 |
|
|
|
Practical Arguments and Tombes's Position
| ||
|
Chapter Seven
Practical Arguments
and a Statement of Tombes's Theology of Baptism
There have been two fundamental causes of
philosophical and theological reflection throughout the history of ideas. They
are phenomenological and ideological. Phenomenologically,
philosophers and theologians encounter a real life situation and
therefrom seek to understand what they have encountered. Many
pre-socratic philosophers observed unity within diversity in nature. This
compelled them to seek answers about the world that they might
understand. Others, after them, sought to apply the understanding of
the pre-socratics to new problems in the realm of ideas. Taking the
pre-socratics' ideas, they sought to apply and expand what was
known (the idea) to their experience. Socrates, from what can be known
of him through the dialogues of Plato, was driven by the quest to
understand ideas, rather than the phenomena. Both bases for inquiries
into these epistemological issues give a balance to intellectual inquiry.
Tombes sought that balance through the discussion of these
practical items. He was not a mere ideologue, nor was he caught up with
the situation of his day. He sought to understand and to apply what
could be known. Yet, these practical arguments are based on
generalisations and historical practises no longer found in the thought and actions
of his primary opponents.
There are five basic practical arguments wherein
Tombes examined the practise of infant baptism only to find it deficient.
Upon examination of these practical arguments, however, they are
found to be more rhetorical than substantial. Rhetoric had its place in
the ancient trivium of learning. So too, Tombes used the salient
points herein to underscore the exegetical, theological and historical
criticisms of paedobaptism. In Tombes's later works, these
practical matters are given a less prominent role as they are addressed in
a more indirect manner. In the Examen, however, he had to
marry practise to doctrine in order to demonstrate the consequences of the
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
views espoused. If there is one generalisation to be made of
the Puritan theological mindset it is that ideas have consequences.
Ramist influences made the use of a doctrine as important as the
doctrine itself. In these arguments, Tombes attempted to point out the
real consequences brought about by paedobaptist ideas in his age.
There is an inescapable inference to be drawn from this
kind of argumentation. It is an inference about theological
foundations: good exegesis plus good theological reflection compared to the
historical record presumed to be orthodox equals a solid foundation
from which applicatory corollaries can be formulated. These
applications give rise to practise, that is, what one ought to do in light of the
thing believed. The examination of practical issues is in its essence a
posteriori argumentation. It does not deal with foundations, but
with logical consistency between belief based on some authority and
the practical consequences therefrom.
In these five arguments, Tombes objected to infant
baptism (1) as bringing about other human inventions, (2) because of
other errors it spawned, (3) because of abuses it caused, (4) because
of unnecessary disputes it produced, and (5) because of a
connection between infant baptism and Roman Catholicism. They were
more of a catalogue of errors than serious argumentation. They served
his agenda to make a rhetorical point.
In the first practical argument Tombes stated:
Major premise: That which occasioned many humane inventions,
partly the defect in the policy of the Church, which is in very deed is to be
supplied by the lawfull use of Baptisme, Of that it is deservedly doubtful whether it
be not in it selfe weak and insufficient for its proper work.
Minor premise: But the matter is so in the businesse of
Infant-baptisme, [e.g. It brought about human inventions.]
Conclusion: Ergo. [Infant Baptism is doubtful and insufficient for
its proper work.]1
Tombes attempted to show the bad root of the
paedobaptist tree by an examination of the fruit it produced. In an examination
of the fruit spawned he demonstrated the practical dangers of the
things believed. Paedobaptistic ideas had consequences. From that start
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Practical Arguments and Tombes's Position
| ||
|
ing point, Tombes proceeded to four sub-arguments in order to
demonstrate the insufficiency and dubious nature of Infant Baptism
when it was examined as to its practise. The four points examined
were: (1) the use of sureties (Godparents) in baptism, (2) the process
of Confirmation, (3) the reformed union, and (4) the
Church-Covenant.2
In his first criticism of the human inventions, Tombes
cited the use of sureties or stand-ins. Seeing that this practise had no
foundation in authoritative revelation either by inference or direct
statement, he dismissed it as an argument without need of detailed
refutation.
