Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Infants’

Paedobaptism vs Credobaptism

The Case for Paedobaptism by Brian Cosby Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

The Case for Credobaptism by Sam Renihan Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

Baptist Covenant Theology Stuart Brogdon (Pdf Chart of how Reformed Baptist view the Covenants vs. how Paedobaptist view the Covenants)

Infants are not to be church members just because their parents are

March 22, 2013 2 comments

broadusIt may be well to state briefly what I understand to be the leading distinctive views of the Baptist churches. The fact that certain of these are more or less shared by others will be remarked upon afterward.

2. We hold that a Christian Church ought to consist of only persons making a credible profession of conversion, of faith in Christ. These may include children, even comparatively ye children, for God be thanked that these do often give credible evidence of faith in Christ! But in the very nature of the case they cannot include infants.

The notion that infants may be church members because their parents are seems to us utterly alien to the genius of Christianity not only unsupported by the New Testament, but in conflict with its essential principles; and we are not surprised to observe that our Christian brethren among whom that theory obtains are unable to carry it out consistently; unable to decide in what sense the so-called “children of the church” are really members of the church and subject to its discipline.

The other notion, that infants may be church members because so-called “sponsors” make professions and promises for them, seems to us a mere legal fiction, devised to give some basis for a practice which rose on quite other grounds. Maintaining that none should be received as church members unless they give credible evidence of conversion, we also hold in theory that none should be retained in membership who do not lead a godly life; that if a man fails to show his faith by works, he should cease to make profession of faith. Some of our own people appear at times to forget that strict church discipline is a necessary part of the Baptist view as to church membership.

John A. Broadus-The Duty of Baptists to Teach Their Distinctive Views

John Tombes’ Catechism on Baptism Pt 9

29. Are there not Infants of Believers Disciples, by their Parents Faith to be Baptized? Mat. 28.19. Acts. 15.10.

No: For the Disciples there are only such as are made by Preaching the Gospel to them, nor are any termed Disciples, but those who have heard and learned: and the putting the yoke, Acts 15.10. was by teaching Brethren, ver. 1 and therefore the Disciples, ver. 10. not Infants.

30. Are not the Infants of believers visible members of the Christian Church, by a Law and Ordinance, by God’s promise, to be God to them and their seed, and precept to dedicate them to God, unrepealed?

There is no such Ordinance or Law extant in Scripture, or deducible from the Law of Nature, nor are Infants any where reckoned as visible members of the Christian Church in the New Testament.

31. Hath God not promised, Gen. 22.16,17,18. to make every believer a blessing, so as to cast ordinarily Elect Children on Elect Parents, and thereby warrant Infant-Baptism?

The promise doth not pertain to any believers seed but Abrahams, who are, Heb. 6.12,13,14, Gal. 3.8,9. Acts 3.25. expounded to be Christ and true believers only, who are to be baptiszed, not their Infants, till they themselves believe in their own persons.

32. Did not Christ appoint, Mat. 28.19. the Disciples to Baptize Children with Parents, as the Jews did Proselytes?

If the Jewish Baptism had been the pattern for Christians, the Apostles would have so practised, but their not so doing, shews they understood not it to be Christ’s mind.

A Short Catechism about Baptism by John Tombes, B.D.

Heb 6.2. Of the Doctrine of Baptisms. Luke 7.35. But Wisdom is justified of all her Children. London: 1659

John Tombes’ Catechism on Baptism Pt 5

December 21, 2012 Leave a comment

13. Were not Infants baptized, when whole households were baptized, Acts 16.15.33.?

No: For it appears not there were any infants in the houses, and the Texts shew they were not baptized, sith the word was spoken to all in the house, ver. 32. and all the house rejoyced believing God. ver 34. and elsewhere the whole house is said to do that which Infants could not do, Acts 18.8. Acts 10.2. 1 Cor. 16.15. compared with 1 Cor. 1.16. John 4.53.

14. Is not Christs speech and action to little Children, Matth. 19.14,15. Mark 10.14,15,16. Luke 18.16,17. a warrant to baptize infants?

