomas Grantham (1633–1692), and Benjamin Keach (1640–1704). Griffith was a General Baptist pastor. Grantham was one of the foremost General Baptist theologians and statesmen in the seventeenth century. Keach was a General Baptist who became a Particular Baptist sometime in the 1670s. Keach was a pastor and eminent theologian, and his time as a General Baptist likely had significant influence on his affirmation of the laying on of hands, though he retained the practice throughout his life.
By examining the works of these authors, we will note their defense of the ordinance from Scripture and antiquity, their theological understanding of the ordinance, and the nature of the controversy surrounding the practice. This subject is an important one for Baptists to consider because of their theological heritage, even if they reject that the laying on of hands is a biblical ordinance. This first essay will deal with their defense of the doctrine from antiquity while the second essay will consider their defense of the doctrine from Scripture.
A Defense from Antiquity
Some of the most heated exchanges among the Baptists concerning the laying on of hands occurred between John Griffith, Thomas Grantham, and Benjamin Keach in their replies to the thinking of the General Baptist Henry Danvers. Danvers was one of fifteen men who, in the 1650s, had jointly published and subscribed to a work entitled Questions about Laying on of Hands. Griffith replied to this work in 1655 with a work entitled God’s Oracles & Christs Doctrine, Or, The six Principles of the Christian Religion.[2] In 1674, however, Danvers published a separate work against the laying on of hands entitled A Treatise of the Laying on of Hands. With the History Thereof, Both from Scripture and Antiquity.[3]
Danvers sought to disprove the laying on of hands as a perpetual ordinance from Scripture and antiquity, but his argument from antiquity is particularly important for our consideration. He questioned the legitimacy of some of the historical works cited by those who defended the doctrine—asserting that the practice did not begin until the third century. Danvers also pointed to the increased corruption of the practice in the following centuries.
Beyond the corruption of the practice, Danvers also appealed to the historical witnesses that testified most strongly against the practice. In Danvers’s account, these were the “Novatians, Donatists, Waldenses, Greek Churches, Wickliffians, &c.”[4] Danvers’s list was telling. He believed that each of these groups had practiced believer’s baptism yet opposed the laying on of hands. Therefore, Danvers exhorted Baptists who affirmed the laying on of hands to follow their example.[5] In other words, Danvers’s argument was that those who had affirmed believer’s baptism had also been the strongest opponents of the laying on of hands or confirmation.
Neither Grantham nor Keach were persuaded by such historical arguments against the laying on of hands. Nor were they moved by Danvers’s argument that the practice was novel among Baptists. Grantham was more concerned to demonstrate the antiquity of the practice among Christians in general than among Baptists. Grantham wrote several years prior to Danvers’ work (clearly having encountered similar arguments): “From these Testimonies it appeareth, that what the Churches of Christ now contend for, touching the practice, and the subjects, and the end of prayer, with Laying on of Hands, is no novel thing; but as the institution of that Ordinance is found in Holy Writ (as we have shewed) so it hath continued in use as necessary, in place, the next to holy Baptism, among Christians generally.”[6]
Keach’s Laying on of Hands, originally published in 1674 (republished in 1698), was a direct reply to Danvers. Danvers’s rehearsing of the practice in antiquity seems to have had the opposite of its intended effect on Keach. Keach wrote, “And I must confess, I did not think so much could have been produced from Authors and Antiquity in the case.”[7]
Grantham and Keach agreed that people had abused the practice throughout the centuries. As Keach described it, the practice had “lain a long time corrupted and covered amongst the Antichrisitan Rubbish.”[8] But that did not dissuade him from attempting to recover what he believed was a biblical practice. Ordinances such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper had also been corrupted. Would Danvers dismiss those ordinances as well? Keach asked, “may he not as well cast away Baptism and the Lord’s Supper also, since they have been every way as much corrupted, changed, and polluted as this? Nay, what Ordinance had not?”[9]
Rather than discarding the ordinance, Keach wanted to reform its practice in accordance with Scripture. “Reformation is a glorious work,” Keach stated, “and ’tis what we all long and breathe after.”[10] He described the work of retrieval and reformation this way: “Our work is to discover, and remove all Popish Additions and Pollutions, which in the days of darkness crept in, that so we may see every Institution shining forth in its primitive purity and splendor; and not reject any Ordinance of Christ, because polluted by Antichrist.”[11]
Having admitted the need for reforming the ordinance, Keach turned Danvers’s argument back on him by contending that Baptists were the ones who could faithfully administer the ordinance by laying hands on baptized believers rather than “Confirming Infants.”[12] His fellow Baptists, including Danvers, had continued the work of reformation in restricting baptism to believers. Keach wondered why they were incapable of doing the same with the laying on of hands but were instead so distracted by its abuses.
