 |
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
Chapter Eight
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
William Perkins (1558-1602) and Richard Sibbes
(1577-1635) were the first English theologians to connect Paedobaptism
directly with the infant's interest in the
covenant.1 This single theme undergirds the majority of counter-arguments presented in
response to Tombes. It must be understood in order to appreciate the
presentations of the Covenantal Paedobaptists. A sample from
Sibbes's The Faithful Covenanter lays the foundation. Many years prior
to the dispute with Tombes, answering his own rhetorical question,
"But what if they (meaning infants) have not baptism, the seal of the
covenant?", Sibbes wrote:
That doth not predjudice their salvation. God hath appointed the
sacraments to be seals for us, not for himself. He keepeth his covenant, whether we
have the seal or no, so long as we neglect it not. Therefore we must not think if
a child die before the sacrament of baptism, that God will not keep his
covenant. They have the sanctity, the holiness of the covenant. You know
what David said of his child, 'I shall go to it, but it shall not return to me;' and
yet it died before it was circumcised. You know they were forty years in
the wilderness, and were not circummcised. Therefore the sacrament is not
of absolute necessity to salvation. So he is the God of our Children from
conception and birth.2
The words of Sibbes are informative. A number of
points need to be extracted from the preceding, and some propositions
stated to define covenantal paedobaptism: (1) Baptism is not necessary
for salvation; therefore it is not of the essence of salvation; (2)
Baptism is a seal for man, not for God; therefore the work of God is not tied
to the act of baptising; (3) In some sense, children are related to
a covenant from conception and birth; therefore they may receive
baptism. Baptism is not essential to salvation. Baptism is a seal to man.
Children have a natural right to the sacrament-they may be baptised.
Sibbes went on to explain how this was consistent with
the emergent covenantal theology. He asked another pair of
rhetorical questions, "But how can God be the God of our children, when they
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
are born in corruption, children of wrath?" and "Can they be
the children of wrath and the children of God both at one time?"
He answered:
I answer, Yes; both at one time. For even as in civil matters, in our city
here, a man may be a freemen of that city, and yet be born lame or leprous, or
with some contagious disease-this hindereth not his freedom-so the children of
a believing father and mother may be freemen of the city of God, and in
the covenant of grace, and yet be tainted with original sin, that overspreadeth
the powers of the soul notwithstanding.
Whence we see a ground of baptizing infants, because they are in
the covenant. To whom the covenant belongs, the seal of it belongs; but to infants the covenant belongs; therefore the seal of it, baptism, belongeth to
them.3
The significance of Sibbes and this citation is twofold: (1)
Sibbes does not offer a biblical citation or analogy for the
practise, but an earthly one; (2) Sibbes's words have a familiar air about them.
This is the form of the argument used to give paedobaptism its
foundation and the obverse of which Tombes used in his first
application of his foundational argument against the same. When he
examined the infant's interest in the covenant, he offered the positive
argument of Sibbes with slight alterations in terminology. Tombes
argument was:
Major premise: To whom the Gospel-covenant agrees, to them the
sign of the Gospel-covenant agrees also.
Minor premise: But to Infants of Believers the Gospel-covenant agrees,
Conclusion: [A]nd consequently
Baptisme.4
Tombes's argument against paedobaptism engaged this basis.
He showed why the gospel-covenant did not belong to infants. His
argument for the practise was planted on the foundation of the
positive institution. All of the interaction with his contemporaries relates
to one or both of these disputable points.
Sibbes's implicit syllogism is expressed here in similar
premises within the form used for Tombes's arguments in this work:
Major Premise: To whom the covenant belongs, the seal of it belongs;
Minor Premise: [B]ut to infants the covenant belongs;
Conclusion: [T[herefore the seal of it, baptism, belongeth to
them.5
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
Sibbes and Tombes did not share the same meaning of "covenant".
This was a significant difference.
During the time of Archbishop Laud, there was a
reversion back to a view of infant baptism as having efficacy in the mere act
of the sacrament ex opere operato. The major antagonists to
Tombes's position did not follow that line of thought. They follow the
Reformed or Calvinistic theological reflection which attempted to
find a new basis for an old practise. The new basis became the
infant's interest in the covenant of grace via analogy from the
Abrahamic Covenant to the New Covenant. Sibbes called baptism a seal,
Tombes a sign.
A New Basis
There was a great deal of anti-Catholic sentiment
amongst the Puritans in seventeenth-century England. They were trying
to purge or purify Romanist elements from the worship of the
National Church. This tendency amongst the religious establishment of
the Puritan movement (and the Reformed movement on the
continent) helps to explain why a new basis for "Right Baptism" was needed.
Catholic doctrine held to a form of baptismal remission or
regeneration codified into their theology since the time of Augustine.
Where the Reformed took Augustine's doctrines of Grace, they
repudiated his conclusion, that grace is tied to the efficacy of the sacraments.
Therefore a new basis for operative grace was sought.
In 1642 a controversy erupted that considered whether
baptism through Roman Catholic succession was valid. Since the
prevailing view amongst the Reformed was that the Pope and all
he represented was Antichrist6, baptism coming from the rule of
Antichrist was also questioned. This gave rise to much turmoil.
The Council of Trent was definitive as regards baptism.
They stated, "If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the
mother and teacher of all churches, there is not the true doctrine
concerning the sacrament of baptism, let him be
anathema."7
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
They likewise codified baptismal regeneration with this
statement:
If anyone says infants, because they have not an active faith, are not to
be reckoned among believers after they have received baptism, and must
therefore be baptized when they have attained to the years of discretion; or that
it would be better that their baptism were omitted than that they, while not
believing with their own act, should be baptized in the faith of the Church
only, let him be anathema.8
Theologically, the quest was to find a new basis for the
practise of infant baptism. Historically, most of the Reformed
persuasion in England had sought some continuity with Rome rather
than submit to a rebaptism (anabaptism).
The primary protagonist and antagonist in the discussion
of Baptism succeeding from "Antichrist" were Praisegod Barebone
and Robert Barrow respectively. The full title of the major work
describes the debate and concerns of the side arguing for historical
continuity. Barebone wrote A Discourse tending to Prove the
Baptisme in, or under The Defection of Antichrist to be an Ordinance of
Jesus Christ. As also That the Baptisme of Infants or Children is
warrantable, and agreeable to the word of God. Wherein the perpetuity
of the estate of Christs Church in the world, and the everlastingnesse
of the Covenant of Almighty God to Abraham are set forth as
Maine Grounds, and sundry other particular things are
controverted.9 The entire discussion focused on whether infant baptism was a
church ordinance brought about by the traditions of men, or an
apostolic tradition received through divine guidance. Barebone
concluded, "The whole answer to this darling quaere [querie] is but according
to the injunction of the Apostle after the defection".
Barebone
saw himself and those holding to his position as those who were
keeping apostolic tradition as the Apostle Paul had taught the
Thessalonian Church to "Standfast and keep the instructions yea have been
taught by word and Epistle".10 Barebone as a Paedobaptist shows that
there was continuity between the practise of the English Paedobaptists
and that of Rome, a point not contested by other Paedobaptists in his era.
Barebone's defence is significant. He was co-pastor of a
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
church in London with Henry Jessey. Jessey came
to antipaedobaptistic convictions in 1641.11
Half the church retained Jessey as their pastor while the other half designed themselves
as "...the church that walks with Mr.
Barbone".12 This divergence
brought about the first Particular (Calvinistic) Baptist Church ever to
exist.13 Therefore Barebone's objections to a change in doctrine and
practise were not merely ideological, they were practical the presence
of controversy in his ministry compelled him to examine the issues.
The controversy was a part of his calling and ministry one that
had already brought schism to the church where he ministered.
There was a personal element to Barebone's defence. However, there
is also a divergence in the basis for which he continued to practise
infant baptism. He did not follow the practise as received from
Rome and defined by Trent but from the apostles without respect to
Rome, granting his own perspective. This touches on the right origin
of infant baptism and plays into the concern of Tombes.
From Perkins and Sibbes Puritanism received the
foundation for the infant's interest in the Covenant of Grace, from
Barebone they got historical justification via apostolic tradition without
respect to the institution of perpetuation. Barebones was able to distance
the infant's interest in the covenant from the high sacramentalism of
the Laudian Church.
An Attempt at Retrospection
Laudian high sacramentalism was fueled via
retrospection to Roman doctrine. The major work during the intervening
period which attempts to speak for the Anglican Church gives the
writer's purpose: "The following treatise endeavors to lay open and
make good the efficacy of Sacred baptisme, in respect of Regeneration:
in which the greatest ought more to rejoice then in the
greatest prerogati[v]es on earth".14
Burges sought a via media between the "Augean stable of Popish absurdities" and the "new" ways. He wrote:
Some ad[v]ance Baptism too High: Others depress it much too low .
There are, that hold it so absolutely necessary, as that none might be sa[v]ed without
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
it. On the contrary, there are, that in scorne call it Elementish water.
