 |
|
|
|
Early Influences
| ||
|
Chapter Three
The Baptismal Theology of John Tombes--Early Influences
The Initial Influence
The first fledgling moment of questioning the status quo
came upon Tombes during a university catechetical lecture at
Magdalen Hall, Oxford.1 As Tombes recalled:
It happened in the year of 1627 reading the Catechisme Lecture at
Magdalen Hall in Oxford, and having occasion in one of my Lectures to examine
whether there be such a priviledge to the children of Beleevers, that they should
be accounted to belong to the Covenant, and Church of God, I found not
sufficient ground either from Gen. 17. 7. or from the institution of
Circumcision for the affirmative in that question.... Wherefore then, and since I declined
the urging of those reasons for it, and wholly relied on 1 Cor. 7.14.
conceiving that those words [but now they are holy] did import that priviledge to
the children of a Beleeving Parent. And accordingly practised baptizing of
infants upon the warrant of that Text only, as I often told my Auditors at
Lemster in Hereford-shire, which some now about the city can
witness.2
After some time in Worcestershire, Tombes saw that
more theological reflection was needed. He gave his readers a
glimpse into this personal concern when describing the time he was forced
to flee "through the violence of the Kings
Party."3 Tombes continued:
I came to the City of Bristoll, and there preached for halfe a yeare, in
which time in dispute with an Antipaedobaptist, I urged that Text 1 Cor. 7. 14.
which he answered with so much evidence, as that although I did not fully
assent unto him, yet one durst not oppose Truth who ever brought it, I resolved with
my selfe to consider that matter more full, and to that end being
enfeebled with labour in preaching, and griefe by reason of publike losses at that
time, and advised by my Physitian to remove out of Bristoll, understanding
the Assembly4 was to sit in July
1643.5
It took fifteen years for Tombes to settle the matter.
This personal settlement was according to conscience governed by a
biblio-centric approach to theological reflection. Here an eminent man
of the past struggled honestly with issues of relevance for himself,
the church, and the people in his care. Tombes, while holding to a thor
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
oughgoing reformational theology that endeared him to many,
was no mere theological ideologue. He sought to correct others and to
be corrected by others where and when needed. He was not driven
to fast answers in thorny matters in order to resolve a disputed point.
He took time to think problems through to settled convictions.
His reflections were not, however, in isolation from his community
of faith, but remained within the church-at-large.
The Second Influence
Secondly, Tombes laid out his concerns for such a
theology and practice within the National and Universal Church that would
be built on the positive declaration of Scripture with a right use of
reason. He expressed these concerns in a published sermon
entitled Fermentum Pharisaeorum, or, The Leaven of Pharisaicall
Wil-Worship.6 This sermon was preached on 24 November 1641 while
Tombes was a practising paedobaptist. Speaking despairingly of some
clergy's use of baptism, he wrote:
...[T]hey thinke they use baptisme well, if they get some to stand at the font
as surities, for the Childs faith, (which I think to be proper to Christ, Heb.
7.22.) the Childe to be sprinkled with water, & crossed on the fore-head,
though there be no sense of guilt and defilement of sinne, utter ignorance of the
excellency and necessity of spiritual new
birth.7
The entire work,
Fermentum, was designed to reform the human inventions in worship brought into the National Church
by Papist8 and late
prelactical9 practices. It identified Tombes as a
rigid adherent to a regulating principle that believed and desired
God's instruction found in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
to be law over his people over against the words of men and their
added traditions. Consider Tombes's concern:
Now mens precepts are altogether about bodily things, as washings,
gestures, garments, fastings, feastings, processions, buildings, and such like; All
which reach no further than the body, cannot rectifie or amend the Soule: and
make it more like God.
