I have been discussing Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic Covenant on the Puritanboard.com. In light of this Dr. Mike Renihan recommended to me a portion of his book ‘Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes’. I just thought I would take the time to type out the section on Genesis 17 and the introduction to the Exegetical Arguments (With Dr. Renihan’s permission) and post it in a blog so I could reference it more quickly and make it accessible to others. I leave you with only a portion of his exegetical arguments. I think he does bring to light some good points concerning the biblical covenants, continuity, and discontinuity.
Be Encouraged,
Randy Martin Snyder
Exegetical Arguments
The eleven exegetical arguments are primarily negative polemics against infant baptism. Tombes usually presented a paedobaptist position in syllogistic form, then proceeded to show how the argument was flawed. At the outset, a word must be said as regards such a methodology. First, Tombes is setting out arguments for infant baptism as an Antipaedobaptist in order to refute them. This approach seems therefore tainted with question-begging. However, it was the typical scholastic methodology of the day – to set out an argument in a plain and straightforward manner proceeding immediately to deal with objections. Tombes was laying these objections before his peers for their consideration. It was a consistent method that Tombes had used since his early days in considering the matter. The arguments presented to the committee of the Assembly of Divines as the Exercitation were honest attempts to know the truth of this issue. This inquiry to the Assembly came out of an earlier meeting, as Tombes recalled:
Whereupon when in a meeting of Ministers in the City of London, the question was propounded what Scripture there was for infant-baptisme, I told my brethren plainly, that I doubted there was none. This occasioned the Dispute Doctor Homes speakes of which happened about January 1643…. Not long after that Conference, my most loving and reverend Father in law Master Henry Scudder fearing the event of this matter, after some writing betweene us, advised me to draw up the reasons of my doubts, and he undertook to present them to the Committee chosen (as I conceived it) to give satisfaction about the point, which I conceived might well be the leave of the Parliament, as the appointing the Assembly to give satisfaction about some doubts in taking the Covenant.(7)
It was not Tombes’s purpose to make controversy for its own sake, but to discover the truth in an important matter as regarded the reformation of his Church. Tombes was guilty, however, of naïveté. He expected that an honest attempt to discover truth would be met with the same. He sought either refutation or affirmation on a point of doctrine and nothing else. By publishing his views, he had everything to lose and the Church’s reformation to gain. His submission was a quest for open and honest debate upon a theological point.
Secondly, the form of the argument was very rigid. Tombes, at times, oversimplified the position he was refuting. However, he always continued to give mounds of evidence for his case, positively and negatively presented.
The syllogism was an accepted part of the seventeenth century academic debate. At Oxford, it was a remnant of late medieval Scholasticism that survived the Renaissance. This methodology used philosophical categories and logic to serve theological reflection. The main thrust of the argument presented is not always readily apparent. In Tombes’s analysis of the issues he refers continually to these syllogistic building blocks borrowed from the scholastical methodology.
Tombes, with very little introduction, started:
The present Tenet, according to which Infant-Baptisme is preached, is, that the Infants born of a Believer, are universally to be baptized. This Doctrine and Practise conformable, is made doubtfull to me, by these arguments.”(8)
Tombes’s Starting Point and the Argument from Genesis 17:7
The first argument is one that examines the case for infant baptism from the interest of believer’s children in the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 17:7. It also serves as the all-important starting point for Tombes’s theological reflection:
Major Premise: That which hath not testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtful
Minor Premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no testimony of Scripture for it;
Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtful. (9)
Tombes’s first exegetical argument is a comprehensive, yet properly basic argument designed to examine any and all of the biblical evidence for infant baptism. The remaining arguments are applications of the first to specific Scriptures, theological constructions or historical precedents. He then used his conclusions to support the doctrine or 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 Genesis 17.7, etc. is almost the first and the last in this business; and therefore is the more accurately to be examined….(10)
Tombes often added colour to the debate with maxims and Latin phrases. The fist argument did not escape his cutting wit. Speaking of the argument for infant baptism from Genesis 17:7, etc., he added:
…[B]ut it hath so many shapes, that I may here take up that Speech, With what knot shall I hold shape-shifting Proteus?”(11) But in the issue, it falls into one or other of these forms…(12).