Tombes wrote:
1. The use of sureties in Baptism, which is a human invention, for a
shadowy supplement, and I had almost said sporting, of that profession of faith
which at first was made by the baptized in his own
person.3
The biblical pattern as practised by John the Baptiser and
the Apostles was to be normative for right practise. Tombes
hearkened back to the foundation established in previous agruments.
For Tombes, exegesis and theological reflection have already
informed his thinking. History has corroborated what he found. That was
the end of the issuethe question had already been answered.
The second part of this particular complaint addresses
confirmation in the same dismissive way. He wrote as if to make only
a statement as regards the human invention:
2. Episcopall confirmation, in which Bishops layes hands or anoints the
catechized, that Baptisme, or the baptized may be confirmed, and they may
be made capable of the Lord'supper.4
The third subsection had reference to the Reformed Union.
The practise created a number of mechanical means whereby
one was approved to take communion in the Reformed Churches.
Tombes gave us in his work the citation to the explanation as from Parker.
He wrote:
3. The reformed union, by examination, confession, subscription, of the
received doctrine in the Church, before the communion of the Eucharist,
of which Parker of Eccles. politie. l. 3. c.
16.5
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
Tombes went no further than to direct the reader to the
foundational document. Prior to admitting a person to the Eucharist,
the officiating cleric would confirm their orthodoxy in some
outward way. This was to protect the Table of the Lord from scandalous
participation. For Tombes, this was another manifestation of
the Pharisee's leaven.
In all of his writing, Tombes demonstrated the typical
Puritan concerns, the primary one being a purified church, that is,
the Church was to be purified in its doctrine and outward practises
by strict adherance to a regulating principle, the Christian Scriptures.
Attempts to maintain a pure church by way of human invention
were out of bounds for Tombes. Implicitly, the ends did not justify
the means. The ancillary implication is that the right means will
bring about just ends. Since infant baptism had made it necessary to
add other means to secure a pure church, it had to be considered as
theological and practical error.
Tombes's fourth human invention brought about by
infant baptism was the newly used Church-Covenant. The historical use
of this covenanting is found in the history of an emergent
independency or congregationalism. In Tombes's view, baptism after a
profession of faith as a church ordinance was the metaphorical door to
inclusion and membership. Any addition, no matter how well-intentioned,
was wrong. Tombes's criticism was expressed in this way:
4. The Church-covenant, as they call it, afore the admission of members
into Church-fellowship, of which the New-England Elders in the little book
in English, called Church-Covenant, which in very deed are devised to
supply the place of Baptisme; for by Baptisme, according to Christs institution,
a person is exhibited a member of Christ and the Church, I Cor.12.13.
Gal.3.27. Ephes. 4.5.6
Tombes saw these covenants as supplanting the rightful
place and use of baptism. These Covenants were developed in
Independent (noncomformist or separate) Churches that some
congregations (and their leadership) might distinguish the members of the
congregation from those merely attending. Congregationalists in New
England sought a regenerate church membership. They aimed as far as
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Practical Arguments and Tombes's Position
| ||
|
possible to perceive that a real work of grace had occurred in
the lives of those professing to be Christian believers. Children
were excluded from actual membership participation until such a time
as their profession was credible. These covenants became the
basis upon which the church transacted yearly business. At one's
initial joining to the church and annually thereafter, each member
would sign the covenant. It was a practical device to secure discipline
within a particular church. If a member did not subscribe in a given
year, the elders or pastor would then make an inquiry of oversight to
ascertain if problems existed.7
Tombes was critical of their use;
however, it should be mentioned that this practise was taken into
Particular Baptist Church life with some deviation from the
Congregational practise.8 There were differences among those who used these
covenants.
Tombes showed his consistency. The Church's beliefs
and practises must be purged of all pharisaical leaven. Anything that
did not have a positive precept or "testimony" in Scripture was to
be doubted. Throughout his reflection, he continued to apply his
rigid first principle. While others were shaping the understanding of
sola scriptura, Tombes progressed on to scriptura mensura. Scripture
was the measuring rod to gauge all religious dogma and praxis.
The next argument was also a mere assertion or listing
of four errors brought about by Infant Baptism. Again, it was
more rhetoric than argument. These four mistaken beliefs and
practises were more evidence mustered by Tombes.
