AN ANTIDOTE Against the venom of a Passage, in the 5th. direction of the Epistle Dedicatory to the whole Book of m Richard Baxter Teacher at KEDERMINSTER in Worcestershire, entitled, The Saints everlasting Rest, containing a satirical invective against Anabaptists  
By John tombs B. D.  
Lately Teacher at BEWDLEY in the same county.  
LONDON, Printed by Charles Sumptner for Thomas Brewster and Greg. Moule at the three Bibles near the West-end of Paul's, 1650.   

To my dearly beloved Auditors, Magistrates, and People of the Borough of BEWDLEY in WORCESTER-SHIRE.  
BELOVED,  
IT was not a little refreshing to me after my frequent flittings, and much toil, through which my bodily strength and outward estate were impaired, that being hindered from returning to my former station, I was invited to sit down in the place of my nativity, and to employ my talon among my kindred and acquaintance, who have known me from my childhood, with hope to be there gathered to my Fathers, where they yielded their spirits to God. Nor was it a little content to me, that i should speak to so well affected an Auditory, and enjoy the neighbourhood and assistance in the Lord's work of so precious a man as Mr. Baxter was, and is still accounted by me. It is therefore a grievance to me that I remove from you and that jars have happened between me and Mr. Baxter, the occasion whereof was this, Mr. Baxter's dissent from me about infant-baptism being known, there was an endeavour to gain his arguments in writing, which he declining and provoking me to a public dispute, notwithstanding many reasons given of the inconveniences thereof, yet it being deemed my declining of it to have comen from distrust of my cause, after an answer made to the arguments, I knew urged by any for infant baptism in certain Sermons, I yielded to the dispute with him Ian. 1. A fortnight after or less, even while I earnestly solicited him to let me have his arguments in writing, that I might examine them, he writes the Epistle, in which the passage is, to which I here answer. It's told me he intends a larger Treatise of this matter, though before and since the dispute he seemed to be very averse from writing. I conceive by his dispute, that he avers a visible Church-member-ship in infants of godly parents before circumcision was instituted, and from thence he would infer infant baptism. What is visible is discernible by some note; a purpose or promise of God makes not a visible Church-member, if it did many infidels elect should be visible members, while infidels: the birth and actings of believers infants is like to other infants; what then should make or show them visible members circumcision set apart, I know not. If it be only to live in a holy family, this visibility (if it may be so called) may be granted to remain, yet as no initial seal (as it's called) did belong to them till Abraham's time, so neither doth it now by virtue of such visibility without institution. If baptism be a new Testament Ordinance and a mere positive rite no good proof can be made for it, but from precept or practice in the New Testament, positive rites having no reason, but the appointers will, as a rule to us. And for the institution of Christ Math. 28. 19 Mr. Baxter in his Treatise of the Saints rest pag. 222. 549. paraphraseth Christ's words as i do, and in his Appendix. pag. 104. he speaks thus, Doth not the Scripture bid us repent, believe and be baptised for the remission of sins? The institution than is plain according to my judgement, and so is the practice, yea Mr. Baxter in his Appendix pag. 32. speaks as if he disliked it, that Persons are baptised into they know not what; which must needs be true of infants when baptised, and pag. 56. he hath these words; neither are the seals useful till the accepting, and entering of the Covenant, how then can they be useful to infants? One thing more i desire you to take notice of, that in his Treatiss of the Saints rest pag. 651. He hath these words. And their being baptised persons, or members of the universal visible Church (into which it is that they are baptised) is sufficient evidence of their interest to the supper, till they by heresy or scandal blot that evidence. I assume by Mr. Baxter's Doctrine, Infants are rightly baptised and are visible members of the universal Church, therefore by his Doctrine there is sufficient evidence of their interest to the supper. Besides if these reasons be good, infants of believers are in the Covenant, they are federally holy, therefore are to have the seal of the Covenant, it will follow they are to have the Communion as well as baptism. And if it be good arguing infants were circumcised, our Children a●e to have no less privilege than the Jews Children, baptism comes in the room of circumcition, the Lord's Supper of the Passeover, it being certain that little ones among the Jews had the passover, it will follow according to these suppositions of paedobaptists, little ones of Christians must have the Lord's Supper, as they had in former ages for 600. years together from Cyprians time to Charles the Great For denying which Mr. Baxter others may as well be termed unthankful, as Anabaptists so called are by him inconsiderately styled in his Treatise of the saints rest, pag. 534. As for him and others of his judgement, I pray the Lord to open their eyes to see how they have profaned and perverted holy baptism, by changing it into sprinkling contrary to the use in Scripture, and ages after, and administering it to infants, whereby is occasioned abundance of ignorance and carnal presumption in the generality of reputed Christians, and is more necessarily to be reformed then episcopal Ceremonies, against which though much more excusable there have been so great contendings. As for yourselves, my love to you continues the same in my absence as in my presence, and my jealousy over you is, lest your averseness from the Doctrine, i taught you occasion your adhering to mere formal teachers, who may extinguish that power of godliness that is among you. I never moved you to entertain my tenet for my sake: but if it be according to Christ's institution, and the Apostles practise (as if I understand any thing it is) beware, that disobedience to Christ the great Prophet you be not cut off from his people. Now the God of peace, who brought from the dead the Lord Christ, the great Shepheerd of the sheep, by the blood of the everlasting Covenant, make you perfect to do his will, and stablish and comfort you therein. Thus prayeth  
Your truly loving Country man and late Teacher John tombs. London May 22. 1650.   

The CONTENTS.  

SEct. 1. pag. 1. Of Anabaptists accusing their own Children  
Sect. 2. pag. 3. Of Auabaptists disputing their Children out of the Church and covenant of Christ.  
Sect. 3. pag. 4. Of Anabaptists affirming their children to be no Disciples, no servants of God, nor holy as separated to God.  
Sect. 4. pag. 6. Of the Text Levit. 25. 41. 42. Alleged to prove our children God's servants.  
Sect. 5. pag. 7. Of the Text Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. Alleged to prove our Infants to be visible church-members.  
Sect. 6. pag. 9 Of the Text Acts 15, 10. Alleged to prove our infant's Disciples of Christ.  
Sect. 7. pag. 11. Of the Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. Alleged to prove our Infants holy as separated to God.  
Sect. 8. pag. 20. Of God's speaking by judgements from Heaven against Anabaptists.  
Sect. 9 pag. 24. Of the Anabaptists evil lives.  
Sect. 10. pag. 28. Of the Anabaptists confident expressions, weakness upon trial and dispute at Bewdley: Jan. 1. 1649.    

ERRATA.  
Add to the margin page 2 at line 15. these words. See Salmas. apparat. ad libr de primatu Papae page 192. Voss. Thes. 6 de Baptismo page 4 l. 14 r & in page 7 l 14 blot out (it) page 7 l 34 ye r yet, page 8 l 21 r on v 15 in the margin r before Christ's coming page 9 l 29 tencher r teacher page 10 l 1 if r is, l 11 business r business l 15 circumtion r circumcision page 13 l 34 thou r thus page 16 l 18 many r manifestly page 24 l 6 7 how near it is, r is near.   