No: but an Argument against it, sith Christ did neither baptize, nor appoint those little children to be baptized.

15. Why should not Infants be baptized, sith they were Circumcised?

The reason why Male Infants were to be Circumcised, was a particular Command of God to Abrahams house for special ends belonging to the time before Christ, which Baptism hath not, nor is there any Command to use Baptism according to the rule of Circumcision.

16. Did not Baptism come in the room of Circumcision, Col. 2.11,12. and so to be used as it was?

The Apostles words import not that our Baptism came in the room of the Jews Circumcision; there is no mention of any bodily Circumcision but Christ’s, which our baptism cannot be said to suceed to, as there it is made the cause of Spiritual Circumcision, without arrogating that to it which belongs to Christ alone, and Baptism is mentioned with faith, as the means whereby we are in Christ, and compleat in him.

A Short Catechism about Baptism by John Tombes, B.D.

Heb 6.2. Of the Doctrine of Baptisms. Luke 7.35. But Wisdom is justified of all her Children. London: 1659

John Tombes

November 16, 2012 Leave a comment

I am going to begin to blog a Catechism which was written in 1659 by an Anglican minister, who held primarily to Presbyterian views; with the exception of their views on infant baptism. It was herein, whereby he disagreed and wrote many treatises and papers against baptizing of infants. On top of his writings he also debated this subject with many a paedobaptist.

To give a brief introduction to John Tombes I will quote from wikisource. I understand that this information is provided by individuals, around the net, but seeing that it is hard to find concrete sources and seeing that what I have found seems to be in line with what is stated at wikisource, then I will use this internet source to provide my introduction.

 

TOMBES, JOHN (1603?-1676), baptist divine, was born of humble parentage at Bewdley, Worcestershire, in 1602 or 1603. He matriculated from Magdalen Hall, Oxford, on 23 Jan. 1617-18, aged 15. His tutor was William Pemble [q. v.] Among his college friends was John Geree [q. v.] He graduated B.A. on 12 June 1621. After Pemble’s death he succeeded him in 1623 as catechism lecturer. His reputation as a tutor was considerable; among his pupils was John Wilkins [q. v.] He graduated M.A. on 16 April 1624, took orders, and quickly came into note as a preacher. From about 1624 to 1630 he was one of the lecturers of St. Martin Carfax. As early as 1627 he began to have doubts on the subject of infant baptism. Leaving the university in 1630, he was for a short time preacher at Worcester, but in November was instituted vicar of Leominster, Herefordshire, where his preaching was exceedingly popular, and won the admiration of so high an Anglican as John Scudamore, first viscount Scudamore [q. v.], who augmented the small income of his living. In June 1631 he commenced B.D. He left Leominster in 1643 (after February), having been appointed by Nathaniel Fiennes [q. v.] to supersede George Williamson as vicar of All Saints, Bristol. On the surrender of Bristol to the royalists (26 July), he removed to London (22 Sept.), where he became rector of St. Gabriel, Fenchurch, vacant by the sequestration of Ralph Cook, B.D. In church government his views were presbyterian. He laid his scruples on infant baptism before the Westminster assembly of divines, but got no satisfaction. Declining to baptise infants, he was removed from St. Gabriel’s early in 1645, but appointed (before May) master of the Temple, on condition of not preaching on baptism. He published on this topic ; for licensing one of his tracts, the parliamentary censor, John Bachiler, was attacked in the Westminster assembly (25 Dec. 1645) by William Gouge, D.D. [q. v.], and Stephen Marshall [q. v.] was appointed to answer the tract. As preacher at the Temple, Tombes directed his polemic against antinomianism. In 1646 he had an interview with Cromwell and gave him his books. His fellow-townsmen chose him to the perpetual curacy of Bewdley, then a chapelry in the parish of Ribbesford; his successor at the Temple, Richard Johnson, was approved by the Westminster assembly on 13 Oct. 1647.

