 |
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
Chapter Four
Organisation and Exegetical Arguments
Fourteen out of twenty-nine of Tombes's literary works
touch upon the subject of baptism. The majority of those books
interacted with his contemporaries according to the scholastic methodology
of the era. Only a few of these works present his baptismal
theology popularly in a direct manner. The others contain Tombes's
specific rejoinders to the myriad questions, comments and digressions of
particular men. The positive must be drawn inferentially from the
polemical writings.
The primary work under consideration is also his first
published piece on the issue. Tombes's Exercitation
was presented to a committee of the Westminster Assembly commissioned to
examine the issue of proper baptismal
theology.1 In the Exercitation,
Tombes argued his case through twenty-five arguments in English for
the popular dissemination of the matter, that are equivalent of
twelve arguments presented originally in Latin to the Westminster
Divines.2 The arguments fall into four categories: exegetical, where he
dealt with the meaning of texts in their literary context primarily;
historical, where he interacted with beliefs and practices in antecedent
ages; theological, where he reflected upon the basis for and reasoning
about truths asserted; and practical, where he considered the
ecclesiastical and pastoral implications of the practice of paedobaptism.
Among the arguments presented, eleven are exegetically based, five are
predominantly theological, four are historical, and the remaining
five are driven by practical and pastoral concerns within a
theological and historical framework.
The last clear, and positive presentation of Tombes's
theology of baptism comes as his last work on the matter. In 1659,
after many years of reflection, Tombes dropped his rigid Oxonian
scholastic methodology in order to present his thoughts more
popularly in the form of a catechism. In forty questions and answers,
Tombes gave a digest of his ever-maturing thought to facilitate an
understanding of the basic issues.3 Or, in his words "To the Christian Reader:"
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
Many are the things at this day charged on Antipoedobaptists in their
Doctrine and Practise, which have been proved to be unjustly imputed to them,
by many large Treatises extant in print. For a more facile understanding of
the truth than by reading larger Tracts, is this Compendium, in a manner of
a catechism composed and published in this time, wherein others of
different judgment, have thought fit to declare their way to the world, which is
done, not because the disagreement in other things is either small, or of
particular persons (whose cause is to be severed from that which is commonly held)
and therefore requires not a distinct Confession or Declaration from that which
is by others published.4
Tombes, however, also prejudices the reader of his
Catechism towards his position by poisoning the rhetorical well filled with
these prefatory remarks:
[T]he Doctrine of which is one article of the foundation of Christianity,
Heb. 6.2. whereby we put on Christ, Gal 6.27. united to his members, Ephes.
4.5. conformed to Christ, Col 2.12. Rom. 6.3, 4, 5. required with faith to
salvation, Mark 16.26. with repentance to remission of sins, Acts 2.38. with
express profession of the Baptized's faith required, Acts 8.37. upon manifestation
of conversion, Acts 10.47. Acts 11.17. as the duty of the Baptized, and not
a meer priviledge, Acts 22.16. most solemly administered in the Primitive
times, with strict examination and greatest engagement of persons baptized,
accounted the chief evidence of Christianity, of as much or more moment than the
Lord's Supper; insomuch that some conceived from Heb. 6.4. that falling away
after it irreparable. But the pretended Baptism of Infants, as now used slightly
and profanely done, quite different from Christ's Institution and the Apostles
practise by Ministers and people in so wholy and carnal manner as that, it is
upon and with gross untruths and perverting of holy Scripture, obtruded on
unwary souls with a pretence of a Baptismal Vow, which is a meer fiction, and
so many ill consequents both in Christian conversation and communion
and church-constitution and Government, that were men sensible to their evil
as they should be, they would tremble at such mockery of God, and abuse of
so holy an Ordinance of God's worship and men's souls by it, and with
such arrogant presumption in avowing such a manifest invention of men as
God's precept....The aim of the composer of it is the manifestation of the
truth, wherein doth he rejoyce, and desires thou mayest rejoyce with
him.5
Tombes's baptismal theology will be set out in the
following manner: a presentation of the arguments given to the
Westminster Assembly in the Exercitation with augmentation from his other pub
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
lished works and sermons, and a reflection upon these by way
of contrast with the Catechism when the need to illustrate or
augment manifests itself. Where needed, clarification will be given by
drawing from other relevant works. This presentation will be, as far
as possible, in Tombes's own words. There will be added summary
and illumination where needed to give context and understanding to
the issues under consideration.
Tombes was very aware of the paraphrastic nature of
theological debate. In his writings, he strongly reacted to those
who twisted his words and therefore misrepresented him in speech or
in print. In one place, he wrote:
I hope I shall be able to produce the written notes of others to verifie
my setting down his Notions; yet if I would mistake passages in Sermons
not printed, it were excusable, in comparison of the usage I have met with
from Doctor Homes, and Master Marshall himselfe, who in not a few places, yea I
may truly say all along, do in their framing answers to my written
speeches, crook my words where they are streight, and they might have discerned
them to be, had their hast[e] in publishing their answers permitted them to
ponder my writings.6
Therefore, for the sake of historical accuracy, while
reintroducing Tombes's thought, the content of the presentation will be
primarily in Tombes's own words. The basic order of presentation
will be taken from the Exercitation and the
Catechism. The arguments will be considered systematically in the categories previously
presented. The order of presentation will show the logical
development of his thought within his concerns as exegetical, theological,
historical, and practical/pastoral. The exegetical and historical
arguments found in the Exercitation are the foundation for the theological as
is traditional in systematic theology. The practical/pastoral
considerations are based on the theological and contain some further
theological reflection. All of Tombes's arguments derive from his
theological starting point, displayed in his first and foremost argument.
Tombes presupposed an authoritative revelation from
God found in the Christian Scripture as he expressed in
Fermentum. It is on this scriptural authority that he built the foundation for his own
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
views. He also used the same as a hammer to break apart the
position of his theological detractors. Tombes's reliance upon this
supreme authority may seem quaint to some modern readers,
however, in his day, among the theologians with whom he engaged, there
was no dispute as regards this rule. The discussion was about good
and necessary inferences drawn from the authoritative texts and the
use of historical theology as a guide.
The disputants were children of their times as moderns are
of their own. The presentation will follow, as much as possible,
Tombes's own logic within the four general categories.
Exegetical Arguments
The eleven exegetical arguments are primarily negative
polemics against infant baptism. Tombes usually presented
a paedobaptist position in syllogistic form, then proceeded to
show how the argument was flawed. At the outset, a word must be said
as regards such a methodology. First, Tombes is setting out
arguments for infant baptism as an Antipaedobaptist in order to refute them.
This approach seems therefore tainted with question-begging.
However, it was the typical scholastic methodology of the day to set
out an argument in a plain and straightforward manner proceeding
immediately to deal with objections. Tombes was laying these
objections before his peers for their consideration. It was a
consistent method that Tombes had used since his early days in considering
the matter. The arguments presented to the committee of the
Assembly of Divines as the Exercitation were honest attempts to know the
truth in this issue. This inquiry to the Assembly came out of an
earlier meeting, as Tombes recalled:
Whereupon when in a meeting of Ministers in the City of London, the
question was propounded what Scripture there was for Infant-baptisme, I told
my brethren plainly, that I doubted there was none. This occasioned the
Dispute Doctor Homes speakes of which happened about January 1643.... Not
long after that Conference, my most loving and reverend Father in law Master
Henry Scudder fearing the event of this matter, after some writing betweene us,
advised me to draw up the reasons of my doubts, and he undertook to present
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
them to the Committee chosen (as I conceived it) to give satisfaction
about that point, which I conceived might well be the leave of the Parliament, as
the appointing the Assembly to give satisfaction about some doubts in taking
the Covenant.7
It was not Tombes's purpose to make controversy for its
own sake, but to discover the truth in an important matter as regarded
the reformation of his Church. Tombes was guilty, however, of naïvete.
He expected that an honest attempt to discover truth would be
met with the same. He sought either refutation or affirmation on a
point of doctrine and nothing else. By publishing his views, he had
everything to lose and the Church's reformation to gain. His
submission was a quest for open and honest debate upon a theological point.
Secondly, the form of the argument is very rigid. Tombes,
at times, oversimplified the position he was refuting. However, he
always continued to give mounds of evidence for his case,
positively and negatively presented.
The syllogism was an accepted part of seventeenth
century academic debate. At Oxford, it was a remnant of late medieval
Scholasticism that survived the Renaissance. This methodology
used philosophical categories and logic to serve theological reflection.
The main thrust of the argument presented is not always readily apparent.
In Tombes's analysis of the issues he refers continually to these
syllogistic building blocks borrowed from the scholastical
methodology.
Tombes, with very little introduction, started:
The present Tenet, according to which Infant-Baptisme is practised, is,
that the Infants born of a Believer, are universally to be baptized. This
Doctrine and Practise conformable, is made doubtfull to me, by these
arguments".8
Tombes's Starting Point and the Argument from Genesis 17:7
The first argument is one that examines the case for
infant baptism from the interest of believer's children in the promise
given to Abraham in Genesis 17:7. It also serves as the all-important
starting point for Tombes's theological reflection:
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
Major premise: That which hath no testimony in Scripture for it,
is doubtfull.
Minor premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no
testimony of Scripture for it;
Conclusion: Ergo, it is
doubtfull.9
Tombes's first exegetical argument is a comprehensive,
yet properly basic argument designed to examine any and all of the
biblical evidence for infant baptism. The remaining arguments are
applications of the first to specific Scriptures, theological
constructions or historical precedents. He then used his conclusions to support
the doctrine or practise. However, in the context of this first
argument, Tombes went on to consider what he saw as the underlying
biblical texts for the practise of paedobaptism:
The Minor is proved by examining the places that are brought for it, which
are these: Genesis 17.7, etc. Acts 2.38, 39. 1 Cor. 7.14. Mark. 10.14. 16.
Acts 16.15. 32. 1 Cor. 1.16. The Argument from Gen 17.7, etc. is almost the
first and the last in this businesse; and therefore is the more accurately to be
examined....10
Tombes often added colour to the debate with maxims
and Latin phrases. The first argument did not escape his cutting wit.
Speaking of the argument for infant baptism from Genesis 17:7,
etc., he added:
...[B]ut it hath so many shapes, that I may here take up that Speech, With
what knot shall I hold shape-shifting
Proteus?11 But in the issue, it falls into one
or other of these forms....12
Tombes went on to build his foundation against the
interest of believer's children in the promises of the Abrahamic covenant.
He did not give multiple forms of the opposing argument; rather,
one form from which he drew four sub-arguments. He thus
supported his refutation of the one argument from Genesis 17:7. This was
an application of his overriding principle expressed in Argument
One that there is no Scripture to warrant the baptising of infants.
He continued with another syllogism as if arguing for paedobaptism:
Major premise: To whom the Gospel-covenant agrees, to them the sign
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
of the Gospel-covenant agrees also.
Minor premise: But to Infants of Believers the Gospel-covenant agrees,
Conclusion: [A]nd consequently
Baptisme.13
Tombes added, "The Minor is proved from Gen. 17.7. where
God promiseth to Abraham, I will be a God to thee and to thy seed
after thee".14
Tombes proceeded to four sub-arguments that he
believed exposed the basic assumptions of the greater argument presented.
By way of introduction to his main point, they were: (1) The
Covenant with Abraham is not identical to the Gospel (New)
Covenant; (2) Abraham's seed has more than one meaning; (3) the promise
of the Gospel has always been the same irrespective of the age; and
(4) Some were circumcised who had no part in the promise made
to Abraham. These four parts were intended to undermine the
credibility of infant baptism by way of analogy from the Abrahamic
Covenant to the New, or in Tombes's favorite phraseology,
the "Euangelicall" or
"Gospel-Covenant".15 These also form the
foundation of all Tombes's arguments. They were points that were
non-negotiable for him. It is important to see the detail in these
sub-arguments in order to understand his inferences within other
constructions. Tombes kept coming back to two foundational points,
(1) the lack of positive instruction in special revelation for the
practise of infant baptism, and (2) to an alternative (and creative)
explanation of the biblical texts which became the foundation of his
emerging covenantal and credobaptistic theology.
