 |
|
|
|
Theological Arguments
| ||
|
Chapter Five
Theological Arguments
The major difference between Tombes's exegetical and
theological argumentation is the use of texts. The exegetical were
based from one text where the theological are based on the teaching
of various texts brought together. The theological remained focused
on exposing the Bible's own systemic position on a matter.
Therefore the Bible's position is equated with the Divine Author's authority.
For Tombes, to discover the biblical teaching on any point was
to discover God's will on the same. It is in these five theological
arguments that the essential biblical material is collated and presented.
The Argument from the Succession of Circumcision to Baptism
The first theological argument was the argument for
baptism from the succession of circumcision to baptism. Tombes
presented the basic argument in this way:
Major premise: To whom circumcision did agree, to them Baptisme
doth agree,
Minor premise: [B]ut to Infants circumcision did agree,
Conclusion: [T]herefore, also
baptism.1
As proof for the argument positively stated, Tombes offered:
The Major is thus proved: If the baptisme of Christ succeed into the place
of circumcision, then Baptisme belongs to them that circumcision belonged
to; but the Antecedent is true, therefore also the consequent.
2
What was assumed in this argument was that baptism
and circumcision, if they had anything in common, had common
subjects. For the sake of the argument offered, Tombes granted the
hypothetical antecedent, or first proposition, to be true. The last
phrase, or, consequent, follows from the proof. There was no apparent
equivocation, nor question-begging. The key word in the syllogism is 'If'.
That required external proof that the proposition could be removed
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
from the realm of the theoretical to the world of reality in
Christian belief and practise.
To prop up the argument, Tombes showed the minor
premise to be true via a summary or paraphrase of the biblical text,
Colossians 2:11, 12, "where it is said, the Colossians were circumcised,
because they were buried with Christ in
Baptisme".3
Tombes proceeded to three ways in which the succession
of circumcision to baptism should have been understood. The first
of these ways is against the overarching argument as stated:
1. So as that the sense be, that those persons [were] to be baptized,
which heretofore by God's command were to be circumcised, and in this sense
the Argument must proceed, if it conclude to the purpose; but in this sense it
is false, for no females were to be circumcised, and in this sense the
Argument must proceed, if it conclude to the purpose; but in this sense it is false, for
no females were to be circumcized, which yet are to be baptized, Acts 16.14.
15. and Believers out of Abrahams house, as Lot, Melchisedech, Job, were not
to be circumcised, but believing Gentiles are universally to be
baptized.4
In this argument, Tombes listed notable exclusions from
the law of circumcision to display discontinuities with the law or
administration of baptism. The first and largest group excluded were
Jewish women. There were some believing men of Abraham's seed
who were not circumcised and therefore exceptions to the rule.
Therefore, the parallel between circumcision and baptism falls
because there were no declarations of, or indulgences for, those who
remained unbaptised. The tension here was between Abraham's line
become Israel through procreation, and his spiritual seed become the
Christian Church through regeneration. The benefits and practises of
the one were not necessarily those of the other. Believing Gentiles
were never commanded or allowed not to be baptised where direct
command was given in the Old Testament for some not to be
circumcised. However, as regards baptism, there was at least one
notable exception, the thief crucified with Christ. Although, for Tombes,
the difference would be between those excluded by positive
precedent and those excluded by extraordinary case. The former had
God's approval, the latter, God's silence.5
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Theological Arguments
| ||
|
The second was also a theological polemic against the
argument as stated. Tombes added:
2. It may be so understood; as if the rite of Baptisme then begun, when the
rite of circumcision did, or was of right to end; but this is not to be said: For
John Baptist and Disciples of Christ baptized, John 4.1, 2. before circumcision
of right ceased, and they who first were circumcized, were after baptized,
being converted to the faith, as is manifest concerning Paul, Phil. 3.5. Acts
9.18.6
Tombes implied, if baptism takes the place of
circumcision, there must have been some fundamental element they share
essentially. If this were the case, this essential quality shared by
them makes something in the essence of baptism to have been present
at its inception. Since the baptism of John the Baptist and Jesus
came in contemporaneously with the practise of circumcision and did
not eclipse the practise of circumcision as an institution, it was not
one in essence with circumcision, though it may have some similarities.
Tombes addressed these similarities and dissimilarities in the
third part of this presentation.