Tombes went on to build his foundation against the interest of believer’s children in the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. He did not give multiple forms of the opposing argument; rather, one form from which he drew four sub-arguments. He thus supported his refutation of the one argument from Genesis 17:7. This was an application of his overriding principle expressed in Argument One - that there is no Scripture to warrant the 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. (13)
Tombes added, “The Minor is proved from Genesis 17:7. where God promiseth to Abraham, I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee”. (14)
Tombes proceeded to four sub-arguments that he believed exposed the basic assumptions of the greater argument presented. By way of introduction to his main point, they were: (1) The Covenant with Abraham is not identical to the Gospel (New) Covenant; (2) Abraham’s seed has more than one meaning; (3) the promise of the Gospel has always been the same irrespective of the age; and (4) Some were circumcised who had no part in the promise made to Abraham. These four parts were intended to undermine the credibility of infant baptism by way of analogy from the Abrahamic Covenant to the New, or in Tombes’s phraseology, the “Euangelicall” or “Gospel Covenant”.(15) These also form the foundation of all of Tombes’s arguments. They were points that were nonnegotiable 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) to an alternative ( and creative) explanation of the biblical texts which became the foundation of his emerging covenantal and credobaptistic theology.
On the first of the sub-arguments, Tombes declared;
1. The Covenant made with Abraham, is not a pure Gospel-covenant, but mixt, which I prove; The Covenant takes its denomination from the promises but the promises are mixt, some Euangelicall, belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth, some are Domestique, or Civill promises, specially respecting the House of Abraham, and of Israel; Ergo. (16)
Explaining his distinction between the evangelical (Evangelicall) and domestic (Domestique) or civil (Civill) 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, Genesis 17.5. I have made thee a father of many nations; and that which we find, Gen 15.5 so shall they 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 in Gen 12.3 & Gen. 18.18. and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed; for in these is promised blessing to Believers, of whom Abraham is father, Gal. 3.16. Acts 3.25 (17)
Tombes immediately proceeded to the “Domestique” or “Civill” promises:
Domestique and Civill promises were many; of the multiplying the seed of Abraham, the birth of Isaac; of the coming of Christ our 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. (18)
The distinction is between the spiritual blessings which accrue to believers as believers which are called evangelical, and physical (or natural) consequences pertaining to Abraham’s descendants as domestic (or civl); 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 involved a rigorous trinitarianism in his defence to clarify and balance the issues of continuity and discontinuity within the two aspects of the Abrahamic covenant and the same issues as regards other covenants.
Yea, it is to be noted, that those promises which were Euangelicall, according to the more inward sense of the Holy ghost, do point at the priviledges of Abrahams House, in the outward face [sense} of the words; whence it may be well doubted, whether this Covenant made with Abraham, may be called simply Euangelicall, and so pertain to Believers, as Believers. There were annexed to the Covenant on Mount Siani, sacrifices pointing at the sacrifice of Christ, and yet we call not that Covenant simply Euangelicall, but in some respect.(19)
Therefore, because of the distinction asserted and shown, that the Abrahamic Covenant is not one and the same with the new or Gospel Covenant, Tombes went on to answer the remaining three of this original four questions that paralleled the concerns already stated, “(2) Who is the seed? (3) What is the promise? (4) What of those who were circumcised who had no part in Abraham’s covenant”? Tombes moved to his second sub-point:
Secondly, The seed of Abraham is many wayes so called: First, Christ is called the seed of Abraham, by excellency, Gal 3.16. Secondly, all the Elect, Rom. 9.7 all believers, Rom. 4.11,12. 16.17,18, are called the seed of Abraham, that is spiritual seed. Thirdly, there was a natural seed of Abraham, to whom the inheritance did accrue; this was Isaac. Gen. 21.12. Fourthly, a natural seed, whether lawfull, as the sons of Keturah, or base, as Ishmael, to who the inheritance belonged not, Gen. 15.5. But no where do I find, that the Infants of Believers of the Gentiles are called Abrahams seed, of the three former kinds of Abrahams seed, the promise recited, is meant, but in a different manner thus; that God promiseth, he will be a God to Christ, imparting in him blessing to all nations of the earth, to the spiritual seed of Abraham in Euangelicall benefits, to the natural seed inheriting, in domestick and politicall benefits.(20)
Tombes extended the blessings of the New Covenant back upon the Abrahamic covenant in both aspects of the 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 question as regards the nature of the promise in his third sub-point;
3. That the promise of the Gospel, or Gospel-covenant, was the same in all ages, in respect of the thing promised, and condition of the covenant, which we may call the substantiall and essentiall part of that covenant, to wit, Christ, Faith, Sanctification, Remission of sins, Eternall life; yet this Euangelicall covenant had divers forms in which these things were signified, and various sanctions, by which it was confirmed: To Adam, the promise was made under the name of the seed of the Woman, bruising the head of the Serpent; to Enoch, Noah, in other forms; otherwise to Abraham, under the name of his seed, in whom all nations should be blessed; otherwise to Moses, under the obscure shadows of the Law; otherwise to David, under the name of a successor in the kingdome; otherwise in the New Testament, in plain words, 2 Cor. 3.6. Heb. 8.10. It had likewise divers sanctions. The Promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the sign of circumcision, and by the birth of Isaac; to Moses by the Paschall Lamb, and the sprinkling of Blood on the [door], the 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 Tesmament…. (21)