The structure of the argument was:
Major Premise: That which hath occassioned many errors, that is
deservedly doubtful, whether it be right.
Minor Premise: ...[T]he practise of Infant-baptisme hath occasioned
either the birth or fostering of many errors.
Conclusion: [Infant-baptisme is
doubtful]9
Tombes listed the "many" errors as four in number. The
first three are items referring back to issues handled in antecedant
arguments. They were:
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
1. That Baptisme conferres grace by the work done.
2. That Baptisme is Regeneration.
3. That Infants dying, are saved by the faith of their parents, faith of
sureties, of the Church receiving into her lap : which is to be ascribed alone to the
grace of God by Christ.10
The fourth error occassioned by infant baptism was
"That some regenerate persons may utterly fall from
grace".11 This dealt with the issue of presumptive regeneration. Infants baptised
were presumed to be already made alive spiritually unto God. If any
one person who is regenerate falls from a salvific standing before
God, all who profess such a standing would lose their hope of heaven
and final perseverance. Since some infants who were baptised do
not persevere in godliness after they came to maturity, they were
understood to have fallen from the grace operative in them by virtue
of their baptism. This was an emotional appeal to a major tenet of
the strict Calvinist perspective. Tombes was undermining infant
baptism by showing it to be inconsistent with the emergent
reformational theology.
In 1629, two years after Tombes started his theological
reflection on baptism, a major work was published that purported
to present the prevailing opinion of the English Church on
baptism. The boast is found in the title. This read,
Baptismall Regeneration of Elect Infants, Professed by the Church of England, according to
the Scriptures, the Primitive Church, the present Reformed
Churches, and many particual Divines
apart.12 This work by Burges is
significant in that it shows how the foundations for the practise
of Paedobaptism had shifted in less than two decades. Tombes
dismissed the once prevailing basis for the practise with but one line
in his Exercitation to the Westminster Assembly. Parliament had
convened this Assembly: it had promised that it would seek to
reform the Church of England by the Word of God alone. None of
the theologians connected with that Assembly argued that infant
baptism was necessary because it was the sole means used by God
to regenerate his people. They argued from the infant's interest in the
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Practical Arguments and Tombes's Position
| ||
|
covenant. Tombes sought to refute the prevailing notions of
infant baptism via an appeal to the diversity of opinion between his
contemporaries and the past. Nobody seeks to go back to a more
patristic understanding of the foundations for paedobaptism based on the
sort of reasoning and reflection presented by Burges. Burges would
have been a powerful weapon in the Paedobaptist arsenal if they were
to accept and adopt the foundation and the practise as found in the
earliest appearances of child baptism. Apparently, the proposers of
infant baptism were not ready to concede the weight of the
historical evidence.
Tombes could have gone after this issue in greater detail.
Incredibly, he did not pursue this line of thinking. This is an
historical and intellectual anomaly in this discussion. Had the basis
for believing in baptismal regeneration fallen into complete
disrepute only to be resurrected in a subsequent age? How else was
infant baptism incompatible with the reformational
tenets?13 Surely these lines of inquiry are those of which Tombes was
aware.14
Tombes started his practical arguments with four human
inventions, moved on to four errors brought about by the practise
and then moved on to ten abuses and faults brought into the life of
the church through the practise and use of infant baptism.
The third practical argument was:
Major Premise: That which hath caused many abuses and faults in
Discipline, and Divine worship, and Conversation of men, that is deservedly
doubtful.
Minor Premise: But Infant-Baptisme is such.
Conclusion: [Infant-baptisme is
doubtful]15
Without explanation, but by simple "enumeration",
Tombes listed the ten abuses and faults:
1. Private baptisme.
2. Baptisme by
women.16
3. Baptisme of Infants not yet brought into light.
4. Baptisme of Infants of uncertain progeny, whom we call children
of the earth and world.
5. They are baptized in the name of the Lord, who know not the Lord, nor
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
have ever consented, or perhaps will consent to the confession in the name
of the Lord.
6. It hath brought in the admission of ignorant and profane men into
the communion of the Church, and to the Lords supper: for who can deny
rightly, the right of the Church to the baptized?
7. It perverts the order of discipline, that first a man be baptized and
after among the catechized.
8. The Sacrament of baptisme is turned into a meer Ceremony, yea into
a profane meeting to feast together.
