 |
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
Chapter Six
Historical Arguments
In three basic historical arguments Tombes dealt with a
large body of material drawn from a host of writers both ancient and
modern. In the attempt to secure historical precedents for their own
views, men on both sides of the discussion gathered names and citations
in abundance. The discussions focused on three main epochs: (1)
the apostolic age; (2) the post-apostolic age; and (3) the modern age.
For Tombes and his contemporaries, the modern age was from
the Reformation to their time. In the Exercitation, Tombes dealt
with the first two epochs within the historical arguments, leaving the
modern readers to be cited throughout the theological, exegetical
and practical arguments. It is in the realm of the historical that
Tombes's skill as a "divine" comes into clear focus.
The Argument from the Practise of the Apostles and John
the Baptiser
The first historical argument is taken from the practise of
the Apostles and John Baptist, which "is the best interpreter of our
Lord's institution...."1
Tombes's argument is structurally poor and hard to follow.
The argument is complex and merges arguments on two levels.
In Tombes's original words it reads:
Major premise: That tenet and practise, which being put: Baptisme
cannot be administered, as John Baptist and the Apostles did administer it,
agrees not with the practise of John Baptist and the Apostles.
Minor premise: But the tenet and practise of Infant-baptisme being
put [in that way] Baptism cannot be administered, as John Baptist and the
Apostles administered it,
Conclusion: Ergo, [Infant baptism was not practised by John Baptist
and the Apostles.]2
There are two distinct points to be made in this argument:
(1) baptism administered by John the Baptiser is the pattern to follow
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Historical Arguments
| ||
|
and (2) baptism should follow faith and repentance. That ought
to have necessitated more than one argument for sake of clarity.
Perhaps, the two steps in his argument are better expressed as follows:
Major premise: Baptism is best administered as John the Baptist and
the Apostles did administer it.
Minor premise: Baptism was administered by John the Baptist and
the Apostles after demonstrations of faith and repentance.
Conclusion: Baptism is best administered after demonstrations of
faith and repentance.3
The conclusion then becomes the major premise of a
secondary argument:
Major premise: If baptism is best administered after demonstrations
of faith and repentance.
Minor premise: And, this cannot be done in the baptism of Infants
Conclusion: Then the baptism of infants is not the best administration
of baptism.4
Tombes, adhering to his biblio-centric views of
theological authority, simply asserted that "The Major is of itself
manifest".5 He wanted a positive, declarative and biblically codified expression
for any practise in the church. As has already been noted, if a
practise, any practise, in the church did not have such a basis in God's
revelation, the Bible, Tombes considered it to be the "Leaven of the
Pharisees", a human invention, mere will-worship at worst and
doubtful at best. Tombes continued by giving the texts to be considered in
an attempt to build a theological structure on the positive and
declarative statements found in Scripture. He offered Matt 3:6; Luke
3:10; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:12, 13; Acts 8:37; Acts 9:18; Acts 20:47; Acts
11:17, 18; Acts 16:15, 31-33; Acts 18:8; Acts 19:5; and Acts 22:16.
The only commentary offered was on Acts 8:37.6
Tombes continued:
"[W]hen the Eunuch had said to Philip, What letteth me to be baptised?
Philip answered, If though believest with thy whole heart thou maist; he implies
the defect of faith to be an impediment of
Baptisme".7
To prove the point of the minor premise, Tombes noted,
"Before the Baptisme of John even Jews did confess sins, the Apostles
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
before baptisme did require shews of faith and repentance, but
this cannot be done in the baptisme of Infants".
8
In a sustaining argument, Tombes added:
This argument is confirmed, for if it be rightly argued from I Cor. 11.28
That the Lords Supper is not to be granted to Infants, because self-examination
is pre-required, by like reason we say Baptisme is not to be yeelded to
infants, because repentance and faith are pre-required, Act. 2:38. Act. 8.37. and that
of those descended from Abraham, and to whom the promise
was.9
Building on the first argument, Tombes restated what he
believed the Scriptures implied on the matter. Both the natural and
the spiritual descendants of Abraham must be baptised only after
coming to faith and showing works of repentance. He drew this
inference from the order of things commanded positively by Christ
in Matthew 28:19: first to go to all nations, then to make disciples,
then to baptise. Where Tombes had been accused of profaning the
sacrament by virtue of his theological paradigm shift, he intimated that
a change of order from what Christ had commanded was the true
profanation of the sacrament.10
Drawing from the biblical record as regards John the
Baptiser and the apostles, Tombes wrote:
Christ bids the Apostles presently after baptisme teach them to observe
whatsoever be commanded them, but infants cannot doe this, therefore they are
not to be baptized. Likewise baptizing infants, doth not agree with the
primitive practise of John Baptist, and the Apostles, who required expressions of
repentance and faith afore Baptisme, Mat. 3.6. Mark. 1.5. Luk. 3.10. Acts 2. 38.
& 8. 12.13. 37. & 9.18 & 10.47. & 11.17, 18. & 16.15. 31, 32, 33. & 18.8.
& 19.5. 8. 22. 16. [sic] in which places, profession of repentance and faith is
still made the antecedent to Baptisme : but this doth not agree to infants,
therefore they are not to be baptized.11
For Tombes's successive historical arguments this issue
was all important. He scrutinised the works of historical theology
from the age next to the Apostles onward for this pattern of practise
established in the ministry of John, the Baptiser and the Apostles.
His historical argumentation was Tombes's bridge from the relevant
past to his time. Therefore, he spent much time uncovering all who dis
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Historical Arguments
| ||
|
cussed the topic of baptism. In his innocence, he believed the
force of argumentsexegetical, theological and historical-would be
enough to persuade men to his position. He would learn this was not to
be the case; however, his scholarship remains to inform the verdict
of another age.
The Argument from the Practise in the Post-Apostolic Age
The second historical argument deals with baptism "in
the age next to the apostles". In the Exercitation
it was the seventeenth argument presented
overall.12 The construction of the argument
is the same as the previous:
Major premise: That tenet and practise is doubtfull of which it cannot
be proved that it was in force or use, in the next Age after the Apostles,
Minor premise: But it cannot be proved that the tenet or practise of
Infant-baptisme was in force or use in the Age next after the Apostles,
Conclusion: [Infant baptism is
doubtful.]13
Tombes set out to prove the negative in the minor premise
in two paragraphs in order to move onto the epoch wherein he
believed the change in doctrine and practise occurred. Using a handful
of sources, he wrote:
The Minor is proved by the testimony of Ladovicus Vives above recited,
to which Vossius in thesibus Historica
Theologicis, of Infant-baptisme, joynes the testimony of Waldafridus Strabo, and by the examining of places
brought to that purpose, and by the continuation of questions propounded to the
baptized in ages following, and other tokens from Councils and
Ecclesiasticall writers, which in Historical businesse are wont to beget
credit.14
Since questions were "propounded" to those undergoing
the ordinance of baptism, it follows, in Tombes's reason, that the
initiates must have had a degree of understanding well beyond that of
a young child or nursing infant. The inference drawn was this:
the early church was silent on the issue of infant baptism.