AN ANTIDOTE AGAINST Mr. Baxter's Invective against Anabaptists:  

SECT. 1. Of Anabaptists accusing their own Children.  
THere came newly to my hands this following passage, which because it doth mainly reflect on myself, I conceive myself necessitated to answer it.  
Anabaptiss, saith Mr. Baxter, play the devil's part in accusing their own Children and disputing them out of the Church and Covenant of Christ, and affirming them to be no Disciples, no servants of God, nor holy as separated to him; when God saith the contrary, Levit. 25. 41. 42. Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. &c. Acts 15. 10. 1 Cor. 7. 14.  
Answ. Though Mr. Baxter speaks of Anabaptists in the plural, yet the passage itself, and the circumstances of it, well known in these parts, evidence it to be directed either solely, or mainly against myself. The term [Anabaptists] I own not, any more, than my Infant sprinkling, The Faith I own, but not the Ceremony They are unjustly called Anabaptists who have been baptised after their own profession of the faith of Christ, though they had water sprinkled or poured on their faces by an Officiating Priest when they were Infants. Sprinkling is not baptising, nor Infants the Subjects of the baptism of Water appointed by Christ, or practised by the Apostles. Mr. Baxter offered to prove, In the beginning of the Dispute after mentioned, that dipping in cold water is murder and Adultery. It seems he dare undertake to prove, the snow black, he is so confident of his nimble wit, and ready tongue. Thousands in the primitive times, (in which baptising was by dipping until Hierome's time at least in the 4th. Century) Thousands in these days are so baptised without murder or adultery. And therefore Mr. Baxter's assertion is contrary to sense and experience. He may do much I believe, but will never be able to prove Infant baptism, or sprinkling instead of it, to be the duty ordained by Christ, Math. 28. 19 Mark. 16. 16. The seven Churches under baptism about London disclaim the Title of Anabaptists, in the Preface to their Confession of faith, under that term all the Pelagian and Arminian errors, all those pestilent errors of Community of Goods, denying civil Magistracy, lawfulness of taking an Oath to end strife and sundry other are charged on them, that deny Infant baptism, I may well say] in a devilish manner, by many Preachers; to make them odious to the people; that they might drive them away out of the Land; if not destroy them: and therefore if Mr. Baxter, who knows how odious the term is, had minded equity or peace he had chosen rather to style us Antipaedobaptists, than Anabaptists. But what says he of us? Anabaptists play the devil's part in accusing their own Children. A most virulent charge, which shows Mr. Baxter kept no moderation of spirit, nor heeded what he wrote. The devil's part in accusing, is either by himself, or his Instruments, before God, or before men, or in their own conscience. Mr. Baxter may as soon bring water out of a pumice stone, as prove we do, any of these ways, play the devil's part. But perhaps it will be said we accuse them however. To accuse, is to charge with a fault or crime. I know no fault or crime we charge our Children with meaning our infant Children, but their birth sin; of which Mr. Baxter hath been heard to charge them, as deep as any of us. But it is unnatural in us, to accuse our own Children perhaps. I bless God he hath given me Children, to whom I bear a natural affection, as tender as another. If Mr. Baxter mean, denying baptism to belong to them in infancy, to be the playing the devil's part in accusing them, he must give me leave to think, that he himself plays the devil's part in asserting, that it belongs to them till he prove it appointed by Christ, or used by his Apostles (which I expect to be done by him, ad Graecas Calendas) and so much the rather do I think he plays the devil's part therein, because experience proves, that Thousands are hardened in carnal presumption, to their perdition by conceiving their Infant baptism to make them Christians, and so heirs of heaven.   

SECT. 2. Of Anabaptists disputing their Children out of the Church and Covenant of Christ.  
ANother thing wherein Mr. Baxter says we play the devil's part is in disputing our Children out of the Church and Covenant of Christ. I answer. The Church of Christ is either visible or invisible: the Covenant of Christ may be meant either of Christ's Covenant to them, or theirs to Christ: by disputing them out of the Church may be meant either that by our disputing, we keep them out of the Church and Covenant of Christ, or cast them out being admitted. It is true I have asserted in disputation that according to the constitution of the visible Church of Christians Infants are not visible Church Members and I still assert it. For the visible Church of Christians is a company of believers art. 19 of the Church of England; and therefore till a person is a believer he is not a visible Church member according to the frame of the Christian Church, which is not a whole Nation joined together in one Community by the civil Magistrate, as the Jewish Church was, but a company of believers made such by the preaching of the Gospel. And this definition of the visible Church was formerly received among Protestants without the addition which the Assembly lately put to it in their Confession of Faith ch. 25 is avouched in disputes against Papists concerning the notes of the Church: As for the invisible Church or Covenant of Christ to them I have often showed in my examen of Mr. marshal's Sermon and elsewhere that I do say as much concerning their interest in them as Mr. Martial speaking considerately will avouch. I thank God by my preaching and disputing. Sundry have been brought into the Church and Covenant of Christ, none do I know that have been kept, or cast out by my disputing, and therefore in this accusation of me, Mr. Baxter may be more truly said to play the devil's part then myself.   

SECT. 3. Of Anabaptists affirming their Children to be no Disciples, no servants of God nor holy as separated to God.  
BUt however perhaps I play the devil's part in the third thing Mr. Baxter says Anabaptists do, affiirming them to be no Disciples, no Servants of God, nor holy as separated to God.  
This I am sure alludes to the dispute between me and Mr. Baxter, in which Mr. Baxter would have proved Infants might be baptised, because Disci●les of Christ which he would prove out of Acts. 15. 10. And because they are called servants of God, which he would prove from Levit. 25, 41. 42. and holy as separated to God from 1 Cor. 7. 14. And members of the visible Church, because of their entering into Covenant. Deut. 29. 10. 11, 12. And this was the main of his dispute of which he so much cracks in this passage of his preface to his book, in which he urged no more Texts, that I remember, out of which he concluded Infant baptism, excepting that of Rom. 11. 19 20. The thing that I affirmed in the dispute was, that Infants are not servants of God as it is equipolent to Disciples of Christ, for one that actively and willingly serves God, such service of God always requiring the use of reason, which Infants have not. In which sense also I denied them to be Disciples, that is such as being taught the gospel of Christ by preaching of it, do embrace it, which sort of Disciples only are appointed to be baptised Math. 28. 19 compared with Mark 16. 15. Mr. Baxter The Saints everl. rest, Page 549. He gave them authority to send forth others on the same message, and to baptize and gather Churches. As for the term [holy as separated to God] the thing I said in the dispute was conc●rning the Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. whether there [holy] be as much as separated to God, which I denied. But for the thing itself, could I have had liberty to express myself without checking, (which all that were present know I could not have in the disputation) I would have distinguished of a state of separation unto God either by election, as separation is taken: Gal. 1. 13. or by calling, in the former sense, I deny not but our children are or may be holy, as the Jews yet unborn are said to be Rom. 11. 16. which thing I also in my Exercitation pag. 10. had heretofore showed in my answer to the argument for infant's baptism out of 1 Cor. 7. 14. but in the latter I deny it. If Mr. Baxter understand it in a third sense I shall give an answer about it, when I understand what way he affirms, our children are separated to God.   

SECT. 4. Of the Text Levit. 25. 41. 42. alleged to prove our Children God's servants.  
BUt Mr. Baxter says, God saith the contrary to my affirmation Levit. 25. 41. 42. Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. act 15. 10. 1 Cor. 7. 14. The text Lev. 25. 41. 42. saith the Hebrew servant shall not be held in bondage, but till the year of jubilee, than he shall depart both he and his Children, for they are God's servants, But this Text speaks only of the Israelites Children whom God brought out of the Land of Egypt, and the reason of their being his servants, is taken merely from that, and to show the privilege they had above other servants and their Children, and distinguishingly v 55. unto me the Children of Israel are servants what is this to our Children? God saith, the children of the Israelites are God's servants, I say our Children are not, is there any contrariety in these speeches where the subjects of the propofitions are not the same? Besides when I said our Children, that is our Infant Children are not God's servants, I meant actually, but that which God saith, Levit. 25. 42: that they are his servants, is meant only of what they are de jure of right, and then the predicates of the Propositions are different, and therefore no contrariety, yet again, servants of God are either actively such or passively, as the Heavens: Psal. 119. 91. are called God's servants: Nebuchadnez●zer is called, God's servant, Ierem. 43. 10. were the Heavens and Nebuchadnezar Disciples of Christ and to be baptised?   