The third understanding looked into the continuities
between the signs of circumcision and baptism. To these he added a
note about the context of Colossians 2:11, 12:
It may be understood, as if Baptisme did succeed into the place of
circumcision, in respect of its signification, which is true in some things: First, it is
true that both signified the righteousnesse of faith, Rom. 4.11. Rom. 6.3. Gal.
3.27 . 1 Pet. 3.21. Secondly, it is true, both signified sanctification of the heart,
and all that may be concluded out of the place alledged, Col. 2.11, 12. to which
I think meet to adde; that if the Text be looked into, that place speaks not of
any circumcision, but of Christs circumcision in whom we are compleat, and
by whose circumcisionwe are said to put off the body of the sins of the flesh;
nor doth the Text say, we are circumcised, because we are baptized; but we
are compleat in Christ, because we are circumcised in him, and buried with
him in Baptisme, in which, or in whom, ye are also risen together, through
the faith of the operation of God that raised him from the
dead.7
Tombes does not leave the discussion with the similarities.
He went on to display the dissimilarities:
In some things Baptisme doth not succeed into the place of Circumcision,
in respect of signification: For, first Circumcision did signifie Christ to come in
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
Isaac, according to the flesh, Gen. 17.10. 21. but Baptisme doth not
signifie this, but points to the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Secondly,
Circumcision was a sign that the Israelites were a people separated from
all nations, Rom. 3.1. but Baptisme signifieth, that all are one in Christ,
Gal. 3.28. Thirdly, Circumcision signified that Moses Law was to be
observed, Gal. 5.3. but Baptisme doth signifie that Moses Law is made voyd, and
the Doctrine of Christ to be retained, Acts 10.37. Fourthly, Circumcision did
sign the promise of the Land of Canaan, Baptisme eternal life by
Christ.8
With these discontinuities in the reader's mind, Tombes
went on to answer the original argument. The original argument's
major premise was denied since it presented a radical continuity
between circumcision and baptism. He also denied the major premise of
the conditional syllogism offered to explain and augment the original,
if succession meant chronological succession. However, if
succession were understood in the three alternative ways given, with a view
to other things signified, the argument had qualified itself and the
minor disproved from the context of Colossians 2:11,
12.9
Tombes went on to give needful direction in this matter.
Using an unusual metaphor, he proceeded:
[I]f this Argument be not warily and restrainedly understood, an Egge is
laid out of which manifest Judaisme may be hatched, but if it be taken
restrainedly, no more follows thence, but that Baptisme and Circumcision in
some things, signifie the same, which is more plainly said of Noahs flood, 1
Pet. 3.21. of the Red Sea, and the cloud that guided, 1 Cor. 10.2. and yet we say
not that Baptisme succeeded into the place, much lesse do we inferre any rite
to be instituted in their stead, respecting the same persons; yea verily it is to
be seriously thought on.10
Extending Tombes's metaphor, he portrayed that there
were four possible yolks that could hatch from that egg. These four
items summarise the need for a regulating principle to govern
theological reflection and practise and they display the danger of
argumentation from analogy alone. They were:
1. That such Arguments drawn from Analogies, not conceived by the
holy Spirit, but drawn out of our wit, a new kinde of instituting Rites, to wit,
from Analogies, is brought in, besides our Lords Precepts and the Apostles
examples.
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Theological Arguments
| ||
|
2. This being once laid, by like manner of argumentation, it will be
lawfull to bring into the Christian Church, under other names and forms, the
whole burthen of Jewish Rites; yea, almost, out of what you will; for who shall put
a bound to mens wits faining Analogie, when they go beyond the Lords
Precepts, and Apostles examples? It is well known, that the divine
appointment of tythes to be paid, and many other things, in writings of Divines, are
asserted by this kinde of Argument, besides the rule of our Lords Precept
and the Apostles example.
3. Hereby will the opinion of Papists be confirmed, who affirm from
1 Cor. 10.11. the Sacrament of the Jewes, to be types of the Sacraments of
Christians, which is rejected by Divines that dispute against Bellarmine.