At Bewdley Tombes organised a baptist church, which never exceeded twenty-two members (Baxter), of whom three became baptist preachers. He regularly attended Baxter’s Thursday lecture at Kidderminster, and tried to draw Baxter, as he had already drawn Thomas Blake [q. v.], into a written discussion. Baxter would engage with him only in an oral debate, which took place before a crowded audience at Bewdley chapel on 1 Jan. 1649-50, and lasted from nine in the morning till five at night. Wood affirms that ‘Tombes got the better of Baxter by far; ‘ Baxter himself says, ‘How mean soever my own abilities were, yet I had still the advantage of a good cause.’ The debate had the effect of causing Tombes to leave Bewdley, where he was succeeded in 1650 by Henry Oasland [q. v.] With Bewdley he had held for a time the rectory of Ross, Herefordshire; this he resigned on being appointed to the mastership of St. Catherine’s Hospital, Ledbury, Herefordshire.

After his encounter with Baxter, Tombes’s oral debates were numerous. In July 1652 he went to Oxford to dispute on baptism with Henry Savage, D.D. [q. v.] On the same topic he disputed at Abergavenny, on 5 Sept. 1653, with Henry Vaughan (1616?-1661?) and John Cragge. His pen was active against all opponents of his cause. He had not given up his claim to the vicarage of Leominster, and returned to it apparently in 1654, when he was appointed (20 March) one of Cromwell’s ‘triers.’ Preaching at Leominster against quakers (26 Dec. 1656), one of his parishioners, Blashfield, a bookseller, retorted, ‘ If there were no anabaptist, there would be no quaker.’ Against quakerism and popery he wrote tracts (1660), to which Baxter prefixed friendly letters.

At the Restoration Tombes came up to London, and wrote in favour of the royal supremacy in matters ecclesiastical as well as civil. Clarendon stood his friend. He conformed in a lay capacity, resigning his preferments and declining offers of promo- tion. After 1661 he lived chiefly at Salisbury, where his wife had property. Robert Sanderson (1587-1663) [q. v.], bishop of Lincoln, held him in esteem, as did a later occupant of the same see, Thomas Barlow [q. v.] Clarendon, in 1664, introduced him to Charles II, who accepted a copy of Tombes’s ‘Saints no Smiters.’ In July 1664 he was at Oxford, and offered to dispute in favour of his baptist views, but the challenge was not taken up. With Seth Ward [q. v.], bishop of Salisbury, he was on friendly terms. He communicated as an Anglican. Firmly holding his special tenet, he was always a courteous disputant, and a man of exceptional capacity and attainments.

He died at Salisbury on 22 May 1676, and was buried on 25 May in St. Edmund’s churchyard. He was a dapper little man, with a keen glance. By his first wife he had a son John, born at Leominster on 26 Nov. 1636. His second wife, whom he married about 1658, was Elizabeth, widow of Wolstan Abbot of Salisbury.