SECT. 5. Of the Text Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. Alleged to prove our Infants to be visible Church-members.  
THe next Text Deut. 29. 10, 11. 12. was alleged to prove that our Children are visible Church members. because the little ones of the Israelites entered into Covenant with God, that he might establish them to be his people, and this a gospel Covenant Deut. 30. 6. 11. 12, 13. 14. To this I answered 1 that [thou] v. 12. doth not necessarily comprehend the little ones. This Mr. Baxter in the disputation turning himself to the people told them was to contradict the Text expressly, and he sought to suggest to them as if it were my impudence, and said; that if it the Papists had as plaine express Scripture as Deut. 29. 12. was to prove that all even little ones did enter into Covenant, he would turn Papist. But for all Mr. Baxter's haste, I presume he would be better advised, if he did consider, v. 14. [you] are distinguished from them that stand there before the Lord &c. v. 12. [thou] only is said to enter into Covenant, and therefore though all v. 10. are said to stand, yet it is not without some likely hood that [thou] v. 12. notes only some that entered into Covenant in the behalf of the rest. And if the passing into Covenant were as Piscator in his scholy, that thou mayest pass through the parts of the divided living creatures in testimony of the Covenant, (to which Ainsworth notes the phrase to allude, surely, neither the little ones, nor all the rest did pass between the parts of the beasts divided, but some instead of the rest. 2. But were it granted that the little ones are said to enter into Covenant, yet this doth not prove them to be visible members. For. v. 15. it is said that Moses made that Covenant and Oath with him that was not there with them that day, that is their posterity not ye borne, as lackson, Piscator, Ainsworth, Grotius the new Annot: etc, shall it therefore be said that the posterity unborn were visible members of the Jewish Church in the wilderness? 3. It must be and was granted by Mr. Baxter in the dispute, that this entering into Covenant was not by their own act but by their Parents for them. But such an entering into Covenant doth not make a viable Church member in the Christian Church, however it did in the Jewish Church, there being a different Church state or frame in the Christian Church which was gathered by the preaching of the gospel from the Israelites Church state & frame made by the Authority of Abraham & Moses without teaching of the persons gathered. 
Mr. Baxter in the Se●- everlasting rest pag. 224. He sent out Ministers and not magistrates to bring in the world. And pag. 3 he saith, the Nation of the Jews, and all proselyted Gentiles were holy before  4. Be it that the Covenant were to establish them to be a people to God and that he may be a God to them, yet this doth not prove the Covenant to be a pure Gospel Covenant, not including peculiar benefits to the Jewish Nation: For there is a plain restriction in the words, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy Fathers to Abraham, to Isaac, & to Jacob, which undoubtedly comprehended their settling in Canaan, which was proper only to them as Israelites, which may be proved out of many passages following, as Deut, 29, 21. 28. Deut. 30. 1. 4. 5. 9, &c. Yea Ainsworth v. 15. notes that the Covenant was made with their posterity, with exception of the new Covenant in Christ, so that by him this Covenant and the Covenant in Christ are not all one. As for that which is alleged out of Deut. 30. 14. that it is the gospel Covenant, because it is said Rom. 10. 8. This is the word of faith which we preach, I Answer, the words v. 8. 10. 11. speak expressly of the word of Command & v. 14. the word is nigh to thee that thou mayst do it, which is not meant of a promise but a command of the Law: nor will it prove that then the apostle allegeth it inpertinently: for it is frequent with the Apostle to accommodate words to his purpose, that have a different sense in the places whence they are taken from that, to which the Apostle applieth them, as Rom. 10. 18. &c. Lastly if it did contain promises purely Evangelical, yet the Covenant in respect of them cannot be meant of all and every of the Israelites that God would be a God to them, that is sanctify, justify, adopt them to be Heirs of eternal life. For than God's promise to them should not be true, For with many of them God was not well pleased 1 Cor. 10. 5. Heb. 3. 17 19 but only of the elect. As for that Deut. 30. 6. I confess it is a promise of spiritual grace, but to the Jews after their captivity upon condition of obedience, and to them indefinitely, which was never performed to all their seed, but only to the elect among them, and therefore must be so limited, as the promise, Isai. 54. 13. is by our Lord Christ, John 6. 45. and the promise Gen. 17. 7. is by the Apostle Rom. 9 6. 7. 8.   

SECT. 6. Of the text Acts 15. 10. alleged to prove our infant's Disciples of Christ.  
THe next Text alleged by Mr. Baxter is Acts 15. 10. where he would have it thought, that God says that our Infant Children are Disciples, and therefore to be baptised according to the institution, Math. 28. 19 To which I answer. 1. By putting Mr. Baxter in mind of his own objection against my interpretation of the words, 1 Cor 7. 14. [but now are they holy] that it is more likely the word should be taken in a sense in which it is 600. times taken for [separated to God] then in my sense, in which it is nowhere else taken signifying [legitimate.] For if this reason be good, it holds against himself, who takes the word [Disciples] in a sense applicable to Infants, in which sense it is nowhere else taken, though it be used for one that is a follower of a Tencher 300. times in the Evangelists, and the Acts of the Apostles, of which either 100 or very near it is used by Luke 2. Mr. Baxter's interpretation will apaeare to be manifestly wrested to any that will but consider that the putting the yoke on the necks of the Disciples, is the same with that which is mentioned v. 1. they taught the brethren, and v. 5. they said that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses, and v. 24. certain which went out from us, have troubled you with words, subverting your soulis saying, ye must be circumcised and keep the Law. Now if any man so senseless as to think they did these things to Infants? 3. The Text v. 1. 23. calls them brethren, says v. 9 their hearts were purified by faith upon the hearing of the word which none but those that are resolved to outface a plain truth would aver to be meant of Infants. 4. Lastly Mr. Baxter confessed in private conference with me, that the putting the yoke was by teaching, and indeed it may easily be evinced that their act was not to take a knife or sharp stone and therewith in their own persons cut off the little skin of male Infants, but that they made it their business to subvert the souls of converted Gentiles to hold it necessary that they should be circumcised themselves: if the putting the yoke had been actual circumcision, it had not been put on their necks, but elsewhere. Besides actual circum●tion that is, the loss of a little skin was and might be borne, and is at this day by many people whereas it is said, the yoke they put was such as neither the present Jews, nor their Fathers were able to bear. From all which I infer that none are there meant by the term [Disciples] but they that were taught by the false Teachers, nor the yoke any other than the Doctrine or opinion of the necessity of circumcision, and keeping of Moses his Law. In like manner Christ's Doctrine is called his yoke Math. 11. 29. 30. Pisc. in his scholy on Acts 15, 10. jugum {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} nempe legem Mosis ex collatione v. 5. Grot. amot. ad Actor 15. 10. Rabbini usurpant de doctrina quae aliquid omnino faciendum inculcat, And in like manner the yoke of bondage Gal. 5. 1. is the Law Gal. 4. 21. And is generally by Divines handling the Doctrine of Christian liberty made to be the teaching and holding circumcision and Moses Law as the necessary way to justification and salvation, and that the Habassine Christians who are circumcised yet are not entangled with the yoke of bondage, because their consciences are free, and so it is to be understood v. 2. whosoever is circumcised that is, who is circumcised willingly out of the opinion of its necessity, and sufficiency to salvation Christ shall profit you nothing, yea but saith Mr. Baxter it is circumcision as obliging to Moses Law, and if it be not meant of circumcision circumcision is not condemned in that council. I answer, All the Colour Mr. Baxter hath from this Text to prove Infants disciples is by conceiving the yoke to note barely and precisely the cutting off a little skin: but to say it is circumcision as obliging to Moses Law is to say the samewhich I say that it is not circumcision as acted, but as taught, sith the doctrine or command obliged to Moses Law, not the bare cutting away the little skin. And yet circumcision is in that council taken away, sith he that by teaching, shows the command to cease, doth thereby take away the practice, as with us they that deny Ordinances do binddo take away the use of them yet further if it were granted Mr. Baxter, that the yoke were the taking away of the little skin the term Disciples would not necessarily comprehend Infants, though the false Teachers aims were also to have Infants circumcised, yet they would first have the bre-sthrens of years circumcised & so the term [Disciples] note only them, although Infants should be by that means circumcised, yet not meant by the term [Disciples] Lastly were it granted that the term [Discples] did note Infants, yet it could note no other than males according to Mr. Baxter's own explication, for they only were to be circumcised, and therefore female Infants should not be thence proved Disciples, nor to be baptised.  
From all which the Reader may perceive how sleighly these arguments of Mr. Baxter are, and how superficially he hath handled this business.   