On the first of these sub-arguments, Tombes declared:
1. The Covenant made with Abraham, is not a pure Gospel-covenant, but
mixt, which I prove; The Covenant takes its denomination from the promises;
but the promises are mixt, some Euangelicall, belonging to those to whom
the Gospel belongeth, some are Domestique, or Civill promises, specially
respecting the House of Abraham, and of Israel;
Ergo.16
Explaining his distinction between evangelical
(Euangelicall) and domestic (Domestique) or civil (Civill) promises in the
Abrahamic Covenant, Tombes implied there were some spiritual promises and
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
some physical or material promises that had to be distinguished.
Tombes explained what he means by "Euangelicall promises":
That was Euangelicall which we read, Gen 17.5. I have made thee a father
of many nations; and that which we find, Gen 15.5. so shall thy seed be;
in which it is promised, that there shall be of all Nations innumerable that
shall be Abrahams children by believing, Rom. 4.17, 18. It was Euangelicall,
which we find, Gen 12.3. & Gen. 18.18. and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of
the earth be blessed; for in these is promised blessing to Believers, of
whom Abraham is father, Gal. 3.16. Acts 3.25.
17
Tombes immediately proceeded to the "Domestique"
or "Civill" promises:
Domestique and Civill promises were many; of the multiplying the seed
of Abraham, the birth of Isaac; of the coming of Christ out of Isaac; the
bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, and deliverance thence; of posessing the Land
of Canaan, Gen. 15.13. 18. Gen. 17.7, 8. 15.16. Act. 7.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. and
many other places.18
The distinction is between the spiritual blessings which
accrue to believers as believers which are called evangelical, and
physical (or natural) consequences pertaining to Abraham's
descendants as domestic (or civil); between a spiritual seed brought about by
heavenly activity and a natural seed brought about by the earthly
procreative act.
Tombes continued to legitimise this distinction as he
invoked a rigorous trinitarianism in his defence to clarify and balance
the issues of continuity and discontinuity within the two aspects of
the Abrahamic covenant and the same issues as regards other covenants:
Yea, it is to be noted, that those promises which were Euangelicall,
according to the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost, do point at the priviledges
of Abrahams House, in the outward face [sense] of the words; whence it may
be well doubted, whether this Covenant made with Abraham, may be called
simply Euangelical, and so pertain to Believers, as Believers. There were
annexed to the Covenant on Mount Sinai, sacrifices pointing at the sacrifice
of Christ, and yet we call not that Covenant simply Euangelicall, but in
some respect.19
Therefore, because of the distinction asserted and shown, that
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
the Abrahamic Covenant is not one and the same with the New
or Gospel Covenant, Tombes went on to answer the remaining three
of his original four questions that paralleled the concerns already
stated, "(2) Who is the seed? (3) What is the promise? (4) What of
those who were circumcised who had no part in Abraham's
covenant?" Tombes moved to his second sub-point:
Secondly, The seed of Abraham is many wayes so called: First, Christ is
called the seed of Abraham, by excellency, Gal 3.16. Secondly, all the Elect,
Rom. 9.7. all believers, Rom. 4.11,12. 16.17, 18. are called the seed of
Abraham, that is spiritual seed. Thirdly, there was a natural seed of Abraham, to
whom the inheritance did accrue; this was Isaac. Gen. 21.12. Fourthly, a natural
seed, whether lawfull, as the sons of Keturah, or base, as Ishmael, to whom
the inheritance belonged not, Gen 15.5. But no where do I find, that the Infants
of Believers of the Gentiles are called Abrahams seed, of the three former
kinds of Abrahams seed, the promise recited, is meant, but in a different
manner thus: that God promiseth, he will be a God to Christ, imparting in him
blessing to all nations of the earth, to the spiritual seed of Abraham in
Euangelicall benefits, to the natural seed inheriting, in domestick and politicall
benefits.20
Tombes extended the blessings of the New Covenant
back upon the Abrahamic covenant in both aspects of the
covenantspiritual and civil. He saw this as part of the fulfilment of the New
Covenant expressed in the time before Christ. He attempted to
explain himself as he answered the question as regards the nature of the
promise in his third sub-point:
3. That the promise of the Gospel, or Gospel-covenant, was the same in
all ages, in respect of the thing promised, and condition of the covenant,
which we may call the substantiall and essentiall part of that covenant, to wit,
Christ, Faith, Sanctification, Remission of sins, Eternall life; yet this
Euangelicall covenant had divers forms in which these things were signified, and
various sanctions, by which it was confirmed: To Adam, the promise was made
under the name of the seed of the woman, bruising the head of the Serpent; to
Enoch, Noah, in other forms; otherwise to Abraham, under the name of his seed,
in whom all nations should be blessed; otherwise to Moses, under the
obscure shadows of the Law; otherwise to David, under the name of a successor in the
kingdome; otherwise in the New Testament, in plain words, 2 Cor. 3.6.
Heb. 8.10. It had likewise divers sanctions. The Promise of the Gospel was
confirmed to Abraham by the sign of circumcision, and by the birth of Isaac;
to Moses by the Paschall Lamb, and the sprinkling of blood on the [door], the
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
rain of Mannah, and other signs; to David by an oath; in the New
Testament, by Christ's blood, 1 Cor. 11.25. Therefore circumcision signified and
confirmed the promise of the Gospel, according to the form and sanction of
the covenant with Abraham, Baptisme signifies and confirms the same
promise according to the form, sanction and accomplishments of the new
Testament....21
Tombes admitted that each of these covenants has a sign
to confirm the promise made. However, he maintains a distinction
between the specific sign of circumcision given in the Genesis 17
covenant given to Abraham as part of that specific covenant and
the specific sign of baptism given in the New Covenant. He went on
to contrast other aspects of these covenants to demonstrate there
was not a quid pro quo relationship between them. There was some
continuity; there was also discontinuity. If they were identical in
all things, they would be the same in essence, character and name.
Since there was at least one difference, the sign, it was, for Tombes's
theological opponents, fallacious to impose a view of radical
continuity between the covenant made with Abraham and the covenant
brought about by Christ, the New Covenant. Tombes continued by
looking at the elements involved:
...[N]ow these forms and sanctions differ many wayes, as much as
concerns our present purpose in these: First, circumcision confirmed not
Euangelicall promises, but also Politicall; and if we may believe Mr. Cameron, in his
Theses, of the threefold Covenant of God, Thesi. 78. Circumcision did
primarily separate the seed of Abraham from other nations, sealed unto them the
earthly promise; Secondarily, it did signifie sanctification: But Baptisme signifies
only Euangelicall benefits. Secondly, circumcision did confirm the promise
concerning Christ to come out of Isaac; Baptisme assures Christ to be
already come, to have been dead, and to have risen again. Thirdly, circumcision
belonged to the Church, constituted in the House of Abraham, Baptisme to
the Church gathered out of all nations; whence I gather, that there is not the
same reason of circumcision and baptisme, in signing the Euangelicall
covenant; nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to
the like manner of the other.22
For Tombes, circumcision sealed an earthly promise and
identified Abraham's seed as set apart to God for God's purpose. A
great part of that purpose was the Incarnation of Christ from the line of
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
Isaac. Tombes was not denying Israel's prized position as
God's special ancient people, he was affirming it. However, for Tombes,
it was important to understand the pre-incarnational Covenants in
the brighter light of the fulfilment in the New Covenant. Salvific
aspects of the New Covenant were found in types and shadows
within the older covenants (especially the Abrahamic), but their
primary purpose was to anticipate the day when God would bring
redemption. The New Covenant, however, looked back to the reality of
redemption accomplished and applied. It was through these New
Covenant glasses that Tombes saw the salvific aspects of all
antecedent covenants. In Tombes's theological scheme, circumcision was
the sign of the former, pointing to, among other things, the spiritual
realities that will be the certain possession of Abraham's spiritual seed.
Baptism looks back at what has been done by the mediator of
the New Covenant for his people and is the sign of the latter.
Tombes demonstrated even more discontinuity between
the Abrahamic and New Covenants while anticipating the question
as regards the subjects of circumcision:
4. That some there were circumcised, to whom no promise in the
covenant made with Abraham did belong; of Ishmael, God had said, that his
covenant was not to be established with him, but with Isaac; and yet he was
circumcised, Gen. 17.29, 21. 25. Rom. 9.7, 8, 9. Gal. 4.29, 30. the same may be
said of Esau: All that were in Abrahams house, whether strangers, or born in
his house, were circumcised, Gen. 17.12, 13. of whom nevertheless, it may
be doubted, whether any promises of the covenant made with Abraham, did
belong to them; there were other persons, to whom all, or most of the
promises in the covenant pertained, that were not circumcised; this may be affirmed
of the Females, coming from Abraham, the Infants dying before the eighth
day, of just men, living out of Abrahams house, as Melchisedech, Lot, Job. If
any say, that the females were circumcised in the circumcision of the Males,
he saith it without proof; and by like, perhaps greater, reason it may be said,
that the children of Believers are baptized in the persons of their own parents,
and therefore are not to be baptized in their own persons. But it is manifest that
the Jewes comprehended in the covenant made with Abraham, and
circumcised, were neverthelesse not admitted to Baptisme by John Baptist, and
Christs Disciples, till they professed repentance, and faith in Christ. Hence I
gather, first, that the right to Euangelicall promises, was not the adequate reason
of circumcising these or those, but God's precept, as is expressed, Gen. 17.23.
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
Gen. 21.4. Secondly, that those terms are not convertible, [federate and to
be signed].23
Tombes's conclusions were drawn from the positive,
declarative use of circumcision and baptism in Scripture. His rigid
adherence to the meaning of texts as God's words for his people, and
his governing principles for all matters of faith and practise,
compelled him to demand positive evidence for paedobaptism beyond mere
theological constructions. Tombes demanded some evidence from
"God's precept[s]" for the practise. He also saw more discontinuity
between the Abrahamic and the New Covenant through the assertion
"those terms were not convertible". By "convertible", Tombes meant,
synonymous. There may be some similarities; yet great differences
remained.
In review, Tombes's original, foundational argument
was stated thus:
Major premise: That which hath no testimony in Scripture for it,
is doubtfull.
Minor premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no
testimony of Scripture for it;
Conclusion: Ergo, it is
doubtfull.24
Applying this argument to baptism, he suggested a second:
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.25
After giving the four reasons above why this is not
exegetically or theologically accurate, he concluded his first and most
fundamental argument:
Whereupon I answer to the Argument: First, either by denying the Major, if
it be universally taken, otherwise it concludes nothing: or by granting it
with this limitation; it is true of that sign of the covenant which agrees
universally in respect of form and sanction, to them that receive the Gospel, but it is
not true of that sign of the covenant, which is of a particular form or sanction, of
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
which sort is circumcision.
Secondly, I answer by denying the Minor, universally taken, the
reason is, because those children only of believing Gentiles, are Abrahams
children, who are his spiritual seed, according to the election of grace by faith,
which are not known to us, but by profession, or speciall
Revelation.26
Here, Tombes, in a summary, has given his refutation of
the argument from Genesis 17:7. He denied the major premise to
be universal. Circumcision was a particular part of a particular
covenant made with Abraham. Circumcision fits within the structure
of that narrow covenantal application to Abraham's descendants
physically. It was a sanction or stipulation from God to Abraham for
his house through procreation. Baptism, for Tombes, was a
covenantal stipulation through the New Covenant because of, and not
antecedent to, regeneration.
However, within Tombes's conclusion there is this
explanatory comment, "[T]he reason is, because those children only of
believing Gentiles, are Abrahams children, who are his spiritual
seed, according to the election of grace by
faith...."27 The true children of Abraham are those who are brought into his family through an act
of God.
