The Christian's Infant

SIR,

WHen I read you general Accusation of my Firey discouraging of Reprovers, &c. I began to bethink me who they were in all my life time that had to my face reproved me, and been discouraged by any unthankful passionate returns of mine; and not remembring any one in my life, (unless you will call my Contradicting men in disputation and Altercation in case of differences of Judgment by that name) I did read on, in expectation of fuller information, and I perceived that it was not any verbal rejecting any reproof of my present Monitors, that you meant, but my published Writings against those called Anabaptists. I have long had far lowder calls than yours to Review my Life and Writings, and to judge of them as impartially as I can. Upon the Review I am Conscious, 1. That I never meddled at first with Mr. Tombes, till he unavoidably constrained me, by sending those whom he had prevailed with to me, to tell me, that if I would not answer him, they must lay their change so far on my refusal to satisfie them. We lived to gether till then, without any meddling with the difference by me.

p. 22. I find that when he had (without my consent) published these Papers which I privately sent him, with his Answer, I gave not a word of Reply to them, till Mr. Danvers made it seem necessary to me, though it be above 20 years since they were written. Surely my silence was no furious Contradiction.

3. I find that when Mr. Tombes published them so long ago, and they have been in your own hands in Mr. Tombes his Book, neither you nor others till now that I know of, shewed me any such fury in them. And those that I have spoke with say, that there is no such thing, but that his Reply is passionate, (which I leave to others judgment that yet may read them in his Book together.)

4. I find that in 1659. when I endeavoured to perswade Mr. Lambe and Mr. Allen to Christian Concord, that I did not strive against their Anabaptistry, but only to satisfie them, that holding that difference, they yet ought to satisfie themselves, in that which they took to be their Duty, and to hold loving Communion with the Churches and Christians of the other mind. And when they had renounced their Separation, it was not I but their own Light, Experience and Consideration (by what other helps I know not) that made them Renounce their Anabaptistry.

p. 25. When before that, there was a Treaty in London for the Reconciling of the Presbyterians & Iudependents, I did first at home to the Ministers of Worcestershire, mantain by a set Disputation, that it was our Duty to seek Peace and Communion with the Anabaptists; and after sent up the Terms of that desired Concord to London, to Mr. Allen, who at some Meetings for that purpose, told me the business went hopefully on, till the Confusions in 1659. disturbed and overthrew all.

6. I have above 20 years in Print and Pulpit frequently p. 3told the Churches, that they are greatly beholden to Gods Providence in permitting the Anabaptists to call us so lowd to the serious confideration of of our Baptism; and that if those that were Baptized in Infancy be not brought to as serious understanding, and resolved a renewing of that Covenant, as if they had never been Baptised before, yea and pass not out of the state of Infant Church-membership into that of the Adult, by a solemn transltion in owning of their Covenant, these Church Corruptions will be continued which are the Scandal and Temptation of the Anabaptists. And to that end I wrote a Treatise of Confirmation.

7. I have Printed in this last Book (recited by Mr. Barret in the end of his Queres) such an Offer of Brotherly Concord with the Anabaptists, (supposing our continued difference in that point) even the very words of such a Profession on which both parties may with mutual forbearance live in brotherly Love and Communion, as never any man did to me accuse either of Rigor, Unlawfulness, or Insufficiency to that end. And if you resolve that you will have no Communion with any in the world, but those that are of your Opinion against Infant-Baptism, your Communion will be narrower than mine, and such talk as this of yours is never like to draw me to your mind.

8. I have many years insisted more upon the terms (and improvement) of our Baptismal Covenant, as containing that very Touch-stone, or state of Evidence, by which both our sincere Grace, and our right to Church-Communion must be tryed, than any man that I know of; of which my Family Book is a full proof.

p. 39. To the Reconciling of men herein, I have oft shewed, that If our Childrens part in the Covenant of Grace upon their Parents dedication of them to God, ◊nd p. 4so their Church-membership, were but yielded, the rest (whether they should actually be Baptized with Water) would be much less cause of our distance and alienation, than on both sides it is usually judged. Yea, if the Anabaptists would but say, [I Dedicate this Child to God, as far as he hath given me power, and heartily desire that God may be his Father, Christ his Saviour; and the Holy Ghost his Sanctifier:] And did ever any of you prove this to be a sin? And we are ready on our part to profess that [Infant-Baptism will save none at age that consent not to the same holy Covenant.]

10. I have oft told the world that though the Ancient Churches denyed not their Childrens part in the Covenant of Grace, nor their right to Pardon and Salvation, and Infaut Church membership by that Covenant, yet the Time when Children themselves should be solemnly Baptized, was left in the Churches for above 200 years to every ones free choice; some (and the most Christians) usually Baptizing them quickly, and others thinking as Tertullian, that it would bind them faster if they stayed somewhat longer; or, as Nazianzene thought, till they were three or four years old: even as one that hath right to a Crown in his Infancy, may have his Coronation performed either then, or afterward.