SECT. 7. Of the Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. alleged to prove our Infants holy as separated to God.  
THe other Text that remains hath more show for his purpose then all the rest, Mr. Baxter saith; Anabaptists affirm their own Children not to be holy as separated to God; when God saith the contrary 1 Cor. 7. 14 I Answer, what others whom he calls Anabaptists affirm in this thing, I am not engaged to inquire: I believe if Mr. Baxter were required to set down who those Anabaptiss are, and where they affirm it, he would be hard put to it to free himself from overlashing. But I am assured Mr. Baxter wrote this passage in haste, and inconsiderately not well weighing what he said, and that however he name Anabaptists in the plural, yet his only instance would be myself affirming in the disputation after mentioned. But the thing I affirmed in the disputation was not so rawly expressed as Mr. Baxter doth, I said this, that every child of a believer is not, because a believers child holy as separated to God, nor doth holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. signify as much as separated to God. To conceive of which it is to be noted that a person may be said to be separated to God, either in God's purpose by his election, or in promise by his Covenant, or in his present condition either by God's calling to the knowledge of Christ, or special employment for God, or by his own profession, or by vow of parents, or by some special gift or privilege or if there be any other way whereby a person may be said to be separated to God.  
I never affirmed that none of these ways my children, or other believers children are holy as separated to God: I only said that every child of a believer is not because a believers child holy as separated to God.  
If Mr. Baxter had told me in what manner he meant believers children to be holy as separated to God, I should have told him in the disputation more fully what I affirm or deny in this thing. But all that were Auditors of the dispute might, and many did take notice how Mr. Baxter checked me, when I did but desire him to explain the term of visible Church member, and to show by what note he meant some Infants were visible Church-members, saying it was to catechise him, and when I told him it was necessary the people should be satisfied, he told me, his coming was to dispute with me, not to satisfy them. and all along the dispute how magisterially, scornfully, and unbrotherly he carried himself, not as one that minded clearing of truth, but to diminish my esteem, and to gain an opinion to himself as having the better I think the Auditors will testify; and for this reason I obtained not from him to show in what manner, and by what means he asserted every believers infant to be holy as separated to God, so that in fine the dispute was only about the meaning of the term [holy] 1 Cor. 7. 14. whether it signify a state of separation to God as Mr. Baxter conceived, or legitimation as I conceived. In which business though I should be mistaken in the meaning which I give, yet it doth not follow Mr. Baxter is in the right: possibly both may be mistaken, and then however it serves not Mr. Baxter's purpose, which is as much as i need demonstrate, yet because i desire truth may be discovered, i shall by answering what Mr. Baxter brought either for his own sense or against mine, show how little cause of triumph there was in any thing he brought at the disputation about this Text.  
If Mr. Baxter say i do not truly set down his reasons or meaning, the fault is in himself, who though often requested would never communicate to me his arguments in writing, but left me to gather what i could from mine own memory and others notes.  
That which Mr. Baxter said of the meaning of this Text was to this effect. holiness 1 Cor. 7. 14. signifies a state of separation to God: for so the word is constantly taken near 600. times, and nowhere for legitimate. And the Apostles meaning is, the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband, that is to his use, passively, though not actively, remotely, though not immediately, as it is said 1 Tim. 4. 5. every creature is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, and Tit. 1. 15. to the pure all things are pure, else were your children unclean, that is were it not the unbelieving wife were sanctified thus to the believers use, your children, the infant children of you believers; having unbelieving wives were unclean, that is not separated to God, but now, that is this being determined that the unbelieving wife is thus sanctified to the believing Husbands use your children, that is the children of you believing Corinthians, who have unbelieving wives are holy, that is are separated to God. The same is the sense mutat is mutandis of that which is said concerning the believing wife and unbelieving Husband.  
To which i say: holiness it is true notes a state of separation to God: and yet it is apparent that 1 Thes. 4. 3. 4. 7. it signifies barely chastity of the body without fornication, to which sense the use of [holy] for [legitimate] is near. And when holy notes a state of separation to God, that separation is many ways, as by election, Covenant, calling vowing, offering, anointing, prayer, Ordinance, apparition &c. and to many purposes or uses as to glorify God, do service at the Temple, execute judgement &c. If Mr. Baxter would distinctly tell me, what way, and to what use he would have the children of believers holy as separated to God in the Text, 1 Cor. 7. 14. I conceive he would not find one of all his 600. places, in which it is taken just in his sense, so as that it may be verified of the infants he means. It is true God saith, the Corinthians children were holy, but he doth not say they were holy as separated to God as Mr. Baxter would have it. In what sense it is there taken, i conceive can be gathered no way but by analysing the Apostles words and finding out of what holiness his speech can be true, which i have already in my Examen of Mr. marshal's sermon and my Apology and post script proved to be only legitimation and may yet more fully prove in my review of the dispute about infant-baptism if ever it be published, against all that Mr. Martial, Mr. Geree, Mr. Blake, Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Church or any other I have met with reply to my examen: Nor is it unusual with interpreters to take a word in a sense in which it is used nowhere else, when the matter' scope, and other circumstances of the Text lead to that sense as in that Epistle, 1 Cor. 11. 10. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which everywhere else signifies power or authority there confessedly signifies a veil, and the phrase of due benevolence is used 1 Cor. 7. 3. in a sense in which it is used nowhere else, and the like may be said of the word [form] Phil. 1. 6, of the word [Church] Math. 18. 17. and many more. As for Mr. Baxter's exposition I conceive it not right. 1 Because if the sanctification be understood as Mr. Baxter would have it in that sense the unbeliever is said to be sanctified only to the true real believer before God, who by prayer doth sanctify the other party to his or her use, for of such only it is true, to them every thing is sanctified by Prayer, sith they only can pray, and to them only all things are pure, not to them, who though they profess they know God, yet in works deny him Tit 1. 16. This then is Mr. Baxter's sense, For the unbelieving Husband is sanctified to the use of a believing wife, who is truly and really a believer before God, and not only by profession before men, unto whom by virtue of her true faith and prayer her Husband is sanctified to her use and pure to her. But if this were the sense then the reason of the Apostle had reached only to the resolution of such to live with their unbelieving yoke-fellows the rest were not to continue with them, because they were not sanctified to them, whereas the doubt was concerning any visible believer or brother, and accordingly the Apostles resolution. Besides supposing any true real believers doubted of the truth of their own faith, they would be deterred by the Apostles reason so understood from living with their unbelieving yok-fellowes as being not sanctified to them. Again the Apostle had resolved them of the lawfulness of their continuing together by a reason taken from a thing only known to God, and their own conscience, whereas his intent was to resolve all concerning the lawfulness of living together, with their yoke-fellows in disparity of Religion by a reason taken from a thing obvious to them all. 2. Mr. Baxter's sense supposeth that the cause of the sanctification of the unbeliever is the faith of the believer, but if so then doubtless the Apostles would have expressed it thus [to or in the believing wife or husband] whereas it is only said [in or to the husbnnd or wife] without adding the term [believing] which manifestly shows the Apostle placed not the Emphasis in it. For who will leave out the word in which the Emphasis is put and not rather express it remarkably? 