[1]CHAPTER FIVE
Michael T. Renihan, Ph.D.
Individual anecdotes are not normative,
but illustrative of the fruit of men’s labors. The fruit of a belief will be
seen in how it manifests itself in practice. Ideas have consequences. Let me
illustrate. A friend with whom I attended seminary called me recently to
discuss a matter affecting the life of the church he presently pastors. The
church is Presbyterian. My friend has always been a traditionally conservative
Presbyterian pastor holding to all of the Westminster Standards–even the
Directory for Publick Worship. His recent experience struck at the heart of how
the infant’s interest in the Covenant of Grace via the Abrahamic Covenant is
working itself out in some covenantal
Presbyterian or paedobaptist circles. A young woman in her late teens had
become a nightmare to her Christian parents. She was disruptive at home and
rebellious to the authority figures in her life. Her church prayed for her
regularly over the course of almost two years. In fact, they prayed so
regularly that it seemed to the pastor that the congregation had given her over
as a hopeless cause. They had become desensitized through familiarity with her
condition. A Christian friend of this young woman, however, also showed concern
for her. She “reached out to her with a lifeline” (as the evangelical cliché
says). This friend invited her to a church other than her family’s where there
were special summer evangelistic meetings. She agreed to attend. The rebellious
one was struck by the force of the preaching and made a public profession of
faith. (Let’s not get lost in a visceral reaction to methodology at this
point.) Late that night, she announced to her parents with tears of repentance
interspersed with her words of apology that everything was going to be okay
from now on because she was now a Christian. Sounds good, doesn’t it?
Her father went into
a tirade. He had presumed his daughter was already regenerate by virtue of her
election and her place as a “Covenant child.” He would not be shown to be
wrong. His hyper-covenantal theology blinded him to the possibility that his
daughter might have been unregenerate. In his view, she had “broken the
covenant again” by making such a public profession of faith. After all, he had
professed faith for her at her baptism sixteen or so years earlier. What might
have been a merciful answer to the church’s prayers was perceived as a greater
evil than her two years of rebellion. For this act she was cast from the home.
It was the proverbial last straw. The father’s real grief was that his child
had become “a [expletive deleted] Baptist.” In those words the father conveyed
his horror to his pastor, my friend. For the first time in his ministry, my
friend saw the consequences of “pressing too much out of covenant theology.” He
asked in desperation, “What’s a pastor to do?” Since he knows my dry sense of
humor, I replied, “Become a Reformed Baptist.” I also sent him John Tombes’
work on the Abrahamic Covenant.
Tombes’ Measuring Rod for Doctrine and Practice
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 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.[3]
Tombes’ view of the
church and her need for divine governance accentuates the spirituality of the
church over against her material existence alone. The church was more than a
human society of people with mutual beliefs and concerns. It was God’s domain
on the earth, a realm in which God ruled, subduing the hearts of men in order
to make them different–His unique people. 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 the Pharisees and Papists, and all sorts of superstitious
persons it doth abundantly appear.[4]
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 realize the effects of sin and find themselves eclipsed
by the power of God found in the Christian gospel (Tit. 2:11-14). He also
labored that God’s glory would not be obscured by some novelty of man’s
creative mind. 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 recovery of right baptism was Tombes’
personal, yet godly, obsession. He was concerned with the right practice of
this ordinance for the good of man’s soul, not to win a theological point. The
debate that raged in the seventh century was more than the mere academic
production of print on paper. Tombes really believed that the right doctrine
would have major repercussions in the church-at-large. I believe that Tombes
was right on target. These ripples still affect the churches of our day.
Tombes’ Starting Point and the Argument from Genesis 17:7
The first argument is one that examines the case for
infant baptism from the interest of believers’ children in the promise given to
Abraham in Genesis 17:7. It also serves as the all-important starting point for
Tombes’ theological reflection:
Major premise: That which hath no
testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtfull.