He published: 1. ‘Vae Scandalizantium; or a Treatise of Scandalizing,’ Oxford, 1641, 8vo; with title ‘Christ’s Commination against Scandalizers,’ 1641, 8vo (dedicated to Viscount Scudamore). 2. ‘Iehovah Iireh . . . two Sermons in the Citie of Bristoll . . . March 14, 1642, with a short Narration of that . . . Plot,’ 1643, 4to (8 May, dedicated to Fiennes). 3. ‘Fermentum Pharisseorvm, or … Wil-Worship,’ 1643, 4to (1 July). 4. ‘Anthropolatria,’ 1645, 4to (9 May). 5. ‘Two Treatises and an Appendix . . . concerning Infant Baptisme,’ 1645, 4to (16 Dec.; includes an ‘Examen’ of Marshall’s sermon on baptism). 6. ‘An Apology … for the Two Treatises,’ 1646, 4to; ‘Addition,’ 1652, 4to. 7. ‘An Anti-dote against the Venome of … Richard Baxter,’ 1650, 4to (31 May). 8. ‘Precursor . . . to a large view of … Infant Baptism,’ 1652, 4to. 9. ‘Joannis Tombes Beudleiensis Refutatio positionis Dris. Henrici Savage,’ 1652, 4to. 10. ‘Antipaedobaptism,’ 1652, 4to (28 Nov., dedicated to Cromwell); 2nd pt. 1654, 4to; 3rd pt. 1657, 4to (replies to twenty-three contemporary writers). 11. ‘A Publick Dispute . . . J. Cragge and H. Vaughan,’ 1654, 8vo. 12. ‘A Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists,’ 1654, 4to (26 May). 13. ‘Felo de Se. Or, Mr. Richard Baxter’s Self-destroying,’ 1659, 4to. 14. ‘A Short Catechism about Baptism,’ 1659, 8vo (14 May). 15. ‘True Old Light exalted above pretended New Light,’ 1660, 4to (against quakers; preface by Baxter). 16. ‘Serious Consideration of the Oath of . . .Supremacy ‘ [1660], 4to (22 Oct.) 17. ‘Romanism Discussed, or, An Answer to … H. T.,’ 1660 4to (30 Nov.; preface by Baxter; replies to Henry Turbervile’s ‘Manual of Controversies,’ Douay, 1654, 8vo). 18. ‘A Supplement to the Serious Consideration’ [1661], 4to (2 March). 19. ‘Sepher Sheba; or, The Oath Book,’ 1662, 4to. 20. ‘Saints no Smiters; or … the Doctrine … of … Fifth-Mon- archy-Men . . . damnable,’ 1664, 4to (dedicated to Clarendon). 21. ‘Theodulia, or Defence of Hearing . . . the present Ministers of England,’ 1667, 8vo (dedicated to Clarendon; licensed by the bishop of London’s chaplain). 22. ‘Emmanuel; or, God-Man,’ 1669, 8vo (against Socinians; licensed by the archbishop of Canterbury’s chaplain). 23. ‘A Reply to … Wills and … Blinman,’ 1675, 8vo. 24. ‘Animadversiones in librum Georgii Bullii,’ 1676, 8vo.

[Tombes’s Works; Anabaptists Anotamized (sic), 1654; Wood’s Athenae Oxon., ed. Bliss, iii. 1062 sq.; Wood’s Fasti, ed. Bliss, ii. 397, 415, 461; Reliquiae Baxterianae, 1696, i. 88,96; Calamy’s Account, 1713, pp. 353 sq.; Walker’s Sufferings of the Clergy, 1714, ii. 4, 36; Calamy’s Continuation, 1727, i. 521 sq.; Crosby’s Hist, of English Baptists, 1738, i. 278 sq.; Palmer’s Nonconformist’s Memorial, 1802, ii. 293 sq.; Ivimey’s Hist. of English Baptists, 1814, ii. 588 sq.; Neal’s Hist, of the Puritans, ed. Toulmin, 1822, iv. 440 sq.; Smith’s Bibliotheca Antiquakeriana, 1873, pp. 427 sq. ; Mitchell and Struthers’s Minutes of Westminster Assembly, 1874, pp. 172, 216; Foster’s Alumni Oxon. 1892, iv. 1492; information from the Rev. J. H. Charles, vicar of Leominster.]

Those Who Believe the Gospel are in the Covenant

Argument .1.

The Pedobaptists Claim that the Covenant Now is the Same as in the Old Times

The first Arguments lies thus; If the Covenant now under Christ, be the same that was before Christ, with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh; then as Infants were partakers of the Covenant then, and received the seal there of Circumcision, so are infants now partakers of the Covenant, and ought to receive the seal there of Baptism. But the Covenant now under Christ, is the same that was before Christ with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh. Therefore, as Infants were then in the Covenant and received the seal thereof; even so are Infants now in the Covenant, and ought to receive the seal thereof. Three things are to be cleared in this Argument.

First, That the Covenant made with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh before Christ, and that now are under Christ, is the same.

Secondly, As Infants were in that Covenant, so are Infants now.