3. If the sense be as Mr. Baxttr would have it, than this proposition is true▪ as being included in the Apostles reasoning: The Children whereof one of the Parents is not a real true believer before God are none of them holy as separated to God. But it is false, take the separation to God what way and to what use he will, the child of professed unbelievers, much more the child of professed believers, though not really such before God may be, and perhaps is separated to God. Now that these Propositions [All the Children whereof one parent is not sanctified to the other are unclean, none of the children whereof one of the Parents is not sanctified to the other are clean or holy] are included in the Apostles consequence is confessed by Chamier, Mr. Blake and others as I show in my Examen, Postscript and other writings, nor do I know any that deny it, and if they should it might easily be evinced to any that is acquainted with the rules of reasoniug, and therefore according to Mr. Baxter's explication, the Apostle must assert [that all the Children whereof one of the Parents is not sanctified to the others use, being a true real believer before God are unclean, none holy as separated to God,] which being manifalse Mr. Baxter's exposition is apparently erroneous.  
Lastly if his sense were allowed him, than the baptising any Infant but such whereof one of the next parents is a real believer before God would be unlawful, for such only are holy in his sense, and the rest unclean: But it being known only to God that one of the Parents is a true real believer before God, it will follow no Ministers ought to baptize any infant at all without revelation from God, that one of the Parents is a true real believer, otherwise we shall baptize the unclean, or unholy who have not a right to be baptised. To tell, us as Mr. Baxter did in private conference with me, that by a judgement of Charity, a professed believer is to be taken to be a real believer, I answer be it granted, yet that is not sufficient to justify the baptising the child of such a one according to Mr. Baxter's exposition, sith as he expounds the Apostle it is requisite that the parent be a true believer before God, or else the child is unclean, that is in his sense unbaptizable.  
Besides the judgement of Charity is not that by which persons are to proceed in baptising, but the certain judgement of Verity arising from ministerial Skill and Prudence, to know what is the true Profession, and from sense, that the Person to be baptised maketh such Profession. Mr. Baxter himself in his Appendix to his aphorisms Pag. 58. dare not you to dispense God's seals upon your conjectures of the probability or improbability of men's sincerity.  
These things being true, though I should be mistaken in my sense, yet Mr. Baxter's arguments were answered: yet ex abundanti I shall answer Mr. Baxter's Exceptions against my interpretation, which according to my memory, and the Notes which I could procure of the Disputation between us were these. The sense is not right which thus interpreteth the Apostles Speech. The unbelieving Wife is sanctified to the Husband, that is, in respect of lawful use of Marriage is as if he were Sanctified; else were your Children unclean, that is bastards, but now they are holy, that is legitimate. For 1. The word Sanctified signifies somewhat more than lawfully used. Pagan's actions may be said to be lawful, not Sanctified. 2. It is no good consequence, your Marriage continues lawful in the use in opposition to Fornication; therefore you may dwell together lawfully in opposition to Piety. 3. The argument is taken a notiori: but it could not be more known to them that their Children were legitimate, then that their Marriage was lawful. 4. If it were better known that their Children were legitimate then that their Marriage were lawful, because of the change of Religion, than they should doubt of their children's legitimation, who were borne since their conversion, and not of those that were borne before, which were an irrational Fancy.  
To this I answer. 1. It is not said the Unbelievers action is sanctified, but the Unbeliever, and unbelieving Medes are said to be God's Sanctified ones, Isai. 14 3. But be the word taken so as not to be applied to a Pagan in its proper acception, yet the sense I give altars not the usual sense, only it supposeth the meaning of the word to be taken with some diminution by a Catachresis, or acytology, that is abuse or impropriety of speech, which is a very frequent thing, as 1 Cor. 10. 2. were baptised, that is, quasi baptizati sunt (as Grotius rightly notes on that place) they were as if they had been baptised: the Cloud and Sea were to them as baptism to us. And so here the unbelieving Husband hath been Sanctified: that is, to his Wife in respect of the use of him, as if he had been Sanctified: which is a plain and easy Exposition. 2. The Corinthians doubted of the lawfulness of living with the Unbelieving yoke-fellow, by reason of the unholiness of the Unbeliever, which they questioned whether it did not necessitate a divorce or departure, though they doubted not of their children's legitimation, either borne afore or after their conversion, they yet living with the Unbeliever. The Apostles answer I conceive to be thus. You may lawfully continue together notwithstanding the unbelief of the yoke-fellow? for he being a Husband though an Unbeliever is, as if he were Sanctified in respect of Marriage use, else were your Children you have borne in this estate unclean, that is illegitimate which you do not conceive. Though the occasion of the doubt were the Impiety of the one party, yet the doubt was only whether divorce were necessary; which is rightly answered by telling them they might lawfully continue in Marriage use. As in like case if a Papist doubt whether she must not be divorced from her Lutheran Husband lately converted to it, the answer is right by telling her no, for the Marriage relation continues though her Husband be an heretic; else should her Children borne since he was made a Lutheran be illegitimate, of which she doubts not. 3. It might be more known to them that their Children were legitimate, then that living with the Unbeliever continued lawful, because there was not such occasion of doubt concerning the Children, as of the Professed Unbeliever, and for some other reasons, perhaps through mere incogitancy of the connexion, between the unlawfulness of their living together and the illegitimation of their Children, as it happened to them, 1 Cor. 15. 12. and is incident to men, and women as rational as they. 4. According to the interpretation I give, there is no intimation of doubt concerning the children's legitimacy, either borne before or after conversion; nor needs there be to make good the Exposition I give. As for [else were your Children unclean] the consequence of the Apostle might be good in my sense if it be meant either of the Children borne before, or after conversion of the one party; it is true of either, that if the Unbelieving husband were not as if he had been sanctified to his Wife, in respect of lawful conjugal use, their Children were illegitimate, but I think upon mature consideration, it is the most clear Exposition to understand it of those borne since the conversion of one Party. Upon this Answer to Mr. Baxter, I presume the Reader will perceive my Exposition no irrational fancy, which is the interpretation of Ambrose, Jerome, Anselm, Aquinas, Melanchthon, Camerarius, Osiander, Gagnaeus, Musculus, Suarez, Mariana, and many others, who have been conceived men able to discern between reason and irrational fancies as actuely as Mr. Baxter, though I conceive of his abilities as excellent. However still the Christian that would not delude his conscience, methinks should fear to go against the plain Institution of Christ, and Practise of the Apostles, and first Ages of the Church; in which infant-baptism was neither appointed nor Practised, upon such uncertain Expositions and Consequences, as Mr. Baxter hath brought, and I may now freely say however they seemed somewhat at the first hearing, yet now upon exact consideration, for the consequences from his three first Scriptures here brought frivolous, and I doubt urged more like a Sophister than a lover of truth. The rest of Mr. Baxter's Passage hath with it a manifest tincture of reviling, little of reason: yet because such speeches too easily take with People, who are of all others most prejudiced against those they call Anabaptists, and who I think are as unequally dealt with as any men, I will make an answer to it.   