Tombes continued by expanding on how the grace of
baptism would have been understood. Using a work from the ninth cen
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
tury, he wrote:
The words of Waldafridus Strabo, who lived about the year 840. in his
book de rebus Ecclesiasticis, Chap. 26. are these, We are also to note that in
the first times the grace of Baptisme was wont only to be given to them, who
by integrity both of body and minde were already come to this, that they
could know and understand what profit is to be obtained in baptisme, what is to
be confessed and believed, what lastly, is to be observed of them that are
born again in Christ. 15
These historical claims by Antipaedobaptists were not
met with silence. A number of works sought to deal with the issues
raised through the use of historical theology. Robert Ram published a
seventeen page tract to shed light on the issues from a paedobaptist
perspective.
In his tract, Ram cited ancient and modern authors.
The work was made public in 1645 during the height of the first salvo
of disputation. However, the oldest writer cited was Cyprian, who
does not yet fit into the timeframe under discussion and the majority
of the work is taken up with the medieval and modern writers.
Quotations prior to 400 A.D. take up only one and one half pages of
the text.16
The Argument from the "Wrong Original" of Infant Baptism
In Tombes's third historical argument, he set out to show
the history of the transition from credobaptism to paedobaptism.
The previous exegetical and theological arguments were but a
foundation for the voluminous work done by Tombes in the area of
historical theology. From Justin Martyr up to the seventeenth
century, Tombes attempted to examine every reference to baptism,
whether they were used by the Paedobaptists or not. He researched all
references known to him or pointed out to him by others. This
argument particularly is where his historical work and his main thesis stands
or falls. If there were no historical precedent for his
antipaedobaptism in the history of exegesis, theology and church practise, Tombes,
to be consistent with his idealism, should have conceded. However,
Tombes believed these historical precedents further proved his posi
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Historical Arguments
| ||
|
tion. Either Tombes was a brilliant Hebraist, Latinist and
Hellenist or he willingly twisted the data for his own
purposes.17 This was the first attempt by a scholar to coordinate these historical
references, many of which were only recently available since the
ad fontes concerns of the Renaissance. During that time, scholars started
critical analysis of manuscripts carried back to western centers of
learning by clergy, crusaders and commercial endeavours. These were
texts preserved by Muslim clerics from the ancient libraries of the
Holy Land. The use of the texts of the ancient fathers was relatively
modern for the mid-seventeenth century.18
Tombes presented the argument as four negative
considerations in the following manner:
That which in succeeding Ages, in which it was in use, was in force, 1. as
a Tradition not written; 2. Out of imitation of Jewish Circumcision; 3.
Without universal practise; 4. Together with the error of giving Infants the Lords
supper, and many other humane inventions, under the name of Apostolical
traditions; That is deservedly doubtfull.19
Tombes moved on to examine each of these points to
make his initial case. He tied each to a particular accepted authority
or authorities in church history to present how paedobaptism came
into the practise of the Church.
On the unwritten tradition, Tombes wrote:
But in some ages after the first from the Apostles, the tenet and practise
of Infant-Baptisme was in use, 1. as a tradition not written, as appears from
Origen, Hom. on Rom.6. Of which book nevertheless let me add the censure of
Erasmus on the Homilies of Origen upon
Leviticus, But he reads this work and the enarration of the Epistle to the
Romans, is uncertain whether we read Origen or
Rufinus.20 And the testimony fetched from these books for
Infant-Baptisme, is so much the more to be suspected, because Augustine, Hierom, etc. rely
(so far as yet manifest to me) on no other testimony, then of Cyprian and
his fellow bishops in the Councel, of which mention is made
Epist. 59. ad Fidum.21
A concern of Tombes manifest throughout his work was
that the Church not devolve back into the Jewish economy, the Old
Covenant. That concern drove his thought in this sub-argument.
On baptism being the imitation of Jewish circumcision as the wrong origi
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
nal, Tombes penned:
Secondly, out of imitation of Jewish circumcision, as the doubt of Fidus,
in the 59. Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus, intimates, though these were also
other reasons of Infant-baptisme ; as the opinion of the necessity of Baptisme
to salvation, and the greedinesse to increase the number of Christians, and
perhaps the imitation of heathenish lustration to little ones; and some
other.22
Tombes moved on to the lack of universal practise as
regards paedobaptism. He exploited the diversity in practise, and
underscored some notable exceptions who were not baptised as infants or
children. He continued:
Thirdly, without universal practise : for it is manifest that Constantine
although born of Helena his mother, a Christian, was not baptized till aged, as
Eusebius in his life of Constantine written by him. The same is manifest from the
book of confessions of Augustine himself, whose mother Monica was a
Christian.23
Herein was Tombes's subtle link to many of the
preceding arguments. By his mention of parentage, Tombes was
discrediting the infant's right to baptism via the infant's relationship to the
covenant as in the argument from Genesis 17:7, the first exegetical
argument. He also distanced historic practise from the argument
for paedobaptism from 1 Corinthians 7:14. If the children were
considered holy federally or instrumentally in the era of the fourth
century, then Constantine and Augustine would have been baptised.
Since they were not baptised as infants (or children), there was no
universal practise of paedobaptism in the antecedent ages of Christian
history.
Tombes continued with his own conclusion on the
preceding point:
The things that may be drawn out of Theodoret, Augustine, and
others...unlesse I be deceived will evince that (though in the church at those times, little
ones were baptized, yet) many were not baptized, whose baptism its likely the
Church would have sooner dispatched, if the opinion of Baptism that now
obtains, had then obtained.24
Tombes had only recently removed his family to London
in 1643 from Bristol. When the Royalist forces took Bristol, he fled to
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Historical Arguments
| ||
|
London where the Westminster Assembly was about to sit. He
believed it was among the divines in London where he could find
a more settled conviction concerning right
baptism.25
In the disruption of the move, Tombes's works of divinity were not readily accessible.