9. Men forget Baptisme, as if they were never baptized, so that it hath
the force of a carnall rite, not of spiritual
institution.17
10. It takes away, or at least diminisheth zeale, and industry in
knowing the Gospel.18
These "abuses and faults" were taken from hundreds of
years of Christian history. They were found in different epochs in the
life of the Church. Tombes placed them together to serve his
rhetorical purpose. He generalised with a broad stroke.
This form of the argument lacks the biting specificity
found in the exegetical, theological and historical sections. At some
point, these may have been legitimate concerns. Addressing them to
no particular person or church undermines Tombes's credibility as a
force with which to be reckoned.
The fourth practical argument touched on
those matters
that brought about unnecessary disputes. Tombes had another four points.
There were some, like Stephen Marshall, who from the
paedobaptistic perspective believed the dispute over baptism to be needless and
therefore detrimental to the work of the Gospel in the Nation. The
perception of needlessness on the part of one party does not
undermine the view proposed by the other. Therefore, the argument is
self-referentially absurd. It does not stand up to its own logical
conclusion.
Tombes argued:
Major Premise: That is deservedly doubtful, that yeeldeth occasion
to many unnecessary disputes, festering only contention, and without which
cannot be determined by any certain rule.
Minor Premise: But the tenet or rite of Infant-baptisme is such.
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Practical Arguments and Tombes's Position
| ||
|
Conclusion: [Infant-baptisme is
doubtful]19
This argument is where Tombes's use of reason is to be questioned.
Each of the four tenets can be turned around and applied to
his antipaedobaptistic beliefs and practises in the same way to show
that it is doubtful, too.
The four "instances" used for proof, are:
1. Of baptizing the infants of Excommunicated persons.
2. Of baptizing the infants of apostates.
3. Of baptizing the Infants of such Parents as are not members in a
gathered Church.
4. Of baptizing the Infants of those, whose Ancestors were believers,
the next Parents remaining in unbelief; These things shew that men have
departed from the Rule, when they know not where to
stay.20
Those baptised upon profession of faith and discipleship
may be excommunicated, discovered to be apostates, or may leave
the gathered church at some future point for a number of reasons.
These items are no "proof" of the doubtfulness of the doctrine. They
only point to the ability of humans to err in their application of a
practise whether they are paedobaptist or antipaedobaptist. Or, rather,
could the true design of the belief and practise include these difficult cases?
As for Point Four, a stronger argument would be to
demonstrate from biblical texts that godliness and righteousness do not
follow in familial lines. This could be demonstrated through the
genealogies of Jesus.21 Considering the Kings in their lineage alone,
there was a mixture of righteous and unrighteous. The positive
inference to be taken from Tombes's fourth point is that regeneration is not
tied to procreation. In view of that there must be an alternative.
The fifth of Tombes's practical arguments is the strongest.
He argued that:
Infant-Baptisme seemes to take away one, perhaps the primary end of
Baptism; for many things argue that it was one end of Baptism, that it should be
a signe that the baptized shews himself to be a disciple, and confesseth the
faith in which he hath been instructed.22
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
To demonstrate this argument, Tombes referred back to
three exegetical points. Herein is the positive form of his original
argument. His original formulation was negatively stated as to bring
about doubt. It is stated here in line with its desired end in a
generalised manner:
Major Premise: That which hath no testimony in Scripture is doubtfull.
Minor Premise: X (where X is any doctrine or practise) hath no testimony
in Scripture.
Conclusion: X is doubtful.
Each of the arguments has been an adaptation of the
original form to specific issues of exegesis, theology, history or practise.
In this last argument, the obverse is presented in an unwritten and
assumed manner. The obverse argument in its generalised form
would be:
Major Premise: That which hath testimony in Scripture is not doubtfull.
Minor Premise: X (where X is any doctrine or practise) hath testimony
in Scripture.
Conclusion: X is not doubtful.
Since the antonym of doubt is certainty, the syllogism
could be restructured for a more practical use. If this is coupled
with Tombes's high regard for the authority of Scripture, it would read
in this way:
Major Premise: That which hath testimony in Scripture is to be
believed and practised with certainty.
Minor Premise: X (where X is any doctrine or practise) hath testimony
in Scripture.