Others, that thinke it a thing indifferent; and deny it to infantes, notwithstanding
that to them belongs the kingdome of God: Others that make it a bare signe,
and badge to distinguish the members of the visible Church from the rest of
the World, some in tearmes, yeeld it to be somewhat more; yet deny to it all
present efficacy in, & [u]pon infants, ordinarily, in the act of administration.
Some grant an efficacy, but such as is equally communicated to all infantes that
are outwardly baptized. Some admit the efficacy of it [u]nto remission of sinne
in Infants elect: but, any present worke of the spirit, [u]nto Regeneration in
them, they either flatly deny, or refuse to acknowledge. Against all these errors, and
particularly against the last, the Church of England hath justly opposed
her selfe, in her Publique Doctrine, for the defence whereof ha[v]e I taken
[u]pon me this difficult province.15
Burges had the seeds for synthesising the two ways. He
could have opted for a Calvinistic soteriology applied to the status of
infants by virtue of God's election. If he had allowed for an
antinomy between the work of God and the ceremonies of man, he would
have resolved the matter for the Paedobaptists. He could have allowed
for remission and regeneration to be applied by God to elect infants
and those only. He would have solved the question of those who
fall away for one reason or another in an appeal to their standing
before God touching divine election. He did not. He continued to
show that baptismal regeneration through baptism was a necessary ideal
to be maintained-election would be realised upon the contingency
of baptism. He could have left the efficacy to be yet future and
potential rather than tied to the act in time.
The "Publique Doctrine" was the
Thirty-nine Articles, the confessional base of the National Church. These were the
points Burges was seeking to make satisfaction with for the reading public.
The pertinent points were:
Original sin stands not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do
vainly talk) but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that
are engendered of the off spring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone
from original righteousness and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that
the flesh lusts always contrary to the spirit, and therefore in every person
born into this world, it deserves God's wrath and damnation. And this infection
of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
flesh called in Greek fronhma
sarkov (which some expound, the wisdom, some sensuality, some the desire of the flesh) is not subject to the Law of
God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are
baptized, yet the apostle does confess that concupiscence and lust have of
themselves the nature of sin.16
And:
Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby
Christian men are discerned from others that are not christened, but it is also a
sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby as by an instrument, that they
receive baptism rightly are grafted into the church; the promises of the forgiveness
of sin and of our adoption to be sons of God, by the Holy Ghost, are
visibly signed and sealed; and grace is increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the church, as
most agreeable with the institution of
Christ.17
In general, Burges's work turns out to be a commentary
on the stated position of Anglicanism in line with the
Thirty-Nine Articles during the end of the
1620s.18 Laud turned the Church's
eyes back towards Trent in the next decade. The Puritans of the
1640s (except most noticeably for Thomas Blake) returned to the
covenantal Calvinism of Sibbes and Perkins. Tombes attempted a return
to Christ and his institution of baptism.
Tombes looked at four types of biblical texts: (1) Texts
that mention baptism and those with actual faith; (2) Those that
mention baptism without mention of infants or children; (3) Those that
mention infants or children without any consideration of the baptism
of children or infants; (4) Some that mention none of the above.
Within Tombes's concerns for sola scriptura and
scriptura mensura, three of these categories were irrelevant to him for the main discussion.
These categories of authoritative Scriptures are the proof texts
used to attack his doctrine of baptism as a sign for those with actual faith.
Opponents of Tombes's Antipaedobaptism
Where Tombes viewed baptism as a sign of actual faith,
there were four distinct paedobaptistic views represented in the responses
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
to Tombes's provocative and prolific pen. They were: 1. The
infant's interest in the (Abram/Abrahamic) covenant; 2. Infant inclusion
by virtue of Church membership within a conditional covenant; 3.
A conduit of primary grace; 4. An outward, yet inwardly
efficacious seal. The representatives of these views were respectively: 1.
Marshall and Geree; 2. Baxter; 3. Bedford; 4.
Blake.19 The opposers of antipaedobaptism were not monolithic as was made clear by
Tombes's practical arguments. Marshall and Baxter were the two
significant disputants, in that they provided a new foundation upon
which paedobaptism would be understood. The theology of baptism was
in a state of flux. Bedford and Blake wrote against Baxter as
vehemently as they did against Tombes. Baptism became a dynamic
doctrine rather than a static one. It continued to evolve through
discussion. It would be forever changed for all who looked back to
the Protestantism of Puritanism. Baxter and Marshall are therefore
the two major opposers to be considered in this context. They are
the ones responsible for the evolution of covenantal baptismal
theology in the seventeenth century. Others may prefer another term for
accuracy, devolution.
The Infant's Interest in the Covenant Marshall
This was the foundation for paedobaptism which
Tombes scrutinised in his initial presentation to the Westminster Assembly.
It was therefore the view that appears in the original replies.
The most substantial replies representative of this view are from the
pulpit and pen of Stephen Marshall and in two written works of
John Geree.20
Geree and Marshall are contrasts in style and Christian
charity. Geree considered Tombes to be one questioning infant
baptism out of a "simple perswasion that it is a corruption without ground
in Scripture" and "for fear of polluting their consciences with
wil-worship". He noted Tombes's desire to not "break off" from
"Christian affection, nor communion."
He understood Tombes's conviction
to be a matter of conscience. For that Geree gave his respect while
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
engaging the issues.21
Marshall gave no benefit of any doubt; he went after
Tombes with force, even though he stated his intention as otherwise.
Marshall stated his intent, "Truths triumph and the Churches peace I have
in mine eye, and have desired to carry meeknesse and love even to
him, whose opinion I fight with...."22
Just a handful of pages later, with inflammatory rhetoric typical of the age, Marshall wrote:
But since you think it necessary to deprive the Infants of Beleevers, of
that which wee conceive to bee their glorious priviledge; yea, and looke upon
all other endeavours of Reformation, as things which will come to nothing,
till this opinion of yours prevaile (so dearly you love your Babe) and come
out into the field so bravingly, and giant-like, to tread down all who stand
against your way: I have (with the Lords assistance) undertaken your pompous
Treatise; and as farre as my impaired health, and other services would
permit, indeavoured to bring your Examen to the tryall, with as much brevity
and clearnesse as I could possibly; and I hope also, with so much evidence
of truth, that there shall be no need of a Colledge to make any further
answer unto you. Wherefore I shall not (as you have done) carpe at every phrase and
expression, nor digresse into impertinent Discourses, thereby to swell up
a volume, nor abuse the Reader with multitudes of Quotations of Latine
and Greek Authors, and then turn them into English; nor frame as many senses
of an expression as is possible, and then confuse them, and so fight men of
straw of mine own setting up; nor spend a whole sheet of Paper together, in
confuting what was never intended by my Adversary, as the Reader shall
clearly perceive you have dealt with me: but plainly grapple with you, and
insist onely upon what properly belongs to the cause at
hand.23
Marshall further indicted Tombes by equating his method
with that of the "Socinians" and "Papists" because Tombes sought to
allude to all texts of Scripture that bore upon the subject. He
also failed to disabuse Tombes for his use of "ergo" in popular
argumentation. It does not appear to be "meeknesse", nor "love"
driving dialogue, but personal vendetta.24
The first and foremost offense taken with regard to the
doctrine and practise of infant baptism was that Tombes's position
would cause the "casting all beleevers Children as much out of the
Covenant of Grace, as they did to the Children of Turks and
Pagans...."25
The inference drawn was that "beleevers Children" ought to have
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
been considered as in the "Covenant of Grace". Marshall's
starting point was manifest. His theological presupposition was
exposed without specific definition being given.
Marshall went on to show how the Church Fathers
viewed baptism as actuating regeneration, or the new birth. He
counterbalanced the criticisms of Tombes and justified the use of the
"ancients" for the cause of
paedobaptism.26
The first rejoinder dealing with a biblical text was a
brief look at Titus 3:15 and the connection between two parallel
types-washing and new birth. Although this was in the context of the
thinking of Iranaeus, Marshall saw these as pointing to baptism. He
concluded, "And the Analogie between washing in Baptisme, and
regeneration, lies in that custome of washing Infants from the
pollutions of the wombe when they are first
born".27
Marshall worked through all of Tombes's alledged
citations and proofs from the Church Fathers in order to turn them to
his paedobaptist advantage. At least, it counterbalanced the weight
of Tombes's presentation. Where Tombes undermined their
credibility with problems of a technical nature, Marshall sought to exegete
their meaning from the originals, which he often included in his
presentation.28
There were four summary conclusions made by Marshall
from the historical evidence. They were:
First, Baptisme is primarily and properly the Sacrament of our new birth,
the washing of regeneration, which is done but once, the Sacrament of
our insition[sic] into Christ, which is done but once; the Sacrament of our
admission into the new Covenant, and partaking of the benefits of it, and
(although many of those benefits and priviledges are repeated and augmented, yet)
we have but one admission to them.