In a parenthetical statement within his third subpoint above, he
wrote, "...although my books and notes out of them are wanting to me,
by reason of the injury of our times."26
It is in subsequent works in later years where Tombes brought his historical research to bear.
Tombes's fourth criticism under the argument from the
wrong original is expanded here in his own words:
Fourthly, together with the error of giving the Lord's supper to Infants, as
is manifest out of the book of Cyprian de
lapsis, and others. And that many other inventions of men under the name of Apostolicall tradition, out of
a wrong liking of Judaisme, did then prevaile, as the Paschall solemnity, etc.
is so obvious to him that reads Fathers and Ecclesiastical writers, that no
one will need proof, Ergo.
And in very deed, as of old, because of the rite of Infant-baptisme
seemed to be of so great moment against the Pelagian heresie, and for the authority
of the Councel of Milevis, Augustine, Hierom, and others, rather than from
any solid argument out of Scripture, in former ages, Infant-baptisme prevailed;
so in this last age, some modern men seem to imbrace this tenet of
Infant-baptisme, out of horror of mind, lest they should go headlong into the pernicious
errors of former Anabaptists, and their mad furies, or lest seem to desert the
leading men of the Reformed Churches, or move troubles in the Church, rather
than the perspicuous foundation in the
Scriptures.27
Nine months after sending the
Exercitation to Mr. Whitaker, the chairman of the committee charged with examining the
sacraments, Tombes had no direct reply. There was an indirect reply,
however, in the form of a sermon preached by the Westminster
Divine, Rev. Stephen Marshall.28
Marshall's introduction displayed the importance of the
history of the practise of baptism for the debate. Tombes, in a
response to Marshall's sermon, augmented the historical generalisations in
the Exercitation with copious references and comment. Tombes
cites Marshall's sermon:
That the Christian Church hath been in possession of it for the space of fifteen
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
hundred years and upwards, as is manifest out of most Records that we
have of Antiquity both in the Greek and Latine
Churches.29
Tombes's reply included the relevant quotations from
four Greek Fathers: Justin Martyr, Iraneus, Origen and Gregory Nazianzus.
He went on to examine the major Latin Fathers: Cyprian,
Augustine and Jerome (Hierom). These seven ancients were pivotal in
Marshall's historical precedent for paedobaptism. Tombes replied to them
all, drawing out general considerations as regards the historical
practise to display that paedobaptism was not according to apostolic
tradition, but was of late invention.
Dealing with the critical issues surrounding the text of
Justin, Tombes wrote:
...[O]f whom you say, That he [Justin] lived Anno 150. which wants
somewhat of 1500. years; and therefore you did somewhat overlash, in saying
that it is manifest out of most of the Records of the Greek and Latine Church;
the Church hath been in possession of the priviledge of baptizing Infants
1500. years and upwards; and then you say, In a Treatise that goes under his name
: By which it is manifest that you know that it was questioned whether it
was his or no; and I conceive you could not be ignorant, that it is not only
questioned, but also proved by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration
of the Probleme, by Rivet in his Criticus
sacer, by Robert Cooke of Leeds (if my memory fail me not, to which I am inforced to trust in many things,
being spoiled [of] my bookes) in his
Censure, and confessed by Papists, to be
none of Justine Martyrs, but to be written a great while after his dayes; for as
much as it mentions not only Iranaeus, but also Origen and the Manichees :
Now what does this bastard treatise say?30
After undermining the historicity of the work, Tombes
went on to analyse what the spurious work said:
Justine Martyr disputes the different condition of those children who die
baptized, and of those children who die unbaptized. The question propounded is.
If Infants dying have neither praise nor blaime by works, what is the
difference in the resurrection of those that have been baptized by others, and
have done nothing, and of those that have not been baptiz[e]d, and in like
manner have done nothing. The Answer is, this is the difference of the baptized;
that the baptized obtaine good things meaning the resurrection) by baptisme,
but the unbaptized obtain not good things. And they are accounted worthy of
the good things they have by their baptisme, by the faith of those that bring them
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Historical Arguments
| ||
|
to baptisme. You may by this testimony see (whateer age the book was
made in) what the reason of baptizing of Infants was : Not the supposed
Covenant of grace, made to believers and their seed, which you [Marshall] make
the ground of baptizing of infants : but the opinion that the not baptized
should not obtain good things at the resurrection (meaning the Kingdome of
God, mentioned Joh. 3. 5.) but the baptized should; and that by reason of the
faith of the bringers, what ever the parents were, and therefore they baptized
the children of unbelievers, as well as believers if they were
brought.31
Tombes's threefold refutation of Marshall's first
historical citation shows Tombes's analytical abilities. He did not allow
Justin Martyr to be used as Marshall intended. What Justin showed, if
it was Justin indeed, was one similarity-paedobaptism-and many
dissimilarities between Justin and Marshall. The latter is to be taken
as representative of the prevailing seventeenth century view among
the Puritans that accentuated covenant continuity: differing subjects,
differing foundation or ground and a differing effect. The subjects
were the children indiscriminately of believers and unbelievers. The
effect being that they might "obtain good things at the resurrection".
The reason is found in "the faith of the
bringers".32
The Greek Fathers
Tombes moved on to the Greek Fathers cited by Marshall.
He started again by showing a critical problem:
Your next Greek Author is Irenaeus, who was indeed a Greeke, and who
wrote in Greek, but now only we have his works in Latine, (except for a few
fragments) for which reason we are not so certain of his meaning, as we might
be if we had his own words in the language in which he wrote. You say he
lived in the same Century and it is acknowledged that he lived in the same
century with Justine Martyr but not with the Author of the Questions & Answers
ad Orthodoxes, who (as hath been said) lived in some Age after. Irenaeus is
by Usher placed in the yeare 180. by Osiander at the year 183 so that though
he were of that Century, yet he reacheth not to your 1500. years &
upwards.33
After showing that Marshall stopped his citation too
abruptly, Tombes went on to show that the meaning of Irenaeus was foreign to
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
the doctrine and practise Marshall was asserting. Marshall, by
his use of Irenaeus, confused the argument. Tombes wrote:
...[F]or no where doth our Lord, or the Apostles call baptisme, New
birth, although our Lord speake of being born again of water Ioh. 3.5. and Paul
of the washing of regeneration. Tit. 3.5. and for the words themselves
without the glosse, all the strength lyes in this, that the word (Renascuntur) is used
for Baptisme by the Ancients, which yet possibly was not the word Irenaeus
used in his own writing; and how the Latine translation alters the meaning
of Irenaeus, you may see somewhat in Rivet. Vossius Thesibus Theologic. de
Paedobapt. Thesi. 7 intimates, that the proper acceptation is of
sanctification, and that the word may be so taken, yea and that it is not meant of
Baptisme, the words of the whole scope of Irenaeus in that place shew. For the
whole scope of Irenaeus in that chapter is to refute the Gnosticks, who sayd
that Christ did not exceed one and thirty yeeres of age; against whom
Irenaeus alleageth, that Christ lived in every age, of infancy, youth, old age, that by
his age, & example, he might sanctifie every age, so that here Irenaeus
speakes not of being born againe by Baptisme : for it is said, who are born againe
by him, that is by Christ. Not as if he had baptized infants, but because he was
an infant, that by example or vertue of his age, he might sanctifie
infants....34
Tombes showed, therefore, that the purpose and scope
of Irenaeus was not the same as Marshall's. Irenaeus's purpose was
to refute the Gnostics of his day. His scope was to identify
Christ's ability to sanctify all from infancy to otherwise.
