Christianismus primitivus, or, The ancient Christian religion, in its nature, certainty, excellency, and beauty, (internal and external) particularly considered, asserted, and vindicated from the many abuses which have invaded that sacred profession, by humane innovation, or pretended revelation comprehending likewise the general duties of mankind, in their respective relations : and particularly the obedience of all Christians to magistrates, and the necessity of Christian-moderation about things dispensible in matters of religion : with divers cases of conscience discussed and resolved / by Thomas Grantham ...

HOw hard a thing it is to bring those sacred Truths of the Gospel, to their due use and estimation in the Church, which have been abused by the corruption of the Ages past, those cannot be ignorant, whose Lot it hath been to labour in that glorious undertaking, which yet is more particularly made manifest at this time, by a late Book in∣tituled, A Treatise of Laying on of Hands. Wherein the Churches adhering to that Principle, are not only represented to the World as founded in Sin, Schism, Error, and Ignorance, by the Author. But the Principle it self also rendred Erronious, * 1.1 and presented to the World with such a robe of Folly put upon it by the vanity of Men in many Ages past, as may expose it to the Mockage of the Ignorant, who know not how to distinguish between Truth, and Mens sinful Adjuncts, wherewith it hath been incumbred; any more than the Souldiers who cloathed Christ in a Purple Robe, and when they had done, derided him. By which kind of dealing, it were easie for the Adversaries of other Truths, as Baptism, and the Table of the Lord, to disgrace them to the World, sith they also have been as much attended with Chrisms, Crossings, Creamings, Exor∣cisms, Exsufflations, Sponsors, Spittings, Saltings, and Superstitions, or Ido∣latrous

Adoratious, as this despised truth of Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, for the promised Spirit. All which sacred (and in their places precious) Truths shall yet be more fully restored to their Integrity and Estimation in the Churches of Christ, maugre opposition.

His Book consists of two General Parts, the first Historical, shewing the Opinion of other Men concerning the Laying on of Hands. The second Polemical, shewing his own Opinion in opposition to most Men in sundry important Particulars.

1. From the Historical part, with the Title Page, there is somewhat gain'd for the Truth, which he would destroy; whilst he tells us, An Ac∣count is given both from Scripture and Antiquity, how it hath been practised in all Ages since Christ. And beginning with the Scripture, he plainly sets down the use of that Service by the Apostles in several places, only he minceth the matter in respect of the end for which they observed it, as hereafter is shewed.

2. He proceeds to other Authorities, about whom he deals not so fair as might be wished▪ and likewise he seems too bold. 1. Not fair: Be∣cause he begins with a spurious Author, who would besmear the Truth in question, with Unction, or Chrism, in the first Age; and chiefly he in∣sists upon such Authors, and such passages in those Authors, who ex∣press something of their own, or others Vanities, in conjunction of Pray∣er, and Laying on of Hands, thereby designing (I fear) to make the thing in question, the less acceptable to the Reader. And having done thus, he labours to impeach the Imposition of Hands, (as now contended for) as if Antiquity were not on our side in this Controversie. For the first Testimony of any Credit (in his own Judgment) which is brought by him, is that of Calixtus, (alias Calistus) and having made him the Author of Confirmation, (which indeed he was not) he puts the Mark of Pope upon him, to make the cause he opposes still the more hateful: Whereas, though he were Bishop of the Roman Church about the Year 221, * 1.2 yet it is certain, the Popedom (as now commonly understood) had then no being in that Church. True it is, Calistus had his Mistakes, or Errors, as well as other Fathers, and yet some, whom the Author mentions with greater Estimation, had as great (or greater) Mistakes than he. However, all that can fairly be said in this case against Cali∣stus, is, that he helped forward the use of Oyl in the service of Prayer, with the Imposition of Hands; but Laying on of Hands, (called by some Confirmation) was in use in the Churches long before, as now I shall shew.