SECT. 8 Of God's speaking by judgements from Heaven against Anabaptists.  
MAster Baxter goes on thus: I cannot digress to fortify you against these Sects: you have seen God speak against them by judgements from Heaven; what were the two monsters in new England but miracles?  
Ans. He is pleased to style, Antinomians, Socinians, Arminians, Separatists, Independents, Anabaptists, (Falsely so called) Sects. Those whom he calls Independents, disclaim the Title, and deny themselves to be a Sect, and so do Antipaedobaptists. Let reason be heard; why should men be any more called a Sect, for denying that it is of Divine appointment, that a Synod of many Churches should have power to excommunicate, 
Mr Baxter himself in this his Book of the Saints everlasting rest, Part. 2. ch. 6. Sect. 1. p. 2●2 expresseth Christ's charge to his Apostles thus go, Preach and make me Disciple of all Nations.  than others called Presbyterians for holding it? why should Antipaedobaptists be called a Sect for denying that Infants are appointed by Christ to be baptised rather than Paedobaptists for affirming it? If for their Tenet they are called a Sect, surely they that so plainly turn aside from the express institution, Mat. 28. 19, 20. Mark. 16. 5. 16. which almost all Expositors, and not a few Paedobaptists even in their writings for paedobaptism do acknowledge to appoint only the baptising of Disciples made by Preaching, and from the manifest practice of the Apostles, are more worthy the Name of a Sect, or Sectaries; if for non-Communion with others of a contrary judgement I wish each man would lay his hand on his heart, and examine whether he hath not been the maker of the breach: For my own part I am assured, I can better acquit myself from it then the chief of my Antagonists. Surely Mr. Baxter in this his Invective, chiefly in his rash and hasty reckoning me among heretics, even than when I made earnest suit to him to have his Arguments in writing that I might examine them (which I cannot any way obtain as yet) hath more manifestly showed himself resolved to break with Me, and to renounce Me as one unfit for communion with him, than any action I ever did showed the like disposition in Me towards him, Mr. Baxter saith I cannot digress to fortify you against these Sects. I confess a Discourse against those Sects, as he calls them, had been a Digression from the subject of his Treatise, but not from the matter of his Epistle, and the fifth Direction he gives to his Neighbours of Kederminster. But why can he not digress? I can guess no other reason but his haste: willing he was in his Epistle before that Book which was likely to sell, to blast my reputation by Name, and other dissenters from him without naming them; whether to ease his stomach or to what other end he knows best, though he little considered what he wrote. He goes on: you have seen God speak against them by judgements from Heaven; what were the two monsters in New England, but miracles? I Answer, what judgements from heaven by which God spoke against the Sects he mentions, they had seen, I could never yet learn of his Neighbours, though I have lived very near them, have often conversed with them, and had them my auditors till (I imagine) M. Baxter's opposition to Me took them off. Nor do I think if Mr. Baxter were put to name the judgements by which God spoke from Heaven against the Sects he names, would he mention any other than the two Monsters in New England, which I am confident neither Mr. Baxter, nor any of his Neighbours of Kederminster saw. These two Monsters are mentioned in the Margin of his book Pag. 232. to be the most hideous monstrous births of Mistress Hutchinson, and Mistress Dier. In Mr. Weld's story of the Antinomians; I find mention in the Preface of thirty monstrous births or thereabouts brought forth by Mistress Hutchinson at once; some of them bigger, some of them lesser, some of one shape some of another, few of any perfect shape, none at all of them (so far as he could learn) of human shape. And of Mistress Dyer that she brought forth her birth of a woman child, a Fish, a beast, and a foul, all woven together in one, and without an head, which he describes pag. 44. of his Story. The truth of the Relation I question not: but that they were Miracles as Mr. Baxter takes the word [Miracle] in his second part, Ch. 4. Sect. 1. &c. in which he distinguisheth between Wonders and Miracles, I think cannot be made good. If we find not the like story in every point, yet we read of many monstrous births, as that of the Earl of Holland's daughter and many other: yet neither Divines, nor Philosophers, nor Physicians that I know do reckon them among Miracles. Nor do I think it a very safe way to take such Accidents as Arguments for, or against any Tenet. Camden in his Britannia describing Wiltshire, makes mention of a Synod in Calne, whereat upon the falling of the room, and preservation of Dunstan it was judged, that God had determined for Monkery. Many more such strange accidents do both Heathen, and ecclesiastical Histories mention for confirmation of superstition and errors, which Mr. Baxter himself takes notice of Pag. 240. by which People have been led to errors. And therefore I think Mr. Baxter doth ill to direct his Neigbhours of Kederminster, to such accidents to fortify them against Sects. And I have ever judged it a very unsafe, and I think an evil course that many Preachers have taken to affright their People with relations of accidents, befalling Men whom they judge erroneous, thereby to deter them from so much as examining their Tenet; as being contrary to Paul's admonition of trying all things, 1 Thess. 5. 21. and directing to another way of discerning between truth and error, than the holy Scripture contrary to John 5. 39 Mark. 12. 24. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Deut. 13. 1, 2. and Isai. 8. 20. &c. which is derogatory to the Scriptures use, and directing them by judgements from heaven to judge of Doctrines, of which many Relations are not true, as I am sure for one instance in the relations of God's Judgement upon Sabbath breakers, to which Mr. Baxter refers Pag. 230. concerning Mr. Powle of Lemster in my time of being there, and not far off from the place when it happened, in the relation of which there are sundry mistakes and untruths, nor did the circumstances show the accident to be God's voice, to that end the compiler of that Book applies it. But if the relations of the accidents be true, yet it is uncertain whether the devil do not speak by them, until it appear first that the Tenet they are applied to confirm be of God, which may be known by the Scriptures without relying on such accidents. And it is well known that Papists use them as well as the Orthodox, and make them a note of their Church and Doctrine, which is rejected by Protestants. But were it granted a safe way to judge of Doctrines by such judgements of God; yet in all the story of Mr. Weld forementioned, I find not a word of Mistress Hutchinson, or Mistress Dyer, or any other of these whose errors are taken to be condemned by those accidents, as holding antipaedobaptism. I find Mistress Dyer and her Husband to have been taken for Familists, Pag. 44. Mistress Hutchinson to have held 29 errors, Pag. 60. but none of them against Infant baptism. Mr. Baxter himself in the Margin of his book Pag. 232. bids ask them in New England, whether they were not convincing providences against their Antinomian anti-scriptural heresies. Why then doth Mr. Baxter tell his neighbours of these judgements speaking against the Sects he mentions indefinitely, when it was but against one of them in his own construction, and place his speech where it might be, and is commonly taken, and was alleged upon Mr. Baxter's credit in Pulpit, in the Parish in which I taught, as spoken against Antipaedobaptists, but that it is most likely Mr. Baxter in that passage chiefly intended to make Me in particular, and other opposers of infant-baptism odious, and the truth we hold, though he did thereby mislead Men, for which the Lord forgive Him. Yet I will add thus much, that I find among the 82 errors condemned in New England, in that story the 21 to be this. To be justified by Faith is to be justified by works: which how near it is to Mr. Baxter's Doctrine in his Aphorisms of justification, Thes. 20. 70. 72, 73, 74, 75, 76. in this Treatise Pag. 11. doubtless the Gospel takes Faith for our obedience to all gospel Precepts, which he teacheth in his aphorisms, Thes. 76. and expounds James 2. 24. of justification before God by works in a proper sense, and those were giving food, or clothing to a brother, Vers. 16. offering Isaac on the Altar, which is rather a work of the Law then the gospel, Ver. 21. Rahabs' receiving the Messengers and sending them out another way.   