Again, Tombes argued for texts to be understood in the
given context. His methodology as a literary scholar was applied
consistently. He used this principle that allowed the context to rule
supremely while he applied it rigidly and consistently with the
biblical and classical texts. Polemicising with Tombes brought about
tedious work for all parties involved.
Tombes moved on to the third of Marshall's Greek
Fathers, Origen. First he gave a critical analysis of the work's authenticity.
He wrote:
The next Greeke Author is Origen, who you say lived in the beginning of
the third century, Perkins and Usher place him at the year 230, but for his
works, as of old they were counted full of errours and dangerous to be reade, so
as now they are, we can hardly tell in some of them what is Origens, What not
: for the original being lost, we have only the latine translation, which being
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Historical Arguments
| ||
|
performed in many of his works, and particularly the
Homilies on Leviticus and the Epistle to the
Romans, by Ruffinus, it appeares by his own
confession, that he added many things of his own, insomuch that Erasmus in
his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith, that a man cannot be certain if
he reads Ruffinus or Origen; and Perkins puts among Origens Counterfeit
works his Commentary on the Epistle of the
Romans, as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus : the like is the judgement of Rivet and others, and I
suppose did you reade the passages themselves you cite, and consider how they
are brought in : and how plaine the expressions are against the Pelagians :
you would quickly conceive, that those passages were put in after the
Pelagian heresie was confuted by Hierom and Augustine, who often tells us that
the Fathers afore that controversie arose, did not speake plainly against
the Pelagians : and of all others, Origen is most taxed as
Pelagianizing.35
Tombes discredited the use of Origen by appeal to the
common belief that Origen's work was adumbrated sometime after
the Pelagian controversy. The argument is this: The Pelagian
controversy was an early fifth century controversy; it caused the
re-editing of this manuscript; therefore the manuscript in question came
after the early fifth century Pelagian controversy and not from the hand
of Origen directly.
Tombes still went on to examine the content of the
questionable work. He wrote, still in reply to Marshall:
But what saith the supposed Origen? In one place that the Church
received this tradition of baptizing infants from the Apostles : in another according
to the observation of the Church baptisme is granted to infants, you adde
(as foreseeing that this passage would prove that then it was held but a
tradition) that then the greatest points of faith were ordinarily called traditions,
received from the Apostles, and you cite 2 Thes. 2.15. To which I reply, true it is
that they did call the greatest points of faith, though written, traditions
Apostolicall, as conceiving they might best learne what to hold in points of faith, from the
Bishops of those Churches where the Apostles preached, and therefore in
prescriptions against Hereticks, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and others, direct persons
to go to the Churches where the Apostles sate, specially the Romane Church
which seems to have beene the seed of Appeals to Rome, and the ground of
the conceit which was had of the Popes unerring Chaire. But it is true also
they called Apostolicall traditions any thing though unwritten, which was
reported to have come from the Apostles; as the time of keeping Easter, and
many more, which was the fountain of all corruptions in discipline and worship.
And in those places you cite, is meant an unwritten tradition, not only the not
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
citing any Scripture for Baptizing of Infants, but also the very Phrases...
are sufficient proofe to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings
of those times. So that yet you have not proved that the baptisme of Infants
was time out of minde, that it had beene received in the Church, or was
delivered over to the Church in Origens time, and was accounted but an
Apostolicall tradition, according to the observance of the
Church.36
Certainly Marshall would not have conceded the
supremacy of the Pope or the Roman Church; however, with profound
subtlety, Tombes equated the two traditions. The conclusion for
Marshall, and other readers, to have drawn was that they could not have
one without the other. If there were unwritten, yet binding,
apostolic traditions which made one perform compulsory practises,
consistency would demand that infant baptism and Roman ecclesiastical
supremacy be treated the same.
Previously, Tombes had turned Marshall's assertion as
regards the dating of Origen into a dubious one. Given Marshall's
argument from unwritten tradition handed down from apostolic
authority, Tombes pressed this argument to its logical end. Marshall
should have argued for the full acceptation of the oral tradition-a
tradition codified by Origen's annotators hundreds of years after the
Apostolic age.
Tombes moved on to Gregory of Nazianzus, the final
Greek Father offered by Marshall. Tombes replied:
...[W]ho is by Perkins placed at the yeare 380. by Usher 370. much short
of the 1500 yeares and upwards, you say that Orat. in
Baptismum, he calls baptisme, signalum visa cursum in
runtibus, and commands Children to be baptized, though afterwards he seemed to restraine it to the case of necessity.
But doth he seem only to restraine it to the case of necessity? the words
are plaine, that he gives the reason why Infants in danger of death should
be baptized...that they might not misse of the common grace...that they might
be instructed, and so their minds and bodyes might be Sanctified, and these
are all you bring of the Greek Church.37
Gregory viewed baptism as a means to convey God's
common grace to infants out of sanctifying necessity. It was
another salvific understanding requiring a mechanical operation of grace by
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Historical Arguments
| ||
|
virtue of the act of baptising,
"opere operatum"38.