Minor premise: But this Doctrine of
Infant-Baptisme, hath no testimony of Scripture for it;
Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtfull.[5]
Tombes’ primary
exegetical argument is a comprehensive, yet properly basic argument designed to
examine any and all of the biblical evidence for infant baptism. The remaining
arguments are applications of the first argument to specific Scriptures,
theological constructions, or historical precedents. Tombes then used his
conclusions to support the doctrine or practice. However, in the context of this
first argument, he went on to consider what he saw as the underlying biblical
texts for the practice of paedobaptism:
The Minor is proved by examining the
places that are brought for it, which are these: Genesis 17.7, etc. Acts 2.38,
39. 1 Cor. 7.14. Mark. 10.14. 16. Acts 16.15. 32. 1 Cor. 1.16. The Argument
from Gen 17.7, etc. is almost the first and the last in this businesse; and
therefore is the more accurately to be examined.[6]
Tombes often added
color to the debate with maxims and Latin phrases. The first argument did not
escape his cutting wit. Speaking of the argument for infant baptism from
Genesis 17:7, etc., he added, “[B]ut it hath so many shapes, that I may here
take up that Speech, With what knot shall
I hold shape-shifting Proteus?[7]
But in the issue, it falls into one or other of these forms.”[8]
Tombes went on to
build his foundation against the interest of believers’ children in the
promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. He did not give multiple forms of the
opposing argument but one form from which he drew four sub-arguments. He thus
supported his refutation of the one argument from Genesis 17:7. This was an
application of his overriding principle expressed in Argument One–that there is
no Scripture to warrant the baptizing of infants. He continued with another
syllogism as if arguing for paedobaptism:
Major premise: To whom the Gospel-covenant
agrees, to them the sign of the Gospel-covenant agrees also.
Minor premise: But to Infants of Believers
the Gospel-covenant agrees,
Conclusion: [A]nd consequently Baptisme.[9]
Tombes added, “The Minor is proved from
Gen. 17.7. where God promiseth to Abraham,
I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee”.[10]
Tombes proceeded to four sub-arguments
that he believed exposed the basic assumptions of the greater argument
presented. By way of introduction to his main point, they were: (1) the covenant
with Abraham is not identical to the Gospel (New) Covenant; (2) Abraham’s seed
has more than one meaning; (3) the promise of the gospel has always been the same
irrespective of the age; and (4) some were circumcised who had no part in the
promise made to Abraham. These four parts were intended to undermine the
credibility of infant baptism by way of analogy from the Abrahamic Covenant to
the New, or in Tombes’s favorite phraseology, the “Euangelicall (using the
Greek alliteration)” or “Gospel-Covenant.”[11] These also form the foundation of all
Tombes’ arguments. They were points that were non-negotiable for him. It is
important to see the detail in these sub-arguments in order to understand his
inferences within other constructions. Tombes kept coming back to two
foundational points: (1) the lack of positive instruction in special revelation
for the practice of infant baptism, and (2) an alternative (and creative)
explanation of the biblical texts, which became the foundation of his emerging
covenantal and credobaptist theology.
On the first of these sub-arguments,
Tombes declared:
1. The Covenant made with Abraham, is not a pure Gospel-covenant, but mixt, which I prove;
The Covenant takes its denomination from
the promises; but the promises are mixt, some Euangelicall, belonging to those
to whom the Gospel belongeth, some are Domestique, or Civill promises,
specially respecting the House of Abraham,
and of Israel; Ergo.[12]
Explaining his
distinction between evangelical and domestic or civil promises in the Abrahamic
Covenant, Tombes implied there were some spiritual promises and some physical
or material promises that had to be distinguished. Tombes explained what he
means by “Euangelicall promises”:
That was Euangelicall which we read, Gen 17.5. I have made thee a father of many
nations; and that which we find, Gen
15.5. so shall thy seed be; in which it is promised, that there shall be of
all Nations innumerable that shall be Abrahams
children by believing, Rom. 4.17,18. It was Euangelicall, which we find, Gen 12.3. & Gen. 18.18. and in thy
seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed; for in these is promised
blessing to Believers, of whom Abraham
is father, Gal. 3.16. Acts 3.25.[13]
Tombes then proceeded to the “Domestique” or “Civill” promises:
Domestique and Civill promises were many;
of the multiplying the seed of Abraham,
the birth of Isaac; of the coming of
Christ out of Isaac; the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, and
deliverance thence; of possessing the Land of Canaan, Gen. 15.13. 18. Gen.