Keach did “detect and abominate” such abuses but contended “for the thing it self, as practised in the Apostles time.” He stated again regarding the work of retrieving and reforming the laying on of hands: “and little reason they have to blame us herein; since the work of Reformation, or to labour to reduce Ordinances to their primitive Purity and Lustre, is by all accounted a glorious Work; yea, and it is a full and complete Reformation we all long for, not only for one ordinance to be restored and refined from the dross, and abominable filth of Popish Traditions, but every Appointment and Ordinance of Christ.”[13]
Conclusion
The problem with many of the arguments for the laying on of hands, in Keach’s estimation, was that the ancients sought to defend the doctrine by referring to the tradition rather than referring to Scripture. This approach allowed the abuses of the practice to persist and even proliferate. As Keach explained, “The Antient Fathers and Councils . . . together with those of the Church of Rome and England, do wholly fly unto Tradition, to prove their practice of the Laying on of hands upon Children.”[14]
Keach cited none other than Richard Baxter to distinguish the Protestant use of tradition from “the Papists.” He wrote, “we bring Antiquity but to prove the continuance of a Scripture-practice, and so to clear the practice of it: But the Papists plead Fathers for that which the Scripture is a stranger unto.”[15] This quotation summarizes well Grantham’s and Keach’s approach to retrieving the ordinance of the laying on of hands. They employed arguments from antiquity to confirm the historicity of the practice, but they ultimately appealed to Scripture for its defense as an ordinance of Christ. Grantham and Keach “would build not upon Men or Tradition, but on the Word of God.”[16]
The next installment will consider Griffith, Grantham, and Keach’s defense of the laying on of hands from Scripture.
[1] Clint Bass has given this subject the most attention in an article on the Catholic Spirit of Thomas Grantham. However, Bass limits his scope to Grantham and goes well beyond his views on the laying on of hands. See Clint Bass, “The Catholic Spirit of Thomas Grantham,” American Baptist Quarterly 32, no. 3 (2013): 238–57.
[2] John Griffith, Gods Oracle & Christs Doctrine, Or, The six Principles of the Christian Religion (London: 1655), 37.
[3] H[enry] D’Anvers, A Treatise of Laying on of Hands. With the History Thereof, Both from the Scripture and Antiquity. Wherein an Account is Given How It Hath Been Practised in All Ages since Christ, The Mistakes about It Recited, and The Sence of Heb. 6.2. Cleared (London: Francis Smith, 1674). Grantham replied that same year with The Fourth Principle of Christs Doctrine Vindicated, which mentioned Danvers’s book directly in the subtitle. Benjamin Keach also replied to Danvers in 1675 with Darkness Vanquished, or Faith in Its Primitive Purity. Only Keach’s initials “B. K.” appeared on this publication, but the work was subsequently republished with some additions in 1698 under the title The Laying on of Hands Upon Believers, As Such, Proved an Ordinance of Christ. In the 1670s, Danvers was one of the most significant opponent to the laying on of hands.
[4] Danvers, Treatise, 56. The list here is intentional; it represents those whom Danvers believed practiced baptism by immersion. This point can be seen in his defense of believer’s baptism published just one year earlier, entitled A Treatise of Baptism: Wherein, That of Believers, and That of Infants, Is Examined by The Scriptures (1673). For a fascinating treatment of this work, see James M. Renihan, “Henry Danvers’ A Treatise of Baptism: A Study in Seventeenth-century Baptist Historiography,” BRT/RBT 7, no. 1-2 (1997): 24–47.
[5] Danvers, Treatise, 57.
[6] Tho[mas] Grantham, A Sigh for Peace; Or The Cause of Division Discovered. Wherein The Great Gospel Promise of the Holy Ghost, and the Doctrine of Prayer with Imposition of Hands, as The Way Ordained of God to Seek for It; Is Asserted and Vindicated, as the Interest and Duty of Christs Disciples in General. In Answer to a Book Intituled A Search for Schism (Printed for the Author, 1671).
[7] Keach, Laying on of Hands, 18.
[8] Keach, Laying on of Hands, Epistle Dedicatory.
[9] Keach, Laying on of Hands, 18.
[10] Keach, Laying on of Hands, Epistle Dedicatory.
[11] Keach, Laying on of Hands, 18. Grantham made a similar comment as he rejoiced in the restoration of the laying on of hands “to its pure Use in many Churches of Christ, as any other Ordinance whatsoever” (Grantham, Fourth Principle, 9).
[12] Keach, Laying on of Hands, 19.
[13] Keach, Laying on of Hands, 21.
[14] Keach, Laying on of Hands, 19.
[15] Keach, Laying on of Hands, 38.
[16] Keach, Laying on of Hands, 38–39.
February 4, 2022
I’m sure the audience for this type of article is pretty small, but I enjoyed it. I appreciate your interaction with Danvers, Grantham, and Keach. Just to add a little more, I think there is strong evidence to suggest that this issue is primarily responsible for keeping influential leaders like Thomas Lambe and Henry Denne outside of the mainstream of General Baptist life during the 1650s.
February 5, 2022
David, Thank you so much for reading and commenting. It certainly was a very contentious issue that kept some out of the GB mainstream and others to leave altogether as they felt that it created two separate groups within the Assembly. I’m always fascinated to see how through the influence of Keach the Philadelphia Association of Particular Baptists included it in their confession into the 1800s.