For sith we have Scriptures, Acts 8. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Acts 19. 6. 2 Tim. 1. 6. Heb. 6. 2. most clearly shewing the practice of Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, for the Promised Spirit, (we shall more fully demonstrate in our second Part) we shall not need to produce any other Witness for that Age; and for the second, we have better evidence than Dynis, or Justin Martyr's Responses. For Tertullian (whom this Author tells us he had quoted, pag. 26. but strangely mistakes himself, having not mentioned him, nor any Sentence out of him) is our Witness for the second Century, in which he lived and flourished in the Year 202, in the profession of Christianity, under Severus, and Antonius, and wrote

an Apology about that time for the Christians, and therefore must needs be able to give an account of the usage of the Church in the second Cen∣tury, his words are these: * 1.3 When we are come out of the Laver, [meaning Baptism] afterward the Hand is laid on by Blessing, [meaning by Prayer] calling upon, and inviting the Holy Ghost. And again, * 1.4 Like as in Baptism the Flesh is washed, that the Soul may be made clean; so in Laying on of Resurrect. Hands the flesh is over-shadowed, that the Soul may be illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

Moreover, We find in Eusebius expresly, * 1.5 Prayer, and Laying on of Hands on Persons to be united to the Church, called, The ANTIENT MANNER, and this was about the middle of this Century, or Age, wherein Turtullian lived, being in the days of Stephen, Bishop of the Ro∣man Church, Anno. 256. and here is not the least mention of Chrysm, * 1.6 or any vain Ceremony. Sith then that this Service is said to be Ancient at that time, it may well refer to the Apostolical Century, being but about 150 Years upward; however, it's full evidence for the Practice in the second Century, which is sufficient for our present purpose.

These Witnesses may also serve for the third Century, living (as be∣fore) both in the second and third, to whom we may add Urban, Bishop of the Roman Church, whose words as cited by the Author, are very harmless words (abating the term Sacrament, &c.) which be these: That the Sacrament of Confirmation be immediately given after Baptism, and that all the F•…•…ful are to wait for the Spirit, by the Imposition of the B. Hands.

* 1.7 Cyprian also, who flourished about the middle of the 3d Cent. gives Te∣stimony to the Practice now contended for, saying, It is to little purpose to lay Hands on them [that returned from Heresie] unless they receive also the Baptism of the Church, for then at the length they may be sanctified perfect∣ly, &c.

For the fourth Century, though enough is done by this Author, to shew they were for Prayer, with Imposition of Hands after Baptism, for the Spirit of Promise; yet sith their Witness may be more clearly set down, I will add somewhat in that behalf.

And how ever Melchiades is * 1.8 Popisied, yet his Doctrine is not so dangerous as pretended: For when he saith, Baptism, and Imposition of Hands, are to be joyned together, he is very consonant to the Apostles Practice, Acts 8. and to their Writings, Heb. 6. 2. And when he saith, The one is not to be done without the other, his meaning may be honest. As if a Man should say, You ought not to observe one Ordinance alone, but keep them all. And his saying, The one is not perfect alone: If he mean, that the perfection of one Ordinance is not such, but that we have need of the rest, all is well enough still; but if he mean Baptism, as such is not perfect without the other, then for my part I think otherwise. But sup∣posing him mistaken in some things touching this Matter, yet sure his Er∣rors were as tollerable as theirs, that would destroy the thing altogether.

* 1.9 Jerome (who flourished Anno 390, under Valentinian junior, does not only say, That it is the Custom of the Church, that upon the Baptized Hands should be imposed: But he also saith, It's an observation Apostolical, (which he might well say, Acts 8. Acts 19. 2. 2 Tim. 1. 6.) And plainly saith, It is found in the Acts of the Apostles.

* 1.10 Augustine, who lived 395, in the Reign of Theodosius, informs us, That Hands were laid upon Hereticks (returning to the Church) for the uniting of Charity, which is the greatest Gift of the Holy Ghost. Which well agrees with the Author, who brings him in, saying, Imposition of Hands after Baptism was necessary for the Gifts of the Spirit.

Thus much for the Fathers. We shall now observe briesly, what Mr. D. hath brought out of the Councils, touching the point in Controversie.