The Argument from Acts 2:38, 39
The second exegetical argument is drawn from Acts 2:38, 39.
In the presentation within the
Exercitation, this argument is the fourth presented. However, it is the second exegetical argument. Here
is the form and content of Tombes's introductory syllogism:
Major premise: To whom the promise is made, they may be baptized;
Minor premise: [B]ut to the Infants of Believers the promise is made,
Conclusion: [T]herefore [the infants of believers] may be
baptized.28
Tombes added the proof for the minor premise by citing
the words of Acts 2:39, "for the promise is made to you and to
your children". 29 If the promise in Acts 2:38, 39 can be shown to
include within its scope the infants of believers, they should receive the sign
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
of baptism. Tombes presented four points to clarify the meaning
of this text. His first was:
1. It is to be observed, that the promise made, is the sending of Jesus
Christ, and blessing by him, as it is expounded, Acts 3.25, 26. Acts 13.32, 33.
Rom. 15.8, 9. In Tombes's understanding, the promise is incarnational and
sanctifying.
Following from this proposition is Tombes's second
statement as regards the subjects of Peter's spoken promise:
2. That the Text saith, the promise was made to them he spake to,
and their children, then to them that are afarre off, who, whether they be
Gentiles, who are said to be afarre off, Ephes. 2.12. or Jewes, in future ages or
generations, as Beza thinks, are limited by the words closing the verse, As many
as the Lord our God shall call, which limitation plainly enough shewes the
promise to appertain to them simply as Jewes, but as called of God, which is
more expressly affirmed, Acts 3.26. To you, God having raised up his Son
Jesus, sent him to blesse you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquity:
or as Beza, Every one of you turning your selves from your iniquities;
therefore the promise here is not said to be made but with condition of calling, and
faith, which may be confirmed aboundantly from Rom. 4.13. 16. Gal 3.9. 14.
22.30
Tombes was reformational in his hermeneutics. He set
the context for texts very carefully depending upon the sensus
literalis, the literal sense, to drive the understanding. He was careful to
understand the text in its given context so that his text did not become
a pretext for wrong or misguided doctrine. The gauge used by
Tombes to check his conclusions was the analogia fidei, analogy of faith.
From his comparative use of other biblical texts to support and
refute, it is evident that he believed Scripture to be its own and
best interpreter.
The context of the promise, for Tombes, was
christological and eschatological. Christologically it pointed to the blessing
that came with the coming of Jesus
Christ31 to secure salvation. Eschatologically, it pointed forward to all the Lord shall call to
receive the fullness of the salvific blessing sent. Therefore, as Tombes's
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
work directs the reader, Acts 2:38, 39 must be understood
according to its context and purpose-calling and faith-rather than through
the eyes of a covenant promise made to Abraham and applied to
the infants of believers. The promise stated in Acts 2:38 is one of
sins remitted and reception of the Holy Spirit. The recipients of the
promise are qualified to "as many as shall be called", whether they are
the hearers, their children, or those who are called "those afar off".
The stipulation of this promise may have been extended universally,
yet it was given particularly and conditionally. Touching upon the
relevance of this text for his doctrine of baptism, Tombes proceeded
to the conditions of practise:
3. That Peter, vers. 38. doth exhort to repentance and Baptisme together,
and in the first place perswades to Repentance, then Baptisme, which shewes
Repentance to be in order before Baptisme.32
Tombes could be accused of theological reductionism.
However, for him, his exegetical methodology was to gather data
needed to construct a theology of this or that, rather than to impose a
preconceived theology upon biblical texts. In Acts 2:38, Tombes saw
aspects of historia salutis in application. First repentance is given,
then baptism ought to be practised. Peter exhorted the hearers to
repentance. Proper repentance finds expression in obedience unto
identification with Christ in Baptism. If the promise was limited to
those God shall call, it follows that baptism by virtue of that calling
should also be limited to those called. In his fourth form of the
clarifying argument, Tombes explained the place of repentance:
4. That mention is made of the promise, not as of it self, yeelding right
to Baptisme without Repentance, but as a motive, inciting together, to
Repentance and Baptisme.
The promise of remission of sin and the gift of the Holy
Spirit was spoken before the audience in Jerusalem who, for the most
part, must have had some familiarity with or witnessed the outpouring
of the Spirit in great power on that first Pentecost day. They
would have understood the promise within their given historical
context and recent experience to have spoken about the thing witnessed. If
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
they were at all inclined to possess this wonder, Peter gives them
the motivation towards those things promised in order to lead them
to repentance and therefrom, baptism. The motivation was clearly,
in line with the context, a christological salvation and reception of
the Spirit.
Tombes attempted to explain the meaning of 'promise' in
Acts 2:38, 39 by going to Acts 13: 32, 33. He wrote:
...[A]s if it were a promise of a thing to come, some outward privilege to
be conferred on them [the Jews] and their children, whereas the chief thing
meant in this speech is, that it is expressly said by Paul Acts 13. 32, 33. we
declare unto you glad tiding, how that the promise which was made unto the
Fathers God hath fulfilled the same unto their children, in that he hath raised up
Jesus again. So that the sense is not The promise is, that is there is some
outward privilege promised to be conferred on you and your children : but The
promise is, that is, is fulfilled now at last after long expectation, in that God
raised up his son Jesus and sent him to bless you in turning away every one of
you from your iniquities, Acts 2. 36. And by consequence remission of sins is
to be enjoyed by them that repent upon their
calling.33
The eschatological nature of the "promise is" had
been realised; it was not for subsequent generations. The promise of
remission and reception of God's Spirit was a present reality and
offer for the Jews present at Pentecost hearing the preaching of Peter
because of the resurrection. Peter was making a statement about
present realities in the Jews and their children who could believe. The
promise was for "you and your children" in its immediate context.
Tombes's perspective was to look back at the events
surrounding Pentecost as a watershed for a new theological paradigm based
on what had been done and realised. The thrust of the Apostle's
thought is not on "promise" but the twin graces of forgiveness and
reception of the gift of God's Spirit. In Tombes's structure, the "promise"
was moot since those upon whom the message was preached were
Jews, not believing Gentiles.
He adds:
It is taken as if [to you] were meant of those persons to whom he spake as
then believer, and under than formal consideration. But 1. it may seem
probable from the partitive article v. 41 ['oi They gladly received the word, and v.
44 All that believed] all to whom Peter spake did not after believe, though it is
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
said v. 43. fear was upon every soul. 2. However, it is clear that they were
not believers till after Peter's speech. Nor is it contrary proved from their
being pricked in heart v. 37. which is said they would not have been if they had
not believed that Jesus was the Christ. For though this prove that they had
some sense of the greatness of Christs person, yet this faith was onely with
horror, as in the Devils, from the conscience of the evil of their sin in crucifying
him, not such a faith whereby they did embrace Christ and the profession of
him, and addict themselves to him, till Peter had spoken the words v. 38. 39. 40.
now the promise is not made to a person and his seed that believe
Christs greatness with horror without imbracing him and the profession of him.
And this might be confirmed in that after the expression of their horrour v.
37. Peter exhorts them to repent v. 38: and v. 40. with many other words to
save themselves from that crooked generation.34
Tombes continued his attack on the paedobaptist use of
"promise" from Genesis 17:7 and its presumed connection in Acts 2:39.
He lingered on this argument in order to destroy the theological
nexus between the two. He wrote:
It is most probable that [to you] is meant [to you as Jews] to whom Christ
was first sent and exhibited, according to that Acts 13.46. It was necessary that
the word of God should first be spoken to you, especially those of Jerusalem,
and according to the prophecy Micah 4.2. and therefore they are called
Children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant, that is the people to whom the
Prophets came, and to whom the Covenant was first assured and made known, and
to whom first Christ was sent Acts 3.25.26. which is strengthened by the
distinction between [you] and [those a far off] by which term if the Jews in
the dispersion be meant, then [you] notes those then present who were Jews
as Jews, not as believers; for so they a far off from whom [you] are
distinguished being Gentiles [you] notes Jews as
contradistinct.35
Tombes took opportunity to apply his reason to the
practise of his Paedobaptist contemporaries. He attempted to show how
their practise was out of conformity with their conclusions drawn
from their exegetical method. He showed the end of their reflection
with the following:
[Your children] v. 39. is expounded of their infant-children, yea it is carried
as if of them onely. For they would have the promise to be to their children
as theirs whether they be called or no, which can be verified onely in their
sense of their infants, sith they maintain that even the Children of believers are not
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
in Covenant, the promise is not to them, that are not visible
Church-members when they come to years of discretion except they be called in their own
persons, and accept the call. By which means they are necessitated to expound
it thus, The promise is to you being called to your children whether they
be called or no, to all that are afar off as many as the Lord our God shall call,
as if the limitation... were to be put at both ends, but to be left in the middle,
to salve their fancy.36
Tombes's original argument read:
Major premise: To whom the promise is made, they may be baptized;
Minor premise: [B]ut to the Infants of Believers the promise is made,
Conclusion: [T]herefore [the infants of believers] may be baptized.
Through careful exegesis of Acts 2:38, 39, the
consideration of the immediate context, and use of other pertinent
references, Tombes countered the argument by denying the promise was
made to the infants of believers. He demonstrated the promise was
made to Jews as Jews. The eschatological promise to Abraham in
Genesis 17:7 was fulfilled to his descendants in attendance during
Christ's ministry on earth. It was also brought to pass in those who heard
of Peter's sermon and believed on Pentecost. To those who
experienced the promise of sins remitted and received the Holy Ghost,
they, as the true children of Abraham, could have been baptised. Or,
as Tombes summarised in another work:
Q. 26. Does not Peter, Acts 2.38, 39. exhort the Jews to baptize
themselves and their children, because the promise of grace is to believers
and their children?
A. Those he then spoke to were not then believers; and therefore
the words, Acts. 2.39. cannot be understood of a promise to believers and
their children as such, but the promise is to all, fathers and children as called
of God; nor is any exhorted to baptism without fore-going repentance : nor is
the promise alleged as conferring right to baptism, but as a motive to
encourage them and the hope of pardon, though they wished Christs blood to be on
them and their Children. Mat. 27.25. In the like sort Joseph did, Gen. 50.19.
20. 21.37
The Argument from 1 Corinthians 7:14
The third exegetical argument handles the text, 1 Corinthians
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
7:14, that Tombes used to undergird his own paedobaptist
doctrine and practice between 1627, when he first questioned the infant's
interest in the covenant and 1642, when he changed from
paedobaptist to antipaedobaptist or credobaptist. As one can imagine, since
this was his own justification during his years of transition, he
overwhelms the reader with reasoning and citations from extra-biblical
authorities to buttress the primary means of argumentation, the plain or
literal sense of Scripture. This verse was significant in his
presentation to the Assembly and subsequent polemical
writings.38
To frame Tombes's third exegetical argument:
Major premise: They who are holy with Covenant-holiness, may be
baptized:
Minor premise: But the Infants of a Believer are holy, with a
Covenant-holiness; for it is said in the Text, but now they are holy;
Conclusion: [T]herefore they may be
baptized.39
Tombes, with his exegetical methodology of checking
context and applying the analogy of faith continued with what appears
at first reading to be an exegesis of Romans 11:16:
1. The Major is not true, universally understood, as is manifest from
Rom. 11.16. where it is said, If the first fruits be holy, so is the lump: if the root
be holy, so are the branches, The sense is, that Abraham is the first fruits,
and holy root; the elect Israelites are the branches and lump; so that it
followes, that the elect of the Israelites not yet called, are holy in respect of the
Covenant, and are not yet therefore to be baptized; for although they may be
said to be holy in regard of the Covenant, of old entered into with Abraham,
and the gracious respect of God to them, to be manifested in opportune time,
yet in their present state, before calling, they denying Christ, neither Infants
nor grown men are to be baptized, unlesse we would have the branches broken off
and grafted into the Church; and therefore, although the sense were in
the place of 1 Cor. 7.14. your children are holy with Covenant-holinesse, by
reason of God's gracious favour to be manifested in due time, yet it will
not follow, that they are to be baptized, who have not yeelded any [signs] of
divine grace.40
In Romans 11:16, Tombes found a qualifier for the
major premise of the argument. He demonstrated that not all who have
a "Covenant-holinesse" are to be baptised. By presenting one excep
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
tion to the universal truth asserted, he proved the premise not to
be universal, but a particular truth in need of explanation. This
related to 1 Corinthians 7:14 by way of analogy. What is disproved to
be universal in one text (Rom. 11:16), cannot be asserted to be
universally true in the other (1 Cor. 7:14). Through application of the
analogy of faith, Tombes implied that an understanding of 1
Corinthians 7:14 that did not take this exception into consideration could not
be correct. It was not a theological imposition onto the text but an
exegetical consideration via the consistent application of Tombes's
belief that Scripture is its own best interpreter.