Tombes displayed the "wrong original" for paedobaptism
once again. He continued to manifest four problems individually with
the use of these Greek Fathers:
By the examination of which you may perceive how well you have
proved, that it is manifest out of most of the Records that we have of antiquitie both
in the Greeke and Latine Church, that the Christian Church hath beene in
possession of the priviledge of baptizing the infants of believers for the space
of 1500. yeares and upwards. Whereas the highest is but a bastard Treatise
and yet comes not so high, if it were genuine ; the next with a glosse, which
agrees not with the text, speakes nothing to the purpose, the third is of very
doubtfull credit, the fourth which was sundry hundreds of yeares after Christ
restraines it in the case of necessity.39
Tombes did not leave out his own analysis of the Greek
Fathers. He vented his personal surprise at their silence in
particular cases. He included words from many as he wrote:
But it is a wonder to me, that if it were so manifest as you speake, you
should find nothing in Eusebius for it, nor in Ignatius, nor in Clemens
Alexandrinus, or in Athanasius, not in Epiphanius, that I mention not others: to me it is
no small argument that baptisme of Infants was not universally knowne in
the Greek Church, no not in Epiphanius his dayes, who is said to flourish in
the yeare 390. because in his Panarium, disputing against the Hieracites,
that denied Infants inheriting the Kingdome of heaven, because not striving.
He brings the Infants killed by Herod, the words of the Lord concerning
Ieremiah Chap.I. of his prophecie: Christs blessing and receiving of infants, the
children crying Hosanna: but nothing at all of Infants-baptisme, which had
beene as proper to his purpose if he had beene acquainted with it. But besides
the continuance of the questions to baptized persons, and answered by them,
in many authors mentioned, this is to me, and it seemed so to Hugo
Grotius, annot. in Matth. 19. 14. No small evidence, that baptisme of Infants
many hundred yeares was not ordinary in the Greeke Church: because not
onely Constantine the Great, though the sonne of Helena a zealous Christian it
is reported, was not baptized till aged, but also that Gregory Nazianzen who
was the sonne of a Christian Bishop, and brought up long by him, was not
baptized till he came to be a youth, as it is related in his life. And Chrysostom
though (as Grotius saith) according to truer opinion, borne of Christian Parents, and
educated by Meletius a Bishop, yet was not baptized till past 21 yeares of age.
Grotius addes, that the Canon of the Synod of Neocasarea held in 315.
determines that a woman with childe must be baptized, because the baptisme reached
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
not to the fruit of her Wombe, because in the confession made in
baptisme, each ones own free choice is shewed From which Canon, Balsamon
and Zonarus do inferre, that an Infant cannot be baptized, because it hath not
power to choose the confession of divine baptisme. And Grotius adds further,
that many of the Greeks in every age unto this day do keep the custome of
differing the baptisme of little ones, till they could themselves make a confession
of their faith. From all which I inferre, that the Anabaptists need not blush to
say (which you seem to make a part of their impudence) that the Ancients,
especially the Greek Church, rejected the baptisme of Infants for many
hundred yeeres.40
The Latin Fathers
Proceeding to the Latin Fathers, Tombes examined the
evidence put forth by Marshall from Cyprian, Fidus, Augustine
and Jerome (Hierom). Within the context of the discussion, Tombes
also added Tertullian. To introduce the literature, Tombes wrote:
...[Y]ou alledge for Baptisme of Infants. First Cyprian, one of the
ancientest writers amongst the Latines: which is true; He is placed by Perkins at
the yeare 240. by Usher, at the yeare 250. Yet Tertullian was before him,
and counted his master: Now in Tertullians time, it appears (saith Grotius in
Mat. 19. 14.) there was nothing defined concerning the age which they were to
be baptized, that were consecrated by their parents to Christian discipline,
because he disswades by so many reasons (in his book
of Baptism c.18.) the baptizing of infants. And if he did allow it, it was only in case of necessity,
as may appeare by his words in his book de
anima, c. 39. But you say, Cyprian handles it at large, in Epist. 59. ad fidum. It is true, he doth say enough in
that Epistle for the baptizing of Infants, and more then enough, except he
had spoken to better purpose. The truth is, the very reading of that Epistle,
upon which Hierom, and especially Augustine rely for proving of the baptizing
of Infants, is sufficient to discover how great darkness there was upon the
spirits that were counted the greatest lights in the
Church.41
Tombes was not intimidated by the accepted authorities
in the church. No one was sacrosanct. He believed truth could be
known and he was driven to discover what it might be. The critical
evaluation of these authorities came next. On Fidus, Tombes
wrote dismissively:
Whence it plainly appeares, that there was a relique of Judaisme in him, and
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Historical Arguments
| ||
|
that he did not well understand the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law:
and the truth is, the contentions about Easter, neere that age, do plainly shew,
that Iudaisme was not quite weeded out of the mindes of the teachers among
Christians.42
For Tombes, the next section was critical for pointing out
the wrong original of paedobaptism. He moved on to Cyprian and
the decrees of the Council of Sixty-Six bishops. Tombes replied
to Marshall's use of Cyprian in this way:
You say Cyprian assures him, that by the unanimous consent of 66
Bishops gathered together in Councell, baptisme was to be administered to Infantes,
as well as to growne men; and not to be restrained to any time, which is true,
but you add, and proves it by such arguments as these. They are under
originall sinne, they need pardon, and are capable of grace and mercy, God regards not
age, etc. But the resolution of Cyprian with his Collegues is not so lightly
to be passed over, sith the determination of this Councell, as far as I can
search finde, is the very spring-head of Infant Baptisme. To conceive it aright, it is
to be considered that you are mistaken, about the proofe of their opinion:
the things you mention, are not proofe, but produced in answer to objections.
The proofe is but one, except you will make a proofe of that which is in the
close of the Epistle, which is, that whereas none is to be kept from baptisme, and
the grace of God, much lesse New-borne Infants, who in this respect doe
deserve more of our ayde, and Gods mercy, because in the beginning of their
birth they presently crying and weeping doe nothing else but pray. The only
proofe of this, the mercy and grace of God is to be denyed to none, that are borne
of man, for the Lord saith in the Gospell, that the sonne of man came not
to destroy mens soules, but to save them, and therefore as much as in us lyes,
if it may be, no soules is to be lost, and therefore all infants at all times to
be baptized. Whence we may observe: I. That they thought baptizing,
giving Gods grace, and the denying it, denying Gods grace: Secondly, that they
thought the soules to be lost that were not baptized. Thirdly, that therefore not
onely Infants of believers, but all infants were to be
baptized.43
Tombes pointed out the fallacious use of antiquarian works.
If Marshall insisted on his invocation of Cyprian and the Council
in this argument as his source of authority, he should have taken
their other conclusion as well. Implicitly, Tombes was arguing for a
consistent use of the historical record. If Cyprian baptised infants
for the same reason Marshall baptised them, he could have used him as
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
an antiquarian authority to establish a precedent for his
covenantal views. Since Cyprian and Marshall failed to have the same use
or efficacy in their doctrine of baptism, one does not corroborate
the other.