* 1.11 And first, I observe, He fronts his List of them, with the Council of Laodicea, Anno 315, rather than with the Council of Eliberius, which bears Date (even from his own Pen) five Years before the other; the Reason is manifest. For though the first set down speaks not a word of Imposition of Hands, or Confirmation, yet it mentions Chrism; and the other speaks plainly of Imposition of Hands, but mentions not Chrism. Therefore that the Reader might more stumble at the Truth in hand, he hath occasion given to do so by the strange Phrases of the Council of Lao∣dicea; and yet this Author pretends to take up the stumbling-blocks out of the way of God's People.

Well, for matter of Fact: However these Councils may witness for the Imposition of Hands (at least that of Eliberius) in the 3d and 4th Centuries, they living the greatest part of their Time (probably) in the third. That we have much elder Evidence than this, may, I conceive, be fairly collected (yet I will speak under Correction) from the 72 Epi∣stle of Cyprian, written to Stephen, Bishop of the Roman Church, * 1.12 about 50 Years before the Council of Eliberius; in which one Reason rendred, why the Council of Carthage before that time had concluded for the Baptizing of returning Hereticks, is grounded upon the unprofitableness of Imposition of Hands without it; which shews that both this Council and Cyprian approved thereof. Now add that forecited out of Eusebius, * 1.13 That in the Days of this writing between Cyprian and Stephen, Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, was called the Ancient Manner, &c. Then we infer, that here were Fathers in this Council with Cyprian, who were sufficient evidence for the Practice contended for, for the second Century. For if there were any at that Council aged 70, or 80 Years, they then had lived so much of their time in the second Century, as to be able to attest of their own knowledg the Practice now called Ancient. And for the first Century, the Scripture is our Canon. So then, we have sufficient evidence from Scripture, and good Antiquity, that this Truth began to be practised in the Apostles Days, and continued in the Chur∣ches for four hundred Years together; (not without Corruption creep∣ing into it, I grant, and alas! that was the case of most Truths, as well as of that.)

It were needless to proceed to the following Ages, from which more plenty of Testimonies may be produced, the Church encreasing, and

Records being more carefully preserved, than they could be in the first Ages, yet here I will add that notable Testimony of the Council of Mentz, or Moguntine, who saith: † 1.14 In the begin∣ning, the Sacrament of Confirmation was exhibited only by the Imposition of Hands, the Holy Ghost ap∣pearing by evident Signs, there was no need of out∣ward Anointing. The same is testified, Intervil. chap. 16. The Sacrament of Confirmation was celebra∣ted in the beginning only with the Laying on of Hands. And saith Alex. de Hales, The Apostles confirmed with the only Imposition of Hands, without any certain form of Words, or outward Element. Thus the purity of Truth in this, as in other Cases, is evidenced even by those that have not kept it in the Purity thereof. Now whereas I said, this Author was too bold, &c. my meaning is in this, That he so confidently tells us, the Greek Church did reject Imposition of Hands, &c. and that the Waldenses did the like; for such Negatives are hard to be demonstrated. For what if some, or many of them did reject it, yet if many, or some of them did receive it, what then is become of this Negation? That they did reject (or at least many of them) the Popish Sacrament of Confirmation, in respect of divers usages therein, I can readily believe, but that they did reject Prayer, with the Laying on of Hands for the Promised Spirit, I see no good reason to believe: Partly, for that we have an account from a great Antiquary of the form of Words, and of the Prayer used by the Greek Church, in their Imposition of Hands, translated out of the Greek Euchologian: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Thou, O Lord, the most Compassionate and Great King of all, graciously im∣part to this Person, the Gift of thy Holy, Almighty, and Adorable Spirit.* 1.15 Partly, for that some of the Gre∣cian Bishops are certainly found to approve of Prayer, with Laying on of Hands; as Eusebius for example: Who not only Records it (as I shewed before) for the Ancient Manner of the Church, but also reckons it amongst the Errors of Novatus, for that he slight∣ed the Imposition of Hands, for the obtaining the Holy Spirit, lib. 6. chap. 42. From whose neglect, it's like his Followers (whom this Author so highly commends) did also lightly esteem it to their own reproach; and the ill example of Mr. D. and others, in this and former Ages.