Conclusion: X is to be believed and practised with certainty.
The obverse argument takes four exegetical
pronouncements with the authority of God behind them and applies them to the
discussion. This triumvirate of conclusions is the basis for
Tombes's own personal antipaedobaptist theology.
The first application of the obverse argument is:
1. The requiring of confession by John Baptist and the Apostles
was wont23 to be before Baptism, Luk. 3.10. Act. 8.35. Act.
16.31.24
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Practical Arguments and Tombes's Position
| ||
|
Placing the first of the obverse arguments into the
syllogism it reads:
Major Premise: That which hath testimony in Scripture is to be
believed and practised with certainty.
Minor Premise: That those being baptized make a confession prior to
the act of baptism hath testimony in Scripture.
Conclusion: That those being baptized make a confession prior to the
act of baptism is to be believed and practised with certainty.
This item alone precluded Tombes from giving any
allowance for an alternative practise. The positive precept of
Scripture taken with a literal understanding within given contexts in three
places compelled him to rule out baptism for any but those who can
give such a profession. Without any biblical precedent to the contrary,
he rested his case on this foundation.
The second application is found in these words:
2. The frequent manner of speaking in the New Testament,
which puts Baptism for Doctrine, Act. 10.37. Act. 19. 3. shews
this.25
Adding a supporting authority, Beza, an ardent paedobaptist from
an earlier generation and respected authority, Tombes wrote:
...[I]n his Annot. On Act. 19:3. The answer is most apposite, in which
they signifie that they professed in Baptism the doctrine propounded by John,
and confirmed by use of Baptisme with which they had been baptized,
whereby they acknowledged Christ but very
slenderly.26
Tombes herein linked the doctrine to the practise
showing baptism was not an empty rite pointing forward to what an
infant may receive by virtue of their interest in a covenant but to an
actual confession based on things heard and received. This provided a
vastly different basis for credobaptism as opposed to that used
for paedobaptism. Yet, it was a view that held tenaciously to the
work of God understood in covenantal terminology.
Thirdly, Tombes directed the reader's attention to the
words of Jesus himself when he instituted baptism as an abiding ordinance.
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
He wrote:
3. The form of Christs institution, Matt. 28.19. Compared with the phrase
as it is used I Cor. 1. 13. Or, were you baptized into the name of Paul? Implies
the same. On which place Beza, Baptisme, in which we give our name to
Christ, being called upon, with the Father and Holy
Spirit.27
Tombes argued that these three applications are univocal in
perspective. Baptism comes after actions of faith, not before.
For Tombes the initial precept with evidence of a pattern
found in Scripture is everything. He saw the foundation as Christ's
institution. He saw the subsequent uses of the principle as consistent
with the original intent. Therefore, since it had testimony in
Scripture corroborated and supported by other statements of doctrine and
practise from the same, he believed himself justified in sending this
presentation for the consideration of others.
Lastly, in his practical arguments and applications,
Tombes handled a possible objection to his understanding. In the fourth
application, he wrote:
And if, as some affirme, Baptism was in use with the Jews, in the initiating
of proselytes into profession of Judaisme; this opinion is more confirmed. But
in Infant-Baptisme the matter is so carried, that Baptism serves to confirm
a benefit, not to signifie a profession made; and so one, perhaps the chief end
of Baptisme is voyded. And here I think it is to be minded, that the usual
description of a Sacrament, and such as are like to it, That it is a visible signe
of invisible grace: hath occasioned the misunderstanding of both sacraments
as if they signed a divine benefit, not our duty, to which in the first place
the Institution had respect.28
The chief end of baptism, for Tombes, was to point to a profession
of faith thereby committing the professor to the duty of discipleship.
It was a sign pointing to actual faith operative in a committed disciple.