17.7, 8. 15.16. Act. 7.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. and many other places.[14]
The distinction is
between the spiritual blessings (which are called evangelical) which accrue to
believers as believers, and physical (or natural) consequences pertaining to
Abraham’s descendants as domestic (or civil). This distinction is also between
a spiritual seed brought about by heavenly activity and a natural seed brought
about by the earthly procreative act. Tombes continued to legitimize this
distinction as he invoked a rigorous Trinitarianism to clarify and balance the
issues of continuity and discontinuity within the two aspects of the Abrahamic
Covenant (and the same issues as regards other covenants):
Yea, it is to be noted, that those
promises which were Euangelicall,
according to the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost, do point at the
priviledges of Abrahams House, in the
outward face [sense] of the words; whence it may be well doubted, whether this
Covenant made with Abraham, may be
called simply Euangelicall, and so pertain to Believers, as Believers. There
were annexed to the Covenant on Mount
Sinai, sacrifices pointing at the
sacrifice of Christ, and yet we call not that Covenant simply Euangelicall, but
in some respect.[15]
Based on the
distinction that the Abrahamic Covenant is not one and the same with the New or
Gospel Covenant, Tombes went on to answer the remaining three of his original
four questions that paralleled the concerns already stated: “(2) Who is the
seed? (3) What is the promise? (4) What of those who were circumcised who had
no part in Abraham’s covenant?”
Coming to his second
question (Who is the seed?), Tombes says:
Secondly, The seed of Abraham is many wayes so called: First, Christ is called the seed
of Abraham, by excellency, Gal 3.16.
Secondly, all the Elect, Rom. 9.7. all believers, Rom. 4.11,12. 16.17, 18. are
called the seed of Abraham, that is
spiritual seed. Thirdly, there was a natural seed of Abraham, to whom the inheritance did accrue; this was Isaac. Gen. 21.12. Fourthly, a natural
seed, whether lawfull, as the sons of Keturah,
or base, as Ishmael, to whom the
inheritance belonged not, Gen 15.5. But no where do I find, that the Infants of
Believers of the Gentiles are called Abrahams
seed, of the three former kinds of Abrahams
seed, the promise recited, is meant, but in a different manner thus: that God
promiseth, he will be a God to Christ, imparting in him blessing to all nations
of the earth, to the spiritual seed of Abraham
in Euangelicall benefits, to the natural seed inheriting, in domestick and
politicall benefits.[16]
Tombes extended the
blessings of the New Covenant back upon the Abrahamic Covenant in both aspects
of the covenant–spiritual and civil. He saw this as part of the fulfillment of
the New Covenant expressed in the time before Christ. He attempted to explain
himself as he answered the third question (What is the promise?):
3. That the promise of the Gospel, or
Gospel-covenant, was the same in all ages, in respect of the thing promised,
and condition of the covenant, which we may call the substantiall and
essentiall part of that covenant, to wit, Christ,
Faith, Sanctification, Remission of sins, Eternall life; yet this
Euangelicall covenant had divers forms in which these things were signified,
and various sanctions, by which it was confirmed: To Adam, the promise was made under the name of the seed of the woman,
bruising the head of the Serpent; to Enoch,
Noah, in other forms; otherwise to Abraham,
under the name of his seed, in whom all nations should be blessed; otherwise to
Moses, under the obscure shadows of
the Law; otherwise to David, under
the name of a successor in the kingdome; otherwise in the New Testament, in
plain words, 2 Cor. 3.6. Heb. 8.10. It
had likewise divers sanctions. The Promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the sign of circumcision, and
by the birth of Isaac; to Moses by the Paschall Lamb, and the
sprinkling of blood on the [door], the rain of Mannah, and other signs; to David by an oath; in the New Testament,
by Christ’s blood, 1 Cor. 11.25. Therefore circumcision signified and confirmed
the promise of the Gospel, according to the form and sanction of the covenant
with Abraham, Baptisme signifies and
confirms the same promise according to the form, sanction and accomplishments
of the new Testament.[17]
Tombes admitted that each of these
covenants has a sign to confirm the promise made. However, he maintains a
distinction between the specific sign of circumcision given in the Genesis 17
covenant (given to Abraham as part of that specific covenant) and the specific
sign of baptism given in the New Covenant. He went on to contrast other aspects
of these covenants to demonstrate there was not a quid pro quo relationship between them. There was some continuity;
there was also discontinuity. If they were identical in all things, they would
be the same in essence, character, and name. Since there was at least one
difference, the sign, it was, for Tombes’ theological opponents, fallacious to
impose a view of radical continuity between the covenant made with Abraham and
the covenant brought about by Christ, the New Covenant. Tombes continued by
looking at the elements involved:
...[N]ow these forms and sanctions differ many
wayes, as much as concerns our present purpose in these: First, circumcision
confirmed not Euangelicall promises, but also Politicall; and if we may believe
Mr. Cameron, in his Theses,
of the threefold Covenant of God, Thesi.