SECT. 9 Of the Anabaptists evil Lives.  
MAster Baxter proceeds, Christ hath told you, by their Fruits ye shall know them; we misinterpret, when we say he means by Fruit, their false Doctrine; that were but idem per idem. Heretics may seem holy for a little while, but at last all false Doctrines likely end in wicked lives. Where hath there been known a Society of Anabaptists, since the World first knew them that have not proved wicked? How many of these or Antinomians, &c. have you known, who have not proved palpably guilty of lying, perfidiousness, covetousness, malice, contempt of their godly brethren, licentiousness, or seared consciences?  
Answ. Interpreters differ about the fruits, Mat. 7. 16. some by Fruits understand evil life, some false doctrine, some both, some add their want of calling: I for my part think both an evil life and a false Doctrine do discover false Prophets, but chiefly their false Doctrine, and so do Piscator, Pareus, Perkins, &c. because that seems to be God's note Deut. 13. 2. And in reason sith a false Prophet is so named from his false Doctrine, the falsehood of his Doctrines best discovers that he is a false Prophet. As for evil life by itself, (which M. Baxter seems to hold) it cannot be the note whereby to know a false Prophet as such, both because evil Men may be true Prophets, as Judas for example, who was a true Apostle, yet a thief, and on the other side Mr. Baxter confesseth heretics may seem holy for a little while, and therefore during that time they cannot be known by their evil life: yea, many erroneous Persons have continued in appearance, holy to their end. Mr. Baxter dares say no more but that all false Doctrine likely end in wicked lives. Augustin commends Pelagius Epist. 120. Bertius Arminius; yea many of those who have been reputed heretics, have been eminent for holiness in appearance even to their end, and thereby have prevailed. And indeed it is the common Tenent of Protestant Divines, answering Bellarmine and other Papists, 
See Field of the Church 3. Book Ch. 52. Morton Apol. Cath part. 1. l. 2. c. 6. Alsted supplem. Cham. de Eccles. l. 2. c. 13 Sect 3.  who deny Profession of the true Faith to be a note of the true Church, and among other notes make the holiness of their Teachers one note, that true Faith is a sufficient note of a visible Church and true Teacher, and that holiness of life is not the note of a true Prophet, or the want of it of a false Prophet. If it were it would follow no true Ministers who are vicious in life, nor to be heard, nor to be owned as Pastors. And therefore Mr. Baxter unadvisedly perhaps in heat, or spleen, directs his Neighbours to know false Prophets by this note, which would if retorted prone Presbyterians, heretics as well as Anabaptists. But to say by their false Doctrine ye shall know false Prophets, were idem per idem, the same by the same. Answ. In Mr. Baxter's logic then false Doctrine, and false Prophet are the same. It is true, false Doctrine is the form denominating a false Teacher or false Prophet: but to make the form denominating, and the subject denominated the same, is to Me false Doctrine in logic. Are the whiteness and the thing white, the heat and thing hot, all one? or doth a Man that knows hot water by heat, cold water by its cold, know idem per idem, the same by the same? But Mr. Baxter applies his rule generally against Anabaptists, and saith, where hath there been known a Society of Anabaptists, since the World first knew them, that proved not wicked? Answ. Were this question propounded dubitatively it would the less move, but no Man will I think take his interrogation for any other than a most peremptory determination, wherein like a right English mastiff, he flies in the face not of one, or two Men, or one or two Societies of Men, but on all the Societies of Anabaptists since the World first knew them, and asserts them to have proved wicked. An accusation that I should not have dared to make against the Papists themselves. And for it, if there were no other thing, I may boldly say Mr. Baxter hath played the devil's part with a witness. But you'll say is it not true? Answ. Were not Cyprian and his Colleagues, Hemerobaptists in Epiphanius, the Picards who rebaptised, as the Preface to the Bohemian Confession of the year 1535 shows, Anabaptists; that is, baptizers again? And yet who doubts but they had many Societies who proved not wicked? But you'll say they were rebaptists on another ground then the Anabaptiss, Mr. Baxter means, who deny Infant-baptism? Be it so: yet it is a most bold calumny to damn all their societies as in conclusion wicked. But that Mr. Baxter may learn to order his pen better hereafter, he may take notice that besides the probabilities that Berengarius opposed the baptising of little ones, notwithstanding what Mr. Martial allegeth, it is more than probable by Bernard's 204 Epistle, his 66. Sermon on the Canticles, Petrus Cluniacensis his Epistle against Peter de Bruis, and Henricus, Eckbertus Schonaugiensis his Sermon 7. adversus Catharos in the Auctarium of the Biblioth: Patxum Tom. 2. and others, that there were many hundreds of years sithence, a very great number of godly Societies, that did deny infant-baptism, and in Gaul and Germany were baptised after infant-baptism. But perhaps Mr. Baxter imagines no Anabaptists (as he calls them) till Luther's days. There have been many of those Societies in high and low Germany. Will Mr. Baxter, a young Man that I believe never travailed out of England, fall into such exorbitant censoriousness as to condemn them all as in fine proving wicked? sure I am Alstedius in his sapplement to Chamier de Eccl. l. 2. c. 13. Sect. 3. puts the Anabaptists among those that had the garment of a good life: Cassander in his Epistle to the Duke of Gulick, and Cleve cited by me in my Examen part. 2. Sect. 6. saith, in quibus magna ex parte pii cujusdam animi argumenta cernas. Sundry other writings I have read even of those that have written against them, who either by their ingenuous Confessions of some of them, or their readiness to except against them for small infirmities, give me occasion to conceive there have been in the Low Countries, and elsewhere godly Societies of them, and not such as in conclusion proved wicked. But perhaps Mr. Baxter pronounceth so of all those in England, that have been called Anabaptists. If so, let him know that there have been in London Churches of those called Anabaptists, and are still, whose Confession of Faith may compare either with Mr. Baxter, or perhaps the Assembly, for soundness of Doctrine; and not a few of whose Teachers and Members have lead a godly life to the end, and whose living members yet hold forth the Faith in a godly life. And this the rather I am induced to conceive not only from mine own knowledge, and the credible testimony of others, but also from their Petition to the Parliament April. 2. 1649. and the Parliaments answer to them, and their late heart-bleedings for Professors abominations in their faithful general Epistle Printed for the same man, for whom Mr. Baxter's published books have been Printed. But I perceive Mr. Baxter was willing to let his pen have the reins, and therefore adds; How many of these, &c. May I not as well ask the parishioners of Kederminster, how many have they known that have proved so palpably guilty of the soul sins he names? How many Anabaptiss or Antinomists they have known, I cannot tell. Mr. Baxter names me for one, and I confess his parishioners of Kederminster have had means to know me from my Cradle, as being borne and bred up, and lived a good part of my life near them: if they know me so palpably guilty of the sins Mr. Baxter speaks of, they show but little love, in that they rebuke me not, but suffer sin on me, contrary to what Mr. Baxter hath taught them. I would have trod this passage under my foot as dirt, were it not that the devil by this and such like passages breeds such hatred, and nourisheth such fury in men's breasts, that were it not for the mighty overawing power of God, and the magistrates Justice, they would quickly fall on us to destroy us. I add no more, but the Lord rebuke them.   

