by Joshua R. Colson
The laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit after baptism is foreign to most modern Baptists. In the 1600s, however, a movement emerged among English General Baptists to institute the practice in their churches. The inclusion of the rite as a gospel ordinance in both the Standard Confession (1660)[1] and the Orthodox Creed (1679) makes this fact plain.[2] What’s more? Although discontinued “by the end of the nineteenth century,” the rite was practiced widely by Free Will Baptists in the United States.[3]
Setting aside the question of why the rite was discontinued, I will examine why Free Will Baptists ever practiced at all by considering the most important, systematic works concerning the laying on of hands: those of Thomas Grantham (1634–1692), the “chief apologist for the practice” among the English General Baptists.[4] Beyond the shores of England, however, Grantham’s writings influenced early American Free Will Baptists.[5] Thus he is critical to this study.
In what follows, I will demonstrate that Grantham defended the laying on of hands as Scriptural, historical, and spiritually beneficial. Then, in light of his apologies, I will offer some constructive points for modern day Free Will Baptists.
Scriptural Arguments
As a product of the radical reformation, Grantham believed that all ecclesial practices must have Scriptural warrant. With regards to the laying on of hands, he found ample Scriptural warrant, both prescriptive and descriptive.
Descriptive Warrant
To begin with, Grantham demonstrates the Scriptural witness of the practice in the apostolic era. He does so with reference to three New Testament books.
First, Grantham argues that the Lukan account of Jesus’ baptism provides a basis for laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:21, 22). He draws attention to the prayer of Jesus between his baptism and the moment that “the Holy Spirit descended upon him.” This prayer, Grantham claims, corresponds to the laying on of hands for the receipt of the Holy Spirit. [6]
However, notes Bass, “Grantham recognized that there was a glaring problem with the passage—no one laid hands on Jesus. He attempted to alleviate the tension when he asked ‘for who durst pray for Christ that he might receive the Spirit?”[7] For Grantham, the most important point to realize is that Christ waited and prayed in between his baptism and the Spirit’s descent.
Next, Grantham identifies two instances of the rite in Acts 8:14–17 and 19:1–6. The eighth chapter records the fruit of Philip’s preaching in Samaria where a mass of people “listened eagerly . . . believed . . . [and] were baptized” (Acts 8:11, 12).[8] Yet these new converts did not “receive the Holy Spirit” until after “Peter and John” came to Samaria from Jerusalem and “laid their hands on them” (8:17). Similarly, when Paul later baptized a group of Ephesian disciples, it was not until he “had laid his hands on them” that “the Holy Spirit came upon them” (19:1–6). On the basis of these passages, Grantham concludes that the rite is “for the general donation of the Spirit to the disciples.”[9] That is, the rite is for universal administration.
Grantham finds a final description of the rite in 2 Timothy 1:6 where Paul speaks of “the gift of God” which Timothy possesses through “the laying on of my hands” (2 Timothy 1:6, 7). Rather than interpreting this passage as a reference to Timothy’s ordination (as in 1 Timothy 4:14), Grantham argues that this passage “speaks of things common to every Christian” (“power,” “love,” and “self-discipline”).[10]
Prescriptive Warrant
Grantham finds prescriptive warrant for the rite in Hebrews 6:1–2 where the author lists six “principles of the doctrine of Christ” including “[1] repentance from dead works, and [2] faith toward God, [3] of the doctrine of baptisms, and [4] of laying on of hands, and [5] of resurrection of the dead, and [6] of eternal judgement” (KJV).[11] Grantham believes that the fourth principle refers to the laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit, for it is referred to as “part of the milk of the word which belongs to those who are babes in Christ (Hebrews 5:12).”[12] As all believers were once babes in Christ, the rite belongs to all believers.
Historical Arguments
Certainly, Grantham believed that the Scriptures offer “sufficient ground” for the rite, and given his belief in the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters of faith and practice, this point was enough reason for believers to practice the rite in perpetuity.[13] However, Grantham highly valued the traditional beliefs and practices of the church.[14] Therefore, he enlisted the evidence of “Antiquity” to support his belief in the continuing validity of the rite.[15] To this end, he gave selected quotations from Tertullian, Clement, Cyprian, Jerome, Eusebius, Miltiades, Augustine, the Council of Laodicea, Gregory Nazianzen, and Theodoret in defense of the practice. For more recent support, he cited Erasmus, John Calvin, and Jeremy Taylor.[16]
Benefits for the Believer and the Church
Grantham unquestionably believed that the laying on of hands was both a biblical and traditional practice. Yet what did he believe was accomplished through the rite? Did not the regenerate believer have the Spirit prior to the ritual? Some of Grantham’s peers, Bass points out, gave a resounding No, teaching that “the initial indwelling of the Spirit took place through the laying on of hands.”[17]
Grantham, however, distinguished between “two ways of being filled with the Spirit. All Christians enjoyed one of the outpourings, while only those who underwent the laying on of hands experienced both the initial outpouring and a greater strengthening grace of the Spirit.”[18] He believed that the laying on of hands led to the increase of an already present Gift, what Bass calls “a greater strengthening grace” which has both individual and ecclesial implications.