Secondly, in no place where the Institution of it is named is there
any mention, directly or by consequence, of any repeating of it, nor any
order taken about it; whereas in the other Sacrament, we have a quotiescunque
in the very Institution.... And mee thinks this Argument should move you
whose principle is, that nothing should be done about the Sacraments, but what
we have either institution, or example for.
Thirdly, Baptisme succeeds Circumcision,
Wch was but once administered any more, as is cleare to mee not onely from the silence of the Scripture,
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
but out of Josh. 5.4. &c. Where the Holy Ghost is pleased to give this as
a reason, why Joshuah Circumcized the Israelites in Gilgall, viz. Because
all the Circumcized were dead; intimating that had they been Circumcized
already, it should not have been done againe. Beside, by Gods institution it
was tied to the eighth day unlesse you can find another eighth day after the
birth beside the first, you will never be able to justifie it from being a breach of
the institution.
Fourthly, to this I might adde the uncontrodicted custome of all the
ancient Church, with whom it was numbered among Heresies to reiterate
a Baptisme, which was acknowledged to be valid: Indeed Cyprian and his
fellow Bishops baptized such as had formerly been baptized by Hereticks, but
it was onely because they thought the Baptisme administered by Hereticks
not to bee true Baptisme. What weight these things have with you I know not;
the judicious reader will consider of them.29
The first summary was consistent with Tombes's
understanding of the New Covenant. For him, baptism pointed as a sign
to actual faith and therefrom inclusion in the New Covenant. In
the second, Tombes saw the proper institution and proper
administration of the sign as instituted positively in Matthew 28:19. Marshall
and Tombes were speaking with a common vocabulary about
uncommon ideas. In the third part, there were admittedly some
similarities. Circumcision was a covenant sign for those actually in
the Abrahamic covenant as baptism was a sign for those who are
actually in the New Covenant, according to Tombes's perspective.
The parallel went even farther. Tombes insisted that baptism be
administered as a sign to those with actual faith, which is where he
located regeneration, he baptised after the new spiritual birth, not the
new physical birth (This baptism could be understood as
spiritualised paedobaptism). Marshall assumed greater continuity because
he added another covenant, the Covenant of Grace. Again, the
opponents spoke past each other. Tombes read his concept of the
Gospel-Covenant or Evangelical-Covenant into the words Covenant of
Grace as used by Marshall. Yet, Marshall had a very different meaning.
The fourth point was moot for the discussion. Tombes was not
arguing that infant baptism was a legitimate sacrament. It may have
been called baptism, but it is not baptism essentially unless rightly admin
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
istered. Therefore it was not actually rebaptism. It merely
appeared to be. Cyprian and the Sixty-Six Bishops justified Tombes's
position that not all baptisms are truly baptism.
Marshall argued for the infant's inclusion in the New
Covenant by way of the similarities with the covenant of grace and
the analogical use of the sign from the Abrahamic Covenant.
Tombes argued for New Covenant inclusion because of the operations of
the Evangelical Covenant demonstrating to whom the sign of the
New Covenant should be given.
One summary argument and five conclusions were
offered by Marshall in another context. These five show the structure of
his understanding of the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace and its
significance for the controversy. The summary argument read:
My first Argument is this, The infants of beleeving Parents are
Foederati30, therefore they must be signati; they are within the Covenant of grace,
belonging to Christs body, kingdom, family; therefore are to partake of the seale
of his Covenant; or the distinguishing badge between them who are under
the Covenant of grace, and them who are not. 31
Since parents were in covenantal relation to Christ, so were the
children. Therefore they should have been given the sign of the
covenant.
Marshall went on "for a better clearing of this whole
Argument".32 They were:
First, that the Covenant of Grace hath alwayes, for substance, been one
and the same.
Secondly, God will have infants of such as enter into Covenant with
him, bee counted his, as well as their parents.
Thirdly, God hath ever since Abrahams time, had a Seale to be applyed
to such as enter into Covenant with him.
Fourthly, by God's own order, the Seed, or Infants of Covenanters
before Christs time, were to bee sealed with the seale of admission into his
Covenant, as well as their Parents.
Fifthly, the priviledge of such as are in Covenant since Christs time,
are as honourable, large and comfortable, both to themselves and their
children, as they were before Christs time: and these five propositions made good,
the argument will be strong and undeniable.33
Here is incipient Platonism on the part of Marshall. Behind each
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
historical manifestation of a covenant (e.g. Abrahamic, New
Covenant) there is "His Covenant" which is to be understood as the
Covenant of Grace, an eternal heavenly Covenant giving the
particular covenants their form or essence. The Covenant of Grace is the
defining Covenant. It overrides the identity of the particular
covenantal manifestations.
Implicitly, when Marshall wrote about the
New Covenant, he included essential characteristics from the
theological construction of the Covenant of Grace with aspects from
the Abrahamic into the New.
When he wrote, "been one and the
same" he admitted different manifestations of one covenant. In the
manifestations of the one covenant, Christians are to find one
substance one consistent expression. Tombes did not argue from this
perspective. He saw the form and the matter as being in the historical
covenants, via an incipient Aristotelianism that locates the form
and material aspects of a thing in the thing itself. Similarities and
dissimilarities among covenantal administrations give the
individual covenants their character for Tombes and a derived essence
for Marshall. This single point is the primary point of contention
within the polemic not just between Marshall and Tombes but among
the majority of those who engaged the debate over the subjects of
baptism, then and in ensuing centuries. Yet the philosophical
underpinnings behind or beneath the respective views remained and
remain unchallenged for the most part.34
In their defence, it is a modern post-Kantian notion to
examine the philosophical underpinnings or presuppositions of ideas.
This underscores the need to examine both the subjective context
wherein a debate occurs as well as the quest to know objective truths
about that idea. All discourse is an intermingling of the
phenomenological and ideological. The modern theologian may dismiss Tombes
by stating Tombes had no biblical justification for his syllogistic
argumentation.
Marshall continued with a justification for his notion
about the Covenant of Grace. Herein the subtle platonising tendency
within the framework of intermingling covenants is discerned in
greater detail. He wrote:
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
The first is, That the Covenant of Grace, hath alwayes been one and the
same, both to the Jewes and to the Gentiles. Which to understand, know, that
the new and living way to life was first revealed to Adam, immediately after
his fall, and that blessed promise concerning the Seed of the woman was
often renewed, and the Patriarchs faith therein, and salvation thereby, recorded
plentifully in the Scripture: but the first time that ever it was revealed under
the expresse name of a League or Covenant was with Abraham, and
therefore wee shall need look no higher then his dayes: who because he was the
first explicite Covenanter is called the father of the faithfull, and ever since
clearly hath all the World been divided into two distinct bodies, or families; the
one called the Kingdome, City, Houshold of God, to which all who own the
way of life, were to joyn themselves; and these were called the Children of
God, the Sons of Abraham, the Children of the Kingdom: All the rest of the
World, the kingdom of the Devil, the Seed of the Serpent, strangers from the
Covenant of Grace, without God in the world,
&c.35
Therefore, the first explicit occurrence of the Covenant of
Grace comes with Abraham. The first mention of a covenant in
connection with Abraham is in Genesis 15:8. Yet in Marshall's description
and definition this covenant with
Arbaham36 is clearly mingled with language taken from the promise in Genesis 3:15-16. Between
those two narratives a covenantal structure is found with reference to
Noah and his household. Since an antitype mentions Noah explicitly in
1 Peter 3:20-21,37 Marshall's selective use of the Genesis
covenantal language is provocative. The antitype makes a direct
connection between an important practise and the efficacy thereof without
the mediation of the idea of a Covenant of Grace, namely baptism.
Marshall continued to define the substance of the
Covenant of Grace after he distinguished it from the manner or
administration of the same. He argued in this way:
...[T]he substance of the Covenant on Gods part was, to bee Abrahams
God, and the God of his seed, to bee an al-sufficient portion, an al-sufficient
reward for him, to give Jesus Christ to him and Righteousness with him, both
of Justification and of Sanctification, and everlasting life. On Abrahams part the
substance of the Covenant was, to believe in the promised Messiah, to
walk before God with a perfect heart, to serve God according to his revealed wil,
to instruct his family, &c.38
The administration of the Covenant of Grace was defined with
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
these words:
The manner of administration of this Covenant at the first, was by types,
and shadows, sacrifices, &c. And foure hundred and thirty years after, the
Law was added with great terrour upon Mount Sinai, not as a part of this
Covenant, but as the Apostle saith expressly, it was added because of Transgressions,
to bee a Schoolemaster to whip to Christ: Plainly in that giving of the Law,
there was something of the Covenant of works made with Adam in Paradise; yet
in order to the Administration of the Covenant of grace, there was a rehearsal
of the Covenant of works, under which all men lie by nature, until they be
brought under the Covenant of Grace: and this was delivered with great terrour,
and under most dreadfull penalties, that they who were prone to seek
justification in themselves....39
Tombes rejoined:
If you should say that these promises were types of spirituall and
heavenly things, the reply is, that though it be true, yet the things promised were
but carnall and earthly, as the Sacrifices were but carnal things, though
shadowes of spiritual.... It had been convenient to have named Circumcision, that it
might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the
Covenant.40
Marshall fought for an understanding where a
spiritualised Covenant of Grace gave form and manner or substance and
administration to subsequent manifestations of the Covenant of Grace,
excluding the Mosaic Covenant as a manifestation of such.
