The first part of this essay explored the defense of the laying on of hands from antiquity. The second part will look at the defense from Scripture, since neither Benjamin Keach, nor Thomas Grantham, nor John Griffith was satisfied with establishing the doctrine solely upon historical grounds. Keach explained that he “would build not upon Men or Tradition, but on the Word of God”—a sentiment which Grantham and Griffith also shared.[1]
A Defense from Scripture
So how exactly did Grantham, Keach, and Griffith argue for the laying on of hands as an ordinance of Christ to be perpetuated by the Church?
We should begin by taking note of Keach’s and Grantham’s broad understandings of ordinances, refusing to limit them to baptism and the Lord’s Supper as is often the case among Protestants today.[2] According to them, the ordinances should include baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but might also include preaching, praying, fasting, singing, anointing the sick with oil, the laying on of hands, the washing of the saints’ feet, and others.[3] According to historian Clint Bass, nine ordinances can be found in Grantham’s writings.[4] Whereas Henry Danvers argued that part of the qualification for something to be considered an ordinance was a direct command from Christ, Keach denied, regarding the imposition of hands, that Christ had to say, “Let all baptized Believers have Hands laid upon them” for it to be an ordinance.[5]
Grantham and Griffith both thought the practice had clear enough Biblical support to break fellowship over. The primary Scriptural passages used to defend the laying on of hands are Hebrews 6:1–2, Acts 8:14–17, and Acts 19:2–7. To this list could be added Hebrews 5:12, which is pertinent to Hebrews 6. Hebrews 6:1–2 served as the primary doctrinal passage for the ordinance (with the accompanying Hebrews 5:12), while Acts 8:14–17 and Acts 19:2–7 demonstrated the practice within the context of the primitive church.
Hebrews 6:1–2
The laying on of hands was often referred to as the “fourth principle of Christ’s doctrine,” which was the title of Grantham’s 1674 work published as a reply to Danvers.[6] The laying on of hands was considered the fourth principle of Christ’s doctrine because it appeared within a list of other doctrines in Hebrews 6:1–2, which reads: “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of the laying on of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment” (KJV). Together, these doctrines (repentance, faith, baptism, the laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment) made up the principles of Christ’s doctrine. Grantham plainly stated:
It is generally acknowledged by Christians, that the Laying on of Hands in, Heb. 6. 2. Is a principle of the doctrine of Christ, and a part of the foundation there mentioned, and indeed, it being a Relative as well as the other five particulars, can have no other Antecedent assign’d then they, and therefore these six principles do constitute on intire form of Doctrine, and is that form of Doctrine, or form of sound Words, to which the main body of Christian Doctrine is reducible, and ought to be obeyed from the heart, by all that enter in the profession of Christian Religion, Rom. 6. 17.[7]
Those like Grantham, who defended the laying on of hands, found it deeply significant that the laying on of hands was listed among these other doctrines that were referred to as the principles of the doctrine of Christ. These principles were foundational to Christ’s teaching, which brought the laying on of hands into direct connection with Christ Himself. They were, to use the language of Griffith and Keach, the ABCs of Christian doctrine. Furthermore, Grantham did not think his interpretation of this passage was a minority position. He believed the majority of the Christian tradition had interpreted Hebrews 6:1–2 this way.[8]
The context of Hebrews 6:1–2 and the placement of the laying on of hands among the other doctrines is also pertinent to Grantham’s and others’ Biblical argument for several reasons. First, Grantham, Keach, and Griffith understood Hebrews 6:1–2 within the context of Hebrews 5 where the author of the letter (which they believed to be Paul) had scolded the Hebrews for needing to be retaught “the first principles of the oracles of God” at a time when they ought to have been mature teachers.[9] This point furthered their confidence in the doctrinal significance of this list of doctrines. Keach averred that it would be “absurd” to think that “amongst five perpetual Principles” the “Apostle would place one temporary Principle.”[10]
Second, the placement of the laying on of hands within this list of doctrines seemed to confirm their belief that the practice was connected to the reception of the Holy Spirit after baptism. To restate the order we find in Hebrews 6:1–2, it reads: repentance, faith, baptism, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. It is not hard to imagine how Grantham, Keach, and others came to this conclusion. Third, and related to the second point, the structure of the list of doctrines led them to conclude that the laying on of hands mentioned there must be the laying on of hands after baptism, which made more sense than the other two options, which were the laying on of hands for ordination and laying hands on the sick.[11]
For Keach, as well as Grantham and other Baptists who practiced the laying on of hands after baptism, Hebrews 6 was exceedingly clear in its affirmation of the ordinance.