Concerning the individual believer, Grantham mentions three benefits. First, Grantham posits, “Prayer with the laying on of hands is the way allowed of God for all Christians to seek for the promised Spirit, as well in respect of the sanctifying graces.”[19] Second, he explains that the rite is for a greater fructification of the particular gifts and general fruits of the Spirit.[20] Third, Grantham argues that the laying on of hands is “a service for the particular comfort of all Christians equally.”[21] The rite provides an outward sign of assurance that the Holy Spirit has been received inwardly.
Yet the benefits of the rite move beyond the individual to the whole church. Grantham first argues that the spiritual benefits received by each individual serve to edify the church and accomplish its mission. That is, spiritual gifts are ultimately for others’ benefit.[22] Next, he argues that the laying on of hands demonstrates the universal and egalitarian nature of divine grace. Against those who “may exclude women from the service of the fourth principle,” Grantham contended that the Scriptures promise the Spirit and his gifts to “all Christians both men and women.”[23] Finally, Grantham argues that the laying on of hands, like believer’s baptism, is “necessary to the right or perfect constitution of a true church.”[24]
A Contemporary Free Will Baptist Appraisal
Given that Grantham believed in true, spiritual benefits from the laying on of hands, Bass argues that the “laying on of hands is the greatest display of [General Baptist] sacramental theology.”[25] This point may give modern Free Will Baptists cause for concern. If the rite is sacramental, perhaps dispensing with the rite was proper. However, I think Bass’s strong assertion deserves two important qualifications. First, Grantham carefully distinguishes between the sign and the thing signified. “We know,” says Grantham, “that the sign and the thing signified do both remain; for the use and comfort of the Church; and why then should prayer, with the laying on of hands (which is the sign) be made void by the promise of the Spirit which is the substance.”[26]
Additionally, Grantham flatly rejects that the ordinance is “a ceremony ex opera operato.”[27] The Holy Spirit could not be given by the apostles in ancient times and cannot be given by elders today. Instead, the Holy Spirit is prayed for and received by faith. “Without faith,” writes Grantham, “the sacraments profit nothing.”[28] At most, Grantham expressed a more Reformed than Zwinglian view of the rite.
Nevertheless, I think that Free Will Baptists can retrieve the rite once more without adopting sacramental theology. In fact, Grantham opened the door for a memorialist position of the ordinance via an analogy to baptism. He highlighted the reality that sins are remitted before baptism but that “baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” continues as a practice of the church. Likewise, “who can forbid prayer with the imposition of hands for the free gift of the promised Spirit, even for those what have received a measure thereof already?”[29]
Just as we view baptism as a means of grace signifying the remission of sins, we can view the laying on of hands “as a means of grace that signifies the gift of the Holy Spirit.”[30] In this way, Free Will Baptists could reinstate the practice without sacrificing our view of the ordinances as it has developed over the past four centuries.
About the Author: Joshua R. Colson is the pastor of Brandon’s Chapel Free Will Baptist Church in Middle Tennessee, where he has served since 2016. He holds two degrees from Welch College (B.S., M.A.), and he is currently pursuing a second master’s degree at Vanderbilt University. He is interested in systematic theology, church history, politics, and all things related to golf and the St. Louis Cardinals.
[1]“The 1660 English General Baptist Confession of Faith,” in A Free Will Baptist Handbook: Heritage, Beliefs, Ministries, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Randall House, 1998), 135–36. The confession states “That it is the duty of all such who are baptized, to draw nigh unto God in submission to that principle of Christ’s doctrine, to wit, prayer and laying on of hands, that they may receive the promise of the Holy Spirit . . . whereby we may mortify the deeds of the body . . . and live in all things answerable to their professed intentions, and desires, even to the honor of him, who hath called them out of darkness and into his marvelous light.” Hereinafter referred to as “1660 Confession.”
[2]“An Orthodox Creed: Or a Protestant Confession of Faith,” in Thomas Monck, “Transcriber’s Preface to An Orthodox Creed: Unabridged 17th Century General Baptist Confession,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 48, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 157–58. The Creed states, “Prayer, with imposition of hands by the bishop, or elder, on baptized believers (as such), for the reception of the Holy, Promised Spirit of Christ, we believe is a principle of Christ’s doctrine, and ought to be practiced and submitted to by every baptized believer, in order to receive the promised Spirit of the Father and the Son.” Hereinafter referred to as “Orthodox Creed.”