78. Circumcision did primarily separate the seed of Abraham from other nations, sealed unto them the
earthly promise; Secondarily, it did signifie sanctification: But Baptisme
signifies only Euangelicall benefits. Secondly, circumcision did confirm the
promise concerning Christ to come out of Isaac;
Baptisme assures Christ to be already come, to have been dead, and to have
risen again. Thirdly, circumcision belonged to the Church, constituted in the
House of Abraham, Baptisme to the
Church gathered out of all nations; whence I gather, that there is not the same
reason of circumcision and baptisme, in signing the Euangelicall covenant; nor
may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like
manner of the other.[18]
For Tombes,
circumcision sealed an earthly promise and identified Abraham’s seed as set
apart to God for His purpose. A great part of that purpose was the incarnation
of Christ from the line of Isaac. Tombes was not denying Israel’s prized
position as God’s special ancient people; he was affirming it. However, for
Tombes, it was important to understand the pre-incarnational covenants in the
brighter light of the fulfillment in the New Covenant. Salvific aspects of the
New Covenant were found in types and shadows within the older covenants
(especially the Abrahamic), but their primary purpose was to anticipate the day
when God would bring redemption. The New Covenant, however, looked back to the
reality of redemption accomplished and applied. It was through these New
Covenant glasses that Tombes saw the salvific aspects of all antecedent
covenants. In Tombes’ theological scheme, circumcision was the sign of the
former, pointing to, among other things, the spiritual realities that will be
the certain possession of Abraham’s spiritual seed. Baptism is the sign of the
latter, looking back at what has been done by the Mediator of the New Covenant
for His people.
Tombes demonstrated
even more discontinuity between the Abrahamic and New Covenants while
anticipating the question as regards the subjects of circumcision:
4. That some there were circumcised, to
whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham
did belong; of Ishmael, God had said,
that his covenant was not to be established with him, but with Isaac; and yet he was circumcised, Gen. 17.29, 21. 25. Rom. 9.7, 8, 9. Gal.
4.29, 30. the same may be said of Esau:
All that were in Abrahams house,
whether strangers, or born in his house, were circumcised, Gen. 17.12, 13. of whom nevertheless, it may be doubted, whether
any promises of the covenant made with Abraham,
did belong to them; there were other persons, to whom all, or most of the
promises in the covenant pertained, that were not circumcised; this may be
affirmed of the Females, coming from Abraham,
the Infants dying before the eighth day, of just men, living out of Abrahams house, as Melchisedech, Lot, Job. If any say, that the females were
circumcised in the circumcision of the Males, he saith it without proof; and by
like, perhaps greater, reason it may be said, that the children of Believers
are baptized in the persons of their own parents, and therefore are not to be
baptized in their own persons. But it is manifest that the Jewes comprehended in the covenant made with Abraham, and circumcised, were neverthelesse not admitted to
Baptisme by John Baptist, and Christs Disciples, till they professed repentance, and
faith in Christ. Hence I gather, first, that the right to Euangelicall
promises, was not the adequate reason of circumcising these or those, but God’s
precept, as is expressed, Gen. 17.23. Gen.
21.4. Secondly, that those terms are not convertible, [federated and to be signed].[19]
Tombes’ conclusions
were drawn from the positive, declarative use of circumcision and baptism in
Scripture. His rigid adherence to the meaning of texts as God’s words for His
people and His governing principles for all matters of faith and practice
compelled him to demand positive evidence for paedobaptism beyond mere
theological constructions. Tombes demanded some evidence from “God’s
precept[s]” for the practice. He also saw more discontinuity between the
Abrahamic and the New Covenant through the assertion “those terms were not
convertible.” By “convertible,” Tombes meant synonymous. There may be some
similarities; yet great differences remained.
Review and
Conclusion
In review, Tombes’ original, foundational argument was stated thus:
Major premise: That which hath no
testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtfull.
Minor
premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no testimony of Scripture
for it;
Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtfull.[20]
Applying this
argument to baptism, he suggested a second:
Major premise: To whom the Gospel-covenant
agrees, to them the sign of the Gospel-covenant agrees also.
Minor premise: But to Infants of Believers
the Gospel-covenant agrees,
Conclusion: [A]nd consequently Baptisme.[21]
After giving the
four reasons above why this is not exegetically or theologically accurate, he
concluded his first and most fundamental argument:
Whereupon I answer to the Argument: First,
either by denying the Major, if it be
universally taken, otherwise it concludes nothing: or by granting it with this
limitation; it is true of that sign of the covenant which agrees universally in
respect of form and sanction, to them that receive the Gospel, but it is not
true of that sign of the covenant, which is of a particular form or sanction,
of which sort is circumcision.