* 1.16 Again, Gregory Nazianzen, and Theodoret, both Grecians, are alledged by the said Antiquary, as giving evidence for the Truth in Controversie; calling it, A holy Mystagogy, wherein they that are initiated, receive as in a shadow, the invisible Grace of the most holy Spirit.

I have not the History whence this Author fetches the Testimony con∣cerning the Waldensian Brethren their rejecting Imposition of Hands; nor need much be said to it, sith from the very Passage alledged by him, it appears not that they were Enemies to Prayer, with putting on of Hands for the Promised Spirit, but only of those Vanities wherewith it was incumbred in the Papacy.

For to say nothing of the slender evasion of that Testimony born by some of them to that Truth, alledged pag. 27. which is no better an Ar∣gument than if he would prove us his Brethren, not to be of the Bap∣tized Churches, because we presented to King Charles the Second an Apology, or Confession of Faith, wherein we asserted Laying on of Hands, and the General Point, or Christ's Death for all Men; when yet divers of our Christian Brethren, no less fearing God than our selves, do oppose us in both Particulars, and print against us. Yea, in their Addresses to Authorities, do present (perhaps) something contrary to us in these Particulars. What then? Are either they, or we therefore to be accounted none of the Baptized Churches? God forbid. In like manner those called Hussites, are not to be denied to be Waldenses, because of some variation about Imposition of Hands; sith it's evident, such diversities have befallen in one thing or other, the most serious Christians in every Age. But I say, to let this pass,

* 1.17 The very passage cited out of Paul Perrin, pag. 329. &c. proves not that for which it is brought, for the things denied in that Sentence, are: First, That the Sacrament of Confirmation was instituted by Christ; meaning the Popish Sacrament, they having occasion only to witness against that. Secondly, That Christ was not Confirmed in his own Person. Meaning in the Popish way of Chrism, &c. * 1.18 [For that he prayed, and that the Fa∣ther (who only could seal him) did seal him with the Holy Ghost im∣mediately after his Baptism, is evident; and so he was Confirmed in his own Person.] Thirdly, That Baptism is perfect without that Sacrament. Hereby only rejecting their conceit that think, or make it an appurte∣nance of Baptism. That this only is their meaning, is evident. For, say they, God is blasphemed by it. 2. It was introduced by the instigation of the Devil, to seduce the People, and deprive them of the Faith of the Church. 3. To draw them to believe Ceremonies, and the necessity of Bishops. [Meaning doubtless Lord Bishops, &c. and not the Overseers of Christ's poor People.]

But surely, No Man can imagine that those Waldenses were so Mad∣headed, to say, or think; that Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, for the Spirit of Promise, according to the Example of the Apostles, simply so considered, and as the next priviledg to holy Baptism, was introduced by the Devil! No, himself is not offended thereat, pag. 51. And truly, should the Waldenses have had such a meaning, their Testimony for our Churches Succession, would be very inconsiderable.

Wherefore (to suppose some of them ignorant of what some Churches in this Age do know concerning the simplicity of this Practice, having so continual occasion from the Papist to be scandalized against it) shall this plead for you to follow them in that particular? I tro not. Our Fore-fathers may find that tolerable in the Day of Judgment, which we shall not find so, having the advantages which they were not acquainted with. Wherefore, though it be the unworthy design of this Author, in the Historical part of his Book, to make the Imposition of Hands (as now contended for by his Brethren) to be originally a Papistical, Babylo∣nish, and Antichristian Ceremony, not used by the Greeks, or any other

Churches differing from the Papists, (except our late Reformers, some of them) yet this being little more than his bare word; it may be suffici∣ent to ballance him with the Testimony of Dr. Jer. Taylor. Who saith,

* 1.19 That Laying on of Hands, was firmly believed by all the Primitive Church, and became an universal Practice in all Ages; the Latine Church and the Greek always did use it. — It was Ancient, and long before Popery entered into the World; and this Rite hath been more abused by Popery than any thing. And to this Day the Bigots (or Jesuites of the Roman Church) are the greatest Enemies to it, and from them the Presbyterians.