Since Abraham and his descendants physically received the sign of
the Abrahamic Covenant as a manifestation of the Covenant of
Grace, children of the spiritual heirs of Abraham's legacy ought to also
share in the covenantal sign. For Tombes, this entailed the continuity
of circumcision alone-an ordinance for a time and restricted to the
Jews. Tombes sought to allow only a spiritualised application of
carnal elements to spiritual descendants alone. It is his notion of
"Straightened grace". The Gospel-Covenant was made with those who
have actual faith analogous to the faith for which Abraham was
commended (Genesis 15:6) in Romans 4. A faith was present in justification
and sanctification prior to his own prototypical circumcision: an
important point lost in the debate. Differing foundations with
overlapping vocabulary gave way to divergent views. What was a sign of actual
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
faith in the theology of Tombes was a sign and seal of potential
faith in the reflection of Marshall.
Tombes gave a clearer statement of his criticism of this
position in his Short Catechism: a genre that lent itself to being
understood by the general reader where the tedious polemical works
did not. His argument in this area is still to be contrasted
with paedobaptistic belief and practise. Tombes would not allow any
stones to be laid for an alternative foundation. He wrote regarding the
Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant and these issues in six
questions and answers.
Quest. 20. Had it not been a discomfort to the believing Jews to have
their Children unbaptized, and out of the Covenant?
Answ. The want of Baptism to Infants was never any grievance to
Believers in the New Testament, nor were they thereby put out of the Covenant
of Grace.
Tombes based his answer on an argument from silence.
Quest. 21. Was not the proper reason of Circumcising the Infants of
the Jews the interest which they had in the Covenant to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. to
be a God to him and to his seed?
Answ. The end of Circumcision was indeed to be a token of the
whole Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17.4,5,6,7,8. not only the promise,
ver. 7. But the formal proper distinguishing reason why some were to be
Circumcised, and others not, was God's Comand alone, not the interest in the
Covenant; sith Ishmael who was not a Childe of promise, Gen. 17.20.21.
Rom. 9.6,7,8,9. and those who were in Abrahams house, though not of his
Seed, were Circumcised, but no Females, nor Males under eight days old.
For Tombes, circumcision represented an obligation to keep the
whole covenant, not just the promise. Marshall looked to the promise
as derived from his understanding of the Covenant of Grace, since
God was to be his people's God and they were to be his people.
Marshall thought himself justified in using the promise of the Abrahamic as
a promise in the Covenant of Grace. Tombes continued:
Quest. 22. Was not the Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. the Covenant
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
of Grace?
Answ. It was, according to the hidden meaning of the Holy Ghost,
the Evangelical Covenant, Gal. 3.16. But according to the open sense of the
words, a Covenant of special benefits to Abrahams inheriting natural posterity,
and therefore not a pure Gospel Covenant.
Tombes applied his basic argument in a subtle manner. There
were two aspects of the Covenant that hath testimony in Scripture.
Therefore his idea of a "mixt" covenant was maintained: physical
promises for natural descendants; spiritual for spiritual. Tombes went
on to explain this distinction as regards the objection of the
typical Paedobaptist.
Quest. 23. Are not Believers Children comprehended under the
promise, to be a God to Abraham and his seed? Gen. 17.7.
Answ. No: unless they become Abrahams seed according to Election of
Grace by Faith.
Herein was the consistent application of Tombes's view in a
rigid way. "Seed" should be understood as a Spiritual entity when
applied to Gentiles. When "Election of Grace by Faith" was found,
there Abraham's spiritual descendants are found. To further explain
the use of circumcision and the lack of analogous use for his own
age, Tombes added:
Quest. 24. Did Circumcision seal the Gospel Covenant? Rom. 4.11.
Answ. That text speaks not of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams,
which sealed the righteousness of faith he had before Circumcision, and
assured thereby righteousness to all, though uncircumcised, who should believe as
he did.
Tombes did not understand there to be any efficacy in
circumcision beyond a sealing function to Abraham alone. It was a mere
sign looking back to a particular promise to Abraham. This answer laid
a foundation for his criticism of the Church's use of the sacraments
as seals of the Covenant of Grace. He continued:
Quest. 25. Are not the Sacraments of the Christian Church in their
nature, Seals of the Covenant of Grace?
Answ. The Scripture doth nowhere so call them, nor doth it mention this
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
as their end and use.
Tombes's use of the initial argument is foundational to all of
these contentions. What has no testimony in Scripture was to be doubted.
If any belief or practise was found to be additional baggage on
the road to doctrinal discovery, it must be
discarded.41
Tombes and the Covenantal Paedobaptists could not
agree on a theological starting point. They used the same or similar
vocabulary with very different concepts behind it. Therefore,
the Paedobaptists like Marshall, Geree, and their ilk, did not
understand why Tombes was so entrenched in his concern. Marshall could
not comprehend why Tombes was willing to lose his living at the
Temple Church.
Two parties need a starting point and common definitions
to the concepts used in any debate. Tombes established a new
paradigm. He saw it as a recovery of what was ancient. His
opposers perceived it to be an innovation. At least it was an attempt to
recover what was ancient based on a new understanding sharpened
against the edge of covenantal paedobaptism, itself a new development.
This underlying disagreement on a starting point and vocabulary
affected all of the interaction between Tombes and those who were
puritanistic looking back to Sibbes and Perkins. The process would be slow
and tedious; however, Tombes's basic syllogism offered a starting
point from which slow deliberate discussion could have taken place.
All the disputants saw the Christian Scriptures as the authoritative
source for their position. It was the legitimacy of inferential
argumentation driven by other prior concerns that caused departure and
misunderstandings. Each side held rigidly to their theology, not granting
the conclusions of the other. Their writings filled many pages, yet
their words failed to persuade. A second generation saw the
difficulties with a rigid application and sought to modify the hardline
application of the Covenant of Grace.
Infant Inclusion within a Conditional Covenant -Baxter
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
Richard
Baxter42 was the prototypical proponent of the
second significant challenge to Tombes's position. He was a
theological innovator who sought to sythesise opposing views on many
matters theological and practical. He admired many theologians for
taking "a middle way".43
Baxter's baptismal theology was a middle way wherein
he sought to mediate between a mechanical view of the sacrament,
as found in the Thirty-Nine Articles and The
Tridentine Decrees, and the rigid and unconditional covenantal structure found in Sibbes
and Marshall.44 He set out a view that allowed for the "Covenant" to
be viewed as conditional.45
As a pastor, he knew well the problems
associated with the issues. He was driven by the real life
phenomena of his ministry in Kiddeminster. He was compelled also to seek
out the right ideas, as he had once questioned the basis for paedobaptism.
In Baxter's last work on the subject, he presented the
clearest case for his position and sought to pacify his "Godly and
Peaceable" friends. He assured the world that he could exist in harmony
with theological dissenters:
Two sorts of Persons called Anabaptists I can live in friendly concord with,
as with most I hold Communion with: First, those that deny not the
Covenant-Rights, and Church-Relation of the Infants of Believers, confessing them
to be Holy; but only think that their Baptism, being but the solemnization
of their foregoing Covenant, and publick Investiture of them in Relation, may,
as the Coronation of an Infant King, be deferred till they come to some
understanding, of which minde were Tertullian and Nazianzene. Secondly,
those that being in doubt only the Sufficiency of Lawfulness of Infant-Baptism,
do receive a second or a third Administration (as some Marryed by Justices
Lately, were married again by Ministers... ...To satisfie their Doubting
Consciences, and then live in peace, and orderly Communion afterwards with other
Christians, as knowing that in Christ Jesus neither Circumcision availeth,
nor Uncircumcision, but a new Creature. I say none of these shall be more
willing of loving Communion with others, than I shall be with
them.46
Baxter's primary objection to the first kind of Anabaptist was
that they "excludeth all mankind from any Visible Right, or Hope of
Salvation till Adult". This objection was in line with his pastoral con
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
cern that parents not be kept "from that intelligent and
serious Covenanting with God, in the solemn dedication of their Children
to him". Adding the condition of covenanting to this general
principle, implying that administering the rite of baptism to children was
not an absolute right by natural birth, and therefore disrupting the
strict analogous connection between circumcision and baptism,
Baxter wrote:
...[T]hat no Parent shall be suffered in the Church to enter his own Child
into the Covenant of God, nor to speak one Covenanting, Promising,
undertaking, nor dedication word...But that Godfathers and Godmothers, who never
give us any cause to believe that one of many thousands of them take the Child
for their own, nor ever purpose to Educate him, or do what there they Vow
and Covenant to do, must be the only Covenanting Undertakers, and so that
so much notorius false Vowing to God, or Perfidiousness, must defile our
Baptism....47
It was in personal contact with Tombes and his followers
from Bewdley that Baxter distanced himself from the strict analogy
between circumcision and baptism looking to a future expression
of faith. He believed, as summarised by Tombes, "...[T]hat he averres
a visible Church-member-ship in infants of godly parents before
circumcision was institituted, and from thence he would inferre
infant baptisme.48
Baxter did not want to deny baptism to all infants and
children as the "Anabaptists" did. He wanted to add a condition
for those who were brought. This condition was driven out of a
twofold pastoral concern that there be no mere ceremony wherein the
sureties transgress by making vain oaths, and that the covenantal seal
not be withheld from those in the covenant. To deny baptism to all
who were not adults for Baxter was "a principle designe of Satan to
mortify... Christendom".49 He saw the parents who are faithful to
the Covenant as those who may bring their children for the seal of
the same. A conditioned use of this means of grace.