Returning to his subtle irony, Tombes concluded with
what appears at first sight to be a strange analogy. He does,
however, make his point:
It seems to some, that Infant-Baptisme should be good, because the
Devil requires Witches to renounce it. Which reason, if ought worth, might as
well prove Baptisme of any Infants, Baptisme by a Midwife, good; because the
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Practical Arguments and Tombes's Position
| ||
|
Devil requires Witches to renounce as well [as] that which is of the Infants
of believers, by a lawful Minister. But the true reason why he requires the
Baptism of Witches to be renounced by them, is not because the Baptisme is
good in respect of the administration of it, but because the Faith mentioned in
the form of Baptisme, is good; and they that renounce not their baptisme, do
shew their adherance to the faith in some sort, which cannot stand in an
explicite covenant with the Devil. Nor is the assuming of baptisme in ripe years
by those who were washed in infancy, a renouncing of baptisme, as some in
their grosse ignorance conceit; but indeed a firmer avouching of baptisme
according to Christ's mind.
This more likely might be inferred from the Devils practise in
requiring Witches to renounce their baptisme; That the profession of Faith is the
main businesse in Baptisme, which should be before Baptisme, if it were
rightly administered after the first pattern.29
Tombes's theology of baptism starts and ends with the
declarations of Scripture. Most of his writings are polemics against
people and positions that fail to apprehend the clear teachings of Scripture.
It is whatever has testimony in Scripture that is to be believed
and practised with certainty. Scripture was the measure; the
biblical texts were their own canon. The texts referenced in that last part
of his practical argumentation are his positive statement on the matter.
Since the Scripture teaches by precept and example baptism after
a profession of faith, that is what he believed and practised.
To defend his ground for "right Baptisme", Tombes
engaged all who dared venture into the morass. The main part of his
work tore down the arguments of others as the wrong basis for the
practise of paedobaptism. It is only with reference to Matthew
28:1930 that Tombes presented the positive instruction to baptise only those
who can make a credible profession of faith, in the words of the text,
the discipling must come before the baptising.
A sampling of these positive statements may
illuminate Tombes's main concern for a "right use" of this text. In his
Examen in Part III, Section 13, and Part IIII [sic], Sections 1-2, he
pressed home this point. He started with an extended study of each
Greek word in the text to show how it had been used in other texts. In
this, he undermined the use, meaning and application of his theological
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
opposer, Stephen Marshall. The polemics within the broader
discussion focused on the meaning of them: teach (or disciple in
its verb form), baptising and
nations.31
Tombes wrote:
Mat. 28.19. Concerning which the question is, what
autouv, or [them] refers to in our Saviours words: whether all Nations must be the substantive to
it, without any other circumspection, or the word,
androtev men and women as the Author of infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scriptures, or
mayhtev, Disciples, included in the verb mayhteusate
which may be translated Make Disciples.32
He compared this text and these queries with fifty-two other
contexts and concepts for theological consistency. He added their
weight to his understanding of the text as the primary place wherein
Christ's command is to be understood and therefrom performed.
Addressing the idea of "making disciples", Tombes wrote:
But the word doth not signifie onely simply, to teach, whether with effect
or without, but to teach till they become disciples, is plainly the use of it
elsewhere, in all places it is used in the new
Testament.33
Continuing his positive presentation of the meaning, he added:
I answer, it was in their power, and their dutie not onely to teach simply, so
as to propound things to them, but also so as to bring them to be disciples,
which they could doe, not as principall, sole, supreme agants, but as workers of
God.34
This institution and commission of baptism was all important.
The proper subjects are those who have the testimony of Scripture
confirming their rightful status as subjects. They are the ones to
whom the sacrament must be given. Recipients must be taught but not
merely taught. They must become followers. Tombes located the source
of this activity with the workings of God rather than the operations
of man. Therefore, this is not a positive argument for the institution
of baptism alone, it is a polemic for God to have his rightful place in
the making of disciples using the means of preachers going forth to teach.
It is a defence of Calvinism as much as it is a principled refutation
of infant baptism.
Tombes went on to the use of "them". Marshall intimated
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Practical Arguments and Tombes's Position
| ||
|
that "them" were members of nations who were to be baptised.