Tombes, in examining the minor premise that
specifically referred to the text, continued:
2. The Minor is not proved from the place alledged: For it doth not speak
of federall holinesse, but of holinesse, that I may so call it, Matrimoniall, so
that the sense is, your children are holy, that is
legitimate.41
In making a distinction between types of holiness,
Tombes did not define his terms clearly in this place. His words,
however, from a later work, dealing with this same exegetical question,
are clearer in their definition of federal holiness:
....[I] believe [you] cannot produce out of Scripture the least shew of a
proof that holy signifies federally in their sense, that is by vertue of descent from
a believer....42
Using extra-biblical authors to point out the meaning
of "Matrimoniall Holinesse", Tombes cites Camerius, Melancthon,
and Musculus as some authorities who equate this distinctive
matrimonial holiness as including the legitimate issue from a marital
union between an unbeliever and a believer.43
The best explanation offered by Tombes for the concept
of matrimonial holiness was found in commentary on the text of
1 Corinthians 7:14 as expressed in the words of Joachim
Camerius from "a commentary on the new Testament, lately printed at
Cambridge":
[[F]or the unbelieving husband hath been sanctified] an usual change of
the Tense, that is, is sanctified, in the lawfull use of marriage, for without this (he
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
saith) it would be, that their children should be unclean, that is, infamous,
and not legitimate, whoso are holy, that is during the marriage are without blot
of ignominy....44
To further explain, Tombes drew from Melancthon's
comments on the passage:
Therefore Paul answers, that the marriages are not to be pulled
asunder, for their unlike opinions of God, if the impious person do not cast away
the other; and for comfort he addes as a reason, the unbelieving husband is
sanctified by the believing wife....45
Tombes, anticipating some offense to be taken at his
definition and distinction, went on to demonstrate its propriety via the
analogy of faith, comparing 1 Corinthians 7:14 with language found
within other scriptural texts:
Perhaps some will object, that nowhere is holy, the same with legitimate:
to which I answer, That holiness is put for Chastity, is manifested from 1
Thes. 4.3. 4. 7. and the word [sanctified] in this place, what doth it found else,
then [is lawfully coupled] and [is sanctified] 1 Tim. 4.5. what else doth it
signifie, then [is lawfully used]? at which place Beza hath these words, Therefore
meats are said to be sanctified, which are lawfully, and with Gods good leave;
he alludes to legall purifications, and the difference between clean and
unclean meats: And why may not by allusion, unclean, be put for Bastards, and
holy for legitimate? for the Bastard is among the unclean, Deut. 23.2. To which
I may adde what John Calvin hath on Mal. 2.15. Wherefore hath God
made one? to wit, seeking a seed of God; a seed of God is here taken for
legitimate... from whence should be born a legitimate and lean
off-spring.46
Tombes's one-time fellow student, John Geree, gave an
adequate explanation of the nature of inferences and therefrom the
reasons why people might come to the varying positions through
the consideration of the same texts. In the context of the discussion
over Genesis 17:7 Geree wrote:
Before I apply my self to the particular Answer of your exceptions against
our Proofs, give me leave to premise a few things.
1. That a thing may be said to have testimony in Scripture for it in
two ways. First, when a thing testified is set down expressly,
totidem verbis. Secondly, when a thing is contained in Scripture implicitely, that is on such
grounds, and principles, from which good consequence it may be deducted. The former
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
way, we confesse Infant Baptism not to be in the Scripture; for then
there could be no controversie between us about it : but in the latter way, we
affirm it is. This distinction I take for granted without proof : not onely because it
is a received Maxim in Divinity, but also because you freely grant it in
your Answer to Master Marshalls Sermon.47
The tension was between primary and secondary
inferences to be drawn from biblical texts. Tombes relied primarily on what
he saw as primary and good inferences drawn from the
prima facie meaning of particular texts in a given context. He believed his
opponents relied on secondary inferences that were often
unwarranted and untested via reason and contextual considerations. His
opponents drew inferences based on theological necessity
and precommitments. They used untested middle terms.
Touching 1 Corinthians 7:14, Tombes laboured to
undergird his distinction between federal and matrimonial holiness. A
tertium quid was introduced to the discussion by Stephen Marshall.
This third meaning for sanctification was an instrumental
sanctification wherein the unbelieving wife was sanctified by the believing
husband in that she brought forth godly seed. She was then to be
considered the instrument of delivery for a sanctified child who would
then be baptised properly.48
To this alternative, Tombes replied:
Now I truly said that they could not be said to be sanctified for the
bringing forth a holy seed, who are disabled for bringing forth any seed at all, and so
it could not have resolved the doubt of such; whereas the Apostles
determination is concerning any husband and wife, the one an unbeliever, the other
a believer.... I reply, the instrumentall sanctification of Mr. Marshall was
thus exprest in his Sermon... so farre as to bring forth a holy seed... the ones
being sanctified in the other, quoad hoc... so farre as to make the capable to
bring forth a holy seed. Now I appeal to any Logician and Grammarian whether
a person may be said to be instrumentally sanctified for such an effect which
he neither doth nor can produce? whether a woman may be said to be
sanctified quoad hoc, so farre as to bring forth a holy seed by vertue of the faith of
her husband, who is by age or accidental impotency utterly disabled
naturally from bearing any children, and hath no supernatural power inabling her thereto?
whether she may be capable to bring forth a holy seed who is not capable
to bring forth any at all? Bringing forth a holy seed cannot be without bringing
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
forth a seed, and therefore the woman uncapable to bring forth a seed
is uncapable to bring forth a holy seed. Yea, Mr. Marshals own words
[when they are capable of it] do impliedly acknowledge that such persons are
not then capable of the right of being sanctified instrumentally for bringing
forth a holy seed. I deny not but there are many privileges which never comes
into an act, but I utterly deny that this speech by which Mr. Marshal
paraphaseth the Apostles words, the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing
husband, quoad hoc, so farre as to bring forth a holy seed, can be true of such
a woman who is altogether disabled from child-bearing. And therefore
the Apostles argument, understood after Mr. Marshals sense of it, had not
resolved the doubt concerning them that were past generation, whereas it is
not denied that the resolution reacheth even unto such in case of disparity of
religion. As for what Mr. Marshal adds, Besides the first part of it reacheth to
the bed, even the coitus is not only undefiled but sanctified, I do not
understand either what that [it] refers to, or what he means by [reacheth to the bed] nor
of whom he means it, nor what he means by [the first part] sith I find no
partition of any thing in the answer, nor in what respect or manner the coitus is said
to be not onely undefiled but sanctified also, nor to what purpose that is
added [even the coitus is not only undefiled but sanctified] and therefore till
Mr. Marshall expound it, I must let it pass as the speech of a man between
waking and sleeping.49
Tombes was confused at the new meaning Marshall gave to
instrumental sanctification.
Tombes conceded there was such a thing as instrumental
sanctification; yet it was not found in the place his opponents argued.
It was found in the places where God specifically revealed that he
had set apart certain instruments to bring forth a holy seed. Tombes
would not allow instrumental sanctification to be used via secondary
inferences and analogy. He explained:
My reason is this, Instrumental sanctification is by God's special
designation of some selected by him for special use : this is proved from those
places which speak of instrumentall sanctification, of which I alleged two, Jerem.
1. 5. Isai. 13. 3. to which I might have added Gen. 2. 3. John 10. 36. and it
is confirmed by reason. For to be sanctified instrumentally is to be set apart
to be an instrument for bringing forth a holy seed, now an instrument must be
the instrument of a principall agent, which can be no other than God, nor be
sanctified any other way than his special designation of one to be an instrument of
God, which is proved in that sanctification comes from the common
relation between them and if it came from the faith of one party, yet it is not a speciall
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
designation of God, therefore here is not meant instrumental
sanctification.50
Tombes's original argument from 1 Corinthians 7:14,
that demonstrates something of the prevailing baptismal theology
and exegesis of his day, was:
Major premise: They who are holy with Covenant-holiness, may be
baptized:
Minor premise: But the Infants of a Believer are holy, with a
Covenant-holiness; for it is said in the Text, but now they are holy;
Conclusion: [T]herefore they may be
baptized.51
Tombes was unwilling to concede that this text had any
relevance for the dispute. He believed, along with others, that the
passage in question, by context and comparison with others texts,
could not be used to prove infant baptism via a federated holiness
from parents to children. The author's original intent was to comfort
believers with an unbelieving spouse that their marriage and
children issuing from it, were, in God's eyes, matrimonially legitimate.
The Argument from Matthew 19:15, Mark 10:14, 16, and
Luke 18:15, 16
The fourth exegetical argument was one that handled a
synoptic redaction and implication therefrom to baptism from
Matthew 19:15, Mark 10:14, 16, and Luke 18:15, 16. Tombes admitted,
"The Argument... may be formed in divers
manners".52 After setting out the basic argument, and opening up the verses under eight heads,
he set out alternatives that he tested by way of context and the
analogy of faith. Here is the basic construction of the argument:
Major premise: [T]hey are to be baptized, whom Christ commands to
be brought to him, being moved with indignation towards his disciples, that
repelled them.
Minor premise: But Christ commands Infants to be brought to him.
Conclusion: Ergo. [Infants may be
baptized]53
The obvious conclusion is left to the reader, Christ com
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
manded infants to be brought to him in baptism. Tombes listed
eight parts of the argument to be examined exegetically:
1. Who they were that brought these that were brought.
2. What little children they were that were brought.
3. Upon what motives.
4. To what end.
5. What time.
6. In what place they brought them.
7. For what cause the Apostles did repell them.
8. For what cause Christ being angry with the Apostles,
commanded them to be brought.54
Eschewing the hypothesising of some on these matters,
in favour of some positive declaration in Scripture, Tombes asserted:
In many of these [things to be examined], we have scarce any thing
beside conjectures, which we may follow, neither have I leisure or books to look
into all things which Commentators have discoursed concerning these
heads.55
Systematically, Tombes worked through the list of headings.