Baxter's "middle way" was an attempt to bring unity to
the Church. He eschewed those who would "...[T]urn the Sacrament
of our Union into the occasion of our great Division...." He saw unity
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
as "Essential to the Church" using the metaphor of comparison
to what "Union of Stones and Timber" are to a house, and what
"Kings and Subjects" are to a kingdom, unity is to the
Church.50
Twenty-six years after his public debate with Tombes,
Baxter professed his thankfulness for the practical implications of the
baptismal dispute. He stated, "...[T]hey are greatly beholden to
Gods Providence in permitting the Anabaptists to call us so lowd to
the serious consideration of of[sic] our baptism...." This brought an
examination of the essence of baptism and the form as expressed in
the ceremony and participants. This was an historical innovation
that evoked displeasure from many of Baxter's contemporaries. He
codified his perspective in the "Baptismal Covenant" used in
the Kidderminster Church. He saw the "Touch-stone" as being
"sincere grace" and where the "right to Church Communion" must be
examined.51
Part of the innovation was an appeal to "Anabaptists" to
dedicate their children, a waterless baptism, pointing to covenant
realities. This was possible for Baxter because he believed there to be
no saving efficacy in the act of baptism. It sealed what was
already present. He wrote:
9. To the Reconciling of men herein, I have oft shewed, that If our
childrens part of the Covenant of Grace upon their Parents dedication of them to
God, and so their Church-membership, were but yielded, the rest (whether
they should actually be Baptized with Water) would be much less cause of
our distance and alienation, than on both sides it is usually judged. Yea, if
the Anabaptists would but say, [I Dedicate this Child to God, as far as he
hath given me power, and heartily desire that God may be his Father, Christ
his Saviour, and the Holy Ghost his Sanctifier:] And did ever any of you
provoke this to be a sin? And we are ready on our part to profess that
[Infant-Baptism will save none at age that consent not to the same holy
Covenant.]52
For Tombes, baptism was a sign of actual faith which made one
fit for church membership. For Baxter, it was a seal of actual
infant inclusion in the covenant and therefore church membership.
Some similarities yet many differences remained. Baxter saw nothing
potential in the act of baptism. Recipients of baptism were understood
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
as actually in the covenant and part of Christ's Church prior to
the act. There may be further actualisation when they came of age
as evidenced in the use of "may be" in the preceding citation. This
put him at odds with his Puritan contemporaries who saw it as an
actual sign of a potential salvation. However, he felt the tension inherent
in paedobaptism between actuality and potentiality and sought
to synthesise the views for the sake of unity in the universal
English Church. The irony is this: he gave a tertium quid for others to follow.
What was intended as a base for actual unity was potentially
divisive.
Baxter set up a parallel analogy from Christology to
demonstrate that infants were capable of church membership from birth.
He asked, "At what age he began to be Christ and the Churches
Head" and "at what age he began to be God?" He continued:
And if an Infant was capable of being the Head, King, Priest, and
Prophet Relatively, though yet he had never Ruled, Sacrificed, or Taught, then there
is nothing in the Infant Age, which maketh it uncapable of being Members,
Subjects, and Disciples of Christ....53
What was potential for infants in the covenant was the fuller
realisation of the promises given just as Christ became the "Head, King,
Priest, and Prophet" in a fuller sense progressively during his public
ministry, life, passion, death, ressurection and after his ascension.
The language of actualisation is found in Baxter's own words.
When summarising his pastoral concerns while displaying a
number of implications for the uses of the doctrine, he wrote, "Now I
apply this, I. Actual and Habitual, Love and Obedience, is in the
sanctified Adult by the Indwelling Spirit; for Actual Love and Obedience
is Their Duty, which the Habit is joyned to". In the infant there are
but potential and weak habits. These accompanied by the work of
the Holy Ghost are made "strong, confirmed and radicated". He
adds, "In heaven alone there is full Perfection".54
Baxter's conditional covenant sought a spiritual
explanation and application to those who are born of natural descent to
spiritual, or sanctified, parents. By virtue of their parent's pledge in faith,
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
children were considered as actually covenanted with God in
the Covenant of Grace. Children were to be understood as members
of Christ's Church actually and therefore were to receive the seal of
the Covenant, namely baptism. This work showed his mature
thinking, yet it is a work with which Tombes never interacted. Tombes
died soon after the publication of the complete Review. Tombes had
sought to understand Baxter's position earlier in the decade of the 1650s.
Tombes and Baxter wrote, debated and talked past each other.
Neither understood the subleties of the other's position or
argumentation. Tombes did not grasp the change in Baxter from an
unconditional covenant with an effectual act to a conditional covenant
with an ineffectual act. Therefore Tombes found many discrepancies
in Baxter's own writings. Tombes criticised Baxter's views as if
they were the mainstream Puritan position, and Baxter criticised
Tombes without understanding his theology of children that was
subsequent to an understanding of baptism. Baxter's practical and pastoral
concerns were a veil in the dispute. His practical concern was for
unity in theology in order to see a greater recovery of Christianity
during the interregnum. His pastoral concerns were to not take away
the seal of a pre-existent covenantal relationship between God,
godly parents and their offspring.
Theologically, at times it appears
that Baxter held to two types of mediators in the New Covenant,
Jesus Christ and godly parents. Baxter, however, referred to the
"covenant" and "covenant-rights" in singular terms. This is consistent with
the platonisation of covenantal usage in the century. Baxter saw
Tombes as perverting the use of baptism and vice versa.
Although the two disputants had some similarities in the
way they conceived the doctrine, there were great dissimilarities. In
an interesting twist of the use of authorities, Tombes used the
definition of a church from the Thirty-Nine
Articles to refute Baxter's contention the infants were members of the visible
Church.55
Tombes did not see infants as disciples because they
were not included in the positive institution of Christ as found in
Matthew 28:19. Tombes allowed for infants to be numbered among the
elect, coming to actual salvation in space and time. As infants, they were
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
not yet numbered among the visible church. They were not yet
capable of the realities and evidences necessary for an outward
ordinance confirming an inward reality, the presence of actual
faith.56 What was potential in Tombes's schema was that election
entailed calling. Whom God had elected, he would assuredly call.
Infants who were elect would certainly realise their personal calling at
some point in life.57 In contradistinction, Baxter would allow for infants
to be members of the visible church although incapable of the
outward evidences at that age and realities confirming the presence of
actual faith. He presumed regeneration and remission to be already
actually present. He would expect the realities of covenantal
responsibilities to progress out of the "all" that was potentially
symbolised by the seal of the covenant.
The foundational difference of opinion was one of how
the Covenant of Grace or Gospel-Covenant was to be constructed
theologically. Therefrom came the question of its use in additional
theological reflection of any sort. The other exegetical, theological
and practical matters were secondary issues as they were built on
the divergent bases for the primary theological construction the
Covenant of Grace. Again, a common vocabulary was present yet it
was packed with radically divergent meaning. Baxter modified the
basic covenantal structure through qualification and added condition;
however, the same unspoken problems exist: With whom does God
covenant? How does a person know whether he is in Covenant
with God? Are corporate aspects of salvation brought to the individual
or does individual grace bring the individual to the body? Is baptism
a sign that faith is now present? Or a seal pointing to a latent reality?
How one defines the Covenant of Grace will determine the
answers to a plethora of questions. One's understanding of covenantal
framework will paint responses to exegetical questions, it will make
one select historical data to support a position, and it will inform
how one applies what he understands in pastoral ministry and church life.
Since the underlying essential issue was never resolved, the
multitude of queries were never answered.
It is in Baxter's last work previously cited that he is clear in
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
his definition of the conditionality of the covenant. In his
published replies to Tombes, twenty years earlier, this was only implied as
Baxter addressed the idea of an infant's Church membership and its
covenantal connection. Therefore, one argument and its corollary
applications are needed to show what Baxter considered his strongest
argument at that time. In this argument there is an overlap in
vocabulary and meaning without a meeting of the minds. He wrote:
I intended to have handled but one other Argument to prove the baptizing
of infants a duty; which is drawn from the necessity of Parents solemn
ingaging their children to God in Covenant; thus.