Augustine
Tombes moved on to Augustine, the most significant
ancient theological authority in the Medieval Church. He wrote of
Augustine:
...[W]ho flourished about the yeare 405. according to Perkins, 410.
according to Usher, and I follow you to consider him next; for though Ambrose
and Hierome are reckoned somewhat afore him about 30. or 20. yeares, yet
they lived at the same time, and the Authority of Augustine was it which carried
the Baptisme of Infants in the following
ages.44
Read with the ears of modernity, this rejoinder may
sound arrogant. However, part of the methodology of debate was to
use anything to your advantage. Tombes pointed to two important
points: 1. the greater stature and authority of Augustine over his
contemporaries; and 2. that Marshall had poisoned the well from which
historical matters flowed by using Augustine's
authority anachronistically.
Tombes countered with a paraphrase of the mid-ninth
century theologian Walafridus Strabo:
...[W]ho in his book, De rebus
Ecclesiasticus cap. 26. having said that in
the first times, the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given to them
onely,who were come to that integrity of minde and body, that they could know
and understand, what profit was to be gotten in Baptisme, what is to be
confessed, and believed, what lastly is to be observed by them that are borne in
Christ...45
The purpose for this citation becomes apparent. Tombes
went on to show how this was the practise in Augustine's youth.
Augustine's apparent theologising late in life was inconsistent
with his own life experiences. Tombes set up a tension between life
and practise before he moved on to the issue, "Augustines owne confes
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Historical Arguments
| ||
|
sion of himself continuing a Catachumenus
long afore Baptized".46 Tombes progressed on to show the change in Augustine's
lifetime centred around the understanding of original sin in children. It
was Augustine's theology that brought about a change in theological
paradigm, though not without controversy.
Tombes went on to present the same medieval point of
tension from the baptismal debates of the twelfth century and the
relevance therefrom to the discussion of Augustine. Tombes wrote:
To which I adde that Petrus Cluniacensis...writing to the bishops of
France against Peter de Bruis, who denied Baptisme of Infants, sayes of him, that
he did reject the Authority of the Latine Doctors, being himself a Latine,
ignorant of Greeke, and having said recurrit ergo ad
scripturas, therefore he runnes to the Scriptures.... From these passages I gather, that as Peter
Cluniacensis urged for paedo-baptisme the authority of Augustine and the Latine
Doctors, So Peter de Bruis and Henricus appealed to the Scriptures and the
Greeke Church.47
Herein Tombes created a bipartite historical precedent.
He undermined the authority of Augustine and the Latin Fathers,
while establishing an ancient source for his own assertions. Tombes
knew the folly of an attack on Augustine directly. He skilfully hid
behind others in the initial doubt-casting stage of his argument.
Tombes went on to establish the what and why of
Augustine's authority. He then contrasted Augustine's day with a more
recent age to continue his subtle attack on Augustine's universal
esteem and authority. Tombes was not merely tearing down an icon.
He showed how in a narrow area at a specific time Augustine's
tools smashed to bits a particular Pelagian stone. He wrote:
Now the reason of Augustines authority was this, the Pelagian heresie
being greatly condemned, and Augustines workes being greatly esteemed, as
being the hammer of the Pelagians.... The Councells that did condemne it as
those of Carthage, Arles Milevus [Etc.] did rest altogether on Augustines
arguments, and often on his words, and Augustine in time was accounted one of the
foure Doctors of the Church, esteemed like the foure Evangelists, so that his
opinion was the rule of the Churches Judgement, and the schooles
determination, as to the great hurt of Gods Church Luther and others have been of
late.48
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
Tombes reduced Augustine's concerns and presented a
refutation of them. Tombes engaged Augustine's thought because
he taught a form of paedobaptism for the "remission of sinnes".
Tombes wrote on how the practise of the time surrounding Augustine,
his family, and friends, could not point to a universal practise.
Tombes also postulated the reason for the emerging practise in his first of
six responses. He wrote:
First, in that whereas he makes it so Universall a tradition, his owne
baptisme, not till above thirty, though educated as a Christian by his mother Monica,
the Baptisme of his sonne Adeodatus at 15. of his friend Alipius, if there were
no more, were enough to prove that this custome of baptizing infants, was not
so received, as that the Church thought necessary that all children of
Christians by profession should be baptized in their infancy.... Yet I doe very
much question whether they did in Africa, even in Augustines time baptize
children, except in danger of death, or for health of body, or such like reason: I do
finde that they held that Infants must be baptized out of such cases, for it is clear
out of sundry of Augustines Tracts, as particular tract. II in Johan: that the
order held of distinguishing the Catechumeni and baptized, and the use of
Catechizing afore baptisme, still continued, yea and a great while after, insomuch
that when Peter Cluniacensis disputed against Peter de Bruis, he said only,
that there had been none but infants baptized for 300. yeares, or almost 500.
yeares in Gallia, Spaine, Germany, Italy, and all Europe, and it seemes he denyed
not the baptizing of growne persons in Asia still; whence I collect, that even in
the Latine Church, after Augustines dayes, in sundry ages the baptizing of
persons of growne age did continue as well as baptizing of infants, till the
great darkness that over-spired the Westerne Churches, spoiled by Barborous
Nations, destitute of learned men, and ruled by ambitious and unlearned
Popes, when there were none to Catechize, and therefore they baptized whole
countries upon baptisme of the King of that Country, though both Prince and
people knew little or nothing of Christianity, but were in respect of manners
and knowledge Pagans still, which hath beene the great cause of the upholding
of the Papacie, and corrupting of Christian Churches, I mean this great
corruption of baptizing, making Christians, giving Christendome (as it is
called) afore persons were taught what Christianity was, or if they were taught
anything, it was only the ceremonies and rites of the Church, as they called
them.49
Tombes continued with his second criticism of
Augustine where he considered the basis or ground on which Augustine
allowed for Infant Baptism. He wrote:
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Historical Arguments
| ||
|
You may conceive how light Augustine's judgement was by considering
the ground upon which Augustine held, and urged the baptisme of Infants so
vehemently; which was, as all know that read his works...that without
baptisme Infants must be damned, by reason of originall sinne, which is not taken away
but by Baptisme, yea, though he wanted baptisme out of necessity;
urging those places. Joh. 3. 5. Rom. 5. 12. continually in his disputes against
the Pelagians....50
Applying this research to Marshall's work, Tombes
continued:
The ground that you go on, that the covenant of grace belongs to believers
and their seed, I cannot find amongst the Ancients.... Yet we finde no
remedy allowed by them, but actual baptisme for children born into the world:
So strictly did Augustine and the Ancients urge the necessity of Baptisme
for Infants born.51
Tombes went on to some counter-argumentation by analogy.