Acts 8:14–17
For examples of the practice in the primitive Church, Keach and Grantham appealed to Acts 8:14–17 and Acts 19:2–7. Keach and Grantham believed these passages “to be full Precedents for Laying on of hands upon baptized Believers.”[12] Acts 8 records the actions of the apostles who were in Jerusalem and heard that Samaria had received the Word of God. They sent Peter and John down to pray for the converts that they might receive the Holy Spirit. When Peter and John arrived, they laid hands on them that they might receive the Holy Spirit since; as Luke clarifies, at that point, they had only been baptized in the name of Jesus.
Several key components appear here. First, the Samaritan believers were baptized but did not receive the Spirit until Peter and John laid hands on them. This point seemed to demonstrate the norm of the laying on of hands for the reception of the Spirit. Second, this practice does not seem to have been an innovation since Peter and John came from the church at Jerusalem, implying that it was the norm there as well.[13]
This argument was further confirmed for Grantham in the enumeration of principles in Hebrews 6, which included the laying on of hands that he viewed in connection with the Jerusalem church. Grantham argued against seeing the events related in Acts 19 as being an innovation by Peter and John: “No, the contrary is evident for Laying on of Hands is enumerated among the principles of the Doctrine received by the Church at Jerusalem, Heb. 6. 2. who is worthily to be esteemed a pattern to all Churches of Christ to the end of the World.”[14] Elsewhere Grantham referred to the Jerusalem church as “the Mother of us All” and the “Mother-Church.”[15] Third, the text seems to indicate that hands were laid on all the Samaritans so that this practice was not unique only to some of the believers.
Acts 19:2–7
Acts 19:2–7 records Paul passing through Ephesus where he found some disciples who had not heard of or received the Holy Spirit. When Paul inquired regarding their baptism, they said that they had received only John’s baptism, which Paul told them was a baptism of repentance, pointing them to Jesus. Upon hearing Paul they were baptized in the name of Jesus. Paul proceeded to lay hands on them, and the Holy Spirit came upon them. They then began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
One must inquire into Paul’s purpose for the laying on of hands. Griffith, Grantham, and Keach all denied that it was for the purpose of extraordinary gifts, healing, or ordination. Therefore, it must have been for the reception of the Holy Spirit, which the text seemed to indicate.Keach even argued that Paul initially questioned their baptism precisely because they had not heard of the Holy Spirit, which “is the undoubted Right of every baptized Believer in Christ Jesus.”[16]
For those who defended the laying on of hands as an ordinance of Christ, these texts were exceedingly clear.[17] In fact, they were clearer than the texts used to support the laying on of hands for church officers or worshipping on the first day of the week. If Danvers and those who opposed the doctrine, Keach surmised, kept the Sabbath and laid hands on church officers—if the biblical text was sufficiently clear to affirm those practices—then one should have no problem practicing the laying on of hands.
Conclusion
The laying on of hands among the General Baptists in Baptist historiography is often seen as a divisive and potentially petty practice. But when one considers their defense of the doctrine, alongside that of the General turned Particular Baptist, Benjamin Keach, the evidence indicates that they thought the laying on of hands was clearly taught in Scripture and demonstrated in antiquity. Thus their practice of the ordinance was not innovative or some sort of naïve primitivism. Instead, the defense of the laying on of hands demonstrated an attempt to retrieve and restore a Biblical practice that had long been abused.
[1] Benjamin Keach, 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, 2nd ed. (London: Printed and are to be sold by Benj. Harris, 1698), 38–9.
[2] J. Matthew Pinson has done an excellent job in succinctly contending for a more full-orbed understanding of the ordinances that is similar to what one will find in Griffith, Grantham, Keach and much of the Christian tradition. See J. Matthew Pinson, The Washing of the Saints’ Feet (Nashville, TN: 2006), 19–29.
[3] For Keach’s enumerated list, see Benjamin Keach, A Short Confession of Faith, Containing the Substance of All the Fundamental Articles in the Larger Confession Put forth by the Elders of the Baptized Churches, Owning Personal Election and Final Perseverance (London, 1697), 23.
[4] Clint C. Bass, Thomas Grantham (1633–1692) and General Baptist Theology (Oxford, UK: Centre for Baptists Studies, 2013), 80.