4. This manner of arguing will countenance the Arguments of the
Papists for an universal Bishop, because there was an High Priest amongst the
Jews; for sacrificing Priests, because the Jews had such; for a linen garment at
Masse, because there were such among the Jews; for holy water, purification of
women, Easter, Pentecost, and many more such ceremonies, for which the Papist do
in like manner argue.... Lest any man take this for a light suggestion, I will
adde, that grave, godly and learned men, have often warned, that we are to
take heed, that we do not rashly frame arguments from
Analogie....11
Going back to Tombes's first principles expressed
in Fermentum he concluded:
Lastly, it is to be considered again and again, how by these
argumentations, consciences may be freed from the danger of wil-worship and polluting
so remarkable an Ordinance of Christ as Baptisme is, specially this care lies
on them, who by Prayers, Sermons, Writings, Covenants and Oaths, do
deterre Christians from human inventions, in God's worship dilligently, and as is
to be hoped sincerely.12
The Argument of Reduced Grace in the New Covenant
The second theological argument examined one of the
subtle analogies within the theology of Tombes's opponents and
respondents. This argument surveyed the complaint that
Credobaptism somehow reduced the grace of God in the New Covenant. To
this end, he framed the syllogism:
Major premise: If Baptisme be not granted to Infants of Believers,
then the grace of God will be more restrained in the new Testament then in the old:
Minor premise: [B]ut this is not to be affirmed;
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
Conclusion: [T]herefore Baptisme is to be granted to Infants of
Believers.13
To unpack this line of reasoning, Tombes presented three
lines of thought. He first looked at an inconsistency in practise.
Secondly, that the grace of God was not bound to the operation of
the sacraments. Thirdly, that in some particular ways the grace of
God was restrained actually in the New Testament. From these three
lines, he drew a refutation of the idea expressed in the
argument.14
The demonstration of the inconsistency is found in
these words:
1. If this argument be of any weight, it will prove that the grace of God
is straightened, because we give not the Lord's Supper to children, to whom
the Passeover was given.... 15
The proof of this inconsistency was found in the
argument presented. Tombes left the Westminster Divines to reconstruct
the argument for themselves. The argument for the parity of grace
between the Old and the New Testaments as regards
paedocommunion was:
Major premise: If the Lord's Supper be not granted to Infants of
Believers, then the grace of God will be more restrained in the new Testament
then in the old:
Minor premise: [B]ut this is not to be affirmed;
Conclusion: [T]herefore The Lord's Supper is to be granted to Infants
of Believers.16
The practise of paedocommunion found few seventeenth
century advocates. Tombes, however, pointed to this inconsistency in
many of his arguments and subsequent works.17
Tombes moved to his second line of thought, that God's
grace was not tied to the operation of the sacraments but freely
dispensed by God's good pleasure. He wrote:
2. The grace of God is not tied to Sacraments, neither do sacraments
give grace by the work done, and therefore grace is not restrained, though
Sacraments be never granted, grace is not denied to an excommunicated
person, who is inhibited from the Lord's Supper, the Grace of God is free, whether we
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Theological Arguments
| ||
|
understand it of divine affection, or the effects of it; nor can [it] be made
larger or narrower by our act.18
For Tombes, the grace of God was not a response on
God's part to anything in the creature. Grace is not a natural phenomenon.
God's grace in the New Testament is unconditional and
supernatural. Even the sacraments, or lack thereof, cannot restrain God's grace.
This has relevance for understanding the subtleties of his
opponents' position. Although they argued for baptism as a sign of the
covenant, there was an understanding on Tombes's part that
something more than mere spiritual signification happens to the subject
being baptised. If he did not believe this was behind the language
used, there would have been no need to further address the issue.
Tombes was arguing, without expressing it in these
terms, against a platonising tendency in covenantal paedobaptism. God
was not obligated to transact in heaven what was parallel to the work
of men on the earth. God was a free agent, sovereign, uncoerced by
his creation in any way. This supplements Tombes's disdain for
ex opere operato constructions. God's activity was all-important.
Thirdly, as regards the special dispensations of God's
grace for specific purposes, Tombes showed how in some senses the
grace of God was restrained or "contracted" in the New Testament
and then how it was "larger". In Tombes's words:
Yet it is not absurd to say, that in respect of some priviledges, the Grace
of God is more contracted in the new Testament then in the old: For instance,
no family hath now the priviledge that was granted to Abrahams family, that
out of it Christ should be born; no man besides Abraham is called The father
of the Faithful; no woman besides one, The mother of Christ; neverthelesse,
simply the grace of God is said to be larger in the new Testament, by reason
of revelation of the Gospel imparted to all nations, the more abundant
communication of the holy Spirit, and more plain manifestation of the mysterie of the
Gospel....19
To this Tombes added a word of direction as regards the children
of Jews:
I would have it weighed, whether those phrases of the Apostle, Rom. 11.21.
as the naturall branches, ver.24. The wilde Olive by nature,weren't graffed con
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
trary to nature. These which be naturall branches, do not suficiently
imply, that the Jewes children by their birth had a priviledge beyond the
Gentiles children.20
Tombes implied that the grace of God is different among or
between the various covenants, in part, because the Jewish children had
a covenantal place in the olive tree by natural descent from
Abraham that was not enjoyed naturally by all the children of Gentiles.