The issue in this brief reply is paedocommunion, the practise of
giving the Eucharist to children and infants. This section is merely
to undermine the theologising of Augustine outside of the Pelagian
controversy. For Tombes, it does not follow that Augustine is to be
considered an authority in everything because he was exceptional in
one area. Perhaps this is an intrusion of Tombes's Calvinistic view
of depravity and remaining sin imposed upon the theological work
of Augustine. Tombes rejoined:
You may consider, that Augustine held a like necessity of Infants
receiving the Lords supper, from the words, Joh. 6. 53. as is plainly expressed by
him.... And accordingly, as in Cyprians time, the Communion was given to
Infants, as appears by the story which relates of himself, giving the Communion to
an Infant, in his book de lapsis, mentioned by August. epist. 23. So it is
confessed by Maldonat on John. 6. that Innocentius the first Bishop of
Rome, held it necessary for Infants; and that his opinion and practise continued
about 600 yeares in the Church, though it be now rejected by the Romane Church
in the Councel of Trent.52
Tombes's appeal was for consistency. If infants were
baptised out of necessity because of original sin by the ancients and if
infants were given the Eucharist for the same reason, those arguing for the
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
perpetuity of one should likewise argue for the other. For Tombes,
if Marshall argued from historical precedent via Augustine's
authority in belief and practise for infant baptism,
Marshall should allow,
out of consistency of use, for paedocommunion as well. If not one,
then not the other.
Tombes continued to undermine the use of Augustine as
an authority for Marshall's baptismal views based on a covenantal
connection. He wrote on Augustine's view of regeneration through
baptism. Tombes wrote:
You may consider, that Augustine held such a certainty of obtaining
regeneration by Baptisme, that not only he puts usually regeneration for Baptisme,
but also he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants, though they
that brought them, did not bring them with that faith, that they might be
regenerated by spirituall grace to eternal life; but because Baptisme they thought
to procure health to their bodies.... [Y]ou may perceive how corrupt
Augustine was in this matter, so as to excuse, if not to justifie their fact, who made use
of Baptisme in so profane a manner, as to cure diseases by it: which is no
marvaile, if it be true which is related, of the approbation that was given of
Baptisme used by Athanasius in play amongst the
boyes.53
Drawing on the content and context of Augustine's
work, Tombes added:
You may consider, that in the same Epistle, when Bonifacius pressed
Augustine to shew how Sureties could be excused from Lying, who being asked
of the Childs faith answered, He doth believe, (for even in Baptisme of
Infants they thought in all ages it necessary that a profession of faith go before)
He defends that act in this absurd manner: Respondetur credure propter
fidei Sacramentum,54 And thence he is called a believer, because he hath the
Sacrament of faith. Which as it is a ridiculous playing with words, in so serious
a matter before God, so it is a senslesse answer, sith the interogation was of
the Childs faith before it was baptized, and the answer was given before,
and therefore it cannot be understood of believing by receiving the sacrament
of faith, which came after.55
Tombes pushed his point to the limit. He wanted to
undermine any ground for Augustine's view of baptism. He
questioned, ever so subtly, Augustine's credibility by this line of inquiry.
Tombes implied that Augustine treated lightly what God treated seriously.
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Historical Arguments
| ||
|
Perhaps Tombes did not fully appreciate the Platonic
underpinnings of Augustine's beliefs whereby transactions on earth have their
counterpart in heaven. Surely for Augustine the words spoken by
people were irrelevantit was only the heavenly pronouncement of God
in heaven that mattered. All else were shadows in a cave.
Tombes went on to his final criticism of Marshall's use
of Augustine to demonstrate, yet again, the disparity between their
respective views. He wrote:
It is apparent out of the same Epistle, that Infants were then admitted
to baptisme, whether they were the children of believers, or not; it was no
matter with the intention they brought them, nor whose children were brought; yea,
it was counted a work of charity to bring any children to baptisme, and in
this case the faith of the whole Church was counted a sufficient supplement of
the defect of the parents or bringers faith: So that whereas the present
defenders of Infant-Baptisme, pretend Covenant-holinesse a priviledge of Believers,
it was no such matter in the time of the Ancients, but they baptized any
Infants even of Infidels, upon this opinion, That Baptisme did certainly give grace
to them; and if they dyed without baptisme, they did
perish.56
Tombes removed the appearance of theological
unanimity between the covenantal position of Stephen Marshall and the
"opere operatum" position of Augustine. What was left were a few
tenuous connections in practise, and none in the underlying reason for
infant baptism. Tombes dismissed quickly the relevance of Jerome
and Ambrose for the discussion. He simply linked them to the errors
of Augustine and ended the discussion there, writing:
...[I]n which [Hierom] maintains baptisme of Infants, and
Infant-communion, as necessary to salvation, and the certainty of regeneration and salvation
to Infants that are baptized, and receive the Lords supper. So that the same
answer be given to Hierom, which is to be given concerning Augustine. The last
you alledge, is Ambrose, who lived about the same time, though he be
placed some yeares before Augustine and Hierom; And it is confessed that he was
of the same judgement, and many other of the Ancients of the same time, and
in after-ages, but nothing comparable to those already
named....57
Tombes moved on to make his final conclusions as
regards Marshall's use of the Greek and Latin Fathers. He offered six
main points for consideration and six subpoints wherein Marshall had failed
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
to make his case. Tombes believed Marshall had helped to
disprove what he should have affirmed. He wrote:
Now then, you say, you relate not to prove the truth of a thing, but only
the practise of it. It is well you added this, that you might disclaime the
validity of these testimonies for proof; for the truth is they rather prove the thing to
be an error, than a truth, which was held upon such erroneous ground as
they taught and practised it, to wit, the necessity of Baptisme to salvation, Joh. 3. 5.
The certainty of remission of originall sin by baptisme; The denying of
God's grace to none, And the perishing of those to whom Baptisme was not given.