[3]William F. Davidson, Free Will Baptists in History (Nashville: Randall House, 2001), 178.
[4]Clint C. Bass, “The Catholic Spirit of Thomas Grantham,” American Baptist Quarterly 32 (Fall 2013): 245.
[5]See Davidson, Free Will Baptists in History, 32–34; Cf. Michael R. Pelt, A History of Original Free Will Baptists (Mount Olive, NC: Mount Olive College, 1996), 22–24.
[6]Grantham, Christianismus Primitivus, 4.142. Cf. Thomas Grantham, St. Paul’s Catechism (London: Francis Smith, 1687), 42. Bass notes that Grantham borrowed this argument entirely from the Anglican theologian Jeremy Taylor (Thomas Grantham and General Baptist Theology, 133). Cf. Jeremy Taylor, A Discourse of Confirmation, in The Whole Works of the Right Rev. Jeremy Taylor, D.D., Vol. 11, ed. Reginald Heber (London: Ogle, Duncan, & Co., 1822), 234–38.
[7]Bass, Thomas Grantham, 133. Cf. Grantham, Christianismus Primitivus, 4.142.
[8]All Scripture references come from the New Revised Standard Version, unless otherwise noted. Additionally, concerning quoted material, I will not change the version of Scripture that authors include in their material.
[9]Grantham, Sigh for Peace, 18.
[10]Grantham, Christianismus Primitivus, 2.44.
[11]Owing to their belief in these doctrines, General Baptists, and later American Free Will Baptists, were sometimes referred to as “Six-Principle Baptists.” Further, the laying on of hands was called the “fourth principle” because of this passage.
[12]Grantham, Christianismus Primitivus, 2.46. Additionally, Grantham demonstrates that the rite follows baptism in the Hebrews list. Just as in Acts, believers receive the Holy Spirit after baptism by the laying on of hands, “the means which God hath provided for the obtaining that gift or promise” (A Sigh for Peace, 37). Interestingly, the twentieth century Baptist scholar G.R. Beasley-Murray argues that “it can hardly be doubted that in association with βαπτισμῶν (‘washings’) it [the laying on of hands] relates to the laying on of hands in Christian baptism. . . . Whereas the evidence of the Acts is too inconclusive to permit the inference that the rite formed an integral element in baptism from the beginning of the Christian Church and in all areas of its operation, it is evident that its inclusion in the list of cardinal elements of Christian faith shows that in communities in which the writer and his readers moved the laying on of hands was at this time an unquestionable feature of Christian baptism” (Baptism in the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973], 244). Seemingly then, Grantham’s arguments were not far off the mark.
[13]Grantham, A Sigh for Peace, 48.
[14]Well, at least when tradition aligned with his interpretation of Scripture. As Bass puts it, “Grantham’s view of tradition did not end in total dismissal. Rather, he cited tradition erratically, depending on his intent either to exploit the difficulties in his opponents’ arguments or to bolster the credibility of his own. Grantham viewed tradition as hopelessly inconsistent, but he was inclined to enlist the support of the Fathers and councils wherever they supplemented his biblical arguments. Scripture remained the sole authority, tradition being valid only derivatively” (Thomas Grantham, 30). I must thank my friend, Jesse Owens, for pointing me to this quotation via an article he wrote in 2014 (“Thomas Grantham: Christianismus Primitivus,” Helwys Society Forum, accessed December 10, 2019, http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/thomas-grantham-christianismus-primitivus/).
[15]Grantham, A Sigh for Peace, 48.
[16]Grantham, A Sigh for Peace, 49–51; Grantham, Christianismus Primitivus, 134–39.
[17]Bass, Thomas Grantham, 123–24.
[18]Bass, Thomas Grantham, 125.
[19]Grantham, Christianismus Primitivus, 41.
[20]Grantham, Christianismus Primitivus, 2.34, 35. Cf. Bass, Thomas Grantham, 126. Bass also highlights the fact that “unlike many of his contemporaries, Grantham rejected cessationism (Thomas Grantham, 127).
[21]Grantham, Christianismus Primitivus, 2.43.
[22]Grantham, Christianismus Primitivus, 2.39.
[23]Grantham, Christianismus Primitivus, 2.33.
[24]Grantham, A Sigh for Peace, 82. Indeed, Grantham argued that the Lord’s Supper should be restricted to those who had received both baptism and the imposition of hands. Cf. Matthew Ward, Pure Worship: The English Baptist Distinctive (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014), 137.
[25]Bass, Thomas Grantham, 126.
[26]Grantham, A Sigh for Peace, 29.
[27]Bass, Thomas Grantham, 124.
[28]Grantham, Christianismus Primitivus, 2.7.8.
[29]Grantham, A Sigh for Peace, 88.
[30]Pelt, A History of Original Free Will Baptists, 18.
Recent Comments