Thirdly, As Infants were sealed then, so they ought to be now. Now for the proving of these aforesaid, there are three other grounds laid down as follow:

First, The Gospel is the doctrine of the Covenant, but this being one, was preached to Abraham, as Gal. 3:8, 17, 18, Rom. 4:11, and so to the end, and to the Jews, in the Wilderness, Hebrews 4:1, 2; and so in David’s time, Hebrews 4:7, &c. Therefore the Covenant is the same.

Secondly, If Abraham be the father of the Jews and Gentiles, and equally as he believed the righteousness of faith, and they his children equally as so believing, and no otherwise, then the Covenant is the same. But Abraham is the father of the Jews and Gentiles, and equally as he believed, Rom. 4:11, 12, 16, 17, 23, 24. Gal. 3:3, 9, 26, 29. Therefore the Covenant is the same.

Thirdly, The standing of the Jews in the Grace of God was the same with Abraham; as is clear from God’s often expressing of himself to be the God of Abraham and His seed, and praying to God for to remember the Covenant He made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and acknowledging the accomplishing of the same to them, as Luke 1:73, 74; Luke 1:54, 55. And ours is the same with the Jews, as is clear from Matt. 21:41, 43, and 22:1.


The Answer

Thus lies the Argument, and the grounds to back it, and all to prove the Covenant God made with Abraham and his seed, to be the same now to the believing Gentiles and their seed, and Infants to be in this now, as they were in that then.

It is the effectual believing of the Gospel that proves what persons are in the Covenant.

In answer to which, I shall only touch at the three last grounds, briefly in a word, as I come to the Covenant itself.

The first is, because the Gospel is the doctrine of the Covenant, and was preached to Abraham, and to the Jews, &c. therefore the Covenant is the same. For the first, if the preaching of the Gospel, being the doctrine of the Covenant, can prove the Covenant to be the same to them as to us, then all to whom the Gospel was and is preached, are in the same Covenant. But I think it is the effectual believing of that which the Gospel holds forth in the doctrine of it, because many have the Gospel preached among them, and yet not be in the Covenant. And for the second, that Abraham is the equal father both of the Jews and Gentiles, only as he did believe, and they his children only so believing as their father Abraham did, and not else.

John Spilsbery A Treatise concerning the lawful subject of Baptism (1652)

Baptism is to Be Administered to those who have Faith and Repentance

Objection: That as of old, more was required of Abraham and men of years when they were circumcised, then of Ishmael and Isaac, or of other infants, continually circumcised afterwards; so now in the administering of Baptism, more is required of men of years, than is of infants: of Abraham God required faith in the blessed seed; but not the same of Isaac, of men of years faith is to be required, and must be, that a man may be baptized, but not the same of Infants,


The Answer

The substance of this particular lies thus; That more is required of men of years, for their receiving of Baptism, than is of infants; and all the proof is from the example of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, and others in like manner after them in the order of Circumcision. I shall give a brief answer to this by an argument drawn from the same, thus; upon the same ground that Abraham, Ishmael, and all the rest of his household had right to circumcision, all have now right to baptism. But only God’s command gave Abraham, Ishmael, and all the rest of his household right to circumcision, not requiring any thing more of one than of another, as Gen. 17:10; 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 25, 26, 27. Therefore the command of God only gives persons (now under the Gospel) right to baptism, which requires not more of one person than of another, but faith and repentance in all alike, Mat. 28:19; Mark16:15, 16; Acts16:31, 32, 33, 34; Acts2:38; Acts8:12, 13, 37; Acts10:47.

And where as it is said, that faith in the blessed seed was required in Abraham, but not in Isaac, who was to be circumcised at eight days old, it is more than I find the Scriptures reveal, that such a faith was required of Abraham at the time of his circumcision, or else he must not have been circumcised; or that the same faith in the blessed seed Jesus Christ, was so required of all his household at the time of their circumcision, Gen. 17:25, nor of the Shechenites being men of years Gen. 34. So that this Proposition falls in itself.

John Spilsbery A Treatise concerning the lawful subject of Baptism (1652)