[5] Keach, Laying on of Hands, 41. Michael Watts, in his wonderful volume The Dissenters: From the Reformation to the French Revolution, argued (I think wrongly) that it was the literalism of the English General Baptists that led them to practice feet washing and anointing with oil and then later made them suspicious of “doctrinal statements not based on Scripture.” Oddly enough, Keach, who had been a General Baptist prior to becoming a Particular Baptist, accused Danvers of something like biblicism for his inability to draw clear inferences from the Biblical text concerning the laying on of hands without an explicit command. See Michael R. Watts, The Dissenters: From the Reformation to the French Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 376.
[6] Thomas Tillam published a work by a similar name in 1655. See Thomas Tillam, The Fourth Principle of the Christian Religion: Or, the Foundation Doctrine of the Laying on of Hands (London: Printed by E.C. for Henry Eversden, 1655).
[7] Thomas Grantham, Christianismus Primitivus: Or, The Ancient Christian Religion (London: Francis Smith, 1678), bk. 2, pt. 2, 45.
[8] In one place Grantham,,drawing on the research of the Anglican Jeremy Taylor (something he and Keach did often), cited John Chrysostom at length concerning the doctrine as it appears in Hebrews 6:1–2. Chrysostom’s treatment of the passage is congruous with Grantham’s. A fascinating point worthy of further consideration is the way in which Chrysostom connected the laying on of hands in Hebrews 6:2 for the reception of the Spirit and the possibility of apostasy in Hebrews 6:4–6. Christianismus Primitivus, bk. 2, pt. 2, 47.
[9] Griffith’s primary work defending the imposition of hands, cited above, bears this very title. It also appears that Keach references Griffith’s work in the margin of Laying on of Hands. Keach mentions Griffith and William Rider in the body of the work as well. See Keach, Laying on of Hands, 5, 54. There may also be another reference to Griffith in Keach’s work if Griffith was the author of The Searchers for Schism Search’d (1669). If that is the case, which it seems to be, then Jonathan Arnold mistakenly noted that Keach notably did not reference Griffith for his defense of the doctrine. See Arnold, Benjamin Keach, 117.
[10] Keach, Laying on of Hands, 76.
[11] Both Grantham and Keach denied that the laying on of hands confers extraordinary gifts. See Grantham, Christianismus Primitivus, bk. 2, pt. 2, 42–3; Keach, Laying on of Hands,
[12] Keach, Laying on of Hands, 65.
[13] The standard argument as to why Philip did not lay hands on the Samaritans for the reception of the Holy Spirit is that he was a deacon and the practice was “reserved for the Rulers of the Church.” Keach, Laying on of Hands, 66.
[14] Christianismus Primitivus, bk. 2, pt. 2, 44.
[15] Thomas Grantham, Hear the Church: Or, An Appeal to the Mother of Us All, 2nd ed.(London: 1688), [3], 10. In this work, Grantham says regarding the laying on of hands: “There are two great Blessings belong to all true Christians, Remission of Sin, and the Gift of the Holy Spirit; the first is consigned to them in Sacred Baptism, the second in Prayer, with the Laying on of Hands, in which way this Mother-Church received this Blessing as is evident from the Enumeration and Order of the Principles of her Catechism; and also so from this Testimony, that great Grace was upon them all, Act. 4. 33. the Apostles Doctrine, a Principle whereof in Prayer with Laying on of Hands; and from this Church this Doctrine and Holy Practice was carried by the Apostles to Samaria, Acts 8. 14 for it is not to be imagined they would there innovate a practical Principle, which had not first been taught in the Church at Jerusalem. But God bearing witness to this Blessing of the Holy Spirit, fore-received at Jerusalem, confirms it as an acceptable and needful Service for all Churches. And accordingly it was received in the Times next succeeding the Apostles days, as many Witnesses testify, amongst whom Tertullian thus: Dehinc manus imponitur, &c. After Baptism the Hand is imposed by Blessing, calling and inviting the Holy Spirit. Tunc ille Sanctissimus, &c. Then that most Holy Spirit most willingly descends from the Father upon the Bodies which are cleansed [meaning in Baptism] and blessed” (10).
[16] Keach, Laying on of Hands, 71.
[17] In a rather fascinating move, Grantham and Keach even refer to the baptism of Christ to defend the laying on of hands since the Spirit descended upon Christ after his baptism. Bass points out that this argument was borrowed from Jeremy Taylor and apparently a new addition to the Biblical defense of the doctrine. One notable issue with this line of reasoning was that John did not lay hands on Jesus. Keach averred that the Father laid hands on Jesus. Keach, Laying on of Hands, 49.
Recent Comments