If it be the duty of all Christian Parents solemly to engage their
children to God in Covenant (whereby they are engaged to the Lord as their God
in Christ, and God again doth Covenant to take them for his people) and
they ought to do it in Baptism, which is the mutual engaging sign: But it is the
duty of all Christian Parents solemnly to engage their children to God in the
aforesaid Covenant. Herefore they ought to do it in Baptism, which is the
engaging sign. The Anteceedent (that Parents are bound so to engage their
children) besides the express Text, Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. & 26. I would have proved
from many other Scripture Arguments. The Consequence, (that therefore they
must do this by Baptism) I should also easily and fully have proved, there being
no example in all the New Testament of doing it without; and baptism being,
as Mr. T. Confesseth, appointed to that very end; viz. To be a mutuall
engaging sign between God and his people. But my painful sickness commands me
to cut short the work; and I know men love not to be tired with large
Volumes; and it is not number of Arguments that must do it, but the strength. If there
be strength but in any one, it is no matter if the rest be weak and wanting.
And besides, there is enough said already by men more able than my self:
Therefore I shall adde no more of these; but briefly answer the most common
Objections.58
Baxter asserted it a "duty of all Christian Parents to
engage their children to God in Covenant". His authority for this was an
Old Testament passage dealing with specific covenantal
administrations given to Israel in Moab and Horeb and a reference to Tombes's
confession that baptism is "...a mutual engaging sign between God
and his people". Tombes did not see the infants of believers as
included in the term "his people". Tombes believed:
As for that he (Baxter) saith in general termes, that I deny that God covenanteth
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
with infants of believers to be their God in Christ, and to take them to be
his peculiar people, is said like a Calumniator, my words being so plaine to
the contrary in that very place. In a word, I have said that the Covenant or
promise of regeneration, sanctification, forgivenesse of sins, adoption, and
eternal life is not made to all the natural children of the most godly believers, no
not of Abraham himself, or to any barely because they are their children, but
because elect, or believers in their own persons, which Mr. M. and Mr. Geree
in their answers to me confesse to be true, as being expressly delivered,
Rom. 9.8. And by the streame of Protestant writers maintained. But I deny not
that many infants of believers are in the Covenant of Grace: nor dare I say that
no infants of unbelievers are in the Covenant of Christ in this sense: I onely
say that I neither know which of the one or the other are thus in the Covenant
of Grace. As for the arguings that he that denies Infant baptisme doth deny
them to be in the Covenant of Grace, thay are built on these fancies that to be a
seale of the Covenant of Grace is of the essence of baptisme, that there is a
certain connexion between being in the Covenant of Grace and right to be
baptized.59
Tombes did not deny that some infants of believers might
be in the Covenant of Grace; but he was cautious about presumption.
Since he did not know the secret elective counsels of God, he did
not presume to know who would be found with actual faith; he did
not know the identity of the elect. Baxter thought the logical
conclusion of Tombes's thought was a universal denial of access to infants
of believing parents from the Covenant of Grace. Both Tombes
and Baxter professedly held to baptism as a sanctifying grace, rather
than a salvific one, in that it sealed a faith that was already present.
However, Tombes saw Baxter's conditional covenant as part of
Baxter's questionable doctrine of justification imposed on his baptismal
theology.60
Whatever had no testimony in Scripture was strongly
doubted by Tombes. Unless clear and convincing evidence was found to
countermand the doubt, he discarded the proposition whether it be
his own or brought by others. Tombes did not find specificity in
Scripture as regards a full-orbed doctrine of the Covenant of Grace.
Therefore, he was dubious against using it as the absolute starting point
for his theology of baptism. He believed there was such a thing
that existed as a theological construction, but he preferred to use the posi
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
tive institution of Christ as the starting point for baptism. The
Covenant of Grace would be realised when those who would respond
to the message preached would come through discipleship wanting
to be baptised. It was those in whom the secret counsels of God
became known who were to receive the sign of their actual and
evident faith. Discipleship and baptism were inseparable sanctifying
graces for those in whom was manifested their covenantal inclusion. It
was not for any potential benefit. It was an actual sign of actual faith
in actual operation.
Marshall set the stage for Federalism to become a force
in English, especially in Puritan, theological reflection.
Baxter legitimised an emerging individual expression within the
theological disciplines. Baxter's long life gave him a greater influence
among his contemporaries, where Marshall's ideas have endured in
many forms and many writers throughout the intervening three
hundred and fifty-plus years.
Westminster's Legacy
The main organ that codified Marshallesque views for
subsequent generations of those in the Reformed tradition was
the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646). In the
Confession are six explicit references to the Covenant of Grace. There is a
twofold understanding to be gleaned from such an examination; 1. The
use of this term gives insight as to how the Assembly of Divines
understood the concept; and, 2. It demonstrates the confessional
basis upon which further theological reflection occurred amongst the
Reformed Community in England and Scotland. It had a later effect
in America after Presbyterians moved to the Colonies.
In Chapter Seven, Paragraph Three, the Divines stated:
Man, by his Fall, having made himself uncapable of Life by that
Covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a Second, commonly called the Covenant
of Grace; wherein he freely offers unto sinners Life and Salvation, requiring
of them Faith in Him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto
all those that are ordained unto Life his holy Spirit, to make them willing and
able to beleeve.61
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
The Assembly contrasted the Covenant of Grace with a
Covenant of Works in the preceding paragraph. The Covenant of
Grace was the second covenant made by God with mankind. Since the
first parents sinned, bringing God's displeasure and judgment, an act
of God was needed to redeem anyone. In the theological construct,
the Covenant of Grace, it is God who offers life and salvation to
sinners on the condition of faith, promising to those ordained to eternal
life his Holy Spirit which ensures their personal calling and belief.
To receive salvation, one must enter the covenantal relationship.
One paragraph later, the
Confession continues:
This Covenant of Grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of
a Testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to
the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein
bequeathed.62
Those who penned the paragraph merely tie the theological
construction of the Covenant of Grace to the explicit language and
metaphors of the Scriptures.
Paragraph Five lays out the dissimilarities admitting
"This Covenant was differently administered in the time of Law, and in
the time of the Gospels...." Its primary focus, however, was on the
elect and how their sins were remitted.63
Moving from the old administration of this Covenant to
the new, it is in the subsequent paragraph where the Covenant of
Grace is tied tightly to baptism among other ordinances. It reads:
Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the
Ordinances in which this Covenant is dispensed are the Preaching of the Word, and
the Administration of the Sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper:
Which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less
outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and
spiritual efficacy, to all Nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the
New Testament. There are not therefore two Covenants of Grace, differing in
substance, but one and the same, under various
dispensations.64
In the Gospel era, according to the
Confession, there are at least three ways one can enter the Covenant of Grace: (1) Preaching
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
heard and received; (2) Baptism; and, (3) The Lord's Supper.
The next explicit mention of the Covenant of Grace is
found in Chapter Fourteen, Paragraph Two. While explaining the
nature of "Saving Faith", the work states:
By this Faith, a Christian beleeveth to be true, whatsoever is revealed in
the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and, acteth
differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth;
yeelding obedience to the Commands, trembling at the threatenings, and imbracing
the Promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal
Acts of saving faith are Accepting, Receiving, and Resting upon Christ alone
for Justification, Sanctification, and Eternall Life, by virtue of the Covenant
of Grace.65
Covenantal inclusion is virtuous for the acts of saving
faith because of the one, God, who established the Covenant of
Grace (7.3). Therefore, the desire for others to enter into this
relationship with God, especially one's children and one's nation, could have
been a powerful motivation driving the subjective aspects of
theological reflection. All who are to experience salvation must first have
experienced one of the "Ordinances (7.6)" preaching heard and
received, baptism or the Lord's Supper.
Added to this were the notion of covenantal infallibility
and certainty. In Chapter Seventeen, Paragraph Two, the
perseverance of any particular believer is stated to rest, in part, on the Covenant
of Grace. The paragraph reads:
This Perseverance of the Saints, depends not upon their own free-will,
but upon the immutability of the Decree of Election, flowing from
unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit, and intercession
of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit; and of the seed of God within
them; and the nature of the Covenant of Grace: from all which, arises also the
certainty, and infallibility thereof.66
The theology of final endurance depends on two equally
important theological ideas: (1) The Elective decree; and, (2) The
Covenant of Grace. The phrases following "Decree of Election"
are best understood according to the conventions of grammar at that
time, to be appositions, explaining the trinitarian nature of the decree of
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
election in harmony with a view to the unity and simplicity of
the Godhead. In theological terms, the council amongst the Trinity
has been distinguished from the Covenant of Grace by the term the
Covenant of Redemption.67 In this Covenant of Redemption, the
Father, Son and Spirit all had a part in the eternal decree to elect unto
life and salvation. The "seed of God within them" is that which
marked out the elect for real-time experience of salvation. All of this
comes from the nature of the Covenant of Grace and infallibly so. This
is the "life" part of the promise of "salvation" in Paragraph 7.3.