As regards the head, "1. Who they were that brought these
children", he rejoined:
As for the first, it it[sic] is supposed that the bringers were either parents,
or other believers, who at least wished well to the little children; which is
probable from the end for which they brought them, to wit, that he might
blesse them, and pray for them, for this shewed faith and
love.56
To the second head, "2. What little children they were
that were brought", Tombes explained:
As for the second, it is probable they were children of Jewes, because this
was done in the coasts of Judea, Mat. 19.1 Mar. 10.1. But whether the parents
of the children believed in Christ or otherwise, is not
manifest.57
With regard to the third, "3. Upon what motives",
Tombes advanced:
As for the third, concerning the motive, there is little certain, whether it
were upon the sight, or hearing of that which Christ did, Mat. 18.2. or from
a custome among the Jewes, of seeking the blessing of Prophets and holy
men, for their little ones, as Rebecca for Jacob, Joseph for his sons; or from the
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
fame of things done upon the praiers [prayers] of Christ, or an instinct
from God, that occasion might be given of teaching the things that Christ
taught upon this matter; or some other
motive.58
In the fourth case, Tombes answered the question, "To
what end" were they brought:
As for the fourth, the end is expressed by Matthew, that he might put on
hands and pray; by Mark and Luke, tha[t] the[y] might touch them, which tends
to impart a blessing.59
Regarding the time the children were present to be brought
to Christ, Tombes said:
As for the time, Matthew points out the time, by the particle [then] and
both Mark and Matthew, put it after the dissertation, with the Pharisees
concerning divorce, and the answer to the Disciples exception, which Mark testifies
was made in the house; Luke puts it after the parable of the Publican and the
Pharisee, but he is wont to release things out of their right place. But what the
holy Spirit doth intimate, by noting the time precisely, I guesse not, unlesse
perhaps he would have it noted, that an occasion was opportunely ministered,
of amplifying the argument concerning making a mans self a Eunuch for
the kingdome of heaven, though this reason doth not very much like
me.60
When considering, "In what place they brought
them", Tombes, rather dissmissively wrote:
As for the sixth, the place is intimated, Mat. 19.1. Mar. 10.1. in the coasts of
Judea, beyond Jordan, in Matthew; By the farther side of Jordan, in
Mark; about which it availeth not our present purpose to
inquire.61
Looking at the seventh head, "For what cause the
Apostles did repell them", Tombes manifested more subtle humility:
As for the seventh, the reason of repelling, is not known, but by conjecture,
it is probable this bringing of little children, was troublesome to them,
either because it did interrupt Christs Speech about marriage, and fitness to the
Kingdom of heaven, or because they sought rest in the house, or because they
did think this bringing would be in vain.62
Lastly, "For what cause Christ being angry with the
Apostles, commanded them to be brought" was explained:
As for the eighth, Christ without doubt, was angry with the Disciples because
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
they hindered the occasion of doing good to men, whereas, Christ went
about doing good, Act. 10.38. And in this business the faith of the bringers was to
be cherished, and the power of blessing in Christ was to be manifested, &
the excellent doctrine to be delivered, concerning little childrens being capable
of the Kingdome of heaven; but whether Christ would that this fact should
remain as a perpetuall rule for the baptizing the Infants of Believers, is yet
a question. It seems scarce probable it should be
so.63
Why spend so much space on what is doubtful or "mere
conjecture"? Because from this creative exegesis of the text,
Tombes went on to demonstrate how the text could and could not be
used properly. Within Puritanism, argument by analogy alone often
devolved into association by allegory. Tombes did not address
this concern. He protected against it by demystifying the text by a
demonstration of its plain and almost mundane meaning. He took
this exegesis and therefrom gives six arguments why it is
improbable that Christ gave "a perpetuall rule for the baptizing of the Infants
of Believers". This is followed by three reasons why the
connection was weak, and then two more constructions of the
original argument from the synoptic passages. The basic exegetical work, for
Tombes, was foundational to a proper apprehension of the doctrine found
in the text and for the proper uses-application-of the text.
Tombes gave the first of his six reasons why, "It seems
scarce probable it should be so":
1. Because Baptisme of Infants, being meerly positive, so obscure and
doubtfull an institution, is without example or
reason.64
By 'positive', Tombes meant "explicitly set out" in the passage
according to the text's literal sense. When he said it "is without
example and reason", he was saying that infant baptism could not
be practised from some precedent in these texts and that it did not
follow from the argumentation. He continued stating his doubts
with that very point:
2. Because we find no practice or hint in Scripture, which may expound
this fact to this sense.65
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
It is Tombes's last four arguments that make the practise
from these verses appear doubtful. These are found below:
3. Because, if he had given a command to the Apostles of baptizing
Infants, he had rather said, bring the little children to me (actively), then
[meaning rather than] suffer them to be brought to me
(passively).66
4. He had declared whose Infants he would have baptized, and not
have spoken so indefinitely, it is certain, before the command, Mat. 28.19, 20.
There is no precept extant, concerning baptizing Gentiles, much lesse
concerning baptizing the Infants of Gentiles.
67
5. The words, suffer & forbid not. . . these little children, as Beza reads,
shew that Christs words are meant only of those
children.68
6. If this fact pertain to Baptism, then we must say, that Christ baptized,
the contrary whereof is said, Joh. 4.2. 69
The genius of Tombes's argumentation is found in his
thoroughgoing and consistent use of reason with Scripture to
understand Scripture. He did not waver from his original concerns. Each
argument was an application of his starting point. Exegesis of one
text, for him, could not and should not have been done in isolation
from the whole community of texts found between the covers of the
Holy Scriptures. It is evident that he viewed all of the Bible as one
organic whole, interconnected in all its parts, from which theological
truths must be drawn by way of necessary and good inference. This
view was especially manifest in the sixth argument. Even if it
seemed reasonable to draw the inference from the text that Jesus had
baptised those particular children who came to him, Tombes scrutinised
that implication with the searchlight of Scripture. The conclusion
should be amended to display to allow the explicit, universal statement
found in John 4:2, that Jesus baptised nobody, to inform his doctrine.
From these six reasons why the practise of infant baptism
is doubtful from these texts, he drew three reasons why it could not
be so and to display the absurd nature of drawing a universal
principle of infant baptism from this text:
1. Three Evangelists rehearse the bringing of the palsie man to Christ, the
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
accesse of the lepros person to Christ, and many other things, from which
no perpetuall rule is formed.
2. If any rule be hence to be formed, that is to be perpetually
observed, this relation will serve more fitly to establish Episcopal confirmation, by
laying on of hands, and praying, then Presbyterial baptisme.
Secondly, we must distinguish, concerning bringing to Christ; there is
a bringing to Christ, by local admonition, there is another bringing to Christ
by spirituall instruction; this bringing to Christ, is the cause of Baptisme, not
the other....
3. The Argument supposeth they may be baptized, whom Christ
commands to be brought, but neither is this true of spirituall bringing; for
not those whom he commands to be brought spiritually, are to be baptized,
but those whom he hath brought; as for that which is said, they are repelled
from Christ, that are repelled from Baptisme, it is a light thing, for Baptisme
doth not bring men to Christ, unlesse the person be first in Christ; neither is
therefore any man repelled from Christ, because he is not baptized, but when he
is kept back, being fit for baptism.70
Tombes had argued the case beyond the boundaries of
his own view demonstrating how, using the same methodology,
one should insist on the baptism of lepers and paralytics. By
extending the discussion into these matters, he pointed out problems
in hermeneutics. Tombes showed inconsistencies in his
opponents' methodology and the remnants of problems when inferences are
not drawn from texts considered. Tombes's conclusion based on the
context of Matthew 19:15, Mark 10:14, 16, and Luke 18:15, 16,
added to his theological reflection through the spectacles of other
Scriptures became a test for consistency. Tombes's summary
conclusion of the argument is brief. The argument was:
Major premise: [T]hey are to be baptized, whom Christ commands to
be brought to him, being moved with indignation towards his disciples, that
repelled them.
Minor premise: But Christ commands Infants to be brought to him.
Conclusion: Ergo. [Infants may be
baptized]71
Tombes's conclusion was: "To the Argument therefore
answer is made, by denying the Major universally
taken".72 In Scripture, Tombes displayed, all whom Christ commanded to come to him
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
were not universally baptised. Sensing that some might find a
way around this conclusion, he added two more arguments from
these three contexts as a restatement of various paedobaptist concerns:
The first restating of the argument:
Major premise: Those whom Christ imbraced, laid his hands on,
blessed, may be baptized;
Minor premise: But Christ imbraced Infants, &c.
Conclusion: Ergo, [Infants may be baptized]
To this suggestion, Tombes answered:
I answer, this argument supposeth these acts of Christ to have been all one,
as if he had baptized, but this is said without proof, in very deed, that act
of blessing was more then Baptisme, and yet it had not the same reason
with Baptisme; it is manifest out of Joh. 4.2. that Baptisme was an act of
ministery, which Christ did not exercise by himself, but his Disciples, but that
blessing was an act, by which he obtained some singular gift from God by prayers
for those Infants, upon whom he had laid his hands; nor is this benefit said to
be bestowed on them for the faith of their parents, but of one singular
favour which Christ bestowed upon many, as Lazarus, with his sisters, John,
the Apostle and others, therefore the Major Proposition is to be denied; for
there is no connexion between this act, which is extraordinary, and the act of
ordinary ministery, which is to be fulfilled according to the Lord's
prescription.73
Tombes clarified the argument with a very simple and
straightforward approach: Jesus blessed the children simply because
he wanted to bless the children. It was an act of kindness by one
towards others. The narrative was not intended to be didactic
but indicative of how Jesus dealt with that particular crowd on that
particular day.
A third argument was put forward by Tombes from the
three synoptic texts that might appear to favour paedobaptism:
Major premise: They may be baptized, whose is the Kingdome of heaven;
Minor premise: [B]ut of Infants is the Kingdome of
heaven;
Conclusion: Ergo. [Infants may be
baptized]74
In an interesting rhetorical switch, Tombes answered the
argument affirmatively with qualification:
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
I answer, the Major proposition is true, if it be understood of those whose
is the Kingdome of heaven, when it appears that the Kingdome of heaven
belongs to them, otherwise it is not true. Secondly, it is not said, in the Text
[of Infants is the Kingdom of heaven] but, of such is the kingdome of heaven;
and Christ expounds what he means, Mar. 10.15. Luke 18.17. to wit, of them
who in humility of mind, are like little children, as it is Mat. 18.3, 4. but if
[of such] to be expounded, as Beza would, Annot. in Mat. 19.14. of these and
the like, as above, 18. it is not proved from thence, that the kingdome of
heaven pertains to all Infants of Believers, but to them whom he then blessed, and
to those persons who either are so blessed, or are converted and humble as
little children. Whence [the argument] is answered; first by denying the Major, if
it be expounded universally and unrestrainedly: secondly, by denying the
Minor, as it is put indefinitely, for the reasons put
above.75
Tombes's exegetical conclusions drawn from these
parallel texts are: (1) Jesus desired to bless the little children; (2) Jesus
engaged in ministry to particular children; (3) Being like them,
spiritually, is what the Kingdom of heaven is about; and (4) There is
no warrant from these texts by way of calling, blessing, or
Kingdom, for paedobaptism. There was, for Tombes, in these texts,
nothing hidden in a deeper allegorical or mystical meaning.
The Argument from Household Baptisms
The fifth exegetical argument examined the household
baptism passages. Tombes presented the positive position as
regards these texts: Acts 16:15, 32, 33; Acts 18:8; and 1 Corinthians 1:16;
in this manner:
Major premise: If the Apostle baptized whole households, then [he
baptized] infants.
Minor premise: [B]ut the Apostle baptized whole households,
Conclusion: Ergo. [Paul baptized
infants].76
Tombes dealt with the issue only briefly. He pointed out
the assumption of the opposition party. Then he drew a conclusion
from the negation of the argument based on context of the two Acts
passages. His one paragraph answer was:
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
The Argument rests on a slight conjecture, that there were Infants in
those houses, and that those Infants were baptized, whereas the words of the
Text evince not these things, yea those things which are said, Acts 16.32. He
spake the Word of the Lord to him, and to all in his house; and vers. 33. He rejoyced,
believing God with all his house. Act. 18.8. Crispus believed the Lord
with his whole house, do plainly prove, that under the name of the whole house,
are understood those only that heard the Word of God and believed. Whence
[the argument] is answered by denying the consequence of the Major
Proposition.77
The "consequence of the Major Proposition" was "then
he [meaning Paul] baptized infants". From Acts 16:15, 32, 33 and
Acts 18:8, Tombes demonstrated the lack of evidence for this
dependant phrase in the argument and the presence of evidence to the contrary.
The conclusion can be restated, that if any were baptised, they
were among those who believed, even if they were young. Tombes
did not rule out the possibility of children understanding and coming
to faith; he showed the lack of positive evidence from these
particular Scriptures for the practise of infant baptism. He undermined
the basic theological assumptions he believed his opponents
imposed upon the texts.