Tombes pointed to the absurd conclusions one would have to draw
if this were the case. He wrote:
Besides, if [them] were referred to nations or men, without due
circumscription of disciples or believers, as a limitation, directing whom to baptize,
it would follow, that either they might baptize any man or nation in the
world, whether taught or not, and if so, then the Spaniards practise of forcing
droves of Indians to baptisme, and the practise of baptizing a Kingdome upon
the Kings conversion and command without sufficient precedent teaching,
were justifiable; or else they must baptize none till all men or all nations were to
be baptized together.35
Tombes continued to show how the Apostles' ministry would
have been different. He continued:
...[W]hich if true, then the Apostles needed to have done nothing else, in
observance of that command of discipling, but to baptize, and it would serve
for a good plea for non-preaching, or meer officiating
priests.36
Tying the problem to the understanding of "nations", Tombes added:
First, if Infants may be baptized, because they are born in a chosen nation,
or a believing nation, then there may be a rule whereby we may know when
a nation may be called a believing, or a chosen nation, when not; otherwise
we should not know how to make use of this title to baptisme, when not, and
it were absurd to conceive God should give us a rule, and no direction how
to make use of it. Either no rule can be assumed whereby to know when a
nation is believing, chosen, or discipled nation, giving right to baptize Infants of that
nation, when not: Ergo, if it is said they may be known, that they are
descended from a Believer.37
The question came down to one of geography and ethnicity.
Was "nation" to be understood as the place where one lives or as
the place from where one descends? If it is geography, ought not
"then the children of Turks or Jews ... to be baptized, because born in
London...."38 If ethnicity, should not a "nation" be found without
"mis-believers", "Heritiques" and
"infidels"?39
Tombes did not see the legitimacy of the analogy because
of the differences. He saw the Abrahamic covenant as a
conditional one that had been fufilled. He wrote:
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
We find indeed, God would have the posterity of Abraham, and all the
males in that nation circumcized: So God appointed it, that ever their parents
were for reasons before rehearsed; but there is no such grant, promise, covenant,
or appointment now to any nation of Gentiles as was then to the posterity
of Abraham, because the reasons now cease, the Messiah is now come, and
the prerogatives are now personall, not nationall, not one nation hath
priviledge above another as a nation, but personall, as a Believer in any
nation.40
Tombes saw the argument from the Abrahamic Covenant
as support for his own position. God had instituted it positively
with specific parameters for a specific time as regards the sign of
circumcision. Since most disciples in his day were ethnically Gentiles,
he had these twin grounds for its dismissal.
Tombes held out for a positive institution of Infant
Baptism or Disciple Baptism. He did not believe one could be shown for
the former, only the latter. Neither did Tombes find the practise of
infant baptism in the ministry of the Apostles from whom the Church
could take precedent. The only positive institution that gave coherence
to the four terms in Matthew 28:19 was that those who had been
made disciples are those who should be
baptised.41
Baptism was a sign of actual faith. It was not a sign of potential faith as in
covenantal paedobaptism, nor a work of man obligating God to a corollary
action as in sacerdotal compositions of the doctrine. What
the Paedobaptists argued for was not a positive institution to follow,
but a biblical analogy. The main analogy used by Tombes's
opponents was this: since Abraham's natural desendants received the
covenant sign of circumcision, and since baptism is the covenant sign of
the New Covenant, those of natural descent in the New Covenant
community, the Church, ought to receive its sign in the same manner.
Thomas Blake was the only significant contemporary to argue for
a return to Burges, Bishop Ward and the "Publique Doctrine" of
the National Church.
Some critics of Tombes may have seen him as
persistently naïve and guilty of a gross sort of fideism. To his credit, he does
not exclude reason, history and the use of previous doctrinal
reflection in determining what is true. He did not idolise the Scriptures, blind
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Practical Arguments and Tombes's Position
| ||
|
ing himself to what may have been revealed in more general
ways; he idealises them to direct his path in mind and life. He
doubted what is not found therein. He did not automatically conclude
things were wrong or that they cannot be known because they are not
revealed in biblical texts; he only doubted them in order to test
them with reason and other external elements in order to bring them to
the teaching of Scripture to gauge their theological consistency. As
a true Puritan his quest was to reform the National Church by the
Word of God alone. To that he had pledged himself before man and
God; to that end he also laboured. If he was nothing else, he was
consistent. His opponents answered on two fronts. The first, that
Tombes had misunderstood and therefore misrepresented their position in
his arguments. including but not limited to a number of hybrid
hypothesis that would fuel the flames of the dispute for years to come.
The second, that Tombes's was introducing a human invention into
the life of the Church. The latter point would prove Tombes
hypocritical.