With all of this theology in the background, the framers
of the Westminster Confession used the terms again in relation to
the sacraments, especially baptism. Applying this theology to the
broader idea, they effectively synthesised two terms packed with
theological meaning:
Sacraments are holy Signes, and Seals of the Covenant of Grace,
immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ, and his benefits; and to confirm
our interest in him; as also, to put a visible difference between those that
belong unto the church, and the rest of the World; and, solemnly to engage them
to the service of God in Christ, according to his
Word.68
The locus classicus given for the first clause was
Romans 4:11 where sign and seal are used in the same
context.69 In that passage, it was the sign that sealed. In the
Confession, sacraments are signs and seals giving to them a synonymous relationship
where the text shows the relationship to be synergistic. Yet, the meaning
is ancillary to the point of the paragraph. The focus was that
sacraments mark out those who are in the Church from those who
remain in the World. Without the sign or seal of the Covenant of Grace,
one would have been considered an infidel or a reprobate, unengaged
in "the service of God in Christ, according to his Word". Through
the visible act of taking a sacrament (or the sacraments) grace was
conveyed: a distinguishing grace of identity with Christ. In and of
themselves, the sacraments were powerless. The efficacy in
sacraments and preaching depends, ultimately, upon the secret work of the
Holy Spirit.70
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
This was applied explicitly to baptism in the next chapter
of the Confession. Introducing baptism, the Divines wrote:
Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament, Ordained by Jesus Christ,
not only for the solemn Admission of the party baptized into the Visible
Church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace, of
his ingrafting into Christ, of Regeneration, of Remission of sins, and of his
giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which
Sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until
the end of the World.71
Baptism signifies and seals to the one baptised a number
of realities: (1) Engrafting or union with Christ; (2) Regeneration;
(3) Remission; and, (4) A life lived unto God, through Christ. Any
so baptised were expected to live a life consistent with these four items.
Marshall saw these as potential realities in those baptised where
Baxter saw these as actually present in the same. In order to distance
themselves from ex opere operato, the Westminster Divines added a
statement to that effect.72
Most Antipaedobaptists of all ages often miss an
important point in the covenantal paedobaptist schema. That is the
statement which defines a possible delay in the reception of the real
benefits signified in baptism. That statement reads:
The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time, wherein it is
administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this Ordinance, the
grace promised, is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the
Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age, or infants) as that Grace belongeth unto,
according to the Councel of God's own Will, in his appointed
time.73
The Westminster Confession of
Faith has a well contructed doctrine of the Covenant of Grace. It is, however, a theology
of accommodation to the various ways in which the Covenant was
understood at the middle of their century. Therefore it is an
implicit repudiation of high sacramentalism and antipaedobaptism while
presenting a vague (and therefore weak) doctrine of the Covenant
of Grace the important paedobaptist starting point. It is vague
because it allowed for many different views to affirm one standard
expression.74 It is weak because it did not sort out and answer the
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
question of the nature and outworking of the Covenant. It
never dealt with an important seventeenth-century distinction between
the internal and external aspects of covenant inclusion. In the last
citation above, there is an implication that baptism is both, in that
efficacy is not tied to action in time. The statements from which
the Westminster doctrine of the Covenant of Grace are gleaned do
not state what actually transpires in paedobaptism, contrasted with
what potentially will or may occur. It is important for parents and
clergy to know whether the baptisms of the little ones in their care
have actually procured grace or have a vague notion of grace confirmed.
Is baptism something that is real with a real nature and some
substantive content, or is it an ecclesiastical fiction? Is there any
efficacy? If so, what is it? They do call it a sign and seal,
bringing together disparate terms. Yet, these terms go undefined. There is
no statement as regards the efficacy of baptism. If it has real
effects, what are they? Are the cause of these effects found in the past
(God's decrees), the present (in the act), or in the future (contingent
upon the habit of faith)? These questions were left for the individual
reader to infer. Such inferences were based on a confessional
statement, based in turn on inferences drawn from texts of Scripture. For
Tombes, this was theology removed too far from the source. He sought to
go back to the authoritative fount to understand the practise at the font.
For the Paedobaptists, from Tombes's perspective, this was a
systemic problem. A starting point affects all that follows.
Tombes found solace in the explicit statements of the biblical texts upon
which to build his construction. It may be unsatisfyingly simplistic, but
it has a verifiable foundation and follows as a necessary inference.
Although the Assembly never published an answer nor a
public criticism of Tombes's views on the matter, their theology was
an implicit repudiation of his theological position. As has been
evidenced by the literature produced, Tombes was the sharpening
agent for the Covenantal Paedobaptistic view. Without Tombes's
unique place in the University giving him respectability and credibility,
and without his naïve willingness to engage others in the matter,
the world would not have the major works of English literature that
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
present the prevailing view on baptism and the Covenant of Grace
of the establishment theologians in the middle of the seventeenth
century. Tombes's ecclesiology gave him an unswerving
commitment to the National Church and therefrom acceptance among his
peers; his sacramental theology brought polemics from their pens.
Tombes left a theological legacy among the Anglicans
and the Particular Baptists. The Particular Baptists were a
movement with whom he never cast his lot, although a handful of his
students did after the restoration of the monarchy and subsequent great
ejection. The legacy left to the National Church was more local in
a geographical sense. His vicar, Daniel Whidby, took up
Tombes's polemical pen to write anti-Catholic literature. One need not
believe identically with another to profit greatly from his work
and ministry. One need only engage the issues in a thoughtful and
equitable manner. For his generation, Tombes was the whetstone
upon which Covenantal Paedobaptism and much of Covenant
Theology was sharpened in an English context. His opponents are
well-known as the proponents of covenant theology as codified by the
Westminster Assembly. Tombes, however, has fallen into obscurity
and miscategorisation. He remains an important transitional figure
to the modern world, especially, for those struggling with these
issues within the unique concerns and musings of the modern age.
The debate is still dynamic. Tombes's relevance remains as a beacon
to show us the importance of engaging ideas in the public forum.
He shows that it is acceptable to seek understanding on your own and
in conjuction with others. He teaches that patience in changing
views can be a virtue. He remains an example of thoroughness in
scholarship. His irrelevance might be that he is from a different time
with a different situation in life. However, modernity does not corner
the market on truth. Modern man needs the lights of the past to
illumine the present by their ideas. The present phenomena might be
different, but ancient ideas can give direction. They did for
Tombes-they can today.
Notes for Chapter Eight:
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
1. An informative overview of the development of Puritan
sacramental theology can be found in, E. Brooks Holifield,
The Covenant Sealed, the development of Puritan Sacramental Theology in
Old and New England, 1570-1720, Yale University Press, 1974,
especially pp. 38-47. Holifield gives his reason for writing the
overview, "Yet there has been no attempt to describe and interpret the
development of Puritan sacramental theory and practice throughout the
seventeenth century" (p. ix). In a note he directs the readers attention
to Horton Davies, The Worship of the English
Puritans, as a work that examined the liturgy in light of the sacraments. Hughes
Oliphant Old credits Zwingli with forerunner status for
covenantal paedobaptism. The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite of
the Sixteenth Century, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1992. He wrote:
"In his first work On Baptism, Zwingli had said little about baptism
being a covenant sign and even less about the nature of the covenant.
He did say in this first work that just as circumcision was a sign
of the covenant in the Old Testament, so baptism in the New
Testament is a covenant sign." Old goes on to explain how Zwingli
expanded this understanding in 1525 when he had occasion to preach
through Genesis. He understood covenantal structures used by God in
his relations with man as foundational to understanding God's economy.
2. Richard Sibbes, "The Faithful Covenanter", in
The Works of Richard Sibbes, Alexander Grosart, ed., The Banner of Truth
Trust, Edinburgh, 1983, p. 22. This is a reprint of Sibbes's Works
published in The Nichol's Collection, 1862-1864.
3. Sibbes, The Faithful
Covenanter, p. 24.
4. Tombes, Exercitation, pp. 1f. Argument structural
components mine.
5. Sibbes, The Faithful
Covenanter, p.22.
6. The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by
Authority of Parliament sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Confession
of Faith, London, 1647, paragraph 25:6. AKA
Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF).
7. Decretals of the Council of Trent, Section III, Canon III. From
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of
Trent, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Vol 11, n.d., p. 139.
8. Decretals of Trent, Section X, Canon XIII.
9. Praisegod Barebone, A Discourse tending to Prove the
Baptisme in, or under The Defection of Antichrist to be an Ordinance of
Jesus Christ. As also That the Baptisme of Infants or Children is
warrantable, and agreeable to the word of God. Wherein the perpetuity
of the estate of Christs Church in the world, and the everlastingnesse
of the Covenant of Almighty God to Abraham are set forth as
Maine Grounds, and sundry other particular things are
controverted, London, 1642. Robert Barrow responded the same year with
A briefe answer to a discourse lately written by one P.