Thirdly, this teaching for doctrine mens precepts displeaseth God, as be
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Early Influences
| ||
|
ing injurious to him, and that in a double respect: first, teaching and urging
mens commands in stead of doctrines, whereby God's worship should be
taught, intrencheth on God's Perogative, who is the onley Lawgiver to his Church,
Jam. 4.12. for his worship.10
For Tombes, the positive codified law of God found in
Scripture was the measuring rod for all doctrine and practice. He
used regal language to illustrate the responsibility of the subjects and
those who would carry forth the sovereign Lawgiver's decrees:
For as it is a perogative of a King to appoint the wayes of his owne service
and honour, and he should be taken to be very presumptuous and arrogant
that should take upon him to prescribe a fashion of attendance, suite, and
service to his prince without consent, when he hath otherwise declared his will; so
is it much more intolerable pride, and presumption in a mortall man, to
appoint a way of service to God, which he never consented to, but hath otherwise
directed his owne service. And for the same reason it is a transferring of
God's perogative on a man, when he doth servilly consent by subjecting his
conscience to such usurpation.11
Tombes's view of the Church and her need for divine
governance accentuates the spirituality of the Church over against its
physicality. The Church was more than a human society of people
with mutual beliefs and concerns. It was God's domain on the earth. In
a summary of the practical issues as regards his regulating principle
of God governing his Church by the Scriptures, Tombes concluded:
And although I know Ceremonies invented by men are pretended to serve
for edification, yet I must professe that I never found in my reading, or
experience, that ever any person by such rites and observances was wonne to
the profession of Christ, or brought to any spirituall knowledge of Christ, any
true faith or sincere obedience to him. Possibly they may beget some kinde
of raptures of carnall delight, through melodious soundes or pleasant sights,
some kinde of womanish pity, and teares, such as the acting of a stage play
will draw from some persons: but that ever they begat sanctifying
knowledge, sound repentance, holy mortification of sinne, lively faith, fruitfull living
to God, I assure my selfe cannot be shewed: But it is certain on the contrary
that the teaching for doctrines commandments of men hath occasioned men
to oppose the principall point of the Gospel of Christ, to wit, justification
by faith in him, and contrary to the covenant of grace in Christ to conceive
a righteousnesse in themselves by the observation of men's commands, as in
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
the Pharisees and Papists, and all sorts of superstitious persons it doth
abundantly appear.12
Tombes, then, was no iconoclast. He was concerned
with evangelical concerns for the ultimate well-being of the souls of
those who attended the Church's worship. His deeply held concern
was that people realise the effects of sin and find themselves eclipsed
by the power of God found in the Christian Gospel. He also
laboured that God's glory would not be obscured by some novelty of
man's creative ability. A rigid application of this principle drove
Tombes to examine everything in his Christian belief system by the
standard of Scripture alone, aided by reason, including baptism.
The Third Influence
The third major influence upon Tombes was the
Solemn League and Covenant13 oath taken in London at the behest of
Parliament. To this oath Tombes gave his unqualified devotion,
elevating the Solemn League and Covenant to the place of a subordinate
standard to God's Word to drive his practise. Throughout his writings
he referred to the stern duty enjoined to him in the swearing of this oath.
Tombes reflected upon this duty in the context of
other Antipaedobaptists who had been treated harshly:
For this I am moved to appear out of confidence of my duty to Christ,
commiseration of them who have been condemned and injured for avouching
my position, and my engagement by solemn covenant and enjoyned by
Parliament, to endeavour Reformation in Doctrine and worship according to
God's Word.14
And in another place while answering the charge of
publishing his views needlessly, he wrote:
... [T]o endeavour the bringing of Truth to light, if it were necessary for a
man to keep the solemne Covenant he hath bound himself to, though it were
great hazard, if it were necessary in a time of Reformation for a Minister of
the Gospell to do what belonged to him to further it, if it be necessary for a
Minister of the Gospell to provide for the giving of his account at the day of
Jesus Christ.15
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Early Influences
| ||
|
Tombes later demonstrated how this oath became a
binding subordinate standard which remained valid years after the
pledge was taken. An Addition to the
Apology was a response to Robert Baillie, fellow signatory of the Oath, and one of the Scottish
Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly. Tombes attempted to
practise one of the final steps in the process of Christian Church
discipline (Matt. 18:15-20). He addressed this work to the
"Moderator and Commissioners of the next National Assembly of the Church
of Scotland" as follows:
That in pursuance of the Solemne Covenant taken by me to endevour
reformation in God's worship, according to the Word of God; I published
Two Treatises about Infant-Baptisme....16
Clearly, Tombes was a man of strong opinion yet
humble enough to know that even he, with all his credentials and
experience, was not omniscient. The sure expectation of an eternal
judgment was ever upon his mind as a motivation. His
Fermentum introduced his broad concern to use the Scriptures as his regulating principle.