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
Notes from Chapter Seven:
1. Tombes, Examen, p. 29.
2. Tombes, Examen, p. 29.
3. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 24.
4. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 24.
5. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 24f. The work cited is by Robert
Parker (1564-1614), De Politeia Ecclesiastica
Christi, London, 1616. There were two other Parkers who had a more significant impact
on Anglicanism and Puritanism respectively. The first being
Matthew Parker (1504-1575) the seventieth Archbishop of Canterbury. In
this office he wrote many letters and works that touch on matters of
polity. The second is Samuel Parker (1640-1688) who wrote
Discourse of Ecclesiastical Politie, London, 1670.
6. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 30.
7. Williston Walker, "The Development of Covenant and Creed
in the Salem Church, 1629-1665" in The Creeds and Platforms of
Congregationalism, Pilgrim Press, Philadelphia, 1960, pp. 93-122.
Texts of some Covenants are found on pp. 116-118, 121, & 123. For
a subsequent use of a Church-Covenant, see A Platform of
Church Discipline..., Cambridge, Massachusetts Bay Colony, 1649[sic].
This document is commonly called the Cambridge Platform of
1648.
8. The Solemn Covenant of the Church meeting in
Horsley-down, appended to, Benjamin Keach, The Glory of a True Church and
its Discipline Display'd, London, 1697.
9. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 30.
10. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 30.
11. Tombes, Exercitaion, p. 30.
12. Cornelius Burges, D of Divinty,
Baptismall Regeneration of Elect Infants, Professed by the Church of England, according to the
Scriptures, the Primitive Church, the present Reformed Churches, and
many particual Divines apart, Oxford, 1629.
13. Surely one would expect the discussion to turn to the efficacy
of the atonement as the basis of a personal faith rather than the act
of baptism laying a foundation for a faith that might be realised at a
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Practical Arguments and Tombes's Position
| ||
|
latter time.
14. Burges interacts with Calvin. Burges,
Baptismall Regeneration, pp. 102f. Commenting about the discussion on Romans 6,
Burges, realising Calvin had a different basis for infant baptism, says,
"Was Calvine thinke we, asleep, when he wrote this; or, they, not in a
dreame rather, that doe deny it? Let no man tell mee that, hee, and all
the Authors I haue named or can name, doe more often speake
against this very Position, then for it, and that it is easie to produce them,
in more then an hundred places, avouching this espressly, that the
sacraments doe not profit no man but him that hath faith to apply
the grace offered in them: and so Calvine himself speaks plainly, in
that very place, besides sundry other passages that he hath elsewhere
to this very purpose touching the efficacy of Baptisme."
15. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 30.
16. An allusion to midwives who would baptise sickly or
stillborn infants.
17. The Westminster Assembly addressed this concern of Tombes
in the The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by
Authority of Parliament sitting at Westminster, Concerning a
Larger Catechisme, London, 1648. "Q. 167. How is our Baptism to be
improved by us? A. The needful but much neglected duty of
improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially
in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the
administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the
nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the
privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow
made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling
short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our
engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all
other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength
from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized,
for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by
endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and
righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and
to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
body." It is uncertain if Tombes's writing had any influence on
this question and answer. It is certainly a response to his overall concern.
18. Tombes, Exercitation, pp. 30f.
19. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 31.
20. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 31.
21. Matt 1:1-20 & Luke 3:23-38.
22. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 33.
23. Meaning, customarily.
24. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 33. The positive precept or testimony
is found in a prima facie reading of the texts in context.
25. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 33. In other words, a baptism that
John the Baptiser preached. It was doctrinal as well as practical.
26. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 33.
27. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 33.
28. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 34.
29. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 34.
30. Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost....
31. Tombes, Examen, pp. 124-154.
32. Tombes, Examen, p. 124.
33. Tombes, Examen, p. 124.
34. Tombes, Examen, p. 135.
35. Tombes, Examen, p. 126.
36. Tombes, Examen, p. 127.
37. Tombes, Examen, p. 127.
38. Tombes, Examen, p. 129.
39. Tombes, Examen, pp. 128f.
40. Tombes, Examen, p. 129.
41. Tombes, A Short
Catechism, pp. 2f. See appendix.
| ||||
No comments:
Post a Comment