B., London, 1642. To this Barebone rejoined,
A Reply to the Frivolous and Impertinent Answer of R.B. To the Discourse of P.B. In Which discourse is
shewed, that the Baptisme in the defection of Antichrist, is the Ordinance
of God, notwithstanding the Corruptions that attend the same, and
that Baptisme of Infants is lawfull, both which are vindicated from
the exceptions of R.B. And further cleared by the same
Author, London, 1643.
10. Barebone, A Reply, p. 64.
11. Jessey was not baptised until 1645 by Hanserd Knollys.
12. Alexander Balloch Crosart, "Barbon, or Barbone, or
Barbones, Praisegod (1596?-1679)", in
DNB, Volume 1, pp. 1071-1073. Also Barebone.
13. Murray Tolmie, The Triumph of the
Saints, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977, pp. 1-27. See Chapter One "The
Jacob Church". The table on page 20 is especially helpful to make
this particular connection.
14. Burges, Baptismal
Regeneration, second unnumbered page in the "dedicatory."
15. Burges, Baptismal
Regeneration, p. 3.
16. Article IX.
17. Article XXVII.
18. Burges, Baptismal
Regeneration, p. 23, last ¶.
19. See Holifield, A Covenant
Sealed, pp. 89-104. Holifield gives
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
the sketetal form that was seminal in my presentation. He is one
of the few writers who present accurately Tombes in biography
and theology. In most cases among the disputants, there was
movement in theological ideas within the discussion. Tombes may be the
only character who did not waiver through the interaction. Bedford
and Blake are not significant as their view was offensive to those
who held to the infant's covenantal interest and to the Baxterites a
decade later.
20. Geree, Vindiciae
Paedobaptismi and Vindiciae Vindicarum.
Tombes and Geree were at Magdalen Hall, Oxford, together.
Tombes may have been the catechetical lecturer when Geree was a student.
If this is the case, Geree may have been present when Tombes
first questioned the infant's interest in the covenant of grace by way
of analogy to the Abrahamic Covenant, c. 1627. Marshall,
A Sermon, and A Defence. Marshall was involved in securing Tombes's
position at the Temple and instrumental in his removal. He was also
a member of the Westminster Assembly of Divines. Therefore,
both of these men are dealing with the issue compelled by subjective
(phenomenological) and objective (ideolological) concerns.
21. Geree, Vindiciae
Paedobaptismi, pp. 70f.
22. Marshall, Defence, second unnumbered page in the preface.
23. Marshall, Defence, pp. 2f.
24. Marshall, Defence, p. 3. On p. 4 he calls Tombes's
Examen "...a pompous dumb shew". See also top of pp. 1-2 where Marshall
discusses the personal stake in Tombes obtaining and residing in
the Temple. This is a different perspective than Tombes offered in
his Apology.
25. Marshall, Defence, p. 5.
26. Marshall, Defence, pp. 9-13.
27. Marshall, Defence, p. 13.
28. Marshall, Defence, pp. 2-61. Part two continues through
"The Middle Time" between Augustine and Luther.
29. Marshall, Defence, pp. 68f. In the third part Marshall
misses what appears as an obvious reason for not repeating the act of
circumcisiononce the foreskin is cut off, it is gone.
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
30. A covenanted party or a confederate. "A term used by the
Reformed covenant theologians to designate Christ as man's partner
or confederate in the work of salvation and, in the plural, to indicate
the relationship between Christ and believers as confederates,
foederati, in covenant." Richard Muller,
Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological
Terms, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1985, p. 119.
31. Marshall, Sermon, p. 8.
32. Marshall, Sermon, p. 8.
33. Marshall, Sermon, pp. 8f.
34. Kurt Aland identifies platonising tendencies during the first
four centuries of the baptismal debate in, Did the Early Church
Baptize Infants?, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1963, trans. G.R.
Beasley-Murray. This monograph was in response to Joachim Jeremias,
Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, Westminster Press,
Philadelphia, 1962, trans. from the 1958 revised edition of the
original 1938 study by David Cairns. Jeremias rejoined a final time with
The Origins of Infant Baptism, SCM Press, London, 1962, trans.
Dorothea M. Barton.
35. Marshall, A Sermon, pp. 9f.
36. Abraham and Abrahamic are the denominators used for the
covenantal content in Genesis 12-17. However, this writer's own
views identify the Abramic Covenant of Genesis 15 to be a distinct
administration with differing promises and curses, signs and seals, than
the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 17. Interposed in Gen 16 is
Abram's breach of the covenant when he took the promise into his own
hands with the maidservant Hagar. There were at least thirteen years
between Abram's taking of Hagar (16:16) and the giving of
the Abrahamic Covenant (17:2).
37. Tombes would have the efficacy herein understood as not
salvific but sanctifying; it is the deliverance of the conscience. It is part
of the process wherein salvation is worked out.
A Short Catechism, Quest. 5. Why did Paul then say, Christ sent him not to Baptize?
1 Cor. 1.16.
Ans. Not because he was not appointed at all to Baptize, for if so, he
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
would not have Baptized those he did Baptize, 1 Cor. 1.14.16.
etc. But because it was not the chief thing he was to do, as when
the washing of Water is said not to save, 1 Pet. 3.21. because it is not
the only, or principal means of saving.
38. Marshall, A Sermon, p. 10.
39. Marshall, A Sermon, p. 10.
40. Tombes, Examen, p. 39.
41. Tombes, A Short
Catechism.
42. The events that brought Baxter into the discussion are outlined
in Chapter Three, under subheading A New Venue.
43. Baxter, Saint's Rest, p. 3 under "The Dedication of the
Whole", sect. 5. He sets out to caution readers against "...extremes in
controverted points of religion". He presents a number of men who
he admires for teaching "The middle way"a way of sythesising
the antecedant controversies. Yet, he makes the statement, "
Wounding is dividing; healing is re-uniting". In the next paragraph he
"wounds" the Anabaptists and Antinomians. Baxter is sympathetic to the
work of the Jesuits in the Indies in Review, p. 55. Baxter caused many
of the divisions he spent his ministry healing. See Beougher,
Timothy and Packer, James, I., "Go Fetch Baxter: this feisty Puritan spent
his life quieting the controversies he started"
Christianity Today, 16 Dec. 1991, 35:26-28. See also James Inell Packer, "The Doctrine of
Restoration in the Thought of Richard Baxter." unpublished D.Phil.
Dissertation, Oxford University, 1954. Copies are located at the
Bodleian Library, Oxford and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Trinity
International University, Deerfield, Illinois.
44. Holifield, Covenant
Sealed, pp. 95ff.
45. Baxter shies away from the phrase "Covenant of Grace".
Preferring simply "Covenant". His view of the Covenant is a
different theological construct than previously given by Marshall,
Geree, Perkins and Sibbes. Yet, Baxter does not shake the incipient
Platonism of his counterparts. His Covenant is an eternal covenant into
which children are brought because of a pre-existing right to position.
The conditionality is basd on the active faith of their parents, or
Godparents.
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Reaction from Tombes's Contemporaries
| ||
|
46. Richard Baxter, Review of the State of Christian's
Infants, London, 1675, third and fourth unnumbered pages in the preface.
47. Baxter, Review, unnumbered page four of the preface.
48. Tombes, An Antidote, page two of the epistle dedicatory.
49. Baxter, Review, unnumbered page four of the preface.
50. Baxter, Review, unnumbered page five of the preface.
51. Baxter, Review, p. 3. Communion should be understood in
this context as membership. Baxter is not arguing for a form
of paedocommunion. In setion 9. He uses "Church-membership" in
a synonymous manner.
52. Baxter, Review, pp. 3f.
53. Baxter, Review, p. 9.
54. Baxter, Review, p. 26.
55. Tombes, Antidote, p. 4.
56. Tombes, Antidote, p. 5.
57. Tombes, Antidote, p. 5.
58. Baxter, Plain Scripture
Proof, p. 109, Part II Chap. I.
59. Tombes, Preacursur, p. 37.
60. Tombes, Praecursor, p. 37. Baxter held to a dualism within
the covenantal structure. There was an absolute administration to
the elect and a conditional one made with others upon condition of faith.
Plain Scripture Proof, p. 223. In his last work on the subject,
this dualism is not explicit, if present at all.
61. WCF 7.3.
62. WCF 7.4.
63. WCF 7.5.
64. WCF 7.6.
65. WCF 14.2.
66. WCF 17.2.
67. M. E. Osterhaven, "Covenant Theology" in Walter A.
Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, 1984, fifth printing, 1987. pp. 279f.
68. WCF 27.1.
69. Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal
of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they
be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto
them also....
70. WCF 27.3.
71. WCF 27.1.
72. WCF 28.5.
73. WCF 28.6.
74. The Dutch tradition was more narrow in the way they
constructed the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace. Although, one of their
modern proponents concedes the difficulty within the various
misunderstandings and admitted lack of uniformity in how the teaching
is constructed. See Herman Hoeksema, Believers and their
Seed, Grand Rapids, The Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1977, p.12f.
| ||||
No comments:
Post a Comment