In a public debate between John Tombes as respondent
and John Cragge and Henry Vaughan as opponents on September 5,
1653, Cragge expressed the kind of assumption often made about
these texts by Paedobaptists:
... [U]pon this account it is, that we read of many whole families Baptized,
not excluding, but rather including Infants, Cornelius was Baptized with
his houshold, Acts 10.47, 48. Lydea, and her houshold, Acts 16.15. Crispus,
and all his house, Acts 18.8. and the houshold of Stephanus, 1 Corinth. 1.16.
the jayler...all that were his, Acts 16. 31, 32. His servants, his Children; for
we can not imagine so many families without a
child.78
Cragge confessed his theological precommitment.
Tombes sought clues in the context that lead to an understanding of the
passages. On issues like these, it is easy to see how one's own
subjective experiences can become the foundation for understanding
texts-sacred and otherwise and therefrom doctrine.
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
Tombes, applying the same rigorous tests to these
passages, looked at all of the references to household baptisms and
households in general found in the New Testament. He expressed his
conclusion within the Short Catechism of 1659:
Q. 13. Were not infants baptized, when whole households were baptized,
Acts 16.15.33?
A. No: For it appears not that there were any infants in the houses,
and the texts shew they were not baptized, since the word was spoken to all in
the house, vs. 32, and all the house rejoiced believing God. vs. 34. And
elsewhere the whole house is said to do that which Infants could not do, Acts 18.8; 1
Cor 16.15; compared with 1 Cor 1.16; Jn 4.53.79
Tombes's original argument stated:
Major premise: If the Apostle baptized whole households, then [he
baptized] infants.
Minor premise: [B]ut the Apostle baptized whole households,
Conclusion: Ergo. [Paul baptized
infants].80
Through Tombes's comparative use of texts, he negated
the consequent of the major premise, "then [he baptized] infants",
demonstrating that the range of meaning for the word "household", in
the writings of the Apostle Paul, may have had a restricted range of
meaning precluding infants. The inclusion of infants in the meaning
of household was, therefore, not warranted by the texts only
because households do in other places the things that infants cannot do
such as ministering to the needs of the saints. This remains an
interesting twist that disallows a universal principle to be drawn from
selective data.
The Argument via Analogy from Isaiah 49:22
The sixth exegetical argument was not an argument,
per se, but an assertion by prophetic analogy. The origins of this
prophetic analogy were found in Isaiah 49:22. Tombes relayed the
assertion with these words:
...[I]t is foretold that Gentiles should bring their sons in their arms and daugh
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
ters on their shoulders, therefore the Prophet foresaw in spirit, the baptisme
of little ones of the Gentiles.81
Using the conclusion from a previous exegetical
argument and another author as his authority, Tombes gave his brief rebuttal
in scholastic fashion:
First, little ones might be brought for other ends than baptisme,
as Mat.19.15.
Secondly, I will use the words of Francis Junius.... All these things
are said Allegorically, of the spiritual amplification of the kingdome of Christ,
as the Prophets are wont, they are fulfilled in the perswasions in which
Gentiles exhorted their children to imbrace
Christ.82
Nine years later, however, Tombes must have no longer
believed that that explanation of this verse lay in the lack or "wont"
of Isaiah's words. He changed his opinion. In the debate with
Cragge, Tombes gave a contextual exposition of Isaiah 49:22 that
Cragge used masterfully to place Tombes against the entire Church of
England. Stating, "That which is the judgment of the Church of
England ought to be entertained against the groundless assertion of
one private man".83 This "groundless assertion" was, in line with the
overall context of the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah, "the
Gentiles should bring the Jewes children from captivity; and that it did
not point at the time of the Gospel".84
Cragge's contention that it spoke of "the time of the Gospel" was based on, not Scripture itself,
but annotations and introductions to the Great Church Bible, "If
the Church of England causes it to be printed, and commands it to
be read before the chapter, then it is the judgment of the Church of
England".85 In response to this debate within a debate,
another Antipaedobaptist rose to address the question of
context.86
Tombes's theological methodology was borrowed from
scholasticism again. In using authorities, Tombes used those who
best reflect the context and plain sense,87
of the passage. Authority was never used as a bludgeoning instrument to pummel his opponents.
However, the primary base of his theology was built upon the
bedrock of biblical texts understood in context and copiously compared
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
with other texts internal to the Scriptures and external
authorities dealing with the topic. As the years augmented Tombes's
knowledge in these areas his abilities to argue his case increased
comprehensively as well.
The Argument from 1 Corinthians 10:2
The seventh exegetical argument was taken from 1
Corinthians 10:2. Tombes constructed the argument positively by drawing
an inference or conclusion from a universal statement:
Major premise: All our fathers were baptized.
Conclusion: Therefore, also
Infants.88
Tombes took biblical texts quite literally. However, this
was not a naïve literalism that imposed a meaning upon texts because
of prevailing seventeenth century thought patterns. To take a text
literally means to take it as intended by the writer, the literary or
authorial intent. If the writer intended it to be taken in a prima facie
sense, Tombes used it accordingly. If, however, the writer used language
in an illustrative, allegorical, spiritual, or metaphorical sense,
Tombes was quick to use it in harmony with the writer's intent, when
the intent could be discerned from the context. For Tombes, this
was why the context of texts was of utmost importance. Context
gives clues to the meaning of words and propositions. Within this
argument, Tombes argued for a sense other than a rigid literal one.
He first displayed the folly of imposing a rigidness onto the text that
is not there. Then he went on to explain the real sense in which
this passage should be understood. With regard to the former, he mused:
I answer, first, if this verse prove that Infants were baptized, the verse
following will prove that they received the Lord's
Supper.89
Tombes pointed out that Verse Three speaks inclusively
of all the Israelites who ate the same spiritual food and drank the
same spiritual drink. If those who argued for baptism were consistent
in their spiritualised argumentation, they should have spiritualised the
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
food and drink to be the elements present in the Lord's Supper.
This would have made a case for paedocommunion-infant
participation in the Eucharist. The consistent end of over-spiritualisation in
this context would be for some to affirm what they dare not to affirm,
at least not in the middle of the seventeenth century.
For Tombes, the real sense was explained:
The sense is not that they were formally baptized, with the rite of
baptisme, begun by John Baptist, and ordained by Christ; but that by a like
representation, the sea and the cloud signified salvation to them by Christs
baptisme doth to us, and that they were in a like condition, as if they had been
baptized.90
Tombes left the answer there with no summary resolution.
Clearly, when his words are considered against the argument
offered, it is refuted by the true sense of this passage, a metaphorical use
of baptism. The original argument's major and only premise is
denied- "All our fathers" were not baptised in the same way proponents
of paedobaptism would practise baptism. The problem, left to the
inferential ability of his readers, is one of equivocation. Baptism
is presented in more than one sense within the same paedobaptist
argument.
The Argument from Ephesians 5:26
The eighth exegetical argument comes from Ephesians 5:26.
The argument makes a general statement, then proceeds to give
two apparently contradictory options as possible conclusions:
Major premise: Christ cleansed the Church with the washing of
water through the Word.
Conclusion A: [T]herefore Infants either belong not to the Church,
and so are excluded from the benefits of Christ's death.
Conclusion B: [O]r they [infants] are to be baptized [as included in
the benefits of Christ's death].91
The argument assumes that cleansing or 'washing of
water through the Word' is synonymous with Christian baptism. By nega
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
tion and inference in Conclusion A, it must further assume that
the "benefits of Christ's death", meaning salvation, come to those
only who have been baptised. It is this fallacy that Tombes exposed in
his brief reply to the argument:
If this Argument be of force, the thief crucified with Christ, and repenting
on the crosse, Infants, Catechumeni, Martyrs, and others, dying before
baptisme, are excluded out of the Church, and from the benefit of Christs death; we
are therefore to say, that either the Church is taken for the more famous part of
the Church, or that purification is to be understood of that, which is for the
most part.92
Tombes was arguing for the proper sense of the text from
the context and use of Ephesians 5:26. He understood "Christ
cleansed the Church" as a figure of speech which uses "Church" in a
spiritual sense rather than a physical sense. Church, taken spiritually,
would be synonymous with the elect, those who believed. Christ's
purification of the Church was a cleansing of her sin as a necessary
condition to fellowship with her holy Saviour. This was expressed
poetically through the picture of the rite of purification. Thus,
Church must be understood as that living organism purified by Christ
that exists for his own purposes, rather than an organisation including
all who associate with her in an outward manner. The
purification, "which is for the most part", is for that spiritual organism that
has been cleansed by Christ, within the physical organisation known
as the Church.
The Argument from 1 Peter 2:9
The ninth exegetical argument was taken from 1 Peter 2:9.
It was an argument by analogy from the historical context and
words of Exodus 19:5, 6 to the context and citation of that passage in
1 Peter 2:9. The argument is structured in this way:
Major premise: [F]rom 1 Peter 2.9. Believers
are called a chosen
generation, a holy nation, which things are said of the Israelites. Exo. 19.5, 6.
Minor premise: Believers of the nations obtain the same birth-
priviledges, which the Israelites had.
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
Conclusion: [T]herefore their [believers] children are within the
Covenant, and to be baptized as the children of the Israelites were to be
circumcised.93
Tombes, in the first place, answered the argument with
his personal ecclesiology that compelled him to continue in
communion with the National Church until his
death.94 Drawing out the consistent end to which the argument should go, Tombes responded:
1. If this Argument proceed, it will follow, that there is some
nationall-church among the Gentiles, as of old among the Jewes, which is not to be
granted, which I would have understood in this sense, so as that a person should
be accounted a member of a church, in that he is an Englishman, Scot,
Dutchman, &c. In this speech I oppose not them which affirm the outward
government of the Church should be subject to nationall
Synods.95
Tombes pointed out that a universal application from 1
Peter 2:9 for infant baptism would entail a national or state body that
would encompass all within the "holy nation", that is, all the Gentile
believers since Gentile is the ethnic category used in Scripture to
identify those who believe. The reader is left to infer that a subject of
any State is not necessarily a member of that State's Church due to
birth simply because of the geographical borders of that country.
For Tombes, there were other criteria for membership in the "holy
nation". This was spelled out in his subsequent arguments against
this exegetical argument. However, Tombes's qualifying comment
deserves attention. It should be noted that he did not oppose those
who "affirm" a national and synodical view of Church government.
For Tombes, the Church in England was the Church to which he
was called. Separation from her could not be justified by him within
his exegetical methodology and theological system. Tombes saw
God dealing with nations as a basic unit within the divine
economy.96
He saw judgment to be executed against nations. He saw the Great
Commission as directed to national discipling. Therefore, the church
in England, or the Church of England, was
all-important.97
Tombes went on to examine the original meaning of
Exodus 19:5, 6 in its context and the context and original audience of its use
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
in 1 Peter. From these contexts he clarified the basic meanings of
the passages in question. Then in a third argument he presented
other biblical texts to support his conclusions.
Directing his readers' attention to Exodus 19:5, 6 he
wrote, "God speaks not of a privilege flowing from birth, but
obedience".98 There was nothing in the context about birth privileges to Israel.
An examination of the context demonstrates that Israel was about to
receive the Law. The issue was their obedience to the Covenant
stipulations about to be revealed.
Moving to 1 Peter 2:9, he instructed his readers as
regards the original audience of Peter's work. He was setting a broader
context in which all of 1 Peter must be understood:
The epistle was written to the dispersed Jewes, and therefore the
Argument lies liable to exception, when it is drawn from that which is said of the
Jewes, as if it were said of the Gentiles.99
Modern scholarship might disagree with Tombes about
the original audience, but Tombes was careful to understand all
texts within the context. Tombes should also be understood within
his seventeenth century context. He was, by contrast with the ideas
of his time, an anomaly in this matter. The prevailing Puritan
opinion during the ascendancy of parliament and time of the
Commonwealth was that England was the reconstituted people of God, his
chosen nation. Evidently, Tombes did not see 1 Peter 2:9 as having
direct reference to this aspect of Puritan Millenarianism, but to the Jews
as dispersed sojourners. To his credit, Tombes admitted that his
"Argument lies liable to
exception".100 He moved on to the
important summary conclusion:
But letting these things passe, the sense is, ye which believe, as it is in vers.