Yea, such is the evidence of this despised Truth, that Mr. Calvin, a Man sufficiently (and yet justly) sharp against Chrism, and such Vani∣ties; yet is constrained to own the primitive use of this Ordinance, (so I call it) and desires once and again it were restored; and because the Author hath not fully set down his words, I will here recite them. * 1.20 Such Laying on of Hands (saith he) as is done simply, instead of Blessing, I Praise, and would that it were at this Day restored to the pure use thereof. And again, I would to God we did keep still the manner which I have said, to have been in Old Time. Calv. Instit. l. 4. c. 19. S. 4. and S. 13. To whose good desires, we may joyn those of Hommius, and the Leyden Professors, set down by Mr. D. pag. 27. viz. That this business of Confirmation, was drained from Antichristian mixtures, both as to Name, Nature, Matter, Form, Administrator, and Subject also. From all which it's remarkable, That there hath been as holy Breathings after the Restoration of this pre∣tious Truth, as other of the Paths of Righteousness; and therefore the more intollerable it is for this Author, or any other now to oppose them∣selves against it, being now as graciously restored to its pure Use in many Churches of Christ, as any other Ordinance whatsoever.

So that by this time I hope it is apparent, how little reason the Author had to ask this insinuating Question, pag. 32. Is there not good ground, think you, to suspect the justice and truth of that Cause that cannot otherwise be de∣fended, nor maintained, but by suborned Witnesses, and Knights of the Post? For truly, as these Witnesses are not suborned, but in the rank of Hu∣mane Testimonies for matter of Fact very considerable, so neither is it true, that there are no better ways to maintain this Truth, seeing the Divine Authority of this sacred Truth standeth not upon Man, but upon the Word of God; as we have in some former Treatises, and shall now again in our second Part, further demonstrate.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The Princi∣ple is this, viz. The promise of the Holy Spirit which God hath made, and Christ obtain∣ed for the Church under the New-Te∣stament, and Prayer, with the Laying on of Hands as the way of God for his People where∣in to obtain it.
• * 1.2

  Euseb. Hist. lib. 6. c. 20.
• * 1.3

  Tertul. de Baptismo.
• * 1.4

  Tertul. de Resurrect.
• * 1.5

  Eusebius lib. 7. cap. 2.
• * 1.6

  And for the Ʋnction men∣tioned in Ter∣tul. de Bap. its shewed by the Learned Protestants to be that which was used at Bap∣tism, and not at laying on of Hands.
• * 1.7

  Cyprian.
• * 1.8

  Sure I am, in this Mans days, both Christians and all Men, had free liberty to serve God as they see they ought, this Man not seek∣ing to hinder it, which is not like the Popes of our days. He go∣verned the Roman Church, Anno 312. and it certainly gratifies the Papists too much, to acknowledg Popes to have been ever since the time of Clement, as Mr. D. is plea∣sed to do, pag. 7.
• * 1.9

  Jerom.
• * 1.10

  Augustin.
• * 1.11

  Conc. Laod.
• * 1.12

  Conc. Elib.
• * 1.13

  Cyprian.
• † 1.14

  Sacramentum Confirmationis ab initio sola manuum Impositione, ex∣hibitum: Nam cum initio Spiritus Sanctus, ad evidentiorem recentis ad hine fidei Confirmationem signo visibili influerit confirmatis, externa Ʋnctione tum opus non erat.
• * 1.15

  The form of words used in their Confirmation, is so far from a rejection of all that the Pa∣pists hold in that Point, that they seem to have too great affinity therewith, viz. Sigillaros primo sclicet unctos unguento Chrismatis & signantes eos dicimus sigillum doni Spiritûs Sancti.
• * 1.16

  Greg. Naz. Theodor.
• * 1.17

  Perrin.
• * 1.18

  Luke 3. 21, 22. Job 6. 27.
• * 1.19

  Dr. Taylor.
• * 1.20

  Calvin.