Whether you have any better proofs, I shall consider hereafter: in the
mean time this I adde. 1. That concerning the practise, your testimonies prove
not, that it was in practise, but in case of supposed necessity. 2. That there
was still in use a constant course of baptizing, not only the converted from
infidelity, but also the grown children of professed believers, when they were at
full age. 3. That they did alike conceive a necessity of, and accordingly
practise the giving of the Lords supper to Infants. 4. That they made no
distinction between the Infants of believers and unbelievers being brought to them. 5.
That your ancientest testimonie for practise, according to any Rule
determined, is Cyprian, neer 300 yeeres after Christ. 6. Lastly, there are many
evidences that so as strongly prove, as proofs are usually taken in such matters, That
is was not from the beginning: As particularly, 1. The continued propounding
of the ordinary questions even to infants concerning faith, repentance, and
obedience, afore they were baptized, which in the School-men was still held
necessary, and therefor Sureties thought necessary to answer for them, yea
even in Reformed Churches, unto this day which as it was conceived by Strabo,
and Vines in his Comment on Aug. lib. I.
de civit. Dei, c. 27. a cleare evidence; so I conceive any reasonable man will think it to be a manifest proof that
at first none were baptized but such as understood the faith of Christ. 2.
The examples before mentioned, of baptising Gregory Nazianzen,
Chrysostom, Augustine, Constantine the great, etc. being children of professors of
Christianity, is a manifest proof they did not baptize Infants ordinarily, but
extraordinarily in case of necessity. 3. Specially if we joyn hereto the disswasions
of Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzen forementioned. 4. The plain testimony
of the Councel of Neo-Casarea agai[n]st it, before mentioned. 5. The silence
of the chiefe writers, Eusebius, etc. concerning it. 6. The many passages
in Augustine, and others, referring it only to Apostolicall tradition,, and that
usually proved by no higher testimony than Cyprian, & that brought in
upon erroneous grounds, is a strong evidence that it came not from the
Apostles.58
The one apparent problem for Tombes was the use of one
of Augustine's annotators, Vine, to make this final point rather than
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Historical Arguments
| ||
|
culling it from Augustine's own writings.
Tombes gave his summary conclusion as regards the
historical materials and Marshall's justification of infant baptism therefrom.
He wrote:
More testimonies and evidences might be brought out of sundry authors:
but these are enough to me, and I think to any that search into Antiquity, to
prove, that the custome of baptizing Infants was not from the beginning, and
therefore is but an Innovation: especially that your tenet, and practise
accordingly, is a very late innovation, [That Baptisme is to be given to Infants of
Believer only, because of supposed Covenant holiness] not elder than Zwinglius,
and so not much above one hundred yeares old, so far as I can
find.59
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
Notes for Chapter Six:
1. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 26.
2. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 26.
3. Tombes, Exercitation, pp. 26f. From Tombes's comment on
the bottom of p. 26, "That tenet and practise, which being put:
Baptism cannot be administered as John Baptist and the Apostles did
administer, agrees not with the practise of John Baptist and the
Apostles", leaves the inference that some attempted to construct a theology
of baptism without regard for the belief and practise of John the
Baptist and the Apostles as found in Scripture. For him, this kind of
thinking was not only irrational, it was without foundation. This argument
is to demonstrate the foundationlessness of those who
practised paedobaptism without regard to the practise found in the New
Testament.
4. Tombes, Exercitation, pp. 26f. These syllogisms are
reconstructed for clarity from the material on these pages.
5. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 26.
6. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 27.
7. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 27.
8. Tombes, Exercitation, pp. 26f.
9. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 27.
10. Tombes, Examen, p. 151.
11. Tombes, Examen, p. 153.
12. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 27.
13. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 27.
14. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 27.
15. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 27.
16. Robert Ram, Paedo-Baptisme or, The Baptizing of Infants
Justified: By the judgement and practise of Ancient and Moderne
Protestant Divines, both Foraine, and of this nation: clearly proving
the absolute necessity of baptizing infants, from the authority of
sacred Scripture, and the force of undeniable
reason, London, 1645.
17. Mordecai Feingold, "Oriental Studies," in Nicholas Tyacke,
ed., The History of the University of
Oxford, Vol. IV, Clarendon Press,
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Historical Arguments
| ||
|
Oxford, 1997, p. 469, esp n65. Feingold cites Wood,
Athenae Oxoniensis, Vol. iii, 926-31, 1062-7, as his source to declare,
"Tombes became a noted tutor, numbering John Wilkins among his
students, and succeeded Pemble as the hall's [Magdalen] catechist. He
eventually turned Baptist and, as a result, little of his early promise as
a learned classicist and Hebraic scholar was translated into
scholarly publications". This writer believes this to be an error in
judgement. This declaration does not consider the scholarship manifest
within Tombes's Antipaedobaptist writings. Whether one accepts
Tombes's conclusions or not, his abilities in classical research and
presentation must be admitted.
18. The Quakers attempted an historical argument for their beliefs.
Samuel Fisher, Rusticus Ad Acedemicos in
Exercitationibus Epostulatoriis, Apologicuis
Quator. The Rustick's Alarm to the Rabbies: or, the Country Correcting the University, and Clergy,
(and not without good cause) Contending for the
Truth..., London, 1660, Second appendix, Christ's Light Springing, Arising up, Shining
forth, and displaying itself through the whole World.... In the
introduction, Fisher states, "...from under that Priestly Darkness wherewith it
has been clouded and overcast, by the space of one thousand two
hundred and Sixty years, in this our Antichristian-Christian World" .
Subtracting this number from the date, 1660, we infer that
Fisher believed "Christ's light" was eclipsed in 400 AD. For him,
Quakerism was, at least in part, an attempt to recover a more historical
version of Christianity. Perhaps, this was a subtle undercurrent of
the tumultuous time.
The turbulence of the 17th Century has a number of
causes that converge in England. To see the causes of this social
upheaval, see Christopher Hill, Change and Continuity in 17th-Century
England. Revised Edition, Yale University Press, New Haven,
1991. First published in 1974 by Weidenfield and Nicholson. See also
Hill, The World Turned Upside Down, Penguin Books, London, 1975.
19. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 28.
20. Rufinus published his annotations on the homilies of Origen.
Apparently, there was question as regards what was from Origen and
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
what from Rufinus. The Ecclesiatical
History penned by Rufinus was published at Basle in 1544. This accounts for the
prominent place it served in the dispute. The work placed the Western
scholars in proximity to Eastern theological writings. See Rufinus
Tyrannius, in John M'Clintock and James Strong,
Cyclopaedia Vol. IX, p 152. Article unsigned.
21. Tombes, Exercitation, p. 28.
| ||||
No comments:
Post a Comment