7. whom God hath called out of darknesse, are a holy nation, whether Jewes
or Gentiles, by spirituall generation, as Believers are called a family or
kindred, Ephes. 3.15. the houshold of faith, Gal. 6.10. the house of God, 1 Tim.
3.15. a people, 1 Pet. 2.10. wherefore in this family, kindred, house, people,
are only Believers, whom not carnall birth, but spiritual causeth to be reckoned
in that number.101
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
This argument did not engender responses from those
who engaged the debate in print. Stephen Marshall dismissed it with
these words,
...[S]ome of the Scriptures mentioned in them, as Exod. 20.6. 1 Pet. 2.9&c.
so farre as they have any use in this controversie, are also considered of here,
and there in my Book, as the Reader may
observe".102
It should be noted, Marshall mentioned this verse no more.
However, the discussion on Matthew 28:19 addressed this
concern-how was the term nation to be understood?
Tombes's argument found him affirming the major
premise, "[F]rom 1 Peter 2.9. Believers are called a chosen generation, a
holy nation, which things are said of the Israelites. Exo. 19.5, 6.",
yet denying the minor, "Believers of the nations obtain the same
birth priviledges, which the Israelites had", for lack of biblical evidence.
The conclusion, "[T]herefore their [believers] children are within
the Covenant, and to be baptised as the children of the Israelites were
to be circumcised", does not follow.103
The Argument from Hebrews 6:2
The tenth argument for infant baptism came from
Hebrews 6:2. It was a direct appeal to authority, the authority of the
particular text as trustworthy Scripture. Tombes examined the argument
from authority based on the twin concepts of baptism and laying on
of hands. First he explained the argument without syllogism in
this way:
[N]ow this [passage] is not likely to be understood of laying on of hands
for sick persons, or bestowing the Holy Ghost, for these were extraordinary
or miraculous, and therefore not to be put in the number of the principles of
the oracles of God, the foundation, milk for babes, nor of the imposition of
hands for ordination to special function in the church, for that, though ordinary,
yet not likely to be put among the principles, the foundation, milk or babes,
therefore it remains, that it was the laying on of hands on children formerly
baptized in infancy, which though corruptly made a Sacrament by Papists,
and superstitiously abused, yet being freed from the abuse were very usefull,
as being an Apostolicall ordinance, from this Text, and manifests that there was
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
Infant-Baptisme in the Apostles dayes, which is confirmed, because it is
coupled with baptisme, and therefore seemed to be consequent upon
it.104
To simplify the argument put forth from Hebrews 6:2,
because the laying on of hands was believed to be subsequent to
baptism, and because laying on of hands was done to confirm children
in the faith, this baptism must have been done to children when
they were young. Tombes went on to answer the concern by giving
two alternatives to the understanding already mentioned. He wrote:
There is great [u]ncertainty, what this imposition of hands mentioned,
Heb.6.2. served for, the reason to prove that it could not be either for healing, or
giving the Holy Ghost, because they were miraculous or extraordinary, is not
cogent; for though they were by more then ordinary power, yet were they frequent
in those times, and might well be put among the elements to be in those
days first learned: nor is the reason cogent to prove it should not be the
imposition of hands in ordination, for special function in the Church; for it is more
likely that it should be meant, which is certain was still in use, and to continue to
be used, and therefore it was needful to be taught younglings, as well as
the doctrine of baptismes then laying on of hands for confirmation of
baptisme, of which there is no certainty though pretended examples in Scripture,
be brought to give some colour to it; nor is the imposition of hands in
ordination unfitly coupled to baptisme, both being ordinances for initiation, the one
into profession of Christ, the other into sacred
function.105
A second plausible explanation was given by Tombes:
But if it were supposed that this imposition of hands, meant Heb. 6.2. were
on the baptized; yet this proves not the baptisme of Infants in the Apostles
dayes, unlesse it could be proved that it was used after the baptisme of infants
only, for a confirmation either of the baptisme, or baptized. On the contrary, it
is apparent out of [Tertullian] de corona militis, c.3. that in primitive times
the baptized did make his confession at baptisme... the minister laying hands
on him. And to save labour in reciting testimonies, Chamier ... proves out of
the Ancients, that the imposition of hands, which after was made a distinct
Sacrament, called Confirmation, was either a part or appendix of
Baptisme....106
In Tombes's methodology here is his ever-present quest
to discover the meaning of a text from the context of a passage.
However, there are times when theological reflection must be brought
in alongside the context in order to obtain clues to the meaning. In this
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
passage, if one presupposes infant baptism, he might reflect upon
the meaning in that light as the guiding beacon. There is a tension
in Tombes between exegesis driving theological understanding and
theology driving exegetical formulation. It is manifest in this place.
Tombes was arguing from the setting of texts as if they were
faceted stones set in a great ring to be displayed. Yet, behind all the
exegetical base was a man who was a convinced Antipaedobaptist.
Though that intellectual conversion had taken place fifteen years before,
his theology in this area affected his view of the stones and the
settings. The theology became the spectacles through which he viewed
the individual stones. He was content to merely counteract the
argument with an alternative explanation drawn from his own
theological moorings, in this argument.
The Argument from Matthew 28:19
The eleventh and final exegetical argument was a
significant one for Tombes. It was based on Matthew 28:19. In the other
ten arguments, Tombes presented a positive argument for infant
baptism which he then refuted. In this argument, Tombes put
forward an argument against infant baptism. It reads:
Major premise: That which agreeth not with the Lord's institution
of Baptisme, that is deservedly doubtfull.
Minor premise: But the rite of Infant-Baptisme agrees not with the
Lord's institution of Baptisme,
Conclusion: Ergo, [Infant baptism is deservedly
doubtful]107
Referring back to the initial influences on his thought,
Tombes invoked his regulating principle that God alone possesses the right
to institute or legislate his worship. He gave his first series of proofs:
The Major is proved, because Institution is the rule of exhibiting worship
to God.
The minor is proved from the words of Institution, Mat. 28. 19,
Going therefore, disciple ye all nations, baptizing them.
Whence I gather thus:
That rite agrees not with the Lord's institution of Baptisme, according
to which they are baptized, whom the Lord appointed not to be baptized.
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
But after the rite of Infant-Baptisme, they are baptized who the Lord
appointed not to be baptized, Ergo. The Antecedent is proved:
Those, and no other, the Lord appointed to be baptized, who have
been made disciples.
But this cannot be said of Infants. Ergo. [Infants are not appointed to
be baptized.]108
Tombes went on to deal with four objections that might
be raised against his argument: (1) That infant baptism was instituted
in another text; (2) that infants may be disciples; (3) that infants
were included in the universal 'disciples'; and (4) that the words of
Jesus were not exclusive as regards the subjects of baptism.
To the first objection, that infant baptism was instituted
in another text, Tombes replied: "To which is answered, Let he
who can, bring forth the institution, and the doubt will be
loosed".109
Considering the second, that infants may be disciples
because they may be sanctified by the Spirit, he adds:
It is true, Infants may be sanctified by the Spirit of God, purged by the
blood of Christ, saved by the grace of God, my minde abhorrs from the doctrine
of them that assert, that Infants not baptized, necessarily perish, or are
deprived of the Kingdome of God, nor do I doubt, but that the Elects Infants dying
in infancy are sanctified, yea if it should be made known to us that they
are sanctified, I should not doubt that they are to be baptized, remembering
the saying of Peter, Act.10.47. Can any man forbid Water, that these should not
be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as
we?110
For Tombes, when it is manifest that someone has the
Holy Spirit, regardless of age, they should be baptised. The gift of
the Spirit, was an important part of his understanding and application
in the second exegetical argument from Acts 2:38, 39. It recurred
in this place for another reason. In the former argument, the gift of
the Holy Spirit followed with remission of sin. In this argument,
baptism followed from the reception of the Spirit. Therefore,
baptism was logically subsequent to receiving the Spirit and remission of sin.
All who had received the Holy Spirit have had their sins
remitted, they should not have been hindered from baptism.
Tombes's third objection looked at whether infants are in
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
cluded in the universal use of 'disciples' in the passage. He wrote:
Then you will say [make disciples] in that place, may be so
expounded, as that it may include infants?
Answ. It follows not; but this only follows, that in cases
extraordinary, we may depart from the ordinary rule: But the ordinary rule is, make
disciples, as it appears from Mark. 16.15. and baptize them, to wit, whom
you have made disciples, and in the ordinary course of ministry, we must
follow the ordinary rule.111
It is important to understand the conclusion of the third
objection in the light of the second. There are some extraordinary
cases that require baptism for infants or young children. If this is
done, from Tombes's perspective, it should be the exception, rather
than the rule. What amounts to theological atom-splitting may seem
insignificant at this point, however, when Tombes deals with the
history of infant baptism it becomes clear that he believed the
practise came into popular use from the pragmatic practises within
'extraordinary cases'. For Tombes, at some point in Christian history,
the exception became the rule.112
The fourth possible exception was that the words of
Jesus were not exclusive as regards the subjects of baptism. Tombes
cautioned:
But it is meet he remember, who shall thus except, if institution be the rule
of worship, it is necessary that he that shall administer the worship, binde
himself to the rule, otherwise he will devise wil-worship, and arrogate the
Lords authority to himself: Surely the Apostle in the businesse of the Lords
Supper, insinuates this, when being about to correct the aberrations of the
Corinthians, concerning the Lords Supper he brings forth these words, 1 Cor. 11.23. For
I have received of the Lord, that which I also have delivered unto you.
113
Tombes argued from analogy in two ways: (1) from the
institution of the Lord's Supper to the institution of baptism and (2)
from the analogy of marriage in Matthew 19:4, 8. The first drew on
the word of the Apostle Paul as a summary statement for all
institutions in the church-a minister can only pass on what he has been given
as the Statutes of God. The second had a more subtle connector:
[A]s Christ Mat. 19.4. 8. argues from the institution of Marriage, against Di
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
vorce for a light cause, and Polygamie, because it said, Two, not more
then two shall be one flesh; so, in like manner it may be here argued, Christ
said Baptizing them [those made disciples], and not others, therefore these and
not others are to be baptized.114
Tombes insisted on his hermeneutical methodology of
context along with proper guidance via the analogy of faith to bring
out the meaning of texts. Then to that one meaning he added more
data to buttress the presentation. In his buttressing, he builds his
own theological tower brick by brick by taking them away from others.
In these eleven exegetical arguments Tombes
demonstrated his principled approach to exegetical and theological thinking.
For all texts, he desired to understand them in the narrow context of
the proposition within the work as a whole. He would then compare
the conclusions with other texts to test for theological
consistency throughout the largest unit for the individual texts, the Scriptures
of the Old and New Testaments. This methodology was first
spelled out in his Fermentum Pharisaeorum of
1641.115 It was used throughout the period of his polemical writing as regards baptism. The
exegetical conclusions then drove his more theologically based
arguments in the matter. These together with his historical
reflections brought about his practical concerns and therefrom his
unwavering position on the issue of baptism.
His exegetical presentations, methodology and
conclusions show evident skills in the craft of divinity. He was the equal of
other exegetes of his time. His work ought to inform the ongoing
discussions in the area of sacramental theology.
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
Notes from Chapter Four:
1. John Tombes, An Exercitation about Infant-Baptisme;
Presented in certaine Papers, to the Chair-man of a Committee of the
Assembly of Divines, Selected to consider of that Argument, in the yeers,
1643, and 1644, London, 1646. Published in Two Treatises and an
Appendix to them Concerning Infant-Baptisme. The former Treatise
being an Exercitation presented to the Chair-man of a Committee of
the Assembly of Divines. The later an Examen of the Sermon of
Mr Stephen Marshall, about Infant-Baptisme, in a letter sent to
him, London, 1646.