The individual Gentiles needed to be grafted in whether young or old.
This is reminiscent of the first exegetical argument from
Genesis 17:7. In that argument, Tombes argued for a distinction
between Abraham's natural seed and his spiritual seed. All the natural
seed are part of the tree by birth; all the spiritual seed are part of the
tree by the engrafting or new birth.
Because of these three considerations, Tombes examined
the original argument. The argument was:
Major premise: If Baptisme be not granted to Infants of Believers,
then the grace of God will be more restrained in the new Testament then in the old:
Minor premise: [B]ut this is not to be affirmed;
Conclusion: [T]herefore Baptisme is to be granted to Infants of
Believers.21
Attacking the major premise, based on his three
qualifiers already examined, Tombes wrote to deny the consequent that
"the grace of God would be more restrained in the new Testament then
in the old". Tombes argued that the grace was not restrained
but "straightened" or clarified in the
New.22
To summarise in a general way, the arguments directly
related to Genesis 17:7 and Abraham's seed, and in a specific way
this second theological argument as regards the parity of grace
between the Old and New Covenants, Tombes added, "The Sacraments
are not to be administered according to rules taken from our
reasoning, but [by] Gods appointment".23
Tombes's unwavering adherence to his principles of
exegesis and theological reflection drove his biblio-centric approach
to these matters. For him, God appointed binding doctrine and practice
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Theological Arguments
| ||
|
that was positive, declarative, and timeless. This came via the
revelation contained in the Old and New Testaments of Scripture. In
a real sense, all of Tombes's arguments were exegetical arguments.
He would not go with his mind where his God had not previously
gone with his Word.
The Argument from General Old Testament Promises
The third theological argument was a brief consideration
of two general promises found in the Old Testament. These
promises were taken by some to distinguish between benefits to children
of godly people and lack thereof to children of the ungodly. Or,
as Tombes presented the argument:
First, it is argued from generall promises, made to the godly and their
seed, Exod. 20.6. Psal. 112.2&c. Whence it is gathered, that God makes a
difference betwixt the children of the godly and the wicked, that he promiseth
blessing to those, not to these, therefore the children of the godly are to be
baptized, not the other.24
Looking at Exodus 20:6 and Psalm 112:2 and other
passages containing similar general promises, Tombes gave the sum and
substance of this line of thinking. If God revealed a difference
between the children of the godly and the children of the ungodly as
regards his dispensing of benefits, then we should dispense the blessing
of baptism to our children as children of the godly.
Tombes responded with brevity. He wrote his four
objections to this line of thought:
The promises recited [in Exodus 20:6 & Psalm 122:2], are generall and
indefinite; secondly, [these blessings] for the most part [are] concerning
corporall good things; thirdly, with the exception of free election; fourthly, to be
understood with the implyed condition of faith and repentance, and so they
serve not to this purpose.25
Tombes reiterated themes already present in other arguments.
In the first response he argued that one cannot deduce a
universal binding principle from general and indefinite statements. Secondly,
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
these blessings have to do with earthly blessings, rather than
heavenly. Thirdly, God's free election unto salvation is a blessing
not contingent upon anything in this life, it is by God's grace
alone whereby it is dispensed. Fourthly, these blessings are not
promised without condition. The realisation of the fullness of these
blessings is conditional on faith and repentance.
The Argument from the Unerring Nature of the Church
The fourth theological argument was triumphalistic in
presentation assuming that the Church cannot err. It was also an
hypothetical argument to evoke a measured response of fear for the
future of the Church in England if infants were not to be baptised.