His change of opinion from Anglican Paedobaptist to
Anglican Antipaedobaptist due to the persuasive and weighty arguments of
an "ingenious Baptist"17 shows him to be a man who practiced what
he believed. The oath conjoined to the Solemn League and
Covenant gave him the wherewithal and confidence to pursue a reformation
on the issue of baptismal theology and practice that was in
harmony, according to his perceptions, with God's expressed revealed will.
Throughout his life, he retained an intense desire to be taught and
to know the truth. This driving force, along with the influences
already mentioned, thrust him onto the battlefield of polemical theology.
In that arena he would argue the cause of the Antipaedobaptists as
a clergyman in the National Church concerned not to leave as a
non-conforming separatist.18 In view was the purity of that body.
His desire was the reformation of the National Church, and
ultimately for the glory of God to be manifest therein. Tombes was a
thoroughly consistent Puritan while an Anglican Antipedobaptist.
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
| ||||
|
Notes for Chapter Three:
1. This institution should not to be confused with the present
Magdalen College, Magdalen Hall is considered a forerunner to the
present-day Hertford College.
2. John Tombes, An Apology or Plea for the Two
Treatises, London, 1646, p. 6. Italics and brackets in original.
3. Tombes, Apology, p. 6.
4. Meaning, the Westminster Assembly of Divines.
5. Tombes, Apology, p. 6. By Assembly, Tombes means
the Westminster Assembly of Divines.
6. Tombes, John, Fermentum Pharisaeorum, or The Leaven
of Phairisaicall Wil-Worship:: Declared in a sermon On Matthew
15.9. November 24. 1641, London, 1643.
7. Tombes, Fermentum, p. 10. In the
Exercitation, p. 24. Tombes derides this practise of using sureties for the infants baptised.
8. Tombes, Fermentum, p. 7.
9. Tombes, Fermentum, p. 12.
10. Tombes, Fermentum, p. 5.
11. Tombes, Fermentum, p. 6.
12. Tombes, Fermentum, p. 7.
13. The accord is described as "The agreement between the
Scots and the English Parliament in 1643. Its professed aims were
the maintenance of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the
reformation of the Church of England, the uniformity of the Churches of
the British Isles, the extirpation of popery and prelacy (i.e.
episcopacy), the preservation of the rights of Parliaments and the liberties of
the kingdoms, the defence of the King's just power and the
suppression of the malignants who sought to divide him from his people".
"Solemn League and Covenant" in Cross, F.L. and E.A. Livingstone,
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church, Oxford University Press, second edition, 1974, reprinted 1984, p. 1287. For the complete
text with brief annotations, see, Gee, Henry, and William John
Hardy, Documents Illustrative of English Church
History, MacMillan and Co., London, 1896, pp. 569-574. Cromwellian politics and a vague
| ||||
|
|
|
|
Early Influences
| ||
|
ecclesiology made the Covenant of no abiding consequence to
the nation.
14. John Tombes, Antipaedobaptism, the Third
Part, London, 1652, last unnumbered page in the preface (addressed to Parliament).
15. Tombes, Apology, p. 3.
16. Tombes, An Addition to the Apology For the two Treatises
concerning Infant-Baptisme Published December 15,
1645, London, 1652. The dedication is signed on September 4, 1650. The words
to the National Church in Scotland are dated September 24, 1650.
In that address, Tombes reveals the date of writing of the body of
this work to have been in 1647. Therefore, the work was written
when the Solemn League and Covenant was still significant. As late
as September of 1650, Tombes holds this Oath in high regard.
17. Langley, Arthur S., "Seventeenth Century Baptist
Disputations" in Transactions of the Baptist Historical Society
(BHST), vol. 6, 1918-1919, p. 222. An excellent and helpful article on the nature and
content of baptistic disputations in the period. Tombes calls his
disputant by the general term of Antipaedobaptist in
Apology, p. 6.
18. In his Apology, Tombes tells the world of the unacceptability
of separation: ". ...[A]nd seeing no likelihood of imploiment and
maintenance for me and mine, except I would gather a separated
Church, which I durst not do, as not knowing how to justifie such a
practice...." p. 10.
| ||
No comments:
Post a Comment