Secondly, I answer by denying the Minor, universally taken, the reason is,
because those children only of believing Gentiles,
are Abrahams children, who are his
spiritual seed, according to the election of grace by faith, which are not
known to us, but by profession, or speciall Revelation.[22]
Here, Tombes, in a
summary, has given his refutation of the argument from Genesis 17:7. He denied
the major premise to be universal. Circumcision was a particular part of a
particular covenant made with Abraham. Circumcision fits within the structure
of that narrow covenantal application to Abraham’s descendants physically. It
was a sanction or stipulation from God to Abraham for his house through
procreation. Baptism, for Tombes, was a covenantal stipulation through the New
Covenant because of, and not antecedent to, regeneration.
However, within Tombes’ conclusion there is this
explanatory comment, “[T]he reason is, because those children only of believing
Gentiles, are Abrahams children, who are his spiritual seed, according to the
election of grace by faith.”[23] The
true children of Abraham are those who are brought into his family through an
act of God. They are the professors of faith because they have known something
of the work of God and, as much as man can tell from their fruit, they are
possessors of faith. Based on these realities, the professors should receive
the sign of the New Covenant, baptism.
Baptism ought to be
administered after the new birth has been given and a credible profession of
faith, backed by a life transformed and being transformed by God’s discipling
grace. In that regard, perhaps, infants are the ones to be baptized–not infants
by natural descent, but spiritual babes, who have been born again and now rest
in the bosom of Christ. This fits the pattern of the early church, the
testimony of Scripture, and a system of truth that honors the covenants God
made within Himself, with various men, families and nations, and His own unique
people.
[2] This chapter will appear in Recovering A Covenantal Heritage: Essays in Credobaptist Covenant
Theology, published by RBAP, 2013.
[3] Fermentum
Pharisaeorum or, The Leaven of Pharisaical Will-Worship:declared in a sermon on
Matth.xv., November 24, 1641, at Leominster in Herefordshire. London: 1641, 6.
[4] Ibid., 7.
[5] Tombes, Exercitation,
1. See also, John Tombes, An Apology or
Plea for the Two Treatises, London, 1646, 6.
[6] John Tombes, Two
Treatises; and an Apendix to them Concerning Infant Baptisme. The Former
Treatise being an Exercitation presented to the Chair-man of a Committee of the
Assembly of Divines. The latter an Examen of the Sermon of Mr. Stephen
Marshall, about
Infant-Baptisme, in a letter sent to him. London: 1645. The work includes
an appendix to show that Col. 2:11-12 “proves not Infant-Baptisme”, 1.
[7] Proteus is a striking analogy borrowed from mythology. As a
shape-shifting being who possessed knowledge of the past, present and future,
he would not answer questions from mortals unless bound and compelled to do so.
Thomas Bulfinch, Bulfinch’s Mythology,
The Age of Fable. Nelson Doubleday, New York, 1968. Italics mine.
[8] Tombes, Exercitation,
1. These interjections were typical in the debates Schoolmen would enter. They
were learned to express ideas and to evoke emotions within the argumentation of
the day. They were verbal symbols. Here Tombes is using a written device to
display his frustration in framing an argument that it might be understood and
owned by its promoters. These interjections were taken as offensive by Stephen
Marshall. Because of that offense, Tombes explains the use of these sayings in Apology, esp. 12-30 (first ¶).
[9] Ibid., 1ff. Argument structural components mine.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., first appearance on 2., then throughout.
[12] Ibid., 2.
[13] Ibid. Tombes assumes a high degree of biblical literacy on
the part of his readers. He quotes only the essential parts of verses of
Scripture as his authority when needed to make the case. In other cases, he
just asserts the reference as his authority assuming one’s familiarity with
these texts.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid., 2ff. Clarification in brackets mine.
[16] Ibid., 3.
[17] Ibid. Brackets and ‘door’ inserted. The original has
‘book’. Since this article makes no correction in the errata, and since this author knows of no narrative in the
Pentateuch that deals with blood being sprinkled on a ‘book’, the word has been
changed to ‘door’. Both words share a double-o between to similar consonants. However,
considering the context of Tombes’ comments, the Passover, and having
personally perused examples of his handwriting from which a printer or
printer’s apprentice (devil) would have copied, this writer believes it is no
violence to the work in form or content to make this change.
[18] Ibid., 3ff.
[19] Ibid., 4. Italics and brackets in original.
[20] Ibid., 1.
[21] Ibid., 1ff.
[22] Ibid., 5.
[23] Ibid.