Tombes admitted that each of these covenants has a sign to confirm the promise made. However, he maintains a distinction between the specific sign of circumcision given in the Genesis 17 covenant given to Abraham as part of that specific covenant and the specific sign of baptism given in the New Covenant. He went on to contrast other aspects of these covenants to demonstrate there was not a quid pro quo relationship between them. There was some continuity; there was also discontinuity. If they were identical in all things, they would be the same in essence, character and name. Since there was at least one difference, the sign, it was, for Tombes’s theological opponents, fallacious to impose a view of radical continuity between the covenant made with Abraham and the covenant brought about by Christ, the New Covenant. Tombes continued by looking at the elements involved:
…[N]ow these forms and sanctions differ many wayes, as much as concerns our present purpose in these: First, circumcision confirmed not Evangelicall promises, but also Politicall; and if we may believe Mr. Cameron, in his Thesis, 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 Evangelicall benefits. Secondly, circumcision did confirm the promise concerning Christ to Come out of Isaac’ Baptisme assures Christ to be already come, to have been dead, and to have risen again. Thirdly, circumcision belonged to the Church, constituted in the House of Abraham, Baptisme to the Church gathered out of all nations; whence I gather, that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptisme, in signing the Euangelicall covenant; nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like manner of the other.(22)
For Tombes, circumcision sealed an earthly promise and identified Abraham’s seed as set apart to God for God’s purpose. A great part of that purpose was in the Incarnation of Christ from the line of Isaac. Tombes was not denying Isreal’s prized position as God’s special ancient people, he was affirming it. However, for Tomes, 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. I was through these New Covenant glasses that Tombes saw the salvific aspects of all antecedent covenants. In Tombes’s theological scheme, circumcision was the sign of the former, pointing to among other things, the spiritual realities that will be certain possession of Abraham’s spiritual seed. Baptism looks back at what has been done by the mediator of the New Covenant for his people and is the sign of the latter.
Tombes demonstrated even more discontinuity between the Abrahamic and new Covenants while anticipating the question as regards the subjects of circumcision:
4. That some there were circumcised, to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong; of Ismael, God had said, that his covnenant 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 of 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 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 nevertheless 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 Gods’ precept, as is expressed, Gen. 17.25. Gen. 21.4. Secondly, that those terms are not convertible, [federate and to be signed].(23)
Tombes’s conclusions were drawn from the positive, declarative use of circumcision and baptism in Scripture. His rigid adherence to the meaning of texts as God’s words for his people, and his governing principles for all matters of faith and 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.
In review, Tombes’s original, foundational argument was stated thus:
Major Premise: That which hath not testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtful
Minor Premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no testimony of Scripture for it;
Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtful. (9)
Applying this argument to Baptism, he suggested a second:
Major premise: To whom the Gospel-covenant agrees, to them the sign of the Gospel-covenant agrees also.
Minor premise: But to Infants of Believers the Gospel-covenant agrees.
Conclusion: [A]nd consequently Baptisme. (25)
After giving the four reasons above why this is not exegetically or theologically accurate, he concluded his first and most fundamental argument.
Whereupon I answer to the Argument: First, either by denying the Major, if it be universally taken, otherwise it concludes nothing: or by granting it with this limitation; it is true of that sign of the covenant which agrees universally in respect of form and sanction, to them that receive the Gospel, but it is not true of that sign of the covenant, which is of a particular form or sanction, of which sort is circumcision.
Secondly, I answer by denying the Minor, universally taken, the reason is, because those children only of believing Gentiles, are Abrahams children, who are his spiritual seed, according to the election of grace by faith, which are not known to us, but by profession, or speciall Revelation.(26)
Here, Tombes, in a summary, has given his refutation of the argument from Genesis 17:7. He denied the Major premise to be universal. Circumcision was a particular part of a particular covenant made with Abraham. Circumcision fits within the structure of that narrow convenantal 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, with Tombes’s conclusion there is this explanatory comment, “[T]he reason is, because those children only of believing Gentiles, are Abrahams Children, who are his spiritual seed, according to the election of grace by faith….”(27) The true children of Abraham are those who are brought into his family through an act of God.
Taken from…….
Pp 69 -78
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
An untold story from Puritan England
Michael T. Renihan, PhD