Theologians too played on the superstitions of the masses. Tombes
presented the argument:
Major premise: [T]he Church of God fails not,
Minor premise: [T]he Church of God hath failed, if baptisme of
Infants be not lawfull,
Conclusion: Ergo. [Baptism of infants is
lawful.]26
The argument assumes that baptism is in the definition
or essence of the church-a concession Tombes adamantly refused
to make throughout his career.27 In answering, Tombes addressed
this subtle assumption with two observations and an historical
statement by way of quotation. He said:
1. The Church of God may consist without baptisme, as in the crucified
converted thief, &c. Secondly, neither perhaps, is it necessary to be said, that
[the Church of God may consist without] the baptisme of Infants, because [it
is] not lawfull, is therefore null. Thirdly, there was in the Church Baptisme
of persons grown, in all ages. 28
It is the third part of Tombes's criticism that is
noteworthy for its confident assertion. He adds a curious quotation from
Richard Vine's29 commentary on Augustine's
City of God. He wrote:
No man of old was brought into the place of holy baptisme unlesse he were
of grown age already, and when the same person knew what that mystical water
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Theological Arguments
| ||
|
meant, and desired to be washed in it, and that more than once, an
Image which thing we see yet, in our baptizing of Infants, though born the same
day, or the day before, is asked, whether he would be baptized, and that thrice;
for whom the surities answer, that he would. I hear in some cities in Italy, that
the old custome, for a great part is yet
preserved.30
This "old custome" was the baptising of men of age who knew
what the baptismal water represented in the thinking of their time.
This served Tombes's agenda by displaying that infant baptism could
not be of the essence of the Church because it may not have been
her universal and timeless practice.
The Argument from the lack of Paedobaptist Unanimity
Tombes's fifth theological argument presented a bit of
comparative theology. It was not an argument at all, but a device to
"cast doubt" upon the practise of infant baptism. He looked at
the "Assertors" and noticed multiple differences among them.
Therefore he observed:
...[T]he Assertors of Infant-Baptisme little agree among themselves, upon
what foundation they may build Infant-Baptisme. Cyprian and others of the
Ancients draw it from the universality of divine grace, and the necessity
of Baptisme to salvation. Augustine, Bernard, and others, bring the faith of
the Church as the reason of baptizing Infants: Others, among whom is
the Catechisme in the English Liturgie, put as the reason of Infant-Baptisme,
the promise of the Surities, in the place of the faith and repentance of the
baptized. The Lutherans, the faith of the Infant; others, the holinesse of a
believing Nation; others, the faith of the next parent; others, the faith of the
next parent in covenant in a gathered Church. This difference of the maintainers
of Infant-Baptism, deservedly casteth doubt concerning the thing
itself.31
If unanimity in formulation of a particular doctrine were
the test of orthodoxy, differences among proposers of almost every
dogma of the Reformation would have refuted the positive force of the
movement itself. This line of thinking might have cast doubt upon a
particular practise--it did not refute the foundation of the practise itself.
Tombes seems to have overstated himself to make another rhetorical
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
point. Theoretically, one of the various groups could have the
right foundation. Doubt was cast.
This last theological argument was more of a theological
observation than a serious consideration of the state of affairs. It
shows, however, the unevenness of Tombes's arguments.
The theological argumentation shows Tombes to be adept
at disputation with those who differed from him. People might
disagree, yet his words need to be engaged in order to be redeemed
or refuted.
The theological and exegetical arguments become the
foundation upon which the historical are built. Tombes goes back to
discover if what he has said has precedence in the intellectual history
of the Christian Church.
Notes for Chapter Five
1. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 3.
2. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 5.
3. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 5.
4. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 5.
5. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 5.
6. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 5.
7. Tombes, Exercitation, pp. 5f.
8. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 6.
9. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 6.
10. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 6.
11. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 7.
12. Tombes, Exercitation, pp. 7f.
13. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 8.
14. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 8.
15. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 8.
16. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 8. This is evident from Tombes's
words, "...as appears by that which was above said".
17. Tombes mentions that paedocommunion came to be practised
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Theological Arguments
| ||
|
because of a mistaken understanding of John 6:35, Tombes,
A Short Catechism, Q. 35.
18. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 8.
19. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 8.
20. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 8.
21. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 8.
22. Tombes, Exercitation
pp. 8f.
23. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 9.
24. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 20.
25. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 20. Brackets added.
26. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 21. Brackets and conclusion added.
27. John Tombes, An Apologie for the two
Treatises, London, 1646, pp. 65f.
28. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 22.
29 See Alexander Gordon, Vines, Richard,
DNB, XX., pp. 369f. Or, Peter Toon, "Vines, Richard (1600-1656)" in J. D.
Douglass, ed., The New International Dictionary of the Christian
Church, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1974.
30. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 22. Tombes quotes from R. Vines,
Commentary, Aug. de Civit. Dei. Book 1, section 27.
31. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 33.
| ||
No comments:
Post a Comment