2. Tombes gives his reason for the original Latin form of
the Exercitation in these words: "I had resolved not to publish my
writings in English, but in Latine, and therefore I first framed
my Exercitation in Latine, conceiving the Assembly would have
apprehended my aime and intention, to be to deale only with Schollars
in this matter: but all things falling out crosse to my expectation, I
conceive it was the will of God it should be printed as it was. This
much for the justifying the publishing of my treatise." Tombes,
Apology, pp. 15f. The original was in two parts: nine arguments augmented
by three additional ones a few months later.
3. John Tombes, A Short Catechism about
Baptism, London, 1659. Due to the difficulty of obtaining this significant work, it was
manually reproduced and reprinted with identical pagination and
spelling by this author, copies are retained by him and a copy was
deposited in the Joseph Angus Library at Regents Park College, Oxford,
June 1994.
4. Tombes, Catechism, first two unnumbered pages. It is worth
noting Tombes comments in three areas: (1) He draws attention to
those whose cause is to be severed from the National Church because
of views that did not conform to the majority opinion. His desire
was to reform the church to bring about Credobaptism as that opinion.
(2) He makes a passing mention of a Confession and
Declaration which appear to be the Presbyterian
Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646 and the Congregationalist
Savoy Declaration of Faith, 1658.
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
(3) As an advocate of a National Church he leaves an
interesting inference to be drawn-that there is enough theological
agreement among these diverse groups so that only a catechism on "right
baptism" is needed. "...I have thought necessary to be done because
of the importance of restoring right baptism", second unnumbered page.
Given the legitimacy of this inference, Tombes makes modern
readers consider the basic implications of theological unanimity and
diversity. Tombes, as a pseudonym for theological interaction, is
an argument to be tolerated and to tolerate on things legitimately
disputable.
5. Tombes, Catechism, unnumbered pages 2, 3. Behind the
rhetoric lies Tombes's initial influence-to reform the Church by the Word
of God. His invective can be understood as venting frustration over
the many injustices he experienced due to his beliefs. Or, perhaps, as
a device of the time for gaining one's attention towards
influencing them or pacification through education of the points in the matter,
or, as a mixture.
6. Tombes, Apology, p. 20. Tombes continued for a number of
pages to show how Dr. Nathaniel Holmes (Homes) and Master
Stephen Marshall "crook his words where they are streight".
7. Tombes, Apology, p. 8. The "Covenant" is the
Solemn League and Covenant.
8. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 1. "Doubtful" in this context should
be understood as dubious, something fraught with uncertainty or of
a highly questionable nature.
9. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 1. See also, John Tombes,
An Apology or Plea for the Two Treatises, London, 1646, p. 6.
10. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 1.
11. "Proteus" is a striking analogy borrowed from mythology. As
a shape-shifting being who possessed knowledge of the past,
present and future, he would not answer questions from mortals unless
bound and compelled to do so. Thomas Bulfinch,
Bulfinch's Mythology, The Age of Fable. Nelson Doubleday, New York, 1968. Italics mine.
12. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 1. These interjections were typical
in the debates Schoolmen would enter. They were learned to express
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
ideas and to evoke emotions within the argumentation of the day.
They were verbal symbols. Here Tombes is using a written device
to display his frustration in framing an argument that it might be
understood and owned by its promoters. These interjections were taken
as offensive by Stephen Marshall. Because of that offense,
Tombes explains the use of these sayings in
Apology, esp. pp. 12-30 (first ¶).
13. Tombes, Exercitation, pp. 1f. Argument structural
components mine.
14. Tombes, Exercitation, pp. 1f.
15. Tombes, Exercitation, first appearance on p. 2. Then throughout.
16. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 2.
17. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 2. Tombes assumes a high degree
of biblical literacy on the part of his readers. He quotes only the
essential parts of verses of Scripture as his authority when needed to
make the case. In other cases, he just asserts the reference as his
authority assuming one's familiarity with these texts.
18. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 2.
19. Tombes, Exercitation, pp. 2f. Clarification in brackets mine.
20. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 3.
21. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 3. Brackets and 'door' inserted.
The original reads 'book'. Since this work makes no correction in
the errata, and since this author knows of no narrative in the
Pentateuch that deals with blood being sprinkled on a 'book', the word has
been changed to 'door'. However, considering the context of
Tombes's comments, the Passover, and having personally perused examples
of his handwriting from which a printer or printer's apprentice
(devil) would have copied, this writer believes it is no violence to the
work in form or content to make this change.
22. Tombes, Exercitation, pp. 3f.
23. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 4. Italics and brackets in original.
24. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 1.
25. Tombes, Exercitation, pp. 1f.
26. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 5.
27. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 5.
28. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 9.
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
29. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 9.
30. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 9.
31. Tombes builds on Exegetical Argument #1.
32. Tombes, Exercitation
p. 9.
33. John Tombes, Antipaedobaptism, or No plain nor obscure
Scripture-proof of Infants Baptism, or Church Membership, Being the
first Part of the full Review of the Dispute about
Infant-baptism, London, 1652. p. 39.
34. Tombes, Antipaedobaptism, part
1. p. 39.
35. Tombes, Antipaedobaptism, part
1. p. 39f.
36. Tombes, Antipaedobaptism, part
1. p. 40.
37. Tombes, Catechism.
38. For example, in, Tombes,
Antipaedobaptism, or No plain nor obscure Scripture-proof of Infants Baptism, or,
Church-Membership, Being the first Part of the full
Review..., London, 1652, the author answers many objections to his presentation of this text.
Starting with section XI on page 94, he continues through section
XXXVII on page 260. Almost sixty-five percent of that one work is
devoted to this text.
39. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 10.
40. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 10.
41. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 10.
42. Tombes, Antipaedobaptism, or No plain nor obscure
Scripture-proof of Infants Baptism, or, Church-Membership, Being the first
Part of the full Review..., London, 1652, p. 116.
43. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 13.
44. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 11.
45. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 11.
46. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 13. Brackets in original.
47/ John Geree, M.A. Vindiciae Paedo-Baptismi: or, a
Vindication of Infant Baptism, in a full Answer to Mr.
Tombs..., London, 1646. p. 3f. See also Tombes,
Examen, pp. 110ff.
48. Stephen Marshall, A Defence of Infant
Baptism, London, 1646, p. 162.
49. Tombes, Antipaedobaptism, part
1, pp. 150f.
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
50. Tombes, Antipaedobaptism, part
1, p. 153.
51. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 10.
52. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 16.
53. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 16. Conclusion in brackets supplied.
54. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 16.
55. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 17. Yet this is not the case in the
last argument (from 1 Cor. 7:14) where he quotes extensively from
other authorities. However, one has to keep in mind that this is
Tombes's first written salvo into the debate. His mature reflection and
careful dealing with other authorities ancient and contemporaneous to
him are found in Anti-paedobaptism. or the Second Part Of the full
Review of the Dispute Concerning
Infant-Baptism, London, 1654. Perhaps in the eight intervening years, Tombes found enough
"leisure" and "books" to "look into all things which Commentators" had said.
There must be allowance for growth and maturation in
theological understanding.
56. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 17.
57. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 17.
58. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 17.
59. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 17.
60. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 17.
61. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 17.
62. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 17.
63. Tombes, Exercitation, pp. 17f.
64. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 18.
65. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 18.
66. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 18. Clarifying note added in brackets.
67. As will be addressed later, Tombes sees circumcision as a
covenant stipulation for the natural posterity of Abraham. It is a
Jewish rite without parallel in the Church.
68. The demonstrative pronoun speaks of these particular
children (ta paidia). Tombes is implying, through Beza's words, that it
would be fallacious to draw an universal rule from one particular
usage, even if it spoke about baptism, which Tombes would not allow
even for the sake of argument.
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
69. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 18.
70. Tombes, Exercitation, pp. 18f.
71. Tombes,
Exercitation, p. 16. Brackets and contents added in
conclusion.
72. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 19.
73. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 19.
74. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 19.
75. Tombes, Exercitation, pp. 19f.
76. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 20. Brackets and contents supplied
for clarification.
77. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 20. Brackets and contents added for
clarification.
78. Tombes, et al, A Publicke Dispute Betwixt John Tombs, B.D.
Respondent. John Cragge, M.A. and Henry Vaughan, Opponents,
Touching Infant-Baptism, London, 1654. The debate has been
published and catalogued under Tombes's name. However, it was produced
by the opposition. The debate was brought about by Cragge and
Vaughan because of disagreement with a sermon preached by Tombes in
the Church of St. Maries in Abergavene in Monmouthshire the
preceding day on Mark 16:16. The presentation is one-sided, but,
nonetheless, a good example of the popular scholastic debates in the
middle of the seventeenth century.
79. Tombes, A Short
Catechism, p.1 (Question 13).
80. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 20. Brackets and contents supplied
for clarification.
81. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 20.
82. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 20.
83. Tombes, et al, A Publick
Dispute, p. 32. Tombes is that "one private man".
84. Tombes, et al, A Publick
Dispute, p. 32.
85. Tombes, et al, A Publick
Dispute, p. 33.
86. Tombes, et al, A Publick
Dispute. "Then Mr. Abbets preacher resident there, one who hath been dipped, being in the pulpit
with Mr. Tombs, stood up and said, the words were, They shall bring
their sons in their Arms...." (p. 33.) And, "...Abbets stood up again, and
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Organisation and Exegetical Arguements
| ||
|
said the words of the text were, that they, that is Gentiles, shall
bring thy Children, that is, the Jewes" (p. 34).
87. Or, his desired sense.
88. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 20.
89. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 20.
90. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 21.
91. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 21. Brackets to explain conclusion mine.
92. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 21. By 'famous', Tombes means
those known by 'moral virtue', as opposed to 'infamous', known for
'moral decay'.
93. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 21. Brackets and contents added.
94. For background on this issue see Tombes,
An Addition... published December 15, 1645. London, 1652, Sections 17, 20, and 21.
The difference between the date published in the title and on the
title page is explained by the purpose of this work. It was a
personal letter sent to Robert Baillie in 1645. When Baillie and others used
to contact him did not respond, Tombes published the work in 1652.
Tombes gave the process of discipline towards restoration based
on Matthew 18:15-20 seven years before going public with the matter.
95. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 21.
96. Tombes, An Addition. p. 20.
97. See Tombes, Theodulia, a just defence of hearing the
sermons and other teachings of the present ministers of
England, London, 1667. In this work Tombes defends his post-restoration outward
conformity to the National Church twenty-three years after
the Exercitation was published.
98. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 21.
99. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 21.
100. Tombes,
Exercitation, p. 21.
101. Tombes,
Exercitation, p. 21.
102. Marshall, Stephen, A Defence of Infant Baptism: in Answer
to two Treatises, and an Appendix to them concerning it; Lately
published by Mr. Jo. Tombes, London, 1646, p. 250.
103. Tombes,
Exercitation, p. 21. Brackets and contents added.
104. Tombes,
Exercitation, p. 22.
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
105. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 22.
106. Tombes,
Exercitation, p. 23.
107. Tombes,
Exercitation, p. 23. Bracketed conclusion mine.
108. Tombes,
Exercitation, pp. 23f. Conclusion in brackets mine.
109. Tombes,
Exercitation, p. 24.
110. Tombes,
Exercitation, p. 24.
111. Tombes,
Exercitation, p. 24. Brackets his.
112. For a fuller treatment, see Tombes,
An Examen of a Sermon by Stephen Marshall, London, 1644, in
Two Treatises and an Appendix. Section One deals with this issue.
113. Tombes,
Exercitation, p. 24.
114. Tombes,
Exercitation, p. 25. Brackets and content added
for clarification.
115. Tombes, Fermentum
Pharisaeorum.
| ||||
No comments:
Post a Comment