SECT. 10. Of the Anabaptists confident expressions, and weakness upon trial, and the dispute at Bewdley, Jan. 1. 1649.  
YEt Mr. Baxter hath not done with us. They have confident expressions, saith he, to shake poor ignorant souls, whom God will have discovered in the day of trial: But when they meet with any that can search out their fallacies, how little have they to say? you know I have had as much opportunity to try their strength as most: and I never yet met with any in garrison, or Army, that could say any thing which might stagger a solid Man.  
Answ. For other men I cannot make answer: my own expressions in my books and Sermons have no more confidence than strength of proof, or answer, as there was occasion. As solid men as Mr. Baxter have met with that which not only hath staggered, but also hath brought them to assent to my Tenet. Me thinks the institution, Mat. 28. 19 the practice of John Baptist, the Apostles, and first Churches, who did baptise no Infants that can be found, might stagger as solid a man as Mr. Baxter, and it is very likely, Mr. Baxter met with some in garrison or Army that alleged these, or some of these to him. For my part I cannot tell how to construe it any other than a Judgement of God on men that hold so earnestly against Papists, and Prelates, and Presbyterians too, that in God's Worship human Inventions are to be left as Will-worship, and yet contend so much for infant-baptism so clearly proved, and so frequently confessed, not only by learned Papists, but also many of the more ingenuous of the Prelatical party, and others, to be only a Church Tradition. Yea, the Oxford Divines in their late Reasons of the present Judgement of the university of Oxford about the solemn Covenant, &c. Approved by general consent in a full Convocation, June 1. 1647. do Sect. 4. Pag. 9 say, that without the consentient Judgement and practice of the universal Church, (which they are not able to prove) they should be at a loss, when they are called upon for proof in the Point of baptising Infants.  
But there yet remains that which it seems was first in his intention, though last in execution; to wit, the blazing abroad his Dispute with me Ianua. 1. at Bewdley, of which he speaks thus. You heard in my late public Dispute at Bewdley January 1. With Mr. tombs, who is taken to be the ablest of them in the Land, and one of the most Moderate, how little they can say even in the hardest point of baptism; what gross absurdities they are driven to, and how little tender conscientious fear of erring is left among the best.  
Ans. Mr Baxter not content to be cried up by his party, hath thought good to glory in his imagined victory, and to crow over me in print, for that which I am assured the most considerate and godly Auditors of that Dispute have thought meet to mourn, as perceiving it to have been his hour of temptation: and God I hope will yet open his eyes, to see how he hath been abused, to become an Instrument to hinder the receiving of Truth, and the Ringleader to a party of men, who neither mind the things of Christ, nor regard Mr Baxter, saving wherein they make use of the keenness of his spirit, and abilities, to oppose the Truth, and to uphold their repute. But to the matter, Mr Baxter reckons me among the heretics he had before described, yet with difference. In an Accusation of heresy, Jerom saith, a man is not to be patient. Mr Baxter's Opinions about Justification, Universal Grace in Amyralds middle way avowed by him in this place of his Epistle, his Tenet about the Magistrates being an Officer under Christ as Mediator in his Aphorisms of justification, 
Vide Dr Chaloner's Credo Ecclesiam Catholicam. Davenant Exhort. to Peace.  pag. 273. may and are taken to savour more of heresy than any Tenet I hold; yea sure, as our Protestant Divines are wont to answer Papists, that the Tenets of the Protestants denying their additions, when otherwise the same Faith is avouched, cannot be justly charged as heresy; so neither can I be justly charged with heresy, who do avouch the Baptism appointed by Christ, and practised by his Apostles, and only deny that the Consequences from the Old Testament are convincing to prove Infant-Baptism: They that alter Christ's way, and introduce another way, from Circumcision, or the Jewish Church-state, as Mr Baxter doth, are more justly chargeable with heresy. His conceits of me I regard not: His neighbours of Kederminster might hear how little I did say, but surely they could not hear in that Dispute how little I could say, much less how little Anabaptists so called can say in the hardest point of Baptism: His neighbours and others may know by this, and my other Writings and Sermon● that I can say more than I said then; and I know other learned men who can say more in the point then disputed, though I then said enough in answer to Mr Baxter's Arguments then produced, notwithstanding my care to speak no more than was necessary, and my natural hesitancy in answering an Argument at the first hearing. And how ever the business was packed, to cry up a Baxter, as if they had been a company of Boys at a game, yet the whole Auditory might know, and many did, that Mr Baxter gave no sufficient Answer to that which I alleged, That no good Argument could be drawn from the Infants of the Iews visible Church membership to our Infants visible Church-membership, because the visible Church of the Jews was the whole Nation brought into Covenant together by Abraham and Moses without previous instruction; but the Christian visible Church had another state and constitution, being gathered by Apostles and other Preachers, by teaching them the Gospel, and thereby making them Disciples, some in one Country, City, Family, some in another; no one Country, or City, or Tribe together, but so many of all as the Lord vouchsafed to call by his Word and Spirit. Which was enough to answer the main Argument Mr Baxter brought from Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. Rom. 11. 19, 20. The grossest of absurdities he conceived I was driven to, I take it was that I conceived [thou] Deut. 29. 12. not to comprehend little ones, of which I have given account above: What other gross absurdities I was driven to, when Mr Baxter will show them, I shall then make an Answer: He neither did charge me with any such gross absurdities, nor could drive me to any, when he and I had a whole Afternoons Conference at Kederminster in his Chamber with him alone, Ianua. 25. after that he knew my Answers to his Arguments, delivered in a Sermon at Bewdly chapel, Ianua. 20. And for his last censure, as if there were little tender conscientious fear of erring left in me, it shows a very great height of pride in him, to take on him to judge my spirit, and uncharitableness or malignity towards me, who would thus censure me, when if he had any spark of charity to me, he might have perceived a very great and conscientious fear of erring in me, who, afore I did publish any thing, did first try what the London Ministers could say for Infant Baptism, in six days private dispute, and after applied myself to a Committee of the Assembly, and particularly to Mr Marshal, and waited nineteen months afore I published my Writings about infant's Baptism, as may be seen in my Examen and Apology, not unknown to Mr Baxter: Yea, my proceedings with Mr Baxter showed the same fear of erring, having, afore I would adventure to preach at Bewdly, first endeavoured to get his Animadversions in writing on some part of my Review, not yet printed, which he would not yield: and after that many months endeavoured to get his Arguments in writing, that my neighbours and myself might be satisfied, and I desist from preaching what I intended, or else might go more surely to work in asserting my Tenet. But it seems Mr Baxter was resolved to lie close, till he could by provocations draw me to a public Dispute, presuming he should carry the fame of a victory, which would serve his and the rest of his parties turn, to lessen my esteem, and to hold the people in the superstition of Infant-Baptism.  
And for himself, I leave it to his own Conscience and understanding men to judge, how little conscientious fear, of erring he had, who would not, though so often requested, communicate his Arguments in Writing to me, to be examined afore he vented them so openly; and how little Brotherly care he had to keep me from error, by giving me his Arguments to stay me from Preaching that which his Speeches provoked me to, and he knew as I am assured that I did intend. To conclude I am enforced to express it as a grievance, that I have neither found that love of Truth, candour, nor love to me, either before, or in the Dispute, or since, which I expected in Mr. Baxter, and which encouraged me to yield to the Dispute mentioned by him. As for the two flings he hath at me in the sixth direction of his Epistle, where he mentions some that say, no truth must be concealed for Peace, and saith, they have usually as little of the one as the other, I had hoped I had satisfied Mr. Baxter in a Letter, by acquainting him with what limitation I meant, if not expressed my position thereof, which if he had been willing to deal fairly with me, he should have mentioned. As for Mr. Baxter's ways, how far they are from Truth or Peace, may easily be discerned, by his managing the business between him and me: My friendly and ready coming to him, Ianua. 25. showed my desire of both. The other is in those words, Temptations are now come near your doors, which I imagine he spoke because of my Vicinity to them: His neighbours I think will bear me witness I taught them many Truths when they did hear me, which formerly was very frequent, and I still tender their good so far, as to be unwilling to mislead them, how ever they may think of me by Mr Baxter's descriptions of me. And were I fit to give them Counsel, I would warn them to take heed of the Temptations that are indeed now come near their doors, in the high esteem they have of Mr Baxter, which may cause them to drink in his Errors, of which I have said before he seems to me not to be free; and others in all parts, as his own words in a Letter to me do import, do charge him with more largely than I do. Other things in his Treatise I let them pass: But for the point in dispute between him and me, if he add any thing more, as I am told he intends, if the Lord assist I shall examine it when I have it in writing: and in the mean time do wish him mentem sanam in corpore sano.   
FINIS.